Planning Board November 20, 2012 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Mayans, Chairperson Gregg Weiss, Vice-Chairperson Charles Jackson, Member Keith Spina, Member Todd McLeod, Alternate Virginia Dominicis, Member Jeffrey Kotzen, Member Keith Williams, Member Rick Greene, Planning Manager Angella Vann, Planning & Zoning Administrator Alex Hansen, Senior Planner John Roach, Senior Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, in the Commission Chambers on the first floor, 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, called the roll and it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Keith Williams made a motion to APPROVE the October 16, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Approved 7-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Rick Greene, Planning Manager, presented updates on the cases previously heard by the Board. IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, had nothing to report. V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION

Mr. Steven Mayans stated that he exchanged e-mails and spoke briefly with Mr. Greg Kino, the attorney representing the Envoy Condominium in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. Mr. Mayans said he also spoke with Mr. Dennis Grady of the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches. He said those communications will not affect his ability to decide the case solely upon the evidence presented at this hearing. Mr. Todd McLeod stated that he had a meeting on October 29, 2012 at City Hall with Mr. John Roach, Mr. Rick Greene, and the applicant for Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. He said he also had conversations with a member of the Lincoln Condominium on November 1, 2012, and received a request to go out to the Envoy Condominium earlier this day but was unable to attend that meeting. He stated that he was able to drive by the site prior to this hearing. He said he will make his decision based on the evidence presented. Mr. Keith Williams stated that he had a meeting at City Hall with Staff and Mr. Kerry Kilday, who represented the applicant for Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. He said that will not affect his decision. He stated that he also received phone calls from Ms. Gerti Kleikamp, but was unable to meet with her. Mr. Gregg Weiss stated that he had a meeting with Staff and the applicant for Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. Additionally, he said he received a letter addressed to him through the Planning Division, which he entered into the record; he also spoke to a resident of Presidential Estates, and went on a site survey at the request of Ms. Gerti Kleikamp earlier this day. He said he will make his decision based on the evidence presented at this hearing. Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen stated that he spoke with Mr. Dennis Grady, and had a meeting with Staff and the applicant for Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. He said he also met with Ms. Gerti Kleikamp to view the Envoy and its view from her apartment earlier this day. He said none of those things will affect his decision at this hearing. Mr. Keith Spina stated that he had a conflict of interest in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A, and would recuse himself from the case. Ms. Virginia Dominicis stated that she had a brief meeting with Staff and the applicant for Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A. Additionally, she said she was invited to visit the Envoy which she did not have an opportunity to do and had a casual conversation with a resident of Presidential Estates. She said none of those conversations will affect her decision.

Mr. Keith Spina left the meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS

Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, swore in all of the members of the public and Staff who might wish to speak. B. CONTINUED CASES
Future Land Use Map Amendment & Rezoning, President Country Club Resort Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A

A request by Kieran Kilday, of Urban Design Kilday Studios, on behalf of Palm Tree Golf Management, LLC, for the following: Case No. 1624: A Future Land Use Map Amendment regarding 119.16 acres, changing the FLU designation from Community Service (CS), Multifamily (MF), and Single Family (SF), to Commercial East (CE); and Case No. 1624A: A rezoning regarding 119.16 acres, changing the zoning designation from Conservation (W), Recreation Open Space (ROS), Multifamily High Density (MF32) Residential, and Single Family Low Density (SF7) Residential, to General Commercial (GC), with a further rezoning to Commercial Planned Development (CPD). Location: The approximately 119.16 acre property is located at 2300 Presidential Way and 3100-3200 North Congress Avenue, within Commission District No. 1 Commissioner Sylvia Moffett. Mr. John Roach stated that this case was continued from the October 16, 2012 Planning Board meeting, at which time the Board requested information with regard to: 1) Economic Impact; 2) Environment Concerns; and 3) Review of more in-depth plans. He introduced Mr. Alan Durham, City Executive Director of Economic Development, to speak about the economic impact of the project. Economic Impact: Mr. Durham stated that the proposed project will: expand the tax base; provide approximately six hundred (600) new full-time jobs in addition to construction jobs; bring new businesses into the City; and provide approximately $1.7 million in new City tax revenue annually. Mr. Weiss noted that the information the Board received indicated that the project will provide five hundred (500) permanent jobs for the hotel and five hundred for the new Country Club. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Roach said that was a typo; the six hundred (600) new jobs incorporate five hundred (500) jobs for the hotel and one hundred (100) jobs for the Country Club. Environmental impacts: Mr. Roach pointed out that golf courses can be controversial and detrimental to the environment, due to the clearing of natural vegetation and habitats, and more importantly, the ongoing application of fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides which contaminate soil, ground water and air, and can be harmful to wildlife. Additionally, he stated that water consumption for golf courses is equivalent to the daily consumption of two thousand (2,000)

