palm beach county planning, zoning and building … · allow for the expansion of the okeechobee...

ZC 05/05/2011 60 Application No.ZV-2010- 02831 BCC District 02 Control No. 2007-00342 Project No. 1000-861

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ZONING DIVISION

ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT

05/05/2011

APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE

ZV-2010- 02831

3.D.3.A.2.a Commercial Hours of Operation 7.F.7.A Width of R-O-W Buffer 7.F.7.A Width of R-O-W Buffer 7.F.7.A Width of R-O-W Buffer 7.F.7.B Table 7.F.7.B - Shrub Planting Requirements 7.F.9 Landscape - Incompatibility Buffer 7.F.9 Landscape - Incompatibility Buffer 7.F.7.B Table 7.F.7.B - Shrub Planting Requirements 3.D.1.A Table 3.D.1.A-5 - Property Development Regulations 3.D.1.A.5 Front setback

6:00 AM - 11:00 PM 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Ground Cover - 658; Small schrub - 164; Large schrub - 82 15 feet Groundcover - 225 Small Shrub - 56 Large Shrub - 28 Groundcover 150 Small Shrub 100 Large Shrub - 38 25 foot 50 feet

6:00 AM - 1:00 AM 2 feet 5 feet 10 feet Groundcover - 0; Small shrub - 0; Large shrub 0 10 feet Ground Cover 0 Small Shrub 0 Large Shrub 0 Groundcover 0 Small Shrub 0 Large Shrub - 0 15 10 feet

2 hours 13 feet 10 feet 5 feet Ground Cover - 658; Small schrub - 164; Large schrub - 82 5 feet Groundcover - 225 Small Shrub - 56 Large Shrub - 28 Groundcover 150 Small Shrub 100 Large Shrub - 38 10 40 feet

ZC 05/05/2011 Page 161 Application No.ZV-2010- 02831 BCC District 02 Control No. 2007-00342 Project No. 1000-861

SITUS ADDRESS:

2854 Okeechobee Blvd West Palm Beach 33409 2854 Shawnee Ave West Palm Beach 33409 3820 Shawnee Ave West Palm Beach 33409 2834 Shawnee Ave West Palm Beach 33409 1022 Wabasso Dr West Palm Beach 33409

AGENT NAME & ADDRESS:

Kevin McGinley Land Research Management, Inc. 2240 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL 33409

OWNER NAME & ADDRESS:

Curtis Lewis 6471 Garden Ct West Palm Beach FL 33411

PCN:

00-43-43-30-01-002-0010 00-43-43-30-03-008-0010 00-43-43-30-03-008-0050 00-43-43-30-03-008-0120 00-43-43-30-03-008-0310 00-43-43-30-03-007-0270 00-43-43-30-03-008-0080

ZONING DISTRICT:

CG

BCC DISTRICT:

02

PROJECT MANAGER:

Autumn Sorrow, Senior Site Planner

LEGAL AD:

Title: Resolution approving a Type II Zoning Variance application of Curtis Lewis by Land Research Management, Inc., Agent. Request: to allow extended hours of operation for a commercial property adjacent to a residential property; to allow reduction in right-of-way and incompatibility buffers widths; to allow a reduction in the front and rear setbacks; and to allow a reduction in the amount of plant material for the right-of-way and incompatibility buffers. General Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Wabasso Drive and properties along Shawnee Drive and Wabasso Drive.

LAND USE:

CH/8 S/T/R: 30-43-43

CONTROL #:

2007-00342

LOT AREA:

1.74 acres +/-

LOT DIMENSIONS:

None

CONFORMITY OF LOT:

Setbacks are nonconforming

CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT:

None

TYPE OF ELEMENT: Existing landscape is nonconforming

ELEMENT SIZE:

None

BUILDING PERMIT #:

None NOTICE OF VIOLATION:

None

CONSTRUCTION STATUS:

built

APPLICANT REQUEST:

to allow extended hours of operation for a commercial property adjacent to a residential property; to allow reduction in right-of-way and incompatiliby buffers widths; to allow a reduction in the front and rear setbacks; and to allow a reduction in the amount of plant material for the right-of-way and incompatility buffers.


