Planning Board October 16, 2012 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Mayans, Chairperson Gregg Weiss, Vice-Chairperson Virginia Dominicis, Member Charles Jackson, Member Jeffrey Kotzen, Member Keith Spina, Member Keith Williams, Member Todd McLeod, Alternate None

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

Rick Greene, Planning Manager Denise Malone, City Comprehensive Planner John Roach, Senior Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:02 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 Dr. Jeffery Kotzen made a motion to APPROVE the September 24, 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 None. V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION Mr. Steven Mayans stated that he met with Mr. Greg Kino, the attorney representing an interested property owner, in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A. He said that conversation will not impact his ability to decide this case solely on the evidence presented at this hearing. Mr. Gregg Weiss stated that he attended a neighborhood meeting, which the applicant and Staff attended, in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 864N and 846O, and had a brief discussion with the attorney representing the applicant for that case. He said he was also contacted by Mr. Greg Kino in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A. He stated that he will base his decision solely on the information presented at this hearing. Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen Mr. Steven Mayans stated that he spoke with a homeowner, who lives on Embassy Drive, with respect to met with Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A . He said that will not affect his decision, as he will only entertain what is presented at this hearing. Mr. Keith Spina stated that he had ex-parte communication in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A. He said he spoke with Mr. Samuel Thomas, as he has a conflict with the case, and will therefore leave the meeting prior to its hearing. Ms. Virginia Dominicis stated that she was contacted by a resident of the community in regard to Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 and 1624A. She said that conversation will not sway her vote either way.

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
Major Planned Development Amendment, Centrepark Commercial Planned Development Planning Board Case No. 799C

A request by Harvey E. Oyer, III, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, on behalf of Centrepark East Holdings, LP, for a Major Amendment to the Centrepark Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to allow governmental office as a permitted use. (The applicant has requested that this case be WITHDRAWN).

Location: The Centrepark CPD, consisting of approximately 40.66 acres, is generally located on the east side of Australian Avenue, south of Interstate 95, within Commission District No. 5 Commission Shannon Materio. Mr. Rick Greene stated that the Applicant for this case was required to seek Property Owner Association (POA) approval for the proposed request. He said Staff has asked the Applicant to withdraw the case until such time as the approval is received.

C. PLANNING BOARD CASES

Major Planned Development Amendment & Major Subdivision, Villas on Antique Row Planning Board Case Nos. 864N & O

A two part request by Chris P. Barry, AICP of Jon E. Schmidt & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Label & Company Development Inc. (applicant) for Olive Monroe LLC (owner), for the Villas on Antique Row regarding the following: Case No. 864N: A Major Planned Development amendment with waivers to The Residences of Antique Row Residential Planned Development (RPD), now known as the Villas on Antique Row RPD, to reconfigure the site plan to develop 46 units (11 live/work) and 6,914 square feet of nonresidential uses. Case No. 864O: A Major Subdivision amendment to replat the Residences of Antique Row RPD to create individual lots for the Villas on Antique Row RPD fee simple development Location: The approximately 4.1 acre site is located at 3620 S. Dixie Hwy and 300 Wenonah Place, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dixie Hwy and Monroe Drive., within Commission District No. 3 Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell. Ms. Denise Malone stated that this case is a two (2) part request for: a Major Amendment to the Villas on Antique Row Residential Planned Development (RPD); and a Major Subdivision to replat the subject site. She said the site is surrounded by the Prospect Southland Park Historic District to the north, the Central Park Historic District to the east and south, and commercial uses to the west. She presented a brief history of the site, saying that: In February of 1987, the RPD then known as Wenonah Place was established; in November of 2005, the site was approved for a mixed use development including fifty-eight (58) condominiums, ten (10) townhouses, and fourteen (14) lofts above commercial non-residential uses; in March of 2006, a Minor Amendment was approved which reduced the number of parking spaces, eliminated the parking underneath the townhouses, reconfigured the townhouse courtyards, and modified the architectural style and details. Ms. Malone stated that the proposed project, now known as the Villas on Antique Row, consists of forty-six (46) fee simple units composed of thirty-five (35) townhouses and eleven (11) live/work units. She said the project comprises a total of seven buildings: five (5) townhouse buildings containing seven (7) units each, and two (2) live/work buildings fronting South Dixie Highway. She discussed the proposed site plan, highlighting the features and amenities,

including: pavered sidewalks and streets; on-street parking along South Dixie Highway; parallel parking on the north end of the project including both guest spaces and parking for nonresidential patrons; an updated streetscape along South Dixie Highway; front yards to the east fronting Olive Avenue; lush landscaping and a curvilinear pathway design fronting the units; a pedestrian plaza between Buildings #1 and #2 including a pedestrian walkway, a bicycle rack, a retail mail kiosk, and a bench; and architectural features such as awnings, arched entryways, decorative stucco coins and medallions, and balconies with decorative railings. She said the live/work buildings provide retail units of at least six hundred (600) square feet on the first floor, and the ability to purchase and combine two (2) units to create more retail space; the buildings also provide garages for the residential units above. She said the residential buildings will be 2-3 stories high depending upon the purchaser, and will provide two (2) car, private garages for each residential unit, and wrap-around porches for the end units. Ms. Malone said as part of the application, the Applicant is requesting twenty (20) waivers, some of which have been carried over from the previous approval. She said the new waivers relate to the minimum lot size for townhouses, a non-residential structure waiver for both the cabana and the live/work units, light poles located within the required setback, residential setbacks to allow for the wrap-around patios, a building height waiver to go to forty (40) feet, and ten (10) waivers for signage. She mentioned that the previous approval did not include a signage package, and noted that the live/work signage will comply with the requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district. Ms. Malone said in comparison to the existing approval, the current proposal shows a thirty-six (36) unit reduction in density, a 7,211-square-foot reduction in the square footage of nonresidential units, a four (4) foot reduction in the maximum building height, a one-story reduction in the live/work units, a seventeen (17) percent increase in open space, a seventeen (17) percent decrease in the building footprint, and a 113-space reduction in the number of parking spaces provided. Ms. Malone stated that the Applicant held four (4) neighborhood meetings, several attended by Staff. She said Staff received primarily positive feedback from those meetings. She said based on the finding that this petition complies with all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 864N, including the twenty (20) waivers requested by the Applicant, and with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report; Additionally, Ms. Malone said Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 864O. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Williams asked if there is a designated street tree for the subject area of Dixie Highway. Ms. Malone replied that there is no designated tree species, but the trees provided will be consistent with existing trees in the area. 4

Mr. Weiss wondered about the ability of fire trucks to get into the subject premises. He said there is a small driveway off of Monroe Drive and an entry drive on Olive Avenue. He asked if fire trucks will be able to maneuver within the site. Ms. Malone stated that the Applicant was asked by the Plans and Plats Review Committee to perform a turn-radius study for fire trucks and dump trucks. She said the Applicant performed the study, and the City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the proposal is in compliance.

Mr. Weiss asked if Staff has included a list of prohibited uses for the commercial area. Ms. Malone said yes, the prohibited uses are listed in the Staff Report, and are the same uses previously approved for the site.

