PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT 07/05/2012 APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE ZV-2012-00690 3.D.1.A 15- foot side 0 15 feet Street side setback street setback 7.F.7.E Walls and Fences Walls or fences shall be setback a minimum of ten feet from the edge of the ultimate R-O-W 0-foot setback 10 feet 7.F.3.B Landscape - Walls & Fences: Location of Planting 2 Trees Interior - 19 Shrubs 0 Trees Interior - 0 Shrubs 2 Trees Interior - 19 Shrubs 7.F.3.B Landscape - Walls & Fences: Location of Planting Exterior - 19 Shrubs Exterior - 0 Shrubs Exterior - 19 Shrubs 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: OWNER NAME & ADDRESS: Kevin McGinley Land Research Management, Inc. 2240 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL 33409 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 ZC July 5, 2012 Page 53
ZONING DISTRICT: 00-43-43-30-03-008-0310 00-43-43-30-03-007-0270 00-43-43-30-03-008-0080 CG BCC DISTRICT: 07 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 a reduction in the side street setback; to allow a reduction in the Right-of- Way setback for a fence; and to eliminate the required trees and shrubs on both sides of a fence along the west property line. 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 #: 1994-00067 LOT AREA: 1.74 acres +/- LOT DIMENSIONS: Approximately 342.5 x 328.78 CONFORMITY OF LOT: TYPE OF ELEMENT: BUILDING PERMIT #: CONSTRUCTION STATUS: APPLICANT REQUEST: Setbacks are nonconforming Existing landscape is nonconforming None built CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT: ELEMENT SIZE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: None None None to allow a reduction in the side street setback; to allow a reduction in the Right-of-Way setback for a fence; and to eliminate the required trees and shrubs on both sides of a fence along the west property line. STAFF SUMMARY Type II Zoning Variance Request Proposed are 4 Type II Zoning Variances for the 1.74-acre Okeechobee Steakhouse Restaurant. The site was last approved for 10 Type II Zoning Variances for the restaurant expansion by the Zoning Commission on May 5, 2011 and received Final Site Plan approval by the Development Review Officer on August 22, 2011. The applicant is requesting the first variance from the Property Development Regulations to allow a reduction from the side street setback along Wabasso Drive from 15 feet to 0 feet. The second variance request is to allow a reduction in the Right-of-Way setback for a fence along Wabasso Drive from 10 feet to 0 feet. Finally, the applicant requests an elimination of the required plant material in a right-of-way buffer along Wabasso Drive. The applicant ultimately proposes to construct a covered patio with a fence to accommodate the patrons of the existing restaurant. 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 Wabasso Drive Chickamuaga Avenue, in the Urban 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 ZC July 5, 2012 Page 54
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. 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. On May 5, 2011, the Zoning Commission approved ten Type II Variances relating to hours of operation, setbacks, and landscaping with the adoption of Resolution 2011-07. The site received Final Site Plan approval for a Type II Restaurant and Banquet facility, under application DRO 2010-2801; approved on August 22, 2011. 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 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 the 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 recent expansion of Okeechobee Steakhouse to include a banquet facility and add land area was previously found to be compatible and consistent with the other uses in the vicinity during the previous approval; the requested variance will not affect compatibility. ZC July 5, 2012 Page 55
Figure 1 Preliminary Site plan dated June 5, 2012 ZC July 5, 2012 Page 56
Figure 2 Preliminary Regulating plan dated May 25, 2012 ZC July 5, 2012 Page 57
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 as 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. Summary of Article 7.F.7.E, Wall and Fences in a ROW Buffer; and 7.F.3.B, Plant Material Walls and Fences The intent of Articles 7.F.7.E and 7.F.3.B, are to establish the location of a fence or wall in a Right-of- Way buffer and the minimum landscape materials along the interior and exterior of the fence/wall. 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, refuse collection, utility enclosures or other service area visible from a public street, alley, or pedestrian area. 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. Since the variance requests 2-4 all relate to relief from the requirement of Walls or Fences in Right-of- Way Buffers, all 3 variance requests have been analyzed together addressing the seven (7) criteria: ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.B.3.E 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist with respect to the requested variance in terms of existing site conditions and the approval of previous variances. The existing side street setback for the Okeechobee Steak House restaurant (Wabasso Drive right-of-way) is 9 feet. Within that 9 foot side setback is a pedestrian walkway which provides access from the rear of the restaurant to the front entrance. In addition, a driveway exit is located just north of the restaurant entrance, connecting the existing parking area to Wabasso Drive. Pursuant to previous variance approvals (ZV2010-02831), this driveway exit was to be closed and a covered patio extended north of the restaurant entrance; however, the driveway (and approved patio extension) cannot be closed until a cross-access agreement with the property owner to the east is obtained. Despite repeated attempts, no such agreement has been reached with the adjacent property owner and as a result, no accommodation reached with County permitting agencies that will allow the driveway exit to be closed and the approved patio to be constructed. The applicant/owner therefore is requesting the side street variance to allow construction of the covered patio on the west side of the existing restaurant rather than the north side. Approval of the variance will allow the exit to remain open and the existing parking area to remain in its present configuration until a cross access agreement is obtained. As part of the DRO Final Site Plan approval that was obtained subsequent to the 2010 variance approvals, the owner is required to construct a sidewalk within the Wabasso Drive right-of-way to accommodate pedestrian traffic and patrons of the restaurant, thus eliminating the need for the existing pedestrian walkway on the subject property. These special circumstances are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district. ZC July 5, 2012 Page 58
