Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on South Atlantic Avenue parking‑lot variance amid stacking and safety concerns
Summary
The Board of Zoning Adjustment continued a request to shrink vehicle stacking depth and perimeter landscaping for a proposed parking lot at 40406 S. Atlantic Ave after neighbors and members raised safety and design questions; the applicant will return with engineering and a landscape plan.
The City of Daytona Beach Board of Zoning Adjustment on Feb. 19 continued a proposed variance for a two‑lot parking project at 40406 South Atlantic Avenue after members and nearby residents pressed the applicant for more traffic engineering and a clearer landscaping plan.
Attorney Alana Smith of Cobb Cole told the board the request would reduce the required stacking‑lane depth from 25 feet to 14 feet and reduce the front perimeter landscape strip from 8 feet to 3 feet to accommodate two irregular, nonconforming parcels and a dry retention area that limits the buildable depth. Smith said the proposal includes 35 parking spaces, about 40% pervious surface and "20% more landscaping on the site overall than is required," and argued that parking lots serving beachside visitors typically see intermittent arrivals rather than concentrated drop‑off traffic.
Residents urged caution. Tony Walsh, who lives diagonally across from the property, said prior informal parking there produced "chaos" when the beach closed and that people — including children with coolers — crossed A1A (South Atlantic) without a crosswalk. John Nicholson said reducing landscaping standards along the beachside would make the area "ugly" and encouraged higher aesthetic standards. Board members asked whether the lot would be paid parking, whether there are curb cuts or alternative surfacing options, and whether a single‑point entrance with a 14‑foot throat would allow even one car to stack without blocking the highway.
With the applicant's civil engineer absent, board members and staff agreed the submission lacked engineering detail the board needed to address safety concerns such as ingress/egress, on‑site turnaround if the lot fills, and appropriate signage or attendant procedures. The applicant offered to consult the engineer, prepare a landscape plan, and work with city engineering staff. A board member moved, and the board voted unanimously to continue the application to the next meeting to allow the applicant to return with those materials.
Next steps: the applicant will provide the requested engineering review and a landscape plan for staff and board review at a future meeting. The continuance was recorded as a motion to continue to a date certain and carried by roll call vote.