Mr. Weiss asked if Staff has any concern about the availability of parking spaces for the residents and retail owners of the live/work units. Ms. Malone stated that the two (2) parking spaces in the garage are for the residential units; there are also two (2) spaces behind each residential townhouse garage, as well as parallel parking spaces that include five (5) guest parking spaces and eighteen (18) spaces available for anyone in the development.

Mr. Jackson asked what types of retail stores will be allowed in the development, and if their hours of operation will be limited. Ms. Malone said the uses will include whatever is permitted by right in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district, and the hours of operation will depend upon the use.

Mr. Jackson expressed a concern about possible noise from the commercial uses. Ms. Malone said governing documents will be prepared for the entire project.

Mr. Spina asked where in the process an architectural review of this kind of project might take place. Ms. Malone said the architecture is looked at as part of the site plan review, and also as part of the permitting process. However, she pointed out that this is the time to address such things, because the architectural details will be part of the approval.

Mr. Spina commented that the residential units are very interesting in the rear, but the faade along South Dixie Highway is not as nice. He said he would like to see more attention to the architecture on the faade facing Dixie Highway. Ms. Dominicis said she believes the proposed configuration is better than the existing approval. She said her only concern is the fifteen (15) foot setback on the south side of the site, unless the buildings are staggered between 2-3 stories. 5

Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. Ms. Lynda Harris, of Carlton Fields, introduced Mr. Jon Schmidt of Jon E. Schmidt & Associates, Certified Land Planner for the project, as well as Mr. Harry Posin and Mr. Gary Clement, Principals of Label & Co. Developments, Inc. She noted that four (4) meetings were held to reach out to the community in an effort to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Mitch Kunik, of Affinity Architects, provided a brief overview of the design. He said the intent was to give the commercial buildings a style distinctive from the residential buildings; he said although some of the colors and details of the residential buildings were carried over to the live/work buildings, they are understated rather than overwhelming. He said the residential buildings contain more detail, and more effort was given to breaking up the mass of the residential buildings. Mr. Jon Schmidt addressed the questions raised by the Board, as follows. He said: Trees Califilum trees will be provided on site; they are considerably larger than the trees proposed in the previous approval. Turning Radius - A forty-six (46) foot long vehicle turn radius and AutoTurn analysis was performed. Parking - There will be fifteen (15) parking spaces along Dixie Highway where the live/work units are located, and seventeen (17) parking spaces behind the buildings. Additionally, there will be approximately 220 parking spaces on site, although the spaces in front of the residential unit garages cannot be officially counted as parking spaces because the driveways were narrowed to twenty (20) feet. Uses - The commercial uses on the first floor will primarily be professional office and retail. Noise - The separation will be wood joist, but there will be concrete gypsum between the floors. In regard to the waivers, Mr. Schmidt stated that ten (10) of the waivers are for signage, and noted that the majority of the signs are only two (2) feet high. He concluded by saying that the Applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval. Board Discussion Ms. Dominicis asked if the four (4) internal buildings have exactly the same elevation, or if they stagger and jog. Mr. Schmidt stated that the buildings stagger and jog a bit. Mr. Spina said if a building were to sell all two (2) story units or all three (3) story units, would it be a large rectangle? He said one of the nice things about the architecture is the way the massing has been broken up. Ms. Harris replied that there is no guarantee how the market will behave, but she noted that Mr. Posin and Mr. Clement have just finished selling out a project with this design in Boca Raton, and there was a variation in what people wanted.

Mr. Spina suggested that some condition should be imposed to ensure that a building does not end up with all three (3) story units, especially on the South End. Additionally, Mr. Spina commented that the residential buildings look very nice, but the live/work buildings could use more detailing. Ms. Dominicis disagreed. She said the buildings have an old-fashioned, classic look that she likes, although there could be more diversity within the decorative items. Dr. Kotzen agreed with Mr. Spina that the commercial aspect of the design is not nearly as pleasing as the residential. He said he understands the premise to distinguish the commercial units from the residential units and to make the commercial buildings less decorative, but it would serve the project well to make the commercial buildings a little less plain. Ms. Harris said the Applicant will have no problem continuing to work with Staff on the architecture.

Mr. Weiss asked if any thought has been given to cutting the curbing to discourage a right turn onto Monroe Drive. Mr. Kyle Duncan, Engineer and Traffic Consultant with Simmons & White, stated that the Applicant would be open to channelizing the movement coming out of the subject site, but said the City Traffic Engineer does not typically like raised curbing channelized within a right-of-way.

Mr. Weiss expressed a concern about the on-street parking spaces across the street from the entrance on Monroe Drive creating an issue with cars coming down the street, cars making a left turn to exit site, and cars coming from the west across South Dixie Highway. He pointed out that the streets are very narrow. Mr. Duncan said that concern was also raised by Staff, but the traffic volume is minimal along the east approach, and there is adequate room to accommodate parking on both sides of Monroe Drive, as well as vehicles coming in and out of Monroe Drive. He said he does not believe it will be an issue.

Mr. Weiss asked if there will be on-street parking on the north side of the building on Monroe Drive. He said normally, there is only one lane for traffic if two (2) cars are parked parallel to each other on Monroe Drive. Mr. Duncan said he does not believe the Applicant is proposing any parking along Monroe Drive, but it is a public right-of-way.

Mr. Weiss suggested that the City post No Parking signs in the area near the entryway. Mr. Duncan stated that they can look into that.

Mr. Weiss stated that this is a great project. He said he likes the way the west faade on the live/work buildings blends in with Antique Row; he cautioned against too much detail. He said there is not a lot of detail on the street now. He said the landscaping is well done as well; many of the plant species are water sensitive, and the mix of palms and trees is nice as well. He asked if the roof tile will be consistent throughout the project. Mr. Kunik said that is the intent.

Mr. McLeod suggested caution in regard to channelizing the entrance, because it may create difficulties for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles. He pointed out that the City will likely need to stripe off the area on the south side of Monroe Drive, for the sight distance to South Dixie Highway. He questioned how well the left turn onto Monroe Drive will work with the lack of stacking at the South Dixie Highway intersection, but said it is consistent with what was previously approved.

Public Comment Dr. Karl Foose addressed the issue of parking on Monroe Drive. He said at 3506, 3508, and 3510 contain small rental units with two (2) employees at each location. He said just across the street from the exit of the proposed project is a white house that has been used as an office; for the past 4-5 years, there have been 4-6 cars parked on Monroe Drive, from South Dixie down: two on the north side, two on the south side, and two in the neighborhood. He said if the parking is eliminated on the south side of Monroe Drive, it will create a problem for the house on the corner. He said there is an acute parking problem on South Dixie Highway, and agreed that a No Parking sign is not a solution; he said the exit must be architecturally designed so that cars cannot turn right onto Monroe Drive; if not, cars will go right on Monroe and race down Edgewood Drive where his property is located. He said the Traffic Engineer will have to admit that Monroe Drive is very tight with parking on both sides of the street and two-way traffic. He said it would be preferable to place the entrance on South Dixie Highway rather than on an alley. He said aside from that, the project is going to fly. Mr. Mayans noted that the existing approval allows for more cars that the proposed project. Dr. Foose said the project may be very tight even if it exceeds the allowed limits, and once such projects are built, people live with the problem for thirty (30) years. Executive Session Mr. Spina stated that he is excited to see something happening in the area. He said he lives in the neighborhood, and the site has been a dirt lot for a long time. He said he also is excited about the reduction in density. Mr. Weiss stated that he also likes the project. In regard to traffic, he said it is more likely that people heading east are more likely to take the internal drive down to the Olive Avenue than to go to Monroe Drive exit. However, he said he still has concerns about the exit on Monroe Drive; he suggested making a recommendation that the City try to 8

