LEGAL APPROVAL
-,
'...,
I f
r
"
7A15
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT
PARKING LOT VARIANCE
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #93-282
THRU:
Planning & Development Board Members
Tambri J. Heyden "<.,~/Jlj~~
Acting planning & Zoning D(r~~t7;r
Michael E. Haa~~
Zoning & site De . pment Administrator
November 5, 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Checkers Drive-In Restaurant
Parking Lot Variance
File No. 782
Section 5-145 (c) (4) of the code of Ordinances requires that
when a variance to section 5, Article X, Parking Lots is
requested, the Technical Review committee must forward a
recommendation to the Planning and Development Board. The
recommendation is to be made part of the public hearing
proceedings. This memorandum is forwarded to you, consistent
with Section 5-145 (c) (4).
Anna Cottrell, of BCS-Wescon, agent for Checkers Drive-In
Restaurant, Inc. is requesting a variance to section 5-142 (h)
(3) of the Parking Lot Regulations. A description of the section
is shown on the attached Parking Lot Variance application. The
applicant is requesting relief from the code in connection with
the proposed construction of a drive-thru restaurant. The site
is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Boynton
Beach Boulevard and Old Boynton Road. The subject of the request
is the one-way, in only, driveway located on Boynton Beach
Boulevard. Boynton Beach Boulevard is a State Road. The topic
under consideration is the distance of one hundred thirteen (113)
feet that the driveway is located from the intersecting line of
old Boynton Road. The code requires the distance to be no less
than one hundred eighty (180) feet. Find attached a reduced copy
of the site plan (Exhibit "A"). This site plan was submitted
with the application for the variance. Find attached a copy of a
letter from the Florida Department of Transportation that
identifies the conditions of conceptual review for the proposed
driveway. The site plan identified as Exhibit "B" is an updated
drawing that appears to depict the conditions of the Florida
Department of Transportation review of the proposed driveway.
Additional details concerning the nature of the variance and the
variance justification are outlined in the attached Parking Lot
Variance application.
On Thursday, october 14, 1993, the Technical Review Committee
(TRC) met to review the plans and documents submitted for the
variance. After review and discussion, the committee made the
following recommendation regarding the variance request:
The Committee unanimously recommended that the request be
approved subject to the conditions identified in the attached
Engineering Department Memorandum No. 93-310.
If the Board rules in favor of the variance request, the
Technical Review Committee encourages the Board to include the
conditions stated in the Engineering Department Memorandum as
part of the approval of the variance. The Technical Review
Committee considers the conditions of approval by the Florida
Department of Transportation and the extension of the on-site
access aisle (entrance throat), requested by the TRC, to be
safety concerns that would improve the traffic conditions at the
right-of-way intersection and improve the on-site traffic flow
plus provide an on-site stacking space at the southern entrance
to the site.
MEH/jm
Att.
A:CHECKPLV.JM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES
TO PARKING LOT REGULATIONS
This application must be filled out completely and
accurately and submitted in two (2) copies to the Planning
Department. Incomplete applications will not be processed.
Please Print Legibly or Type All Information.
1. Project Name of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located:
Checkers Drive- In Restaurant (Northeast corner of Bovnton Beach
Boulevard and Old Boynton Road
2. Date This Application is Submitted: October 4, 1993
3. Applicant's Name (person or business entity in whose name
this application is made):
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
Address: 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 1050
Clearwater, FL 34615
Phone:
(813) 441-3500
Fax: (813) 461-1036
(Zip Code)
4. Agent's Name (person, if any, representing applicant):*
Anna S. Cottrell, BCS-Wescon Consultin;r 1 Inc.
Address: 1532 Old Okeechobee Road, Suite 101
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Phone:
(407) 688-0048
Fax: (407) 688-2009
(Zip Code)
* A letter from the applicant or owner authorizing the agent
is required.
5. Property OWner's (or Trustee's) Name: Adience Equitie, Inc.
ET AL c/o Rayrrond J. Posgay 1 Esq.
Address: 1217 E. Browa.rd Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(Zip Code)
Phone:
Fax:
6. Correspondence Address (if different than applicant or
agent)**:
Same as Agent
** This is the address to which all agendas, letters, and
other materials will be mailed.
PLANNING DEPT. - January 1991
A:PkLotVar
(2)
7. What is applicant's interest in the premises affected?
contract purchaser
(owner, Buyer, Lessee, Builder, Developer, etc.)
