Planning board denies Panda Express site plan and signage variances; master‑plan vote deadlocks

The Town of Loxahatchee Groves Planning & Zoning Board considered a multi‑part application from Panda Express on July 14, 2026: a PUD/master‑plan amendment, a site plan for a roughly 2,600‑square‑foot restaurant with a dual drive‑through and three waivers, and variances tied to signage and drive‑through operational signs. After extended discussion, the board recommended denial of the signage variances and the site plan; the master‑plan ordinance amendment was deadlocked by a 2‑2 roll‑call vote, yielding no affirmative board recommendation on the ordinance.

Town planning consultant Caitlin Forbes outlined the four applications: an amendment to the Towne Groves Center master plan to allow additional waivers in the pod, a site plan including three waivers (parking depth, loading distance, reduced foundation planting), a master sign plan, and separate signage variances for menu‑board size and additional secondary/operational signs. The applicant’s engineer and agent, Aaron Moore, described a compressed site (about 0.94 acres) that required reduced stall depths and some adjustments to loading and landscape because of utility and easement locations.

Several board members raised broader concerns about cumulative intensity, compatibility with the town’s rural VISTA guidelines and the town center vision, and the operational risks of a dual drive‑through. One member asked bluntly: “Has this project adapted to fit Loxahatchee Groves? Or is Loxahatchee Groves being asked to adapt its standards to fit this project?” (Member Suchi). Members warned that multiple waivers together—smaller parking stalls, reduced screening and increased signage—shifted the site toward a suburban or corporate prototype rather than the town’s intended rural character.

On the master‑plan ordinance (Ordinance 20‑26‑0‑3) the board’s roll call produced a 2‑2 split and the motion to deny failed for lack of a majority; therefore the board recorded no recommendation on the master‑plan amendment. On the signage variances (Resolution 20‑26‑49) the board voted to deny the variances (motion passed 4‑0). The combined site‑plan and waiver package (Resolution 20‑26‑50) was also denied by board vote (voice vote recorded as 4‑0). Staff and the applicant discussed possible revisions that might reduce visual impact and intensification — for example, moving some markings to ground signage, increasing foundation planting where feasible, or rethinking the dual drive‑through to single‑lane operations — and the applicant said it would consider revisions before council review.

The denials and the recorded deadlock do not by themselves bar the applicant from taking revised materials to the Town Council; the board’s actions forward the board’s recommendations and the record to the council for final action.