Planning Board June 15, 2010 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson Angela Usher, Vice Chairperson Caroline Forrest, Member Bernard Jones, Member Steven Mayans, Member Gregg Weiss, Member Keith Williams, Member Keith Spina, Alternate None Charles Wu, Planning Director Angella Vann, Planning & Zoning Administrator Denise Malone, City Comprehensive Planner Eric Schneider, Principal Planner Alex Hansen, Senior Planner Amy Stelly, 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 6:03 p.m., by Mr. Todd Bonlarron, 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. Steven Mayans made a motion to APPROVE the May 18, 2010 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Greg Weiss. Approved 7-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Charles Wu, Planning Director, stated that the Applicant for Planning Board Case No. 950CCCC is asking for a continuance.

Mr. Todd Bonlarron stated that the case will be continued to the July 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting. IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson, explained the rules and procedures of the meeting. V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION Mr. Todd Bonlarron stated that a declaration of ex-parte communication is not required at this hearing. Mr. Samuel Thomas asked that the Board disclose any ex-parte communication even though it is not required. Mr. Keith Spina stated that he had a meeting with Ms. Linda Harris in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. Mr. Bernard Jones stated that he had a meeting with Ms. Linda Harris in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. He said it will not affect his decision. Ms. Caroline Forrest stated that she received an e-mail in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597, but did not meet with the applicant . Ms. Angela Usher stated that she spoke with Mr. Joe Verdone in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. She said she will base her decision on the evidence presented. Mr. Gregg Weiss stated that he had a meeting with Ms. Linda Harris in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. He said he will base his decision on the evidence presented. Mr. Keith Williams stated that he had a meeting with Ms. Linda Harris in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. He said he has no conflicts. Mr. Todd Bonlarron stated that he had a meeting with Ms. Linda Harris in regard to Planning Board Case No. 1597. He said he will base his decision on the evidence presented.

VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson, swore in all of the members of the public and Staff who might wish to speak. B. CONTINUED CASES C. PLANNING BOARD CASES

Text and Map Amendments, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Round 10-1 Planning Board Case No. 1597

City-initiated text amendments to the Future Land Use, Historic Preservation, and Downtown Master Plan Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and Map Series amendment as part of Amendment Round 10-1. Ms. Denise Malone stated that this case is a proposal for text amendments associated with Amendment Round 10-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. She described the changes as follows: Future Land Use Element 1) A new Future Land Use (FLU) designation of Office Residential (OR) to accommodate office uses, or a combination of residential and office uses, without allowing other, more intense, uses as well. The designation will allow a maximum density of fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre and a maximum office intensity of a .75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR); 2) Deletion of Policy 1.7.3 regarding the Commercial Incentive District (CID). Historic Preservation Element 1) A revision to identify Policy 4.1.7 as a maintenance policy, reflecting that the contextual regulations for the historic districts have been completed; 2) A revision to Map 9 of the Comprehensive Map Series to remove the identification of contributing structures within the historic district boundaries and to reflect only the district boundaries and the historic sites located outside of the Citys historic districts. Downtown Master Plan Element 1) A revision to Objective 2.2, Policy 2.2.1, Policy 3.1.3G, and Policy 3.1.4 to reflect the allowance of special incentives that may increase the allowable height of five (5) stories to ten (10) stories and may increase the allowable FAR of 3.5 to 6.5 in order to promote boutique hotels in the Clematis Waterfront District-Conservation District. Ms. Malone said Staff is recommending that four (4) conditions be associated with the changes to the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element, if approved. She said Staff recommends that the incentives be restricted to: 1) a limited time duration or a limited number of projects, whichever occurs sooner; 2) properties that are corner lots, to allow maximum hotel room exposure to natural sunlight; 3) a limited size of not more than 100 rooms; 4) properties that have been vacant as of June 30, 2010. Ms. Malone stated that the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) reviewed the proposed DMP Element amendment and recommended denial, by a vote of 4-3. Ms. Malone said based on the data and analysis presented in the Staff Report dated June 15, 2010, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Historic Preservation Element, and CONSIDERATION of the proposed amendments to the Downtown Master Plan Element. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Mayans asked why the DAC recommended denial of the DMP amendment. 3