Figure 1 Aerial

STAFF SUMMARY Type II Zoning Variance Request Proposed are 10 Type II Zoning Variances for the 1.74-acre Okeechobee Steakhouse restaurant expansion site. The first variance is a request from Article 3.D.3.A.2.a, entitled, Hours of Operation, to extend the hours of operation from 11:00pm to 1:00am. The next four variances are to allow a reduction in the width of right of way buffers for Shawnee Ave., Wabasso Dr. and Chickamauga Ave., including a request to reduce the amount of plant material within the right of way buffer along Shawnee Ave. The applicant is also requesting a width reduction for the incompatibility buffer located along the south property line and the east property line, along with a reduction in the amount of plant material for these buffers. Lastly, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the front and rear setbacks for the proposed patios. The applicant ultimately proposes to adjoin adjacent properties to


allow for the expansion of the Okeechobee Steakhouse restaurant which will be accomplished through a subsequent application DRO 2010-2801. Access to the site will be from Okeechobee Blvd., Shawnee Ave., and Wabasso Dr. General Location, Previous Approvals and Existing Conditions The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersections of Wabasso Drive Okeechobee Boulevard and the northeast corner of Wabassa Drive Chickamuaga Avenue, in the Urbam Highway and Neighborhood General (NG) sub-areas of the Westgate Community Redevelopment Area Overlay (WCRAO). The Okeechobee Steak House has operated at its present location since the mid-1940s. Over the years, the original restaurant site has lost acreage, parking spaces, and landscape buffering due to the widening of Okeechobee Boulevard. As a result, the owner has subsequently acquired and assembled several properties along Wabasso Drive and Shawnee Avenue, to provide customer and employee parking. A Site Plan approval was granted in May 2005 for the existing 3,843 sq. ft. restaurant and 3 neighboring parcels to be used for parking, pursuant to Control No. 1994-00067. In February of 2008 the Zoning Commission (ZC) approved a variance to allow a reduction in lot size and lot depth for the southwestern most 0.46-acre portion of the site, pursuant to Resolution 2008-0011. In June 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a rezoning for the southwestern most 0.46-acre portion, pursuant to Control 2007-00342 through Resolution No. R-2008-1135. This parcel along with the 0.13-acre parcel to the west and the 0.27 parcel to the north will comprise the single development consisting of a Type II Restaurant and Banquet facility, proposed under the subsequent application DRO 2010-2801. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses NORTH: FLU Designation: City of West Palm Beach Zoning District: City of West Palm Beach Supporting: Vehicle Sales (Control No N/A) SOUTH: FLU Designation: Commercial High with an Underlying HR-8 (CH/HR8) Zoning District: Residential High (RH) Supporting: Three single family residential units EAST: FLU Designation: Commercial High with an Underlying HR-8 (CH/HR8) Zoning District: Residential High (RH) and General Commercial (CG) Supporting: Industrial WEST: FLU Designation: Commercial High with an Underlying HR-8 (CH/HR8) Zoning District: Residential High (RH) and General Commercial (CG) Supporting: Convenience store with gas sales (Control 1978-296) and vacant cleared lot The proposed variance request will have little to no adverse impacts on adjacent parcels or uses as these lots were platted in June 1921 and developed subsequently. The area is apart of the redevelopment plan adopted for the Westgate Community Redevelopment Area Overlay. Okeechobee Steakhouse is located at one of the County’s major arterial intersections (Okeechobee Boulevard and Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard). This intersection and the lineal roadways have been developed with intense commercial development over the years to serve the residents in central east county. The commercial developments include office buildings, big box retail stores, type I and type II restaurants, vehicle sales and rental, and other retail stores. The expansion of Okeechobee Steakhouse to include a banquet facility and add land area (subsequent application) will be compatible and consistent with the other uses in the vicinity. While there are no adverse impacts anticipated on other adjacent sites since this must comply with PBC Comprehensive Plan and related ULDC provisions regulating development in the urban/suburban tier and the WCRAO, as such, a final determination of compatibility is pending approval of the site plan.


Figure 2 south of existing restaurant on Shawnee Ave looking east

Figure 3 east of existing restaurant looking north towards Okeechobee Blvd.


Figure 4 future expansions of banquet hall and parking (existing industrial use)

Figure 5 proposed patio location along rear of existing restaurant adjacent to Okeechobee Blvd.


Figure 6 future parking lot and existing adjacent residence


Figure 7 Preliminary Site Plan dated March 4, 2011


Summary of Article 3.D.3.A.2.a Commercial Hours of Operation The intent of Article 3.D.3.A.2a is to protect the adjacent residential Zoning Districts from extended hours of operation from commercial development. The purpose of such regulation is to prevent and mitigate potential nuisances imposed upon residential properties from commercial properties late at night when most residents are home.

