Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Avenue rezoning for parking paused after neighbors raise noise and turtle concerns; applicant to refile
Summary
A proposed small‑scale land‑use amendment to allow parking at 1115 Central Ave drew neighbor objections about noise, lighting and turtles; the applicant agreed to explore downzoning alternatives (GC→TC + special exception for parking) and staff was directed to place a refined proposal on the July agenda.
The board discussed a proposed small‑scale future land‑use amendment May 5 for a 5,000‑square‑foot lot at 1115 Central Avenue to create a formal parking area intended to support a nearby seafood/steak restaurant and fish market.
Clay Urban, representing the applicant (Zeb, Cohen & Associates), described a conceptual plan that would formalize seasonal parking currently used informally and add landscaping buffers, and he emphasized the concept was preliminary: “We’re trying to work through with your staff to comply with your code requirements and work through to make it effective for this business,” Urban told the board.
Residents raised concerns about late‑night noise, additional traffic through neighborhood streets, light spillover and turtle‑nesting habitat. “If we bring 80 cars in...12 spots aren’t going to cover that,” David Foster said, calling for careful consideration of where vehicles would be stored and how valet or shared‑parking agreements would be managed.
Board members considered two primary paths: (a) proceed with the requested rezoning to General Commercial (GC), which residents feared could allow future commercial uses, or (b) rezone the larger commercial holdings to Tourist Commercial (TC) and pursue a special exception that would allow the adjacent residential parcel to be used for parking only — a solution that keeps the underlying residential zoning intact and limits future commercial conversion. Staff explained the special‑exception route creates enforceable use restrictions and thus may address neighbor concerns.
By consensus the board asked staff to work with the applicant to revise the filing (likely downzoning the applicant’s GC parcels to TC with a special exception for parking on the adjacent residential parcel) and target the revised application for a July agenda. The board did not approve any rezoning at the workshop.
What’s next: applicant will revise the concept and coordinate with staff to present a revised application that addresses access (12th Street), screening, lighting and ecological concerns; public comment and technical review will return with the item in July.