8. Street Address of Location of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is
Located:
Northeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard am Old Boynton P.oa.d
9. Legal Description of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located:
See attached legal description
10. Intended Use(s) of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located:
Drive- In restaurant
11. Developer or Builder: Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
12. Architect:
13. Landscape Architect: OCS-WESCCN Consulting, Inc.
14. Site Planner: BCS-WESCCN Consulting, Inc.
15. Engineer: BCS-WESCCN Consulting, Inc.
16. Surveyor: Pulice Land Surveyors, Inc.
17. Traffic Engineer:
Tinter Associates, Inc.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Copy of last recorded Warranty Deed included? (check)
Letter authorizing agent (if any) included? (check)
Site plan and survey (2 copies each) attached? (check)
Number of variances requested on the following sheets:
S6t/'7
(
V-
I
NOTE: A separate sheet must be completed for each specific
design requirement (Sec. 5-141) or permit application
requirement (Sec. 5-142) to which a variance is
requested.
A:PkLotVar
(3 )
The undersigned hereby petitions the Planning and Zoning Board to
grant to the petitioner a variance to Article X "Parking Lots",
of Chapter 5, "Building, Housing and Constructi<.n Regulations",
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida,
as it pertains to the property described in this application, and
for the reasons stated below:
Section, Subsection, and Paragraph number of specific requirement
to which variance is requested, and exact language contained in
the Code:
Section 5-142 (h) (3) - No parking lot driveway may be constnlcted closer
than thirty (30) feet fran the intersection of the right-of-way lines
along local streets and one hundred eighty (180) feet along streets of a
higher classification as shown on the city or county thoroughfare plans.
Nature of Variance Requested:
See attached Sheet
Statement of Special Conditions, Hardships, or other reasons
Justifying the Requested Variance (attached additional sheets if
necessary) :
See attached Justification Stateflent
(I) (We) understand that this application and all papers or plans
submitted herewith become a part of the permanent records of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
(I) (We) hereby certify that the above statements and the
statements or showings made in any papers Qr, plans submitted
herewith are true to the best of (my) (our) knowledge. This
application will not be accepted unless signed below.,
Signature of applicant or agent: . ~ . ~ C'~
Date:
A:PkLotVar
STATEMENT OF USE AND JUSTIFICATION
The Petitioner, Checkers Orive- Thru Restaurants, Inc., requests by this application
a variance from Section 5-142 (h) (3) of the Parking Lot Regulations of the City of
Boynton Beach. This section of the City code requires that private driveways be
located not less than 1 80' from the intersection of the rights of way of roadways
with a classification higher than a local street. The Petitioner proposes a driveway
on Boynton Beach Boulevard 113' from its intersection with Old Boynton Road, in
order to allow the development of the site at the northeast corner of the
intersection for use as a fast food restaurant.
The subject property is 1.17 acres, with an irregular shape. The property has
approximately 340' of frontage along Boynton Beach Boulevard and 301.9' along
Old Boynton Road. The proposed site development is shown on the site plan
accompanying this application, and includes details of site access.
As indicated on the site plan, only one driveway per frontage is proposed. The
driveways have been designed to provide ingress only from Boynton Beach
Boulevard, and ingress and egress on Old Boynton Road. The driveway on Old
Boynton Road conforms to the City's requirements for driveway spacing. The
driveway on Boynton Beach Boulevard is the subject of this variance application.
The Petitioner has met with the FOOT (Florida Department of Transportation)
regarding the proposed driveway location on Boynton Beach Boulevard. The FOOT
has indicated that the proposed location provides the only opportunity for the site
to meet the DOT's access management standards. The driveway has been located
outside of the required taper for the turn lane provided for west bound vehicles
turning north onto Old Boynton Road, and as far east of the intersection as
possible. The limitation on access (providing for ingress only) eliminates any
potential conflict with movements occurring at the intersection. The proposed
driveway also provides for a smooth traffic flow throughout the site, with potential
conflict areas minimized.
All other elements of the site's parking lot design meets or exceeds requirements
as provided for in City standards. The parking lot design provides sufficient access
from the public roadway, and maneuvering and access areas are located
appropriately and of sufficient size to permit vehicles to enter and exit the parking
lot in a safe and efficient manner.
