Received via email 11.14.23:
To Whom It May Concern,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned homeowner to express my strong opposition to the renovation project of the Brazilian Court in our neighborhood.
While I understand the need for infrastructure improvements, I firmly believe that this project is not in the best interest of our community. There are several compelling reasons for my opposition:
1. Increased Traffic: The construction and operation of a parking garage would inevitably lead to increased traffic in our quiet neighborhood. This not only poses safety concerns but also disrupts the peaceful atmosphere we value.
2. Environmental Impact: The construction and daily operation of a parking garage couple have negative impact on our local environment. Increased air pollution and noise pollution would harm the wellbeing of residents and the natural surroundings.
3. Property Values: There is a genuine concern that property values in the neighborhood may decrease due to the presence of a parking garage. This can have a long term financial impact on homeowners.
I implore the commission to reconsider the necessity of the parking garage and engage in thorough dialogue with the community. It is essential that we prioritize the well-being and interests of homeowners who will be most affected by this project.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Jennifer Jordan McCall | Partner
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2550 Hanover Street | Palo Alto, CA 94304-1115
31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131
324 Royal Palm Way, Suite 220 | Palm Beach, FL 33480
Public Comment, Town of Palm Beach Admin
admin
over 1 year ago
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear Council, Mayor and Planning, Zoning and Building Director,
The first item(11-14-23) of concern is the discussion of the Planning and Zoning’s rejection of zoning amendments proposed by two lawyers, Crowley for the Paramount, and Sitka for the Brazilian Court representing private for profit applicants. I questioned how such persons could be allowed to ask for this kind of favoritism against the zoning code now in place. Chairman Coniglio explained that such applicants could come forth without notice of any kind. The Commission realized the lack of notice and transparency was detrimental to the residents especially those living near the proposed sites. They deferred the applicants for a month. The applicants returned and both text amendments where denied recommendations to the Council. The fact that your deliberations on these amendments which seek to benefit individual developers was not on our agenda, how could the public know they need to once again attend to defend the code and object to the taking of public right of way or the introduction of garages and retail into residential zones? This discussion needs to be deferred to December so the residents who will be harmed by the effects of either of these zoning amendments can be notified and heard.
The second item(11-15-23 is the application by Jane Holtzer for a 2nd story on her building and a 3rd story apartment on top of that! In Carol Lecates' elegantly clear letter to the Council, James Murphy makes reference to the 3rd story on the Tiffany building as possible criteria. Ms Lecates refutes that statement noting ” That structure failed on the primary requirement that the architecture be a restoration to a desired style…or an enhancement of the existing style, and the modern style is specifically prohibited by the Guidelines.” I concur completely with her comment that ” …this structure serves better as an example of what should NOT be done in the district.” I recall very clearly that Spina, the architect, said to ARCOM that you wouldn’t be able to see this (ugly and completely incompatible style addition), which unfortunately is not true.
The Worth Avenue Guidelines are the zoning code for this iconic street. There are no legal justifications presented for increasing the height of this building. Further, without complying with any of the criteria such as landscaped open space, vias, piazzas that provide public access and enhancement to the street, granting this application will open a pandora’s box of intensification of commercial uses which is in violation of the comprehensive plan. Making a one-story building into a two- story store doubles the amount of product to sell and is intensifying the site in an effort to attract more paying customers. This application has no legal merit and is not in the public interest nor that of the residents.
Please review Ms. Lecates letter which clearly outlines the sections of the code in which this application is deficient and cannot legally be granted. Mrs. Holtzer’s remarks at last Council said that you Council members have to get with progress..Look at all the development in W. Palm Beach. Is that really progress when it comes to quality of life for the taxpayers here. These developers are simply looking to intensify development and expand commercial use for personal gain. Denying unjustifiable applications and variances IS PROGRESS- the kind of progress Palm Beach Residents want to see.
Thank you,
Anne C. Pepper
333 Seaspray Ave
Received via email 11.15.23:
Dear Mayor and Town Council Members:
Hopefully, as you are considering the future of Palm Beach and examining traffic studies, the comp plan, zoning, etc., you will take into account the extraordinary development in West Palm Beach, Bright Line and other factors that will create much more traffic congestion in Palm Beach. In fact, developers in West Palm Beach are touting Palm Beach access in their advertising so that while the comp plan shows slow population growth in the town in the next few decades, development across the bridge should be taken into account in every study or plan which is considered.
Some residents are concerned that while the comp plan expresses a priority focus on residents that this isn't actually the present situation. Publix appears to becoming less town serving and I am advised that our wonderful Island Animal Hospital will let us know in December whether they will be able to stay in Palm Beach after their historic location will be paved over for a parking lot.
How about just saying no to variance requests that don't demonstrate extreme or unnecessary hardship? It could be argued that your predecessors just saying no has resulted in preserving the character and charm of the island that is unique and recognized worldwide.
Some of the structures granted numerous variances not only detract from neighborhood appearance and ambiance but will eventually decrease property values.
And we really dodged a bullet when the initial suggestions for the besieged north end included trompe d'oeil designs to make McMonsters look smaller, garages bordering our narrow streets and unlimited accessory buildings allowed within set backs.
The problem now is that such a large number of variance requests have been granted, many of which are illegal or only serve the applicant's personal convenience to the detriment if their neighbors, that everyone has expectations that if they request 8 variances that they will get at least 4.
Of course, they can usually be assured that their noisy generator, A/C and pool equipment will be able to be located within the setback close to their neighbor's property line. Spoiler Alert, most people don't want to listen to noise from neighboring property and this is probably one of the reasons that we have set back requirements in the first place.
Therefore, granting so many variances actually encourages many more requests form other property owners who now believe they are entitled. When I heard about the granting of The Vineta variances, I said that soon The Brazilian Court would weigh in with its requests.
Regarding specific items on today's agenda, please always keep in mind that any construction work on very narrow, one way Colonial Lane adversely effects beleaguered narrow Monterey Road. This is because construction vehicles will utilize narrow Monterey to access North Ocean because they want to avoid somewhat narrow North Lake Way. While only an addition at 223 Colonial Lane is on today's agenda, the proposed demolition of a one story home being replaced with a two story home on 300 Colonial will be headed your way soon. Monterey residents are wondering how you propose to prevent more gridlock on our street that will result in additional serious health and safety issues for us. I have been advised that a moratorium on Monterey would require a traffic study, which may be an option.
Previously we have been advised that our remedy is to call code
enforcement, which neighbors did when the contractor at 284 Monterey blocked ingress and egress to North Lake Trail several months ago.To the best of my knowledge, no fine or penalty was ever imposed for this illegal street closure so that no one will be deterred in the future.
284 Monterey is located next door to our home and we understand it will be a guest/party house for a large residence across the street on the lake. While we were away last year, this long time land marked home was approved for major renovation, that now appears to be a virtual demolition, and also approved to build the side wall next to our home within approximately five feet of the property line. Later we learned that after plans were approved, staff had allowed an additional 2 windows in this same wall.
Regarding the 410 South County Road project $500.00 third strike fine, the amount appears insufficient to be considered a deterrent for any violator, but rather a minor cost of doing business.
Perhaps, we can all take a realistic look into the future and discuss how we can mitigate the effects of massive traffic gridlock resulting from development in town and across the bridge as well because anyone driving on Monterey Road on a construction work day can see the tragic results of not having a plan.
Thank you for your attention and consideration. We hope that you will work with us to seek solutions to today's problems that disrupt our lives and to effectively plan for the town's brilliant future.
Respectfully,
Pamela T. Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 11.13.23:
Town Council Members,
My wife, Lori, and I live at 130 Sunrise in PH4. We are very concerned about potential changes to the zoning code as requested by the developer of the Paramount Theater (“Developer”). I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (“P&Z”) meeting last week and heard no favorable comments for a zoning change affecting an entire district. That was the Developers third attempt and they were denied again. Why does this Developer get another bite at the apple? Why are they wasting everyone’s time? Do they hope to wear you down until you relent?
Unfortunately since we were not given a notice of this meeting, I am not able to attend. Residents should be given notice for proposed zoning changes such as this.
Frankly, we are shocked that this is on the agenda just one week after it was turned down. This is what we wrote to P&Z for last week’s meeting and I will repeat it here.
- Why is there consideration to changing the code that affects our entire area for one developer?
- Isn’t there a township wide plan being reviewed that is considering various changes already?
- Our area is not Worth Avenue and the comparison is specious. There is only one Worth Avenue and it should remain as such.
- Arcades and Colonnades are not appropriate for our district.
- We don’t want Arcades and Colonnades in our district. We don’t have enough green space as it is
- We do not want the Town giving away public property to any private developer, which is what this is if approved
- We don’t need less parking, but more
- We don’t need more traffic, but less
- We do not want the character of our area to change. This change would have a huge adverse effect and not for the better.
Please turn this down. The Developer has not even received approval for their many, many variance requests. Why are we even considering putting the horse before the cart?