Mr. Charles Wu stated that the DAC board expressed concerns about: the intensity of development, given that only the Quadrille Business District is currently allowed a 6.5 FAR with incentives; a pressure to demolish existing lower-scale structures on Clematis Street; and the dilution of existing incentives in the Quadrille Business District and the Quadrille Garden District. Mr. Bonlarron asked if the conditions recommended by Staff were developed out of the concerns expressed by the DAC. Mr. Wu some ideas came from the City Commission Workshop, and others came from concerns expressed by the DAC. Mr. Weiss asked if it is correct that one of the vacant lots on the 500 block of Clematis Street is not a corner lot. Mr. Wu said that property is a corner lot, because it is adjacent to Clematis Street and to the railroad right-of-way. He said there are two (2) individual, contiguous properties at that location that could be agglomerated to provide a boutique hotel. Mr. Weiss asked if the westernmost parcel would be prohibited from building a hotel if the property at the corner did so. Mr. Wu said in such a case, the property to the west would become ineligible. Ms. Usher asked if the incentive will be achieved from a Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), so that there will be no increase in density and intensity in the downtown. Mr. Wu said that is correct; the development potential will be shifted from a historic site or from open space. Ms. Usher asked if the conditions listed by Staff apply only to the DMP incentives. Mr. Wu said yes. Mr. Bonlarron said the incentives as presented to the Board are very vague. He asked if the Planning Board will have an opportunity to engage in what the incentives will be. Mr. Wu stated that zoning regulations require action by the City Commission, which requires a review by the advisory committees; he said that may consist of a recommendation by the Downtown Action Committee to the City Commission. Mr. Bonlarron asked what timeframe Staff is proposing to limit the duration of the hotel incentive. Mr. Wu said Staff is recommending from three (3) to five (5) years.

Mr. Bonlarron asked about Staffs rationale for the condition limiting the incentives to corner lots. He said he is not a big fan of spot-zoning. Mr. Wu said Staffs perspective is that the rooms of a ten (10) story hotel should be desirable, and even from the standpoint of the Building Code, rooms need to have natural sunlight. He said a corner lot can take advantage of two (2) open sides for the hotel rooms, which is more desirable than an infill lot.

Public Comment Ms. Linda Harris, Attorney with Carlton Fields, stated that she represents a property owner in the affected area. She stated that she has been working on this proposal with Staff and with the City Commission for almost year. She indicated that the Mayor and all of the Commissioners support the change to allow incentives for hotels on Clematis Street. Ms. Harris read into the record portions of e-mails in support of the amendment. Mr. Joe Verdone, with Carlton Fields, stated that he worked closely with Staff to develop the language proposed for adoption. He expressed a concern that limiting the incentive to corner lots is too restrictive, given that only two (2) lots would qualify. He suggested leaving the incentive open to all eligible lots that are not historic or eligible for historic designation. Mr. Todd Bonlarron disclosed that his meeting with Ms. Lynn Harris also included Mr. Joe Verdone and Mr. Rob Samuels. Carl Levin identified himself as an architect who was hired by Mr. Rob Samuels to do an analysis of how many rooms could be provided under the current zoning regulations for a boutique hotel on Mr. Samuels site. Mr. Levin said he determined that only a thirty-seven (37) room hotel would be possible, which is not a financially viable option; he said for this reason, Mr. Samuels is asking for an increase in FAR to allow a 100-room hotel. Ms. Forrest asked how many stories would be needed. Mr. Levin said ten (10) stories. Ms. Forrest asked if parking is included. Mr. Levin said no, he believes Mr. Samuels will purchase parking from the City. Mr. Rob Samuels identified himself as a seventeen (17) year business owner on Clematis Street, and the owner of a property on the corner of Dixie Highway and Clematis Street, which would be eligible for the proposed incentive. He stated that hotels are a vital part of an active downtown, and West Palm Beach is notoriously short of hotels. Mr. Roy Assad stated that he is the current Chair of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said the County is looking for an additional eight thousand (8,000) hotel rooms in the next ten (10) years. He noted that hotel financing is a challenge these days. He said hotels provide foot-traffic 5