families. He noted that in response to the Boards concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed project, the Applicant has agreed to the following revised conditions, such that: 1. No site alterations are to occur until all required governmental permits are obtained, including an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water management District (SFWMD). 2. No site alterations shall occur until an Environmental Assessment Report has been submitted. 3. To the greatest extent possible, all existing trees shall be preserved in place, and any trees that are required to be relocated shall be located in areas that maximize the buffering of parking areas, as well as areas internal to parking lots. Detailed Plans: Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant has expressed concerns about providing a site plan because negotiations are ongoing with hotel operators who would be responsible for providing detailed plans. In the absence of such plans, the Applicant has agreed that any future non-residential development located in Parcel B of the Master Plan will be required to come before the Planning Board and the City Commission with a Major Amendment to the Commercial Planned Development (CPD). Mr. Roach said subject to the conditions outlined in the November 20, 2012 Staff Report, Staff finds that the proposed development will be compatible with the existing surrounding development, and that all standards for Code compliance have been met. He noted that the proposed Future Land Use Amendment is subject to review by the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff None. Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. Mr. Kieran Kilday, of Urban Design Kilday Studios, represented the Applicant, Palm Tree Golf Management, LLC. He introduced the owners of the subject property, Mr. Ray Finch and Mr. Greg Fagan. Mr. Kilday asked the Board to keep in mind that the Applicants would not be present at this hearing if the golf course had been successful. He said the area is in decline, and hopefully the proposed project will preserve and enhance the property values. He noted that the Applicant has accepted new conditions that address the Boards concern that if the Future Land Use Map Change and rezoning are approved, further development will require only a Staff-level review. He said the Applicant has agreed to bring the commercial development through the Major Planned Development amendment process, which will be noticed to the public. Public Comment Mr. Harvey Oyer, Chairman of the Board of the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches, stated that the Chamber Board of Directors voted unanimously for approval of the proposed project,

which they believe will provide an amenity for conference and convention space, and will provide an opportunity for existing businesses to be enhanced and grow. Mr. Tony Noeth, resident of the Lincoln Tower, questioned how the residents will be protected after the developer is granted commercial zoning. He said he does not believe that the Comprehensive Plan accounts for the creation of a tax base at the expense of others. Ms. Gisell Solomowitz, resident of Whitehall, stated that comparing the Presidential Country Club development to PGA National and Riverwalk is nonsense; she said those communities were preplanned, large-scale developments which allowed purchasers advance notice of the residential space. She said she does not believe that commercial zoning has ever before been dropped into the middle of a thirty-plus-year, existing residential area. She said this is not an appropriate request. Ms. Gerti Kleikamp, resident of the Envoy, stated that people coming and going at all hours of the night will have an extreme impact on residents living nearby; the proposed project is not compatible. She pointed out that Mr. Fagan and Mr. Greene have both acknowledged that the owners have received offers from several developers to purchase the golf course property in order to construct single family homes. She said that would be compatible. Mr. Scott Leonard, resident of the Envoy, asserted that the most important issue in regard to this extreme proposal is that it undermines the integrity of the zoning laws that are designed to protect people. He quoted from Wikipedia: The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible in practice. Zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing residences and businesses and to preserve the character of a community. He pointed out that there are other alternatives to the proposed project. Mr. Richard Solnick was not available to speak. Ms. Caryl Adair, resident of the Jefferson condominium, expressed a concern about noise and security in what she said is now a peaceful and secure residential community. She also noted that her building has never been polled other than to invite residents to a developers meeting. Ms. Avira Gorfine pointed out that the City currently owns seventy-two (72) properties that are off the tax base; she said she has not seen the City doing anything with those properties to put them on the tax base. She asked the Board to qualify and quantify the standards before voting upon them. Ms. Katherine McRae, President of the Board of Directors of the Whitehall Condominium, identified herself as a licensed real estate agent. She said she has learned that people interested in purchasing in the existing community are turning away as a result of the signs that post notice of the proposed hotel. She said unlike PGA National, the developers are proposing to dump a commercial development in the middle of an existing residential community, and plan to rent out single family homes on a nightly basis like hotel rooms. Mr. Monty Warren, of Embassy Drive, stated that he owns one of the few homes on Embassy Drive that is actually on the North golf course. He said this proposal is wrong on so many levels that he cannot enumerate them all. He pointed out that the owners bought the property knowing that the Country Club was in distress. He said this seems like the bums rush; he has yet to hear about a real hotel developer stepping in. 5