I am happy to discuss these concerns and can be reached at
Lori & Maurice Pogoda
130 Sunrise Ave, PH4
Palm Beach, FL 33408
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear All,
We are strongly opposed to any development at the Paramount site. It will critically and dangerously increase traffic, poor planning, and it will negatively change the historic character of our neighborhood . Don’t do it!
Sincerely,
Peter & Eileen Lehrer
Received via email 11.12.23:
To Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council,
As an owner of a condominium at 100 Sunrise Ave. and a daughter of parents who lived in Palm Beach from the 1970’s-2010 I can honestly say not all change is good.
The character and ambience of Palm Beach has changed over the years but considering building an arcade at the corner of N. County Road and Sunset Avenue and all the work and disruption that would go into the project would be deeply disturbing to neighbors and an eyesore for the neighborhood. The necessity of having to build an underground garage for additional parking would further impede the already congested traffic situation which starts at 4 PM and doesn’t subside until after 6. If there was an emergency of any sort, I’m not sure how anyone could get over the bridge to a hospital.
I believe the proposal for the project at the Paramount Theater needs to be adjusted to the needs of the neighborhood and the residents who have made their home in Palm Beach over many years.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Gandal
100 Sunrise Ave.
PH 10
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Received via email 11.12.23:
I am writing, along with my wife Elaine, as a full time Palm Beach Resident, at 130 Sunrise Avenue, Apartment 219. I am also writing as the President of the Sun and Surf One Hundred Thirty Association, Inc.
I was pleased with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) vote last Wednesday to not recommend to Town Council approval of the above ordinance to amend the zoning code. I was then astounded that that the Town Council would have this matter on the following week’s agenda with no notice to any of the residents in the effected zoning district (as the law unfortunately allows) and for many with no ability in such a short time frame to attend the Town Council meeting to object to the Paramount developer’s usurpation of process to subvert the zoning rules in their pecuniary favor and disadvantage all of the property owners in the affected zoning district unless they happen to review the Town Council agenda’s on a regular basis.
That said, after attending the P&Z meeting last Wednesday and noting no favorable comments for a zoning change affecting an entire district, and after three unsuccessful attempts before P&Z, the Developer is now going for another bite at the apple without any of the protections and notices for the district that a variance request would have required.
The Developer is requesting a change in zoning for the entire district, which virtually none of the owners in the district has supported, and which has virtually no public interest to change the zoning other than the Developer’s pecuniary interest.
This all transpires during the Town’s comprehensive zoning review with professionals retained by the Town. Why would this occur now, but for the Developer’s profit interest while the Town is in the process of a professional comprehensive review where no conclusions have been reached, let alone studies and owner surveys to determine if this is a desired change and good for Town.
As to the actual request, this is an attempt to take public property without compensation for the Developer’s private interest. Arcades and colonnades would increase the space available to the developer, make the project more massive than it already is, add darkness and lack of visibility and not be a benefit to our district, which is primarily a residential district. Any references to Worth Avenue in the Developer’s proposal are fallacious since the district has none of the attributes of Worth Avenue as a shopping district with walking access and does not want to attract the non-Palm Beach interest that Worth Avenue attracts along with the additional vehicular traffic and congestion that is already over whelming on the Island.
I hope that you will turn down this ordinance and send the Paramount Developer back to the drawing board (which you have attempted to do with minimal changes in their plan) to come up with an appropriately sized project for the area that could be built without requiring the absurd number of variances that are presently proposed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Beryl
Beryl D. Simonson
130 Sunrise Avenue, Apt 219, Palm Beach FL 33480
Received via email 11.11.23 from Amy & Richard Miller:
To Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council,
As long-standing owners of several apartments at the Sun and Surf, we strongly object to counsel for the Paramount Theater project continuing to seek a Code Text Amendment to allow the construction of arcades and colonnade on Town-owned property, over the right of way in the entire Commercial Town-Serving zoning district. This should be outright rejected. To consider allowing this is unreasonable and irresponsible.
These proposed arcades will block the view to the North side when turning right exiting Sunset Avenue. They also consume green space, block sunshine, and pose numerous safety hazards, including blocking oncoming traffic visibility. In his comments during the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on November 8, he indicated that “there is no problem with traffic if you have an arcade or colonnade if the safe site triangles have to be maintained and that Public Works is going to review them. To quote John Lindgren, AICP, of the Gunster Law Firm, in his November 1, 2023 letter to Mr. James G. Murphy, Assistant Director, Planning, Zoning and Building Department of Palm Beach:
“The proposed C-TS zoning text amendment was originally drafted to include language addressing initial Public Works concerns, including that the safe site visibility triangle or clear zones not be obstructed, that sidewalk widths within an arcade or colonnade be maintained or increased if needed to meet Town requirements, and that an arcade or colonnade cannot interfere with vehicular traffic or parking.”
We request that the developer, who Mr. Crowley represents as their attorney and who is the benefactor of the arcades and colonnades, do a full traffic and parking study of the specific site for which the arcades have been presented before the code text amendment can be heard by Town Council. Results of such study should then be included in the zoning text amendment.
The proposed colonnades and arcades would allow the Paramount Theatre project to have more mass solely for the developer’s use with zero benefit to the Town and neighbors. What is the logic behind granting a town-wide code revision based on an application by a developer?
Why are these amendments being sponsored by the developer and not the town?
Where is the study as to its need for the entire C-TS District? Where is the research that presents any benefit whatsoever to the residents of Palm Beach, either aesthetically or practically??
We cannot reiterate enough how objectionable these arcades are and how totally unsuitable and unsafe they would be on North County Road, between Sunrise and Sunset Avenues. We value our open space and sidewalk, which have served us perfectly for the last 60-plus years. Why change a good thing? Why now- as Jerry Zaro our President asks?
Why is the Town Council even considering a Code Text Amendment for arcades and colonnades - an obtrusive and offensive proposal that is a blight to the natural beauty and landscape of our magnificent Palm Beach?
We ask you, our elected officials, to please preserve this special island.
Received via email 11.9.23:
Re: Proposed projects in Palm Beach
Dear Ms. Fabrisi:
I write to you as a long-time, happy supporter of Palm Beach. The proposed redevelopment of the Paramount Theater and the application to permit Arcades and Colonnades are of great concern to me.
My family and I love Palm Beach so much that we have two apartments here—one at 150 N. Ocean Blvd., for my wife Lynne and me, and one across the street at the Sun & Surf, where our children and grandchildren stay. We have a serious commitment to Palm Beach.
The proposed Paramount work would have a direct impact on us and our neighbors. Many of us who love Palm Beach come here from towns and cities that have permitted, even welcomed, the kind of development embodied in the Paramount proposal. The net result has been profits for the developers and a visible reduction in the quality of life for residents.
I have nothing against profits. I was in business for most of my adult life trying my best to earn profits from consumers for my clients, my company, and myself. But we had a principle that worked quite well for us: Do good work and do no harm.
We came to Palm Beach because we found it to be a beautiful, tranquil, yet vital environment. The Paramount project, as proposed, will clearly do harm to that environment.
Another concerning issue I have been informed of is the application to permit Arcades and Colonnades throughout the district. We come to Palm Beach to get away from Arcades and Colonnades. If there is any credible justification to permit the construction of and obstruction by Arcades and Colonnades, I have not heard it.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Burt Manning
Received via email 11.13.23:
I am an owner at 100 Sunrise Avenue. I write in opposition to the request to allow for arcades and colonnades in our neighborhood. While I am not schooled in all the reasons why this unusual request ought not to proceed now outside of a variance requested for a specific project or an overall code re-write and leave those objections to the lawyers, I have personal experience with the traffic conditions around the Sunrise and Sunset Avenues at the intersection of County Road, as I pass through there multiple times a day, both by car and on foot, when in residence. The visibility for drivers at the corner of Sunset and County, coming from the beach, is near non-existent due to the colonnades on the building with the bike shop. In addition, making turns at all of these neighboring intersections is already fraught with danger due to the large numbers of both pedestrians and cars using or passing through the area. If additional colonnades and arcades are to be allowed in the area from the curb over the PUBLIC sidewalk to the buildings, visibility will be further infringed, and the intersection of Sunrise and County will be as dangerous as the one at Sunset and County. And if these structures are permitted, they will make it more difficult for people on the passenger side of a vehicle to get out of their parked cars on County because they will be blocked by or otherwise hit their doors on the structures, so more people will be exiting onto the street on County and I can foresee (even more) dangerous accidents happening with other cars having to swerve out of the way of people suddenly opening car doors on the drivers’ side. I have seen many cars swerve to avoid this fate already, without the impediment of the arcades adding to even more doors opening onto the street. Finally, the colonnades will make the area less open and bright and reduce the green space which currently exists in front of the retail locations. Thus, for all of these reasons and the many additional reasons raised by others, the Town should not permit colonnades as they will make the area even more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike.
