Planning board recommends approval of Oasis Tower amendment after neighbor objections on parking

The West Palm Beach Planning Board on Feb. 19 recommended approval of a major plan development amendment for Oasis Tower, a proposed 12‑story multifamily building in the Center Park DRI that increases unit count, adds workforce housing and requests a parking-waiver reduction.

The board voted unanimously to recommend the City Commission approve Planning Board case 79100 after hearing presentations from the applicant and city staff and public comment from an adjacent property owner.

Applicant Matt Wojciechowski of Schmidt Nichols told the board the amendment increases the previously approved unit count from 233 to 323 units, adds four floors to the residential building and increases workforce housing from about 20% (46 units) to 25% (81 units). He said the revised roof level will be about 116 feet (an increase of 33 feet over the prior 83‑foot roof) and that the project remains under the district maximum of 120 feet. Wojciechowski also said the amendment removes roughly 1,938 square feet of previously approved ground‑floor commercial space to convert the project to an entirely residential product.

Kevin DeFrank, senior planner with the Development Services Department, presented staff findings and recommended approval with conditions. Staff summarized the waiver requests as reductions in required shade trees, two reduced landscape buffers, and a requested parking reduction. DeFrank said staff had no objection to the requested waivers and that the application meets the major amendment and site design standards, recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.

A nearby property owner, John Metzger, objected during public comment. Metzger said the adjoining, privately held reciprocal parking and access easement serves as the primary access and surface parking for his property and that tenants and guests of the proposed project may choose surface parking over the new garage, potentially overwhelming his lot. Metzger asked the board to deny the parking waiver. The applicant and the applicant's agent, John Schmidt, said the project is not relying on shared parking in its calculations, that the parking supplied will be self‑contained in the new garage and on‑street spaces, and that the reciprocal easement remains in place and enforceable by the private parties.

Board members asked questions about the applicant's parking study and comparable projects in Center Park. Wojciechowski referenced a nearby project (Indigo) that used a similar parking waiver and said that study and field observation show the site should not be undersupplied. Staff confirmed the plan honors the existing reciprocal parking easement and that the applicant told staff it is not relying on shared parking for its parking calculations. The applicant said the waiver they sought is an approximately 11–12% parking reduction; staff reported the waiver as a 68‑space reduction as the condition summary.

After discussion, Planning Board member Patrick Mayfield moved to recommend approval of the amendment subject to the staff conditions; the motion, seconded and debated, passed unanimously.

The recommendation now goes to the City Commission; the final approvals and any permit conditions will be determined there.