Council approves first-reading of Groves at Town Center master-plan swap for hotel, park amid traffic and tree-preservation debate

The Town of Loxahatchee Groves Town Council on Jan. 7 voted 3-2 on first reading to amend the Groves at Town Center planned-unit development to replace a previously approved 128-bed assisted-living facility with a hotel and to swap locations of the public town-commons parcel and the hotel site.

The vote moves the project forward to second reading, when the council will consider two site plans tied to the rezoning and comprehensive-plan text changes. Council members who backed the amendment said the swap places hotel uses closer to Southern Boulevard and the town commons farther north, nearer the equestrian trail.

The amendment is significant because it changes allowed uses and shifts development closer to the busy Southern Boulevard corridor. Town planner Caitlin Forbes told the council that "the applicant is removing the development allowance for the 128 bed ALF and is replacing it with the hotel use" and that the amendment "effectively would occur by flipping PODs G and POD TC." She said the change also moves the park parcel into POD G so it sits closer to the equestrian trail.

Traffic and safety at the Publix/Avocado/B Road intersections dominated public comment and council questioning. Staff and the applicant described short-term and longer-term mitigations the developer agreed to fund, including new wayfinding signs already installed, pavement striping changes to add southbound stacking on B Road, painted “Do Not Block the Box” markings and a so-called “pork chop” median to remove certain cross‑traffic and left‑out movements.

Project manager Matthew Barnes and others said those measures are intended to reduce conflicting movements at Avocado and the Publix driveway and to redirect left‑out traffic to Tangerine Drive. Barnes said the developer would install the wayfinding signs and the other improvements and then observe traffic patterns.

Residents and several council members pushed the developer over the durability of the proposed initial traffic device. Councilmember Laura Danowski warned that plastic delineators used for an initial “pork chop” would likely be “mowed over in a week” and asked the applicant to commit to a longer‑term solution if the temporary measure failed. The applicant said the temporary measures would be a low‑cost test and that they were open to a more permanent design if monitoring showed it was needed; attorney Brian Seymour said the firm would discuss details with staff ahead of second reading.

A separate point of contention was a stand of mature laurel oaks on the parcel currently designated TC. Councilmember Robert Shores and others urged preserving approximately a half acre of oak hammock in POD TC; opponents argued the hotel footprint cannot be accommodated without removing some trees. Barnes said some specimens might be preserved or relocated, but that the interconnected grove cannot be safely moved in its entirety and that the hotel layout requires the area the developer proposes to use. The applicant also said the town will retain a conservation easement covering about 25% of the PUD and that the wetland on POD G will visually be part of the town commons.

Councilmembers voted to approve the ordinance on first reading subject to the conditions in the staff report; the motion passed 3 to 2. The applicant will return with final site plans, detailed traffic drawings and any refined conservation or tree‑mitigation plans at the second reading and concurrent site‑plan hearings.

The council did not adopt final site‑plan approvals at the meeting; those are scheduled with the second reading. Residents and council members asked staff to bring back monitoring data on the temporary traffic measures and to seek firm commitments on responsibility for repair or replacement if delineators or temporary devices fail.