Respectfully submitted,
Staci Barber
Received via email 11.13.23:
Re: Objection to Ordinance No. 008-2023 for Amendment to Chapter 134 to Permit Arcades and Colonnades (“Amendment”)
Dear Ms. Zeidman and Town Council Members:
We live at 175 Sunset Avenue, are longtime Town residents, and will be substantially and negatively impacted by the proposed ordinance and related Paramount project. We have read the objections submitted by John Eubanks, Esq. to the Planning & Zoning Commission on October 16, 2023 and November 7, 2023 and join in those objections.
At first blush, who would object to arcades or colonnades that add beauty, sun and rain protection?
The problem is these structures’ purpose and location. The Paramount project developer is proposing to place them over the public sidewalk in order to gain more square footage to the project by building on top of them. This would result in a loss of line of sight for traffic exiting Sunset Avenue from the East.
It is nearly impossible to turn left on North County Road now, even before the season begins. Just a few days ago, I sat through three traffic lights because someone in front of me insisted on trying to turn left onto North County Road. The vehicles coming from the West on Sunset Avenue fill up North County Road not only in the street, but also the grid so that it is nearly impossible to turn left onto North County Road without blocking East-West traffic. This means the only way to exit Sunset Avenue now and certainly during season is turn right, then turn left onto Sunrise and make another left on Bradley.
These Colonnades will destroy the line of vision for oncoming Northbound traffic. This is borne out by the fact that the already existing Colonnades to the left on North County Road make it
32842449.1
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to view oncoming Northbound traffic without pulling far into the intersection in order to view around the Colonnades. And this is without any structures built on top of them, as has been proposed by this developer. The Colonnade to the left and the obstruction to vision they cause is why there is no right turn on red off of Sunset Avenue.
The real problem is that the developer’s purpose is to add more square footage to his development plan which already requires 20+ variances, and all but eliminates my privacy, as well as the setback to my adjoining property. This development ignores all of the Town rules designed to protect people like me who live directly next to this gargantuan project.
Given the existing problems, imagine what will happen if you try to exit a couple of hundred cars after an event onto Sunset, a dead end street, that already has existing traffic problems. The developer is very much aware of the danger of trying to cross hundreds of cars over the sidewalk on Sunset when people are trying to walk to or from the beach. The whole idea is insane and someone is going to get run over.
What belongs on this small residential street is a couple of nice houses, not what amounts to four-story McMansions, a club, and an event center, with all associated traffic exiting onto Sunset. The entire project should be denied.
Sincerely,
/s/ Theodore Babbitt
Theodore Babbitt
Received via email 11.13.23:
Re: Objection to Ordinance 024-2023 Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to R-C Zoning District to Permit Valet Only Parking Garage Structures)
Dear Mayor and Town Council:
Our office represents Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs. Gretchen Leach the owners of 323 and 325 Brazilian Avenue. In that capacity we have reviewed the Application ("Application") by the Brazilian Court Hotel ("Applicant") to create zoning regulations within the R-C Residential District for a Valet-Only parking garage structure ("Garage") on an existing non-conforming surface parking lot ("Parking Lot"), as an accessory use to the hotel.1 A number of problems with the Application which should prevent its approval.
As set forth in Ambassador Leach's letter of November 13, 2023 (attached) on its face, the Application will inextricably change the existing charming, quiet, residential neighborhood by adding the noise, light, and traffic of the proposed two-story commercial Garage into the neighborhood. The Applicant knew when it purchased the property at the corner of Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue ("Property" or "Parking Lot") of the existing Town Code ("Code") zoning restrictions, and the long-time reliance on the same by the neighbors. Nevertheless, the Applicant is requesting a garage which under the present Code would require 21 variances and almost certainly be denied.
As appears to be happening more and more in the Town, the Applicant has taken the position that if you can't build it under the Code (because it takes too many variances) just amend the Code to remove any obstacles. Such Code amendments are not based on a study or identified need by the Town but due to the desire of the Applicant. As is often the case, the Amendment also comes at the cost of something in return to the Applicant, here in the form of a percentage of dedicated commercial use in the Garage (up to 25%) be used as a spa for the Hotel.
As proposed, the Application fails for many reasons, including, but not limited to:
1. Increase in Intensity. The 80 car increase from 60 cars using the Parking Lot to 140 cars in the Garage on its own represents a 2.33 times increase in the number of cars and resulting traffic in the neighborhood with just one turnover of the additional cars a day. If that turnover rate rises to 3 or 5 times in 24 hours the number of additional cars (much less trips in and out) in the neighborhood and Garage skyrockets to 240 to 400 more cars a day. Such numbers clearly represent an increase in intensity of the use of the Property in violation of Policy 2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan which requires the Town minimize the transition of existing low-density areas or structures to more intensive use patterns. The commercial nature of the Garage may also trigger further violations of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. On-Steet Parking Traffic. The ability to take 80 cars off the streets does not reduce traffic, but merely allows additional cars to flow into the area and use the parking spaces formerly occupied by those now in the Garage. The result is an increase in traffic in the neighborhood.
3. Mechanical Lifts and Tandem Parking Not Permitted. The Garage uses a series of mechanical lifts as well as tandem parking. The Town Code presently does not allow the use of tandem parking2 or lifts as they require one vehicle to be moved to allow another parked vehicle out. The result is a significant stacking of cars before a large function along with a slow down for car retrieval at the end or a night or from a large function, such as a wedding reception.
4. Additional Light and Noise. Each of the additional 80 cars packed into the Garage as opposed to on the Property represents another set of headlights (at a height taller than normal) at night to intrude into the neighborhood. Similarly, the additional 80 cars will increase noise both day and night from the entry, exit and internal movement of vehicles.
5. Garage Introduces Large Commercial Structure. In addition to trips, stacking, lifts, noise and lights, the parking structure itself will be a large two-story commercial structure, which is out of character in the R-C residential zoning.
6. Reductions in Setbacks. It is concerning that the proposed Ordinance changes include reducing the front yard setback to only 10 feet while a single-family residence would be required to have 25 feet. Likewise, the proposed rear yard setback is less than those for single-family, town homes and multifamily use. The result is the Garage would not only create more activity, noise, and light, but also be closer to its neighbors than a normal home or townhouse.
7. Large Increase in Lot Coverage. The proposed increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent for single-family use and 35 percent for townhouses to 60 percent should be a non-starter.
8. Reduction in Landscaped Open Space. The proposed reduction in landscape open space from 40% for single-family and 35% for townhouses down to 25% for the proposed Garage will further reduce any landscaping protection from neighboring homes.
9. "Sealed" Garage Issues. Any attempt to have 140 cars placed inside of a sealed garage (to reduce light and noise) creates a different set of problems. The structure would require major movement of air coming in, circulating within, and then exiting the Garage typically in the form of large mechanical exhaust fans to continuously refresh the air inside the Garage which will create a disturbance to neighbors.
10. No Supporting Studies. The Amendment contains no details to identify the decibels or potential light pollution of the operation of the Garage. Likewise, there are no supporting studies on the same.
11. Applicant Must Meet Variance Standards. Given that the Amendment proposes the expansion of a non-conforming use (the Parking Lot) the Applicant will also require a Variance under Section 134-387 of the Town Code.
In light of all of the above, Ambassador Howard and his wife continue to strongly oppose the proposed Amendment.
Very truly yours,
John R. Eubanks, Jr.
1 We are also now in receipt of correspondence from James W. Crowley, Esq. on behalf of Thomas Weller objecting to the Application based on several identified violations of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. We find the arguments and inconsistency between the Town's Code and Comprehensive Plan identified in the correspondence compelling and sufficient for the Council to deny the Application as a matter of law.
2 While tandem parking may be used in some parking lots, under Section 134-2237 of the Town Code, the lot must be the principal and sole use on the parcel. Here the Parking Lot is an accessory use to the hotel and contains 25% of its space dedicated to commercial use.
(Attached letter below)
Dear Mayor and Town Council,
I write in strong opposition to the application for zoning code change and variances on the parcel located on the southeast corner of Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue.
This property is in an attractive residential area. The requested changes would be an unlawful taking from the residential property owners in the area. The owners of the residential property in this area purchased their property with the anticipation of enjoying the peace and quiet of this Town of Palm Beach neighborhood without commercial enterprise.
My wife and I purchased our home approximately ten years ago on Brazilian Avenue because it was a charming and attractive residential neighborhood. We do not want this attractive residential neighborhood to be damaged by a large commercial structure, which is out of place with the other buildings on Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue.
The owners of The Brazilian Court were well aware of the zoning restrictions when they purchased the property. They should respect that zoning and not damage this residential neighborhood with a commercial structure.
The residents of Palm Beach purchased their residential prope1ties with confidence that the zoning regulations of the Town of Palm Beach would protect their neighborhood. Changing the zoning regulations and allowing the variances would destroy the trust that we and other property owners have placed in the Town of Palm Beach.
Respectfully yours,
Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs.
