PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION Application No.: ZV/DOA/R Application Name: Wharfside at Boca Pointe Control No.: Applicant: Boca Wharfside, LLC by TJAC Wharfside, LLC - Zvi Schwarzman Owners: Boca Wharfside, LLC Agent: RKB Architects Planners Inc. - Richard Brooks Telephone No.: (561) Project Manager: Carol Glasser, Site Planner II TITLE: a Type II Variance REQUEST: to allow an increase in height and sign face area for a Freestanding Sign; a decrease in the number of queuing spaces and parking spaces; and, a reduction in width of landscape islands TITLE: a Development Order Amendment REQUEST: to reconfigure the Master Plan and Site Plan to add a new use; and, add square footage to the Site Plan TITLE: a Requested Use REQUEST: to allow a Type I Restaurant APPLICATION SUMMARY: Proposed is a Development Order Amendment (DOA) for the Boca Pointe Planned Unit Development (PUD). Boca Pointe PUD was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on June 28, 1973, which rezoned the site from the Agricultural (AG) Zoning District to the Residential Single Family (RS) Zoning District with a Special Exception (SE) to allow a PUD. The applicant proposes to incorporate existing adjacent docks (+1.06 acres) into the boundary of the 8.97-acre Tract T2 portion of the Commercial Pod. Additionally, the applicant proposes to redevelop the existing 116,835 square foot/feet (sq ft) of the acre commercial development to complete the following: Four of the 13 buildings are proposed to be demolished (-44,771 sq ft) and three new buildings are proposed (+47,436 sq ft) for a total of 119,500 sq ft, which is an increase of 2,665 sq ft The proposed Requested Use is a 2,250-sq ft Type 1 Restaurant with a drive through located in a portion of Building 1. The applicant is also requesting Type II Variances to allow an increase in height and sign face area of a Freestanding Sign; a decrease of queuing spaces for the Type 1 Restaurant; a decrease in the number of parking spaces; and, a reduction in width of landscape requirements for the parking area. A total of 470 parking spaces will be provided and 1 access point from SW 18th Street will remain. SITE DATA: Location: Northeast corner of Southwest 18th Street and Powerline Road (Wharfside at Boca Pointe) Property Control Number(s) ; Existing Land Use Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Proposed Land Use Designation: No change proposed. Existing Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (RS) Proposed Zoning District: No change proposed. Existing Acreage: 8.97 acres Proposed Acreage: acres (+1.06) Tier: Urban/Suburban (U/S) Overlay District: N/A Neighborhood Plan: N/A CCRT Area: N/A Municipalities within 1 Mile N/A Future Annexation Area City of Boca Raton RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to 6 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-1; and, 12 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-2. ZC October 3, 2013 Page 87

2 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: At the time of publication, staff had received 1 telephone contact from the public regarding this project requesting additional information, and 2 letters in support of the project with no comment. PROJECT HISTORY: Application No. Resolution and Request Approval Date Resolution R approved a Rezoning from the July 17, 1973 Agricultural District to the RS Zoning District and a SE to allow a PUD (A) Resolution R approved a SE to amend the September 13, 1983 Master Plan to relocate open spaces, add and delete dwelling units (- 202 units overall) and add a guard gate (B) Resolution R approved a SE to amend the June 13, 1989 Master Plan to change the designation of Tract R from Civic to Residential, increase density and units (+35) (C) Resolution R approved an amendment to the June 13, 1989 Master Plan to allow a Nursing Home (60 beds) and a Type 3 Congregate Living Facility (CLF) (616 beds) (D) Resolution R approved the Modification of March 27, 1990 Commission requirements (aka Conditions of Approval) (E) Resolution R approved the modification of February 26, 1991 Conditions of Approval for Condition 14 (walls, berms). DOA Resolution R approved an amendment to the January 4, 2007 Master Plan to re-designate the land use (Residential to Civic) for a portion of Pod D, add 2 access points to newly created Pod D2, and modify Conditions of Approval. DOA [Resolution pending] to reconfigure the Master Plan to redesignate Scheduled for the Tract Y2 from Club Property Recreation to September 26, 2013 Residential and add 100 Multi-Family dwelling units, BCC hearing acre of Recreation, and 0.20-acre of Neighborhood Park. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (RS) with a SE for a PUD Supporting: Residential-Water Management Tract (Boca Pointe PUD No. 3 W-5, Control No ) SOUTH: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (RS) with a SE for a PUD Supporting: Residential-Type 3 CLF and Nursing Facility, (Edgewater Pointe Estates, Control No ) EAST: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (RS) with a SE for a PUD Supporting: Residential-Water Management Tract (Boca Pointe PUD No. 3 W-5, Control No ) WEST: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Single-Family Residential District (RS) with a SE for a PUD Supporting: Commercial- Financial Institution and Water Management Tract, (Boca Pointe PUD Commercial Pod - Tract T1, ) ZC October 3, 2013 Page 88