Mr. Matthew Chait was not available to speak. Mr. Daniel Grief, resident of Land of the Presidents, stated that the proposed project is extremely massive, and is crammed into the subject area. He discounted the idea that the project is similar to Ibis, pointing out that Ibis is a much larger development, and the gas station and convenience store in Ibis are located near the gatehouse, completely separate from the residences. Ms. Chelle Konyk identified herself as the Attorney for the Presidential Way Neighborhood Association, which has been mentioned as the Master Association for twelve (12) other condominiums. She said the consensus of eleven (11) of the twelve (12) communities are in favor of something happening. She noted that her firm also represents seven (7) individual condominiums in the community, and said the leaders of those associations have not voiced any opposition. She said the consensus is that something needs to be done; there is too much uncertainty with the property, and a viable alternative is needed. She said that is why the Presidential Way Association supports the proposed project. Mr. Charles Walsey, President of the Presidential Way Association, identified himself as a former member of the Planning Board. He stated that on October 23, 2012, a formal board meeting was held, and was attended by every condominium association with the exception of the Washington Tower and Senate 8A condominiums. He said the response was all in favor of the proposed resort development, except for the Senate 8B and the Envoy condominiums. Mr. Alex Stanich, of Presidential Way, said regardless of the pretty pictures being shown, the future development is unknown; the proposed zoning opens the property to unpredictable commercial development either by current or future owners to whom the existing owners may flip the property; therefore, there are no guarantees as to what the actual development will be. He said the existing zoning protects the residential and recreational space surrounding the property; a change to commercial status will destroy this. He said if not rejected in its current form, the proposal will seriously alter and damage the area with no regard for the residential quality of life. Ms. Maxine Schreiber, resident of the Envoy, referred to an article from the Palm Beach Post which stated that too often, cities agree to deals with short-sighted project developers under the lure of economic growth, increased property tax revenues, and the myth that a single project can be a panacea that will deliver urban utopia; she said the article stated that these projects often have longterm negative effects on a city. She pointed out that West Palm Beach is not immune to these tendencies, and mentioned Digital Domain as an example. Dr. Paraskevas, of Presidential Way, pointed out that commercial zoning for a project of this magnitude in the middle of residential development is neither compatible nor appropriate. Mr. Alan LeRoy, of Embassy Drive, stated that his home is one of the thirty-two (32) homes directly affected by the proposed project. He said he understands that the developer owns the property and has a right to do something with the property, but he asserted that commercial development is neither compatible nor appropriate. Ms. Barbara Leff, of Presidential Way, stated that she would never have purchased her home if she had thought it possible for a developer to construct, at her expense: a four hundred (400) room 6

