AGENDA DOCUMENTS
2NCO c,~1- 001'
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
, Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
0 July 20, 1999
0 August 3, 1999
~ August 17,1999
0 September 7, 1999
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
July 7, 1999 (5:00 p.m.)
o September 21, 1999
o October 5, 1999
o October 19,1999
o November 2, 1999
October 20,1999 (5:00 p,m.)
September 8, 1999 (5:00 p.m.)
July 21,1999 (5:00 p.m.)
September 22, 1999 (5:00 p.m.)
August 4, 1999 (5:00 p.m.)
October 6, 1999(5:00 p.m.)
August 18, 1999 (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
~ Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on the August 17, 1999 City Commission agenda under Consent-
Ratification of Planning and Development Board Action. The Planning and Development Board with a unanimous vote,
recommended approval. No conditions of approval are recommended...For further details pertaining to this request see
attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 99-196.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
LOCA nON:
DESCRIPTION:
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/ A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
The Center for Self Discovery
Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews
112 S.E. 23RD Avenue
Request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article III., Section 5., requiring a 10 foot setback for a
sign, to allow a 7 foot variance, or 3 foot side setback.
City Manager's Signature
fitrO. ~
Planning and oning Director
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
1:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP'.PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF DISCOVERY\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST 8-17.9900T
Dc \F ~LOPMENT SERVICES DEPAF\. ,v.cNT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM #99-196
Staff Report
Planning and Development Board
and
City Commission
Meeting
Date:
August 10, 1999
File No:
ZNCV 99-004 Sign setback from side property line (formerly front setback
request)
Location:
112 SE 23rd Ave
Owner:
Anne Salter I Carrie Mathews
Project
Name:
The Center for Self Discovery
Variance
Request:
Request for a variance from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article III. Section 5., to allow a nine (9) foot
reduction from the minimum ten (10) foot front setback.
BACKGROUND
The subject property, located on the south side of S.E, 23rd Avenue just east of the intersection
with Seacrest Boulevard, has been used for a medical or professional office since 1981. The
sign identifying this business had been in place for the last 18 years, and as it was located one ~
(1) foot from the front property line, it qualified as a legally non-conforming, or "grandfatheredn
sign (see Exhibit "An - Location Map).
In October of 1998, the applicant contacted City staff to obtain information relative to sign
replacement. The applicant ultimately applied for the necessary sign permit and, removed the
existing non-conforming sign not realizing the consequences of this action (a newly erected
sign must conform to current regulations). The permit was then denied based on non-
compliance with required setbacks. Exhibit "Bn shows the former/proposed location, the
location recommended by staff, and the proposed sign.
This segment of S.E. 23rd Avenue consists of many former single family homesllots that have
been converted, beginning with the rezoning process, to medical offices. Due to lot constraints,
limited parking facilities occupy most front yards thereby leaving minimal space for site signage.
Most signs in this vicinity do not conform to the minimum setback of 10 feet. Staff viewed
nearby signs and estimates that front setbacks for other site signs within.this area range
between one (1) foot and six (6) feet.
,
Page 2
Center for Self Discovery
File No. ZNCV 99-196
With respect to future right-of-way expansion, the survey submitted with the application shows
the existence of a 15 foot wide "Proposed Right-of-Way dedicationn across the property's front
Ya.~d running parallel to SE 23rd Avenue, (see hatched area on survey - Exhibit "Cn). An
explanation of said 15 foot right-of-way was required as given its potential effect on the review
of this request. The applicant's explanation is contained in Exhibit "Dn.
ANAL YSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance can not be approved unless the board finds the
following:
a. That 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.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district.
d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of
the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building, or structure.
f. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
(Exhibit "En contains the applicant's response to the above criteria.)
Staff has conducted this analysis with the assumption that, based that on the city's prior
approval of the rezoning of said lots from residential for professional offices, that the city has
acknowledged the potential for creating certain hardships and non-conformities on these lots
along S.E. 23rd Avenue (e.g. parking space deficiencies, signage, building setbacks, etc).