Gretchen Leach
325 Brazilian Avenue
Received via email 11.14.23:
Dear Palm Beach Town Council,
I am re-forwarding the email below that my wife and I sent to you and the Planning & Zoning Commission on the above referenced matter.
We were surprised to learn that despite a unanimous rejection by members of the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission, that this proposed text amendment would be up for consideration at the town meeting tomorrow. We were further surprised to learn yesterday that the council is planning to vote to “defer” action on this proposed ordinance change.
We are not in favor of deferring action on this ordinance for several reasons:
1. The proposed ordinance was not developed by the town to address a demonstrated need, rather, it was written and proposed by the applicant for the applicant’s specific circumstances.
2. The neighborhood residents are opposed to the zoning change.
3. The town staff has recommended that the Council consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission on the first reading.
4. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposed ordinance.
Given all of the above, it is not clear what justification there is to keep this proposed amendment alive by deferring action. I hope the Town Council will do what is right for the residents and the town by voting to reject this proposal at the Wednesday meeting.
Anne and Tom MacCowatt
Received via email 11.6.23:
Town of Palm Beach Planning Commission and Town Council:
I am writing to express my views about the extraordinary request that the Brazilian Court is making to the town to change the allowed use for their parking lot and to extend those rights to other hotels in town in the future.
I live in the 300 Brazilian block and attended the Brazilian Court’s informational session on this project on Monday. I would like to share my thoughts with you:
1. Much more information is needed to determine the scope of the Brazilian Court’s parking problem and what alternative solutions are available to it, beyond building a huge garage with a 6,000 square foot spa on the top floor.
2. The town insisted (rightfully so) that the new owners of the Chesterfield have parking in West Palm and shuttle their employees to the island; that could be effectively used in this situation as well.
3. The residents in this neighborhood aren’t really concerned about this employer’s parking problems. The existing lot sits 20-70% empty nearly every day. Employees apparently are not allowed to park there. Many park in the 2-hour spots and move their cars every two hours. This doesn’t provide any particular problem for the local residents, as we have our own garages, driveways, and permit-only parking spots to use.
4. What does bother us is the ‘racetrack’ around Australian, Hibiscus, Brazilian and Coconut Row. The Brazilian Court valet parkers literally will go 40-50 miles/hour up the street and roll through every stop sign, endangering residents, their families, and pets.
5. Adding a 6,000 square foot spa to this densely populated and already-busy area will only add more employees, more patrons, and therefore more cars racing around the block.
6. The residents of Brazilian Avenue have suffered 2 years of noise and disruption from the utility undergrounding project. The last thing we want is another 2-year construction project with lane closures, noise, and additional traffic.
7. Further, the Brazilian Court owner was unable to define where all the 50 cars that are currently handled in the open lot would park during those 2 years. He suggested ‘perhaps’ they could get some spots in the Hibiscus/Worth garage or in the office building at the corner of Hibiscus and Royal Palm. If that is indeed a viable solution, I suggest it could also be an immediate and long-term solution to his parking problem.
In his letter to local residents Richard suggested that the purpose of the Monday meeting was to ‘hear if you have any concerns, incorporate solutions into our proposal and weigh in on the potential improvements to the immediate area…’. When I said I would like to propose a compromise solution I was told he was not interested in our ideas. I made my proposal despite that, which was this: I believe the neighborhood would support doubling his parking capacity by adding an underground level to his lot, as proposed in his plan. A nice 4’ white wall could be added to around the ground level lot, and more landscaping, to make the area more attractive. The spa would be eliminated. The owner said he would ‘never’ spend money improving his parking area unless he got the money-making spa to pay for it. The idea that this project is ‘good for the neighborhood’ is a red herring. The conclusion I believe those attending all reached is that variances for a spa harm the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic and benefit no one but the owner of the Brazilian Court.
There are less expensive solutions that are less disruptive, don’t increase traffic in the neighborhood, such as leasing or buying a second lot, doubling, or tripling the parking capacity by doing underground parking, shuttling employees from West Palm Beach, etc.
Finally, the luncheon clearly brought to light that there is a lack of trust and good faith with the neighbors; historically the Brazilian Court has not been responsive to nor prioritized neighborhood concerns. Many examples of this were raised, and clearly residents did not feel that the business operates with the best interest of the neighborhood as a priority.
In summary, who does this zoning change benefit? Solely the Brazilian Court. They can solve their parking problem. That is not their goal here. Their goal is a new money-making spa. A spa in a dense residential district such as this adds more traffic and a disruptive construction project, and decreases safety in an already busy area.
I ask that you reject this proposal.
Christine Watkins
Received via email 11.8.23:
To whom it may concern.
My name is Stephen A. Levin, and my primary residence is located at 237 Brazilian Avenue. I am opposed to this development and would like my name to be noted as such.
Regards,
Stephen A. Levin
Received via email 11.13.23:
To Mayor Moore and The Town Council
I am Annette Geddes, a 37 year resident of Palm Beach and President of the Melbourne House Condominium Association at 227 Australian Ave. Our building shares a property line with the Brazilian Court parking lot. I speak on behalf of our 25 owners in adamant opposition to the Brazilian Court's brazen proposal to build a parking garage and add 90 additional parking spaces in our residential neighborhood.
I am frankly appalled that this item is on the agenda today after it was unanimously turned down by the Zoning Commission last week. This is on top of our extreme displeasure that this proposal moved along to a draft amendment before any notification to the residents or formal input from them. How could Town procedures allow that to happen when the proposal requires over 20 variances or a text amendment to the current zoning law?
Our residential neighborhood does not need 90 more cars zooming around the block or a massive structure with noisy industrial lifts and strong exhaust fans, plus a spa on the roof.
I implore the Council to protect the character of our community and quality of life in the lovely residential Mid-Town area.
Yours truly, Annette Geddes
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Town of Palm Beach Council,
I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the Brazilian Court Hotel’s proposed garage on Hibiscus Avenue, Palm Beach. My husband John Hays and I own at apartment at 227 Australian Avenue. We spend a significant amount of time in Palm Beach and enjoy the intimate, peaceful, low-rise streetscapes that makes midtown Palm Beach so compelling for so many residents and visitors.
TOWN CHARACTER:
Palm Beach is my home town. My family moved to Palm Beach in 1976 when I was three and I grew up on Barton Avenue. In these intervening 40+ years, I have witnessed the development of the town and understand that communities must mature to meet the needs of changing demographics, infrastructure and climate. That said, the Town of Palm Beach’s unique architectural character and small town charm, ease and functionality are amongst its most important assets. And they are almost gone! Thoughtful, conservative development must be implemented to save the Town that we all know and love so well. Once the town’s character is gone, it will not be able to be resurrected. And the visitors who have enjoyed it will move on.
ZONING:
To change the zoning in this neighborhood would be catastrophic. Developers would seize on this very large, inappropriate edifice to demand more invasive and disruptive changes to our streets and our town. The Town is in the midst of drafting its new Comprehensive Plan for planning and zoning. Without this document agreed, approved, and blessed by the state, a project of the magnitude of the Brazilian Court Hotel garage which requests more than 20 variances should NOT be considered at this time or reconsidered in the future.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROPRIATENESS:
Architecturally our neighborhood is low-storied. The Brazilian Court Hotel likely set that standard when Rosario Candela designed it in the 1920s. Its wonderful, understated lines and intimate interior courtyards are graceful and modest. At only three stories high, the building is a dignified neighbor. I am including photos to illustrate the area immediately surrounding the proposed garage. The surrounding homes are low, no more than two stories. An oversized garage that ignores setback requirements and other rules would be a blight that undermines the reserved grace of the block, the street and the neighborhood. When I walk our dog, I see many tourists stopping to take photographs all along Australian, Brazilian and Hibiscus avenues. This garage will not attract compliments or worthwhile attention.
QUALITY OF LIFE, SAFETY AND NOISE POLLUTION:
The midtown streets between Cocoanut Row and South County are heavily trafficked day and night. Hectic night life activities, over-developed commercial and residential buildings and seasonal traffic jams are ruining the town’s sensibility and ambiance. A garage in a residential where none has ever existed before is another threat to the safety of our street and to the calm atmosphere which people seek and cherish in Palm Beach. The uptick in traffic (many more cars) creates hazards for residents and visitors who walk with their elderly relatives, children and pets on the sidewalks and streets. The noise pollution created by garage’s proposed exhaust system which would need to churn constantly will create an unnatural din invading the neighborhood and beyond for many blocks. The Town and neighborhood is fortunate to enjoy many native and migratory birds throughout the year. Their presence may diminish and their melodic songs vanish.
In sum, please respect the neighborhood and the Town’s overwhelming domestic character, architectural restraint and intimate feel. A noisy and busy, architecturally incongruous, garage/spa edifice does not belong. The Brazilian Court is listed on the National Historic Registry. The Town of Palm Beach should protect the visual legacy of the Brazilian Court and Rosario Candela and its historic contribution to the neighborhood, town and American architectural history from a short-sighted garage plan.