3 TYPE II VARIANCE SUMMARY V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) ARTICLE Article 3.E.2.E.2.c.4) Commercial Pod Design Article 3.E.2.E.2.c.4) Commercial Pod Design Article 6.A.1.D Minimum Queuing Standards Type 1 Restaurant Article 3.E.1.C.2.h.2.)a)(1) Planned Development District, Nonresidential Uses - Parking Article 7.G.2.B Off-Street Parking Requirements, Landscape Islands REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE Freestanding Sign: 10 feet in height maximum 15 feet in height +5 feet Freestanding Sign: 200 sq ft +120 sq ft Sign Face Area: 80 sq ft maximum 7 queuing spaces 5 queuing -2 queuing spaces spaces 478 parking spaces (Minimum 1 space per 250 sq ft of gross floor area) Minimum width of 8 feet exclusive of sidewalks 470 parking spaces 7 feet -1 foot -8 parking spaces FINDINGS: Type II Concurrent Variance Standards: When considering a Development Order application for a Type II Variance, the Zoning Commission shall consider Standards 1 through 7 listed under Article 2.B.3.E of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are as indicated below. A Type II Variance which fails to meet any of these Standards shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land, building or structure that are not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: V1, V2 YES: The applicant proposes to replace an existing 15-foot high nonconforming sign to improve the aesthetics of the sign. However, the existing sign is nonconforming and cannot be structurally changed or replaced unless it meets the current signage requirements. The applicant is proposing to improve aesthetics and to identify the existing and future tenants for the new buildings, while also combining two different sign types, Entrance Wall and Freestanding, into one to reduce visual impacts from the road. A Commercial Pod of a PUD is subject to more restrictive limitations for Freestanding Signs consistent for a commercial development that is intended to serve primarily the residents of the PUD. This Commercial Pod is vested for its nonconforming location on a collector road (SW 18th Street). The Commercial Pod is also "adjacent" to residential by definition although the Commercial Pod is separated from the residential by a water management tract and a 120-ft wide right-of-way. These circumstances are peculiar to this commercial parcel that is located in the RS Zoning District with a SE for a PUD. V3 YES: The proposed Type 1 Restaurant with a drive through is subject to Table 6.A.1.D for the number of queuing spaces. The Type 1 Restaurant is designed in-line with General Retail and Financial Institution uses in proposed Building 1 located in an area that is currently used as a large parking area. Queuing has been provided for the Financial Institution's drive through lanes and ATM lane. The loading area for the General Retail portion of Building 1 is between the queuing for the Type 1 Restaurant and the Financial Institution The location of Building 1 is constrained by the existing parking area design and circulation. The drive aisle located at the rear of Building 1 will function as a by-pass lane and will not conflict with pedestrians or vehicular traffic desiring to park ZC October 3, 2013 Page 89

