Loading...
09/13/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 13, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Member absent: Emma C. Whitney (excused) Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. I. Public Hearings ITEM A - (continued from 7/12/90 and 8/9/90) Roberta M. Golding and Loren M. Pollack (Checkers) for variances of 1) 3.77 acres to permit construction on a 0.23 acre (10,000 sq.ft.) lot, 2) 200 ft. to permit construction on a 100 ft. wide lot, 3) 200 ft. to permit construction on a 100 ft. deep lot, 4) 54 ft. to permit building 21 ft. from a street right-of-way, 5) 31 ft. to permit building 23 ft. from the north (side) property line and 19 ft. from the south (side) property line, 6) 20 ft. to permit building 30 ft. from the rear property line, 7) to allow a canopy sign to extend above top of canopy, and 8) 13 parking spaces to permit 4 parking spaces in lieu of the 17 spaces required at 1877 N. Highland Ave., Sunset Square Sub, Lot 3, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-99 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting the variances to redevelop the property with a Checkers restaurant. A revised site plan has been submitted and the same number of variances are required. Pictures depicting what is being proposed for the site were presented. Patricia DeWitt, representing the applicant, indicated there is a drive-thru restaurant currently on the site and she feels that redevelopment with the Checkers restaurant will be an improvement to the property. Loren Pollack, representing the applicant, stated the Board's concerns have been addressed by relocating the seating to the rear and the dumpster away from the building. Also, the stacking lane will be extended. She indicated there will be sufficient radius for cars turning off Highland Avenue. In response to questions, it was indicated the dumpster area could be screened by fencing or with landscaping and that landscaping is proposed along Highland Avenue. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the size and location of the lot, subject to the conditions that the review comments of the Development Review Committee shall be incorporated into the final site plan; a cross-parking/access easement linking the restaurant site and the shopping center property shall be executed and a copy provided to the City staff for review and approval prior to execution, this easement shall include language specifying which shopping center spaces are to be jointly used by the restaurant site, along with the number of spaces involved; the seating area shall be relocated to the rear of the site; a minimum of four trees shall be planted in the front yard, these trees shall be of a species native to west central Florida and shall be a minimum of six feet in height and two inches in diameter at the time of planting; adequate landscaping shall be provided around the dumpster enclosure and approved by the Environmental Department and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 8/23/90) John D. and Rita T. McEnaney for variances 1) to permit 30 in. high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront, 2) of 41.45 ft to permit 69.65 ft dock length, 3) of 12.6 ft to allow dock extension 6 ft from an extended side property line and 4) of 9.31 ft to permit dock width of 29.05 ft at 225 Hamden Dr., Bayside Sub Replat, Lot 53 and land to bulkhead, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-119 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the subject property is located in an area of mixed land uses. There is some concern regarding a stormwater outfall pipe nearby and the effect of the dock upon one of the neighbors. The 30 inch fence has been erected without a permit. John McEnaney stated the original application did not indicate the walkway, handrail and davit mooring are being requested due to his wife's handicap. Concern was expressed in regard to the proposed location of the dock. Mr. McEnaney stated that silting creates a hardship as he is land locked at major low tide. He indicated County code requires 18 inches of water at low mean tide for new dock construction. The stormwater drain also contributes to the silting problem. He indicated that davit mooring provides safer and more stable boarding, greater security from theft and extends the life of the boat. He said a precedent has already been set for dock clearances in the area. He indicated his willingness to decrease the size of the requested variances. He said the fence protects his property from trespassers and he was not aware a fence permit was required. One letter in support with five signatures was submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances of 1) 39.35 feet to permit a 67.55 foot dock length, 2) 11.6 feet to allow a dock extension 7 feet from the extended property line and 3) 8.61 feet to permit a dock width of 28.05 feet because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location and the sand flats adjacent to the rear of the property, subject to the conditions that the fence shall be constructed as proposed by the applicant and a fence permit shall be obtained within one month of the date of this public hearing, the applicant shall obtain approvals for the proposed dock from the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority as well as all required State agencies Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approvals and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Martin Oreskovic (Sunnyside Apartments) for variances of 1) 90 ft to permit construction on a 60 ft wide lot and 2) one parking space to allow conversion of existing carport into office at 405 Coronado Dr., Columbia Sub #4, Lot 2, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-121 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested to allow the conversion of a carport into a motel office. Presently, there are four rental units and one office unit on the site. There is some concern regarding the impact on parking since this is a congested area. In response to a question, the Planning Manager indicated one parking space would be lost by this conversion. Branko Ballic, representing the applicant, stated enclosing the carport will not alter the existing footprint of the building. He said the owner does not intend to live in one of the units. In response to a question, he indicated there are currently seven parking spaces. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a financial gain would be realized by having an extra unit. Mr. Graham moved to deny the variances as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant, they are not minimum variances, they are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property by adding another rental unit and they would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. Due to a lack of a second, the motion failed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not directly caused by the applicant and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the existing motel being built prior to the current building code, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam and Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Graham and Homer voted "Nay." Motion failed due to a tie vote. Request continued to September 27, 1990. ITEM #2 - Eskandar and Fraydun Manocherian (Office Depot) for variances 1) of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence (dumpster enclosure) in setback area adjacent to street right-of-way to which property is not addressed and 2) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 26277 U.S. Hwy 19 N., Sec 31-28-16, M&B 11.03, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-122 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested to allow for the enclosure of a dumpster and trash compactor. Frank Paradise, representing the applicant, stated the applicant was not aware a fence was required. Mr. Paradise indicated there are two loading docks with one dock adjacent to the applicant's portion of the building. Landscaping this area could result in a hardship for the backing in of tractor trailers. Two letters in opposition were submitted for the record. One citizen expressed concern regarding the type of fence proposed at this location. He indicated this type of enclosure should be consistent with the surrounding area and properly landscaped. He presented slides of the site and surrounding area. Concern was expressed regarding the closeness of the dumpster to the street. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not a solid enclosure, such as a wall, would be more appropriate than the chain link fence being proposed. The applicant requested a continuance to address the Board's concerns. Mr. Plisko moved to continue the item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 3:04 p.m. ITEM #3 - Land Development Code Amendments Required by the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. A - Ordinance #5030-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.011, Code of Ordinances, to establish additional guidelines for review of requests for transfers of development rights; providing an effective date. This ordinance establishes policies of the Comprehensive Plan as additional review criteria for transfers of development rights. The Planning Manager indicated the Planning and Zoning Board expressed concern regarding future interpretations of what constitutes "development practices to provide visual relief from urban monotony." It was felt this ordinance encourages creative thinking on the part of designers, architects and developers. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5030-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B - Ordinance #5031-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 136.029, Code of Ordinances, to require a vegetative buffer encompassing all land within twenty-five feet of the boundary of any property designated on the zoning atlas as aquatic lands-interior (AL/I) or aquatic lands-coastal (AL/C); prohibiting the removal or alteration of native vegetation within a vegetative buffer without approval by the Division of Environmental Management; requiring the removal of exotic vegetation from a vegetative buffer; prohibiting the impedance of the natural succession of native vegetation in a vegetative buffer; providing penalties; providing an effective date. This ordinance provides the ability of upland area to support the integrity of vegetation along coastal or interior wetlands. In response to a question, it was indicated coastal wetlands exist in areas along Tampa Bay and Clearwater Harbor. Discussion ensued in regard to exempting areas with existing seawalls from this ordinance. In response to a question, it was indicated the various lakes within Clearwater are designated typically Aquatic Lands/Interior (AL/I). Concern was expressed that the 25 foot vegetative buffer would restrict the use of some properties. In response to a question, it was indicated this ordinance, as part of the land development code, would be subject to variance requests. Discussion ensued in regard to what properties in the City were zoned Aquatic Lands/Interior (AL/I). In response to a questions, the Planning Manager indicated there are Aquatic Lands/Coastal zoned properties on the beach but not on the beach front. Concern was expressed this ordinance would set up a non-conformity for properties that conform presently. The Planning & Development Director James Polatty indicated the intent of this ordinance is to buffer aquatic lands by providing vegetation to absorb ground water and other pollutants. It was his understanding it would affect very few properties. He indicated before this ordinance goes to the City Commission a report of the number of single-family residential units that would be impacted will be provided. Concern was expressed regarding whether or not owners' property rights were being taken away. It was indicated there is a need for such a buffer zone and that the number of lots affected is minimal for the overall quality of life in Clearwater. Discussion ensued in regard to the definition of native vegetation and its alteration or removal. Concern was expressed this ordinance limits the owners' property rights in maintaining his property by trimming back some of the vegetation for aesthetic and sanitary purposes. Discussion ensued in regard to what would be a reasonable percentage to allow property owners to trim back native vegetation. The Planning Manager indicated he would check with the environmental staff. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5031-90 with the following changes: on page 1, (c) add at the end of the sentence the words "except public utility structures approved by the public works director" with staff providing a report of the properties to be affected by the 25 foot buffer; that areas with existing seawalls be exempted from this ordinance; on page 1(a) delete the word "noncoastal" and insert the words "or coastal"; on page 2(f) be revised to allow owners to trim their native vegetation to within a certain percentage on a yearly basis and that percentage should be based on the Environmental Division's recommendation with this percentage being not less than 30 percent nor more than 50 percent. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Merriam voted "Aye;" and Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Mr. Homer stated he was opposed only to the 25 foot buffer for Aquatic Lands/Interior (AC/L) in existing subdivisions. C - Ordinance #5032-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating a new subsection 136.007(h), Code of Ordinances, providing for the repair or reconstruction of nonconforming densities and intensities of use in structures located on barrier islands; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager stated this ordinance deals with nonconforming densities on the barrier islands. If a structure is damaged less than 50 percent, it can be reconstructed to its previous density and previous configuration on the lot. If more than 50 percent, the densities are still permitted to remain but all the other codes have to be met including the flood protection code. He indicated concern was expressed regarding the statement on page 1(h)(1) "subject to the land development regulations or the requirements of chapter 146, relating to flood protection." He suggested a modification be made reflecting the City's non-conforming situation sections in the code, and if damaged less than 50 percent, the property owner can build back only what existed on the lot. Discussion ensued in regard to what areas in Clearwater are considered "barrier islands." One citizen requested clarification of this ordinance in regard to reconstructing or repairing a structure when the damage is more than 50 percent or less than 50 percent of the value of the structure. Discussion ensued in regard to FEMA regulations and it was indicated this ordinance will attempt to help the City meet them. The Planning Manager indicated an important part of the ordinance is preserving the density established by previous construction. Concern was expressed regarding the words "market value" and "appraised value" being used interchangeably. Mr. Polatty indicated FEMA directs using the market value as it is calculated on the appraised value. Discussion ensued in regard to the possibility of the rebuilding of a structure costing more than the actual value of the structure. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5032-90 with suggested changes recommended by staff concerning page 1(h)(1) and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Plisko voted "Aye;" and Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Homer indicated he was opposed to the determination of "market value." D - Ordinance 5033-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.025(b), Code of Ordinances, relating to conditional use standards, to establish criteria for determining whether a proposed conditional use is consistent with the community character of the properties surrounding the proposed use; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager stated this ordinance provides conditional use standards for community character. He indicated the consultants preparing the ordinance tried to make it as objective as possible. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5033-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E - Ordinance #5034-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.025(c), Code of Ordinances, relating to marinas and marina facilities, to establish supplemental standards for conditional use approval of marinas and marina facilities; prohibiting marinas and marina facilities at certain locations; requiring approval by the Planning and Zoning board of certain activities; establishing requirements for screening or landscape buffering, setbacks, hours of operation for fueling and servicing of boats, view corridors, the protection of manatees, spill containment, sanitary facilities, dock design, and related matters; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager indicated this ordinance deals with marinas and marina facilities and establishes conditional use standards. He indicated the Harbormaster suggested some changes to the ordinance. These changes include on page 2, #17(d) striking the words "for sanitary pump out stations" and suggested the wording "no fuel storage facility shall be located over water." It was also requested that on page 2, #17(k) to add the words "or a sanitary pump-out station." Concern was expressed in regard to locating pump-out stations over water because of the possibility of contamination. The Planning Manager requested on page 3, #18(e) deleting the words "or sanitary pump-out station." Discussion ensued in regard to the number of liveaboards in Clearwater Harbor and concern was expressed that all liveaboards were not using landside facilities. It was indicated no environmental checks of water purity are required. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5034-90 with the following changes: on page 2, #17(k), add the words "or a sanitary pump-out station" after the words "Landside sanitary facilities;" and on page 2, #17(d) and #18(e) not deleting the words "or sanitary pump-out station." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F - Ordinance #5035-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to nuisances; amending Section 95.23, Code of Ordinances, to declare the existence of excessive growth or any accumulation or outdoor storage of certain specified materials upon any property to constitute a public nuisance, subject to certain exceptions; providing an effective date. This ordinance declares excessive growth or any accumulation or outdoor storage of certain specified materials to be public nuisances. Discussion ensued in regard to the need for clarification regarding inoperable vehicles. Concern was expressed regarding this ordinance not being restrictive enough regarding outdoor storage. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5035-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G - Ordinance #5036-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.023, Code of Ordinances, to establish landscaping standards for nonresidential and multi-family developments; requiring perimeter landscaping at street rights-of-way, between nonresidential and multi-family developments and residentially zoned property, and between off-street parking lots or vehicular use areas and nonresidentially zoned property; requiring interior landscaping in parking lots and vehicular use areas; requiring curbing, wheel stops, or other protective devices to protect landscaping from vehicular and pedestrian traffic; repealing Section 136.026, Code of Ordinances, relating to landscape standards to buffer residential zones from nonresidential zones; providing an effective date. This ordinance clarifies and consolidates street rights-of way, buffer, perimeter and interior landscaping standards, as well as, provides for the increased use of native vegetation in meeting landscape requirements. Increased landscaping requirements along arterial and collector rights-of-way are established, along with more specific requirements concerning size, spacing and type of plant materials. Increased buffering requirements are provided, including the width of the buffer strip and the height of the buffer. Also, the size of a parking lot requiring interior landscaping has been reduced. The Planning Manager said staff recommends that the interior landscape standards continue to apply to a 4,000 square feet parking lot. Concern was expressed regarding the zoning line for commercial properties especially along Fort Harrison Avenue. The Planning Manager indicated the dividing line depends on individual circumstances. Discussion ensued in regard to the 6 percent landscape requirement within an interior parking lot and it was felt the owner should have some latitude in placing landscaping elsewhere on the site. Concern was expressed regarding the size requirement of the interior landscaped areas and it was indicated this had been addressed in the ordinance. A suggestion was made to allow landscaping to be moved to the perimeter of the parking lot in areas of less than 8,000 square feet. Discussion ensued in regard to palm trees being used to satisfy not more than 50 percent of the tree planting requirement within the landscaped strip and it was felt palm trees work well in parking lots. It was indicated native shrubs are very limited. In response to a question, it was indicated requiring the species to be native to west central and northern Florida provides a wider range of shrub material growing in this area. Discussion ensued in regard to the height and varieties of palm trees and shrubs allowed. It was recommended that 100 percent usage of palm trees on the beach be allowed. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5036-90 with the following changes: that the use of palm trees be permitted for meeting up to 50 percent of the various perimeter and interior landscaping tree planting requirements on the mainland and on the beach up to 100 percent; that the interior landscape standards continue to apply to a 4,000 square foot parking lot; and that an 8,000 square foot parking lot be utilized as the trigger point for the 6 percent provision of interior landscaping which could be transferred to the surrounding perimeter of the parking lot excluding the required buffers. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. H - Ordinance #5037-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending or creating various Sections within Chapter 135, Code of Ordinances, to add "neighborhood utility facilities" as conditional uses in each of the single-family and multiple-family residential districts and the mobile home park district; adding "neighborhood utility facilities" and "community utility facilities" as conditional uses in the limited office, general office, neighborhood commercial, North Greenwood commercial, beach commercial, resort commercial "twenty-four," resort commercial "twenty-eight," and urban center districts, including the bayfront, core, and eastern corridor subdistricts; adding "neighborhood utility facilities" and "community utility facilities" as permitted uses in the general commercial, highway commercial, limited industrial, and public/semi-public districts; and