CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PLANNING BOARD Meeting Date: December 17, 2013 Planning Board Case Nos.

1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 4200-4400 North Flagler Drive Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) Location Aerial

Site outlined in red. I. REQUEST Planning Board Case Nos. 1445X, Y, and Z: A request by Lynda Harris and Joseph Verdone, of Carlton Fields, on behalf of TRG North Flagler Venture, Ltd. and RSBC Real Estate Company, LLLP, for the following, to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 1,059 residential units; 15,085 square feet of restaurant uses; 90,000 of commercial uses; and a commercial marina: Case No. 1445X: A Future Land Use (FLU) Map amendment, changing the FLU designation of 19.08 acres from Multifamily (MF) and Commercial (C) to Commercial East (CE); and Case No. 1445Y: A rezoning, changing the zoning designation of 5.094 acres located at 4400 North Flagler Drive from Residential Planned Development (RPD) to Commercial Marine (CM); and

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 1

Case No. 1445Z: A Major Planned Development Amendment to expand the boundaries of the existing Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) to include an additional 5.094 acres located at 4400 North Flagler Drive. Location: The entire site, consisting of 19.08 acres is located at 4200-4400 North Flagler Drive, within Commission District No. 1 Commissioner Sylvia Moffett. II. RECOMMENDATION Case No. 1445X: APPROVAL with CONDITIONS Based on the finding that the amendment complies with the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and is in accordance with the Citys Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation is made subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum development potential on the property shall be limited to 14,640 average daily vehicular trips. The ordinance approving the FLU amendment shall reflect this requirement, in addition to a restrictive covenant that is recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, in a form acceptable to the City of West Palm Beach Attorneys Office. Additionally, the proposed amendment meets item No. 4 (New Issues) of the Future Land Use (FLU) Amendment Justification Standards found in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.7 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Case No. 1445Y: APPROVAL Based on the findings that the petition meets the required standards in Section 94-32 of the City of West Palm Beach Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs). Case No. 1445Z: APPROVAL with CONDITIONS Based on the findings that the petition meets the required standards in Section 94-32 of the City of West Palm Beach Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs). This recommendation is made subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling the application before the City Commission, the following shall be addressed: a. The proposed Master Plan shall be revised to reflect a maximum number of boat slips (272) shall be indicated in the Project Data table, to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. b. The uses and associated square footages shown in the Project Data table of the Master Plan shall be revised to match that which is provided within the Design Guidelines.

2 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

c. The minimum required tower setbacks from North Flagler Drive shall be modified to more closely reflect the tower placement shown in the Master Plan and Massing Diagram. d. The Master Plan and all applicable regulations shall be revised to exclude Parcel 4 of the Rybovich Plat from the proposed development as it is owned by the City of West Palm Beach, and not the applicant. e. The required minimum setback from the beach, seawall, or bulkhead shall be increased to accommodate the required public promenade / boardwalk. f. The required minimum setback from the north and south properties lines shall be included into the Property Development Regulations Table. g. The applicant shall initiate conversation with Staff to discuss concerns and potential modifications that can be made regarding the overall height of the towers within PBA #2 and #5, so as to not negatively impact adjacent residential development to the north and south of the subject property. h. The following elements / incentives shall be incorporated into the Design Guidelines as requirements for each phase of the project: i. If at any time a trolley or bus route shall ever be implemented adjacent to the subject property, the developer shall construct and dedicate a transit shelter. Such facility shall be subject to the review and approval of the City and/or other agency operating the transit route. ii. At least 50% of required bicycle parking shall be covered or enclosed. iii. Shower/changing facilities shall be provided for occupants of nonresidential uses. iv. Publically accessible alternative fuel/electric fueling stations for 5% of the total non-residential vehicle parking spaces shall be provided.
v. Parking spaces for shared vehicle use (car pool), equivalent to at least 2% of the total parking spaces, shall be provided.

vi. Landscaping shall be provided above the minimum requirements of the Citys Zoning and Land Development Regulations. At least 25% of the required shade trees shall consist of a specification that is at least 150% of the minimum size required by the Citys Zoning and Land Devel opment Regulations.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 3

vii. Reduce potable water use for landscaping by 50% using efficient irrigation techniques, drought resistant plants and/or captured rainwater, or use of gray water. viii. Reduce potable water use for sewage conveyance by 50% through the use of water-conserving fixtures or recycled gray water; or treat 50% of wastewater on-site to tertiary standards. Treated water must be infiltrated or used on-site. ix. High-efficiency fixtures, waterless urinals, and occupant sensors shall be utilized to reduce potable water use by 35%. (Not including irrigation) x. Permeable paving shall be utilized for at least 25% of the driveways, patios, and/or walkways. xi. High reflectance paving materials, an open grid pavement system and/or shade for 50% of the site's hardscape shall be provided, or a minimum of 50% of parking spaces shall be under cover. xii. A high reflectance roofing material (with an albedo or reflectance of 0.30 or higher) shall be provided for 75% of the roof surface, or 50% green roof, or combination thereof. xiii. Insulation with at least 75% recycled content shall be utilized. xiv. In response to Staffs concerns regarding inactivity along the North Flagler Drive frontage, a minimum of 25% of the garage frontage shall consist of an active liner use. In those locations where there is no active liner use, structured parking shall be obscured or shielded from public view and pedestrian elements shall be provided (i.e. benches, trash cans, water fountains, public art, etc.) xv. Access to the Intracoastal Waterway shall be provided to the public. The waterfront promenade shall remain open and ungated (not to include parking) to the public between the hours of 6:00 am and 12:00 am (midnight). xvi. At each phase of the project, at least 10% of the residential dwelling units shall be set aside as Workforce Housing. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the provision of such units. The Citys Housing and Community Development Department will verify whether buyers are qualified for the workforce housing program. A qualified buyer shall be a buyer who meets the Workforce qualifications of the Citys most current Purchase Affordability Table. The workforce housing units shall be designated at the time of site plan approval, and shall be restricted to residency by a qualified buyer for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for such unit. The developer

4 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

shall construct each workforce housing unit to the same standards, and with similar style, finish and fixtures, as the standard housing units in the project. xvii. LED lights shall be utilized for all walkways and street lights. i. The Design Guidelines shall be revised to require that the developer provide a parking management plan at the time site plan review for each phase of the project, indicating how adequate provisions will be made for staging, parking of construction traffic as well as existing uses on the site, deliveries, etc. during the construction process. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit: a. The developer shall obtain all necessary approvals, and make all necessary improvements (at the developers expense) to convert 40th Street into a two-way road between North Flagler Drive and Broadway Avenue. b. The adjacent streetscape (the east and west sides of North Flagler Drive), including but not limited to landscaping and sidewalks/bike paths, shall be coordinated with the City of West Palm Beach Engineering Services Department, incorporated into the overall Master Plan. Such improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. c. A restrictive covenant, in a form acceptable to the City of West Palm Beach Attorneys Office, shall be recorded into the Public Records of Palm Beach County indicating that all platted lots shall be considered as one (1) parcel governed by the adopted Overall Site/Marina Plan. d. The developer shall provide a bond in the amount of 110% of the cost of installation of a traffic signal at North Flagler Drive and 45th Street. 3. Prior to the issuance of a permit for the filling of any submerged land, copies of approvals shall be provided from all applicable regulatory agencies for the relocation and filling of the bulkhead, as shown on the adopted Site Plan. Such agencies may include, but is not limited to, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 4. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy: a. A statement, in a form acceptable to the City of West Palm Beach Attorneys Office, shall be recorded into the Public Records of Palm Beach County indicating that submerged lands used for calculation of residential density will not be filled and utilized for additional residential development following approval of the Planned Development.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 5

