PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND ... 09/04/2014 Page 95 Application No.ZV-2014- 00911 BCC...

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 95

Application No.ZV-2014- 00911 BCC District 07 Control No. 1977-00133

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ZONING DIVISION

ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT

09/04/2014

APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE

ZV-2014- 00911

8.G.1.A.4 Signage, Standards for Specific Signs, Building Mounted Signs, Wall Signs.

1 square foot (sq.ft.) for each lineal foot of building frontage = 80 sq.ft.

3.23 sq.ft. for each lineal foot of building frontage = 258.34 sq.ft.

An additional 178.34 sq.ft.

SITUS ADDRESS: AFFECTED LOCATION

4262 Okeechobee Blvd West Palm Beach 33409

SITUS ADDRESSES OF DEVELOPMENT:

1870 and 1872 N Military Trl West Palm Beach, FL 33409 4254 through 4370 Okeechobee Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409

AGENT NAME & ADDRESS:

Autumn Sorrow Dunay, Miskel, Backman and Blattner, LLP 14 SE 4th Street Boca Raton, FL 33432

OWNER NAME & ADDRESS:

Cross County Owner LLC 3333 New Hyde Park Road New Hyde Park, NY 11042

PCN: 0-42-43-25-00-000-1510

ZONING DISTRICT: General Commercial (CG)

BCC DISTRICT: 07

PROJECT MANAGER: Melissa Matos, Site Planner I

LEGAL AD:

ZV-2014-00911 Title: Resolution approving a Type II Variance application of Party City - Trista Baker by Dunay, Miskel, Backman and Blattner, LLP, Agent. Request: to allow an increase in sign area for a wall sign. General Location: Southeast corner of Okeechobee Boulevard and Military Trail. (PARTY CITY) (1977-00133)

LAND USE: Commercial High with underlying 8 du/ac (CH/8)

S/T/R: 25-43-42

CONTROL #: 1977-00133

LOT AREA: 42.8-acres +/-

LOT DIMENSIONS: Approximately 1280’ x 1280’

CONFORMITY OF LOT: Yes CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT:

Existing - Non-conforming Proposed - Not Constructed

TYPE OF ELEMENT: Wall Sign ELEMENT SIZE: 6.9’ x 37.5’

BUILDING PERMIT #: N/A NOTICE OF VIOLATION:

N/A

CONSTRUCTION STATUS:

New sign is proposed and not Constructed

APPLICANT REQUEST: to allow an increase in sign area for a wall sign.

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 96


STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.B.3.E of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which an applicant must meet before the Zoning Commission who may authorize a variance.

If the Zoning Commission approves the Variance, Staff suggests it be subject to the Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C.

PROJECT HISTORY The 42.8-acre parcel of land, was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on October 25, 1977 to allow a Large Scale Community Shopping Center, with multiple commercial uses generally consisting of retail, and restaurant uses. The project has had several modifications to the plan as indicated in the project history below.

Application No. Request Resolution Approval Date

Z/SE-1977-00133 To allow an Official Zoning Map Amendment to rezone from the CG Zoning District and allow a Special Exception for a Large Scale Community Shopping Center in excess of 50,000 sq.ft.

R-1977-1191 09/29/1977

SE-1977-00133 (A)

To allow a special exception to amend the site plan for a Large Scale Community Shopping center and increase the square footage (6,200 sq.ft.).

R-1987-1123 07/28/1987

DOA-1977-00133 (B)

To modify Conditions of Approval. R-1989-1314 03/30/1989

SE-1977-00133 (C)

To amend the Site Plan for a Large Scale Community Shopping Center in excess of 50,000 sq.ft. to increase the building square footage and extinguish an auto service facility.

R-1990-1296 02/22/1990

DOA-1977-00133 (D)

To modify Conditions of Approval. R-1993-895 07/29/1993

BA-95-32 To eliminate the requirement for reserved land for parking.

Result Letter 06/1995

DOA-1977-00133 (E)

To delete land area, amend the site plan and delete a Condition of Approval.

R-1995-1018 07/27/1995

DOA-1977-133 (F)

To redesign the Master Plan and modify Conditions of Approval.

R-1997-966 06/23/1997

BATE-1996-0048 Time Extension for BA-95-32. Result Letter 01/27/1998

BA-1997-00061 To allow an existing legal non-conforming point of purchase sign to be relocated on-site.

Result Letter 07/21/1998

BA-1998-00037 To allow a reduction in the required off street parking spaces.


BA-1998-00095 To allow reduction in 78 required parking spaces for the Cross County Plaza Shopping Center. The 78 spaces are located on Parcel "G", which is located on the south side of Westgate Ave.


DOA-1997-00133 (G)

To modify conditions of approval, add land area, and add square footage.

R-1998-0876 06/25/1998

DOA-2007-01776 To reconfigure the Site Plan and add square footage.