hotel with outdoor weddings; another four hundred (400) rooms in single family houses for daily rental; convention facilities; medical offices; extensive roadways; and over eight hundred (800) parking spaces. Mr. Frank Chickery, a resident of the Envoy, stated that the word commercialization scares him. He said it is a rubberband, and once approval has been given, it can be pulled many ways. He said after that the comeback is: It is under the law; this is commercial property. Mr. Cedric Luhmann, of Presidential Way, voiced his opposition to the proposed project. He said the view of a parking lot will not increase the value of his home. Mr. Greg Weadock, of Embassy Drive, opposed the open-endedness of the proposed commercialization. He said there needs to be some restrictions, should the developer sell the property. Ms. Barbara Schwartz, of Embassy Drive, stated that she is opposed to the change to a commercial Future Land Use and zoning. Mr. Bill Luth, a resident of the Envoy, pointed out that the owners purchased the property knowing that it was not making money. He said he believes that the intent was to get in and then change the property. He said the picture they show is a faade, and he questioned whether there is a market for medical offices in the area, given the number currently for rent and vacant. Mr. Al LaSorte, of Embassy Drive, stated that he supports the proposed project. He said believes that there is a tendency to remember the way things were and to want to keep them that way. He said the subject site will not be a golf course anymore, and he worries what it will be if the current owners do not develop the property. He stated that the concerns people have expressed can be taken care of by the conditions. Mr. Harry Hersey, President of the Presidential Estates Homeowners Association, stated that he supports the project both as a homeowner and as the leader of the association board. He said the developers have made concessions and changes to address the associations concerns. He said the majority of the residents were in favor of negotiating with the developer. He stated that if this were a carte blanche commercialization of the property, the residents would be opposed to the project, but the commercial proposal is limited. He mentioned that slanderous and libelous comments were made about him in writing by people opposed to the project. Ms. Yvonne Wagner, of Embassy Drive, stated that she does not believe that a view of zero-lotline, packed-up houses with rotating people coming in and out will improve her property values. She hoped that the Board will consider the individuals living in the community. Ms. Carol Strick, member of the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition, and resident of Whitehall, expressed deep concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed development. Mr. Eddie Strick echoed the concerns of Ms. Carol Strick, and emphasized that it is very important to preserve existing green space.

Ms. Lynn Harris, Attorney, represented the Presidential Estates Property Owners Association (POA), which she said is the most negatively impacted POA in the development. She said approximately eighty (80) percent of the member/owners returned survey ballots indicating that the association Board of Directors should enter into negotiations with the developer to address issues that may negatively impact the association. She said there have been extensive meetings with the developer to negotiate for the best possible protections and benefits. Ms. Janet Schreiber, of Presidential Way, stated that the developer should not be awarded a commercial land use and zoning without providing more answers in regard to environmental concerns. She said major portions of the project will be paved over; there should be space for a habitat. She expressed a concern about light pollution and noise. Mr. William Rascoe, resident of the Envoy, stated that he was raised in the hotel business and is well aware of the periods of low occupancy. He said there are existing hotels in the area that have less than forty (40) percent occupancy. He asked: Do you really think that between Australian Avenue and Congress Avenue, and Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard and Australian, there are going to be thousands of people coming to play golf and stay in a hotel in this neighborhood? Ms. Marsha Plavin, resident of the Envoy, stated that to break faith with the owners by allowing commercial development in the center of their residential, gated community is a signal that no homeowner or condominium owner in West Palm Beach is safe from commercial encroachment. She said under the proposed development, the density of the community would be more than doubled by a transient population. She pointed out that changing the zoning to commercial does not bind the developer to build what has been illustrated or to locate the buildings where it has been suggested; the developer could build anything, anywhere. Ms. Judith Mestman, resident of the Envoy, stated that commercial zoning mixed with residential zoning is considered undesirable, and will not improve property values. She pointed out that the types of people who visit or make outlet shopping a destination are not looking for luxury hotels; they are looking for bargains. She said the business loss of the owners should not be at the expense of the residents; a more viable solution should be entertained. Mr. Fred Wright, resident of Whitehall, stated that he has been a real estate broker for thirty-four (34) years. He said we know three (3) things: 1) the developer has asked for commercial zoning on the entire project; 2) the proposal is for approximately eight hundred (800) bedrooms; 3) the clubhouse is about one block to the new discount mall. He said the developer will not be able to get a new luxury hotel this will not be an upscale, high class development because that will not be possible; in the end, this will be a tragedy for the residents. Ms. April Alosacka, of Embassy Drive, stated that the magnitude of the proposed commercial project is overwhelming. She pointed out that there are existing high-density high-rises in the community, but they have green space around them. She questioned why all of the subject property has to be commercial, and why all of the green space has to be consumed. Ms. Sherilyn Weinberger, member of the Board of Presidential Estates, stated that she is speaking as a resident. She said unfortunately, the area is declining. She said like it or not, times change, and if the community does nothing, she is afraid it will lead to disaster. She said she supports the project, but would not give the developer anything open-ended. 8

