Tequesta denies special‑exception fast‑food use for US‑1 gateway parcel, citing safety and scale concerns

The Village of Tequesta council voted to deny a special‑exception request for a fast‑food use with a mobile pickup lane at the former Bank of America site at the southwest corner of U.S. 1 and Tequesta Drive.

Council members heard a lengthy staff and applicant presentation that described redevelopment of the vacant 6,099‑square‑foot building into a combined medical office and a 2,600‑square‑foot fast‑food tenant. The applicant said the proposal would remove three legacy bank drive‑through tunnels, add angled parking, refresh landscaping and rework the building’s elevation. The proposed fast‑food operator would use a “Chipotle lane,” a pre‑ordered pickup window that staff said differs operationally from a conventional menu‑board drive‑through.

During the quasi‑judicial hearing councilors and staff reviewed the code’s special‑exception criteria, traffic studies and shared‑parking analysis. Staff said the redevelopment would generate roughly 399 net new daily trips and meet county traffic performance standards; the site plan showed 79 parking spaces (code requires 77) and a shared‑parking analysis that estimated a demand closer to 62 spaces.

Several council members, however, focused on pedestrian and vehicular safety at the parcel’s southwest corner — where the proposed pickup circulation would abut an existing CVS drive aisle and where children walk to nearby Harvey School. One councilor warned of U‑turns on U.S. 1, potential conflicts with CVS egress and vehicles circling if an order is not ready; another called the site “the entrance to our city” and said a formula fast‑food use may not fit the village gateway character. A Chipotle representative told council the pickup feature is an operational preference and said the company could consider proceeding without it if the council objected.

After discussion the council moved to deny the special exception on the record, citing failure to meet multiple review criteria related to public health, safety and compatibility; the motion specified the code sections the mover believed were not satisfied. The denial meant the companion site‑plan item (agenda item 21) was not considered and was skipped.

Mayor Molly Young and councilors framed the decision as an application‑specific determination, not a comment on future uses; staff and the property owner were advised to consider alternative designs and tenants. The applicant was given the option to revise and return with plans that remove or reconfigure the pickup lane.

What’s next: Because the action denied the use as presented, the property owner can return with a revised application. If a future applicant proposes the same use with materially different circulation or mitigation measures, the council will reconsider the use and the site plan.