Summary of Tables 7.F.7.A, Width of ROW Buffer; 7.F.7.B, Plant Material for ROW Buffer; and 7.F.9.A, Width of Incompatibility Buffer

The intent of Tables 7.F.7.A, 7.F.7.B, and 7.F.9.A, are to establish minimum landscape buffer widths adjacent to streets, thoroughfares, or other means of vehicular access and incompatible uses. The purpose of such landscape regulations are to ensure that adequate buffering and screening within the county is provided to accomplish a method for buffering different land uses, for providing a transition between adjacent properties, and for screening the view of any parking or storage are, reuse collection, utility enclosures or other service area visible from a public street, alley, or pedestrian area. Summary of Table 3.D.1.A., Property Development Regulations The intent of Table 3.D.1.A., Property Development Regulations, is to establish minimum lot dimensions, minimum and maximum density, maximum FAR, maximum building coverage, and minimum setbacks in each standard zoning district. The purposes of the aforementioned regulations are to ensure that development within the County occurs in such a way to minimize any potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties, and ensure compliance with the Florida Statutes by implementing and complying with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

Zoning Commission Hearing

On April 7, 2011, this application was postponed at the request of the applicant in order to address concerns with the adjacent neighbors with a vote of 9-0. At the time of publication, the applicant has not met with the neighbors.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

Approval subject to 5 conditions, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.D.3 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which an applicant must meet before the Zoning Commission who may authorize a variance.

ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.D.3.G.2 VARIANCE STANDARDS

1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT:

V1: Yes. There are special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the structures or buildings in the same Zoning District. The site is surrounded by properties within commercial Zoning Districts, with the exception of the south property line which is located within the Residential High (RH) Zoning District and developed with single family home (2 homes abutting the property and 1 home across Chickamauga Ave) and vacant land. The intent of Article 3.D.3.A.2.a is to ensure that adjacent residences are protected from commercial nuaceances such as vehicular and pedestrian traffic, loading, and storage activities from occuring on a 24 hour basis. Although there are three existing homes to the south of the site, the applicant maintains that the proposed restaurant will be used primarily as a banquet hall/catering facility to be used for special occasions such as wedding receptions, corporate lunches/dinners, holiday parties and similar functions. On occasion, the restaurant may extend hours past the 11:00 PM deadline, much the same as other restaurants and night clubs do in similar commercial zoning districts.


V2: Yes. The existing ROW buffer along the south side of Shawnee Avenue immediately north of the proposed restaurant expansion is 2-ft. wide; therefore special conditions and circumstances exist with respect to this structure that are not applicable to other structures in the same zoning district. V3: Yes. The existing 5 foot buffer along Shawnee Avenue on the north side of the existing parking lot located on the corner of Wabasso Drive and Shawnee Avenue was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005. The existing buffer has been in existence for over 5 years and serves the existing restaurant. The variance is required because the proposed site plan proposes a modification to the approved plan and also in order to obtain final site plan approval so that the properties governed by the plan can be platted in accordance with Article 11, ULDC. Special conditions and circumstances therefore exist that are peculiar to this parcel of land. V4: Yes. The requested 5 foot variance to allow a 10-ft. right of way buffer along Chickamauga Avenue is required in order to provide required parking for the proposed expansion of the restaurant. Several variations of the parking lot configuration were proposed and analyzed resulting in the configuration depicted on the proposed site plan. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance. A previous variance was approved for this lot as part of the rezoning process. V5: Yes. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5-ft. buffer to accommodate a 3-tiered approach to landscaping (groundcover, small and large shrubs). The applicant is therefore requesting to plant only medium shrubs in this buffer, which requires the variances in order to eliminate the other components. The special circumstances and condition arise from the fact that structures, parking areas, and fences have all been constructed in the past and thus limit the ability of the applicant to provide an increased ROW buffer. V6: Yes. The requested 5-ft. reduction in the incompatibility buffer is a result of the size of the subject lot. Prior to the submittal of the variance and site plan applications, the owner constructed a 6-ft. opaque wall to buffer the proposed parking lot from the residential property immediately east. Several variations of the parking lot configuration were proposed and analyzed resulting in the configuration depicted on the proposed site plan. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance. A previous variance was approved for this lot as part of the rezoning process. V7: Yes. The existing 5-ft. buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Control No. 1994-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (BA2004-00788). This existing buffer is proposed to be extended further west to tie in with the proposed restaurant expansion. The variance is required in order to obtain final site plan approval so that the properties governed by the plan can be platted in accordance with Article 11, ULDC. Special conditions and circumstances therefore exist that are peculiar to this parcel of land. V8: Yes. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5 foot buffer to accommodate a 3-tiered approach to landscaping (groundcover, small and large shrubs). The applicant is therefore requesting to plant only medium shrubs in this buffer, which requires the variances in order to eliminate the other components. The special circumstances and condition arise from the fact that structures, parking areas, and wall have all been constructed in the past and thus limit the ability of the applicant to provide an increased buffer. V9: Yes. The subject property has been the subject of a series of eminent domain proceedings that have resulted in a loss of depth of the property, customer parking along Okeechobee Boulevard, and direct access to the site. Over the years, the frontage of the subject property has shifted from Okeechobee Boulevard to Shawnee Avenue, causing the corresponding building setbacks to alternate between the two sides of the property. This change in the designation of the front and rear property lines presents a special condition that does not necessarily apply to other properties in the commercial zoning districts along Okeechobee Boulevard. The Okeechobee Steak House is one of the few businesses along Okeechobee Boulevard that does not have direct access to this major east-west arterial. Due to the fact that the restaurant’s access is provided via Shawnee Avenue, Okeechobee Boulevard is considered the rear of the property by applicable ULDC standards. This circumstance provides a special condition that is unique to the subject parcel.


