PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION Application No.: DOA Control No.: Applicant: Mizner Trail Golf Club, Ltd. Owner: Mizner Trail Golf Club, Ltd. Agent: Sanders Planning Group, P.A. Telephone No.: (954) Project Manager: Eric McClellan, Senior Site Planner Location: Northwest corner of SW 18th Street and Military Trail (Boca Del Mar PUD). Title: Development Order Amendment. Request: To re-designate land use from golf course to residential, add units, and add an access point. APPLICATION SUMMARY: Proposed is a Development Order Amendment (DOA) for the Boca Del Mar Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is proposing to redesignate acres of land area from golf course to residential use; add 236 total residential dwelling units on these acres of land; and add an access point from Military Trail to accommodate ingress and egress to 124 proposed multifamily dwelling units. The acre subject site is located to the east and west sides of Camino Del Mar and currently functions as holes 3 through 8 of the acre Mizner Trail Golf Course. The applicant indicates that the remaining acres of the Mizner Trail Golf Course would be converted to an 18-hole executive golf course. The proposed site plans for the acre subject site indicate 39 multifamily buildings containing 205 dwelling units; 31 zero lot line dwelling units; 5 recreation areas totaling 1.7 acres; a.87- acre private civic site; 4 lakes totaling 3.93 acres; and a 1.15-acre dry retention area for stormwater management. Access to the acre residential development is proposed from Military Trail (1) and Camino Del Mar (4). ISSUES SUMMARY: o Findings Pursuant to the Public Hearing Procedures established by Article 2.A.1.K.3. of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), as well and the Planned Development District (PDD) regulations of ULDC Article 3.E.1.E., modifications that exceed thresholds for an administrative approval shall require approval of a Development Order Amendment (DOA) in accordance with ULDC Article 2.B.2.G. A development order may be amended, extended, varied, or altered only if found to comply with all ULDC Standards. A request that fails to meet any 1 or more of the required standards for an amendment shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. Staff has reviewed the request for compliance with the standards that are expressly established by ULDC Article 2.B.2. and provides the following assessment: 1. Consistent with Plan. The requests are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Division has reviewed the application and found the requests to be consistent with the policies, purposes, goals and objectives of the Palm Beach County ZC February 2, 2006 Page 72

2 Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use (FLU) element of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan assigns all lands that comprise Boca Del Mar a designation of High Residential 8 (HR-8). The HR-8 FLU designation requires residential development within the PUD District to achieve a minimum density of 5 dwelling units per acre and allows for development at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Boca Del Mar is currently approved for a density of 5.37 dwelling units per acre (10,163 dwelling units on 1, gross acres). The applicant proposes to increase the approved density to 5.49 dwelling units per acre by adding the proposed 236 residential units. Since this resulting density upon addition of the proposed 236 units would not exceed the maximum density of 8 du/ac for the HR-8 FLU, the current requests have no adverse implications for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. At the same time, the site s existing approved density of 5.37 du/ac remains in compliance with provisions established by the Comprehensive Plan for development within the HR-8 FLU category. 2. Supplementary Use Standards. The requests are consistent with the Supplementary Use Standards of ULDC Article 4.B. Article 4.B. of the ULDC provides a definition for both multifamily and zero lot line dwelling units and references the minimum design requirements for each housing type. The site plan details adhere to the requirements and regulations for multifamily and zero lot line dwelling units, respectively. Article 4.B. establishes no regulations for the other requests being proposed though this Development Order Amendment application. Accordingly, the requests are consistent with this ULDC Standard. 3. Compatibility. The requested Development Order Amendment proposes both a land use assignment and residential housing types that are compatible and generally consistent with the existing uses and character of land surrounding and in the vicinity of the land proposed for development. The acre subject site is bound by a mix of residential pods within the Boca Del Mar PUD, roadways lying within and outside of Boca Del Mar, and the adjacent La Joya PUD to the west. In light of the residential character of the surrounding lands, a residential use assignment for the subject site would be consistent with the existing residential uses that surround and abut the site. By and large, the proposed site plans locate residential building types in areas where similar building types exist on the adjacent lands. Inasmuch, the applicant has adequately considered the character of the surrounding lands and has conceptually sited residential building types in a manner that would not compromise the harmonious coexistence of the proposed and existing residential structures from a standpoint of public health and safety. Compatibility would be furthered through the provision of landscape buffers as required by the ULDC. Accordingly, the requests are consistent with the ULDC Standard for compatibility. 4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impacts. The design of the proposed development fails to minimize adverse visual impacts on the adjacent lands. In response to this Standard, the applicant contends that both the cluster design format and footprint orientations of the proposed residential buildings minimizes building scale and mass as seen from adjacent lands. The applicant also contends that existing water bodies, landscape buffers on adjacent sites, and right-of-ways lying adjacent to the site provide adequate separation to minimize visual impact. Furthermore, the applicant alludes to the strategic placement of lakes, drainage areas, access ways and pedestrian corridors within the proposed acre development area to mitigate visual impacts upon adjacent lands. Staff concurs that these characteristics and measures are fundamental contributions to a visual impact mitigation program. Nonetheless, these contentions completely fail to address the fact that this application proposes to eliminate a golf course that is functionally and holistically integrated into an existing community. Staff considers this a significant shortfall of the applicant s evaluation given the merits of the golf course corridor as a visual amenity of no adverse impact for the adjacent residential areas and community at large. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 73