deleting "remote switching stations" as permitted uses in the neighborhood commercial, resort commercial "twenty-four," resort commercial "twenty-eight," general commercial, and highway commercial districts; amending Section 136.022, Code of Ordinances, to establish parking standards for neighborhood and community utility facilities; amending Section 136.025, Code of Ordinances, to establish conditional use standards for neighborhood and community utility facilities; amending Section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, to define "neighborhood utility facility" and "community utility facility;" providing an effective date. This ordinance establishes specific conditional use permit requirements for the construction of public utility facilities in virtually all City districts in accordance with Comprehensive Plan policies and State law. The Planning Manager stated Florida Power is concerned more substations would be required by having both community and neighborhood utility facilities. He indicated one way to address this concern is to delete the language that says "neighborhood utility facilities have to serve the neighborhood itself." He indicated Florida Power would rather build one substation to serve many neighborhoods than building a substation for each neighborhood. Discussion ensued in regard to the aesthetic impact the size of some of the substations could have on a community. The Planning & Development Director indicated staff would be addressing the size of the power lines and appearance of these structures. Mr. Graham moved to continue Ordinance #5036-90 to September 27, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. I - Ordinance #5038-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to historic preservation; creating Sections 136.050 through 136.063, Code of Ordinances; defining terms; establishing the historic preservation board of the City of Clearwater, and providing for its appointment, duties and responsibilities; providing for the designation of historic properties and districts, and establishing the criteria for such designation; regulating the alteration, demolition and relocation of historic properties; requiring a certificates of appropriateness to demolish, materially alter or relocate historic properties; providing for historic easements; providing for penalties and injunctive relief; providing an effective date. This ordinance establishes the framework for historic preservation efforts. It does not designate any areas to be covered by the regulations. In response to a question, it was indicated Harbor Oaks is the only area this ordinance would presently apply to. The Planning Manager indicated a list of design guidelines needs to be prepared. These guidelines would need approval of the Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Association and the Historic Preservation Board prior to going into effect. In response to a question, it was indicated the Historic Preservation Board will review the subject ordinance. Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5038-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. J - Ordinance #5039-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 137.012, Code of Ordinances, to prohibit the consideration of damage caused by a disaster as a hardship for the purpose of granting any variances necessary for post-disaster redevelopment; providing an effective date. This ordinance prohibits post-disaster variances to dimensional requirements unless other hardships exists. Concern was expressed in regard to what would be considered a "disaster" and it was indicated an earthquake, fire, sinkhole could constitute a disaster. The Planning & Development Director indicated the word "disaster" referred mainly to storm damage. It was indicated the Planning & Zoning Board recommended denial of this ordinance. The Board was concerned that such an ordinance would impede redevelopment efforts after a disaster. Discussion ensued in regard to rebuilding a structure due to a disaster and whether or not damage caused by a disaster could be considered a hardship. It was indicated the intent of this ordinance is to control density on the beach and the ordinance, as written, would prohibit any consideration of storm damage as a hardship for a variance. Mr. Graham moved to recommend denial to the City Commission of Ordinance #5039-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. K - Ordinance #5040-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 136.028, Code of Ordinances, relating to development requirements applicable to property adjacent to scenic corridors; establishing development requirements for property adjacent to the east side of Bayshore Boulevard; providing an effective date. This ordinance strengthens an earlier Commission resolution that established Bayshore Boulevard as a "scenic corridor." Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance #5040-90. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. L - Ordinance #5041-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 135.164, Code of Ordinances, to delete the provision for transfers of development rights from the open space/recreation district to upland property; amending Section 136.011, Code of Ordinances, to amend provisions relating to transfers of development rights; deleting the provision for a transfer of development rights across the coastal construction control line, and deleting the authorization for such transfers; amending Section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, to amend the definition of net acre to exclude areas seaward of the coastal construction control line; providing an effective date. Mr. Graham moved to continue Ordinance #5041-90 to September 27, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Board Comments None. III. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.