Ms. Nancy Taylor, of Presidential Way, stated that no market analysis showing a demand for a hotel in the area has been provided. She said disclosure of the proposed use has already had a detrimental effect on sales within the community. She stated that acquaintances are shocked that the City is even considering the change to commercial, given that the land is surrounded by residential. She said she believes they are shocked because it is inappropriate. Mr. Greg Kino, Attorney, represented the Envoy. He stated that the Envoy considers themselves a party to these hearings, and for that reason, he will not limit his comments to three (3) minutes. He said what is relevant to the Applicants proposal is the code and the law. He quoted from the two (2) Amendment Standards of Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.7 that Staff cites to justify the proposal: 1) Changed Assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to the fact that growth in the area in terms of development of vacant land, new development, and the availability of public services has altered the character, such that the proposed amendment is now reasonable and consistent with the land use characteristics.; and 2) New issues that have arisen since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kino said legally and historically for this City, a persons financial problems are not a basis for a Future Land Use change, particularly from a land use of Community Service to the most intense land use that the City has. He stated that legally, the FLU change must be reviewed solely on its own; the Master Plan is irrelevant because whether or not the proposal ever comes to fruition, the developer will have been granted a commercial land use totally surrounded by residential. In regard to zoning, Mr. Kino stated that a Planned Development must meet all of the Site Design Qualitative Standards. He said the Board may not approve a Planned Development unless all of the standards outlined in Section 94-35(c) have been addressed and met, and the standards have not even been addressed. In conclusion, Mr. Kino stated that if the market analysis is not positive in regard to the proposed hotel, then the owners will be back with a commercial land use and there is nothing this Board or the City Commission can do about that; the owners must be allowed commercial zoning and commercial development. He said he does not think this Board can believe that putting 119 acres of commercial land use surrounded by residential land use is appropriate; it will severely, adversely affect the lives of the residents. He stated that a residential development would be acceptable. Ms. Lynn Harris asked to be given the extra time that Mr. Kino was given. She reminded the Board that unless the City approves a project on this property, then the negotiations her client, Presidential Estates, is having with the developers will not be important. She pointed out that there are thirty-eight (38) conditions of approval that impose extensive restrictions of the commercial use, among them: 1) the developer will be required to develop the entire projects infrastructure roads, lakes, underground utilities, and streetlights during Phase I of development; 2) the Eagle golf course will be maintained for thirty (30) years; 3) the existing driving range will remain as Conservation, Recreation Green Space; 4) the proposed apartment towers shall only be constructed on the existing pond and clubhouse areas; 5) any change to the components of the project the site plan, landscape plan, etc. will come back before the Planning Board and the City Commission; 6) the existing old growth trees along the lake bank will remain, even if they are encroaching into the lake maintenance easement; 7) all single family homes will have extensive landscaping installed by the developer; 8) a 24/7 manned security program will be implemented. In conclusion, Ms. Harris noted that City Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project, and has confirmed that the application as presented meets all standards of the Future Land Use Amendment and rezoning. Mr. Steven Mayans asked if the Applicant wished to respond to the comments. 9

Mr. Kerry Kilday stated that there were twenty-five (25) conditions of approval when the Applicant came before the Board in October, and there are now thirty-eight (38) conditions. He said because this is a multi-use, large-scale project, it was necessary to establish a Master Plan as Step 1 of the project. He emphasized that there is a complete set of Design Guidelines to address the residents concerns. He pointed out that a quasi-commercial use is already permitted on the property. He noted that weddings, banquets, and business meetings already take place in the clubhouse. He asserted that there will be better security in the community than there is today. Board Discussion Mr. Mayans asked Staff what will happen if approval for this project is granted, and the developer is unable to go forward. What protections are there that some other type of unacceptable development will not go on the property? Mr. Rick Greene stated that the Applicant is restricted to what is contained in the Design Guidelines. If the project is unsuccessful, the owners will have the Commercial East FLU designation and the Commercial Planned Development zoning designation, but any new project would have to come before the Planning Board and City Commission. Additionally, he said there are traffic concurrency requirements that would have to be met. Dr. Kotzen asked if there is any precedent by which the subject property could revert back to the existing designations if the proposed project is unsuccessful. Mr. Samuel Thomas advised that the land use and zoning would retain the approved designations unless the owners were to come back through the same process to re-designate the Future Land Use and zoning. Dr. Kotzen asked Staff to respond to Mr. Kinos assertion that the Board cannot approve this application without certain conditions that were not presented to the Board. Mr. Greene respectfully and professionally disagreed with Mr. Kino. He said Staff asserts that the Future Land Use Amendment standards and zoning standards have been met. Mr. Weiss asked if the proposed restrictions can be recorded in the deed. Mr. Greene replied that the restrictions run with the property, not the developer. Mr. Weiss asked if the restrictions will remain in perpetuity. Mr. Greene said yes. He said if anyone who wished to change the restrictions would have to come through the amendment process. Mr. Williams asked if the timeline is for four (4) years. Mr. Greene read from the Condition 23(a) as follows: No building permits shall be issued by the City after December 31, 2017. An extension of this deadline may be issued by Palm Beach County; however, such extension shall not be deemed an extension of this 10