3 Staff recognizes that visual impact is a relative issue and comparative measure that lends itself to subject debate. Yet at the same time, both the development community and planning practice alike have historically advocated the integration of open space corridors and features such as golf courses, lakes, and other passive landscapes into residential environments. Such spaces offer separation and insulation from neighboring development, appreciable visual corridors, passive recreation opportunities, and uphold the general character of a suburban residential environment. This concept is imminently reflected throughout the Boca Del Mar master plan. Given these secondary benefits and functions of the existing golf course, staff has concluded that an application of this nature should respond to the context of both surrounding lands and the larger community with nothing less than a unique and substantial open space program along the shared boundaries with adjacent residential areas. A program of this sort would maintain a significant open space corridor that incorporates substantial screening elements such as earthen berms, lush and densely planted canopy trees and additional plant materials, and other elements to maintain a scenic vista that would serve a similar function as the existing golf course. Staff would also promote the incorporation of pedestrian amenities and other visual elements for the mutual benefit of both existing and future residents as a means of exchange, compromise, and visual focus. A program of this caliber is entirely absent from the proposed plan of development, which leaves visual impact mitigation in a compromised state. Installation of landscaping, buffering, and screening enhancements along perimeter site boundaries represents a fundamental approach to mitigate visual impacts. Yet the proposed site plans provide for perimeter landscape buffers of a mere 5 feet in width along the vast majority of common boundaries with adjacent residential properties. Staff regards this proposal to be grossly inadequate to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed development, particularly in light of the unique circumstances of this application and integral nature of the subject site within the surrounding residential environment. The physical constraints for installing improvements within buffers of this minimum permissible ULDC width eliminates all possibility of accommodating the quantity, quality, and character of perimeter landscaping described above as being a substantial and appropriate response to the unique circumstances of this application. The latter is strikingly evident upon examination of the representations presented by the applicant s Visual Impact Analysis. To this end, staff considers the perimeter planting program to be far from adequate to offset the degradation of a visual asset that stands as an integral feature to, and fundamental component of, an established residential environment. At the request of staff and direction provided by the BCC, the applicant submitted a Visual Impact Analysis as a tool to evaluate the visual impacts of the proposed development. This analysis presents images of the golf course in its existing condition and renderings of the subject site in a post-development state. Staff recognizes that these post-development renderings are mere generalizations; lack technical detail to accommodate a comprehensive evaluation of visual impact; provide conceptual views at only perpendicular angles to the proposed buildings (which neglects other vantage points and associated visual impact); and are without any great degree of precision to ensure accuracy in representation. Nonetheless, the analysis does confirm that existing golf course view sheds would be transformed to a relatively typical setting of suburban development with lines of sight to the proposed residential buildings. This transformation would directly affect the view from 53 residential structures comprising hundreds of individual dwelling units that are located within the adjacent residential developments and that have been constructed with exposure toward the golf course property. In comparison to the existing landscape, staff considers the Visual Impact Analysis to demonstrate the extreme inadequacies of the proposal to maintain views that are similar in function, and equivalent in degree of appreciation, for the lands that surround the acre subject site. The Visual Impact Analysis also provides no assurances of the view sheds that would be appreciated by the properties that surround the remaining acres of the Mizner Trail Golf Course should this application initiate a future reconfiguration of the golf course. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 74

4 To accommodate the proposed development, the applicant has reached a private agreement with the Boca Del Mar Improvement Association (BDMIA). This agreement amends dates established by the Declaration of Restrictions for the property and would allow for the potential conversion of the acres of golf course land to residential use at the present time. In exchange, the applicant has conceded to restrict the remaining acres of the Mizner Trail Golf Course exclusively for golf course use or other open space purpose. As part of this same agreement, the applicant has accepted development restrictions against 2 specific areas of the acre subject site where lakes have conceptually been sited on the proposed development plans. These agreements demonstrate the applicant s acknowledgement, understanding, and commitment to visual impact mitigation as part of a comprehensive development program. The applicant s commitment to perpetually reserve the remaining acre portion of the golf course in an open space state also demonstrates a fundamental understanding of the significant secondary function served by the golf course corridor within the context of the larger residential environment. At the same time, these very same terms and commitments demonstrate the extreme inconsistencies in the approach being taken to mitigate adverse visual impacts across the entire acre subject site. This approach also discounts the functional and visual benefits provided by the entire golf course property, which serves as a centerpiece within a larger and more comprehensive context. For each of the foregoing reasons, staff considers the proposed development to stand in direct conflict with ULDC standards requiring projects to minimize adverse effects on adjacent lands. 5. Adequate Public Facilities. The proposed Development Order Amendment complies with Article 2.F. of the ULDC, Concurrency (Adequate Public Facility Standards). Concurrency has been approved for 205 attached dwelling units and 31 detached dwelling units. This approval reflects the availability of adequate capacity amongst local roadways, mass transit services, schools, recreation facilities, water and wastewater service providers, and local drainage infrastructure to support the proposed development at minimum prescribed levels of service. Accordingly, no inconsistencies have been identified with this ULDC Standard. 6. Effect on Natural Environment. The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and the natural functioning of the environment. The Department of Environmental Resource Management (ERM) indicates that the site contains limited amounts of existing native vegetation; is not located within a Wellfield Protection Zone; and that no significant environmental issues are associated with this application beyond compliance with ULDC requirements. A preliminary environmental audit supplied as part of the application review process identified no hazardous materials that would be injurious to the health and welfare of the environment or human inhabitation. Accordingly, no inconsistencies have been identified with this ULDC Standard. 7. Development Patterns. The proposed amendment would result in a logical, orderly, and timely development pattern. The acre subject site is predominantly surrounded by properties that have been developed for residential purposes. At 5.45 du/ac, the gross density of the proposed development is generally consistent with the overall gross density of Boca Del Mar (5.37 du/ac existing and 5.44 du/ac proposed). Each of the proposed residential pods is designed at a gross density (2.6 du/ac du/ac) that is less than, generally consistent with, or otherwise compatible with that of the adjacent residential development (2.36 du/ac du/ac). The following table illustrates the density characteristic of each residential community that lies adjacent to the subject site: ZC February 2, 2006 Page 75