work out a way to direct traffic to the left on Monroe Drive. Additionally, he said he understands the points made by Dr. Foose about the scarcity of parking in the area, but he said if on-street parking is not prohibited on the south side of Monroe Drive near the live/work units, entering and exiting Monroe Drive may become extremely difficult. Mr. Keith Spina made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case Nos. 864N and 864O, a request for approval of a Major Planned Development amendment to reconfigure the site plan to develop 46 units (11 live/work) and 6,914 square feet of nonresidential uses and a Major Subdivision to replat the site, with the conditions as presented by Staff, as well as the recommendation made by Mr. Weiss that Staff look into the issues of parking on Monroe Drive and some of the parking spaces adjacent to Monroe Drive, as presented by Mr. Gregg Weiss on record. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Approved 7-0. No opposition.
Class A Special Use Permit, 6501 South Flagler Drive Residential Dock Planning Board Case No. 1048A

A request by William J. Mathers, P.E., of Construction Technology, Inc., on behalf of Richard Wandoff, for a Class A Special Use Permit to construct an addition to an existing dock, relocate an existing boatlift, and construction an additional boatlift. Location: The approximately 0.53 acre property is located at 6501 South Flagler Drive, within Commission District No. 5 Commissioner Shanon Materio. Mr. John Roach stated that this case is a Class A Special Use Permit for the property at 6501 South Flagler Drive, located approximately 140 feet south of Cortez Road on the west side of South Flagler Drive. He said the property consists of two (2) parcels of land: the primary parcel contains a single family house built in 1974; the secondary parcel is a small sliver of land adjacent to the bulkhead, which contains an existing wood dock and boatlift and provides the owner with riparian rights. He said the Applicant is proposing to increase the length of the dock, to relocate the existing boatlift, and to construct an additional boatlift. He explained that the Zoning and Land Development Regulations require that a Class A Special Use Permit be obtained because the riparian rights are not contiguous to the primary parcel. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is asking for two (2) waivers as part of this application: 1. Perpendicular to Riparian Property Line Mr. Roach stated that the Zoning and Land Development Regulations require a dock to be perpendicular to the riparian property line. He said waivers have often been granted for this regulation because it is preferable that a dock be parallel to the east/west property lines to keep the dock centered in the subject property and minimize its impact on adjacent properties. He said as currently constructed, the dock is at an eighty-eight (88) degree angle, thereby requiring a waiver of two (2) degrees. 2. Middle One Third of the Property Mr. Roach stated that the Zoning and Land Development Regulations require all dock facilities, mooring slips, boatlifts, and pylons 9

to occur within the middle one third of the property in order to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. He said the relocation of the existing eighteen (18) foot wide boatlift will locate the pylons outside of the middle one third by three (3) feet. He said given that the proposal maintains all of the activity itself within the middle one third of the property so that it does not affect the properties to the north and south, Staff has no objection to the waiver. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is proposing to increase the length of the existing dock to one hundred (100) feet, the maximum dock length permitted by the Zoning and Land Development regulations. He noted that the Applicant has obtained approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He said based on the finding that this petition meets all of the applicable standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 1048A, subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Report. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Dr. Kotzen asked if the property immediately to the south of the subject property is a vacant and for sale lot. He asked if the seller and future buyer have been made aware of the proposed changes. Mr. Roach stated that the adjacent property remains vacant. He said all property owners within a four hundred (400) foot radius of the subject property are notified via mail; it is the person on file with the Property Appraiser as owning the property who receives the notification. Mr. Weiss stated that in previous cases, the Board has received a survey of the sea grass in the area. He wondered why no survey was included for the subject property. Mr. Roach stated that Staff was provided with a copy of the sea grass study, but the sea grass is located in a very concentrated area to the north and south of the existing dock; it is very minimal and is nowhere near the proposed addition. Mr. Weiss asked if docking will be allowed on the original T. Mr. Roach said no; only two (2) mooring slips are allowed, which in this case consist of the relocated boatlift and the proposed new boatlift mooring is not allowed anywhere else on the dock. Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.

Mr. Dan Tran, of Construction Technology, declined to speak. 10

Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Keith Spina made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1048A, a request for a Class A Special Use Permit to construct an addition to an existing dock, relocate an existing boatlift, and construct an additional boatlift, with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report dated October 16, 2012. Seconded by Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen. Approved 7-0. No opposition. Mr. Keith Spina left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Future Land Use Map & Rezoning, President Country Club, 3200 Presidential Way & 3100-3200 North Congress Avenue 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 pertains to the properties located at 2300 Presidential Way and 3100-3200 North Congress Avenue; it is a two (2) part request for: a Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendment and a rezoning. He said the subject property, known as the President Country Club Resort Community, consists of just over 119 acres, and currently serves as the north golf course of the President Country Club within the Lands of the President. He stated that the golf course the largest portion of the site has a FLU designation of Community Service, a small portion of land extending out to Embassy Drive has a FLU designation of Single Family; and a small triangle of land has a FLU designation of Multifamily. In regard to zoning, Mr. Roach said nearly all of the subject property just over 112 acres has a zoning designation of Conservation (W); the clubhouse and tennis courts are zoned Recreation Open Space (ROS); and

11

the two (2) small parcels are zoned Single Family Low Density Residential (SF-7) and Multifamily High Density Residential (MF-32) respectively. Mr. Roach stated that the eighteen (18) hole golf course, known as The Patriot, was built in 1969, and is part of an overall thirty-six (36) hole golf course facility that includes a clubhouse, a swimming pool, recreation amenities, and banquet facilities. He explained that due to a decline in the membership and finances of the Country Club, the club was sold in 2011 to the current owner, Palm Tree Golf Management. He said despite efforts to renovate the facility and attract more membership, the owners have now determined that the north golf course needs to be closed. He said in order to improve the financial situation of the Country Club, and to maintain the south golf course, the Applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property. Mr. Roach displayed a conceptual site plan of the project. He said the Applicant is proposing to construct: one hundred (100) single family dwelling units, two hundred (200) multifamily dwelling units, a four hundred (400) room hotel with amenities, a 30,000 square-foot spa, a 30,000-square-foot golf clubhouse, a 50,000-square-foot convention center or meeting space facility, a 10,000-square-foot medical office, and a three (3) pump fueling station for resort guests and club members only. He explained that the current FLU designation of Community Service is intended for parcels with institutional or governmental-related uses he noted that the existing golf course is not consistent with that designation. He pointed out that the Community Service FLU would allow uses such as a medical office facility. He stated that the proposed Future Land Use designation of Commercial East (CE) is suitable for commercial, office, institutional, hotel, motel, and light industrial uses, as well as residential uses. He noted that the Applicant has performed a Level of Service (LOS) analysis to demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity to meet the proposed uses. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is proposing a process similar to what was done for the Palm Beach Mall. He said the Applicant has provided Design Guidelines, as well as Master Plan containing a bubble diagram showing the general location for each type of use, the general configuration of the roadways and access points, and the proposed utility systems and lake areas; if approved, the applicant will be required to submit formal site plans for each of the facilities, to be reviewed by Staff for consistency with the Master Plan and Design Guidelines. He noted that residents have expressed a concern that once the proposed project has been approved, the developer will change the plans. Mr. Roach asserted that any changes to the Master Plan, to the types of uses, or to the intensity of the project will require a public hearing for a Major Amendment to the Master Plan. He mentioned, however, that the Applicant is requesting some flexibility in the quantity of the uses. He said this has been done in the past for other developments, with a requirement that a traffic equivalency statement be provided by a licensed engineer to confirm that there will be no net increase in traffic impact. Mr. Roach discussed the components of the Master Plan, as follows: Pod A: Mr. Roach stated that Pod A will consist of one hundred (100) single family dwelling units completely surrounded by lakes. He noted that although the proposed single family homes will be individually platted, for-sale units, the developer is proposing to allow homeowners the option of placing the homes in a hotel rental pool, which would allow rentals of the homes on a daily basis. Additionally, he mentioned that Staff is 12