4 near building entrances or traversing the main drive aisle. These are the special circumstances for the queuing variance request to eliminate 2 queuing spaces for the Type 1 Restaurant. V4 YES: In order to more closely comply with the requirements in Article 6 Parking (Design and Queuing) and Article 7.G Parking Area Landscaping, the applicant reduced the request to 119,500 sq ft, which is a relatively small increase for the development. Four existing buildings will be demolished and three new buildings are proposed to improve marketability of the development and to enhance the pedestrian plazas and boardwalk area. The site design is further constrained by Buildings I, J, N, O, and P, which are extremely small (402 sq ft to 1,226 sq ft) and are constructed on piers. The applicant indicates demolition of these small buildings is cost prohibitive even though leasing for the small buildings has proved difficult. Parking must be provided for these small buildings although as the applicant indicates, the buildings may continue to exist without a tenant due the special circumstance of their location on the pier. V5 YES: The existing landscaping for the parking area does not meet current Code as to landscape island spacing; and, width and length of the landscape islands. The required shaded pedestrian circulation system is also not provided. Existing landscape islands are proposed to be widened, relocated; and, new Terminal Islands, Interior Islands, and Divider Medians will be added to provide a shaded pedestrian circulation system within the parking area. A 1-ft reduction in width for parking area landscaping is requested to space the parking area landscape area throughout the parking area and to balance the loss of existing parking spaces with the provision of a shaded pedestrian circulation system. With the proposed modifications to the plan, the applicant has increased the size and location of these islands to the greatest extent, although still needing a variance. The enhanced parking area landscaping will provide shade and reduce heat gain throughout the entire parking area in accordance with the purpose and intent of Article 7 Landscaping. The existing canopy trees (oaks) in the parking area, which were installed approximately three years ago, will be relocated pursuant to a required Tree Removal and Replacement Permit. These are the special circumstances. 2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant: V1 through V5 YES: The subject site is an existing nonconforming Commercial Pod of a PUD. The applicant indicates in the Justification Statement that the plaza has had difficulty leasing tenant spaces due to the poor configuration of the buildings, a pedestrian-unfriendly design, and limited visibility for the businesses. The new property owner proposes to redevelop the site to improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation and to improve visibility of the tenant spaces. 3. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Comprehensive Plan and this code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: V1 through V5 YES: No special privilege is conferred. The applicant has supported the peculiar circumstance of redeveloping an existing Commercial Pod in a PUD and the criteria needed for the grant of the variances, as the Code allows for other parcels and buildings in the same zoning district. 4. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship: V1 through V5 YES: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Code would cause a significant loss in the function of the site layout and proposed buildings. The Preliminary Site Plan more evenly distributes buildings and parking to eliminate remote parking spaces that currently lack shaded pedestrian walkways and improves site circulation. The boardwalk pedestrian amenity/plaza areas for the development are also enhanced. 5. Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land, building or structure: ZC October 3, 2013 Page 90

5 V1 through V5 YES: The applicant has requested the minimum variance needed to redevelop the existing nonconforming Commercial Pod to improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and business visibility. 6. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code: V1 through V5 YES: Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan and the Code. 7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: V1 through YES: Granting of the variance will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare. Conditional Uses, Requested Uses and Development Order Amendments: When considering a Development Order application for a Conditional or Requested Use, or a Development Order Amendment, the BCC and ZC shall consider Standards 1 8 listed in Article 2.B.2.B. of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are indicated below. A Conditional or Requested Use or Development Order Amendment which fails to meet any of these standards shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Consistency with the Plan The proposed use or amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45 is allowed for a non-residential project with the MR-5 Future Land Use (FLU) designation in the U/S Tier ( acres x 43,560 sq ft/acre x 0.45 maximum FAR = 196,510 sq ft maximum). The request for an additional 2,665 sq ft increases the overall total to 119,500 sq ft for the development, which equates to a FAR of approximately 0.27 (119,500 /436,689 sq ft or acres = 0.273). FINDINGS: The requests are consistent with the MR-5 Land Use designation of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Consistency with the Code - The proposed use or amendment complies with all applicable standards and provisions of this Code for use, layout, function, and general development characteristics. The proposed use also complies with all applicable portions of Article 4.B, SUPPLEMENTARY USE STANDARDS. The Type 1 Restaurant with a drive through meets the location requirements in the Supplementary Use Standards. No other Type 1 Restaurant with a drive through is within 1,000 feet of the intersection. (Exhibit E) The applicant proposes to reconfigure the Site Plan to improve the pedestrian circulation system. Currently, some parking spaces are 360 ft from building entrances and no pedestrian walkways are provided in the parking area. The proposed site layout corrects these issues. Parking is more evenly distributed near buildings and a shaded pedestrian walkways is provided from the public sidewalk to the building entrances. Subject to the approval of the Type II Variances V1 through V5; the Conditions of Approval in Exhibits C1, C-2, and C-3; and, DRO approval of a Type I Waiver for the loading spaces provided, the proposed Type 1 Restaurant and a Development Order Amendment will meet all applicable standards and provisions of the Code. In accordance with Code, prior to final approval by the Development Review Officer (DRO), the Site and Regulating Plans shall be revised as follows: ZC October 3, 2013 Page 91