5 COMMUNITY Subject site (as proposed) POD 64B and 64C LOCATION (RELATIVE TO SUBJECT SITE) N/A DWELLING GROSS UNIT ACREAGE TYPE(S) Multifamily and Zero Lot Line TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 236 GROSS DENSITY (DU/AC) 5.45 (average) Wellesley Park 65 North 4.49 Multifamily Summit Park 65 North 5.73 Multifamily Palms of Boca Del Mar 65 North 38 Multifamily Arbor Club 80 Internal Multifamily Post Gardens of Boca Del Mar 67 Internal 8.84 Multifamily La Residence 67 Internal 3.44 Multifamily La Joya PUD N/A West 42.3 Multifamily and Single Family Boca Chica 75A South Single Family Boca Rio 78B South Single Family N/A (City Multifamily Parkside at of Boca East and Single Boca Trail Raton) Family Boca Del Mar All N/A 1, All 10, Due to the prevailing developed state of the surrounding lands; the residential use of these lands; the intensity at which these surrounding lands are developed; and the general character of residential development within Boca Del Mar and surrounding communities at large, the proposed site development plan would have no adverse impact on localized development patterns, timing, or trends. 8. Other Standards. The proposed Development Order Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the ULDC regarding layout, function, and general development characteristics. Pursuant to ULDC Article 1.A.1.C.4., the intent of the ULDC is to maintain community character and the stability of present and future land uses in Palm Beach County. In furtherance of this intent, the ULDC requires a PUD (and other select Planned Development Developments, or PDDs) to be governed by a master plan that prescribes the uses, density, access, configuration, and other elements and site conditions for all lands within the PUD boundary. In accordance with ULDC Article 3.E.1.D.1., the master plan stands as the controlling document for any PDD; is binding upon all landowners, their successors and assigns; and constitutes the development regulations for the land. The master plan for the Boca Del Mar PUD has forever identified and restricted the acre subject site exclusively for golf course and ancillary uses. This same site has perpetually been planned, designed, and constructed as a significant integral feature for the adjacent residential components of Boca Del Mar rather than a standalone, adjacent parcel of land with no direct relation to and/or interaction with the more holistic environment. To this end, staff regards the conversion of this integral master plan component from an open space format to a developed state to conflict with the original design concept of Boca Del Mar; discount the planning, location, and configuration of adjacent residential areas; undermine the purposeful placement and orientation of existing residential buildings along a scenic open space corridor; neglect the longstanding promise to property owners, renters, and community members alike of a comprehensive and holistic open space element as part of a master planned development program; compromise the integrity of the Boca Del Mar master plan; and challenge the intended stability behind the concept of a master planned community. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 76

6 Pursuant to ULDC Articles 3.E.1.A.2 and 3.E.2.A.2. (Applicability), current PUD District requirements apply to all PUDs and modifications to previously approved PUDs. In accordance with ULDC Articles 3.E.1.A.2., 3.E.2.A.2., and 3.E.2.A.4., the development of lands within the PUD district shall achieve exemplary design by exceeding minimum requirements, objectives and standards. Amongst these exemplary criteria are aesthetics, creative design, mix of unit types, and the provision of affordable housing, amongst others. The proposed Site/Regulating Plans for the acre site provide the following in furtherance of the PUD exemplary design objectives: provision of 2 residential use/building types; landscape focal points within cul-de-sac islands; decorative paving treatment at select locations within interior streets; upgraded amenities within recreation and civic areas; a meandering pedestrian pathway system along the peripheral areas of proposed multifamily pods that provides a connection to the proposed lake tracts, recreation and civic areas, and adjacent areas of proposed development; incorporating existing vegetation to remain within open space, recreation, civic and other miscellaneous areas; providing a landscape buffer along the banks of the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) L-50 Canal (100-foot wide right-of-way); upgraded quality and quantity of plant materials within select perimeter landscape buffers; decorative planting within the entrance median from Military Trail; and, application of architectural treatment to the school bus shelter. While staff recognizes these amenities, features, and details as exemplary elements at the micro level of review, staff does not regard the fundamental layout of the proposed project to reflect exemplary design when evaluated at the macro scale of analysis. Staff has identified the following areas of concern with the proposal: roadways within the proposed multifamily areas span extensive distances (up to 1,400 feet or approximately ¼ mile) with minimal or no curvature; all of the proposed streets terminate in a dead-end or cul-de-sac, thereby compromising a continuous and interconnected transportation network; building setbacks are uniform rather than being staggered along the duration of each street frontage; building placement and footprint orientations are standardized rather than being varied and diverse; recreation and civic areas within the proposed multifamily pods are isolated from the residential buildings rather than being integrated into the streetscape and amongst residential buildings; vehicular access ways located to the rear of multifamily buildings terminate in dead-ends, thereby compromising internal circulation; the design format for the proposed multifamily buildings produces narrow corridors that are defined by asphalt, garage doors and limited opportunities for surveillance at the rear of each unit; all proposed perimeter landscape buffers are sized to the minimum width dimension permitted by the ULDC; and, the proposed development detracts from a central and significant community amenity that supports a quality design program for the existing residential environment. Staff has concluded that the failure to address these fundamental design considerations sacrifices creative design, produces extensive line of sight distances within the proposed development, and institutes monotony into the streetscapes; thereby failing to achieve exemplary qualities that are comparable to the development plans for other recent PUD approvals. Staff would not be able to support the proposal with conditions of approval to address these deficiencies since the proposed plans fail to provide a conceptual design that can achieve an exemplary format without significant modification. Staff persistently advised the applicant of outstanding concerns with the ZC February 2, 2006 Page 77