development approval. Mr. Greene added that there is a Commencement of Development Ordinance in place that allows for a three (3) year extension, and the Applicant can request another two (2) year extension above that. Mr. Williams asked if there is any reason why the entire site must be changed to commercial. Mr. Greene stated that the site must be commercial in order to allow the rental of houses on a daily basis. Mr. Williams asked if the approvals are project-specific. Mr. Greene said yes, the Applicant would have to come back before the Board in order to make a new proposal. Mr. McLeod asked Staff to elaborate on Mr. Kinos statements that the Code requires that the Board have a detailed site plan before it in order to approve a Planned Development. Mr. Greene stated that the Applicant will bring a more detailed site plan back before the Board as a Major Amendment. Mr. McLeod stated that a detailed Market Analysis seems to be a requirement, but was not submitted. He asked if the Board has the authority to waive that. Mr. Greene said yes, the Planning and Zoning Administrator has that right. Dr. Kotzen stated that the biggest stumbling block seems to be the large commercial property proposed. He asked if the Future Land Use can be provisional. Mr. Greene said no, but if the Applicant is unable to move forward with the hotel, any other proposal would have to come back before the Board. Mr. Thomas concurred, saying that depending on the timing, reverting back may not necessarily be the best option. Dr. Kotzen again asked what the owners would have to do if the hotel could not move forward. Mr. Greene reiterated that the Applicant would have to come back before the Board with a new proposal. Mr. Weiss asked if the Commercial East Future Land Use designation would allow one hundred (100) percent residential. Mr. Greene said he believes so. Mr. Williams asked if the golf course will be maintained during this process. Mr. Greene said it is his understanding that the golf course will be closed in mid- April.

11

Ms. Dominicis asked how the proposed square-footage of the commercial development in Pod B was arrived at. Mr. Greene stated that the square footage 50,0000 square feet of meeting space and 10,000 square feet of medical office space was proposed by the Applicant.

Ms. Dominicis asked Mr. Greene to compare that allotment of commercial space with a typical City commercial lot. Mr. Greene stated that City Hall is approximately 100,000 square feet, and 10,000 square feet is probably comparable to a two (2) story medical office building.

Ms. Dominicis asked what would happen if the site plan comes back with something similar to the Design Guidelines, but not the same. Mr. Greene said an amendment to the Design Guidelines would be required.

Mr. Greg Kino was granted the right to ask Mr. Greene one question: He asked if, once the proposed land use is approved, the owners will have every right and entitlement to do a commercial development on this project; could the City force the owners to do anything other than commercial development on the property once the land use is granted? Mr. Greene stated that any applicant can come in with a request, but if the question is Does the rezoning and land use change to commercial designation given them any more ability or any more power to do a commercial designation? he would say absolutely not. He said Staff looks at every application on its own merit, and would be cognizant of the surrounding area.

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Kilday to address the question during public comment about an access road on Embassy Drive. Mr. Kilday stated that there is no road planned on Embassy Drive. He said there is, and always has been, a golf cart access tract that goes out to Embassy Drive; he said the intent would be to provide a secure gate to that for golf cart access.

Mr. Weiss said people spoke about run-off from the parking lot. He asked if there has been any discussion about different types of surfaces than paving. Mr. Kilday said there has been no discussion to that level of detail, but pointed out that there are very stringent rules on the control of drainage.

Mr. Weiss asked if the Applicant would be willing to work with the Sustainability Office. Mr. Kilday said they would be happy to; hotel projects are heading in that direction.

Mr. Weiss questioned some of the uses not prohibited in the Design Guidelines, such as taxidermy.

