Loading...
03/26/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 26, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Requests - None. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests - None. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Diane F. Heye for the following variances (1) a height variance of 2.8 ft to allow a wall 5.3 ft high within the setback area from the Druid Road South right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a wall zero ft from a street right-of-way (Druid Road South); and (3) a landscape buffer variance to allow a wall with no landscaping adjacent to a street right-of-way (Druid Road South) at 902 Druid Rd. S., Harbor Oaks, Lot F and submerged land, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 98-25 This property is developed with a single family home. The owner proposes to relocate the driveway entrance approximately 14-feet North of its current location and remove the necessary portion of wall along Druid Road. The owner also proposes to reconstruct the wall at the current entrance and enclose the property’s Southeast corner. The applicant requests: 1) for new wall in front building setback, variance to allow 5.3-foot wall where height is limited to 2.5 feet; 2) to allow wall to abut the Druid Road right-of-way, variance requested where 3 feet is required; 3) where a landscape buffer is required within the setback, variance to allow wall with no buffer. Staff feels conditions support approval. Enclosing the current entrance after the new driveway is constructed will be necessary. The wall now presents a good appearance along Druid Road. The new portion will replicate the existing wall. Approval will not adversely affect this neighborhood. In response to a question, Senior Planner John Richter said appropriate action will be taken regarding any desirable tree with a root zone in the construction area. Harry Cline, Representative, said the applicants’ home is in a historical area where many properties are walled. Due to the construction of a home on the vacant lot next door, the applicants wish to complete their wall and retain their privacy. The request is consistent with neighborhood standards. The driveway will be moved North of the oak tree which the residents will take the necessary steps to protect. He referred to Charles Walter’s March 23, 1998, letter of support. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) to protect the large oak tree, prior to any construction within the critical root zone of the tree, the applicant shall consult with an arborist or the City’s Urban Forester. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Lois A. Forgacs a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Regal Road right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed at 1400 Regal Rd., Solar Crest, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-26 This property is developed with a single family home. The owner wishes to erect a 6-foot wood fence along the entire East property line and extend the existing 4-foot chain-link fence on the West side of the home approximately 25-feet to the South to enclose more of the yard on the West side of the home. Both fences will extend into the 25-foot front setback from Regal Road where the maximum allowable fence height is 2.5 feet. A height variance of 3.5 feet is requested to accommodate both fences. Staff feels conditions support approval. The owner wishes to improve the security of the property. Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office reports substantiate the need for the fence along the East property line. On the West side of the home, the fence will extend no closer to the Regal Road right-of-way than the front of the home. A petition supporting the variance, signed by 7 nearby property owners, accompanied the variance application. Linda Forgacs, Representative, said her mother, Lois Forgacs, owns the property. She said the fence is necessary for protection and privacy. She hoped the fence will resolve security problems. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3) L. Aubrey & Iris R. Griffin for a setback variance of 1.9 ft to allow a room addition 8.1 ft from the West side property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at 3310 San Bernadino St., Del Oro Groves, Lots 413 & 414 and part of Lots 412 & 415, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 98-27 This property is developed with a single family home. On the home’s Northwest corner, the owner proposes to construct a 400-square foot addition that will extend into the required 10-foot side setback from the West property line. A 1.9-foot variance is requested to allow the addition to be constructed 8.1 feet from the West property line. Staff feels conditions support approval. The home was constructed 8.1 feet from the West property line. The addition will align with the home’s West wall and will be no closer to the West property line than the home. Approval will not adversely affect the developed character of this neighborhood. Hans Schlereth, Representative, said the addition will align with the existing home which is located 8 feet from the property line. In response to a question, Mr. Schlereth said he had designed the addition for a new master bedroom. The home is smaller than surrounding ones and the master bedroom has only 121-square feet. He said the addition cannot be located elsewhere on the property. It was noted the addition will not be visible from the street. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4) John L. & Carolyn J. Hamm, Jr. for a setback variance of 12.67 ft to allow a new single family home 12.33 ft from the CR 193 right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 1850 Castle Woods Dr., Castle Woods Sub, Lot 17, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 98-28 The applicants propose to develop this vacant lot with a single family home. The garage will be positioned in the building setback from CR 193 where 25-feet is required. The proposed setback for the garage is 12.33 feet. Staff feels conditions support approval. Two large specimen oak trees near the property’s center have large spreading root systems which make it difficult to design a home that saves the trees. The property owners have worked closely with the City’s Urban Forester to design a home that respects the trees. In his February 24, 1998, memorandum, Urban Forester Alan Mayberry indicated the proposed design will result in a minimum amount of stress on the trees. Another mature oak tree near the South property line will help buffer the garage and lessen its impact on the setback. Approval will not adversely affect this neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said staff had not recommended a condition requiring the property owners to work with the City’s Urban Forester due to the applicants’ well established pattern of cooperation. John Hamm, Jr., Applicant, indicated his respect for the beautiful trees on the property and his plan to continue working closely with Mr. Mayberry to design a home with the intention that the trees will live. It was stated one impressive oak tree on the property is about 150-years old. It was felt this proposal represents a good solution to difficulties associated with developing this property. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home, shrubs shall be planted along the length of the South side of the garage to soften its encroachment into the setback. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C5) Douglas J. Weiland & Elizabeth C. Sirna a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Landmark Drive right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed at 3273 Landmark Dr., Geiger Tract, Lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 98-29 This property is developed with a single family home and guest house. The owners propose to erect a 6-foot decorative fence along the front of the property within the Landmark Drive setback where the maximum allowable height is 2.5-feet. A 3.5-foot height variance is requested. Staff feels conditions support approval. The fence will separate the home from Landmark Drive, a busy arterial roadway. The owners have identified properties and subdivisions along Landmark Drive enclosed with fences up to 6-feet high. Many of those fences restrict visibility beyond the fences. The applicants propose to construct a fence with uprights, spaced at intervals, to allow visibility through the fence and maintain the openness of the property’s front yard. Approval will not alter the developed character of Landmark Drive and will not adversely effect the neighborhood or City. Steve Klar, Representative, said the applicants previously had received a variance to construct this fence. They did not meet the conditions and the fence was not built. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6) Glenn A. & Marjorie A. Harkrader for the following variances (1) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Howard Street right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; and (2) a fence setback variance from a street right-of-way at 1550 S. Jefferson Ave., Sall’s Sub, Blk G, Lot 18, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-30 This property is developed with a single family home. The recently erected 6-foot wood fence encloses the side yard on the home’s West side. The applicants request: 1) a 3.5-foot variance where the maximum allowable height for the fence in the front building setback is 2.5 feet and 2) a variance to allow the fence’s West end to have no setback from the Howard Street right-of-way where 3 feet is required. Staff feels conditions support approval. This corner lot has little privacy; the North and East yards adjoin public streets. The home, built near the South property line, has no back yard. Even though it is small due to the 63-foot lot depth and location of the screen porch 14-feet from the North property line, the only reasonable space for a private yard area is on the home’s West side. Moving the fence away from the street would crowd the porch. Approval will not adversely affect this neighborhood. The adjoining commercially-zoned property is used for automobile sales. The variances are reasonable to accommodate the property owner’s interest in securing a private yard. Mr. Richter reported the Traffic Engineer had recommended a 4th condition that the owner remove unnecessary paving in the street right-of-way. Glenn Harkrader, Applicant, said he had erected the fence without a permit due to ignorance of the law. He said the fence screens his yard from the used vehicle sales lot abutting his property to the West. He said he will remove the chain link fence if the variance for the wood fence is approved. In reference to the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation, Mr. Harkrader said the referenced paving provides the only access through a double gate to his 2-vehicle carport. Mr. Richter withdrew the recommendation. In response to a question, Mr. Harkrader said customers of the business next door park on that paving. He said he needs to shield his property from the commercial use next door due to privacy and safety concerns. In response to a question, he said he had purchased the property in August 1996. He stated only the 1st panel of the fence impedes on the front setback. June Weiglein supported the fence. She expressed concern a fence not be built that blocks the site lines for vehicles at the Jefferson Avenue and Howard Street intersection. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) within 60 days, a landscape buffer shall be planted on the outside of the fence parallel to the Howard Street right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a solid screen at maturity, broken only at the driveway. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C7) Systems Realty Corporation for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 7 ft to allow a second floor addition 18 ft from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where a minimum of 25 ft is required; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a second floor addition zero ft from the Somerset Street right-of-way where a minimum of 25 ft is required; (3) a lot width variance of 40 ft to allow a width of 110 ft where a minimum of 150 ft is required; (4) a lot depth variance of 15 ft to allow a depth of 85 ft where a minimum of 100 ft is required; and (5) a lot area variance of 5,063 sq. ft to allow an area of 9,037 sq. ft where a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft is required at 692 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Unit No. 5 Replat, Blk 83, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 20 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-32 This property is developed with a 7-unit motel. The applicant proposes to enlarge the owner occupied unit with a 1,500-square foot 2nd-floor addition. The applicant requests: 1) a 7-foot variance to allow the addition 18-feet from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where 25-feet is required; 2) a 25-foot variance to allow the addition 0 feet from the Somerset Street right-of-way where 25-feet is required; 3) a 40-foot variance to allow the addition on a 110-foot wide lot where the minimum lot width is 150 feet; 4) a 15-foot variance to allow the addition on an 85-foot deep lot where the minimum lot depth is 100 feet; and 5) a 5,063-square foot variance for the addition on a 9,037-square foot lot where the minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. Staff feels conditions support approval. The property’s size cannot be increased. As the 2nd story’s exterior walls will align with the 1st floor, the addition will extend no closer to the property lines than the existing building. Approval will not adversely effect this neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the parking requirement will not change as no new units are proposed. Fred Segesman, Representative, said he had purchased the property after it was damaged by the “No Name” storm 5 years ago. He has invested a great deal of money in renovations. A buyer is interested in purchasing the property if the owner’s residential area is enlarged. The current owner’s unit #1 is quite small. It was felt an on-site owner will benefit the property and discourage problems associated with transients. In response to a question, Mr. Segesman said the buyer had incorrectly sketched the elevation included with the application. The 2nd story’s exterior wall and deck will not extend farther into the setback than the 1st floor. In response to a question, Mr. Segesman indicated the buyer is aware the addition will have to conform to the City’s tropical seascape design criteria and be approved by a board. Three letters of support were received. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater beach; and 4) no additional units shall be added. The stairway to the second story shall remain interior to the unit below as shown on the plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C8) Robert W. Byrd & Winfred L. Bailey (Arthritis Pain Treatment Center of Clearwater) for a parking variance of 12 additional parking spaces to allow 0 additional parking spaces where 12 additional parking spaces are required to permit a change of use at 712 Grand Central St., Milton Park, Blk 4, part of Lots 10, 11 & 12, zoned IL (Limited Industrial) and OL (Limited Office). V 98-33 This property is developed with a 4,560-square foot building previously used for general offices. The applicants proposed use of the building for medical offices requires more parking spaces than general offices. Where 27 off-street spaces are required, 15 exist. The applicants request a 12-space variance. Staff feels conditions support approval. The 11 spaces in the Grand Central Avenue right-of-way in front of this property provide additional parking space and result in 26 available parking spaces for this medical office. This total is one space shy of the 27 required spaces and should serve this use adequately. Harry Cline, Representative, said the new owners of this historical office building plan a medical use for the property. He felt the City’s vehicle impact fees imposed on this property are a secondary economic imposition on property owners who make similar changes. He said surrounding uses support this use. He said current law disallows the owners from counting the front parking spaces that have been used since 1953 when the building was constructed. The March 17, 1998, letter of support from R. M. Thompson, Jr., of Thompson Executive Center Partnership was noted. No other support or opposition was expressed. It was stated Grand Central Street is not heavily traveled. It was felt backing out of the front spaces is not difficult. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C9) Maria A. Curry for the following variances (1) a separation variance of 480 ft to allow a Group Care Level I Living Facility 20 ft from a single family residential zone; and (2) a separation variance of 460 ft to allow a Group Care Level I Living Facility 740 ft from an existing Family Care Living Facility at 1823 - 1827 East Dr., Quail Run, Lot 13, zoned RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-31 This property is developed with a triplex which the applicant proposes to use as a group care facility, housing up to 14 elderly persons. The applicant requests: 1) a 480-foot variance to allow the facility within 20-feet of a single family zone where 500-feet is required and 2) a 460-foot variance to allow this facility 740-feet from a family care facility where 1,200-feet is required. Staff feels conditions support approval. The separation requirements were developed to ensure that each care facility is compatible with nearby uses and to avoid a concentration of care facilities in a single neighborhood. This proposal appears to satisfy these purposes. The proposed facility should integrate well with the triplexes that line both sides of East Drive. The closest care facility, at 1743 Sharondale Drive, appears to be in a different neighborhood. Sharondale Drive is developed with single-family homes and is separated from East Drive by Greenlea Drive which accesses the Woodmont and Blackshire Estates subdivisions to the East. The proposed group care use should not adversely impact this area. Mr. Richter said ACLFs (Adult Congregate Living Facility) are unobtrusive once they are established in a neighborhood. ACLFs generate no additional traffic. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the facility on Sharondale Drive appears to be in a different neighborhood of single family homes and separated by Greenlea Drive. Five parking spaces are required for the proposed facility. The ACLF will not be permitted to house juvenile delinquents. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the application indicates the ACLF will house ambulatory elderly residents and will not offer limited medical service. Julia Galpin, Representative, said the purchase of the subject property is contingent on approval of these variances. An application for these variances had been made in 1991. She said she works in the home health care field as a registered nurse. She said not enough well run facilities exist which care for the elderly. She said the structure will lend itself to a 7 bedroom facility with common room areas. She said the buyer is a registered nurse who lives across the street from the subject property. Gillian Vaile, Buyer, said she lives with her parents, children, and husband, who is a EMT (Emergency Medical Technician). She said the ACLF will house elderly people who need assistance with transportation and other needs. She said she will not allow the property to deteriorate. She welcomed neighbors to knock on her door regarding problems. She has completed the required course through the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Fire protection and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations must be met and approved by the Fire Marshal. It was noted the necessary improvements will be substantial and expensive. It was stated obtaining the necessary State license takes about 90 days. Margaret Dietrich said she is an area property owner who supports the ACLF. Irene Heinige, Arlene Woldt, and Frances Varsec spoke in opposition to the proposed ACLF stating a petition in opposition, submitted March 19, 1998, had been signed by more than 70 people, the Sharondale ACLF is rundown and its neighbors are unhappy, traffic will increase and trucks will deliver oxygen, the neighborhood is family-oriented, elderly ACLF residents will wander the streets and scare neighborhood children, fighting by ACLF residents will disturb neighbors, ambulance sirens will be disruptive, nearby property will be devalued and become more difficult to sell, the ACLF will have too many residents for proper supervision, a business should not be allowed to operate in the neighborhood, the ACLF should be located in a commercial zone, and the 1991 variance application had been opposed by the neighborhood and was defeated. It was indicated no documentation supports the theory that ACLFs lower property values. Mr. Richter indicated the submitted petition had 72 signatures by his count. Ms. Vaile said elderly residents enjoy children. Her children enjoy their visits to elder care facilities. She said she will not apply for a mental health service license. She said the trucks that deliver oxygen are unobtrusive. She said the State is required to inspect ACLFs each time a complaint is received. Ms. Dietrich said the ACLF will care for elderly human beings. She felt it inhumane to suggest these people should have to live in commercial areas. Ms. Varsec, Ms. Woldt, and Ms. Heinige said it is wrong to operate a business in a residential neighborhood, ACLF residents as young as 18 could disturb the neighborhood, and the petition should be considered. Ms. Galpin said ACLF residents will not breach the 6-foot fence separating the property from the single family residence behind. In response to a question, Ms. Vaile said the ACLF will care for retirement age residents as licensed by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. The ACLF will not be licensed to care for young, disturbed residents. She said most residents who seek this type of living arrangement can no longer drive. It was stated few ACLF residents have visitors. In response to a question, Mr. Richter reviewed Code requirements for ACLFs. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the ACLF also must adhere to health department regulations. It was noted no documentation had been presented to prove an ACLF causes nearby properties to devaluate. It was felt a family neighborhood is an excellent location for a well run home for elderly residents. It was indicated an ACLF would be a good use of the property. It was stated the board gives careful consideration to written and verbal testimony. It was felt most complaints against this type of facility are misguided. It was stated ACLFs are humane and needed facilities. History indicates ACLFs do not cause traffic to increase. No other support or opposition was expressed. Concern was expressed the 480-foot variance requested to separate the ACLF from a residential zone is substantial. In light of code restrictions, the appropriateness of this location, abutting a single family neighborhood, was questioned. It was felt the 480-foot variance request is not minimal. Member Johnson moved to grant a separation variance of 460 feet to allow a Group Care Level I Living Facility 740 ft from an existing Family Care Living Facility as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) within 60 days after issuance of the occupational license, landscaping shall be installed along East Drive and on the perimeter of the parking lot. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the landscaping in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to grant a separation variance of 480 feet to allow a Group Care Level I Living Facility 20 ft from a single family residential zone as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) within 60 days after issuance of the occupational license, landscaping shall be installed along East Drive and on the perimeter of the parking lot. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the landscaping in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Stuart, and Moran and voted “Aye”; Member Jonnatti and Chair Schwob voted “Nay.” Motion carried. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 12, 1998, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments Mr. Richter said the minor variance report requested by the board will be included in the next meeting’s packet. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she will represent the City at the May 8, 1998, hearing regarding the appeal filed by Bay Aristocrat residents regarding the parking variance previously approved by the board for a new Don Pablos restaurant on US 19N. The importance of the board providing careful consideration of citizen feelings was noted. Mr. Richter complimented the board for their businesslike demeanor through this afternoon’s lengthy agenda. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.