7 proposed design and provided recommendations to improve site design, form and aesthetics throughout the course of review. However, many of these recommendations were addressed by making only minor changes or declined altogether in favor of the proposed site development plan and unit count. Staff considers many of these design shortcomings to reflect the natural constraints for developing the subject tracts. Due to the narrow width and configuration of these tracts; the location of existing canals, water bodies and easements; the limited geographic opportunities for gaining access to these tracts; and ULDC regulations for other development considerations (such as drainage, setbacks, landscaping and buffering, access drive dimensions, etc.), the potential for a site design that reflects exemplary standards and responds to the site s surroundings is severely limited. For each of these reasons, staff regards the proposed site plan to be inconsistent with ULDC requirements and expectations for the PUD District; inadequate justification for the proposed number of units; without merit to justify the addition of units and assignment of additional density above the minimum requirement (i.e. 5 du/ac) of the HR-8 FLU designation; and demonstration of the inappropriateness for re-designating the subject site for any use other than an open space format. 9. Consistency with Neighborhood Plan. The proposed Development Order Amendment does not affect lands that are subject to a Neighborhood Plan. Boca Del Mar is not located within the geographic boundaries of a neighborhood plan study area. Accordingly, the requests do not stand in conflict with this ULDC Standard. 10. Changed conditions. There are no changed conditions or circumstances that require a modification. In response to this Standard, the applicant contends that the requests address housing needs in southern Palm Beach County and the limited availability of new housing in the vicinity of the subject site. However, the applicant fails to qualify this position with findings that demonstrate a housing shortage or that indicate why the subject site would be well suited to meet market demand. The applicant also presents no testimony to address the supply, demand, and alleged importance of new housing opportunities as opposed to resale, rental, or other alternatives for existing housing opportunities within Boca Del Mar and the surrounding communities. In the absence of substantive evidence, staff cannot support the applicant s justification of changed conditions on the basis of local housing situations. The applicant alludes to difficulties encountered by golf courses following the tragedies of September 11, 2002, and goes further to identify other facilities in Palm Beach County that have endured difficulty and sought transformation to alternative uses. However, the applicant fails to identify any measures taken by these other courses to overcome adversities. The applicant also fails to draw similarities between these sites and the subject site in order to establish the relevance of site comparisons. The applicant also fails to indicate any efforts (such as advertising and marketing, adjustment in membership dues, change in price scheduling, corporate restructuring, other business- and management-oriented actions, upkeep and maintenance, sale to other interested parties, and so on) undertaken by the property owners in attempt to reverse current trends facing the facility and alleviate hardships. Furthermore, consideration of the ongoing success experienced by the other golf course that exists within Boca Del Mar is entirely neglected in the applicant s disposition. The applicant s discussion also lacks any consideration of alternative uses for the property (such as an instructional golfing venue, Frisbee golf facility, passive or public park, other discreet forms of outdoor entertainment, and so on) that could function within the site s existing open space format. The applicant suggests that a dramatic increase in golf course construction in the vicinity of the site has created additional competition and market saturation. However, no evidence is supplied to support this claim. What's more, fundamental supply and demand mechanics of a rational, free-market economic system would suggest that ZC February 2, 2006 Page 78

8 continued golf course construction signifies unmet market demand for such facilities despite prevailing competition. While a quantitative decline in customer base may impact business receipts, such does not render the existing use assignment (i.e. golf course) or physical placement of the subject site entirely obsolete. Accordingly, staff cannot conclude that this application is justified by a change in circumstances due to development trends in the local golf course industry. The applicant also contends that common complaints against regulation-size courses, coupled with an aging population, presents an opportunity to counter declining rates of play through conversion of the course to an executive-style facility. Yet the applicant presents no definitive evidence to confirm enhanced rates of success for executive course formats as compared to regulation size courses. This position also fails to address how or why increased play of the golf course would be a beneficial tradeoff to the community at large for the loss of open space. These assertions are also challenged by the fact that the course has not been redesigned to an alternative format at a date already past if such conversion would maximize business success. For this reason, staff finds curiosity in the applicant s pursuit of residential development rights prior to initiating a redesign of the golf course. The applicant s argument also neglects the fact that 3 of the 8 golf course holes included within this application (holes 4, 6 and 8) already exist in a par 3 or executive configuration. For these reason, staff considers the applicant s justification to demonstrate little more than an attempt to pursue current market trends without comprehensively assessing and responding to the consequences for others sharing interest in the Boca Del Mar community. The applicant also makes note of the private agreement reached with the BDMIA to establish a change in circumstances and conditions. However, a private agreement does not serve as justification for, or guarantee of, a development approval. This same private agreement and expiration dates included therein are entirely independent and unrelated to use assignments designated on the prevailing master plan. While BDMIA was undoubtedly well intentioned in consenting to this agreement, the agreement was made without regard to ULDC Standards requiring compliance in order to execute the agreement. Furthermore, the agreement is inherently based upon an assumption that the entire acre Mizner Trail Golf Course would receive approval for residential development. Staff rejects this assumption and has no reason to anticipate any different issues for such proposal than those being raised for the current requests. Inasmuch, staff regards the private agreement to be a mere reflection of BDMIA s unapprised posturing in an attempt to achieve stability and proactively respond to this contemplated development rather than a change in conditions that justifies a zoning approval. Taken as a whole, staff considers the changed conditions that Boca Del Mar and its many internal and surrounding communities would endure upon approval of the current requests to far exceed any prevailing circumstances that justify the requests. The subject site serves not merely as a golf course, but as a passive and scenic view shed, a functional and integrated component of the surrounding residential environment, and a naturalistic boundary between adjacent residential areas; all within a planned environment that intentionally and purposefully incorporated a significant open space element for the adjacent residential areas. The applicant has provided no indication that these multifaceted functions and characteristics have changed since the golf course was originally designated on the Boca Del Mar master plan in As an integral open space component and unifying element of the established community, the loss of this space would inevitably redefine the character, identify, and image of Boca Del Mar and the surrounding area without any foreseeable benefits to the larger community. Despite the applicant s many arguments in support of this application, no arguments are presented that provide a definite indication that the prevailing master plan is without merit and thus in need of the requested modifications. While the applicant s end objective is to allegedly reconfigure the Mizner Trail Golf Course to an alternative and more successful format, the current requests to redesignate land use, add residential units, and add an access point clearly demonstrate the applicant s true objective. For all of the foregoing reasons, staff has identified no changed circumstances or conditions facing Boca Del Mar that would ZC February 2, 2006 Page 79

