REVIEW COMMENTS
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
" (./) . ,"
2~'; 7/. . ,.
,.,. ". ." . "~"jo.,. '("", ,.
....... ' j .c..{ Off, '- ',~ ~.' ,," ~,_
..,.~
~
.
\._""r
200 N. Seacrest Blvd.
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Bea~h, FL 33435
(305) 738-7490
f" ~-...- ".". --- - ....::--. .;.1.111.....:: ~ . ...,:.
:~Q-~;-~~ I f~":":"~i:' f". I
. ~---~:,_:_._~ ...J=... , ~ ,W:'J1i
':'" :m~~~!'i.~~?;~~;~ ry:-J~~":i li~. ,'. :/"~
'. .",. .~ . ~ ;':;';"~ilJ' I ~,..~_.. "
.........":::'~: ~=~"~~- ,... '~. "" /ji, ' '. ' ,"~
I ,-c, ..!..~ .,..~ \; ,
..~. ..-=-. .~... .. :.:.,....~- .~......-::.'.
...... . ... ---- - g
~-&~~fia.-~'
..~~...rf~ ~
'f
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
May 13, 1988
Mr. Harold D. Vick, P.E., ACIP
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
4431 Embarcadero Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Re: The Bavarian Haus Restaurant
Dear Mr. Vick:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Planning
Department staff has reviewed your parking study for the Bavarian
Haus Restaurant dated May 3, 1988. The staff comments are as
follows:
1. Field studies conducted in July 1984, are outdated and
should be updated.
2. The traffic volume data, which provides the basis for
estimating seasonal variations in parking demand between
July and the peak season (January through March) is dated
1981-1983 and should be updated.
3. Figure no. I, "Accumulation Survey Zones," is outdated, as
noted in item #1 above, and should be updated, as changes
have been made in the field to these parking lots. For
example, a parking lot variance was approved for the
Florida National Bank in November, 1985 which resulted in
the elimination of four (4) parking spaces to provide for a
driveway connection to the main Forum Shoppes' driveway.
4. Based on the existing shared parking allocation for the
cinema, it should be assumed that a supermarket will be
occupying the vacant Winn-Dixie store at Leisureville
Plaza. It should also be noted that future occupancy of
the vacant Winn-Dixie floor space will be limited to those
uses which exhibit a parking accumulation curve'equal to
or less than the supermarket occupancy.
5. If the shared parking allocation for the Bavarian Haus
is resubmitted in connection with approval of a new
shared parking allocation or justification for a
variance for relief from the 10% shared parking buffer,
it is recommended that the report be accompanied by six
(6) copies of a site plan which illustrates the restriping
scheme for the Winn-Dixie parking lot. The site plan would
be submitted to the Technical Review Board to insure
compliance with the applicable provisions of the Parking
Lot Ordinance. The site plan should also be accompanied
by written verification from the owner of Leisureville
Plaza indicating that they will allow the restriping of the
parking lot.
6. According to the revised data which is based on the
restriping of the Winn-Dixie parking lot to add an
additional twenty-four (24) parking spaces, there will be
a surplus of sixty-six (66) parking spaces at the weekday
peak (6:00 p.m.). This translates into a 12% buffer for
the cinema, as verified in the report dated May 3, 1988.
The buffer for the Bavarian Haus restaurant has been
calculated incorrectly, however. The proper calculation
should read as follows:
66 surplus - 81 required =
*19 spaces provided + 81 shared
-15/100 =
-15%
*33 of the 52 parking spaces at the Bavarian Haus
have been allocated for use by the cinema at the
6:00 p.m weekday peak hour. Therefore, to include
these spaces for the Bavarian Haus calculation
would constitute double utilization of these parking
spaces.
7. Based on the buffer calculation outlined in item no. 6, an
additional 15 parking spaces would be required to break
even, and an additional 25 parking spaces would be required
to meet the 10% buffer requirement as outlined below:
91 surplus - 81 required = 10/100 = 10%
19 spaces provided + 81 shared
If you have any questions concerning the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
~J~ O'--A
Carmen S. Annunziato, AICP
Planning Director
/csd
cc:
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Al Newbol~
Roland Reinhardt
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
~
(D~adline for submittal: 5 weeks before meeting date)
DATE: May 9, 1988
The undersigned owner(s) hereby respectfully petition(s) the Board of
Adjustment to grant to petitioner(s) a special exception or variance to the
existing Zoning Code of said City pertaining to the property hereinafter
described, and in support thereof state(s):
1. Property involved is described as follows: Lot(s) n/a
Block
n/a
Subdivision Portion of Section 2.9. "4.5:$ RA3lE
Plat Book
n/a
, Page
n/a
, or otherwise described as follows:
Property Address
240 North Congress Avenue
2. Property is presently zoned:
C3
Formerly zoned:
C-l
3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements (list section(s) of Co
from which relief is required:
Appendix A~Zoning, Sec. ll-H-16-d(1)
4. Nature of exception or variance required: TW9_pu~dred fifty seats
would require 100 parking spaces, but not less than one parking space
per one hundred sq. ft. of gross floor area.