Therefore, staff has focused this analysis on item "en above, which requires that the request
represent the minimum possible deviation from city regulations...staff reviewed the site with this
intent, and determined that the request for a side setback variance of 7 feet represents the
minimum variance necessary to maintain a site sign on the property. Rather than requiring a
variance from the front setback as required to return a sign to theoriginallocation, the
alternative location would meet the front setback of 10 feet, and only require a side setback
variance of 7 feet, to allow the sign to be placed 3 feet from the side property line. Although
this alternative may result in the justification for a higher sign, to provide for proper visibility over
'2..
Page 3
Center for Self Discovery
File No. ZNCV 99-196
the existing hedge, this alternative will minimize the variance required (requiring a 7 foot
variance rather than a 9 foot variance), and will minimize the potential for the sign to obstruct
th~, vision of exiting patrons. It should be stated that this analysis placed low emphasis on the
issue of potential roadway expansion and the County's thoroughfare plan, as the right-of-way
has not been acquired; the adjacent road is not on the county's road improvement plan, the
expansion of this roadway may never occur, and even if right-of-way was acquired and
expanded the sign could be easily relocated. As indicated on the attached survey (Exhibit "Cn),
and described in the letter from the attorney for the applicant, future right-of-way is shown on
the survey but has not been acquired nor dedicated (see Exhibit "Dn).
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that this request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article III. Section 5 to
allow a 7 foot side setback variance be approved. Staff has not recommended any conditions
of approval; however, If conditions of approval are added by the Board and Commission, said
conditions shall be listed in Exhibit "Fn.
\\C~IN\SHROATA\Planning\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF OISCOVERY\2nd ZON.VAR S'rAFF REP-SeIf Oiscovery.doC
3
EXHIBIT ",
.- ,-1;;;i.I
-
--- - ---
C3 ....
~j ~
i~
: ___L
--
-~ .
'I. ""'"f/!'
'~~:( :",
,-. : .
"j . , I
./1 ;
.t_'--"
-
~ T--r
rlR
U L
i
. ,I
--:. -r=.-""'- . , : -~i-: I -~ .
1~7B~ M '
1._" .l~l. "I
_' I ~ ~_' -. f''''-~--- ril
: ..........~j r--- I.' .
. .. - - ~~ ' .1_----1 I fJ
1..-.---- ..
-- ~.-----' -- .....-
I
, \.-'/
,:I~R\3 .... :3 ,R.:EC:
'/ ~~
i' - ",._411' , r::---
...;;, ............ ..- ~ 1_'1 /- ~>:-:.,
l:-i. 'i._ . -. ;--' .0\,
. ,
'_ I #.
, . - .., t
: . .... . .lRj3
, d
L-- _ -, .J~1
/'
..../ -
....
~
~ .0 1/8
"""" 'I.
"0400. 'SOO FEET
, ~ ....1,,,-. .
, --~ ,-- .,
~ .. ,- . ....~
-n:c: . '.
. l.
'll:l
~
_ ... . .......olI ..
i
aa..~~" L-.-S. ~.. I
.. I ".I;
.r" -"r--_.4 .. i
'.' T'~l!"'" .. -f - I
... ~ 1..
J .. . ,I
~. ... .. . ..
- "" .,;... -J:.i . .....:..-l
--
~~
..
..
,.. <4
:::....... ~
E)a-l~BIT "B"
~~ I
~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
~
.;' ,,~..
...." ,,"
~ ~ .C>~ . .... ~u ~, ,
~ ~ ~ t . ... ~ ~~,
~~~ii ~~~ '- ~J ~
~,~l ~~I~~t ~{ill ~~:. ~~~
" h" ~~, ,,~~,
. .~" , " ~ ~ ~ . .
g ." '\I . ,,::qB liT
" GlP """" ~ij" !Ii!:
~"'';:J ' .t~'. '''10. !~i
~~.ii '.4t,_......AI.....v .