9 require the proposed amendments. Moreover, staff could foresee few if any circumstances that would lead to support for an amendment of this magnitude and disruption without an extreme response to surrounding site contexts and prevalence of grave conditions. Accordingly, staff s recommendation is for denial of this application. o Traffic The Palm Beach County Engineering Department estimates that the requests would generate 1,745 trips per day. To mitigate the impacts of these additional trips, the Engineering Department would recommend intersection improvements at SW 18 th Street and Camino Del Mar, and at Camino Real and Camino Del Mar. A traffic signal would also be recommended for the intersection of SW 18 th Street and Camino Del Mar. The Engineering Department would also recommend that construction be phased according to both completion of these improvements and letting of a contract for planned improvements at the intersection of Military Trail and SW 18 th Street. Other conditions would also be recommended to mitigate the anticipated impacts of additional vehicular traffic on the local roadway network. o Landscape/Buffering The proposed site plans indicate 20-foot wide right-of-way landscape buffers abutting SW 18 th Street (120-foot wide right-of-way) and much of the site s frontage on Military Trail (120-foot wide right-of-way). The remaining portion of the landscape buffer fronting Military Trail transitions to a width of 10-feet where installation of a right turn lane is contemplated at the intersection of Military Trail and SW 18 th Street. This width reflects a 50 percent reduction of the required 20-foot wide landscape buffer, which is permitted by ULDC Article 7.F.6. due to the width (135 feet) and location of the LWDD E-3 Canal between the subject site and Military Trail. Right-of-way landscape buffers are provided at a width of 15 feet along the frontage of Camino Del Mar (80-foot wide right-of-way) and the adjacent land area abutting Palm D Oro Road (80-foot wide rightof-way). A 5-foot wide compatibility landscape buffer is provided between the zero lot line portion of the proposed development and the adjacent La Joya PUD to the west. Incompatibility landscape buffers requiring a continuous 6-foot high opaque screen and ranging from 5 to 10 feet in width are provided along the remaining portion of the site located adjacent to the La Joya PUD and abutting the 100-foot wide LWDD L-50 Canal easement. The proposed site plans provide a 5-foot wide compatibility landscape buffer along the common property lines with the 7-story Wellesley Park condominium building to the west, and the Summit Park and Palms of Boca Raton multifamily communities to the north and west (Pod 65). A 5-foot wide compatibility landscape buffer is also provided along the common boundary with the Arbor Club multifamily community (Pod 80), which is bound by the subject site along its north, east and west property lines. A 5-foot compatibility buffer is again provided along the common property lines with the Post Gardens of Boca Del Mar multifamily community and La Residence condominium building (Pod 67). The site plans propose incompatibility landscape buffers ranging from 7.5 to 15 feet in width (based upon contiguity to adjacent open space areas) along perimeter boundaries that abut a proposed civic or recreation area. The details for all of these perimeter landscape buffers, as reflected on the proposed Regulating Plan, indicate the following landscaping and planting schedule: 20-foot R-O-W Buffers 15-foot R-O-W Buffers 10-foot R-O-W Buffer 15-foot Incompatibility Buffers 10-foot and 5-foot Incompatibility Buffers 7.5-foot Incompatibility Buffers 5-foot Compatibility Buffers Berm 2.5' - 3' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ZC February 2, 2006 Page 80

10 Canopy Trees 1/25' 1/25' 1/25' 1/20' 1/20' 1/20' 1/25' Palm Trees 3 per canopy tree 3 per canopy tree 3 per canopy tree 3 per canopy tree N/A 3 per canopy tree 3 per canopy tree Shrub or Hedge Fence o 3 Tiers 3 Tiers 3 Tiers N/A 6' High Solid Panel PVC Project Analysis 3 Tiers (including continuous 6' shrub) Continuous 6' shrub Continuous 6' shrub Clusters of 36" shrub N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Open Space Regulations and requirements pertaining to open space within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District have fluctuated throughout the historic ordinances of unincorporated Palm Beach County. The first land development regulations were established through Ordinance 3-57, which prescribed no minimum open space requirement. This same scenario prevailed upon approval of the first PUD ordinance in Whereas the Boca Del Mar PUD was approved under the terms of this 1969 ordinance on August 19, 1971, no quantitative or quantifiable measure of open space governed the original design layout of the Boca Del Mar master plan. A review of Boca Del Mar s historic files clearly demonstrates that no reliance was placed upon the Mizner Trail Golf Course for purposes of satisfying any minimum open space requirement. Rather, prevailing open space requirements have been imposed at time of plan approval for each individual pod of Boca Del Mar. To this end, the applicant has conducted a comprehensive assessment of all pods within Boca Del Mar to verify and confirm consistency in the application of open space regulations to lands within the Boca Del Mar PUD. This effort was undertaken through review of plats, site plans, and aerial photography as a last resort in the absence of other official documentation. The findings of this effort present that each pod was in fact designed to satisfy or exceeded the minimum open space requirement of the prevailing ordinance at the time of approval for each individual plan. The applicant s assessment indicates that approximately acres of land (exclusive of Boca Del Mar s acres of golf course property) were established as an open space feature at the time of approval. Article 1.E.1.C. of the ULDC establishes that information clearly shown on an approved plan or other development order shall remain valid and not be subject to current requirements. Since the subject site is clearly shown on various development orders (i.e. master plan, site plan, and plat) as golf course, these acres may not be relied upon for any purpose other than fulfilling the golf course acreage reflected on the Boca Del Mar master plan. Also of significance is the fact that the plat of the subject site includes a dedication for the express purpose of golf course use rather than dedicated open space. Furthermore, Article 1.E.1.C.1. of the ULDC prescribes that (m)odifications to previous approvals shall comply with this Code to the greatest extent possible in the affected area. Current ULDC provisions require a minimum 40 percent of gross land area within the PUD District be established as open space. To satisfy this requirement; given the implications of Article 1.E.1.C. as explained above; and in light of the boundaries of the affected area (i.e. acreage proposed for development), the proposed site plans for the acre subject site have alone been designed to achieve 40 percent open space consisting of recreation parcels, lakes, storm water management features, landscape areas, canal easements, civic areas, and other miscellaneous spaces. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 81