6 Non-Conformities chart per Article 1.E.1.C. to include Building A - Setback 26.7 ft; Buildings H and M - No loading; and, Commercial Pod location - Collector road; and, Parking area landscaping in accordance with Article 7.G Off-Street Parking Requirements and the Type II Variance V5 above to allow a reduction in landscape island width. 3. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The proposed use or amendment is compatible and generally consistent with the uses and character of the land surrounding and in the vicinity of the land proposed for development. The proposed amendment to the Master, Site and Regulating Plans to reconfigure the site layout and add square footage is does not create an consistency with the surrounding land. The Commercial Pod of this PUD has been approved since The applicant is proposing to renovate the development to attract new users and make provide a more pedestrian oriented development. Building 1 is setback 139 feet from the Right-of-way. Building 2 is setback 224 feet from the Right-ofway and screened from residential to the east by existing Building M. Building 3 will provide the current Code setback of 30 feet from the rear. The development is separated from surrounding residential to the north and east by the water management tract. 4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impact and intensity of the proposed use on adjacent lands. The proposed buildings are subject to Article 5.C Design Standards. A Condition of Approval is recommended to require the elevations for the retail buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) prior to final approval by the DRO. (Exhibit C-2) Two buildings (E and L) that did not meet current Code for setback are proposed to be demolished. The new buildings (1, 2, and 3) meet or exceed minimum setback. Foundation plantings will be provided for the new buildings. 5. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed use and design minimizes environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, water, air, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. VEGETATION PROTECTION: The property has been previously developed. WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE: The property is not located within a Wellfield Protection Zone. IRRIGATION CONSERVATION CONCERNS AND SURFACE WATER: All new installations of automatic irrigation systems shall be equipped with a water sensing device that will automatically discontinue irrigation during periods of rainfall pursuant to the Water and Irrigation Conservation Ordinance No Any non stormwater discharge or the maintenance or use of a connection that results in a non stormwater discharge to the stormwater system is prohibited pursuant to Palm Beach County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Ordinance No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No significant environmental issues are associated with this petition beyond compliance with ULDC requirements. 6. Development Patterns The proposed use or amendment will result in a logical, orderly and timely development pattern. The proposed Type I Restaurant and DOA to Tract T2 of the Commercial Pod will not alter the existing development pattern of commercial and residential uses. A Commercial Pod for the Boca Pointe PUD was approved at the northeast corner of SW 18th Street and Powerline Road on July 17, 1973 via Resolution R in accordance with the 1973 Code. The Commercial Pod is existing and vested for its non-conforming location on an Urban Collector road. The Commercial Pod consists of two tracts, Tracts T1 and T2. Tract T1 abuts the subject site to the west and supports a Financial Institution. The site is surrounded by a Water Management Tract on the north and east property lines, and a portion of the west property line. To the south, across the 120-ft wide right-of-way is an existing Type 3 CLF and Nursing Facility approved in 1989 via Resolution R Adequate Public Facilities The extent to which the proposed use complies with Art. 2. F, Concurrency. ZC October 3, 2013 Page 92