proposing to shift the Maintenance Facility and Fueling Station currently shown in Pod A to Pod B so that Pod A is strictly limited to residential homes. Pod B: Mr. Roach stated that Pod B consists of the hotel, spa, convention center, and medical facility, to be centrally located in the largest portion of the site. Pod C: Mr. Roach stated that Pod C will consist of the Clubhouse and tennis courts. Pod D: Mr. Roach said Pod D will consist of the multifamily residential dwelling units and the driving range. He noted the existing Clubhouse located in this area will be demolished, and the site will remain vacant until the multifamily market picks up. Lake System: Mr. Roach said the Applicant is proposing to use a system of lakes to buffer any dwelling units that abut the golf course or have an existing golf course view. He said the Design Guidelines provide that the lakes will be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet in width, with an additional fifty (50) on each side to allow for the bank and landscaping. He said the closest the residences would be is a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the project. Vehicular Access: Mr. Roach stated that the existing Country Club access is currently off of Presidential Way it is a gated, private roadway, but anyone using the golf course currently comes in off of that private entrance. He said the developer is proposing to remove all of that traffic off of Presidential Way, and to construct a new main entrance off of Congress Avenue; the new entrance will be divided from there into: 1) a gated access to the residential units which will be limited to residents and guests; and 2) a gated welcome center entrance as part of the overall resort, spa facility, and convention center. He said no traffic will enter the development on Presidential Way. He added that the only other access is between the Lincoln Tower and the Envoy, which would provide access to anyone who resides within Presidential Way; the only other entrance is a service road into the proposed Maintenance Facility. Single Family Dwelling Units: Mr. Roach stated that the single family residences will be regulated by Section 94-309, the single family zero lot line standards for the City. He said the Applicant is requesting two (2) waivers from those regulations: 1) The Applicant is requesting a five (5) foot waiver from the required twenty (20) front foot setback for a a side-load garage; 2) The Applicant is requesting a five (5) foot setback from the required ten (10) foot rear setback for an accessory structure. Maintenance Facility: Mr. Roach stated that the existing maintenance facility currently has above-ground fuel tanks; the Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the fuel tanks underground. He noted that the facility will be unmanned, and will require key-card access. Hotel: Mr. Roach stated that the hotel will include all accessory uses typically found in an all-inclusive resort. He said the Applicant has agreed to limit development on the site with the exception of the multifamily high-rise condominium to a maximum of five (5) stories in height. 13

Clubhouse and Golf-Cart Parking: Mr. Roach stated that the Clubhouse will be demolished; the site will provide the headquarters for the remaining eighteen (18) holes, as well as golf-cart storage. He mentioned that the driving range will be upgraded and expanded. Multifamily Dwelling Units: Mr. Roach stated that the multifamily condominium is a future consideration, and will be a maximum of twenty (20) stories high with two hundred (200) dwelling units.

Mr. Roach pointed out that the developer has done a significant amount of outreach to the property owners, and has addressed some of the concerns of the individual associations. He submitted to the Board a binder containing 180 letters in opposition to the project. He said Staff believes that the conditions of approval will satisfactorily address peoples concerns with regard to the commercial development. He said based on the finding that this petition meets all of the Florida Statutes, the Florida administrative code, and Policy 1.1.7 of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 1624; he said based on the Staffs review of the proposal, Staff is recommending APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of Planning Board Case No. 1624A. Mr. Roach noted that in response to Plans and Plats Review Committee (PPRC) comments, a number of new conditions have been added to the list of conditions in the Staff Report. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Jackson expressed a concern about the single family houses that may be rented out; he said in his experience that can create a lot of noise and activity that does not have a positive impact on residences. He said he would like to see more detail as to exactly what will be put in the development. Additionally, he expressed concerns about traffic and flooding. He said there seem to be a lot of potential problems that need to be addressed. Mr. Roach said with regard to the potential impacts, the Applicant will have to provide studies to show that they can accommodate everything on the subject site. Additionally, he said the Applicant will need to accommodate all of the existing drainage that comes onto their property, plus anything new. He noted that the forty (40) acres of lakes proposed for the property will more than accommodate drainage for the proposed development. Mr. Jackson said the proposed lake design is similar to that in Riverwalk, where people can use paddle boats and inner tubes to go all around the lake; it is similar to a resort where people can have fun, but it does not seem in harmony with a residential neighborhood.

14

Mr. Roach noted that the entire resort portion will be interconnected with walkways; there will be pedestrian access from the neighborhood associations to the resort activities. Mr. Jackson expressed a concern about cars stacking up trying to enter the resort. Mr. Roach stated that the location of the gates and guardhouses will be more than sufficient for stacking. Additionally, he said the County is requiring a new right-turn lane for traffic heading north on Congress Avenue to enter into the facility. Mr. Jackson suggested that people might mistakenly turn into the facility thinking that there is public access to the property, and would then have to turn around. Mr. Roach stated that there will be sufficient room for cars to turn around to exit the property. Mr. McLeod guessed that the concerns Mr. Jackson raised are due to the lack of detail available to the Board about what is going into the pods. He said although the Board recently approved a similar process for the mall, it is early days for that project. He asked if there are other examples where a similar process has been followed, and is successful. Mr. Roach stated that a majority of the planned developments and gated communities have that type of framework. Mr. McLeod asked if it is correct that once approved, the site plans will be purely a Stafflevel review if they are consistent with the Master Plan, and will have no interaction with the neighborhood. Mr. Roach stated that if the plans conform to the Design Guidelines and Master Plan, the process will certainly be a Staff-level review. However, he said Staff is encouraging the developer to continue to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Williams asked Staff to clarify earlier statements that traffic problems will decrease with the new proposal. Mr. Roach said under a Community Service Future Land Use designation, the most intensive development in terms of traffic would be a medical facility of 5.1 million square feet, whereas the most intensive development under a Commercial East FLU would be general retail, which would produce a lesser number of traffic trips. Mr. Williams asked if there have been any comments from the Police Department in regard to the impact of the proposed development. Mr. Roach stated that the police raised no issues or objections during the Plans and Plats Review Committee (PPRC) process.