11 For each of the foregoing reasons, staff certified the current application for public hearing consideration on the merits of a change in use rather than a loss of dedicated and required open space. Nonetheless, staff recognizes the open space quality of the subject site; it s function as an integral component of the community; and the vital role of open space within any residential environment in general. To this end, staff has evaluated and scrutinized the implications of this application despite compliance with the sheer quantitative requirements of the ULDC. Master Plan The prevailing master plan for the Boca Del Mar PUD indicates a total site area of 1, gross acres and 10,330 total dwelling units. The proposed master plan reflects the total site area as being 1, acres ( acres) and a total residential unit count of 10,399 dwelling units (+69, despite the request to add 236 units). The discrepancy in these figures is accounted for through tabular master plan adjustments made to address a recent annexation of Boca Del Mar properties into the City of Boca Raton. Effective December 31, 2004, City of Boca Raton Ordinance 4795 transferred acres of land located on the east side of Military Trail and housing 167 dwelling units into the City s limits. The tabular master plan adjustments result in a more accurate presentation of tabular information for the current request since the above referenced land area is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department for purposes of development regulations. To the extent possible, the proposed master plan has been amended to include accurate gross acreage, density, dwelling unit count, golf course acreage, and other tabular references that would govern Boca Del Mar upon an approval of the current application. Access Amongst the current requests is the addition of an access point (i.e. entrance drive) from Military Trail. Four (4) additional point of access to the proposed development are indicated from Camino Del Mar. Article 3.E.1.E.1.e. of the ULDC states Access shall not be added to roads external to the project, internal Roads indicated on the Thoroughfare Identification Map, or to roads external to a pod, except for a residential pod. Access to roads external to a residential pod, but internal to the project, may be added in accordance with Art. 11, Subdivision, Platting and Required Improvements. The effect of this provision is to require BCC approval only for the proposed access point from Military Trail, which is a road located external to Boca Del Mar. The 4 potential access points from Camino Del Mar do not require BCC approval since this road is internal to Boca Del Mar, is not indicated on the Thoroughfare Identification Map, and since each would be affording access to a residential pod. Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) The east boundary of the acre subject site is established by the 135-foot wide LWDD E-3 Canal right-of-way. Further east and adjacent to the E-3 Canal is the 120- foot wide Military Trail right-of-way. To mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed development and due to projected traffic volumes, the Engineering Department would recommend the installation of a right turn lane onto SW 18 th Street in the southbound lanes of Military Trail. Encroachment into the E-3 Canal right-of-way would be required to accommodate installation of this turn lane, as is depicted on the proposed site plan. The applicant has agreed to provide a compensatory amount of right-of-way (approximately 11 feet) within the boundaries of the subject site and on the west side of the E-3 right-of-way to offset the resulting loss of land area from turn lane installation. Nonetheless, representatives of the LWDD have voiced opposition to encroachment into the E-3 Canal. The basis for this opposition stems from implications for canal alignment; sufficiency of width for general accessibility, equipment operations, and routine maintenance; the volatile nature of Boca Del Mar's drainage system; and associated health and safety issues that are potentially at play. A LWDD representative is anticipated to attend the public hearings and address the Commissions with these concerns. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 82

12 o Signs The applicant is proposing a single entrance sign at each access point to the proposed development. One such sign is proposed within the median at the requested entrance from Military Trail. Each of these entrance signs would be attached to a wall, reach a maximum height of 8 feet, and contain a maximum sign face area of 60 square feet. The ULDC would permit a maximum of 2 such signs at each point of entry for purposes of identifying the name and address of the development only. All signage that would be posted on the site is subject to ULDC Article 8, Signage. o Architectural Review Pursuant to ULDC Article 5.C., Design Standards, multifamily buildings containing 16 units or less are exempt from Architectural Guidelines. All of the proposing multifamily buildings fit this description and are therefore not subject to ULDC regulations for architectural treatment and control. Detached dwelling units are also exempt from ULDC provisions for architectural review. Nonetheless, the applicant has submitted conceptual renderings to demonstrate the anticipated character and architectural treatment of the proposed residential buildings. These renderings illustrate 3 different multifamily building models, all of which are 3-story buildings containing 5 units and a first-floor garage. Renderings of two 2-story zero lot line models were also submitted. All of these renderings exhibit a Mediterranean theme and appearance. o Site History Boca Del Mar has an extensive history of previous Zoning approvals. A brief yet comprehensive summary of these historic approvals follows: August 19, 1971: Approval of a Condition Use to allow a Planned Unit Development in the A-1 Zoning District granted by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. Petition : Special Exception to amendment the master plan for Boca Del Mar Planned Unit Development by adding 5 dwelling units to Tract 81. Approved on February 19, 1985 via Resolution R Petition (A): Special Exception to amendment the master plan for Boca Del Mar Planned Unit Development to allow a day care center on Tract 27. Approved on July 28, 1987 via Resolution R Petition (B): Special Exception to amendment the master plan for Boca Del Mar Planned Unit Development to allow an adult congregate living facility on Tract 62. Approved on August 27, 1988 via Resolution R Petition (C): Special Exception to amendment the master plan for Boca Del Mar Planned Unit Development to allow a child day care center for 85 children on Tract 77 (commercial pod). Approved on July 25, 1991 via Resolution R Petition (D): Development Order Amendment for a Requested Use to allow a fitness center in the Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning District. Approved on January 26, 1995 via Resolution R Petition (E): Development Order Amendment to add an access point for the Boca Raton Synagogue. Approved on January 26, 1995 via Resolution R Petition (F): Development Order Amendment for a Requested Use to allow an Indoor Entertainment establishment on Tract 77 (commercial pod). Approved on July 27, 1995 via Resolution R ZC February 2, 2006 Page 83