Thank you for your attention,
Bliss Summers Hays
Received via email 11.14.23:
To Whom It May Concern,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned homeowner to express my strong opposition to the renovation project of the Brazilian Court in our neighborhood.
While I understand the need for infrastructure improvements, I firmly believe that this project is not in the best interest of our community. There are several compelling reasons for my opposition:
1. Increased Traffic: The construction and operation of a parking garage would inevitably lead to increased traffic in our quiet neighborhood. This not only poses safety concerns but also disrupts the peaceful atmosphere we value.
2. Environmental Impact: The construction and daily operation of a parking garage couple have negative impact on our local environment. Increased air pollution and noise pollution would harm the wellbeing of residents and the natural surroundings.
3. Property Values: There is a genuine concern that property values in the neighborhood may decrease due to the presence of a parking garage. This can have a long term financial impact on homeowners.
I implore the commission to reconsider the necessity of the parking garage and engage in thorough dialogue with the community. It is essential that we prioritize the well-being and interests of homeowners who will be most affected by this project.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Jennifer Jordan McCall | Partner
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2550 Hanover Street | Palo Alto, CA 94304-1115
31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131
324 Royal Palm Way, Suite 220 | Palm Beach, FL 33480
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear Council, Mayor and Planning, Zoning and Building Director,
The first item(11-14-23) of concern is the discussion of the Planning and Zoning’s rejection of zoning amendments proposed by two lawyers, Crowley for the Paramount, and Sitka for the Brazilian Court representing private for profit applicants. I questioned how such persons could be allowed to ask for this kind of favoritism against the zoning code now in place. Chairman Coniglio explained that such applicants could come forth without notice of any kind. The Commission realized the lack of notice and transparency was detrimental to the residents especially those living near the proposed sites. They deferred the applicants for a month. The applicants returned and both text amendments where denied recommendations to the Council. The fact that your deliberations on these amendments which seek to benefit individual developers was not on our agenda, how could the public know they need to once again attend to defend the code and object to the taking of public right of way or the introduction of garages and retail into residential zones? This discussion needs to be deferred to December so the residents who will be harmed by the effects of either of these zoning amendments can be notified and heard.
The second item(11-15-23 is the application by Jane Holtzer for a 2nd story on her building and a 3rd story apartment on top of that! In Carol Lecates' elegantly clear letter to the Council, James Murphy makes reference to the 3rd story on the Tiffany building as possible criteria. Ms Lecates refutes that statement noting ” That structure failed on the primary requirement that the architecture be a restoration to a desired style…or an enhancement of the existing style, and the modern style is specifically prohibited by the Guidelines.” I concur completely with her comment that ” …this structure serves better as an example of what should NOT be done in the district.” I recall very clearly that Spina, the architect, said to ARCOM that you wouldn’t be able to see this (ugly and completely incompatible style addition), which unfortunately is not true.
The Worth Avenue Guidelines are the zoning code for this iconic street. There are no legal justifications presented for increasing the height of this building. Further, without complying with any of the criteria such as landscaped open space, vias, piazzas that provide public access and enhancement to the street, granting this application will open a pandora’s box of intensification of commercial uses which is in violation of the comprehensive plan. Making a one-story building into a two- story store doubles the amount of product to sell and is intensifying the site in an effort to attract more paying customers. This application has no legal merit and is not in the public interest nor that of the residents.
Please review Ms. Lecates letter which clearly outlines the sections of the code in which this application is deficient and cannot legally be granted. Mrs. Holtzer’s remarks at last Council said that you Council members have to get with progress..Look at all the development in W. Palm Beach. Is that really progress when it comes to quality of life for the taxpayers here. These developers are simply looking to intensify development and expand commercial use for personal gain. Denying unjustifiable applications and variances IS PROGRESS- the kind of progress Palm Beach Residents want to see.
Thank you,
Anne C. Pepper
333 Seaspray Ave
Received via email 11.15.23:
Dear Mayor and Town Council Members:
Hopefully, as you are considering the future of Palm Beach and examining traffic studies, the comp plan, zoning, etc., you will take into account the extraordinary development in West Palm Beach, Bright Line and other factors that will create much more traffic congestion in Palm Beach. In fact, developers in West Palm Beach are touting Palm Beach access in their advertising so that while the comp plan shows slow population growth in the town in the next few decades, development across the bridge should be taken into account in every study or plan which is considered.
Some residents are concerned that while the comp plan expresses a priority focus on residents that this isn't actually the present situation. Publix appears to becoming less town serving and I am advised that our wonderful Island Animal Hospital will let us know in December whether they will be able to stay in Palm Beach after their historic location will be paved over for a parking lot.
How about just saying no to variance requests that don't demonstrate extreme or unnecessary hardship? It could be argued that your predecessors just saying no has resulted in preserving the character and charm of the island that is unique and recognized worldwide.
Some of the structures granted numerous variances not only detract from neighborhood appearance and ambiance but will eventually decrease property values.
And we really dodged a bullet when the initial suggestions for the besieged north end included trompe d'oeil designs to make McMonsters look smaller, garages bordering our narrow streets and unlimited accessory buildings allowed within set backs.
The problem now is that such a large number of variance requests have been granted, many of which are illegal or only serve the applicant's personal convenience to the detriment if their neighbors, that everyone has expectations that if they request 8 variances that they will get at least 4.
Of course, they can usually be assured that their noisy generator, A/C and pool equipment will be able to be located within the setback close to their neighbor's property line. Spoiler Alert, most people don't want to listen to noise from neighboring property and this is probably one of the reasons that we have set back requirements in the first place.
Therefore, granting so many variances actually encourages many more requests form other property owners who now believe they are entitled. When I heard about the granting of The Vineta variances, I said that soon The Brazilian Court would weigh in with its requests.
Regarding specific items on today's agenda, please always keep in mind that any construction work on very narrow, one way Colonial Lane adversely effects beleaguered narrow Monterey Road. This is because construction vehicles will utilize narrow Monterey to access North Ocean because they want to avoid somewhat narrow North Lake Way. While only an addition at 223 Colonial Lane is on today's agenda, the proposed demolition of a one story home being replaced with a two story home on 300 Colonial will be headed your way soon. Monterey residents are wondering how you propose to prevent more gridlock on our street that will result in additional serious health and safety issues for us. I have been advised that a moratorium on Monterey would require a traffic study, which may be an option.
Previously we have been advised that our remedy is to call code
enforcement, which neighbors did when the contractor at 284 Monterey blocked ingress and egress to North Lake Trail several months ago.To the best of my knowledge, no fine or penalty was ever imposed for this illegal street closure so that no one will be deterred in the future.
284 Monterey is located next door to our home and we understand it will be a guest/party house for a large residence across the street on the lake. While we were away last year, this long time land marked home was approved for major renovation, that now appears to be a virtual demolition, and also approved to build the side wall next to our home within approximately five feet of the property line. Later we learned that after plans were approved, staff had allowed an additional 2 windows in this same wall.
Regarding the 410 South County Road project $500.00 third strike fine, the amount appears insufficient to be considered a deterrent for any violator, but rather a minor cost of doing business.
Perhaps, we can all take a realistic look into the future and discuss how we can mitigate the effects of massive traffic gridlock resulting from development in town and across the bridge as well because anyone driving on Monterey Road on a construction work day can see the tragic results of not having a plan.
Thank you for your attention and consideration. We hope that you will work with us to seek solutions to today's problems that disrupt our lives and to effectively plan for the town's brilliant future.
Respectfully,
Pamela T. Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 11.13.23:
Town Council Members,
My wife, Lori, and I live at 130 Sunrise in PH4. We are very concerned about potential changes to the zoning code as requested by the developer of the Paramount Theater (“Developer”). I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (“P&Z”) meeting last week and heard no favorable comments for a zoning change affecting an entire district. That was the Developers third attempt and they were denied again. Why does this Developer get another bite at the apple? Why are they wasting everyone’s time? Do they hope to wear you down until you relent?
Unfortunately since we were not given a notice of this meeting, I am not able to attend. Residents should be given notice for proposed zoning changes such as this.
Frankly, we are shocked that this is on the agenda just one week after it was turned down. This is what we wrote to P&Z for last week’s meeting and I will repeat it here.
- Why is there consideration to changing the code that affects our entire area for one developer?
- Isn’t there a township wide plan being reviewed that is considering various changes already?
- Our area is not Worth Avenue and the comparison is specious. There is only one Worth Avenue and it should remain as such.
- Arcades and Colonnades are not appropriate for our district.
- We don’t want Arcades and Colonnades in our district. We don’t have enough green space as it is
- We do not want the Town giving away public property to any private developer, which is what this is if approved
- We don’t need less parking, but more
- We don’t need more traffic, but less
- We do not want the character of our area to change. This change would have a huge adverse effect and not for the better.
Please turn this down. The Developer has not even received approval for their many, many variance requests. Why are we even considering putting the horse before the cart?