b. The property shall be replatted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the City of West Palm Beach. c. A northbound left turn lane shall be constructed from North Flagler Drive onto 45th Street (at the developers expense). The developer shall be required to obtain permits from all applicable review agencies. 5. One (1) year after issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, and every year thereafter, a Traffic Study and Warrant Analysis shall be performed (at the developers expense) for the intersection of North Flagler Drive and 45th Street. At any point when the results of the study and analysis conclude that a traffic signal is warranted, and the City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County concur, then such improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City and Countys design standards and permitting process. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new dock construction, the applicant shall receive permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). All plans associated with the FDEP and ACOE permits shall be in substantial conformance with the plans approved herein. These permits also contain conditions of approval satisfying the applicants necessary compliance with the Citys Zoning and Land Development Regulations. In any event where the FDEP or ACOE permits require a modification to the plans or conditions of approval, the modification shall be reviewed by the City and an amendment to the Planned Development may be required, at the discretion of the Development Services Director, or his/her designee. 7. Domestic, fire, and irrigation water service to the subject property must be designed and installed at the developer's expense. Any undersized service lines shall be upgraded to accommodate the development and shall occur at the developer's expense. 8. Sanitary service facilities for the development shall be designed and installed at the developer's expense. Any undersized service lines shall be upgraded to accommodate the development and shall occur at the developer's expense. 9. Storm water shall be retained on site to meet the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) criteria and permits shall be obtained from the proper drainage district to discharge storm water into their system. 10. Driveway connections must be designed and installed at the developer's expense. 11. The developer shall assume all right-of-way utility improvements associated with the development. Applicable capacity charges, installation charges, deposits, and other normal fees charged by the Public Utilities Department shall be assessed at the time of request for permits/review.

6 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

III. LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property currently has the following Future Land Use (FLU) and zoning designations:
Existing Future Land Use (FLU) Designations TRG 5.094 acres Rybovich 13.986 acres Multifamily (MF) Commercial (C) Existing Zoning Designations Residential Planned Development (RPD) Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD)

Adjacent FLU designations, zoning designations, and uses are as follows:

Adjacent Future Land Use (FLU) Designations North: South: East: West: Multifamily (MF) Multifamily (MF) Not Applicable Community Service (CS) Single Family (SF) Adjacent Zoning Designations Multifamily High Density (MF32) Residential Residential Planned Development (RPD) Not Applicable Community Service (CS) Single Family Low Density (SF7) Residential

Existing Uses

Multifamily Residences Multifamily Residences Intracoastal Waterway Elementary School Single Family Residential

Maps depicting the existing FLU and Zoning designations of the subject property and surrounding area are also provided as ATTACHMENTS I and II. IV. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The property subject of this application, as shown in the survey attached hereto as ATTACHMENT III, is located along the east side of North Flagler Drive between 38th and 44th Streets, consisting of 14.242 acres of upland property and 4.838 acres of submerged lands (totaling 19.08 acres). The property consists of two (2) existing developments that have previously been reviewed and approved independently; these developments consist of the following: Rybovich Marina Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) 13.986 acres located between 38th and 42nd Streets On August 29, 2005, the City Commission approved Ordinance Nos. 3893-05 and 389405, establishing the Rybovich Spencer Commercial Marine Planned Development

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 7

(CMPD). The CMPD is ultimately to provide for a large mixed-use development consisting of the following: 448 high-end residential condominiums 1,373 parking spaces 149-slip marina with a 4-story dock-master control tower 125 dry boat slips 15,085 square foot restaurant 14,000 square feet of office 14,000 square feet of retail Publicly accessible waterfront promenade

From the onset of the proposed development, it was anticipated that the Master Plan would be completed in two (2) phases, allowing the property to continue as a marina and boatyard while construction of half of the residential units was underway. At a later date, the second phase of the project would commence involving the removal of the upland portion of the marina in its entirety to allow the construction of the remaining residential towers. Because of the change in the residential housing market, the development strategy for the site was modified and the Rybovich Master Plan was indefinitely put on hold, and the developer has chosen to expand the commercial marina and repair facility by providing facilities that also cater to crew members, captains, staff, etc. that are displaced during the repair operations of a mega-yacht. It is important to note, however, that the Master Plan for the mixed-use development remains as previously approved and has been vested with the construction of the docks; this project could still be built at a future date. In order to accommodate the new development strategy, Staff worked with the developer to institute a plan for the interim use of the property and established a review procedure that allowed a Staff-level review for any interim use of the property so long as the total square footage did not exceed 50,000 square feet and that it conformed to all of the applicable Commercial Marine (CM) development regulations. This procedure was adopted by the City Commission on August 11, 2008 (Ordinance No. 4157-08). After the adoption of Ordinance No. 4157-08, the developer constructed a marina amenity building that included a swimming pool and fitness center, as well as reconfigured parking and marina work areas. In 2011, the developer looked to further expand the amenities offered on the site by providing additional office and storage space for the marina operations. As the proposal exceeded the 50,000 square foot threshold that was established in Ordinance No. 415708, a Major Amendment to the CMPD was required and a separate Master Plan was adopted for the interim development of the property. The additional facilities that were approved as part of that plan included the following:

8 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

3,480 square foot storage building; 5,541 square foot fitness center; 4,652 square foot cafeteria building with cooking facilities, dining room, covered terrace and outdoor bar; 42 pod storage units (170 square feet each, 7,140 square feet total); 28 pod administrative work stations (170 square feet each, 4,760 square feet total); and Marina work areas.

These facilities, along with the other interim uses described previously, were combined into a proposed Interim Master Plan and Landscape Plan, which was adopted by the City Commission on September 6, 2011, via Resolution No. 191-11. On June 24, 2013, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 164-13, which further amended the Rybovich CMPD by allowing the addition of 5,802 square feet of mezzanine within the existing Marine Technology Center (MTC) building, providing for additional administrative offices. Additionally, large areas throughout the site had previously been designated as Marina Work Area to accommodate a variety of activities as part of the marina operations, and this was expanded at the far south end of the property to allow the property owner to bring in some of the largest boats in the world for repair. The Citys only working commercial marina continues to be very successful in its operations. TRG Residential Planned Development (RPD) 5.094 acres located between 42nd and 44th Streets
On December 19, 2005, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 3909-05, rezoning approximately 3.424 acres of the TRG property from Multifamily High Density (MF32) Residential to Residential Planned Development (RPD). The proposed development at that time was to consist of a single 21-story residential condominium containing a total of 138 dwelling units with an enclosed parking garage. Four (4) of the units were to be of a townhouses-style units along North Flagler Drive to screen the enclosed parking garage from the street frontage. Approximately four (4) months after obtaining approval of the above-referenced project, the developer purchased an additional 1.68 acres to the north of the original development. As such, an amendment to the development was proposed to include the additional property and make modifications to the plan accordingly. In August 2006, the City Commission approved Ordinance Nos. 3978-06 and 3979-06, rezoning the newly-acquired property and expanding the boundaries of the RPD. The expanded development allowed for an increase in dwelling units to a total of 150 units, and increased the height of the building to 23 stories. Although there was a slight increase in the number of units, the additional land area did provide for an overall reduction in density (change in net density from 40.4 units/acre to 29.4 units/acre). In December 2007, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 4096-07, approving the removal of two (2) existing docking structures and allowing for the construction of one (1) 12-slip dock; the upland portion of the proposed development remained unchanged.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 9