R-2008-01694 09/29/2008

Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses NORTH: FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning General Commercial (CG) Supporting: Commercial Multiple Parcels of land- Type II Restaurant (Boston Chicken, Control No 1995-00013); General Retail; Vehicles Rental; and, Type I Restaurant

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 97


SOUTH: FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Supporting: Commercial General Retail FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning General Commercial (CG) Supporting: Commercial Vacant FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning District: Residential Multifamily (RM) Supporting: Public School EAST: FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning District: Residential Multifamily (RM) Supporting: Residential – Single Family (South Forty Partnership, Control No 1984-00025) FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning District: General Commercial District (CG) Supporting: General Commercial (Okeechobee Retail, Control No 1997-00053) WEST: FLU Designation: Commercial High, with an underlying HR-8 (C/HR8) Zoning General Commercial District (CG) Supporting: Commercial, MUPD mix of General Retail, Type I and II Restaurants, and Convenience Store with Gas Sales (Pine Trail Shopping Center, 1978-00273)

STAFF SUMMARY

The request is for a Type II Variance from Table 8.G.1.A Wall Sign Standards to allow an increase in wall sign area located along the front façade for a retail tenant of Building E in the Cross County Mall development.

The tenant space storefront is 80 linear feet and is within the Urban Suburban Tier. Wall signage is calculated at 1.0 square foot for each 1.0 linear foot of building frontage to which the sign is attached. Additionally, the Code allows for an increase in sign area if the Property Owner/Applicant is proposing channel letters (+20%). This would allow an 80 sq.ft. sign or 96 sq.ft. sign with channel letters. The Applicant’s request is to allow 258.34 sq.ft. wall sign for the Party City retail tenant located in Building E. This is an increase of 178.34 sq.ft. The development has had a long history of amendments and modifications to the shopping center since its original approval in 1977. In 1997, the development was granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow non-conforming point of purchase (free-standing) signs be relocated on site. At the time of that Variance approval, the Staff Report and Applicant’s request summarized the need for the signs to remain and relocate to assist in the redevelopment of the site in 1998-99. The intent was to maintain signage visibility for the existing tenants along Okeechobee Blvd. & Military Trail.

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 98


In the most recent Development Order Amendment, approved on September 29, 2008 Staff indicated in the Staff Report that no changes were proposed to the existing signs, some of which were non-conforming. They referenced the approved Variance, Conditions of Approval, and the Master Sign Plan submitted with the application (Figure 5). The MSP indicated that the wall signage would be 1 sq.ft. for each lineal feet of frontage. A Master Sign Plan (MSP) is required for all development that is subject to the review and approval by the Development Review Officer, Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The purpose and intent of the MSP is to provide a unified record of signs and to promote coordinated signage for the development as a whole. During the review and analysis of the proposed request, Staff met with the Agents for the Applicant. Staff requested the Agent analyze the development as a whole and not just individually, or at the very least for Building E. The Agent stated that since they only represent the tenant Applicant, they could not comply to the request. Staff had completed this analysis for Building E (see chart below) and has found that there are a number of non-conforming signs, which were approved prior to the MSP, including the existing Party City Sign. Renovation would require the tenants to come into compliance with the MSP and the Code. Staff also suggested the use of directional signage if there were concerns of customers getting to the tenant once inside the development. This suggestion was never investigated. Lastly Staff suggested the Agent explore a smaller sign that was reasonable for the façade of this tenant and for the entire development. It was agreed at the meeting that utilizing the boundary lines of the existing signage of 150 sq.ft. would be a reasonable alternate design option. On August 7, 2014 the Agent submitted a sketch for a sign of 179.03 sq.ft, which exceeds the agreed alternate design square footage.

Existing Signs for Building E (based on sign permits)

Address Tenant Name Sign – sf / lf Sign Sq.Ft.

4254 David’s Bridal 1.0 57 sf 2

4256 Men’s Warehouse 1.0 32 sf

4258 Empire Beauty School 1.0 25 sf

4262 Party City 1.5 1 120 sf

4266 US Tops 1.5 1 147.5 sf

2

4270 Kings Super Buffet 1.5 1 120 sf

4278/4280 Well Care 1.0 37 sf

4282 La Granja 1.0 +20% 42 sf

4284 Nails 1.5 1 22 sf

2

4286 (Vacant) 1.0 25 sf 2

4288 Dental 1.0 17.7 sf

4294 Jackson-Hewitt 1.5 1 14.5 sf

4296/4298 Rent-A-Center 1.5 1 59 sf

Approx. Total Sq.Ft. of Signage for Building E 718.7 sf

1 – Prior to Master Sign Plan 2 – Approximate based on storefront linear foot

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:

No. No special conditions or circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land and not to other developments within the same Zoning District. On September 29, 2009 the Preliminary Master Sign Plan was presented to the Board of County Commissioners and finalized by the Development Review Officer on April 8th, 2009. The wall signage calculation allowed for 1 square foot of sign area for every linear foot of building frontage. There are 13 tenants within Building E that have been subject to the same signage requirements as the Applicant, all having the similar roadway setbacks and site conditions within the mall. All tenants within the shopping center are required to comply with the approved Master Sign Plan.