I am happy to discuss these concerns and can be reached at
Lori & Maurice Pogoda
130 Sunrise Ave, PH4
Palm Beach, FL 33408
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear All,
We are strongly opposed to any development at the Paramount site. It will critically and dangerously increase traffic, poor planning, and it will negatively change the historic character of our neighborhood . Don’t do it!
Sincerely,
Peter & Eileen Lehrer
Received via email 11.12.23:
To Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council,
As an owner of a condominium at 100 Sunrise Ave. and a daughter of parents who lived in Palm Beach from the 1970’s-2010 I can honestly say not all change is good.
The character and ambience of Palm Beach has changed over the years but considering building an arcade at the corner of N. County Road and Sunset Avenue and all the work and disruption that would go into the project would be deeply disturbing to neighbors and an eyesore for the neighborhood. The necessity of having to build an underground garage for additional parking would further impede the already congested traffic situation which starts at 4 PM and doesn’t subside until after 6. If there was an emergency of any sort, I’m not sure how anyone could get over the bridge to a hospital.
I believe the proposal for the project at the Paramount Theater needs to be adjusted to the needs of the neighborhood and the residents who have made their home in Palm Beach over many years.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Gandal
100 Sunrise Ave.
PH 10
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Received via email 11.12.23:
I am writing, along with my wife Elaine, as a full time Palm Beach Resident, at 130 Sunrise Avenue, Apartment 219. I am also writing as the President of the Sun and Surf One Hundred Thirty Association, Inc.
I was pleased with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) vote last Wednesday to not recommend to Town Council approval of the above ordinance to amend the zoning code. I was then astounded that that the Town Council would have this matter on the following week’s agenda with no notice to any of the residents in the effected zoning district (as the law unfortunately allows) and for many with no ability in such a short time frame to attend the Town Council meeting to object to the Paramount developer’s usurpation of process to subvert the zoning rules in their pecuniary favor and disadvantage all of the property owners in the affected zoning district unless they happen to review the Town Council agenda’s on a regular basis.
That said, after attending the P&Z meeting last Wednesday and noting no favorable comments for a zoning change affecting an entire district, and after three unsuccessful attempts before P&Z, the Developer is now going for another bite at the apple without any of the protections and notices for the district that a variance request would have required.
The Developer is requesting a change in zoning for the entire district, which virtually none of the owners in the district has supported, and which has virtually no public interest to change the zoning other than the Developer’s pecuniary interest.
This all transpires during the Town’s comprehensive zoning review with professionals retained by the Town. Why would this occur now, but for the Developer’s profit interest while the Town is in the process of a professional comprehensive review where no conclusions have been reached, let alone studies and owner surveys to determine if this is a desired change and good for Town.
As to the actual request, this is an attempt to take public property without compensation for the Developer’s private interest. Arcades and colonnades would increase the space available to the developer, make the project more massive than it already is, add darkness and lack of visibility and not be a benefit to our district, which is primarily a residential district. Any references to Worth Avenue in the Developer’s proposal are fallacious since the district has none of the attributes of Worth Avenue as a shopping district with walking access and does not want to attract the non-Palm Beach interest that Worth Avenue attracts along with the additional vehicular traffic and congestion that is already over whelming on the Island.
I hope that you will turn down this ordinance and send the Paramount Developer back to the drawing board (which you have attempted to do with minimal changes in their plan) to come up with an appropriately sized project for the area that could be built without requiring the absurd number of variances that are presently proposed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Beryl
Beryl D. Simonson
130 Sunrise Avenue, Apt 219, Palm Beach FL 33480
Received via email 11.11.23 from Amy & Richard Miller:
To Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council,
As long-standing owners of several apartments at the Sun and Surf, we strongly object to counsel for the Paramount Theater project continuing to seek a Code Text Amendment to allow the construction of arcades and colonnade on Town-owned property, over the right of way in the entire Commercial Town-Serving zoning district. This should be outright rejected. To consider allowing this is unreasonable and irresponsible.
These proposed arcades will block the view to the North side when turning right exiting Sunset Avenue. They also consume green space, block sunshine, and pose numerous safety hazards, including blocking oncoming traffic visibility. In his comments during the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on November 8, he indicated that “there is no problem with traffic if you have an arcade or colonnade if the safe site triangles have to be maintained and that Public Works is going to review them. To quote John Lindgren, AICP, of the Gunster Law Firm, in his November 1, 2023 letter to Mr. James G. Murphy, Assistant Director, Planning, Zoning and Building Department of Palm Beach:
“The proposed C-TS zoning text amendment was originally drafted to include language addressing initial Public Works concerns, including that the safe site visibility triangle or clear zones not be obstructed, that sidewalk widths within an arcade or colonnade be maintained or increased if needed to meet Town requirements, and that an arcade or colonnade cannot interfere with vehicular traffic or parking.”
We request that the developer, who Mr. Crowley represents as their attorney and who is the benefactor of the arcades and colonnades, do a full traffic and parking study of the specific site for which the arcades have been presented before the code text amendment can be heard by Town Council. Results of such study should then be included in the zoning text amendment.
The proposed colonnades and arcades would allow the Paramount Theatre project to have more mass solely for the developer’s use with zero benefit to the Town and neighbors. What is the logic behind granting a town-wide code revision based on an application by a developer?
Why are these amendments being sponsored by the developer and not the town?
Where is the study as to its need for the entire C-TS District? Where is the research that presents any benefit whatsoever to the residents of Palm Beach, either aesthetically or practically??
We cannot reiterate enough how objectionable these arcades are and how totally unsuitable and unsafe they would be on North County Road, between Sunrise and Sunset Avenues. We value our open space and sidewalk, which have served us perfectly for the last 60-plus years. Why change a good thing? Why now- as Jerry Zaro our President asks?
Why is the Town Council even considering a Code Text Amendment for arcades and colonnades - an obtrusive and offensive proposal that is a blight to the natural beauty and landscape of our magnificent Palm Beach?
We ask you, our elected officials, to please preserve this special island.
Received via email 11.9.23:
Re: Proposed projects in Palm Beach
Dear Ms. Fabrisi:
I write to you as a long-time, happy supporter of Palm Beach. The proposed redevelopment of the Paramount Theater and the application to permit Arcades and Colonnades are of great concern to me.
My family and I love Palm Beach so much that we have two apartments here—one at 150 N. Ocean Blvd., for my wife Lynne and me, and one across the street at the Sun & Surf, where our children and grandchildren stay. We have a serious commitment to Palm Beach.
The proposed Paramount work would have a direct impact on us and our neighbors. Many of us who love Palm Beach come here from towns and cities that have permitted, even welcomed, the kind of development embodied in the Paramount proposal. The net result has been profits for the developers and a visible reduction in the quality of life for residents.
I have nothing against profits. I was in business for most of my adult life trying my best to earn profits from consumers for my clients, my company, and myself. But we had a principle that worked quite well for us: Do good work and do no harm.
We came to Palm Beach because we found it to be a beautiful, tranquil, yet vital environment. The Paramount project, as proposed, will clearly do harm to that environment.
Another concerning issue I have been informed of is the application to permit Arcades and Colonnades throughout the district. We come to Palm Beach to get away from Arcades and Colonnades. If there is any credible justification to permit the construction of and obstruction by Arcades and Colonnades, I have not heard it.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Burt Manning
Received via email 11.13.23:
I am an owner at 100 Sunrise Avenue. I write in opposition to the request to allow for arcades and colonnades in our neighborhood. While I am not schooled in all the reasons why this unusual request ought not to proceed now outside of a variance requested for a specific project or an overall code re-write and leave those objections to the lawyers, I have personal experience with the traffic conditions around the Sunrise and Sunset Avenues at the intersection of County Road, as I pass through there multiple times a day, both by car and on foot, when in residence. The visibility for drivers at the corner of Sunset and County, coming from the beach, is near non-existent due to the colonnades on the building with the bike shop. In addition, making turns at all of these neighboring intersections is already fraught with danger due to the large numbers of both pedestrians and cars using or passing through the area. If additional colonnades and arcades are to be allowed in the area from the curb over the PUBLIC sidewalk to the buildings, visibility will be further infringed, and the intersection of Sunrise and County will be as dangerous as the one at Sunset and County. And if these structures are permitted, they will make it more difficult for people on the passenger side of a vehicle to get out of their parked cars on County because they will be blocked by or otherwise hit their doors on the structures, so more people will be exiting onto the street on County and I can foresee (even more) dangerous accidents happening with other cars having to swerve out of the way of people suddenly opening car doors on the drivers’ side. I have seen many cars swerve to avoid this fate already, without the impediment of the arcades adding to even more doors opening onto the street. Finally, the colonnades will make the area less open and bright and reduce the green space which currently exists in front of the retail locations. Thus, for all of these reasons and the many additional reasons raised by others, the Town should not permit colonnades as they will make the area even more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike.