V10: Yes. The proposed banquet hall/restaurant patio encroaches into the front building setback as measured from Shawnee Avenue, although the patio is technically proposed to be located on the side of the building, adjacent to the parking area. The existing building is non-conforming insofar as it does not meet existing ULDC setback requirements. As a result, the proposed patio addition does not meet the required setback. These conditions present special circumstances that are unique to the subject property. 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: V.1. Yes. While the existing Okeechobee Steak House is vested in terms of the recent ULDC amendments that restricted commercial hours of operation to 11:00 PM when the use is within 250 feet of a residential zoning district, the proposed restaurant expansion is subject to this requirement. Since the proposed restaurant expansion/banquet facility will be part of the same governing site plan, grant of the variance request is necessary in order to allow the site to function in accordance with the existing restaurant. This special circumstance is a result of code amendments adopted subsequent to the establishment of the existing restaurant (Okeechobee Steak House) and not the actions of the applicant. V2: Yes. The existing building located on this lot is has been approved and constructed 2 feet from the Shawnee Avenue ROW; thus the special circumstances and conditions did not arise from actions of the applicant. V3: Yes. The existing parking lot has a 5 foot landscape buffer along the Shawnee Avenue ROW in accordance with the previously-approved site plan; thus, the special circumstances and conditions did not arise from actions of the applicant. V4: Yes. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance. The subject lot actually consists of seven (7) platted lots that will be combined subsequent to the variance and site plan approval processes. The subdivision of these lots, and thus their size, was not the result of actions by the applicant. A previous variance to acknowledge the lot size was approved for this lot as part of the rezoning process V5: Yes. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5 foot buffer to accommodate a 3-tiered approach to landscaping (groundcover, small and large shrubs). The applicant is therefore requesting to plant only medium shrubs in this buffer, which requires the variances in order to eliminate the other components. The special circumstances and condition arise from the fact that structures, parking areas, and fences have all been constructed in the past and thus limit the ability of the applicant to provide an increased ROW buffer. The applicant neither owned nor used the property when the building and parking lot were constructed, thus the special circumstances and conditions did not arise from actions by the applicant. V6: Yes. The requested 5 foot reduction in the incompatibility buffer is a result of the size of the subject lot. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance and were not the result of actions by the applicant. A previous variance for lot size was approved for this lot as part of the rezoning process. V7: Yes. The existing 5 foot buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5 foot buffer (2004-00788). This existing buffer is proposed to be extended further west to tie in with the proposed restaurant expansion. The variance is required in order to obtain final site plan approval so that the properties governed by the plan can be platted in accordance with Article 11, ULDC. Special conditions and circumstances therefore exist that are peculiar to this parcel of land and were not the result of the applicant. V8: Yes. The existing 5 foot buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (2004-00788). This existing buffer is proposed to be extended further west to tie in with the proposed restaurant expansion. The variance is required because the required plant material cannot be accommodated in the existing and extended 5 foot landscape buffer. Special conditions and