This project remains valid through December 2014, and could be built at any time prior to such deadline. In 2009, TRG submitted a Major Amendment to the RPD to replace the previously approval project with a larger residential development consisting of 506 residential dwelling units and replacing the one (1) tower with two (2) towers. This proposal was presented to the Planning Board on October 18, 2011, and received a recommendation of denial. Throughout the City Commission proceedings on this project, the application continued to receive opposition and was continued numerous times. The project was eventually revised, reducing the unit count to 397 units, and reducing the height of the buildings from 23 stories to 21 and 20 stories. This application was never voted upon by the City Commission, as the application was ultimately withdrawn on September 3, 2013. The withdrawal of the TRG proposal referenced above was a result of a collaboration that developed between TRG and Rybovich during the latter stages of their application, in which the two developments were encouraged to work together to develop an alternative solution for their properties that provided a cohesive and compatible project for that area of North Flagler Drive. Together, the developers have put together a proposal that would replace all of the previouslyapproved projects mentioned above, and provide for one (1) integrated Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) that has a Master Plan across the entire 19.08 acres.

The newly proposed development would provide for the construction of a marina village that contains the following: Six (6) high-rise residential buildings totaling 1,059 dwelling units; 272-slip marina; 15,085 square feet of restaurant / beach club; 35,000 square feet of office; 10,000 square feet of retail; and 45,000 square feet of marine industrial uses

A summary showing the current approved developments in relation to the newly-proposed project is provided below:

This space intentionally left blank.

10 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

Currently Approved Developments Rybovich CMPD Residential Dwelling Units Marina Boat Slips (Wet) Marina Boat Slips (Dry) Marina Amenities Restaurant Office Retail Marine Industrial 448 147 125 9,000 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft. TRG RPD 150 TOTAL 598 147 125 9,000 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft. -

Proposed Development

DIFFERENCE

1,059 272 0 15,085 sq. ft. 35,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft.

+ 461 +125 - 125 - 9,000 sq. ft. + 4,285 sq. ft. + 19,000 sq. ft. - 4,000 sq. ft. + 45,000 sq. ft.

As can be seen, the proposed development does provide for a substantial increase in the number of dwelling units, as well as non-residential square footage. A more detailed description of the project will be provided in latter sections of this report, but in order to effectuate the proposed development, the applicant has made a three-part request to modify the Future Land Use (FLU) and zoning designations on various pieces of the subject property. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT (19.08 ACRES) PB CASE NO. 1445X The entire property consists of two (2) separate developments that have two (2) separate Future Land Use (FLU) designations. Most of the property contains a Commercial (C) FLU (13.986 acres) which corresponds with the Rybovich portion of the property. The remainder of the property (TRG 5.094), contains a Multifamily (MF) FLU.

Until 2008, Policy 1.1.3 of the Citys Comprehensive Plan provided that properties possessing a C FLU designation could build residential uses, as long as they were located within the Eastward Ho! boundaries (east of Interstate 95); this is the provision that permitted Rybovich to include residential units in their 2005 Master Plan. However, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 417908, the Citys Comprehensive Plan was revised at Policy 1.1.3 to remove the Eastward Ho! reference and instead create the Commercial East (CE) FLU designation. The CE designation can only be applied east of Interstate 95 and would allow the mix of residential and nonresidential uses, as described in the current Comprehensive Plan policy: the Commercial East (CE) designation is for parcels suitable for commercial, office, institutional, hotels/motels and light industrial usesResidential uses are also permitted

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 11

Rybovichs approved 2005 Master Plan is vested under the previous Comprehensive Plan policies, but in light of the proposed Master Plan, it is the desire of the City and the applicant to instill a CE FLU designation across the property and make it consistent with the current language of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to changing the FLU designation on the 13.986-acre Rybovich property, the applicant is also proposing to change the FLU designation on the 5.094-acre TRG property from Multifamily (MF) to CE. This request is being made to expand Rybovichs existing in water commercial marina north onto the TRG property, as well as provide non-residential development in the form of restaurants, etc. A map depicting the proposed FLU in relation to the surrounding properties is provided as ATTACHMENT IV. As part of any proposed FLU amendment, each of the level of service (LOS) elements was reviewed to determine if the new FLU designations would cause any increase in impact, and if so, whether or not the capacity was available to accommodate the additional demand. In looking at both properties collectively, the maximum and most intense development potential under the current FLU designations is 164 dwelling units and 456,923 square feet of general commercial. It is important to note that the analysis was done assuming that the Rybovich property could be built-out under the Commercial (C) FLU designation which only allows a 0.75 FAR, and no residential development. With a proposed amendment to change the FLU designation on all 19.080 acres to CE, the maximum development potential would be 615 dwelling units and nearly 1.25 Million square feet of general commercial.
Existing FLU Designations TRG 5.094 acres Multifamily (MF) 32.27 du/acre = 164 units Proposed FLU Designations Commercial East (CE) 32.27 du/acre = 164 units 1.5 FAR = 332,842 sq. ft. (nonresidential) Commercial East (CE) 32.27 du/acre = 451 units 1.5 FAR = 913,845 sq. ft. (nonresidential) 615 dwelling units and 1,246,687 sq. ft. (nonresidential) DIFFERENCE + 0 dwelling units + 332,842 sq. ft. (nonresidential) + 451 dwelling units + 456,922 sq. ft. (nonresidential) + 451 dwelling units + 789,764 sq. ft. (nonresidential)

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C) 0.75 FAR = 456,923 sq. ft. (nonresidential) 164 dwelling units and 332,842 sq. ft. (nonresidential)

TOTAL

As shown in the Level of Service Table attached hereto as ATTACHMENT V, this change in FLU will result in substantial increase in impact to the various systems. As a result of the substantial increase, and because the request to change the FLU designation is primarily to allow the mixture of residential and non-residential uses, the applicant is proposing to restrict their development potential under the CE FLU designation such that it would not permit any developmental impact beyond that which could be built by-right under the current MF/C FLU designations. The restriction would be based upon the number of daily traffic trips.

12 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

As provided in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated November 13, 2013, the existing development potential on the site is valued at 14,640 daily trips. While the proposed FLU designations would permit up to 33,164 daily trips, the applicant has agreed to a restriction that would be recorded against the property and contained with the FLU amendment approval that states that at no point would development on the site be able to exceed 14,640 average daily trips.