13 Petition (G): Development Order Amendment to increase square footage (+2,000 sq. ft.) and children (+71) for an existing day care center on Tract 77 (commercial pod). Approved on September 28, 1995 via Resolution R Petition (H): Development Order Amendment to increase square footage and modify/delete conditions of approval for the Boca Raton Synagogue. Approved on November 30, 2000 via Resolution R Petition (I): Development Order Amendment to add an access point, increase square footage and reconfigure the site plan for the YMCA of Boca Raton. Approved on June 27, 2002 via Resolution R o October 6, 2005 Zoning Commission (ZC) Hearing At the October 6 ZC hearing, the ZC questioned why no conditions of approval were being presented for consideration within the staff report. Staff responded that the recommendation on the application is an unconditional denial for reasons sited in the staff report. Staff also noted that conditions of approval are intended to improve and enhance projects, but are not recommended to resolve fundamental shortfalls or conflicts with ULDC standards that result in a staff recommendation of denial. Staff also commented that the presentation of conditions of approval for a recommendation of denial sends an inconsistent position on zoning applications that cannot be supported by staff. The ZC questioned the consistency of this approach over the course of time and noted no such recollection of this approach. Staff noted that conditions of approval are presented for recommendations of denial on zoning applications that are contingent upon and accompanied by a Small Scale Future Land Use Amendment that is recommended for denial by Planning Division staff. Staff also indicated that projects recommended for denial had in fact been presented without conditions of approval both historically and for several recent projects. Staff concluded by suggesting that it would be inappropriate to draft conditions of approval for a recommendation of denial, and that such request puts staff in the position of performing duties that are an applicant s burden. In response to a ZC inquiry about staff s decision to certify the application for public hearing consideration, staff noted that such decision was beyond their discretion and authority for projects meeting minimum code requirements. The ZC concluded that the lack of conditions compromised their ability to comprehensively assess and evaluate the application. Accordingly, the ZC voted unanimously in favor of a postponement to the next hearing so that staff could incorporate conditions of approval into the staff report. At the request of several individuals in attendance to speak on the application, the ZC agreed to assign this application as the first Regular Agenda item for the next ZC hearing. o December 1, 2005 Zoning Commission (ZC) Hearing Staff Presentation At the December ZC hearing, staff provided a presentation of the application and enumerated the findings resulting in a recommendation of denial. A member of the ZC then asked staff to address the economic ramifications of the application being denied. Staff noted that professional qualifications would not allow for an accurate response and advised that economics are not a factor of consideration upon review of applications and formulating recommendations. Applicant Presentation The applicant s agent began by stating that the subject property has always been residentially zoned. The agent also proclaimed that the proposed units are previously approved and vested on the Master Plan. The agent then stated that the County asked for deed restrictions at a date since past to limit the property to golf course use, and that attendance by only a few residents reflected both hard work and a quality project. The applicant s agent stated that the project began with negotiations involving the Master Association s Board of Directors. The agent then suggested that future ZC February 2, 2006 Page 84

14 development upon the golf course property has forever been known. The agent spoke of public meetings that were conducted and concluded with preferences for the certainty offered by the application and through negotiations. To this end, the agent announced that deed restrictions would be placed on the remainder of the golf course and clubhouse facility to ensure permanence. To demonstrate changed circumstances, the agent made reference to loss of revenue, heightened competition, and lack of survivability. The agent continued by stating that the application presents no conflict with many ULDC Standards; meets open space requirements; and is not subject to exemplary design criteria. In conclusion, the agent noted that the applicant has gone above and beyond minimum requirements to create a quality development despite the fact that the site is not perpetually restricted to a golf course. ZC Discussion The ZC questioned the content of community documents relative to the golf course property. The agent noted that the property was subject of a deed restriction to golf course use until The agent also noted that the course is privately owned, open to the public, and not subject to mandatory membership requirements. The ZC then questioned the residential status of the property. Staff advised that all of Boca Del Mar is defined by a residential (i.e. PUD) zoning designation, and that deed restrictions are private matters beyond staff s authority. The agent noted that the proposed densities are equivalent or lower than development upon adjacent lands; building heights and product types are equivalent; and that the placement, positioning and design of the proposed buildings is strategic. The ZC inquired about the applicability of cul-de-sac and dead-end restrictions for the proposed development. Staff announced that the restriction would apply to all of Boca Del Mar rather than the subject site alone. The ZC also inquired about the remainder of the golf course, which staff noted was not subject of this application. The ZC then noted that there is no assurance of profitability from a course reconfiguration based upon the applicant s development proposal. In response to discussion and statements by the agent, the ZC requested that a condition of approval be imposed requiring a deed restriction against the remainder of the golf course and clubhouse facility. The ZC also requested a condition of approval regarding a legal agreement for transfer of ownership to the community association or government entity in the event of course failure. Upon asking if the Boca Del Mar Improvement Association (BDMIA) would support development upon all 18 holes of the golf course property, the agent responded that no such agreement or support would be provided. The ZC closed with direction that traffic improvements requested by the City of Boca Raton be addressed by conditions of approval. Public Commentary A representative of the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) addressed the ZC to voice objections to the application. This representative stated that the proposal impacts the District s fee-simple land by way of turn lane installation and canal piping without the District s consent. The applicant s agent responded by stating that compensatory land will be provided to the District, and that the issue is a matter of permitting at a later date. A property owner within Boca Del Mar spoke in support of the application, noting favoritism for assurances that open space elsewhere within the community would be preserved. The ZC then asked if support would be extended for a similar development on golf course land located adjacent to this individual s ownership interest. In response, this individual noted that support may not be provide under that circumstance. Several local residents spoke in opposition to the application. Comments generally indicated concern with increased vehicular traffic; capacity of local roadways to accommodate a heightened volume of traffic; lack of assurance for the economic success of a reconfigured golf course; the honorability of actions by the property owner; and the procedures taken by the BDMIA in voting on this development concept. One resident stated that attendance was not reflective of the community s sentiment toward the application. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 85

15 A team of individuals representing the South County Coalition addressed the ZC to oppose the application. One individual noted that the City of Boca Raton has lost revenue by operating golf courses similar to the reconfigured course being contemplated by the applicant s development proposal. When asked of alternative uses that could be accommodated on the property, this individual suggested that an alternative residential format may be an option. A planning consultant stated that the application represents urban sprawl by consuming open space. This individual also disputed that classification of the proposed development as an infill project since the area is not blighted and a viable community would be directly affected. This individual closed by noting that the application establishes a poor precedent for golf course conversions; that alternative options are available; that public involvement in the project has been lacking; and that the proposal stands as a broken promise to the community. An engineer and community resident spoke of fatal accidents in the vicinity of the site and at local intersections. This individual also stated that the project s design lends to poor circulation. Another local resident presented pictures of the community to portray the prevailing state of the area. This resident voiced objections on the basis of deceptive and intimidating practices, bad faith, and lack of long-term vision by the property owner. The HOA president of an adjacent community questioned what had been done by the property owner to reverse negative trends. This representative also referenced reliance on private legal documents for local stability. A property appraiser made final comments on behalf of the South County Coalition by suggesting that property values and adjacency to golf course may be correlated by as high as 25% of a property s market value. The president of the BDMIA addressed the ZC and stated that the Association had agonized over the appropriate use for the property. This individual noted that the current proposal was selected due to the site s adjacent to roadways and uses on adjacent property. This individual also stated that the view from 196 rental units would be affected by the application. In closing, the BDMIA president remarked that expiration of the prevailing deed restriction presents little stability and certainty for the community, and that the current proposal stands as a compromise. Applicant Commentary The applicant s agent commented that the proposal is a sensitive project and everything possible had been done to address the community s concerns. The agents also stated that many efforts were made to involve the community in the project s planning and design stage. The agent closed by agreeing to donate the remainder of the golf course land free of charge to Palm Beach County or the HOA if the course fails upon reconfiguration. ZC Response Following public comments, several members of ZC emphasized the lack of an express plat dedication for golf course. Several members also noted that a 2012 expiration date for the prevailing deed restriction provides a sign of change. Commissioners also stated that the design of the plan s multifamily component needed further attention; attainable housing could not be supported due to the lack of existing regulations; and that access to Military Trail is favorable. Several Commissioners noted that the public comments regarding reliance on legal documents are without merit due to matters of profitability for privately-owned property. Other Commissioners concluded that the proposal is premature due to the dates established by prevailing legal documents, and that the proposed site plan is inappropriate in light of the orientation and impact upon adjacent properties. County Attorney A representative of the County Attorney s office drew a distinction between deed restrictions and prevailing Master Plan detail. This representative advised that the Master Plan governs site development in accordance with ULDC regulations, whereas deed restrictions are private matters beyond the discretion and authority of staff and public bodies. Furthermore, this representative stated that no units are vested on the acre subject site in accordance with ULDC regulations and the prevailing Master Plan, while the same would not be true of designated residential areas elsewhere within the community. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 86

