Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola planning board denies Circle K lot‑coverage variance but approves conceptual aesthetics for redevelopment at 400 E. Gregory St.
Summary
The Planning Board voted 4‑3 to deny a requested variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 75% to 85% for a proposed Circle K redevelopment at 400 E. Gregory St., citing insufficient proof of undue hardship; the board nonetheless granted conceptual aesthetic/site‑plan approval and urged concessions such as pervious paving, added landscaping and reduced brand color on the canopy.
The Pensacola Planning Board on Dec. 9 denied a variance request from MDM Services/Circle K to increase allowable impervious lot coverage at 400 East Gregory Street from 75% to 85%, finding the application failed to meet all required variance criteria. The denial came after the board voted 4‑3 against criterion 4 — that strict application of the code would impose an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
The project team, represented by Sandy Owens of MDM Services, proposed tearing out the existing gas station and rebuilding a 3,956‑square‑foot store with a new canopy and four fuel dispensers. Owens said the existing lot is about 98% impervious and that the redevelopment would reduce that to roughly 84.88% while enabling soil remediation funded by the Florida DEP. “We are asking for a reduction of the maximum impervious area, to be able to increase it to 85% from 75%,” Owens told the board, adding Circle K is planning substantial investment in the corner.
Why the variance failed
Board members who opposed the variance said the applicant had not demonstrated that the literal interpretation of the land‑development code would deprive Circle K of rights commonly enjoyed by similar properties or that the code imposed an undue, unmitigable hardship. As the chair summarized the tally, “So that puts us at 4 at no, 3 at yes. It fails at item number 4.” Several members pressed for more evidence that corporate store standards could not be adjusted, or for concrete concessions that would shrink the gap toward 75%, such as removing parking spaces or substituting pervious paving in parts of the lot.
Applicant testimony and remediation plan
Katie Williamson, the project’s development manager, said contamination pre‑dated the applicant’s ownership and that DEP remediation has been ongoing. “The contamination was prior to our ownership and the DEP funding existed prior to our ownership,” Williamson said, describing ongoing testing and monthly site work in recent months. The applicant argued the ability to remove asphalt and access source contamination depends on demolition tied to the redevelopment plan.
Board direction and conceptual approval
Although the variance failed, the applicant chose to proceed with the meeting’s conceptual site‑plan and aesthetic review. The board unanimously approved the project’s conceptual aesthetics and site plan — not the variance — while giving a list of requested refinements and commitments for final review. Members urged the applicant to investigate pervious pavers where feasible, increase landscaping and soften the north side of the building to provide more “eyes on the street.” Multiple members also asked the team to explore reduced signage color intensity; one member said the plan should avoid the brand’s bright red on the canopy in favor of softer tones suggested in the Gateway Redevelopment District guidance.
Next steps
Because a variance would require re‑advertisement with any revised numeric request, staff told the applicant the project team could return with a revised application at a later public hearing. In the meantime, the applicant will take the board’s aesthetic and site suggestions into the final submittal. No public speakers registered to comment at the hearing.
Details and context
- Site area: approximately 0.78 acres (33,976.8 sq. ft.). - Existing impervious coverage: ~98%. - Proposed impervious coverage as designed: ~84.88%. - Building footprint: proposed 3,956 sq. ft.; code parking requirement cited: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. (20 spaces required); proposed plan shows 18 parking spaces with administrative reductions discussed. - Applicant said redevelopment includes DEP‑funded cleanup and indicated Circle K expects to invest multiple millions in the site’s reconstruction.
The board’s conceptual approval is not final building permit authorization; the project will need final engineering, any requisite permits, and (if a new variance percentage is sought) a subsequent public hearing after proper re‑notice.