15

Mr. Williams asked if any studies have been performed in regard to the possible positive or negative effects on property values. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant has not performed any such studies.

Mr. Weiss asked what requirements would be imposed upon the property owners in terms of maintenance if the golf course were to close. Mr. Roach replied that the area would be treated just as any other vacant lot; it would have to be mowed on a regular basis, but not to the standards of a golf course. He noted that the lot could not become bare dirt.

Mr. Weiss asked what the property owner could do by right under the current land use. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant could build a 5.1-million-square-foot medical office under the Community Service FLU, although he noted that the zoning designation would have to change to something compatible with that use. Additionally, he said seven dwelling units could be constructed on the small portion of land under a Residential FLU.

Mr. Weiss asked where the water will come from for the lakes. He wondered what would happen in a severe drought. Mr. Roach deferred that question to the Applicant.

Mr. Weiss asked if there has been any discussion about water storage for the City with these lakes. Mr. Roach said he is not sure that the lakes would be constructed in a manner to allow it.

Mr. Weiss asked if the City Traffic Engineer believes that a traffic light will be required at the entrance to the development. Mr. Roach said the County has indicated that it is likely that a traffic light will be needed. He said a surety will be required from the developer in the form of a payment for the cost of a traffic light and any applicable studies. He said once the project is built, the County will be notified and will do a traffic study. If a traffic light is warranted at that time, the County will already have the money in hand to build the traffic light.

Mr. Weiss stated that sound travels very easily over water, and the activities that go on in a resort bands, DJs, etc. produce loud noise in comparison to what a golf course might produce. He asked if the City has come up with any restrictions in terms of the hours that music can be played outside for events. Mr. Roach said Staff will continue to work with the associations and will ensure that more than sufficient buffering is provided around the activity areas. He said one of the conditions that resulted from meetings with the residents is that pool activities or noise

16

generated by pool activities must be stopped by 11:00 p.m. unless there is an occasional event that might occur on an infrequent basis. Mr. Weiss said Staff indicated that a single family homeowner will have the option of allowing the home to be used for rental, managed by the resort. He asked if the homeowners will have the option of renting their homes independent of the resort. If so, he wondered if there are any restrictions on signage and other things that might impact neighbors. Mr. Roach stated that Staff can modify the conditions such that the rental pool for single family will be limited to the resort, and not permitted on an individual homeowner basis. Dr. Kotzen stated that he would like to get a better understanding of how disenfranchised the nearby residents are in this process. He asked: 1) what are the residents are most concerned about? 2) do the residents have any say in the sale of this property? and 3) are the subtleties of the situation are being considered by Staff? He said it is clear that the golf course is going away, so something has to go into the property; however, it is an awesome responsibility placed upon Staff as well as the Board, to change the zoning in such a way as to impact nearby residents. He said he would like to understand something about the worst-case scenario if, for example, this developer should pull out. Mr. Roach stated that one of the benefits of a Commercial Planned Development is that the plan is site-specific and runs with the land; if the developer chooses to sell the property, the new owner is governed by the same Design Guidelines and Master Plan. He said a new developer would be have to come back before this Board with a new proposal. Dr. Kotzen asked what, specifically, the residents are most concerned about. Mr. Roach said in the meetings attended by Staff, the concerns centered around such issues of noise, changing the property from a golf course to a commercial designation, and building heights. He said the biggest concern seemed to be that people are used to the open space provided by the golf course, and that is changing. Dr. Kotzen asked if the gas station is a big issue for the opposition. Mr. Roach said the gas station was brought up at several meetings; he said the concern was that the gas station would be open to the public that anyone off the street could use it and that it might contain a convenience store. He said the fact is that the gas station facility is purely an amenity for people who reside in the community, who are members of the club, or who are hotel guests. Dr. Kotzen stated that the gas station seems to be an unnecessary amenity. He asked if there is a paucity of gas stations in the area. Mr. Roach said no, but he noted that there are other developments in the City that offer a gas station as an amenity. 17

Dr. Kotzen pointed out that this is the only chance the Board will have to question the elements of the Master Plan. He said he is trying to represent the best interests of both the City and the residents. He suggested that Staff should take the concerns of the residents very seriously, and should work very hard to make the residents comfortable. On the other hand, he said something of this nature needs to be developed, because no one wants to look at an abandoned golf course. He noted that if this proposal does not move forward, a potential monstrosity might be built because the new designations will afford those possibilities to the site. Ms. Dominicis asked what the existing buildings are southeast of PBA #4, that are not part of this development. Mr. Roach said that is a high rise condominium.

Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. Mr. Kerry Kilday, of Urban Design Kilday Studios, represented the Applicant. He presented a history of the subject property, and the circumstances that led to the state of the property at the current time. He answered the questions posed by the Board, as follows: Residents Say in the Sale of the Property: Mr. Kilday stated that the existing condominiums were built as separate parcels under separate ownership; the golf course was never a part of or under ownership of the condominiums. Rental of Pod A Houses: Mr. Kilday stated that the Pod A residences will be developed as 3-4 bedroom units with interiors designed to meet the standards of the hotel, so that rental of the units which will provide hotel services such as maid service and maintenance of the buildings can be done in a comprehensive manner. He said for that reason, a homeowner can opt either to place the home in the rental pool, or reside in the home; the homeowner will not be able to rent the home out independently from the hotel. Lake Area: Mr. Kilday stated that the lakes are intended to provide separation, security, and a visual amenity to residents who currently live near the golf course. He said the lake area will be significant. In regard to the question as to whether the lakes will be used for recreational purposes, he said that is undecided, but there is no condition prohibiting such use. He stated that the current thought is to put fountains in some of the lakes to deal with the noise issues. Drainage: Mr. Kilday stated that the lakes will maintain themselves at the same height as Lake Mangonia, which is the water level in the area. He noted that the Lake Mangonia water level stays pretty constant, and the surrounding lakes will stay pretty constant as well. He said the project will provide additional drainage capacity, but as to whether the drainage capacity will be able to handle drainage elsewhere in the area, the answer is that although no discussions have been held in that regard, there will be more lake capacity available than the

