S M I L I N G BISON FENCE

Transcription

1 Staff Report to the Board of Zoning Adjustment November 22, 2016 VA R I TEM #2 S M I L I N G BISON FENCE H E I G H T V A R I A N C E Lowell Pl. Park Lake St. E Colonial Dr. Location Map Subject Site S U M M A R Y Applicant Ronald Thomas, Owner The Smiling Bison Restaurant Owner Bilbao Investment Group, Inc. Otto Acosta Project Planner Jacques Coulon Property Location: 745 Bennett Rd. (Parcel ID # , on the east side of Bennett Rd. south of Lowell Pl., west of Lowell Blvd., ±0.377 acres, District 3. Applicant s Request: The applicant is requesting a variance of 2.6 ft. to permit a fence in the front yard to be 8.6 ft. in height where 6 ft. is the maximum permitted. Staff s Recommendation: Denial of the requested variance and approval of a lesser variance of 2 ft. subject to the conditions in the staff report. Public Comment: Courtesy notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property the week of November 14, As of the published date of this report, staff has not received any comments from the public concerning these requests. Updated: November 16,

2 Page 2 F U TURE LAND USE MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY Z O N ING MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY

3 Page 3 P R O JECT ANALYSIS Project Description The subject property consists of an irregularly shaped, roughly rectangular lot, with two single-story commercial buildings in the Colonial Town Center neighborhood. The applicant, the owner of the Smiling Bison Restaurant, installed an 8ft. 6 in. fence along the sidewalk facing Bennett Rd. to shield outdoor seating from the roadway and adjacent uses. The applicant is seeking approval to keep the fence as is where only a 6 ft. fence is permitted. The property is zoned MU-2/AN (Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor with Aircraft Noise Overlay) and is designated as MUC- MED (Mixed Use Corridor Medium Intensity) on the City s Future Land Use map. The subject property is bordered by commercial uses to the north, west and south and by single family residences to the east. Adjacent uses, zoning and future land use designations are per Table 1 below. North Table 1 - Project Context Future Land Use Zoning Adjacent Use Mixed Use Corridor Medium Intensity (MUC-MED) Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor with Aircraft Noise Overlay (MU-2/AN) Commercial East Residential Low Intensity (RES-LOW) Single Family Residential with Aircraft Noise Single Family Residence Overlay (R-1A/AN) South MUC-MED MU-2/AN Commercial West Metropolitan Activity Center (MET- AC) Metropolitan Activity Center with Aircraft Noise Overlay (AC-3/AN) Nightclub and Orlando Bridge Club Previous Actions: 1926: Property platted as Tinker Heights M/93 Lots 2 Through 4 in Plat Book M, Page : Existing commercial building constructed. 1995: Property purchased by the current owner. 2013: Smiling Bison opens at current location. 07/2016: Code enforcement action: Fence built without Approved Permits (Incident No: ) 08/2016: Permits submitted for fence (BLD ) and signage to be located on the fence (BLD ). Conformance with the LDC: Land Development Code (LDC) Section details that fences in Commercial and Industrial Districts cannot exceed 6 ft. in height in the Required Front and Street Side Yards. The 8.5 ft. tall fence that the applicant installed along Bennett Rd. is located in the front yard. As such the fence is limited to 6 ft. in height. In regards to the signage planned for the fence, LDC Sec permits buildings within MU Zoning districts with a front yard setback of at least 15 ft. to have a maximum of 1 ground or pole sign. There is an existing pole sign on the north side of the restaurant and the addition of another sign on the fence would lead to a second ground sign which is not permitted by code. The applicant also details a sign placed on the fence, this would be in addition to the pole sign and wall signs currently on the property. No variance has been sought for the second sign proposed and staff would not be in support of that sign. Analysis The restaurant is set back approximately 15.5 ft. from the back of the sidewalk along Bennett Rd.; the applicant installed a planter/ counter/wall to screen the outdoor seating area from Bennett Rd. and the nightclub to the west. The structure is directly adjacent to the back of the sidewalk, contains a planter facing Bennett Rd., an 8.5 ft. tall fence and a bar height counter on the inside, facing the building. It appears that the planter/counter were constructed first with the wall added later to provide screening. None of these improvements were made with a permit. Staff understands the desire to provide intimacy and more screening for the area between the building and back of sidewalk and the fence provides this screening. The applicant has provided a 2 ft. planter bed at the sidewalk which keeps the fence away from the pedestrians and also provides additional greenery for pedestrians. The fence also has a certain amount of open spaces between the horizontal slats which provide some transparency while retaining the intent of screening from the road. Staff is supportive of a lesser variance of 2 ft. which will leave the fence at 8 ft. tall instead of the 8 ft. 6 in. as requested. Staff recommends the removal