to local businesses people who eat in the restaurants and shop in the stores. He said he is in complete support of this project. Mr. Spina asked if the one hundred (100) room limit will provide a viable hotel. Mr. Assad said one hundred (100) rooms would be viable as a boutique hotel. Mr. Spina asked if a three hundred (300) room hotel with full amenities would be preferable. Mr. Assad said a large hotel is needed near the Convention Center, but boutique hotels have their own appeal. Mr. Mary Lane identified herself as the owner of Eileens Travel at 329 Clematis Street. She said she has been a business owner for ten (10) years, and is very much in favor of this change. She said she believes it will add to the City. Mr. Steve Cates identified himself as the owner of Ultima Fitness on the corner of Clematis Street and Dixie Highway. He said with the City Center coming together, the 400 block has gotten off the ground, but there are still a few gaps. He said he cannot think of anything better than a boutique hotel, which will be good for the businesses in the downtown. Mr. Charles Wu clarified an earlier statement for the record. He said the minimum number of rooms for a hotel in the Quadrille Business District is two hundred (200) rooms, and the minimum in the Quadrille Garden District is one hundred (100) rooms. Ms. Usher said she understands Staffs concerns about the low-scale corridor on Clematis Street. She asked if the fifty-six (56) foot setback will make a difference. Mr. Wu said the additional five (5) stories will be visible on the ground level even with the setback. Ms. Usher asked why the Comprehensive Plan amendments are so specific. Mr. Wu said Staff is asking the Board for pointers in regard to codifying the Zoning and Land Development Regulations that will follow. He said the Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint for the Downtown; the Zoning and Land Development Regulations will implement the blueprint. Ms. Usher stated that she agrees with the Chair that the incentive should not be limited to corner lots, given that it is already limited to vacant lots.

Executive Session Mr. Williams asked how Staff will establish a timeline for the incentive.

Mr. Bonlarron stated that he believes the timeframe will indicate when the policy will sunset. Mr. Wu said it refers to the commencement of development when a permit is pulled. Mr. Weiss asked if the sunset provision will be in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning and Land Development Regulations. Mr. Wu said the provision will be in the zoning regulations. Mr. Weiss asked if the regulations will come back before the Board. Mr. Wu said they will come before the DAC, but not before the Planning Board. Mr. Weiss said it is clear that there is a lack of hotel rooms in the Downtown, but he expressed a concern about changing the look and feel of Clematis Street. He asked if there will be active retail space or the ground floor. Mr. Wu said the hotel will need lobby space, which is considered an active use. Mr. Weiss asked if curb cuts will be allowed, with cars across the sidewalks. Mr. Wu said Staff has not gone into that level of detail yet, but he said the Code already specifies limitations on curb cuts on Clematis Street. Mr. Weiss asked if there will be any recommendations in regard to architecture. Mr. Wu stated that the Downtown Master Plan does not specify building materials or things of that nature. He said Staff encourages flexibility to allow an architect to be creative. Ms. Usher asked if the classification of vacant property includes parking lots. Mr. Wu said yes. Ms. Usher asked if a lot that is barely developed with a very small structure would be included as a vacant lot. Mr. Wu said yes, as long as the lot is not a TDR sending site, or eligible for historic designation. Ms. Forrest stated that she understands the need for hotel space, but is concerned about allowing a ten (10) story structure on Clematis Street. She said the only other structure with a similar height is the Comeau Building, which is historic. She said the Downtown Master Plan calls for maintaining the historic character of the corridor, and ten (10) stories does not necessarily do so. She said there are many other areas with incentives ten (10) stories is not architecturally appropriate for Clematis Street.

Mr. Spina said this proposal could be an incentive to restore some historic buildings on Clematis Street that are slowly falling apart, and with good architecture, the City could end up with some incredible properties. He asked if there is an architectural review process. Mr. Wu said no.

Ms. Forrest pointed out that there are nearby sites not on Clematis Street that might be appropriate for this level of development, that would allow the character of the downtown to be maintained. Mr. Bonlarron stated that he would feel more comfortable with additional input as to the time limitations of the incentive. He said he has seen some areas outside of West Palm Beach that have put up massive structures which completely changed the feel and character of the downtowns. He said the setback requirement will help prevent such a change, but he wants to be sure that this is an infill project which will not upset the character of existing historic buildings. He said he would be inclined to limit the incentive to a four (4) year time frame or two (2) boutique hotels to be developed within that time, whichever comes first. He stated that the language should clearly indicate that vacant properties may include parking lots, to specifically identify the four (4) parcels that qualify for the incentive. Mr. Bonlarron said he agrees with Ms. Usher that limiting the amenities is unnecessary, as the one hundred (100) room size limit will determine what services can be provided. He reiterated that he is not in favor of a restriction to corner lots. Lastly, he said although he generally has reservations about height, he believes the qualifying restrictions will allow the City to fill a niche that is desperately needed in the downtown.