18

project will need. He said the lakes are proposed as an amenity, not because of a need for drainage. Impact on Property Values: Mr. Kilday compared the proposed development to the PGA National development, which he said has been a benefit to the overall home values in that area, including those closest to the resort. Preservation of Life Style: Mr. Kilday stated that residents expressed a concern about losing the lifestyle provided by a recreation facility. He said the subject proposal preserves that quality. Traffic Impact: Mr. Kilday stated that all access to the Clubhouse including delivery trucks, food service trucks, garbage trucks, etc. currently comes in through the gate off of Embassy Drive. He said under the Applicants proposal, all of that traffic will go away, and any new traffic will enter off of Congress Avenue. He stated that the manned gatehouse will be set back at least 150 feet off of Congress Avenue, and will be designed with a turnaround. He mentioned that the traffic study indicated that it is highly probable that a traffic light will be required. Security: Mr. Kilday stated that having a resort hotel means having a full-time, 24-hour security system with state-of-the-art cameras and manpower throughout the property; that will also be a security benefit for the surrounding property. Noise: Mr. Kilday stated that there are two (2) conditions concerning noise: one is stopping the noise at a certain time; the other is a Noise Notice Program, where someone with a noise issue can call the resort and get a response. Fuel Station: Mr. Kilday stated that the fuel station is not a critical feature, but it is a nice amenity; he noted that where its operation has been explained, there has not been a great deal of opposition. Public Comment Ms. Katherine McRae, of 3500 Whitehall Drive, pointed out that the Lands of the Presidents is an entirely self-contained, residential community. She noted that the Applicant has presented this petition in two (2) parts: 1) to rezone property to a commercial designation; and 2) to create a planned development. She said she believes the Applicants primary interest is in the rezoning, which will provide an opportunity to sell the property for anything that is permitted under the Commercial East land use designation. She stated that the proposed rezoning is not consistent or compatible with the surrounding uses; limits the available open space; is a significant reinterpretation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan found in Florida Statute 163; and imposes on residents many of the harms that the Florida Land Development Regulations were put in place to prevent. Mr. Ray Noeth, of 2400 Presidential Way, identified himself as a resident of the Lincoln Tower. He expressed a concern about the tall buildings that will be constructed immediately behind the Lincoln Tower without any buffering whatsoever. He said tall buildings located in the northern 19

view of many of the high-rises will impact the property values of those condominiums. He stated that he opposes bringing commercial zoning so deep into this residential community. Additionally, he wondered if fumes from the fuel station will negatively impact residents, and worried about the impact of the commercial uses on the birds and animals in the area. Ms. Carol Strick, of 3516 Whitehall Drive, identified herself as a member of the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition. She stated that she is vehemently opposed to the subject project. She pointed out that Whitehall is only one (1) mile from a land fill and incinerator which has a twenty-four (24) mile span of the most toxic substances that go into the air, and now the one green space residents have is being taken away. She asserted that the proposed plan is detrimental to the health of the residents. Mr. Eddie Strick. of 3516 Whitehall Drive, stated that the subject proposal is, in his opinion, just about selling commercially zoned land for a profit. He suggested that the land should remain as green space; he said people need to think about sustainability the quality of life is at risk. Ms. Janet Schreiber, of the Envoy Condominium, identified herself as a member of the Mayors Sustainability Advisory Committee. She said she is deeply disturbed by the pending rezoning to a commercial use, and argued that the plan will be a disaster for the community, which is a habitat to numerous species. She said the developer should set aside an area as a preserve, and should have a conservation plan to preserve the residents quality of life. She said a huge amount of green space will be paved over for buildings, roads, and parking lots. She pointed out that the original intention when McArthur deeded the land to West Palm Beach, was for recreational usage surrounded by Low Density Residential; the application for a rezoning to commercial usage defies all of the original intentions, and is incompatible with the community. Ms. Gerdi Kleikamp, of the Envoy Condominium, identified herself as the president of the Envoy Condominium Association, and a real estate developer who has been on both sides of zoning and land use amendment applications. She said she has never before witnessed such a severe sales approach for a project that without question will negatively impact the peaceful, quiet enjoyment of the residents in the Lands of the President. She asserted that an investors decision to buy and close on a land deal without zoning approval is not a reason to support the request; the financial losses that the developer incurred are part of the risk and cost of doing business the residents are not responsible for that gamble. She stated that commercial zoning is not appropriate for this neighborhood, and residents should not have to give up their lifestyle to accommodate the developer. Dr. Perrin Blank identified himself as a resident of the Envoy Condominium, which he said will be most affected by the extreme zoning change. He said the salient points he and his neighbors are asking the Board to consider are: 1) Conservation, Green Space, and Recreational Space was the early plan of the town fathers; there is no precedent for commercial development under a Recreational Open Space designation; 2) A Decline in Property Values of the townhouses built in abundance at the site of the old municipal golf course speaks against the assertion that this project will increase property values; 3) Increased Traffic from the Palm Beach Mall renovation, Super Target, and a church on the corner will add to the traffic impact on the Lands of the President; High Crimes Areas surround the Lands of the President, and the 20

limited police resources will be further stressed by the transient nature of this Orlando-style resort; 4) The Possibility of a 3-Star Hotel rather than a 4-5 star hotel opens up the possibility that one (1) night outlet mall shoppers will be the clientele for the hotel; 5) The Proposed Convention Center is competition for the existing West Palm Beach Convention Center, and is a redundancy at the expense of Recreational Open Space; 6) Water Does Not Buffer Noise and the Envoy will hear all of the noise from the four (4) lane access road nearby. Dr. Blank also pointed out that the bubble plan will ultimately be changed at the discretion of the developer or his successor; it is completely unacceptable, reeks of a bait-and-switch, and opens the door to major changes. Dr. Karin Luhmann, of the Envoy Condominium, read into the record a letter written by her neighbor: Thank you for the opportunity to strenuously object to the proposed plans to redevelop the Presidential Golf Club property by partially changing its current zoning to that of a commercial zone. All residents of the Lands of the President acquired our properties with the expectation that it would be a community surrounded by a golf club, something that numerous communities throughout the U.S. are striving to develop. The proposal submitted is a radical and unprecedented change whereby among other changes, the property is to be rezoned to permit commercial development on a grand and ambitious scale, thereby seriously damaging the current environment and the covenant under which our collective properties were acquired. Currently, this is a mixed variety of open space residential units integrated into and around two (2) golf courses which provide significant open spaces, plantings, and water features, view, fresh air, and no noise pollution. The proposal before you, if not rejected, will destroy one (1) golf course and its attendant grasses, trees, plants, and wildlife population. It will introduce car traffic travelling around new perimeter roads and into over eight hundred (800) parking spaces, a new hotel with time-share style rental features, a gas station, medical offices, and all manner of utility in and around the area. This will seriously alter the situation we all were assured would remain, and will introduce new commercial activities in competition with existing area businesses, cannibalizing them and placing them in further jeopardy, while not increasing the taxable base. For the above-mentioned reasons, we very strongly oppose this zoning change. Ms. Eleanor Levine, of the Envoy Condominium, left the meeting, but submitted the following letter: I live at the Envoy. I purchased my condominium with the intention of living in a gated golf course community with low density, open green spaces, and golf course and lake views. I would have never bought this condominium had I known it was possible for a developer to come in for profit and develop a hotel with an outside wedding area, pools, convention facility, gas station, medical office and close to 1,000 outdoor parking spaces at my expense. The developers use PGA National as an influencing positive comparison. If I had wanted that I would have moved to a PGA like resort development but chose a quiet lifestyle here at the Lands of the President. Lets keep it that way. Ms. Maureen Heller, of the Envoy Condominium, stated that her focus of opposition is as follows: the proposed hotel complex and its activities, constant noise pollution, extensive perimeter roads, immense parking facilities, and vehicles using all these facilities at all hours of the day and night is disruptive to all of the residents. She said the existing hotels are already under-utilized; the proposed hotel will only exaggerate the existing low utilization, and will not bring in any new tax revenue for the City. She noted that there are adequate gas stations in the area; the proposed gas station brings a potential contamination of surrounding water supplies. 21