While converting land from a residential to a commercial FLU designation can often create substantial impacts on the various systems (utilities, roads, etc.), as well as create negative impacts on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhoods, it is Staffs professional opinion that the proposed amendment, subject to the development restriction, will simply allow the mix of uses and generate no additional development potential beyond that which could be built by-right under the current FLU designations. Additionally, as the property is part of a Planned Development (PD),

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 13

controls are in place to ensure any future proposed development is analyzed extensively through the appropriate review processes. REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) TO COMMERCIAL MARINE (CM) (5.094 ACRES) PB CASE NO. 1445Y

As discussed previously, the existing TRG property was approved in 2005, and subsequently amended on a few occasions, as a Residential Planned Development (RPD). Approved for the construction of 150 dwelling units within a high-rise tower, the property is now proposed to be added to the larger Rybovich property to create one (1) cohesive Master Plan. In order for this to occur, as was necessary for the FLU designation, the zoning designation of the property will first need to be changed from RPD to Commercial Marine (CM). The CM zoning designation is consistent with the underlying zoning of the Rybovich property and would permit the expansion of the in-water portion of the Rybovich marina to the north, utilizing TRGs submerged land. MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PB CASE NO. 1445Z Subsequent to the rezoning described above, a Major Amendment to the Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) is proposed, which would expand the boundaries of the Rybovich CMPD to include the TRG property and adopt a proposed Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the entire 19.08 acres. Pursuant to Section 94-207(e) of the Citys Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs), any boundary change of the planned development constitutes a Major PD Amendment. A map showing the proposed zoning of the property and the surrounding community is provided as ATTACHMENT X. Regulatory Framework and Review Process With the amendment to the CMPD, it is the intent that an overall Master Plan (ATTACHMENT XI) would regulate the development of the property, identifying the general locations of each use, circulation patterns, and infrastructure locations. Additionally, a set of Design Guidelines (ATTACHMENT XII) are proposed to provide details, establishing the regulatory framework including development regulations, architectural standards, etc. A process similar to that which was utilized as part of the redevelopment of the Palm Beach Mall, President Country Club Resort Community, and other projects throughout the City, the establishment of the Master Plan and the Design Guidelines will provide the framework for future development of the property and are not a final site plan. If approved, each portion of the development would then be required to submit additional Major Amendments which will subsequently be reviewed by City Staff and presented before the Planning Board and City Commission. This would ensure that each phase of the project is vetted through a public hearing process. It is important to emphasize that adoption of the proposed CPD would not approve a specific site plan, but only the regulatory framework upon which these specific plans would be developed. The development of the property will also be limited to that which is shown on the Master Plan and within the Design Guidelines, and cannot be replaced with another form of development without also being reviewed and approved through a public forum.

14 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

The applicant has requested some flexibility in the quantities of each type of use that could occur within each area of the Master Plan, specifically that the following would be permitted at a Staff level review: 1. Up to thirty percent (30%) of the commercial traffic of one Permissible Building Area (PBA) could be transferred to another residential PBA, provided that there is no increase of the overall floor area permitted in the receiving residential PBA; and 2. Up to thirty percent (30%) of the commercial floor area of any commercial PBA to another commercial PBA subject to traffic equivalency; or 3. Any internal density or intensity transfer that would increase the individual maximum designated density or intensity of a PBA by more than thirty percent (30%). Therefore, it is proposed that the CMPD would allow the developer to refine the quantities of each use provided that the transfers do not exceed the thresholds indicated above. Any increase in excess of those percentages, would require a Major Amendment to the CPD. Master Plan The proposed Master Plan, as shown within ATTACHMENT XI, consists of several Permissible Building Areas (PBAs). Details of the PBAs are as follows:
PBA PBA #1 PBA #2 PBA #3 PBA #4 PBA #5 PBA #6 PBA #7 PBA #8 PBA #9 PBA #10 PBA #11 Proposed Uses Beach Club Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Restaurant Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Restaurant Multifamily Residential Marine Industrial, Retail, and Office Multifamily Residential Marine Industrial, Retail, and Office Maximum Development Potential 3,085 sq. ft. 225 units (465,000 sq. ft.) 174 units (265,000 sq. ft.) 6,000 sq. ft. 180 units (400,000 sq. ft.) 180 units (400,000 sq. ft.) 6,000 sq. ft. 180 units (365,000 sq. ft.) 45,000 sq. ft. 120 units (600,000 sq. ft.) 45,000 sq. ft.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 15

As mentioned previously, the Master Plan is also accompanied by Design Guidelines (ATTACHMENT XII) that spell out and provide regulations on the required elements for each PBA, the setbacks, building heights, etc. The physical framework for the development of the Master Plan revolves around the extension of the existing street grid, continuing the east-west corridors such that they remain open and unobstructed between North Flagler Drive and the Intracoastal Waterway. This has been done so that multiple access points, including vehicular and pedestrian, can be provided into the project, while maintaining multiple undeveloped view corridors that allow light and air to pass through the site into the surrounding neighborhood. To best illustrate this, the Master Plan is accompanied by a massing diagram that outlines the maximum potential build-out that could occur on the subject property. The Massing Diagram within the Master Plan illustrates the maximum building footprints, maximum building heights, etc. that are proposed. As can be seen, it is proposed that there would be six (6) high-rise residential buildings; five (5) of them are proposed to be 30 stories, while the sixth tower is proposed to be 25 stories. These residential structures are each provided with parking structures. Additionally, in the center of the property is the proposed location of the non-residential portion of the site (3 stories maximum), consisting of the marine industrial uses, office, retail, etc. An additional parking garage is provided for these uses. In addition to the east-west vehicular and pedestrian connections at each of the existing streets, the project is also proposing to construct a frontage road east of North Flagler Drive. This frontage road would allow for internal capture of vehicular trips by providing an alternative to using North Flagler Drive, as well as provide separation between the proposed structures and the existing development to the west of the property. One of the key elements of the previously-proposed project for the Rybovich property was the inclusion of a publicly-accessible waterfront promenade or boardwalk. This vital element of the project will continue to be a part of the new Master Plan, tying in closely with the proposed eastwest connections. This will allow public access into and through all portions of the site. Other elements proposed by the developer, as contained within the Design Guidelines, are that at least one (1) trolley/school bus stop will be provided along North Flagler Drive, and all buildings within the project will incorporate green building principles. In reviewing the proposed development, there were several aspects of the project that were of concern and required in-depth review and discussion. These are explained in more detail below: Traffic The proposed project provides for a significant amount of development on one (1) of the largest parcels in the Citys north end; however, North Flagler Drive has a unique character as a relatively narrow, traffic-calmed neighborhood street. As such, one of the major components of the project that was reviewed was the overall traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. With the primary goal of not changing the character of the street network and maintaining that