Mr. Wu corrected an earlier statement, saying that this project will come before the DAC for review. Mr. Spina asked if the DAC will be able to comment specifically on architecture. Mr. Wu said the standards limit what the DAC may do, but the review process involves a give and take. Mr. Steven Mayans made a motion to APPROVE the changes to the DMP Element, without the restriction to corner lots, without a limitation on amenities, and with language to include parking lots in the definition of vacant lots. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Ms. Denise Malone pointed out that the proposed amendment includes more than just the Downtown Master Plan Element. She said the Board needs to take action on other policies. Ms. Angela Usher made a substitute motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1597, a request for City-initiated text amendments to the Future Land Use, Historic Preservation, and Downtown Master Plan Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and Map Series amendment as part of Amendment Round 10-1. 8

Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Approved 7-0. No opposition. Mr. Steven Mayans made a motion to recommend that the Zoning and Land Development Regulations shall not limit the proposed hotel incentive to corner lots, shall not place a limit on amenities, and shall include parking lots in the definition of vacant lots. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Mr. Spina stated that the incentive should clearly indicate that there will be a review of the architecture. Ms. Forrest and Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Weiss asked if projects under this incentive will come under a review by the Historic Preservation Board. Ms. Forrest said no, not unless the property is historic. Mr. Bonlarron asked Mr. Mayans if he would accept a recommendation to include an architectural review as part of the motion. Mr. Mayans asked Mr. Samuel Thomas if such a requirement lies within the scope of the Boards power. Mr. Thomas said yes, the Planning Board can make the recommendation; the City Commission will decide if it wishes to do so. Mr. Mayans indicated that he did not wish to include a recommendation to require an architectural review in his motion. The Board voted on the motion as stated by Mr. Mayans. Approved 7-0. No opposition. Mr. Todd Bonlarron made a motion to recommend that the City look at how to incorporate an architectural review, through a City process, of projects proposed under the DMP hotel incentive. Seconded by Ms. Caroline Forrest. Mr. Mayans stated that this is a significant, arbitrary restriction on property rights. He said it goes beyond what the Board needs to do.

Approved 6-1. Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Ms. Angela Usher, Ms. Caroline Forrest, Mr. Bernard Jones, Mr. Gregg Weiss, and Mr. Keith Williams in favor. Mr. Steven Mayans opposed.

Mr. Keith Williams left the meeting. In his absence, Mr. Keith Spina voted as alternate throughout the remainder of the meeting.
Future Land Use Map Amendments, Conservation Areas, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Round 10-01 Planning Board Case No. 1598-1598D

A City-initiated request for Future Land Use Map amendments to a Conservation (CON) Future Land Use designation for 4 preserve areas that are currently subject to conservation easement restrictions, and 1 area within the Water Catchment Area (WCA) Special Act boundaries to reflect current and desired future conservation uses. Location: Conservation Easement areas within the IBIS, Baywinds, and Andros Isles residential communities, Conservation Easement area within the WPB Commerce Park, and an area north of Egret Landing Elementary school adjacent to the M-canal within the WCA Special Act boundaries. All properties are within Commission District No.4 Commissioner Geraldine Muoio. Ms. Denise Malone stated that this case is a Future Land Use Map amendment to change the designation of five (5) areas currently under Conservation uses the Ibis Preserve Area, the Baywinds Preserve Area, the Andros Isles Preserve Area, the area north of Egret Landing along the M-canal, and the West Palm Beach Commerce Park conservation area to a Conservation (CON) Future Land Use (FLU). She said with the exception of the West Palm Beach Park of Commerce, which currently has an Industrial FLU designation, all the areas are currently designated as Residential. Ms. Malone said Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case Nos. 15981598D, based on the findings that: the amendment reflects the existing uses; the amendment meets Justification Standard No. E found in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.7 of the Comprehensive Plan; and the amendment does not result in any increased demands on infrastructure, and meets all Level of Service requirements. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss asked if the Conservation FLU designation will help to protect the area behind the western communities from the Roebuck Road extension. Ms. Malone said the Conservation Future Land Use affords an additional layer of protection, but she emphasized that the amendment does not include the area set aside for the right-of-way for Roebuck Road. She said the motivation behind the amendment is to more accurately reflect the existing land use of the property. Public Comment Mr. Phillip Massa stated that he supports the change in land use, as it helps to preserve a critical aspect of the West Palm Beach water table. He said billions of cubic feet of water drain through 10