16 ZC Discussion Several members of the ZC commented that no advantages are gained by the course being closed and overgrown with vegetation. These members expressed disfavor for the proposed site plan, but stated that a mutual agreements should be reached between the developer and the community. Another Commissioner voiced support for property owner rights; stated that most ULDC Standards were met; suggested that the community should accept the compromised offered by a deed restriction on the remainder of the golf course property; and noted that the proposed development is too dense for the site. Yet another Commissioner remarked that the proposed plan is incongruous with surrounding development. This same Commissioner expressed concern with the way in which approval was obtained from the BDMIA; stated that HOA members should be involved in voting matters that affect community character; and advocated the adoption of attainable housing policy to avoid missed opportunities and achieve uniform application to all proposals. ZC Action Based upon these comments and outstanding concerns, the ZC voted 6-1 to postpone the item for 60 days. Direction was provided for the applicant to work with community members and prepared a revised site plan for consideration. Although staff voiced support for the application to be remanded to the DRO given the potential for significant change, neither the applicant nor the ZC agreed to this procedure. TABULAR DATA (Subject Site) EXISTING PROPOSED Property Control Number: (a portion thereof) Pending/New Land Use Designation: High Residential 8 (HR-8) Same Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Same Tier: Urban/Suburban Same Use: Golf Course Residential Acreage: acres Same Dwelling Units: (205 multifamily and 31 zero lot line) Density: N/A 5.45 du/ac Access: None Military Trail (1) and Camino Del Mar (4) CODE ENFORCEMENT: N/A PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: At the time of publication, staff had received 5 letters in support and 147 letters in opposition to the requests from the public. One of the letters of opposition contained signatures of 621 local residents. Additional correspondence has also been forward to the Zoning Division for incorporation into the application file and public record. The comments generally indicate concern with additional vehicular traffic on local roadways; compromised safety on local roadways; the proposed vehicular access point on Military Trail; separation distances between existing and proposed vehicular access points; adequacy of traffic control measures to mitigate additional vehicular traffic volume; burden on public facilities and infrastructure; elevated enrollment in local schools; impact on property taxes; impact on property value; adverse effects on neighboring land owners; the proposed multifamily dwelling units; the proposed density of development; ecological and environmental impacts; heightened levels of noise pollution; adverse visual impact; loss of fairway views; adequacy of replacement buffing to mitigate visual impact; change of local character; loss of open space, green space and recreation acreage; deficient amount open space acreage; impact on quality of life; adequacy of drainage capacities to accommodate additional run-off; loss of habitat for local wildlife; heightened volume of trash and solid waste; loss of natural water resources; recent actions of the Boca Del Mar Improvement ZC February 2, 2006 Page 87

17 Association (BDMIA); legality of actions by the BDMIA Board of Directors; impact on proportional voting interests of existing BDMIA members; compromised safety for local school children; need for addition residential units; loss of existing vegetation; additional impervious surface area; pollution of existing water bodies; precedent for future applications; increase in local utility bills and service costs; both additional waiting times and lengthier lines at non-residential establishes in the vicinity of the subject site; elevated temperatures and cooling bills for the general area; heightened levels of dust and debris; acceleration of local rates of development; imbalance of local land uses; justification for the proposed changes to the master plan; increase in local population; impact on local crime rates; viability of alternative uses and ownership for the property; decline of local water pressure; heightened potential for local flooding; compromised privacy for neighboring property owners; lack of benefit to the larger community; the proposed restrictive covenant; conflict with public interest; increased rate of absenteeism; loss of scenic views along long local roadways; imbalance of financial gains for the developer and homeowners; and the loss of an integral community feature. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. ACTION BY THE ZONING COMMISSION: September 1, 2005: By-right postponement to October 6, 2005; October 6, 2005: Motion to postpone thirty (30) days to November 3, 2005, carried 7-0; December 1, 2005: Motion to postpone sixty (60) days to February 2, 2006, carried 6-1. MOTION: To recommend denial of a Development Order Amendment to re-designate land use from golf course to residential, add units, and add an access point. ZC February 2, 2006 Page 88

18 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 89

19 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 90

20 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NOT INCLUDED IN ELECTRONIC STAFF REPORT ZC February 2, 2006 Page 91

21 MASTER PLAN OF RECORD APPROVED AUGUST 27, 1995 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 92

22 APPROVED SITE PLAN DATED MARCH 18, 1974 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 93

23 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 94

24 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SHEET 1) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 95

25 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SHEET 2) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 96

26 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SHEET 3) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 97

27 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SHEET 4) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 98

28 PROPOSED REGULATING PLAN (SHEET 1) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 99

29 PROPOSED REGULATING PLAN (SHEET 2) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 100

30 PROPOSED REGULATING PLAN (SHEET 3) DATED JULY 18, 2005 ZC February 2, 2006 Page 101