7 ENGINEERING: The Property Owner shall obtain an onsite Drainage Permit from the Palm Beach County Engineering Department, Permit Section, prior to the application of a Building Permit. The Property Owner shall obtain a Right of Way Permit from the Palm Beach County Engineering Department, Permit Section, for any modification to the existing access or new access onto SW 18th Street. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner shall plat the subject property in accordance with provisions of Article 11 of the ULDC. TRAFFIC: Adjacent Roadway Level of Service (LOS) (PM Peak) Segment: SW 18th Street from Powerline Road to S Military Trail Existing count: East Bound = 810, West Bound = 1,580 Background growth: East Bound = 121, West Bound = 235 Project Trips: East Bound = 13, West Bound = 17 Total Traffic: East Bound = 970, West Bound = 1,879 Present laneage: East Bound = 2 lanes, West Bound = 2 lanes Assured laneage: East Bound = 2 lanes, West Bound = 2 lanes LOS "D" capacity: 1,960 Vehicles per Hour (VPH) (directional) Projected LOS: East Bound = B, West Bound = C PALM BEACH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: No Staff Review Analysis FIRE PROTECTION: The Palm Beach County Department of Fire Rescue will provide fire protection. SCHOOL IMPACTS: No Staff Review Analysis PARKS AND RECREATION: No Staff Review Analysis Concurrency has been approved for 119,500 sq ft of mixed commercial uses including a 2,250 sq ft Type 1 Restaurant. 8. Changed Conditions or Circumstances There are demonstrated changed conditions or circumstances that necessitate a modification. The applicant states that since the Boca Pointe PUD commercial development was constructed, the plaza has had difficulty leasing the tenant spaces. The original design places the largest portion of the plaza at the rear of the parcel, which is over 250-ft from the right-of-way nearly eliminating visibility for most businesses. The existing parking layout causes patrons to walk longer distances to the plaza. The DOA request is needed to improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation and to improve business visibility. A Requested Use is needed to allow the Type 1 Restaurant with a drive through in the reconfigured parking area. CONCLUSION Staff has evaluated the standards listed under Article 2.B.2.B 1-8 and determined that there is a balance between the need for change and the potential impacts generated by this change. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. Staff has also determined that any of the potential impact and incompatibility issues will be adequately addressed subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibits C-1 and C-2. ZC October 3, 2013 Page 93

8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C-1 Type II Variance - Concurrent VARIANCE 1. This Variance is approved based on the layout as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan dated August 15, Only minor modifications by Board of County Commissioners or Development Review Officer shall be permitted provided the changes are consistent with this Preliminary Site Plan. (ONGOING: CODE ENF - Zoning) 2. Prior to the submittal for Final Approval by the Development Review Officer, the approved Variance(s) and any associated Conditions of Approval shall be shown on the Final Site Plan. (DRO: ZONING - Zoning) 3. At time of application for a Building Permit for the Freestanding Sign, the Property Owner shall provide a copy of this Variance approval along with copies of the approved Plan to the Building Division. (BLDG PERMIT: BLDG - Zoning) 4. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a.the Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other Permit, License or Approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or, b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other Zoning Approval; and/or, c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of Conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 5. In Granting this Approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit. ZC October 3, 2013 Page 94