..Pdt ~j? /~ V#-JPIJU... .-.
c
0
:;::; i
as
()
.2 If:
i
...
U;
-8 ~I
.... c 8 1 tl
... 0100
CD .- Q
E B~I ~.
.... ~I I
0 o~i .-ft"1
- ~J~ ~
i Ii ~I
c~J ~J
CDa
co E. i! 0
~ ~~I
() , j@
.. ~ ~~ (!'j {J
IME B
'" ij'
~ ... ()
@:Q) ....,
j"" ~ ~
'" 0
;o~
~ii
;;o~ .. -- -.---"
~i2 ~
~~iD
~@~
~ ~
~ ~
.. ~i
co
~o~
~
M:!Iy
~ ~~ - ._--
~ - ....:...-
! ~y
~
5 .- .
-~
J
~
~
,.'
~::'.::>. :~:.
Y'~i.: '~'''?4!j;b,t?' .
f~'~:-~df/1!)~~~' ".
\,.
'r~P'A/i?" ..
~"/~j(i,,,,..
..:. ~A,,; '..~
. .....(,,~ .'.
. ,",i.,...". not: .
wllldwhhout ....
. .lIIllioaMct....
..Id~~" 7/#/$""
~A'..G" .I'/',fT,H'#f.
~~.;~t(lJII"M
.. ....
..i'
.. ...-~
.M ,..__.....~..t-M...-.;.;..,;..._;.;:..~ ..~-
,"~~-t.~::.:y~:.~j:~:'.:i.E;;,3:~:h~:;\.~.I.;}}.; ~~I. .":'. .' .:: ,
.,....__...::..' ~~. If...!,'!'I!'l..........._......~J..~.~.' . .,.II;~._.. ..' .~~;~.a:~o'.
,., -~~.. ..~f~~"'~!-!""'~'-'''-''''~''''IIIfIIl'~':
.1''91" 1he1lf-;,ot:...'*'lIIIP!...4!I!I-....~..,IlI'.~.l'f!l'f!!il&A*lJjnl..,......~..:.' ".;..' : "'0".
... "":'. ~,.~;;.~~;;~)i~';l.h~~~~:;.~;~.;:~ij}.:::.(;l;;..":..<:"~'::."~: :':~;::::', .... ".;::':'." ".::;,' .:..:~:~.~Qf".IIO.I;,,:4:,fJ.. 'J
._. ...r..;
......~~.... .~.;...:,l..\... ..l.~,..:., . '.~~..: . ...~... ~.
&J.
EXHIBIT "I
RUDEN
MCCLOSKY
SMITH
eCH~STER &
RUSSELL, P.A.
222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE
SUITE 800
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401-6112
1St; 11 8JlS-4500
F1\X: (561l 832-3036
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (5611838-4538
E..-.v.Il; FSP@RUDEN.COM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 29, 1999
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director
Department of Planning & Zoning
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Center for Self Discovery (V.A Salter). 112 S.E. 23d Ave., Sign Code Variance
Request (planning & Zoning Board Meeting of 5/11/99)
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
I represent the owners of the above-referenced parcel who have applied for a variance from
the Boynton Beach Sign Code in order to install a commercial identification sign in the front yard
of this Property. The site is U5ed for professional offices.
I am informed that your variance application requirements include a survey of the property,
I am further informed that your office gave permission to the property owners to use an existing
survey of their property with the caveat that they assume responsibility for any matTers of record
contained in or missing from the survey. The survey proffered by the o\\ners was prepareu in 1990
by the firm of O'Brien Suiter & O'Brien, Inc. (Field Book 8100, Page 72, Job No. 82-305-A) (a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit "A"). This survey contains a handwritten notation (in the form of
hatch marks and printed words) indicating the existence ofa 15 foot wide "Proposed Right-of-Way
Dedication" across the property's front yard running parallel to S.E. 23d Avenue. I understand that
your office has asked for an explanation of this notation because it may affect your recommendation
to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council regarding the variance request. My letter is
intended to address your concerns.