She said the proposed rezoning and changes will have an enormous down-side, with little in the way of redemption. She argued that the plan seems designed to negatively disrupt the existing residential way of life in order to put forth a plan that is likely to be significantly changed if the zoning approval is obtained. Ms. Frieda Fox, of the Envoy Condominium, expressed a concern about a statement on Page 7 of the Staff Report that the developer has invested in the upgrade of the Clubhouse facility. She said that is not correct; the residents have not noticed any investment by the present owner for the maintenance or improvement of the club facilities. She said to the contrary, a gigantic banyan tree has been chopped down in front of the entrance gate without a permit, leaving a stump as an eyesore. She noted that the owner has not repaired a collapsed part of the seawall surrounding the large lake in front of the Clubhouse; it is an eyesore that has been roped off and appears to be a safety hazard. She said this is indicative of the developers intentions to let everything decline if they do not get approval for their Orlando-style development. Dr. & Mrs. Paraskevas, of 3040 Presidential Way, were no longer present at the meeting. Ms. Paula Brooks, of the Envoy Condominium, stated that granting commercial zoning, especially in a bubble plan which has been proposed despite the extreme negative impact on all residents, provides no assurance that what is built will in any way resemble the proposed and essentially poor plan which may become a worse plan. She said it is possible that the plan may have been intentionally designed with onerous features so that the developer can come back and get approval for what is really wanted. She pointed out that once the zoning is approved, that will be the reality. She asked the Board to consider the needs of the many residents. She asserted that the scheme is easily changeable; having once obtained the first major part, it will be easier to come back again and again for small exceptions and variances to the zoning and planning. Ms. Bernice Moses, of the Envoy Condominium, stated that she is in strong opposition to the proposed zoning change. She asserted that the developer is proposing to build zero lot line homes that may be rented out on a daily basis, and has suggested that property values will increase as a result; she said it is not reasonable to accept that day-trippers looking for bargains at the new outlet mall will bring an increase in property values. Mr. Stephen Perricone, of 2525 Presidential Way, was no longer present at the meeting. Mr. Fred Wright, of 3500 Whitehall Drive, stated that he is opposed to the Applicants proposal. He said the developer is talking about is concept, not reality. He pointed out that although the developer says We will continue to work with the residents, once the property is rezoned, it is unlikely that there will be any binding arbitration. He noted that although most of the subject property is multifamily family and single family residential, the developer wishes to have the whole area zoned commercial. He asked: Does this sound reasonable? He said perhaps the developer is asking for more so that a compromise will be made for less, or perhaps the developer believes the Board is nave enough to give a blanket approve for commercial zoning, in which case they will be out of here in ninety (90) days. He suggested that the Board consider limiting the commercial rezoning to the hotel and convention center, if in fact, rezoning is necessary at all. 22

Mr. Henry Hersey, of 3438 Embassy Drive, identified himself as president of the Board of Directors for the Presidential Estates Property Owners Association. He said there has been a constant state of decline in the area, so everyones concern is for property values. He stated that over eight (80) percent of the Presidential Estates POA voted to work in conjunction with the developers, and after many meetings, are in support of the development as proposed. He said if people are so up in arms about losing the golf course, why didnt they join the club and support it for the last ten (10) years? He acknowledged that he was very concerned about the rezoning, but said after meeting with Staff, it is his understanding that the commercial designation will only be used to allow the single family homes to be used in a rental pool there will be absolutely no other commercial use. He mentioned that not every resident is in agreement with the Board of Directors. Mr. Greg Kino, of 515 North Flagler Drive, represented the Envoy Condominium Association. He stated that he does not agree with the decision to bring the proposed project to this residential neighborhood. He said from a legal standpoint, there is no entitlement to change the Future Land Use of the subject property to a commercial designation. He pointed out that there are five (5) standards to review when considering a change to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Applicant has focused on only two (2): the Changed Projections and New Issues. He said in essence, the justification made for the change is that twenty (20) million dollars was spent on a club in a single golf course renovation, and there is not enough money now to service the debt. He said a new owner and seasoned developer came along and bought the project knowing these conditions, and factored it into the price of purchasing the land; he bought with the full intention of developing the north course without approvals in place, and now asserts that you have to approve an aggressive and incompatible commercial use in the midst of a one hundred (100) percent residential area in order to save his investment. He said that is not a reason to change the Future Land Use to Commercial East. Mr. Kino stated that what is most surprising, based on the magnitude of the project, is the speed with which it is running through the process, and the cursory review it has received. He said he does not believe the project has been given the attention it needs. He pointed out that the Staff Report makes very little mention of the compatibility of land uses; there is a statement that says the primary objective is to ensure that such change is not detrimental to already existing development, but there is no discussion. He said what Staff has attempted to do at the behest of the developer is to place conditions that would make the project compatible with residential use. He pointed out that the Proposed Future Land Use Map shows Residential designations to the west, south, east, and north of the proposed Commercial FLU. He said that is an example of spot zoning; the proposed commercial designation has no correlation to any other commercial development, and that is not what the land use plan supports. Additionally, he said the Rezoning Standards, in particular B Changed Conditions, D- Existing and Proposed Land Use, G Property Values, and H Development Pattern , must be met by competent substantial evidence for a change of zoning to commercial. He said the Staff Report shows only cursory statements and little analysis which does not carry the case. There is a total lack of market analysis. He said he has a great concern about granting approval subject only to Staff analysis. He said the Board will never see this project again if it is approved in this fashion, which is not appropriate for a project of this magnitude. He said Staff has spoken about the use of Design Guidelines in the City, but they have only been used for Residential Planned Developments (RPDs). Mr. Kino 23

pointed out that if the proposed development does not work out, it is true that a new project would have to go before the City Commission, but the Commercial East Future Land Use does not go away, and that is a grave concern. In conclusion, Mr. Kino said that no set of conditions can make a five (5) story hotel, 50,000 square feet of convention center, 600-800 parking spaces, 10,000 square feet of medical office, and all of the exterior ancillary uses that go with a resort, compatible with a totally, surrounded by residential neighborhood. He said residents of the Envoy understand that something needs to happen in place of the golf course, but something residential would be appropriate; the proposed plan is not. Mr. Steve Rothman, of 3600 Embassy Drive, stated that he is one of the eighty (80) percent of the people in Presidential Estates who voted to cooperate with the developers. He said he attended the meetings the developer held with the community; he said he was favorably impressed with the presentation. He urged the Board to do whatever can be done to hold the developer to their promises. He would like to see them be successful and improve the whole community. He said the only thing he is uneasy about is the indication that the development might start off with a three (3) star hotel rather than a more upscale hotel, because it is unlikely to go up from wherever it start with. Ms. Chelle Konyk, of St. John Rossin, represented the Presidential Way Association. She said the master association represents thirteen communities. She said the overwhelming consensus of the group was to support the project with the realization that the developer would continue to meet with the residents, discuss their concerns, and impose conditions the residents believe are necessary. She said the Presidential Way is looking forward to the fruition of this project in a productive manner that will resolve the issues of a declining golf course and country club membership. Mr. Mark Nosaka, of 3327 Embassy Drive, stated that he and his family moved here four (4) years ago and paid the going rate for their home, which is now worth approximately fifty (50) percent of what they paid for it. He said his home backs up to the golf course; he became a member of the golf club, enjoys the view, and would love to see it continue, but unfortunately the club was going bankrupt and the idea of living on a healthy golf course community evaporated. He said as far as he is concerned, the golf club does not exist anymore. Mr. Nosaka said in his mind the best thing in the long term for the community is to have a viable club in some format that will draw people to it. He said the proposed development seems to be valuable for the future. He said he would prefer not to have the commercial zoning designation, but there is no exception between residential and commercial that would allow for rental use of the property. He hoped that there is some way to establish that if the proposed plan does not go through, the zoning reverts back to exactly what exists today. Ms. Katherine McRae, of 3500 Whitehall Drive, stated that Mr. Weiss asked a question that was not fully answered about where the water will come from that feeds the lakes. She said the water will come from land water and rain water. Board Discussion Mr. Weiss asked Staff if there is a way for the City to impose noise guidelines, so that if noise reaches a certain level, the resort will be in violation of those guidelines. 24