Justification for Checkers variance, (cont'd)
The proposed site plan meets the intent of the City's codes which regulate parking
lot design. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to allow the
site sufficient access, and is due to the special circumstances which exist because
of the adjacency of the turn lane within the public right of way and the
requirements of the FOOT for access management for classified roads within its
roadway system.
A literal interpretation of the City's codes imposes a hardship on the Petitioner
which can be relieved only with the granting of the requested variance. The
hardship is caused, in part, by the conflict which exists between the City access
management standards and the FOOT's access management standards. The FOOT
has indicated that the proposed driveway is in the only location which can be
permitted, since it Is the furthest location which can be achieved from the
intersection without interfering with the turn lane taper. Strict adherence to the
180' requirement of the City's code will place the driveway within the turn lane
taper, clearly less safe and convenient than the location proposed by the Petitioner.
The granting of the variance requested will not provide any special benefit to the
Petitioner, and is not contrary to the public interest.
\
\ 0
\ <t:
I 0
In:
IZ
\~
1>-
10
100
10
15
13=
IW
IZ
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "A"
~
GRAPHIC SCALF.
~--i...J-- _n_7_
\
~
i'--'
"l ~_____~_._
--- T J
,., ,.~::_:. I ~,-= J
=-- .:-"- ". , Jt-
" -i
_. _ I I oJj ". '-...--
'''-~ ~_._-
--
---J
(l'l1\/>.\..
R(S\O,'\l'lG
1-0\'
I nl rr.rr I
I Inch.. 20 II
)=---.- I
___f_*"
J.
( J
Minimum Striping Standard
1~ '" 20'-0"
I
t
~
lfCflNII;..o.l C'JtH.lIlrrE
FOn - 1- j ., ..,
'''''', 0"1" ~~J,':^ /~/h'"~
r", "-"1 ~i~ ,. , /(. -/'V t.
fl'l' I"rt ""JloI"r1---. ......tJ ,,-. 1.-/.../.,3
11111"1" //~ I /./,.,1"
1',1" .1' II /.,.tr,/K- '.. J,."./r..l-,(5
t .,. " I' 'K (k '- 10',,'(-'23
:"',:fl:'~""" ~J ;';' /d-/"-f"'/l
, ., ~ It 1...._IO,.....:.~ c,~
....~:=:t.FQl'l. ..... PPa.<> ....L .,,:r: I+- '13
l...OC'.......4'>1 OF DA.,,,e """''f a...
E$O....ToloJ e.e....<:.~ 8'-"0 ON"'"
~I/~L,"",
~.=
"
"
-
.-
'-
'-
138'
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
J~ = _ _ ~S!:=*.~4) .. _ __._
"
S'
EL[VATION: 22 II'
----~
- - - - - - - ~ - -. - ~-- .- -
'~ - - - - - - .-
'~...
&" r.0J<t<:Pf1[ ""01"''''
VARIANCE
SECTION 5-142 (h) (3)
PARKING LOTS
-
~,,'I)tJ". 'U'W
..
AS.Pll"'I' PA~lM(NI
-
( ,"lIflEl "G'JTIIIl ~
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMO NO. 93-301
OCTOBER 15, 1993
TO: Mike Haag
Site Development Compliance Administrator
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Deputy City Engineer
RE: Variance Application
Technical Review Committee Comments
Checker's Orive~Thru Restaurant
The City Engineer has requested I correspond with you regarding
the Technical Review Committee concensus opinion reference their
deliberation on the above referenced variance application.
The subject of this variance is a singular ingress (driveway)
situated along the east rights-of-way line of Boynton Beach Blvd
(StFl.te Rd 84).
The code requires that driveways which intersect roads of a greater
classification than local, shall be located a minimum of one hundred
eighty (180') feet from the intersecting rights-of-way lines. The
subject driveway is depicted upon plans as being located approximately
ninety-four (94') feet from the intersecting rights-of-way lines of
Boynton Beach Blvd and Old Boynton Road, therefore, the applicant
requests relief from the provisions of City Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 5, Section 5-142 (h) (3) .
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Technical Review Committee rendered a unanimous decision
favorably recommending the variance conditioned upon the following:
1. The variance be granted conditioned upon the City receiving a
a letter of intent from the State of Florida Department of
Transportation authorizing the construction of this driveway
pursuant to State of Florida Access Management Laws. If the
State of Florida does not permit such driveway construction
than the plan shall be modified to delete the entrance to this
site off of Boynton Beach Blvd.