the area; it must be kept safe and undeveloped. He said hoped that the Palm Beach County Commission will someday see the wisdom of not extending Roebuck Road, and that we will have a beautiful preserve area. Mr. Phillip Carland thanked the Board for considering the proposal. He said the amendment will protect the wildlife in the area and the water which is used to feed our system. Executive Session Mr. Bonlarron asked if it is correct that this proposal does not eliminate the possibility of Roebuck Road, but does create some protections of the areas close to that right-of-way. Ms. Malone said that is correct. Ms. Angela Usher made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case Nos. 1598-1598D, a City-initiated request for Future Land Use Map amendments to a Conservation (CON) Future Land Use designation. Seconded by Mr. Steven Mayans. Approved 7-0. No opposition.
Future Land Use Map Amendment, Coleman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan Planning Board Case Nos. 1595-1595L

A 13 part City-initiated request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for approximately 118 parcels totaling approximately 34.11 acres in the Coleman Park Neighborhood to reflect the vision of the Neighborhood Improvement Plan. Location: Coleman Park is generally located between Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard and 25th Street, between the CSX and the FEC rail corridors, within Commission District Nos.1 and 2 Commissioners Molly Douglas and Ike Robinson. Ms. Amy Stelly stated that this case is a thirteen (13) part request for a Future Land Use Map Amendment for the Coleman Park neighborhood, the historic center of the African-American community. She said Coleman Park was studied under two (2) major plans: the Stull and Lee Plan in 2002, and the recently adopted Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Plan. She said the proposed changes will help to realize the visions of both plans. Ms. Stelly discussed the proposed changes as follows: Ms. Stelly stated that an Office Residential FLU provides for residential uses, office uses, or a complimentary mixture of both. She said limited ancillary retail uses are permitted as well. Planning Board Case No. 1595 Multifamily to Office Residential: Ms. Stelly said the parcels under consideration are along Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, 15th Street, and a portion of Dunbar Village. She said the recommendation is to allow offices and businesses

11

while maintaining the character of the residential properties, similar to that of Providencia Park. Planning Board Case No. 1595A Commercial Incentive District (CID) with Residential Zoning to Office Residential: Ms. Stelly said the subject parcels have a Multifamily residential zoning designation. Planning Board Case No. 1595B Single Family to Office Residential: Ms. Stelly said this is an important change for Coleman Park which will encourage a balanced economic development strategy in the Tamarind corridor. Ms. Stelly stated that a Commercial East FLU is intended for parcels that are suitable for commercial, office, institutional, hotels/motels, and light industrial uses. She said some residential uses are permitted as well. Planning Board Case No. 1595C Multifamily to Commercial East: Ms. Stelly said the corner of 15th Street and Tamarind Avenue was selected to provide a one (1) acre node for more intense commercial uses. She said the subject lots are Multifamily land use parcels sandwiched in between Commercial parcels. She said the change will provide some consistency in the land use. Planning Board Case No. 1595D Commercial Incentive District with Commercial Zoning to Commercial East: Ms. Stelly said this change is primarily a clean-up because the CID designation is being phased out. Planning Board Case No. 1595E Commercial Incentive District with Residential Zoning to Commercial East: Ms. Stelly said this change is primarily to provide consistency with parcels along Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard. She said the sole parcel on 15th Street is a City-owned parcel. Ms. Stelly stated that a Multifamily FLU is intended for parcels that are best suited for multifamily residential use. She said limited commercial use is permitted on some parcels. Planning Board Case No. 1595F Commercial Incentive District with Residential Zoning to Multifamily: Ms. Stelly said this change applies primarily to parcels on the western side of the Tamarind corridor, as well as to several parcels on the east side. She said the intent is to protect the residential character of the neighborhood from the intrusion of commercial uses. Planning Board Case No. 1595G Commercial Incentive District with Commercial Zoning to Multifamily: Ms. Stelly said the intention of this change is to protect properties that are currently residential. Ms. Stelly stated that a Single Family FLU is intended for parcels that are best suited for urban residential use.