circumstances therefore exist that are peculiar to this parcel of land and were not the result of the applicant. V9: Yes. The fact that the subject property’s front setback is no longer measured from Okeechobee Boulevard but rather Shawnee Avenue is a result of the widening of Okeechobee Boulevard and associated eminent domain proceedings that eliminated direct access to this thoroughfare. The ULDC requires a property to have direct access to a roadway along its frontage; thus, the property’s front setback is measured from Shawnee Avenue and not Okeechobee Boulevard. Due to the widening of Okeechobee Boulevard and associated eminent domain proceedings over the years, the site is not meeting the required rear setbacks. V10: Yes. The Applicant was not the original owner of the building or property and thus had no role in its design and construction. As such, the Applicant did not create the special circumstances arising from the building’s non-conformity. Through the subsequent DRO application 2010-2801, the applicant will be assembling adjacent properties together to create a more developable project and will be decreasing the existing nonconformities. 3. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: V.1. Yes. The granting of this variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Comprehensive Plan and/or the ULDC to other parcels of land, buildings, or structures, in the same district. The variance approval process is available to all, and individual requests may be approved by the Zoning Commission based on the project specific criteria. Granting of this variance will allow the applicant to pursue the proposed redevelopment of the site and will not confer a special privilege to the property owner. It is important to mention that the Zoning Comission granted a similar variance request for both the Palm Beach Transportation Communication Center (ZV2007-200) and for the CVS Pharmacy (ZV2009-3916) for extended hours of operation. The Palm Beach Transportation Communication Center had residential dwelling units adjacent to the entire western property line. V2: Yes. The building located on this lot was constructed 2 feet from the Shawnee Avenue ROW. Other existing commercial structures that were built under previous zoning codes would be given the same consideration with respect to required landscape buffers; thus no special privilege will be conferred on the applicant as a result of the grant of the variance. V3: Yes. The existing parking lot has a 5 foot. landscape buffer along the Shawnee Avenue ROW in accordance with the previously-approved site plan. Many other commercially-developed lots along Shawnee Avenue and other locations within the Westgate CRA have similar landscape buffers; thus, no special privilege will be conferred upon the applicant. V4: Yes. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance. The subject lot actually consists of seven (7) platted lots that will be combined subsequent to the variance and site plan approval processes. The subdivision of these lots, and thus their size, was not the result of actions by the applicant. A previous variance to acknowledge the lot size was approved for this lot as part of the rezoning process V5: Yes. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5 foot buffer to accommodate a 3-tiered approach to landscaping (groundcover, small and large shrubs). Therefore, the applicant is proposing to install medium shrubs only within the buffer. This planting is consistent with many commercially-developed parcels in the vicinity of the site and in the Westgate CRA in particular; thus no special privilege will be conferred upon the applicant as a result of the grant of the variance. Due to the age and existing site conditions, most parcels in the Westgate Community Redevelopment Area can not provide the required landscaping and have requested and received similar variance requests. V6: Yes. The requested 5 foot reduction in the incompatibility buffer is a result of the size of the subject lot. The proposed 10-ft. buffer will still provide the compatibility buffering and screening for the adjacent residential property, particularly since the buffer already contains the 6-ft. opaque wall noted on the plan. In this respect, no special privilege will be conferred upon the applicant as a result of the grant of the variance.