2. The variance should-be granted conditioned upon the plans being
modified to extend the driveways west curb -line an additional
12 to 15 feet north additionally providing a radius turn along
the curb line to provide for a vehicle channelizing area to force
vehicles leaving the restaurant to make a proper left hand turn
(north thru the site) precluding vehicles from entering the
subject driveway which is an entrance only. This will preclude
vehicles from unlawfully exiting the site onto Boynton Beach Blvd.
(see attached plan) against the flow of traffic.
Should you require any additional information and/or assistance,
please contact me at extension 6282.
Engineering Dept. Memo No. 93-301
to Mike Haag, TRC
October 15, 1993
Page 2
Vincent A. Finizio
Deputy City Enginee
VAF/jj
cc: City En~ineer (as discussed)
City Manager
attachments
FOUND IRON
ROD L8*353
"
"-
,~,
. , /'
<" ,
Minimum Strip!~ Standard
ft 20' ett . . ....,.. . .
= '- .' .t:~~t'~' /.
.~~~;:'
.....~~ .~~
. ~ .'"
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
FOR SITE PLAN' REVIEW
Bldg. Dept . ~ Dale /t? /;'1"'~
. '''''', . Date
'fire Dept. ~ Date. /0 -I''(-,(r
Eng. De;t. --If."T: ;.' , . Date IC/,-f-lrs
UtH. Oept . Date~V(1J
Police Dept ~ Date/o-/cAf3...
P. W. Oept DateJJ2::J..1.(. ~1.3
. ~ ....
City PlanoerOat@
D O' ~'" ''[)ate / () -1;;L~9 .:s
",ec. fr. - -
fOrester "1lat~ ct~
~ ~ ~ \0., -'t-'9..il
\lARIANCE. FoFl..A P";~~A.L' e~ .
LOCA,lol\J c:t-F .I? R.\';":'e-WA"'1 ON
.j: 60..., ~"o"-l 13 EACt-t. B'L\tQ. 0 t-tL-'"t.
. ..,.- ~"'.~.
., i....,
. .". '. ..c."';' ~ 1r,". ....
, . ' .
" ,:;:.:~:,: '~;,~"'~: .
.#1
.,;.
. .'
. ','7
~'... ..
.
" .
/ RADIUS-3e8.97"
DEL TA-23.41 "37-
ARC-1 ~2. ~8'
<"
;
(
(
1
1
E
P
p
Ir
p
PI
HeHO
~.
Ol . '
t>
:A
.~
=--'
. .
- .~ @ ~
U)
t q
~-'
-
-'
.~.
1
l
,
.-
-\
).
.,
...
0
n ,
~ / .0....
,p
') .' ,
, /
t
JJ"
J -
,,) i .
,.,..
~ /
:J
,..
(2J~ }p~ Crl-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP{)RTATIOr
....'...-:-<<m .:nILf:S
GOVl:MOR
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
"-
-
3400 w..~ Cam..rG~a1 aou1.vard
FGr~ Laudarda1., F1Gz1da 3330'-3421
(305) 777-4383
KtJ'l G. WAlTS
SU:Kt:TAKl'
NOTICE
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FINDINGS
October II, 1993
~\~,
I!(IfYY .6'% t?;i.' "-. ~
i .... "la"'W 0;
{ _ o.'Jp; 'IJ ~L I
: !;>J ~ ~C~ 10
".:-J. (J..c. J'1f) "' .
:. ....A. 1". lilt"/-; 3'J' i
'\7"\ ..,:~...~s ~ '" /
';.' ,~~"...,. "ill
\.""..... " '. ~ 1/
',> '. -,'" ~ /1
.~ "'~~/
I _\1
Mr. William E. Schipske, P.E.
Bes Wescon
3195 N. Powerline Rd.
Suite 106
Pompano Beach, FL 33069
Subject:
Conceptual Review Number: C932oo-2450-93c
Permittee/Project Name: Checkers Restaurant
Slate Section 93200, Slate Road 804
Anticipated Cunnel don Categury: II
Paw Beach County
City of Boynton Beach
Proposed drive connection on SR 804 140'east of New. Old Boynton Road.