Mr. Greene stated that the City does have a noise ordinance in place, and the Applicant has indicated a willingness to identify a contact number should there be a violation after hours. He said it is important to keep in mind that any noise that emanates from the resort will impact the hotel as well as the surrounding community. Mr. Weiss said it is his understanding that there is a restaurant in Jupiter that installed a monitoring device to make sure that the noise is at acceptable levels. Mr. Greene stated that it would not be outside of the Boards authority to impose such a condition. Mr. Mayans said the residents tonight have expressed concerns again and again about what protection the community has if the proposed plan is unable to go forward. Mr. Greene said that is the paramount question that Staff has been wrestling with. He said the Design Guidelines will limit the development. He said there is a continuing fear that the Commercial East Future Land Use will allow something entirely different, but that is certainly not the case. He said any deviation from the proposed plan would have to come back before the Board. Additionally, he said if there is no activity for three (3) years after approval by the City Commission, Staff can make a determination that the development plan is no longer valid. Dr. Kotzen stated that from what he has heard this evening, the most significant concern of the residents is that by granting approval, the Board will be writing a blank check for a commercial zoning change. He said he is very taken by Mr. Kinos question as to why this project is being rushed through. He said it would seem more prudent to continue to examine, as Mr. Mayans suggested, how to deal with the possibility of leaving the community with a commercially zoned property if this project does not go through, with the unknown of how the property can be utilized. Mr. Greene disagreed with the assertion that the project is being rushed through. He said meetings with the Applicant began prior to June, and the Applicant submitted the project in June. Dr. Kotzen said what he means is that he does not see the urgency to decide upon this project today. Mr. Weiss asked if the City has done any analysis of the possible environmental impact of the proposed project. He said he knows that golf courses use a tremendous amount of water, and that there are things that go on that are environmentally adverse as well, but with development there is some loss of drainage and negative environmental impacts as well. Mr. Greene replied that he does not believe the Applicant has done a full-blown environmental study. He said he knows that due to the fertilizers and pesticides that are used on golf courses, a significant amount of excavation would have to be performed for 25

the lakes. He said the fill would likely be moved to expand the driving range that is going to be widened. He mentioned that a condition could be imposed in that regard at the time of the first Formal Site Plan Review. Dr. Kotzen asked if the water level of the lakes can be maintained in the dry months. Mr. Greene said considering that the lakes would be in the same basin as Lake Mangonia, it is likely that as Lake Mangonia drops, so will the lakes on the subject property. Mr. Weiss asked if the City could impose a restriction on the type of hotel to be built so that it will actually be a four (4) star hotel. Mr. Greene said that would be difficult because it will be a function of the market. However, the mix proposed would probably not work with a three (3) star hotel. Mr. Weiss stated that the City has seen what happens as regards development in changing economic conditions. He asked what provisions there so that people are not left with a partial development. Mr. Greene said that goes back to all the provisions of the City Code. He said Code Enforcement will monitor the site so that it is maintained. Executive Session Ms. Dominicis said if this were an application for a rezoning from Single Family to Multifamily, or from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial, it would be somewhat normal, but this application is somewhat unique and requires innovation, design, and planning, and well as community input. She said this is a planning infill project and a community infill project - on the one hand, a redevelopment of the site could enhance its harmony and aesthetics; on the other hand, in her opinion, it requires consensus. She said a rezoning to General Commercial requires a more specific site plan; the bubble diagram is too vague both theory and scale. She said in her estimation, the Board needs to know what the project will look like; it is all about the scale and the massing in order to believe that it makes sense to go to General Commercial. She said she is not inclined to approve the request, based upon the bubble diagram. She said she is happy that time has been spent working with the neighborhood, and that there are people who support the project, but she believes that a lot more specificity and communication is required. Mr. Mayans said the main objection he has heard from the residents is the loss of the golf club and the green space. However, he said the land does not belong to the City or to the residents; it belongs to a private owner. He said we cannot prevent a land owner from developing the land, nor can the landowner be instructed to keep it the way it is unless we pay for the privilege by purchasing the land. He said the landowner has some rights, so consideration must be given to whatever else could be allowed vs. what is proposed here. He said based on the evidence he has heard, he is in support of the project.

26

Dr. Kotzen disagreed. He said he does not argue with the concept that a landowner has a right to develop the land; he said his problem is with changing something that is strictly residential to something that is carte blanche commercial. He said he has no problem with a nice project going forward; he has a problem with a system in which that project may not go forward and the site then being wide open as to what it can be utilized for. Ms. Dominicis echoed Dr. Kotzens comment. She said that is why it is so important to have enough information. She pointed out that one of the residents commented that the project could be broken up so that some of it could be rezoned to General Commercial and some could be Residential. Dr. Kotzen agreed. Mr. Williams said he agrees with Ms. Dominicis. He said the bubble plan worked well with the Palm Beach Mall because there was an existing condition that was being redeveloped and improved. He said in this case the proposed project does not exist, and is replacing open land. He said he is uncomfortable approving a bubble plan, an idea and a concept that will affect the community. He said something more concrete needs to be put in place before making a decision. Mr. McLeod said he agrees with Dr. Kotzen; he is concerned about what would happen if the resort is not feasible. Mr. Williams said more analysis, more studies, and more research is needed. He said this is a big project that is threading a needle; the Board needs to have more information before making an approval. Mr. Jackson stated that he loves resorts, but it does not seem as though this location is right for a resort. Mr. Weiss said he appreciates the concept of what is being put forth. He believes that it is an innovative concept of what to do given the decline of the golf course. However, he said there are a number of unanswered questions, and he has reservations. He said he would like to see this case come back. He noted that there are restrictions that can be put in place as to what can be allowed in General Commercial. He said he would like to see some economic information, and would like to understand some of the environmental issues. He said he believes that there is a way to make people more comfortable about what will work.

Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen made a motion to CONTINUE Planning Board Case Nos. 1624 & 1624A, so that more research can be done by Staff to understand how this project can be more contained, more restricted, and better understood. He asked Mr. Weiss to elaborate on what the Board is looking for. Mr. Weiss asked for an economic analysis on the proposal, an analysis of the environmental impact, suggestions from Staff as to how to control the development process, and a site plan. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams.

27