Planning board backs Norton Museum expansion for City Commission while leaving two traffic/parking conditions unresolved

The West Palm Beach Planning Board voted unanimously Thursday to recommend that the City Commission consider a major amendment allowing the Norton Museum of Art to expand its galleries and build a partially structured parking garage, while leaving two disputed conditions unresolved for further review.

Harvey Oyer of Shutton Bowen, representing the Norton, told the board the project adds roughly 61,000 square feet to a previously approved Phase 2 — bringing the museum’s gross building area to about 233,000 square feet — and would include a drop‑off on Olive Avenue, reconfigured surface parking and a three‑story garage on the western parcel. Oyer asked the board to defer two contested conditions — a requirement to install parallel on‑street parking on Olive Avenue and a staff proposal to make Jefferson and Cranes Nest one‑way streets during events — so staff and the applicant could try to resolve them within the public‑notice window or, if necessary, let the City Commission decide.

Local architect Jill Lanigan of Song and Associates described site layout and program changes, noting four expansion zones (North, Lakeview Terrace, South Building and an administration expansion), a gallery corridor connecting new and existing spaces, and a Palm Street “liner” building intended to screen the parking garage and provide active frontage. Lanigan said the garage would provide 359 structured spaces plus 83 reconfigured surface spaces and include bike storage and a visitor center liner fronting Palm Street.

Senior planner Kevin DeFrank presented the staff recommendation for approval with conditions. DeFrank summarized the applicant’s two waiver requests: a 73% reduction in the minimum front‑setback requirement that would place the garage liner roughly 6 feet 8 inches from Palm Street and a 100% reduction of required hedges and trees along the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad boundary to allow an artistic metal screen. Staff did not object to the waivers but recommended several conditions be satisfied before scheduling the matter for City Commission, including on‑street parking provisions and that the proposed screen comply with the city’s public‑art rules.

Board members and transportation consultants debated whether requiring six parallel spaces on Olive Avenue made sense. Oyer said the site would be “over‑parked by 10” spaces with the garage, argued parallel parking would be costly and disruptive due to utilities and easements, and noted the FEC hedge already provides screening. DeFrank and staff stressed the traffic engineer recommended on‑street parking to address neighborhood circulation and event stacking at the museum drop‑off. Kimley‑Horn transportation engineer Chris Heggen confirmed he and the city engineer have discussed the issues and do not yet agree on a single solution.

After extensive discussion, the board took a middle course: it recommended approval of planning board case 1674H subject to the staff conditions but explicitly left the two disputed conditions unresolved and instructed staff and the applicant to continue negotiations. The board’s motion specified that if the parties cannot agree, the City Commission will make the final determination. The motion passed unanimously.

The applicant noted the project’s scale and schedule risks if delayed, saying construction‑cost escalation could be substantial; Oyer asked the board not to “slow us down” and said unresolved issues would be worked out in 30–45 days or presented to the Commission.

Next steps: the application will proceed to the City Commission with the board’s recommendation and two open conditions for further resolution.