Inaneffiorttoaddre"~th1'''I!1atte'' Ih!n,p~."';l'ou,~11hAf.;..11",..,:...,.A"'~"4""'._" '1\':-.:" ".', .
-,t:1=' ..;;1 . ,j.l ...._. _..... __.. _~ .......... .J.'\..___ .'.eJO _J....-..........' "J".,.,. _..< ..... -'..'
(2) an Ownership and Encumbrance Report for the Property prepared for lJ~e by COlrlmOf1'."elli:h
Land Title Company (File No. FM-86379, 4/13/99) (attached as .:xhibit .'B~'); fu!d (3~ th.: P!~;! of
Highpoint Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 225, Official Re~ords ofPahll Bc~.:h COtlr.ty.
Florida (attached as Exhibit "e"). I have also spoken to Mr. David Cuff, P.E.. Assistant Cour.ty
Engineer in the Land Development Division of Palm Beach County Dt:partment of Engim:t"ring ~.nd
Public Works (561-684-4090).
Based on-my research. I conclude there is no matter of record constitutin~ an encumbrance
on the Property which is reQuired to be shown ,on. asurv.ey pursuanttothe>"Minimum Technical
Standards for Land Surveyin~" contained in Chapter 21 HH-5. Florida Administrative Code. Neither
the Plat nor any other instrument of record creates a 15 foot "proposed right-of-way dedication"
across the Property. The notation on the 1990 survey was reportedly added at the suggestion of a
contractor who was then doing some unrelated work for the owners. No one has a cl~ar recol~~riva'
WPB:9218S:1
FORT LAUDERDALE. MIAMI. NAPLES. ST. PETERSBURG. SARASOTA. T.\Li.I-H.4.SSEC . TAMFA
1
The following addresses question #S of application requirements (re: special conditions,
__ ~dships or reasons justifYing the requested variance):
A. The special circumstances surrounding this property is that the parking area
covers a majority of the front 1/3 of the property which eliminates the ability to be
within the sign set back requirements.
B. The parking area is required by code due to the size of the building so
eliminating parking spots would not be allowed.
C. No privilege is requested other than allowing this business the ability to have a
sign to identify their business at a location it has done so for the past 18 years.
D. Considerable hardship is created by having to follow the existing guidelines of
the sign code as it would eliminate 1-2 parking spots to this business with
considerable cost in the removal and relandscaping of that area. Additionally,
without a sign. this business losses its ability to be easily identified by it's clients
and potential clients.
E. We believe that the requested variance works better within the overall scope for
the sign code and parking code requirements.
F. The sole purpose of this sign is to improve the look of the front of the property.
We feel all of the ndghbors will appreciate the appearance and look of our new
sign.
Sincerely,
~a-~
Scott Bedford
~ Ifryu; j;~
V. Anne Salter
Property Owner
g
(
EXHIBIT "E"
SIGNS BY TOMORROW
2440 OKEECHOBBEE BLVD
WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33409
March 31, 1999
Planning & Development Board
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beac~ Fl. 33424
Re: Sign Variance for 112 S.E. 23rd Ave.
The purpose of this variance request is to replace the main business sign at the
above property. The old sign was at this same location for more than 18 years. Initially
we went to the city to build a new sign at the site of the old broken down sign. It was
turned down due to not being in compliance with the set back requirements. After
meeting with the Technical Review Committee, they recommended the modification of
replacing only the faces of the signs, and using the existing CBS structure. This was to be
approved through the regular .permit process without any variance. When this paperwork
was submitted, it was again denied. The old structure was then demolished as requested
by building official Warren DeLoche. This created a really major problem for us, for as it
turns out my client. Anne Salter was "grandfathered in" if the structure had not been
removed. Thus, after removing the structure we were apin turned down.
