Palm Beach County zoning commissioners recommended approval of a rezoning and the class A conditional use for “Neighborly Living Westgate,” a mixed‑use project that would place 38 apartments and about 1,585 square feet of commercial space on roughly two‑thirds of an acre in the Westgate corridor. The commission, however, adopted a resolution denying the applicant’s type‑2 parking variance request.

Applicant representative Bradley Miller said the project is intended as a Westgate catalyst and includes workforce‑oriented units. Miller told the commission the proposal would provide 38 multifamily apartments (26 “micro” units, 10 studios and two one‑bedrooms), 45 on‑site parking spaces and use the five existing on‑street spaces in front of the building to reach a total of 50 spaces. He said the Westgate overlay’s density bonus pool was used to reach the 38‑unit total and described the project as a transit‑oriented design with 24 bus stops within a half‑mile and a nearest stop about 600 feet away.

Matthew Boyd of the Zoning Division told the commission staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the class A conditional use but recommended denial of the type‑2 variance to reduce the required 53 parking spaces to 50. Boyd read the variance standards and concluded the application did not meet them.

Westgate CRA staff and board members spoke in support. Westgate CRA executive director Elize Michel said the CRA and its board supported the parking reduction and noted recent streetscape work that added parallel parking on Westgate Avenue. “We love the architecture. We think there is a need for micro units in the county,” Michel told the commission. Denise Pinnell, the CRA’s planning and development director, said the project aligns with the CRA’s redevelopment plan and the neighborhood commercial sub‑area’s intent for denser, mixed‑use development and that the CRA supports allocation of density through the bonus pool.

Commissioners debated the parking shortfall. One commissioner pointed out that the applicant was relying on on‑street parking in front of currently vacant lots and said it would be inequitable to count spaces that other adjacent projects have not yet constructed. A staff member noted that code variances are not to be granted on the basis of financial hardship and said reduced parking allowances for affordable housing exist elsewhere in county policy, but not for this specific variance. The applicant said management measures would be used if the variance were granted: an on‑site manager, parking permits/stickers, limiting micro units to one car each, providing bike racks and offering free bus passes to residents who do not own cars.

Actions taken: the commission adopted a resolution approving the rezoning and the class A conditional use (item 6a) and adopted a resolution denying the type‑2 parking variance (item 6b) without prejudice; it recommended approval of the subdivision variance (item 6c) and recommended approval of the remaining conditional‑use related map amendments (item 6d). Items the commission recommended will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. Staff said countywide text amendments and parking waivers specifically for Westgate are under development and could provide broader relief in the future.

What remains: with the denial of the type‑2 parking variance the applicant said it may reduce unit count or wait for proposed ULDC text amendments for Westgate that could change parking metrics. The commission’s record notes staff is drafting text‑amendment language for Westgate parking that could reduce parking requirements for qualifying projects later.