Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brentlane Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board Approves Nonresidential Parking to Support Medical Office Expansion at 698 Brent Lane
Summary
The board approved allowing nonresidential parking on an adjacent residential lot to serve a planned 2,500 sq ft expansion at 698 Brent Lane, authorizing 21 parking spaces (including one accessible stall) and requiring standard stormwater and landscaping compliance.
Get email alerts on the Brentlane Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Pensacola Planning Board voted unanimously March 10 to allow nonresidential parking on an adjacent residential parcel to serve a planned 2,500-square-foot expansion of a medical office at 698 Brent Lane.
Planner Mr. Harding said GMC Architects submitted the request on behalf of the medical office; the proposal shows 21 parking spaces, including one accessible stall, and is intended to meet the city’s requirement of one parking space per 200 square feet for medical offices. Mr. Harding read the seven code criteria that govern nonresidential parking in a residential district (section 12‑3‑93) and noted that city-engineer review had been provided.
George Williams presented the design and said the plan also closes an existing driveway near the intersection to improve safety, incorporates stormwater retention behind the building, and retains or supplements buffer vegetation along residential edges. Owner Dr. Jeff Buckhalter, who identified himself as the building owner and a physician at 698 Brent Lane, said the expansion is tied to an outpatient residency clinic and a timeline that aims for occupancy by August.
Board members asked about landscaping, retaining walls and whether stormwater design would affect neighbors; presenters said a segmented-block retaining wall and additional vegetation are part of the plan and that the civil engineer is comfortable with the retention solution. Staff noted a similar, larger nonresidential-parking request was approved by the board in 2005 but that the current proposal is more limited and intended to meet the expansion’s parking demand.
A motion to approve the nonresidential parking application passed unanimously. The board’s approval is limited to the planning-board review authority; the project will proceed through required engineering and permitting steps and, if a future variance is needed, would return to the board.