16 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

neighborhood feel, it was imperative that the proposed development did not necessitate the widening of any of the roadways, especially North Flagler Drive. As such, the applicant consulted with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to perform a traffic impact analysis to determine what the impact of the project would be at full build-out (ATTACHMENT XIII). At the request of the City, this analysis not only factored into the proposed project, but also accounted for existing un-built projects that have already been approved for North Flagler Drive, as well as hypothetical build-outs of other large vacant properties and select underutilized properties. This analysis is lengthy and in-depth, but the results of the study found that the construction of the proposed development would continue to allow North Flagler Drive as a 2-lane road, and that no segment of the street would function below a Level of Service (LOS) D. The busiest segment would be between 40th and 41st Streets, providing approximately 596 vehicles per hour in the northbound direction during the afternoon peak hour. As a point of reference, the Citys Comprehensive Plan allows thoroughfares within the City to operate at a Level of Service E. The study did provide that there would be several modifications that would have to be made, although they do not alter the character of the street. These modifications would be required of the developer and consist of the following: 1. Conversion of 40th Street between Spruce Avenue and North Flagler Drive to a two-way roadway (including all applicable infrastructure and signal improvements); 2. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 45th Street and North Flagler Drive, pending the satisfaction of a signal warrant study; 3. Construction of a northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of 45th Street and North Flagler Drive as warranted within the installation of the above-referenced signal; and 4. Modification to the signal timing patterns at 45th Street and Broadway Avenue. The Citys Traffic Engineer was integral in reviewing the traffic study submitted by the applicant and has concurred with the latest revision of the study that North Flagler Drive will not exceed its capacity as a 2-lane road upon build-out of the proposed project. It is important to note however, that while the traffic study did assume build-out of several vacant properties along North Flagler Drive, it did so with the assumption that they would be built in accordance with their maximum densities permitted in the Multifamily High Density (MF32) Residential zoning district. Therefore, any consideration in the future of density waivers or otherwise exceeding the MF32 zoning would need to be closely analyzed to determine how they would impact the roadway. The applicant has shown a LOS D upon build-out, with only minimal capacity available for consideration of future density waivers, etc. In addition to traffic impacts on North Flagler Drive, however, there have been numerous discussions regarding modifications to Broadway Avenue, specifically looking at the potential of narrowing the roadway from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes. As can be expected, the proposed

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 17

development would increase the amount of traffic on Broadway Avenue and would need to be factored into any studies for that potential lane reduction. Density One of the main objectives of the proposed project is to create a catalyst in the north end of the City that would help generate the momentum necessary to redevelop areas such as Broadway Avenue, infuse activity into the Northwood area, and create demand for more desirable businesses around the neighborhood. In order to do so, the applicant has indicated that the key to this happening is the inclusion and commitment of more than 1,000 residential dwelling units to the area. Based upon their experience they have stated that this number of new residents can create the synergy necessary to make other redevelopment happen. Therefore, they have requested the development of 1,059 multifamily dwelling units throughout the 19.08 acre site. This results in a proposed density of 55.5 dwelling units/acre. Section 94-207(a)(1) of the Citys ZLDRs states that the intent of a planned development is to encourage through incentives the use of innovative land planning and development techniques to create a more desirable and attractive development. Incentives offered by establishing a planned development designation may include allowing an increase in density and/or floor area ratio. Therefore, as the current zoning of the property only permits 32.27 dwelling units/acre, the applicant is requesting a waiver utilizing this provision. In reviewing such a waiver, several factors must be considered, including, what is the impact on surrounding properties? And what incentives are being offered that may not otherwise be provided by a project built by-right? As discussed previously, the amount of additional traffic was closely analyzed to ensure that the additional dwelling units would not overburden the roadway network and create an undesirable situation. Staff also looked at the benefits the proposed project offered. A lot can be attributed to the fact that the applicant is proposing to open up the waterfront and allow public access onto a site that could otherwise be left exclusive, separating the residents and guests of the adjacent residential neighborhoods from the Intracoastal Waterway. Additionally, the proposed placement and configuration of the buildings, and the access points, that create view corridors and separation between the structures for light and air; these are all benefits that the proposed project is providing that would not occur otherwise. However, Staff would like to continue to work with the applicant on additional incentives that could be offered in exchange for the increase in density. The City has been exploring the possibility of instituting a matrix in which additional density could be given to a property within a newly-established zoning district in exchange for various incentives. While the matrix and incentives for this district have not been vetted or finalized, Staff believes that some of the transportation alternatives and/or green infrastructure components could be included within the proposed development and have been provided within Staffs recommendation. Collectively, Staff believes that inclusion of all of these incentives goes above and beyond a typical by-right project, and because the existing infrastructure network would not be overburdened, the additional density is justified.

18 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

Massing/Height As indicated very early on in this report, the proposed project consists of 1,059 residential dwelling units within six (6) high-rise buildings that extend up to 30 stories in height (399 feet). While the buildings will be amongst the tallest in the City, the applicant is proposing to limit the footprints of the towers, as well as the gross square footages, to provide high-rise buildings that are relatively narrow, maintaining the view, light, and air corridors discussed previously. Staff does have concerns with regard to the size of the proposed residential towers at the north and south ends of the property, however, and believes that they should be better scaled to the adjacent residential development. This could be achieved by reducing the overall height of these towers, and allowing the high-rises internal to the project to go higher. The applicant has requested a waiver regarding these structures (PBA #2 and #5), proposing to provide a setback of only 55, when 1746 would be required for a 349 tall building; this necessitates a waiver of 1196. It is Staffs professional opinion that reducing the heights of the buildings in PBA #2 and #5 would reduce the waiver request and create a more significant tiered effect than what is currently proposed, stepping down to the existing mid-rise condominiums adjacent to the proposed project. This variation in the skyline would also create interest and character amongst the buildings, and the addition of a few floors onto the central towers will not be discernable. Treatment of North Flagler Drive One of the main concerns presented by Staff early in the review of this project was how the project addressed North Flagler Drive, both visually and as an active frontage. Noted previously, the applicant is proposing to construct a north-south frontage road east of North Flagler Drive, and as shown in the massing diagram referenced previously, a majority of the structures that face this frontage road consist of open parking garages. While Staff agrees that the frontage road will allow the buildings to set back off of North Flagler, better transition the project to the smallerscale development to the west, and provide significant opportunities for landscaping to act as a buffer, the concern is that there are large sections of the project that do not activate the eastern side of North Flagler Drive. The applicant has proposed architectural design requirements within the Design Guidelines that would certainly enhance the appearance of the garages and make them more aesthetically pleasing, but Staffs concerns have revolved around the lack of activity or uses fronting North Flagler Drive. While vehicular and pedestrian access points are provided at each of the east-west streets, there would be 4-5 blocks where there is no use or activity engaging those along North Flagler Drive, and giving little incentive for pedestrians to walk from one end of the project to the other; most of the activity is focused inward. If active uses are not going to be built along the eastern faade of the garages, then Staff would certainly recommend that street furniture (i.e. benches, bike racks, water fountains, public art, etc. be added into the space to create a linear park that continues to draw people down the pedestrian walk.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 19