5. Stat~~knt of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the
requested exception or variance (please respond to the six (6) questions
as outlined on the attached sheet [a-f])". See Attachment B
6. Certified spot survey (not more than six (6) months old) is required,
with-~ll setbacks and dimensions. Also, a 'location map.
7. Proposed improvement (attach site development sketch):
See Attachment C
8. Certified list of names and post office addresses of property owners
and legal descriptions of their property within 400 feet of subject
property, as recorded in the County Courthouse. Such list shall be
accompanied by an affidavit (see attached) stating that to the best
of the applicant's knowledge,said list is complete and accurate.
See Attachment D
9. Proof of ownership of property by petitioner(s), such as deed or
purchase contract agreement. If agent submitting petition, notarized
copy of letter designating him as such must accompany petition.
See Attachment E
10. Application fee in the amount of $275.00, payable to the City of
Boynton Beach, must accompany this petition.
Roland Reinhardt, Phoenix Enterprises of Boynton Beach, I
11. Name & address of owner: Post Office Box JJ, Boynton Beach, FL 33425
12. Name of app licant: Ro 1 and Re i nhardt
Applicant's address: same. as above
Date: May 9, 1988 Signature of applicant:
Date: 5/16/88 Permit Denied:
13. Case II
125
Meeting Date:
June 13. 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO BE FILLED OUT BY BOARD:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACT~~: Approved
Aye
Nay _
Denied
Stipulations
Signed:
Rev. 9/28/87
Attachment A
The applicant requests the addition of 60 seats to the approved 190 seats.
The site is approved for 190 seats. The other uses in the shopping center were approved
at their present state. The uses do not and did not at the time of approval meet the 10
percent surplus shared parking requirements defined. The applicant wishes, given these
existing conditions, to add 60 seats while meeting the code for one space for every 2.5
seats. An addition of 24 spaces would mitigate the impact of the addition while
providing no further detriment to existing conditions. We therefore, request a variance
to waive the buffer requirements on the Bavarian Haus addition.
., II
4051 TOOM.sor / jsl
-1-
Attachment B
Responses to Question A-F
a. A special condition exists in that the proposed expansion of the Bavarian Haus
access in a shopping center that was approved prior to the inclusion of the buffer
calculation into the buffer code. The applicant will provide 24 spaces to the site to
allow 60 additional seats in conjunction with code. All other assumptions remain
the same as in the previously approved report. Therefore, the denial of the
application is based on the inability to mitigate previously approved impacts.
b. The applicant can mitigate proposed impacts by adding 24 spaces to the existing
lots. However, the buffer that cannot be met (the cinema buffer) is part of
existing conditions previously approved.
c. The granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special
privileges. The new addition must provide 1.0 spaces for each 2.5 seats. This has
been done. The variance would allow the applicant to proceed without mitigating
existing features of the center not under his ownership that do not meet buffer
code.
d. If'lthis applicant were to increase his seating by the same number of seats and
increase the spaces accordingly in an existing site approved under the new codes,
the restaurant addition would likely be approved. The applicant has been denied
because previously approved development does not meet existing buffer codes.
e. T-he variance requested is the minimum considering that the applicant is requesting
a variance to be precluded from providing buffers for other uses in the shopping
cen ter.
f. The granting of the variance will not disrupt the general intent or purpose of the
buffer nor will it be injurious to the area of detrimental to the public welfare. The
overall site has developed with available parking throughout the site. Given the
existing approval, the past operations of the site, the existing operations of the
site and the applicant's agreement to restripe the adjacent parking lot as mitigation
of the seating addition, the proposed seating will be in harmony with the
aforementioned concerns and intent of prior approvals.
4051 TOOM.sor / jsl
-2-