12

Planning Board Case No. 1595H Commercial Incentive District with Commercial Zoning to Single Family: Ms. Stelly said the sole parcel subject to this change is one of the nicer residential properties in Coleman Park. The intent is to protect the parcel by assigning the appropriate land use designation. Ms. Stelly stated that a Community Service FLU is intended for parcels will institutional or governmental related uses. Planning Board Case No. 1595I Commercial Incentive District with Commercial Zoning to Community Service: Ms. Stelly said this change is recommended for a parcel currently a park that abuts the Roosevelt Full Service School. Planning Board Case No. 1595J Single Family to Community Service: Ms. Stelly said this change is intended to protect several parcels donated to the City that currently form a pocket park. Planning Board Case No. 1595K Industrial to Community Service: Ms. Stelly said this change is intended to preserve the sanctity of the Storm of 28 Memorial Site. She said the Industrial land use is inappropriate for a cemetery. Ms. Stelly stated that a Utility FLU is intended to accommodate lands for essential utility or renewable energy. Planning Board Case No. 1595L Industrial to Utility: Ms. Stelly said this change is intended for the FPL site where there is a waste treatment facility for the Town of Palm Beach. Ms. Stelly stated that this amendment was fully vetted in the community. She said IPARC had no objections to the proposal, and the Housing Authority and the Coleman Park Advisory Board were in agreement with the changes. She said Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case Nos. 1595-1595L, based on the findings that: the amendment is consistent with the existing uses; the amendment is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; the amendment meets Justification Standard No. E found in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.7 of the Comprehensive Plan; and the amendment does not result in any increased demands on infrastructure, and meets all Level of Service requirements. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss asked if Staff has any concerns about putting a commercial parcel on 15th Street across from a school. He wondered if there will be an increase in traffic. Ms. Stelly said Staff believes that the roads can sustain the increased activity in the neighborhood. She said the uses will primarily be Neighborhood Commercial, which will serve the neighborhood. 13

Mr. Weiss asked if the small park on 15th Street east of Tamarind Avenue should be designated as Community Service. Ms. Stelly said that property is outside of the Coleman Park neighborhood.

Ms. Usher wondered why the same-size lots along Tamarind Avenue have different land uses categories. Ms. Stelly said Staff has a concern that changing the uses on the east side of Tamarind Avenue to Commercial East would bring some undesirable uses into the neighborhood. She said Office Residential will allow less intense uses to the east. Additionally, she noted that there are a number of vacant commercial properties on the east side of the corridor. She said Staff did not want to run the risk of adding undesirable commercial uses onto the vacant properties.

Mr. Bonlarron stated that the proposals almost double the traffic in this area. He asked how that will fit in with the vision for this area. Mr. Alex Hansen stated that a detailed traffic study was performed based on these changes. He explained that the analysis compared the maximum development potential of the existing FLU designations with the maximum development potential of the proposed FLU designations. He said it is highly unlikely that all of the parcels will be developed to their maximum potential. He noted that the additional 16,000 trips will be spread out throughout the entire Coleman Park area and the surrounding roadways. He pointed out that all of the roadways in the area are operating well within their Level of Service, and even with these changes will operate well within their capacity.

Mr. Bonlarron asked if even the worst-case scenario is within the capacity. Mr. Hansen said yes.

Mr. Weiss asked if the study looked at the intersection of Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard and Windsor Avenue. Mr. Hansen explained that a traffic study prepared for a land use amendment is a link analysis; it only looks at the impacts on the roadway links, not at the operational aspects of an intersection. He said when the individual parcels come in with development proposals, they must obtain traffic concurrency. At that time, the operational aspects of the impact is evaluated.

Mr. Bonlarron asked if all of the parcels discussed are currently vacant. Ms. Stelly said no, the majority are not. She stated that the majority of the parcels addressed are owned by private individuals.

14

Mr. Bonlarron asked to what extent Staff has notified all of the private owners of the changes, and if they understand those changes. Ms. Stelly said Staff has notified the owners and has spoken with people who called. She estimated that ninety-nine (99) percent are content with the changes.

Mr. Bonlarron said he considers it very important to have the support of all of the individuals so as to avoid legal challenges. He said anything the City does to decrease development potential is a liability if there is no agreement to the change.