Architectural Detail One of the inherent concerns with utilizing a Master Plan and Design Guidelines is that no specifics are provided regarding the appearance of the buildings and no actual site plans are submitted during the intitial review and approval process. As such, there is a lot of uncertainty into what the project will look like in the end; only uses, massing, densities, and intensities are defined. This becomes more challenging on a site such as the subject property, where it is closely integrated with an established single family neighborhood to the west, and other existing multifamily development to the north and south. Initially the applicant requested that with each phase of the project that the site plans, landscape plans, architecture, etc. all be reviewed and approved at a Staff level, and that they not be subject to the public hearing process before the Citys Planning Board and City Commission. Given the nature of the site, this presented a lot of concern to Staff because it did not provide an avenue for the details of the project to be vetted and input gathered. While the applicant insisted with pursuing the Master Plan and Design Guidelines, without formal site plan submittals at this time, they have agreed that each phase of the development will be required to be submitted as a Level III site plan review, which will require review and approval by the Planning Board and City Commission. This public hearing process will ensure that public input can be obtained at all phases of the project, and that everyone is involved throughout the life of the project. Waivers In addition to the waivers mentioned in the body of the report above, the applicant is also requesting waivers regarding separation between project ID signs and parking ratios. The only parking ratio that the applicant is proposing to modify from that which is required by t he Citys Zoning and Land Development Regulations is that associated with the restaurants / beach club. Section 94-486 of the ZLDRs indicates that 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area shall be provided for a restarant; the applicant is proposing to provide 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 space per 166.66 square feet). Staffs opinion is that the mixture of uses on the site and the ability to have shared parking facilities will negate this waiver and no create any additional impact. Further descriptions of the waiver requests are provided in the applicants Justification Statement, which is provided as a supplement to this report. CONCLUSION Reconfiguration of the existing TRG and Rybovich developments into one (1) cohesive Master Plan opens up unique opportunities that are otherwise not possible if each site were developed independently. Staff does support the concept of the project and the overall goal and vision for redevelopment of the site, but does feel that some additional detail and information needs to be provided within the Master Plan and Design Guidelines to ensure that the end product is compatible, functional, and best serves the entire community. By each phase of the development being subject to a public hearing process, it is Staffs belief that much of this can be achieved. The incentives proposed by the applicant, as well as those conditions proposed by Staff, would create a very unique and significant project within the Citys north end. It is Staffs professional opinion that the requested waivers and the proposed

20 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

development comply with the standards required by the Citys Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Land Development Regulations, as outlined in Section V below, and therefore is recommending approval subject to the conditions contained herein. V. STANDARDS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE Future Land Use Amendment Criteria - Policy 1.1.7 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan In reviewing a proposed Future Land Use Amendment, Policy 1.1.7 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that the following standards be considered: A. B. C. D. E. Changed Projections Changed Assumptions Data Errors and Updates New Issues Additional Detail and Comprehensiveness

Changed Assumptions and New Issues In order to provide for one (1) cohesive project that better utilizes the entire subject property, as opposed to providing two (2) independent projects, two (2) separate development teams have joined together. In light of this coordination and cooperation, it is desirable to have a consistent Future Land Use (FLU) designation across both properties and allow for the overall mix of uses. As a result of these modifications and changed assumptions, an amendment is required. Amendment Standards - Section 94-32 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the City of West Beach Comprehensive Plan. Findings: COMPLIES

The Citys Comprehensive Plan provides general guidance for the growth and future development of the City. The applicant is proposing to amend the FLU Map to provide for a Commercial East (CE) FLU designation across both the TRG and Rybovich properties. The CE FLU designation will provide consistency across the entire campus and a more compact and efficient development, while also ensuring that the FLU designation is consistent with the existing zoning of the property.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 21

Policy 1.7.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan also provides that the City shall continue to allow for innovative designs and efficient use of land, such as the practice of permitting Planned Developments (PDs)... The proposed rezoning and Major Amendment will allow the TRG and Rybovich parcels to function cohesively and provide opportunities that would otherwise be difficult if each property was built independently. It is Staffs professional opinion that the proposed development of the propert y and the expansion of the Rybovich CMPD will maintain consistency with all elements of the Citys Comprehensive Plan while allowing for a signature development opportunity. B. CHANGED CONDITIONS: Whether there exist changed conditions that require an amendment. Findings: COMPLIES

Pursuant to Section 94-207(e) of the Citys Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs), any boundary change of the planned development constitutes a Major PD Amendment. As such, expansion of the Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) to include the TRG property does require an amendment. Additionally, changing the zoning of the TRG property to provide for a CM underlying zoning, also requires an amendment. C. CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE: Whether the proposed amendment is in conformance with all applicable portions of the City Development Code. Findings: COMPLIES (subject to granting of waiver requests)

The proposed development will be governed by its own Master Plan and unique set of Design Guidelines. In some instances the Design Guidelines are less restrictive than the Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs); therefore, waivers from the ZLDR are required. Additionally, the Design Guidelines have also provided requirements that are more restrictive than the ZLDRs. Staff has also included conditions to ensure conformance with the ZLDRs. D. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is inconsistent with existing and proposed land use.

22 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

Findings:

COMPLIES

The proposed rezoning and Major PD Amendment will allow the TRG and Rybovich properties to be consolidated into one contiguous development that offers a mix of residential and non-residential uses, interconnectivity, and access to the Intracoastal Waterway by the general public. Subject to the review of the individual buildings upon submittal of site plans and architectural drawings, the proposed rezoning and Major Amendment will maintain consistency with the other land uses in the area. E. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of public facilities, including but not limited to transportation, sewerage, water supply, parks, fire, police, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Findings: COMPLIES

The rezoning and Major Amendment to the Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD), and construction of the proposed Master Plan, would increase the demand on various public facilities. However, the applicant has provided approvals from the various service agencies indicating that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate such development and/or restricted the development potential on the site to ensure that development does not exceed the existing capacity. Any improvements or enlargements to any public utility system necessary as a result of the proposed development will be required to be done at the expense of the developer. F. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: Whether and the extent to which, the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Findings: COMPLIES

The TRG and Rybovich properties are sites that are currently, or have been previously developed. Redevelopment of these sites would not result in any additional significant impact on the natural environment. Additionally, expansion of the in-water commercial marina will require permitting through all applicable agencies, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Such review process will ensure that there are no significant adverse impact on the natural environment. G. PROPERTY VALUES: Whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect property values in the area.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 23

Findings:

COMPLIES

While a study has not been provided evaluating the direct economic impact to property values in the area, it is not anticipated that the project would adversely affect property values, and that they would actually improve in light of the redevelopment of the property, the amenities offered to the community, etc. H. DEVELOPMENT PATTERN: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern and the specific identification of any negative effects on such pattern. Findings: COMPLIES (subject to conditions of approval)

The proposed rezoning and Major Amendment to expand the Rybovich Commercial Marine Planned Development (CMPD) will allow for the interconnectivity of two (2) previously-independent projects. As such, improvements can be made to reduce the impact of the projects on the surrounding neighborhood, including construction of a frontage road to capture internal traffic and provision of multiple access points, and expanding public access to the Intracoastal Waterway. Staff does have concerns with regard to the size of the proposed residential towers at the north and south ends of the property and believes that they should be better scaled to the adjacent residential development. This could be achieved by reducing the overall height of these towers, and allowing the high-rises internal to the project to go higher. This would create a tiered effect, stepping down to the existing mid-rise condominiums adjacent to the proposed project. VI. PROJECT REVIEW Interdepartmental Review Plans and Plats Review Committee (PPRC): The proposed development was presented to the City's PPRC on September 11, 2013, and the applicant has satisfactorily addressed Staff's comments and concerns, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Staffs recommendation, to be considered by the Planning Board. Inter-jurisdictional Review Traffic Concurrency: On October 29, 2013, the Palm Beach County Department of Engineering and Public Works Traffic Division issued an approved concurrency determination for the proposed development, indicating that the proposed project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County (ATTACHMENT XIV). School Concurrency and Level of Service Analysis: On September 17, 2013, the School District of Palm Beach County issued an approved concurrency determination for 1,059 high-rise