You have requested the Florida Department of Transportation to review the proposed connection to State Road Number 804
anticipated by your development prior to initiating the application process. The Department has completed this conceptual review
of the proposed connection anticipated by your development based on the site plan and information dated 8-18-93.
It is important to note that this review does not constitute Department approval of the location or design of the connection to the
State Highway System as submitted in the conceptual review documents. The location is subject to change during issuance uf the
connection permit. Pursuant to Section 335.18, Florida Statutes and Rule 14-96, F.A,C'J prior to the initiation of construction of
any connection of Department right-of-way, a permit application must he filed and approved by the Departmtmt.
The Department's review fmds that the connection(s) and other proposed roadway alterations to the State Highway System as
proposed:
[Xl Are not consistent with the Department's Access Management standards, however, a non conforming access connection
may be issued if the following conditions are met for the reasuns stated below: (These fmdings are valid fur a periud uf
6 months.)
CONDITIONS/REASONS
- The connection will be restricted to right in only.
- The right turn lane should be reconstructed to current D.O. T. standards.
Should you have any questions please call me ur Mr. Sammy EIsheikh at the above number.
cc:
Jim Chobin
Brell Drouin
Alan Rothmann
Mike Kazunas
ocr 201m
00
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
InflE
~P"
EXHIBIT "B"
~~~
::DC)::D
,,~-
-->
zoz
Ci)zC)
L(J1m
Q~
(J)~
I\)
'."0
-
-:::r
-
-
,.f=
\ ";
tt~
"1\" ';'
I ~ I ll~ I ~i
1\ l!f[
I I ~~. .
"2 I II
I I
. I. 1"'\
I 'II
\ : i ~~~~:t
I I
I I I,
I I ,
I I
II
I lit ~
!I III ~
t · "If @m
~ - 1'\ , . m
; ; 1'1'" j:O......
> it ,'li'~"".". y
~ (.\ ~ ;;*0
~ iCXIJ:
I \ II ~m
I Iii II -g ,.'.
~\' l: ~II
I .;:~ ~ '~~/.J,'. ,
I'~ > (I -. '"
~ II :onr~ ll' U
j I I' \ o..~ If' / t;
~ I I I l.-1.' ." Ii;
: I I I /I ~,!~ I '"
\ 111<- I I . {:d I '1
\ I '~'1DO q;.. a 1~: ,u
I I I I ~~i
(. t ... ~~.
I I ..2 ~i 1/ I f i'<
I \:r~ ~5 II ..
I I :;;' II !!
. Cl~ co.. !i
I 'r~"""~-lo-t
I I "';.: n~',1
\ I "~,",,-lIij 8
-!;'II'"
I \ .; :
I I Ii ~
I
~
~~ - - - -
./0
01. .- WA'JtMIMN
_1II_W_W_W_" _____._w_
----
..
:
..
.....
".DO
t
t t
-.
-
I;
a
~
LOCA-nON MAP
CHECKERS
,//~L
"-;--:. -
. I <
I X
..
:i
PAJtlC
,
1='1 A A
..-j
\
-
90
." I)
. .-,..'"
:F'~C. ..' .
~ I 1
.: :'~
.......
o 1/8 MILES
. \ \ \ \ \ \ \'0 < 1
'0400.'80~FEET '2. ~ ~:A
1'1 . 10. , ~/ .. .
~----\\\ .//
".... ..... .
Justification for Checkers variance, (cont'd)
The proposed site plan meets the intent of the City's codes which regulate parking
lot design. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to allow the
site sufficient access, and is due to the special circumstances which exist because
of the adjacency of the turn lane within the public right of way and the
requirements of the FOOT for access management for classified roads within its
roadway system.
A literal interpretation of the City's codes imposes a hardship on the Petitioner
which can be relieved only with the granting of the requested variance. The
hardship is caused, in part, by the conflict which exists between the City access
management standards and the FOOT's access management standards. The FOOT
has indicated that the proposed driveway is in the only location which can be
permitted, since it is the furthest location which can be achieved from the
intersection without interfering with the turn lane taper. Strict adherence to the
180' requirement of the City's code will place the driveway within the turn lane
taper, clearly less safe and convenient than the location proposed by the Petitioner.
The granting of the variance requested will not provide any special benefit to the
Petitioner, and is not contrary to the public interest.
...
...~~