Public Comment Mr. John Clayton, of 1015 Adams Street, stated that he is very excited about the proposed changes to Coleman Park, particularly the Professional Office use which will provide services to neighborhood. He said the neighborhood is not as pedestrian friendly as one would desire. He said he supports the amendment 100+ percent. Ms. Cathy Gardner, of 1018 23rd Street, stated that this amendment reflects the visions of the neighborhood, the improvement plan, and the proposed economic development plan. She said she supports the amendment and looks forward to the improvements in Coleman Park. Mr. David Gibson stated that he grew up in the Coleman Park Neighborhood and is a lifelong resident of West Palm Beach. He said he remembers the economic activity along the Tamarind corridor from years ago, and would like to bring it back. He said it will mean a great deal to young people to see professional offices established along the corridor. Executive Session Mr. Steven Mayans made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case Nos. 1595-1595L, a request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for approximately 118 parcels totaling approximately 34.11 acres in the Coleman Park Neighborhood to reflect the vision of the Neighborhood Improvement Plan. Seconded by Mr. Bernard Jones. Approved 7-0. No opposition.
Future Land Use Map Amendment, North Dixie Highway Corridor Planning Board Case No. 1596 and 1596A

A two part City-initiated request for a Future Land Use Map amendment for approximately 4.31 acres located along the west side of the North Dixie Highway Corridor, between 14th Street and 16th Street, to remove the Commercial Incentive District (CID) future Land Use Designation. Location: On the west side of the North Dixie Highway Corridor, between 14th Street and 16th Street, within Commission District No.1 Commissioner Molly Douglas.

15

Ms. Angella Vann stated that this case is the final portion of a clean-up effort directed by the City Commission in 2002 to remove the Commercial Incentive District (CID) areas. Ms. Vann discussed the proposed changes, as follows: Planning Board Case No. 1596 Commercial Incentive District to Commercial East: Ms. Vann stated that the Commercial East designation is being applied to properties which already have a commercial zoning designation and existing commercial uses. She said a Commercial East FLU will allow both commercial and residential uses, and is intended only for properties east of I-95. Planning Board Case No. 1596A Commercial Incentive District to Multifamily: Ms. Vann stated that the Multifamily designation is being applied to a small area along 16th Street, 15th Street, and one (1) lot that faces 15th Street. She said the impacted parcels currently have residential uses. Ms. Vann said Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case Nos. 1596-1596A, based on the findings that: the proposed land use designations are consistent with the with the existing zoning designations and are compatible with the surrounding land uses; the amendment is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; the amendment meets Justification Standard No. E found in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.7 of the Comprehensive Plan; and the amendment does not result in any increased demands on infrastructure and meets all Level of Service requirements. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff None. Public Comment Ms. Kristi Posvar identified herself as the owner of property on 14th, 15th, and 16th Streets. She asserted that one hundred (100) percent of the people affected by this proposal are opposed to the change. She said she feels like a step-child in that her properties are not in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) districts, not in Northwood, and not the Downtown. Ms. Posvar said it is her understanding that the CID was put into place as mitigation for the big, ugly, monster garage at Good Samaritan Hospital. She discounted Staffs concern about businesses encroaching into the neighborhood, saying that the houses in the area are empty and boarded. She pointed out that there are only two (2) owner-occupied houses on 14th Street between Dixie Highway and Spruce Avenue. She said she just found out about this change, and she finds it distressing that she has not had the opportunity to speak with City Staff. Mr. Bonlarron asked Staff to respond to Ms. Posvars concerns about notification.