4 Page 4 Page 4 of the top bar across the length of the fence which will result n a decrease of approximately 6 in. and will leave the top of the fence with variation in the height. Each section of fence will be required to support itself so the top rail that goes across the entry is not required for reinforcement of the two sections of fence. As previously mentioned the applicant also details a 48 sq. ft. sign to be added to the fence. This sign is a ground sign and per LDC Sec this site is only permitted one ground or pole sign which already exists just to the north of the restaurant. There is a total of 54.5 sq. ft. of signage for the restaurant (the pole sign and smiling bison painting) and with two frontages of 52 ft. each the applicant could have a total of up to 156 sq. ft. of copy area. Staff has discussed the signage concerns with the applicant and they have agreed to look at placing the sign on the building instead of the fence. In conclusion, staff is supportive of a lesser variance of 2 ft. to allow for an 8 ft. fence where a 6 ft. fence is permitted, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. A E R I A L P H O TO SUBJECT PROPERTY

5 Page 5 S I TE SURVEY

6 Page 6 Page 6 A P PLICANT PROVIDED SITE PHOTO S V I E W OF F E N C E A N D P R O P O S E D S I G N A G E F R O M B E N N E T T R D. LO O K I N G E A S T P R O P O S E D S I G N A G E

7 Page 7 Page 7 S I TE PHOTO S V I E W OF F E N C E A N D S I G N A G E L O O K I N G S O U T H V I E W OF S I D E W A L K AND F E N C E A L O N G B E N N E T T R D. L O O K I N G N O R T H

8 P aaggee 88 SITE PHOTOS FENCE A N D P L A N T E R D E TA I L S VIEW OF FENCE, BAR AND PLANTER FROM DRIVEWAY LOOKING SOUTH UPGRADE PLANTER BOXES AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING VIEW OF FENCE, BAR AND PLANTER FROM THE SIDEWALK LOOKING NORTH

9 Page 9 Page 9 S I TE PHOTO S V I E W OF F E N C E F R O M C O U R T Y A R D L O O K I N G W E S T R E M O V E T O P 6 IN. OF F E N C E A N D A N Y P R O T R U D I N G C O L U M N S TO A L L O W AN U N E V E N T O P R A I L P O T E N T I A L L O C A T I O N F O R N EW W A L L S I G N V I E W OF E N T R Y W A Y F R O M T H E S I D E W A L K L O O K I N G E A S T T O W A R D S T H E F R O N T D OOR