24 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

apartment units. Additionally, they provided a letter dated October 28, 2013, indicating that the proposed FLU amendment would not generate any additional impact beyond the current FLU potential (ATTACHMENTS VII and VIII). Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC): Notification of the proposed Future Land Use Amendment was sent to IPARC on September 19, 2013, and to date, the City has not received any objection. Public Notice In accordance with Section 94-39(i) and (j) of the Citys ZLDRs, notices of the Public Hearing were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property and an advertisement was placed in the December 7, 2013, edition of the Palm Beach Post. Additionally, signage was posted on the site in accordance with the requirements of Section 94-39(i)(5). The applicant has also been working closely with the Northwood Coalition of Neighborhoods (NCON) and the Northwood Vision Team (NVT). Several meetings have been held with these groups, including weekly meetings with the NVT.

Prepared and Respectfully Submitted by:

John P. Roach, AICP Principal Planner

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 25

ATTACHMENT I Existing FLU Designations

LEGEND: C ............................ Commercial CS .......................... Community Service MF ......................... Multifamily MU......................... Mixed Use SF........................... Single Family

26 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT II Existing Zoning Designations

LEGEND: BMUD-I ................ Broadway Mixed Use District Building Type I BMUD-II ............... Broadway Mixed Use District Building Type II CMPD .................... Commercial Marine Planned Development CS .......................... Community Service CSPD ..................... Community Service Planned Development MF32 ..................... Multifamily High Density Residential POR/PD ................. Professional Office Residential Planned Development ROS/PD ................. Recreation Open Space Planned Development RPD ....................... Residential Planned Development SF7......................... Single Family Low Density Residential SF7-C4 ................... Single Family High Density Residential Historic Context 4 SF14-C2 ................. Single Family High Density Residential Historic Context 2

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 27

ATTACHMENT III Survey

28 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 29

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

30 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 31

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

32 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 33

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

34 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 35

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

36 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 37

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

38 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 39

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

40 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT III (continued) Survey

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 41

ATTACHMENT IV Proposed FLU Designations

LEGEND: CE .......................... Commercial East CS .......................... Community Service MF ......................... Multifamily MU......................... Mixed Use SF........................... Single Family

42 PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT V Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations TRG 5.094 acres Proposed FLU Designations Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

Multifamily (MF)

Not Applicable

Commercial East (CE)

DRAINAGE

75% Impervious Surface (Buildings, Pavement, Sidewalk) 166,420.98 square feet of impervious surface

+ 166,420.98 Square Feet of Impervious Surface

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

75% Impervious Surface (Buildings, Pavement, Sidewalk) 456,922.62 square feet of impervious surface

Commercial East (CE)

75% Impervious Surface (Buildings, Pavement, Sidewalk) 456,922.62 square feet of impervious surface

No Impact

Proposed FLU designation meets the 3 year 1 hour drainage Level of Service Requirements. Legal Positive Outfall is established and no impact on the Level of Service will occur.

TOTAL = 456,922.62 Square Feet of Impervious Surface

TOTAL = 623,343.6 Square Feet of Impervious Surface

+166,420.98 Square Feet of Impervious Surface

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 43

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations Proposed FLU Designations General Commercial (Retail) 332,842 square feet x 0.01 gallons per day/square foot 3,328.42 Gallons Per Day Commercial East (CE) 164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 269 gallons per capita per day 101,466.8 Gallons Per Day General Commercial (Retail) 913,845 square feet x 0.01 gallons per day/square foot 9,138.45 Gallons Per Day Commercial East (CE) 451 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 269 gallons per capita per day 279,033.7 Gallons Per Day TOTAL = 392,967.37 Gallons Per Day Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

TRG 5.094 acres

Multifamily (MF)

164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 269 gallons per capita per day 101,466.8 Gallons Per Day

+ 3,328.42 Gallons Per Day

WATER

According to the City of West Palm Beachs 2007 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), the City is utilizing only 28 mgpd, of its permitted 39.3 mgpd capacity. Therefore, there are no Level of Service issues with the proposed amendment. Additionally, the development would be required to make any improvements that may be necessary to ensure sufficient capacity to the project, such as upgrading of utility lines, etc. All improvements would be done at the developers expense.

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

General Commercial (Retail) 456,923 square feet x 0.01 gallons per day/square foot 4,569.23 Gallons Per Day

+ 283,602.92 Gallons Per Day

TOTAL = 106,036.03 Gallons Per Day

+ 286,931.34 Gallons Per Day

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 45

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations Proposed FLU Designations General Commercial (Retail) 332,842 square feet x 0.20 gallons per day/square foot 66,568.4 Gallons Per Day 164 dwelling units x 250 gallons per day/dwelling unit 41,000 Gallons Per Day General Commercial (Retail) 913,845 square feet x 0.20 gallons per day/square foot 18,276.9 Gallons Per Day 451 dwelling units x 250 gallons per day/dwelling unit 112,750 Gallons Per Day TOTAL = 238,595.3 Gallons Per Day + 106,210.7 Gallons Per Day Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

WASTE WATER (SEWER)

TRG 5.094 acres

Multifamily (MF)

164 dwelling units x 250 gallons per day/dwelling unit 41,000 Gallons Per Day

Commercial East (CE)

+ 66,568.4 Gallons Per Day

According to the City of West Palm Beachs 2007 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), the City is utilizing only 12 mgpd, of its permitted 17 mgpd capacity. Therefore, there are no Level of Service issues with the proposed amendment. Additionally, the development would be required to make any improvements that may be necessary to ensure sufficient capacity to the project, such as upgrading of utility lines, etc. All improvements would be done at the developers expense.

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

General Commercial (Retail) 456,923 square feet x 0.20 gallons per day/square foot 91,384.6 Gallons Per Day

Commercial East (CE)

+ 39,642.3 Gallons Per Day

TOTAL = 132,384.6 Gallons Per Day

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 47

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations Proposed FLU Designations Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity Proposed FLU designations meet the Level of Service standards. There are no short or long term capacity issues.1 The City shall adhere to the Franchise Agreement of the Solid Waste Authority by providing a minimum level of service for residential garbage collection of twice per week, bulk trash collection of once per week, vegetation collection of once per week, and recyclable collection of once per week. The City shall ensure delivery of solid waste material collected to the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) North County Landfill and shall continue to seek annual certification from the SWA that it has sufficient disposal capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated for both the five year and ten year planning period. The SWA certification letter shall constitute compliance with the Citys Solid Waste LOS standard.