16

Ms. Vann stated that the Code requires a fifteen (15) day notice to property owners. She said postcards were sent out either the Friday before Memorial Day weekend or on the 1st of June. Ms. Posvar submitted to the Board the postcard she received as notification, commenting on the small map and lack of detail. She read into the record two (2) letters from neighbors who were unable to attend the hearing. From Ms. Marilyn Laton, 411 14th Street: I give Kristi Posvar permission to speak on my behalf. I am against changing our Neighborhood Commercial to Residential. It would devalue my property. It was done so that the hospital could build the large, ugly parking structure. So are you going to remove the parking structure? From David Ramlackham, 417 14th Street: To Whom It May Concern: Please, I am really in favor of you all not to rezone this property. I am residing at this present location for twenty-six (26) years. I thank you for such, as this property was rezoned for commercial before approximately ten (10) years. Ms. Posvar asked the Board to table the proposal. Mr. David Culpepper identified himself as a native of South Florida and a former commercial real estate appraiser. He said he owns six (6) properties on North Dixie Highway, three of which are under the CID Residential Commercial plan. He stated that he will lose value on his property if the proposed amendment is approved. He asserted that the change will reduce opportunities for employment in the neighborhood and will deny the neighborhood access to important services. Mr. Culpepper said he received no notification whatsoever in regard to this amendment. He stated that he owns 1/3 of the properties in question, and Kristi Posvar owns another 1/3. He said the affected properties are not back in the neighborhood; they are on Dixie Highway, U.S. Highway One. Mr. Todd Bonlarron asked Staff if there is a compelling reason to move forward quickly with this amendment. Ms. Vann indicated that Staff is trying to complete the CID as part of this amendment round. She explained that the areas in Neighborhood Commercial zoning will stay Neighborhood Commercial zoning and the Future Land Use will change from CID to Commercial East. She said Kristi Posvar will still be able to do commercial development on her property. She said Mr. Culpeppers property along 16th Street is near the Merry Place development and the CRA neighborhood stabilization project for Coleman Park. She said the statements made that this area consists of largely vacant and derelict buildings is not correct in regard to what exists and what is proposed for 16th Street. Mr. Bonlarron said he is not comfortable with moving forward with this case until Staff can meet with the affected residents to clear up any misunderstandings and perhaps resolve some of the issues.

17

Mr. Samuel Thomas advised that the Board is well within its right to make a determination as to the proper zoning of areas within the City, and may legally proceed with this case. He said zoning always affects property. However, he said if the Board has other grounds or reasons to continue the case, then that is within its province to do so. Executive Session Ms. Angela Usher made a motion to CONTINUE Planning Board Case Nos. 1596 and 1596A to the July Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Mr. Steven Mayans. Approved 7-0. No opposition. D. CODE REVISION CASES
Text Amendment, Real Estate Office Use Code Revision Case No. 10-05

A request by Michael Thorstad for a text amendment to Section 94-272(a) Table IX-1 Permitted Use Table, Section 94-273(d) Appendix A Master Use List of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to create the Offices, Real Estate use category. Mr. Eric Schneider stated that this case is a request by Michael Thorstad for a text amendment to allow real estate offices in Professional Office Residential (POR) zoning districts. He said the POR currently allows uses such as medical offices, law offices, and engineering offices, whereas real estate offices are linked with other miscellaneous uses such as stock brokers, bail bondsmen, and many others. Mr. Schneider said after an analysis of the request, Staff determined to create a new category of Offices, Real Estate, which will be permitted everywhere it is currently allowed as well as in POR districts, with one exception: no new real estate offices will be permitted in Industrial zoning districts. He said this change means that existing real estate offices in Industrial zoning will become legal, non-conforming uses. He said Staff has sent letters of notification to each of the seven (7) licensed offices within Industrial zoning districts. Mr. Schneider said based on the findings that this petition meets all of the Amendment Standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 10-05. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff None. Public Comment None.

18

Executive Session Ms. Caroline Forrest made a motion to APPROVE Code Revision Case No. 10-05, a request for a text amendment to Section 94-272(a) Table IX-1 "Permitted Use Table," Section 94-273(d) Appendix A "Master Use List" of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to create the Offices, Real Estate use category. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Approved 7-0. No opposition.
Text Amendment, Evaluation and Appraisal Report base Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Code Revision Case No. 10-08 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. (Staff requested a Continuance of this case.)

Mr. Todd Bonlarron stated that Code Revision Case No. 10-08 will be continued for thirty (30) days, to the July 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting.

E. OTHER BUSINESS VII. VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Please be advised the minutes are not verbatim. An audio taped copy of the meeting may be requested through the City of West Palm Beach City Clerk's office at 822-1210. There is a fee.

This signature is to attest that the undersigned is the Chairperson, or designee, of the Planning Board and that the information provided herein is the true and correct Minutes for the June 151 2010 meeting of the Planning Board, dated this day of , 2010.

Chairpers , Todd Bon on (or designee)

(

7)%

krr 0)-)--- ---------,

19