V7: Yes. The existing 5 foot buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (2004-00788). This existing buffer is proposed to be extended further west to tie in with the proposed restaurant expansion. This buffer will be supplemented with the extension of the wall as noted on the site plan. No special privilege will be conferred upon the applicant as a result of the grant of the variance. V8: Yes. The existing 5-ft. buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (2004-00788). This existing buffer is proposed to be extended further west to tie in with the proposed restaurant expansion. This buffer will be supplemented with the extension of the wall as noted on the site plan and planting of medium size hedge material. No special privilege will be conferred upon the applicant as a result of the grant of the variance. V9 and 10: Yes. Approval of the variance will allow the owner of the restaurant to construct a small covered patio with minimal seating for patrons who are waiting to be seated. Approval of the variance will not confer upon the owner any special consideration in this regard as many area restaurants have outdoor and sidewalk seating. 4. LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND WOULD WORK AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP: V.1. Yes. This site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Literal interpretation of the code would prohibit the subject site from offering retail (pharmacy) uses with extended hours of operation even though no residential units are adjacent to the subject site. The nature of the proposed restaurant expansion as a banquet hall will not adversely affect adjacent properties and literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant the reasonable use of the building routinely enjoyed by other restaurants and night clubs in the commercial zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. V2: Yes. The building located on this lot was constructed 2 feet from the Shawnee Avenue ROW; thus, there is inadequate space to provide the required ROW buffer. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require partial demolition of the existing building, negatively impacting the applicant’s redevelopment plans. V3: Yes. The existing parking lot has a 5 foot landscape buffer along the Shawnee Avenue ROW in accordance with the previously-approved site plan. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require tearing up existing pavement and the loss of subsequent parking spaces, negatively impacting the applicant’s redevelopment plans V4 and 5: Yes. The depth and width constraints of this lot constitute a special circumstance requiring the variance. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require elimination of a row of parking spaces and undermine the feasibility of the applicant’s redevelopment plans, thus constituting an undue and unnecessary hardship. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5 foot buffer to accommodate a 3-tiered approach to landscaping (groundcover, small and large shrubs). Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require elimination of required parking spaces and undermine the feasibility of the applicant’s redevelopment plans, thus constituting an undue and unnecessary hardship. V6: Yes. The requested 5 foot reduction in the incompatibility buffer is a result of the size of the subject lot. The proposed 10-ft. buffer will still provide the compatibility buffering and screening for the adjacent residential property, particularly since the buffer already contains the 6-ft. opaque wall noted on the plan. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require elimination of required parking spaces and undermine the feasibility of the applicant’s redevelopment plans, thus constituting an undue and unnecessary hardship.


V7: Yes. The existing 5-ft. buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (2004-00788). Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require elimination of a row of parking spaces and undermine the feasibility of the applicant’s redevelopment plans, thus constituting an undue and unnecessary hardship. V8: Yes. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would require elimination of required parking spaces and undermine the feasibility of the applicant’s redevelopment plans, thus constituting an undue and unnecessary hardship. V9 and 10: Yes. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the applicable code provisions would deprive the Applicant of a covered area where patrons could gather while awaiting to be seated. Such accommodations are routinely provided in area restaurants and serve a public benefit by providing protection from elements and reducing overcrowding and associated noise which would otherwise characterize the interior of the restaurant. In all likelihood, this area would be used for the same with or without the covered patio, but approval of the variance will afford greater comfort to the patrons consistent with opportunities commonly shared by similar establishments in the area. 5. GRANT OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: V.1. Yes. The granting of this variance is the minimum that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land and building. While the existing restaurant is vested in terms of the recent ULDC amendments that restricted commercial hours of operation to 11:00 PM when the use is within 250 feet of a residential zoning district, the proposed restaurant expansion is subject to this requirement. Since the existing restaurant and proposed banquet hall will be part of the same governing site plan, grant of the variance request is necessary in order to allow the site to function in accordance with the existing restaurant. The applicant is requesting only a 2-hour extension of this restriction and only for use on special occasions, such as a wedding reception that may extend past the 11:00 PM hour. In this regard, the requested variance is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable us of the property. V2: Yes. The building located on this lot was constructed 2 feet from the Shawnee Avenue ROW; thus, the requested variance of 13 feet is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable use of the property. V3: Yes. The existing parking lot has a 5 foot landscape buffer along the Shawnee Avenue ROW in accordance with the previously-approved site plan. The requested variance is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable use of the property and not result in tearing up the existing parking lot. V4 and 5: Yes. The 5 foot reduction in the landscape buffer is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable use of the property and still provide the row of required parking to meet the needs of the proposed redevelopment plan. Adequate space is not provided within the proposed 5-ft. buffer to accommodate variety and number of landscape plantings. The requested variance is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable us of the property while still providing adequate ROW buffers. . V6: Yes. The requested 5 foot reduction in the incompatibility buffer is a result of the size of the subject lot. The proposed 10 foot buffer will still provide the compatibility buffering and screening for the adjacent residential property, particularly since the buffer already contains the 6 foot. opaque wall noted on the plan. The requested variance is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable us of the property while still providing an adequate incompatibility buffer. V7 and 8: Yes. The existing 5 foot buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5 foot buffer (2004-00788). This existing buffer which is to include the extension of the 6 foot wall will provide adequate buffering to the adjacent residential property and is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable us of the property.