9 EXHIBIT C-2 Development Order Amendment ALL PETITIONS 1. All previous conditions of approval applicable to the subject property, as contained in Resolutions R (Control No ), R (Control No (A)), R (Control No (B)), R (Control No (C)), R (Control No (D)), R (Control No (E)), and R (Control No ), shall remain in effect unless expressly modified herein. The Property Owner shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval and deadlines previously established by Article 2.E of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) and the Board of County Commissioners or Zoning Commission, unless expressly modified. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. The Conditions of Approval as contained herein shall apply to Tract T-2 of the Commercial Pod only (the Affected area of Application ZV/DOA/R ), unless expressly stated. The approved Preliminary Master Plan is dated August 15, Modifications to the Development Order inconsistent with the Conditions of Approval, or changes to the uses or site design beyond the authority of the Development Review Officer as established in the ULDC, must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 3. Development of Tract T2 is limited to the uses and/or site design approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The approved Preliminary Site Plan is dated August 15, 2013 and the approved Preliminary Regulating Plan is dated July 18, All modifications to the Development Order must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Zoning Commission, unless the proposed changes are required to meet Conditions of Approval. (DRO: ZONING - Zoning) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. At time of submittal for Final Approval by the Development Review Officer (DRO), the Architectural Elevations for the retail buildings shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Division. Architectural Elevations shall comply with the standards indicated in Article 5.C of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). Development shall be consistent with the approved Architectural Elevations, the DRO approved Final Plan, all applicable Conditions of Approval, and all ULDC requirements. (DRO: ZONING - Zoning) ENGINEERING 1. The Property Owner shall fund the cost of signal installation if warranted as determined by the County Engineer at SW 18th St and Project Entrance. Signalization shall be a mast arm structure installation. The cost of signalization shall also include all design costs and any required utility relocation and right of way or easement acquisition. a. The Property Owner shall provide acceptable surety to the Traffic Division in an amount as determined by the Director of the Traffic Division by April 30, (DATE: MONITORING-Eng). b. In order to request release of the surety for the traffic signal at the above intersection, the Property Owner shall provide written notice to the Traffic Division stating that the final certificate of occupancy has been issued for this development and requesting that a signal warrant study be conducted at the intersection. The Traffic Division shall have 24 months from receipt of this notice to either draw upon the monies to construct the traffic signal or release the monies. In the event that the property is sold, the surety may be returned once the Traffic Division receives written documentation of the sale and a replacement surety has been provided to the Traffic Division by the new Property Owner. (ONGOING: ENGINEERING-Eng) 2. In order to comply with the mandatory Traffic Performance Standards, the Property owner shall be restricted to the following phasing schedule: a. No Building Permits for the site may be issued after December 31, A time extension for this condition may be approved by the County Engineer based upon an approved Traffic Study which complies with Mandatory Traffic Performance Standards in place at the time of the request. This ZC October 3, 2013 Page 95

10 extension request shall be made pursuant to the requirements of Art. 2.E of the Unified Land Development Code. (DATE: MONITORING-Eng) 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Wharfside at Boca Pointe, the Property Owner shall legally create the lot in accordance with Article 11 of the Unified Land Development Code. Creation of the legal lot shall apply to both Tract W-5 in P.B. 46, PG. 123 and Tract T-2 in P.B. 43, PG. 194 to reflect the current property line.(co: MONITORING - Eng) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for Building 1 or Building 2, Buildings E, F, and L shall be demolished and the Demolition Permits completed. SITE DESIGN 1. The site shall be limited to a maximum of 119,500 square feet. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) COMPLIANCE 1. In Granting this Approval, the Board of County Commissioners relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the Approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the Compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other permit, license or approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other zoning approval; and/or c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions of Approval; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any Condition of Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit. ZC October 3, 2013 Page 96

11 Figure 1 Land Use Map ZC October 3, 2013 Page 97

12 Figure 2 Zoning Map ZC October 3, 2013 Page 98

13 Figure 3 Aerial ZC October 3, 2013 Page 99

14 Figure 4 Preliminary Master Plan dated August 15, 2013 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 100

15 Figure 5 Preliminary Site Plan dated August 15, 2013 ZC Application No. ZV/DOA/R October 3, 2013 BCC District 4 Page 101

16 Figure 6 Final Site Plan dated August 22, 1983 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 102

17 Figure 7 Preliminary Regulating Plan page 1 dated July 18, 2013 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 103

18 Figure 8 Preliminary Regulating Plan page 2 dated July 18, 2013 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 104

19 Figure 9 Preliminary Master Sign Plan dated July 16, 2013 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 105

20 Exhibit D: Disclosures ZC October 3, 2013 Page 106

21 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 107

22 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 108

23 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 109

24 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 110

25 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 111

26 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 112

27 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 113

28 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 114

29 Exhibit E: Type 1 Restaurant - Aerial 1,000-foot radius ZC October 3, 2013 Page 115

30 Exhibit F: Applicant's Type II Variance Justification dated August 27, 2013 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 116

31 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 117

32 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 118

33 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 119

34 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 120

35 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 121

36 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 122

37 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 123

38 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 124

39 V1, V2 Applicant's Variance Justification - Photos ZC October 3, 2013 Page 125

40 ZC October 3, 2013 Page 126