12

Mr. Kilday stated that the Master Plan limits the permitted uses to only what is specifically allowed by the Master Plan, but said he would have no objection to listing what would not be allowed. Executive Session Dr. Kotzen stated that the view from the Envoy is spectacular. He suggested that if the Board moves to approve this project, careful consideration should be given to the aerial issues of the project. He said there should be a tremendous amount of sensitivity to the neighborhoods, particularly those looking down at the project from a height. Mr. Williams stated that he shares the same concerns, but feels more comfortable knowing that the plan will be coming back before the Board. Mr. Jackson first disclosed that he met with Staff and members of the associations; he said that will have no effect on his decision. He then stated that what the Board has seen is a beautiful rendering, but it is only a concept, and will affect a community that has been in existence for over thirty (30) years. He said he needs to see the actual site plan to know what the development will be. Mr. Mayans reminded Mr. Jackson that the plan will come back before the Board. Mr. Jackson said this is like writing a blank check. Ms. Dominicis stated that she met with the project architect about the scale and massing of the project; he confirmed that the footprint shown is consistent with the square footage allotted to the pods. She said she is comfortable with the project, now that the Applicant will come back before the Board. Mr. Weiss stated that concerns have been expressed about the ability to control the proposed development. He said he has seen the ability to put controls in place, and is more comfortable with the project.

Mr. Charles Jackson made a motion to DENY Planning Board Case No. 1624. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1624, a request for a Future Land Use Map Amendment regarding 119.16 acres, changing the FLU designation from Community Service, Multifamily (MF), and Single Family (SF), to Commercial East, and to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1624A, a rezoning request regarding 119.16 acres, changing the zoning designation from Conservation, Recreation Open Space, Multifamily High Density Residential, and Single Family Low Density Residential, to General Commercial, with a further rezoning to Commercial Planned Development, with all thirty (38) conditions as presented by Staff on record and listed in the Staff Report dated November 20, 2012. He also recommended that the Applicant provide a comprehensive list of all uses that will not be allowed in the proposed development. Mr. Samuel Thomas asked the Board to vote on each case separately. 13

Mr. Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1624, as stated above with the same conditions. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Mr. Mayans stated that the Board is not insensitive to the neighborhoods concerns, but is the Planning Board for the City as well as the neighborhood. He said he heard a lot of legitimate concerns as to whether approval of this application will be opening the doors much wider. He said City Staff has indicated that this is a very narrow approval. Ms. Dominicis stated that this is a project of faith in the City and in the Planning Department that the project will be developed, and faith that the Applicant will work with the neighborhood.

Mr. Mayans asked for a vote on Planning Board Case No. 1624. Approved 6-1. Mr. Steven Mayans, Mr. Gregg Weiss, Ms. Virginia Dominicis, Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen, Mr. Keith Williams, and Mr. Tim McLeod in favor. Mr. Charles Jackson opposed. Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1624A, as stated above with the same conditions. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Approved 6-1. Mr. Steven Mayans, Mr. Gregg Weiss, Ms. Virginia Dominicis, Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen, Mr. Keith Williams, and Mr. Tim McLeod in favor. Mr. Charles Jackson opposed. Mr. Keith Williams left the meeting. C. PLANNING BOARD CASES
Future Land Use Map Amendment & Rezoning, Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Planning Board Case Nos. 1620 & 1620A

A request by Pat Lentini, of Gentile Glas Holloway OMahoney & Associates, on behalf of the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department and the Palm Beach County Facilities Development & Operations Department, for the following: Case No. 1620: A request to change the Future Land Use designation of a 1.89 acre parcel from the Conservation (CON) designation to the Community Service (CS) designation. Case No. 1620A: A request to change the Zoning designation of the 1.89 acre parcel from a Conservation (CON) designation to a Recreation and Open Space (ROS) zoning designation.