At this point there were already 2 (two) signs constructed as we, in good ~
were, ready to replace the old weathered 2 sided sign with 2 new ones we believed were
acceptable. With this latest turn do~ we then tried to place these 2 signs (not designed
for this), on the building, only to realize space was totally inadequate and that this was
extremely unappealing visually.
Finally, myself and my client (Anne Salter) met with a pre-variance application
committee 0;11 March 22nd where we all attempted to find a solution. As a result of this
meeting we'are now requesting a variance for the set back requirement for 9' from the
North property line so that we can place the sign approximately where.it has always been
located.
9
Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director
April 28, 1999
Page 2
-_ of why the notation was added. In 1990, the County was planning to expand the intersection of
Seacrest Boulevard and GolfRoadlS.E. 23d Avenue. We have no way of knowing, but this project
(which has since been completed) may have been the source of the notation on the survey. However,
based on my review of the public record, it appears that the notation on the survey was added in
error.
I spoke personally to Mr. David Cuff in an effort to determine if Palm Beach County is aware
of any right-of-way "dedications" in the vicinity of the Property. He responded that he has no
knowledge whatsoever of the source of the notation on the owners' survey. However, he speculated.
the Board of County Commissioners has adopted as part of the County Comprehensive Plan a
"Thoroughfare Right-of-Way Protection Map" (the "Thoroughfare Plan''). This is a planning
document intended to guide the County in planning for future roadway expansions. This planning
document creates no encwnbrances on private property. It does indicate that the County would like
to have 80 feet of right-of-way for future expansion of Golf Road/S.E. 23d A venup. from Seacrest
Boulevard to U.S. 1. At the present time, the County owns 50 feet of right of way. The County's
ultimate expansion plans would therefore require acquisition of another 30 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Cuff speculates that the 15 feet shown in the notation om the survey would correspond
to half of the additional 30 feet the County Thoroughfare Plan provides. Typically, he reports, the
County would assign half of the desired additional 30 feet -- i.e. 15 feet -- to the property owners
on either side ofS.E. 23d Avenue. If this property were located within the unincorporated area, there
would be no prohibition on erecting signs within the "ultimate right-of-way." The County Land
Development Code provides for a system of waivers whereby property owners can install
improvements (such as signs) within future rights-of-way shown on the Thoroughfare Plan.
However, to my knowledge, the County Thoroughfare Plan has no binding force within a
municipality and should not be a factor in your evaluation of the variance request..
Your decision to permit the property owners to use an older survey is greatly appreciated.
The notation on the survey has unfortunately, required a great deal of time and effort to explain. We
. can at this point only speculate about the reason for the notation. However, my review of the public
record reveals the notation was added in error and should not affect your review of the varbnce
request.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
1;a~L~
Frank S. Palen
Attorney,.
Enclosures
cc.. V. Anne Salter
Scott Bedford
WP9:9218S:1
10
EXHffiIT "F"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: The Center for Self Discovery
File number: ZNCV 99-004 (setback for a sign)
Reference" Zoninll Code Variance ADDlication dated March 31 1999
.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION .
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
1. None. X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2, To be determined.
MWR:dim
J:\SHROATAIPLANNING\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF DISCOVERY\CONO. OF APPR 8-17.99 CC,DOC
) l ;t
.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 99-089
TO:
Sue Kruse
City Clerk
FROM:
:>'Y/ 0tZ
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE:
April 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Center for Self Discovery
File No. ZNCV 99-004
Accompanying this memorandum you will find an application and supporting
documentation for the above-referenced case. A check in the amount of $400 to cover
the review processing of the application request to vary the zoning code has been
forwarded to the Finance Department.
The legal advertisement for this request will be forwarded to your office after review by
the City Attorney. The requested variance is scheduled for the May 11, 1999 Planning
and Development Board meeting.
MWR:jma
Attachments