Respectfully submitted,
Staci Barber
Received via email 11.13.23:
Re: Objection to Ordinance No. 008-2023 for Amendment to Chapter 134 to Permit Arcades and Colonnades (“Amendment”)
Dear Ms. Zeidman and Town Council Members:
We live at 175 Sunset Avenue, are longtime Town residents, and will be substantially and negatively impacted by the proposed ordinance and related Paramount project. We have read the objections submitted by John Eubanks, Esq. to the Planning & Zoning Commission on October 16, 2023 and November 7, 2023 and join in those objections.
At first blush, who would object to arcades or colonnades that add beauty, sun and rain protection?
The problem is these structures’ purpose and location. The Paramount project developer is proposing to place them over the public sidewalk in order to gain more square footage to the project by building on top of them. This would result in a loss of line of sight for traffic exiting Sunset Avenue from the East.
It is nearly impossible to turn left on North County Road now, even before the season begins. Just a few days ago, I sat through three traffic lights because someone in front of me insisted on trying to turn left onto North County Road. The vehicles coming from the West on Sunset Avenue fill up North County Road not only in the street, but also the grid so that it is nearly impossible to turn left onto North County Road without blocking East-West traffic. This means the only way to exit Sunset Avenue now and certainly during season is turn right, then turn left onto Sunrise and make another left on Bradley.
These Colonnades will destroy the line of vision for oncoming Northbound traffic. This is borne out by the fact that the already existing Colonnades to the left on North County Road make it
32842449.1
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to view oncoming Northbound traffic without pulling far into the intersection in order to view around the Colonnades. And this is without any structures built on top of them, as has been proposed by this developer. The Colonnade to the left and the obstruction to vision they cause is why there is no right turn on red off of Sunset Avenue.
The real problem is that the developer’s purpose is to add more square footage to his development plan which already requires 20+ variances, and all but eliminates my privacy, as well as the setback to my adjoining property. This development ignores all of the Town rules designed to protect people like me who live directly next to this gargantuan project.
Given the existing problems, imagine what will happen if you try to exit a couple of hundred cars after an event onto Sunset, a dead end street, that already has existing traffic problems. The developer is very much aware of the danger of trying to cross hundreds of cars over the sidewalk on Sunset when people are trying to walk to or from the beach. The whole idea is insane and someone is going to get run over.
What belongs on this small residential street is a couple of nice houses, not what amounts to four-story McMansions, a club, and an event center, with all associated traffic exiting onto Sunset. The entire project should be denied.
Sincerely,
/s/ Theodore Babbitt
Theodore Babbitt
Received via email 11.13.23:
Re: Objection to Ordinance 024-2023 Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to R-C Zoning District to Permit Valet Only Parking Garage Structures)
Dear Mayor and Town Council:
Our office represents Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs. Gretchen Leach the owners of 323 and 325 Brazilian Avenue. In that capacity we have reviewed the Application ("Application") by the Brazilian Court Hotel ("Applicant") to create zoning regulations within the R-C Residential District for a Valet-Only parking garage structure ("Garage") on an existing non-conforming surface parking lot ("Parking Lot"), as an accessory use to the hotel.1 A number of problems with the Application which should prevent its approval.
As set forth in Ambassador Leach's letter of November 13, 2023 (attached) on its face, the Application will inextricably change the existing charming, quiet, residential neighborhood by adding the noise, light, and traffic of the proposed two-story commercial Garage into the neighborhood. The Applicant knew when it purchased the property at the corner of Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue ("Property" or "Parking Lot") of the existing Town Code ("Code") zoning restrictions, and the long-time reliance on the same by the neighbors. Nevertheless, the Applicant is requesting a garage which under the present Code would require 21 variances and almost certainly be denied.
As appears to be happening more and more in the Town, the Applicant has taken the position that if you can't build it under the Code (because it takes too many variances) just amend the Code to remove any obstacles. Such Code amendments are not based on a study or identified need by the Town but due to the desire of the Applicant. As is often the case, the Amendment also comes at the cost of something in return to the Applicant, here in the form of a percentage of dedicated commercial use in the Garage (up to 25%) be used as a spa for the Hotel.
As proposed, the Application fails for many reasons, including, but not limited to:
1. Increase in Intensity. The 80 car increase from 60 cars using the Parking Lot to 140 cars in the Garage on its own represents a 2.33 times increase in the number of cars and resulting traffic in the neighborhood with just one turnover of the additional cars a day. If that turnover rate rises to 3 or 5 times in 24 hours the number of additional cars (much less trips in and out) in the neighborhood and Garage skyrockets to 240 to 400 more cars a day. Such numbers clearly represent an increase in intensity of the use of the Property in violation of Policy 2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan which requires the Town minimize the transition of existing low-density areas or structures to more intensive use patterns. The commercial nature of the Garage may also trigger further violations of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. On-Steet Parking Traffic. The ability to take 80 cars off the streets does not reduce traffic, but merely allows additional cars to flow into the area and use the parking spaces formerly occupied by those now in the Garage. The result is an increase in traffic in the neighborhood.
3. Mechanical Lifts and Tandem Parking Not Permitted. The Garage uses a series of mechanical lifts as well as tandem parking. The Town Code presently does not allow the use of tandem parking2 or lifts as they require one vehicle to be moved to allow another parked vehicle out. The result is a significant stacking of cars before a large function along with a slow down for car retrieval at the end or a night or from a large function, such as a wedding reception.
4. Additional Light and Noise. Each of the additional 80 cars packed into the Garage as opposed to on the Property represents another set of headlights (at a height taller than normal) at night to intrude into the neighborhood. Similarly, the additional 80 cars will increase noise both day and night from the entry, exit and internal movement of vehicles.
5. Garage Introduces Large Commercial Structure. In addition to trips, stacking, lifts, noise and lights, the parking structure itself will be a large two-story commercial structure, which is out of character in the R-C residential zoning.
6. Reductions in Setbacks. It is concerning that the proposed Ordinance changes include reducing the front yard setback to only 10 feet while a single-family residence would be required to have 25 feet. Likewise, the proposed rear yard setback is less than those for single-family, town homes and multifamily use. The result is the Garage would not only create more activity, noise, and light, but also be closer to its neighbors than a normal home or townhouse.
7. Large Increase in Lot Coverage. The proposed increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent for single-family use and 35 percent for townhouses to 60 percent should be a non-starter.
8. Reduction in Landscaped Open Space. The proposed reduction in landscape open space from 40% for single-family and 35% for townhouses down to 25% for the proposed Garage will further reduce any landscaping protection from neighboring homes.
9. "Sealed" Garage Issues. Any attempt to have 140 cars placed inside of a sealed garage (to reduce light and noise) creates a different set of problems. The structure would require major movement of air coming in, circulating within, and then exiting the Garage typically in the form of large mechanical exhaust fans to continuously refresh the air inside the Garage which will create a disturbance to neighbors.
10. No Supporting Studies. The Amendment contains no details to identify the decibels or potential light pollution of the operation of the Garage. Likewise, there are no supporting studies on the same.
11. Applicant Must Meet Variance Standards. Given that the Amendment proposes the expansion of a non-conforming use (the Parking Lot) the Applicant will also require a Variance under Section 134-387 of the Town Code.
In light of all of the above, Ambassador Howard and his wife continue to strongly oppose the proposed Amendment.
Very truly yours,
John R. Eubanks, Jr.
1 We are also now in receipt of correspondence from James W. Crowley, Esq. on behalf of Thomas Weller objecting to the Application based on several identified violations of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. We find the arguments and inconsistency between the Town's Code and Comprehensive Plan identified in the correspondence compelling and sufficient for the Council to deny the Application as a matter of law.
2 While tandem parking may be used in some parking lots, under Section 134-2237 of the Town Code, the lot must be the principal and sole use on the parcel. Here the Parking Lot is an accessory use to the hotel and contains 25% of its space dedicated to commercial use.
(Attached letter below)
Dear Mayor and Town Council,
I write in strong opposition to the application for zoning code change and variances on the parcel located on the southeast corner of Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue.
This property is in an attractive residential area. The requested changes would be an unlawful taking from the residential property owners in the area. The owners of the residential property in this area purchased their property with the anticipation of enjoying the peace and quiet of this Town of Palm Beach neighborhood without commercial enterprise.
My wife and I purchased our home approximately ten years ago on Brazilian Avenue because it was a charming and attractive residential neighborhood. We do not want this attractive residential neighborhood to be damaged by a large commercial structure, which is out of place with the other buildings on Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue.
The owners of The Brazilian Court were well aware of the zoning restrictions when they purchased the property. They should respect that zoning and not damage this residential neighborhood with a commercial structure.
The residents of Palm Beach purchased their residential prope1ties with confidence that the zoning regulations of the Town of Palm Beach would protect their neighborhood. Changing the zoning regulations and allowing the variances would destroy the trust that we and other property owners have placed in the Town of Palm Beach.
Respectfully yours,
Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs.
Gretchen Leach
325 Brazilian Avenue
Received via email 11.14.23:
Dear Palm Beach Town Council,
I am re-forwarding the email below that my wife and I sent to you and the Planning & Zoning Commission on the above referenced matter.