14

Location: The 1.89 acre parcel is located on 5615 Parke Avenue, on the north side of 45 th Street and approximately mile west of Haverhill Road, within Commission District No. 4 Commissioner Keith James. Mr. Alex Hansen stated that the cases before the Board are a Future Land Use Map amendment and rezoning of a parcel generally located north of 45th Street and mile west of Haverhill Road, in order to construct a Community Center and neighborhood park. He said Planning Board Case No. 1620 is a request by Palm Beach County, the owner of the property, to change the Future Land Use (FLU) designation from Conservation to Community Service; and Planning Board Case No. 1620A is a request to rezone the parcel from Conservation to Recreation and Open Space. He noted that the surrounding uses include: the Premier Park of Commerce to the west; the Winding Waters Natural Preserve to the north; the Gramercy Park residential neighborhood to the east, the Caribbean multifamily apartment complex to the northeast; and a Solid Waste Authority material recycling facility to the south. Mr. Hansen pointed out that although the subject property is located within the City of West Palm Beach, the County is proposing to construct and operate a Community Center and neighborhood park to serve the adjacent neighborhoods. He noted that the County has submitted some preliminary site plans for informational purposes only. He said the County has held several meetings with the residents of the surrounding communities in order to discuss the details of this project and some of the operational issues associated with it. He noted that this project is part of an effort to revitalize the neighborhood. Mr. Hansen said it is Staffs finding that the proposed designation of Community Service is consistent with the Citys Comprehensive Plan, that the uses permitted by the Community Service designation are consistent with the uses requested to build the park and community center, and that the proposed Future Land Use amendment will have no significant impacts on infrastructure. Additionally, he said Staff finds that the ROS zoning designation is consistent with the proposed FLU designation, and that although the current zoning designation is Conservation, the property does not contain any significant habitat or species, and is covered primarily with non-native vegetation. He said based on the finding that the proposed FLU and zoning designations are an appropriate transition between the commercial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east of the parcel, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case Nos. 1620A and 1620A. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss asked if there any concerns about children traveling to the park. He asked if there is any access to the park without going out to 45th Street. Mr. Hansen stated that the County built a frontage road parallel to 45th Street that will provide access from the Gramercy Park neighborhood. Mr. Weiss asked how the multifamily neighborhood will access the park.

15

Mr. Hansen stated that residents from the multifamily complex would have to go south to Haverhill Road and then west to either the frontage road or 45th Street to access the park. Mr. Weiss asked if the County has given any thought to providing a more direct access. Mr. Hansen said that is something that could be coordinated with the Caribbean apartments. Mr. Steven Mayans asked if the Applicant wished to respond to the comments. Ms. Emily OMahoney, with Gentile Glas Holloway and OMahoney, represented Palm Beach County. She stated that she was available for any questions the Board might have. Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1620, a request to change the Future Land Use designation of a 1.89 acre parcel from the Conservation designation to the Community Service designation, with a recommendation that Staff work with the County to see if an access can be developed from the multifamily area. Seconded by Todd McLeod. Approved 6-0. No opposition. Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1620A, a request to change the Zoning designation of the 1.89 acre parcel from a Conservation designation to a Recreation and Open Space zoning designation, with the same recommendation. Seconded by Todd McLeod. Approved 6-0. No opposition. D. CODE REVISION CASES
Text Amendment Code Revision Case No. 11-05

A City-initiated request to approve an amendment to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs) to reflect and implement the adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ms. Angella Vann stated that portions of this case were heard in 2010 and at the August 16, 2011 Planning Board meeting. She said at that meeting, the Board recommended approval, but due to issues with Sections 94-143 through 94-146, those sections were excluded from the approval. She said this request reflects the changes Staff made to the excluded sections.

16

Ms. Vann stated the proposed amendment makes the following clarifications to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations: 1) Residential uses are not permitted under the Commercial Future Land Use designation; the commercial zoning designations under the Commercial FLU consisting of Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Office Commercial (OC), and General Commercial (GC) are allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75. 2) The Commercial East FLU designation which applies only to properties east of I-95 permits an FAR as well as a maximum number of units per acre of residential uses. 3) Section 94-4, Table 1 has been modified to note that the densities and intensities within a Planned Development (PD) shall not exceed the allowable maximum densities or intensities provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Vann said based on the findings that this petition meets all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards found in Section 94-32 of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 11-05. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss referred to Table VIII-3 and asked if it is correct that within a PD in an NC zoning district, the minimum PD size is ten (10) acres and the smallest lot size within the PD is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Ms. Vann said that is correct. Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Todd McLeod made a motion to APPROVE Code Revision Case No. 11-05, a Cityinitiated request to approve an amendment to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to reflect and implement the adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Comprehensive Plan amendments. Seconded by Mr. Charles Jackson. Approved 6-0. No opposition. E. OTHER BUSINESS VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT

17