2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant:

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 99


No. This variance request is a result of the actions by the Applicant as there are alternative design options. The sign can be designed to comply with Code requirements by constructing a sign that meets the maximum area of 80 square feet, similar to adjacent tenants. The proposal can be revised to include options for bonus area for use of channel letters. 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, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

No. Granting this variance will confer a special privilege not allowed by the Code and not available to other parcels of land and buildings/tenant spaces within this same development. There are alternative sign options that can comply with Code requirements that meet the maximum of 80 square feet sign face area similar to adjacent tenants. The Applicant’s Justification Statement contests that a larger sign is needed to “safely direct motorists and pedestrians to the Property” and “The variance would not be necessary if the Shopping Center was not obstructed from outparcels along Military Trail and Okeechobee Boulevard.” Firstly the Applicant has two existing Freestanding Signs, one along Okeechobee and the other at Military Trail. These tenant signs is what identifies its presence within the shopping center from along the two major roadways. Secondly, The Applicant had an opportunity to explore the option of directional signage within the development, which would alleviate any concerns regarding visibility. This condition is similar for tenants adjacent to the Applicant, as well as the other tenants within in the vicinity of the shopping center. Third, the issue was discussed and analyzed when the variance for the freestanding signs was granted per the subsequent Development Order to reconfigure and redevelop the shopping center.

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:

No. The literal interpretation of the code would not create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant as there are alternative site design options for a smaller sign. Prior to the approval of the Master Sign Plan the tenant was able to construct a sign at 1.5 square foot of signage area for every linear foot of tenant frontage for a 120 square foot sign. The Applicant is requesting an even larger sign than was previously permitted. The other tenants within the same parcel are subject to, and have abided with the same standards as the Applicant. Therefore there is no deprivation of rights by the Applicant. 5. Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of

the parcel of land, building or structure:

No. The granting of the variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel of land. The Applicant had a discussion with Staff about how to reduce the sign area to be reasonable for the entire development. If every tenant was able to increase the sign face area of their signs to the degree of the Applicants, then the front of Building E would be a continuous sign of varying logos across the façade. The variance request is a result of the actions by the applicant as there are alternative site design options. The sign can be designed to comply with Code requirements to meet the maximum of 80 square feet. 6. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies

of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code: No. The granting of the variance will not be consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Plan and the Code. The proposed request would not be compliant to the approved Master Sign Plan and the application coordinated signage for the development. The Applicant is also requesting 138.34 sq.ft. beyond the prior approval requirements.

7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to

the public welfare: Yes. The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved yet would be detrimental as the purpose and intent of Code is to establish consistent standards for the placement and use of signs and other advertising. The consistency in the standards is especially significant within a large development to maintain similar requirements for all tenants.

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 100


ZONING COMMISSION CONDITIONS

EXHIBIT C Type II Variance - Standalone VARIANCE 1. This Variance is approved based on the layout as shown on the Sign Detail dated June 23, 2014. Only minor modifications by Zoning Commission or Development Review Officer shall be permitted provided the changes are consistent with this Plan. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 2. This Variance is approved for a maximum wall sign of 150 square feet. Any change to this maximum signage shall require reconsideration of the Variance by the Zoning Commission. (BLDGPMT: BLDG - Zoning) 3. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the current Final Master Sign Plan shall be amended to reflect this Type II Variance Approval. (BLDGPMT: BLDG - Zoning) 4. 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 Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT: BLDG - Zoning) 5. 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) 6. 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; 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; the 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 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) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit.

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 101


Figure 1 Aerial

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 102


Figure 2 Zoning Map

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 103


Figure 3 Proposed Sign Detail dated June 23, 2014

Proposed Sign: 258.34 Existing Sign: 120 SF (prior to Master Sign Plan)

Allowable Sign: 80 SF

ZC 09/04/2014 4


Figure 4 Final Master Plan dated April 8, 2009

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 105


Figure 5 Preliminary Master Sign Plan dated September 29, 2008

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 106


Figure 6 Final Master Sign Plan dated April 8, 2009

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 107


Exhibit D Disclosures

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 108


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 109


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 110


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 111


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 112


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 113


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 114


Exhibit E Applicant’s Justification Statement

ZC 09/04/2014 Page 115


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 116


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 117


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 118


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 119


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 120


ZC 09/04/2014 Page 121


Exhibit F Westgate CRA Approval Letter dated May 13, 2014

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND ... 09/04/2014 Page 95 Application No.ZV-2014- 00911 BCC...

Documents

Transcript of PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND ... 09/04/2014 Page 95 Application No.ZV-2014- 00911 BCC...