TRG 5.094 acres

Multifamily (MF)

SOLID WASTE

164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 2,847 pounds/year/person 104,769.6 Pounds Per Year

164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 2,847 pounds/year/person 104,769.6 Pounds Per Year Commercial East (CE) General Commercial 332,842 square feet x 9.125 pounds/year/square foot 3,037,183.25 Pounds Per Year

+ 3,037,183.25 Pounds Per Year

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

General Commercial 456,923 square feet x 9.125 pounds/year/square foot 4,169,422.38 Pounds Per Year

451 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 2,847 pounds/year/person 2,953,193.1 Pounds Per Year Commercial East (CE) General Commercial 913,845 square feet x 9.125 pounds/year/square foot 8,338,835.63 Pounds Per Year TOTAL = 14,433,981.58 Pounds Per Year

+7,122,606.35 Pounds Per Year

TOTAL = 4,274,191.98 Pounds Per Year

+ 10,159,789.6 Pounds Per Year

Please refer to the Availability of Solid Waste Disposal Capacity letter provided by the Solid Waste Authority, dated January 6, 2012 (ATTACHMENT VI).

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 49

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations Proposed FLU Designations Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

TRG 5.094 acres

SCHOOLS

Multifamily (MF)

164 dwelling units

Commercial East (CE)

164 dwelling units

No Impact No level of service issues.2 Any development beyond that currently proposed will be required to ensure appropriate Levels of Service are available prior to approval of such development.

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

451 dwelling units3

Commercial East (CE)

451 dwelling units

No Impact

TOTAL = 615 Dwelling Units

TOTAL = 615 Dwelling Units

No Impact

2 3

Please refer to the Level of Service Analysis and School Concurrency approval provided by the School District of Palm Beach County, dated October 28, 2013 and September 17, 2013, respectively (ATTACHMENTS VII and VIII). Until 2008, Policy 1.1.3 of the Citys Comprehensive Plan provided that properties possessing a C FLU designation could build residential uses, as long as they were located within the Eastward Ho! boundaries (east of Interstate 95); this is the provision that permitted Rybovich to include residential units in their 2005 Master Plan. However, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4179-08, the Citys Comprehensive Plan was revised at Policy 1.1.3 to remove the Eastward Ho! reference and instead create the Com mercial East (CE) FLU designation.

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 51

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations 164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 0.0015 acres/person (Regional) x 0.0025 acres/person (Community) 0.57 acres (Regional) 0.94 acres (Community) Proposed FLU Designations 164 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 0.0015 acres/person (Regional) x 0.0025 acres/person (Community) 0.57 acres (Regional) 0.94 acres (Community) 451 dwelling units x 2.3 persons/dwelling unit x 0.0015 acres/person (Regional) x 0.0025 acres/person (Community) 1.56 acres (Regional) 2.59 acres (Community) Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

TRG 5.094 acres

Multifamily (MF)

Commercial East (CE)

No Impact According to the City of West Palm Beachs 2007 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), the City had a surplus of 16,096.37 acres of regional park, and a surplus of 161.43 acres of community park. Therefore, there are no Level of Service issues with the proposed amendment.

PARKS

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

Not Applicable

Commercial East (CE)

+ 1.56 acres (Regional) + 2.59 acres (Community)

TOTAL = 0.57 acres (Regional) 0.94 acres (Community)

TOTAL = 2.13 acres (Regional) 3.53 acres (Community)

+ 1.56 acres (Regional) + 3.53 acres (Community)

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 53

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT V (continued) Level of Service Analysis

Existing FLU Designations Proposed FLU Designations Resulting Impact Service Provider Capacity

TRG 5.094 acres

Multifamily (MF)

164 dwelling units

Commercial East (CE)

164 dwelling units and General Commercial (Retail) 332,842 square feet

See Total Result Below

TRAFFIC

Rybovich 13.986 acres

Commercial (C)

General Commercial (Retail) 456,923 square feet

Commercial East (CE)

451 dwelling units and General Commercial (Retail) 913,845 square feet

See Total Result Below

Subject to a voluntary restriction on the property, limiting the maximum development capacity of the site to 14,640 external daily trips, there is no net impact and the analysis for the Five Year and 2035 planning horizon meets the Level of Service standards.4

TOTAL = 19,380 Trips (14,640 trips upon inclusion of a 26% pass-by traffic factor)

TOTAL = 39,314 Trips (23,745 trips upon inclusion of internal capture and a 22% pass-by traffic factor)

+ 19,934 Trips (+9,105 upon inclusion of internal capture and pass-by traffic factors)

Please refer to the full Future Land Use Amendment Traffic Analysis reports prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., dated November 13, 2013 (ATTACHMENT IX).

PB 1445X, 1445Y and 1445Z 55

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT VI Solid Waste Authority Letter of Available Capacity

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 57

ATTACHMENT VII FLU Amendment School Analysis

58 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT VIII School Concurrency Determination

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 59

ATTACHMENT VIII (continued) School Concurrency Determination

60 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 61

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

62 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 63

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

64 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 65

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

66 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 67

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

68 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 69

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

70 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 71

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

72 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 73

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

74 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 75

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

76 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 77

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

78 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 79

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

80 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 81

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

82 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 83

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

84 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 85

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

86 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT IX (continued) Traffic Analysis Reports Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 87

ATTACHMENT X Proposed Zoning Designations

LEGEND: BMUD-I ................ Broadway Mixed Use District Building Type I BMUD-II ............... Broadway Mixed Use District Building Type II CMPD .................... Commercial Marine Planned Development CS .......................... Community Service CSPD ..................... Community Service Planned Development MF32 ..................... Multifamily High Density Residential POR/PD ................. Professional Office Residential Planned Development ROS/PD ................. Recreation Open Space Planned Development RPD ....................... Residential Planned Development SF7......................... Single Family Low Density Residential SF7-C4 ................... Single Family High Density Residential Historic Context 4 SF14-C2 ................. Single Family High Density Residential Historic Context 2

88 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XI Master Plan Development Regulation Table

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 89

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Permissible Building Areas (PBAs)

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 91

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan - Details

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 93

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Massing Diagram

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 95

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Cross Sections

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 97

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Cross Sections

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 99

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Imagery

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 101

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Imagery

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 103

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XI (continued) Master Plan Imagery

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 105

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT XII Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 107

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

108 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 109

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

110 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 111

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

112 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 113

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

114 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 115

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

116 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 117

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

118 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 119

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

120 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 121

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

122 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XII (continued) Proposed Design Guidelines

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 123

ATTACHMENT XIII Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

124 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 125

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

126 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 127

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

128 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 129

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

130 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 131

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

132 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 133

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

134 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 135

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

136 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 137

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

138 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 139

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

140 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 141

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

142 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 143

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

144 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 145

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

146 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 147

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

148 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 149

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

150 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 151

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

152 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 153

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

154 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 155

ATTACHMENT XIII (continued) Traffic Impact Analysis Please note that the Appendices were intentionally left out of this report, but may be provided upon request.

156 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z

ATTACHMENT XIV Traffic Performance Standards Review

PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z 157

ATTACHMENT XIV (continued) Traffic Performance Standards Review

158 PB 1445X, 1445Y, and 1445Z