Planning board recommends denial of Alba Reserve rezoning after neighborhood uproar over height, massing and trash logistics

The West Palm Beach Planning Board on May 19 recommended that the City Commission deny a rezoning request for a proposed Alba Reserve development at 4700–4806 North Flagler Drive after prolonged testimony from the applicant, staff and dozens of residents.

The board’s vote, 6–1, followed a staff recommendation that the project, as proposed, did not meet plan‑development standards for harmonious and efficient site organization and raised concerns about excessive massing relative to lot size. The project’s team sought a rezoning from multifamily high‑density (MF‑32) to a residential plan development to build 71 units in a 360‑foot tower with 11 intercoastal townhomes and five waiver requests for setbacks, submerged‑land density and other standards.

Why it mattered: Neighbors and staff said the combination of tower height, a large parking podium and very tight separation from the adjacent Alba building would create a disproportionate mass on a roughly 2.2‑acre lot, worsen stormwater and traffic impacts, and risk ongoing street obstruction during curbside garbage pickup. Developers said they reduced units (87→71), lowered podium height and increased setbacks during design revisions and that additional engineering and permitting work (including a wind study at permit stage) would address operational concerns.

Applicant presentation and key requests: John Schmidt, the applicant’s agent and landscape architect, outlined the design and site‑planning rationale and said the project was exempt from a newly adopted overlay because it was submitted before the change. The application requested five waivers, including one to allow an RPD on roughly 2.21 acres (code has 2‑acre and 10‑acre references) and reductions to garage drive‑aisle widths to fit additional parking. The team stressed additional parking was provided to avoid spillover into neighborhood streets and described a managed concierge trash rollout that would use electric tugs to move containers to the curb on pickup days.

Staff recommendation: Jeremy Swaby, planning and zoning senior planner, told the board staff recommended denial. Swaby said staff used FAR and other massing comparisons to demonstrate that the project’s proposed floor‑area ratio and the large number of parking stalls (268 proposed vs. a lower maximum suggested by staff’s Norfolk‑district rules) produced an outsized mass for the lot. Staff cited noncompliance with site‑design and qualitative standards and questioned the requested waivers, particularly waiver 3 for submerged land density and the setback relief tied to a 360‑foot height.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns: More than a dozen residents and Northwood Harbor neighborhood association representatives urged the board to reject or substantially redesign the project. Speakers called for wind and shadow studies, additional setbacks, concealed trash corrals rather than curb rollout, stronger construction parking enforcement and measures to prevent damage to local streets. Angela Ogburn, a neighborhood association representative, said the proposed tower “is excessive for this location” and asked the board not to advance the proposal until issues of height, operational impacts and compatibility were addressed.

Applicant response: The developer, Matthew Marks, and the project team told the board the design reflects market demand for large luxury suites and that many mitigations — including additional parking, stormwater controls, and construction staging — would be implemented. The team said a wind study will be done with building permits and that staff and neighbors would continue to be engaged about trash and construction logistics.

Board deliberation and vote: Board members debated whether the application met several code provisions, with particular focus on section 94‑35(c) (harmonious and efficient organization) and subsections of the RPD standards. After amended motions and discussion, the board voted 6–1 to recommend denial of case 2035. The board then separately approved (unanimously) a procedural finding to allow the RPD acreage minimum to be reduced in this instance from 10 acres to 2.1 acres, a routine waiver the board noted it has granted in past cases.

What happens next: The planning board’s recommendation goes to the City Commission, which has final authority. The applicant can revise the design and return, and staff and the developer signaled a willingness to continue local negotiations. The City Commission will consider the planning board’s recommendation and the full record, including staff analyses and the public comments delivered at the hearing.

Sources: Planning board hearing on 05/19/2026 (applicant presentation by John Schmidt and Matthew Marks; staff presentation by Jeremy Swaby); public comment from Northwood Harbor residents.