10 Page 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VARIANCE FOR AN 8.5 ft. FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE 6 ft. IS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the requested variance and approval of a lesser variance of 2 ft. subject to the conditions in the staff report. Staff recommends that approval be subject to the following conditions (The conditions below apply to both an 8ft and 8.5 ft. tall fence): 1. Development shall be in strict conformance with all conditions found in this report, subject to any modification by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) and/or City Council. Minor modifications to the approved variance may be approved by the Zoning Official. Major modifications, as determined by the Zoning Official, shall require additional review by the BZA. 2. All applicable City, county, state or federal permits must be obtained before commencing development. 3. Remove the top fence slat and any portion of the pillar protruding above the remaining slats to create a top of staggered height. 4. Complete landscaping within the planter so that there are no bare surfaces. Plant material may include the existing palms as well as new palms and understory trees, and ground cover plants and dwarf shrubs that will be at least 18" higher than the front wall of the planter, but not exceed more than 4 ft. in height above the sidewalk. 5. Provide drip irrigation to all plants within the planter. 6. The planter must be dressed with minimum 2 in. cover of organic mulch. 7. All landscaping must comply with Chapter 60, Part 2, of City Code. 8. No additional slats may be added to the fence which would reduce transparency across the fence. Only additional framing/ support as deemed needed for structural integrity through the permitting process may be added. 9. The fence must be treated/stained to better match the existing wood and also to protect the fence from water intrusion which could cause warping. 10. Only one ground sign is permitted, no additional signage may be placed on the fence unless the existing pole sign is removed. 11. A permit shall be required for any outdoor amplified devices and all such devices and practices must meet all section of Chapter 42 of Orlando City Code. 12. Expiration of the Zoning Variance. A building permit for the work requiring the zoning variance must be received within one year of the zoning variance approval. If said building permit(s) are not received within a year the zoning variance is no longer valid and a new variance must be applied for. If the building permit for the work requiring the zoning variance expires before a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion is issued for the work requiring the zoning variance, then the zoning variance is no longer valid and a new zoning variance must be applied for. 13. As provided by subsection (5), Florida Statutes, issuance of a development permit by a municipality does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. In accordance with subsection (5), Florida Statutes, it is hereby made a condition of this permit that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. Note to Applicant: The proposed variance only addresses the Land Development Code standards expressly represented in this staff report and any relief to such standards as approved. The relief granted through the variance is restricted to the subject property as noted in the staff report and is not transferable to other parcels of land. The next step in this variance request is City Council consideration of the Board of Zoning Adjustment's recommended action (provided it is not appealed) at an upcoming City Council meeting. Possible City Council approval of this variance request does not constitute final approval to carry out the development proposed in this application. The applicant shall comply with all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code, including any additional review requirements, and shall receive all necessary permits before initiating development. Please contact the Permitting Services Division of the City of Orlando to inquire about your next steps toward receiving a building permit. Also, please provide a copy of the Variance approval letter with conditions of approval with any permits requested for said project. Diameter

11 Page 11 S T A N D A R D S F O R V A R I A N C E A P P R O V A L Special Conditions and Circumstances Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. Zoning violations or nonconformities on neighboring properties shall not constitute grounds for approval of any proposed Zoning Variance. Not Self-Created The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. A selfcreated hardship shall not justify a Zoning Variance; i.e., when the applicant himself by his own conduct creates the hardship which he alleges to exist, he is not entitled to relief. V A R I A N C E : OF 2. 5 FT. TO P E R M I T T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N OF AN 8. 5 FT. TA L L F E N C E W H E R E 6 FT. IS T H E M A X I M U M Meets Standard Yes No The building os set back from Bennett Rd. by about 15 ft. and there is very little in the way of existing streetscape. There are only two palm trees between the sidewalk and the building which do not provide any shade or screening from the street and nightclub. Meets Standard Yes No The site contained the outdoor hardscaped area in front of the restaurant when the applicant occupied the building and Bennett Rd. and the nightclub were also in-place prior to the applicant arriving. No Special Privilege Conferred Approval of the Zoning Variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes No No special privilege will be conferred through the granting of this variance. Deprivation of Rights Literal interpretation of the provisions contained in this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Financial loss or business competition shall not constitute grounds for approval of any variance. Purchase of property with intent to develop in violation of the restrictions of this Chapter shall also not constitute grounds for approval. Meets Standard Yes No Denying the applicant the right to build a fence over 6 ft. tall would deny the applicant the right to right to shield and buffer the existing outdoor area in a way that is harmonious with the neighborhood while providing adequate screening from adjacent uses and the setting sun. Minimum Possible Variance The Zoning Variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Meets Standard Yes No The request is for a 8.5 ft. tall fence but staff feels that an 8 ft. tall fence will accomplish the intent of what the applicant is seeking while providing a better architectural option. Purpose and Intent Approval of the Zoning Variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and such Zoning Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes No Granting of this Variance would not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood or public welfare.

12 Page 12 A P P L I C A N T P R O V I D E D VA R I A N C E J U S T I F I C AT I O N P.1