V2-V4: Yes. Special circumstances and conditions also apply to the requested variances for landscaping along the proposed fence to be attached to the covered patio. The fence is proposed in order to provide privacy and screening from traffic along Wabasso Drive. The 9-foot wide area between the existing restaurant and the west property line where the patio is proposed to be constructed is barely wide enough to provide space for patrons waiting to be seated in the restaurant. Installing required landscaping on the interior and exterior sides of the proposed fence would reduce the seating area in the patio to a point where it would not be feasible to construct the patio. The Applicant is therefore requesting relief from the landscaping requirements adjacent to the proposed fence. As an alternative to the required installation of landscaping adjacent to the proposed fence, the Applicant is seeking approval from to install landscaping in the Wabasso Drive right-of-way (hedge material) as a means of softening the exterior side of the proposed fence. 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: V.1. Yes. The subject property s present configuration, including the existing side street setback, resulted from eminent domain actions associated with the widening of Okeechobee Boulevard and construction of Wabasso Drive, neither of which resulted from action of the applicant. The loss of direct access to Okeechobee Boulevard as a result of its expansion has resulted in the requirement for a cross access agreement with the eastern property owner in order to close the existing driveway exit. In addition, Wabasso Road right-of-way has been expanded since the restaurant was established in the mid-1940s. These special circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. V2-V4: Yes. The existing building side street setback to Wabasso Drive is 9 feet which barely provides sufficient area to allow seating under the proposed patio addition. This reduced setback has existed since the restaurant was established over 60 years ago and continued to exist through the widening of Wabasso Drive. The special circumstances and conditions resulting from this reduced setback and the inability of the Applicant to locate the proposed patio to its intended position on the north side of the restaurant (as a result of the cross access issue discussed above) do not result from actions of the Applicant. 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 applicant states that the proposed outdoor patio (and thus the associated variance request for the reduced side street setback) is a familiar and complementary feature of quality restaurants such as the Okeechobee Steak House. Granting of the variance will not confer a special privilege upon the owner/applicant which is not routinely enjoyed by other restaurants in the same zoning district. Approval of the variance to allow the covered patio will not increase the restaurant seating or building square footage above that which has been approved on the Final Site Plan (Exhibit 2, Application No. 2010-2801); rather, it will serve as a temporary seating area for patrons awaiting their indoor restaurant seating. V2-V4: Yes. The location of the proposed fence which is intended to provide a measure of screening from traffic on Wabasso Drive, and the deletion of the required landscaping will not confer a special privilege to the Applicant and can be offset by the existing trees and proposed landscaping within the Wabasso Drive right-of-way. 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. Literal interpretation of the governing provisions of the code will result in the inability of the owner/applicant to provide a much needed outdoor waiting area while still allowing the site to function in accordance with approved design standards and requirements. The applicant states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant the reasonable use ZC July 5, 2012 Page 59
of the property and would curtail the redevelopment plans for the Okeechobee Steak House and its associated properties. V2-V4: Yes. Literal interpretation of the fence location standard and the required landscaping would result in a patio area insufficient to serve its intended purpose and would in all likelihood provide a hardship that would eliminate the proposed covered patio as an option to serve waiting customers. 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 request to extend the patio 9 feet into the side street setback is the minimum that will allow the owner/applicant to provide a few temporary tables and chairs to accommodate restaurant patrons while still accommodating pedestrian traffic and staff. The applicant states that anything less than the 9-foot wide area would be inadequate to serve the intended use. V2-V4: Yes. The deletion of the required landscaping along the proposed fence is the minimum that would allow the 9-foot wide area to be used for the intended purpose. Landscaping is proposed within the right-of-way for Wabasso Drive and planters will be installed on the exterior side of the fence as space allow. As a condition of approval the applicant will be required to install bollards on the exterior side of the fence to protect the patrons from any potential vehicular accident. The requests constitute the minimum variances necessary to use this area reasonably. 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: V.1-V4. Yes. Grant of the requested variance is consistent with redevelopment efforts of the Westgate CRA, the Comprehensive Plan and ULDC because it promotes the reasonable use of the subject property and recognizes the challenges and constraints that established businesses encounter with adhering to development regulations and eminent domain actions that were not in place when the businesses were established. 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: V.1-V4 Yes. The requested variance will not be injurious or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as it represents an insignificant change to the existing, established restaurant that has served the community for over 70 years. No changes to pedestrian or vehicular access, landscaping or other design features are associated with the request. ZC July 5, 2012 Page 60
EXHIBIT C Type II Variance - Standalone ZONING COMMISSION CONDITIONS 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. Prior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall revise the Site and Regulating Plans to provide for bollards along the west side of the proposed patio and fence. (BUILDING PERMIT:ZONING-Landscape) 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) Exhibit D: Disclosure(s) ZC July 5, 2012 Page 61
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 62
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 63
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 64
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 65
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 66
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 67
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 68
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 69
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 70
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 71
Exhibit E: Applicants Justification ZC July 5, 2012 Page 72
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 73
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 74
ZC July 5, 2012 Page 75