We were surprised to learn that despite a unanimous rejection by members of the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission, that this proposed text amendment would be up for consideration at the town meeting tomorrow. We were further surprised to learn yesterday that the council is planning to vote to “defer” action on this proposed ordinance change.
We are not in favor of deferring action on this ordinance for several reasons:
1. The proposed ordinance was not developed by the town to address a demonstrated need, rather, it was written and proposed by the applicant for the applicant’s specific circumstances.
2. The neighborhood residents are opposed to the zoning change.
3. The town staff has recommended that the Council consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission on the first reading.
4. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposed ordinance.
Given all of the above, it is not clear what justification there is to keep this proposed amendment alive by deferring action. I hope the Town Council will do what is right for the residents and the town by voting to reject this proposal at the Wednesday meeting.
Anne and Tom MacCowatt
Received via email 11.6.23:
Town of Palm Beach Planning Commission and Town Council:
I am writing to express my views about the extraordinary request that the Brazilian Court is making to the town to change the allowed use for their parking lot and to extend those rights to other hotels in town in the future.
I live in the 300 Brazilian block and attended the Brazilian Court’s informational session on this project on Monday. I would like to share my thoughts with you:
1. Much more information is needed to determine the scope of the Brazilian Court’s parking problem and what alternative solutions are available to it, beyond building a huge garage with a 6,000 square foot spa on the top floor.
2. The town insisted (rightfully so) that the new owners of the Chesterfield have parking in West Palm and shuttle their employees to the island; that could be effectively used in this situation as well.
3. The residents in this neighborhood aren’t really concerned about this employer’s parking problems. The existing lot sits 20-70% empty nearly every day. Employees apparently are not allowed to park there. Many park in the 2-hour spots and move their cars every two hours. This doesn’t provide any particular problem for the local residents, as we have our own garages, driveways, and permit-only parking spots to use.
4. What does bother us is the ‘racetrack’ around Australian, Hibiscus, Brazilian and Coconut Row. The Brazilian Court valet parkers literally will go 40-50 miles/hour up the street and roll through every stop sign, endangering residents, their families, and pets.
5. Adding a 6,000 square foot spa to this densely populated and already-busy area will only add more employees, more patrons, and therefore more cars racing around the block.
6. The residents of Brazilian Avenue have suffered 2 years of noise and disruption from the utility undergrounding project. The last thing we want is another 2-year construction project with lane closures, noise, and additional traffic.
7. Further, the Brazilian Court owner was unable to define where all the 50 cars that are currently handled in the open lot would park during those 2 years. He suggested ‘perhaps’ they could get some spots in the Hibiscus/Worth garage or in the office building at the corner of Hibiscus and Royal Palm. If that is indeed a viable solution, I suggest it could also be an immediate and long-term solution to his parking problem.
In his letter to local residents Richard suggested that the purpose of the Monday meeting was to ‘hear if you have any concerns, incorporate solutions into our proposal and weigh in on the potential improvements to the immediate area…’. When I said I would like to propose a compromise solution I was told he was not interested in our ideas. I made my proposal despite that, which was this: I believe the neighborhood would support doubling his parking capacity by adding an underground level to his lot, as proposed in his plan. A nice 4’ white wall could be added to around the ground level lot, and more landscaping, to make the area more attractive. The spa would be eliminated. The owner said he would ‘never’ spend money improving his parking area unless he got the money-making spa to pay for it. The idea that this project is ‘good for the neighborhood’ is a red herring. The conclusion I believe those attending all reached is that variances for a spa harm the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic and benefit no one but the owner of the Brazilian Court.
There are less expensive solutions that are less disruptive, don’t increase traffic in the neighborhood, such as leasing or buying a second lot, doubling, or tripling the parking capacity by doing underground parking, shuttling employees from West Palm Beach, etc.
Finally, the luncheon clearly brought to light that there is a lack of trust and good faith with the neighbors; historically the Brazilian Court has not been responsive to nor prioritized neighborhood concerns. Many examples of this were raised, and clearly residents did not feel that the business operates with the best interest of the neighborhood as a priority.
In summary, who does this zoning change benefit? Solely the Brazilian Court. They can solve their parking problem. That is not their goal here. Their goal is a new money-making spa. A spa in a dense residential district such as this adds more traffic and a disruptive construction project, and decreases safety in an already busy area.
I ask that you reject this proposal.
Christine Watkins
Received via email 11.8.23:
To whom it may concern.
My name is Stephen A. Levin, and my primary residence is located at 237 Brazilian Avenue. I am opposed to this development and would like my name to be noted as such.
Regards,
Stephen A. Levin
Received via email 11.13.23:
To Mayor Moore and The Town Council
I am Annette Geddes, a 37 year resident of Palm Beach and President of the Melbourne House Condominium Association at 227 Australian Ave. Our building shares a property line with the Brazilian Court parking lot. I speak on behalf of our 25 owners in adamant opposition to the Brazilian Court's brazen proposal to build a parking garage and add 90 additional parking spaces in our residential neighborhood.
I am frankly appalled that this item is on the agenda today after it was unanimously turned down by the Zoning Commission last week. This is on top of our extreme displeasure that this proposal moved along to a draft amendment before any notification to the residents or formal input from them. How could Town procedures allow that to happen when the proposal requires over 20 variances or a text amendment to the current zoning law?
Our residential neighborhood does not need 90 more cars zooming around the block or a massive structure with noisy industrial lifts and strong exhaust fans, plus a spa on the roof.
I implore the Council to protect the character of our community and quality of life in the lovely residential Mid-Town area.
Yours truly, Annette Geddes
Received via email 11.13.23:
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Town of Palm Beach Council,
I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the Brazilian Court Hotel’s proposed garage on Hibiscus Avenue, Palm Beach. My husband John Hays and I own at apartment at 227 Australian Avenue. We spend a significant amount of time in Palm Beach and enjoy the intimate, peaceful, low-rise streetscapes that makes midtown Palm Beach so compelling for so many residents and visitors.
TOWN CHARACTER:
Palm Beach is my home town. My family moved to Palm Beach in 1976 when I was three and I grew up on Barton Avenue. In these intervening 40+ years, I have witnessed the development of the town and understand that communities must mature to meet the needs of changing demographics, infrastructure and climate. That said, the Town of Palm Beach’s unique architectural character and small town charm, ease and functionality are amongst its most important assets. And they are almost gone! Thoughtful, conservative development must be implemented to save the Town that we all know and love so well. Once the town’s character is gone, it will not be able to be resurrected. And the visitors who have enjoyed it will move on.
ZONING:
To change the zoning in this neighborhood would be catastrophic. Developers would seize on this very large, inappropriate edifice to demand more invasive and disruptive changes to our streets and our town. The Town is in the midst of drafting its new Comprehensive Plan for planning and zoning. Without this document agreed, approved, and blessed by the state, a project of the magnitude of the Brazilian Court Hotel garage which requests more than 20 variances should NOT be considered at this time or reconsidered in the future.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROPRIATENESS:
Architecturally our neighborhood is low-storied. The Brazilian Court Hotel likely set that standard when Rosario Candela designed it in the 1920s. Its wonderful, understated lines and intimate interior courtyards are graceful and modest. At only three stories high, the building is a dignified neighbor. I am including photos to illustrate the area immediately surrounding the proposed garage. The surrounding homes are low, no more than two stories. An oversized garage that ignores setback requirements and other rules would be a blight that undermines the reserved grace of the block, the street and the neighborhood. When I walk our dog, I see many tourists stopping to take photographs all along Australian, Brazilian and Hibiscus avenues. This garage will not attract compliments or worthwhile attention.
QUALITY OF LIFE, SAFETY AND NOISE POLLUTION:
The midtown streets between Cocoanut Row and South County are heavily trafficked day and night. Hectic night life activities, over-developed commercial and residential buildings and seasonal traffic jams are ruining the town’s sensibility and ambiance. A garage in a residential where none has ever existed before is another threat to the safety of our street and to the calm atmosphere which people seek and cherish in Palm Beach. The uptick in traffic (many more cars) creates hazards for residents and visitors who walk with their elderly relatives, children and pets on the sidewalks and streets. The noise pollution created by garage’s proposed exhaust system which would need to churn constantly will create an unnatural din invading the neighborhood and beyond for many blocks. The Town and neighborhood is fortunate to enjoy many native and migratory birds throughout the year. Their presence may diminish and their melodic songs vanish.
In sum, please respect the neighborhood and the Town’s overwhelming domestic character, architectural restraint and intimate feel. A noisy and busy, architecturally incongruous, garage/spa edifice does not belong. The Brazilian Court is listed on the National Historic Registry. The Town of Palm Beach should protect the visual legacy of the Brazilian Court and Rosario Candela and its historic contribution to the neighborhood, town and American architectural history from a short-sighted garage plan.
Thank you for your attention,
Bliss Summers Hays