V9 and 10: Yes. The requested variance will allow the construction of a covered patio to seat approximately 15 patrons while still providing for foundation and perimeter plantings along Okeechobee Boulevard. A smaller covered patio would simply not be worth the cost of design, permitting and construction. 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: V.1. Yes. The purpose and intent of the hours of operation limitations on commercial businesses in proximity to residential properties is to insure that lighting and noise impacts are minimized. The proposed restaurant expansion (banquet facility) which is the subject of this variance has no proposed outdoor seating. All activities will take place within the existing building, thus reducing potential impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, the 2-hour, occasional use limitation that the applicant is proposing will insure that compatibility is achieved to the greatest extent possible. The hours of operation code provision was designed to protect adjacent residents from offensive and disruptive activities taking place after normal business hours, such as deliveries and stocking; these activities do not pose any additional impact since the site has been a commercial site for many years. V2, 3, and 4: Yes. Shawnee Avenue is a commercial street with little or no landscaping provided on either side of the roadway. The proposed landscaping that will be provided will enhance the streetscape and will thus be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC. The requested 5 foot variance to allow a 10 foot right of way buffer along Chickamauga Avenue will result in a 10 foot wide buffer, which is sufficient to provide adequate buffering to the abutting roadway and residential lots across the street. The proposed landscaping that will be provided will enhance the streetscape and will thus be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC. V5: Yes. The plantings within the 5-ft. landscape buffer that will be installed in the event that the variance is granted will provide an enhanced streetscape and will thus be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC. V6: Yes. The requested 5-ft.variance to allow a 10-ft. incompatibility buffer along abutting the existing residential home will result in a 10-ft. wide buffer which includes the existing 6-ft. high opaque wall. The proposed landscaping that will be provided will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC and provide adequate buffering. V7: Yes. The existing 5-ft. buffer along the south side of the easternmost parking lot was approved pursuant to Petition No. 94-067 on May 11, 2005 and received a prior variance approval to allow a 5-ft. buffer (2004-00788). The construction of the continuous wall as noted on the site plan will insure that the buffer will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC. V8: Yes. The construction of the continuous wall and planting of medium shrub material as noted on the site plan will insure that the buffer will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the ULDC. V9 and 10: Yes. The requested variance is not in conflict with provisions of the Plan or ULDC and has received support from the Westgate CRA which recognizes the value of the proposed project and the challenges faced by the owner in meeting current applicable planning and zoning standards. Approval of the variance request will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan in terms of redevelopment efforts in the Westgate CRA. 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: V.1. Yes. The granting of this requested variances will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. All activities will take place within the existing building, thus reducing potential impacts to adjacent properties. No outdoor activities or restaurant seating is proposed for the restaurant expansion/banquet hall facility. In addition, the 2-hour, occasional use


limitation that the applicant is proposing will insure that compatibility is achieved to the greatest extent possible V2-V8: Yes. The proposed reduction in landscape buffer width will have no effect on the public welfare and will not be injurious to the area. V9-V10: Yes. The proposed reduction in the rear setback to accommodate the covered patio will have no effect on the public welfare and will not be injurious to the area.

ZONING COMMISSION CONDITIONS

EXHIBIT C Type II Variance - Standalone VARIANCE 1. The Develpment Order for this variance shall be tied to the Time Limitations of the Development Order for (DRO 2010-2801) (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. At time of application for a building permit, the property owner shall provide a copy of this variance approval along with copies of the approved site plan to the Building Division. (BUILDING PERMIT:ZONING-Landscape) 3. Hours of business operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and limited to 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM Friday through Saturday. (ONGOING:CODE ENF-Zoning) 4. In granting this approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the property owner/applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance condition of this approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The issuance of a stop work order; the issuance of a cease and desist order; the denial or revocation of a building permit; the denial or revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO); the denial of any other permit, license or approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the revocation of any other permit, license or approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; revocation of any concurrency; and/or b. The revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other zoning approval; and/or c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing conditions; and/or d. Referral to code enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning)

ZC 05/05/2011 6 Application No.ZV-2010- 02831 BCC District 02 Control No. 2007-00342 Project No. 1000-861

Exhibit D: Disclosure Form(s)


Exhibit E: Applicants Justification

palm beach county planning, zoning and building … · allow for the expansion of the okeechobee...

Documents