Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music]

[music]

Hey. [music] Hey. Hey.

[music] [music] Hey, Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music]

Hey, hey, hey. [music] [music] [music] Hey, hey, hey. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Hello. [music] [music] Hey. Hey. Today is January 22nd, 2026. It is 6 p.m. This is the planning and zoning meeting of the city of Boca Raton. Would everyone please rise for the pledge of

allegiance? Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Kathy. Please call the role. Chair Sevel, here. Vice Chair Dorblazer here. Mr. Mitchell, present. Miss McDermott here. Mr. Matthews here. Mr. Morabi here. Mr. Morgan is absent. You have a quorum.

Okay. Uh we don't have any amendments to the agenda tonight because there's only one item. Uh first thing is the minutes of the regular meeting of December 18th, 2025. I'll look for a motion and a second. Motion to approve. So seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I I

Okay. Okay. Okay, next we have a regular public hearing. Uh, it's the CIMD retail sales and services clarification. Kathy, would you please read that item into the record? CIMD retail sales or services clarification. An ordinance of the city of Boca Raton amending chapter 28, zoning, article 15, division 15, affordable and workforce housing in commercial and industrial zoning districts. Code of Ordinances clarifying requirements for on-site retail sales or services in commercial industrial multif family developments CIMDs by amending section 281642 to create a definition of retail sales or services that specifically excludes gyms or fitness centers and tutoring establishments or uses similar to either of those and by amending section 281644 to set forth minimum requirements for such retail sales or services uses in CIMDS be independent operations that provide for public accessibility, including by separate ground floor pedestrian entrance from outdoors with exterior business identification. That such businesses publicly advertise and market and that any change of use be reviewed by the city to ensure any requirement for on-site retail sales or services uses continues to be satisfied. providing for severability, providing for repealer, providing for codification, providing an effective date.

Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to our planning director, Mr. Shad.

Good evening, uh, chairman and board members. Brandon Shad, development services director. As mentioned, this is a proposed ordinance that pertains to the commercial industrial multifamily development uh, type of projects. I'm going to turn the sound off my computer. I apologize for that. um which is a city program that was passed last year related to affordable housing. And this is a clarification of a requirement regarding retail sales and services that I'll get into. Little bit of history. On February 13th of 2024, the city council uh adopted ordinance number 5684 that uh established the commercial industrial multif family development or CIMD um allowances. It's essentially the that allows multifamily residential development in portions of the city that have a future land use designation of planned mobility in zoning districts in which residential development is not normally allowed for the purpose of providing affordable housing. Under this program, 10% of uh the units that are allowed uh must be affordable as that term is defined by statute. that is up to 120% of the area median income which depends on household size. Um there is additionally an additional um density that is allowed under this program um from a maximum of 20 units an acre increase to a maximum of 25 units per acre if an additional 5% of the units are provided as workforce and that is up to 140% of the area median income um per household. Recently on October 28th, 2025, um ordinance number 5753 was adopted and a number of you were here and made a recommendation on that uh ordinance that ensures that non-residential requirements um related to the CIMD

program can be met by a combination of on-site and off-site um non-residential uses. That's sort of a uh a a glitch fix um that I will get into in a moment. So, with the passage of that ordinance, this is currently the um these are currently the requirements for on-site and/or off-site non-residential uses in association with these multifamily developments. So, essentially, there's these three options that can be uh used to fulfill the requirement. One is that the project is located within a/4 mile of 25,000 square ft of existing non-residential uses. That includes office, restaurant, and/or retail sales or services, which must be a minimum of 10,000 square ft of restaurant or retail sales and services. Essentially, the nonoffice portion of that. The second possibility is that the project itself includes a non-residential component consisting of at least the greater of these two options, 5,000 ft or 10% of the total square footage of the CIMD up to 25,000 ft². So meaning that the requirement does not ex does not go above 25,000 ft² and of which a minimum of 2,000 square ft of those are required to be restaurant and/or retail sales or services or the third option that was implemented uh in October can be a combination of those two things. um a combination of on-site and off-site totaling 25,000 square feet of which at least 10,000 square feet can be restaurant and/or retail sales or services. Um the intent of these requirements is to uh provide for the daily needs of uh both residents and employees and visitors to the areas where the where these uh these developments are allowed. Um, for context, these this largely includes the

area we sit in today, um, the Apoch or the um, park at Broken Sound area um, where because it's historically been essentially an office park andor light industrial um, area, the um, the retail sales and services are largely missing. So, we've added quite a bit of residential in this area and um, that requires that we also have services for those people. Um, part of the idea here is that they don't have to travel as far. We'll reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduction, at least from what would otherwise happen. Um, andor that we're trying to make this area more walkable that is um, in line with the plan mobility um, uh, comprehensive plan policies that apply here. So, what we're going to focus on now is the things that are highlighted here. This is again the retail sales or services component of these three options. Um you'll notice that in B for example, if you're meeting that requirement and totally you know completely onsite that um you only need 2,000 square feet of these things. It's not a lot. It's a pretty minimal requirement for an on-site um on-site restaurant and or retail sales or services um component. So, here's what the uh the ordinance would actually do. First, it would add a definition of retail, sales, or services. And you can see here um I don't normally like to read slides to you, but I am going to read this one because I think it's important. So, the the definition we'd be adding is um that retail sales or services means the sale of goods or merchandise directly to the ultimate consumer or a use that meets the definition of personal service shop set forth in section 282. that means uh things like nail salons, hair salons, that sort of thing. Um the term expressly excludes one a fitness center or gym or substantially similar uses

that primarily provide on-site activities or memberships rather than retail transactions and two tutoring or similar educational or instructional services. Essentially the idea is these don't meet the intent. Um they are the sort of things that you are either already a client of or that you um you go to and you know the same time every day like you go to the gym at 7:30 in the morning or 5:30 at night or whatever it is you do and essentially there's no uh there's no you know inviting the public in there's very little interaction. There's very little happening upon something or getting a cup of coffee or some you know uh convenience need. So these essentially even though in other parts of the city they would fall under the retail um umbrella that doesn't meet the intent here. So that's why this definition clarifies that issue. And additionally um the ordinance would add criteria/requirements in order to satisfy that required retail sales or services. And again I want to emphasize um if you're meeting it on site it's only 2,000 square feet. It's quite minimal. Um so it's not it's not burdensome. Um, one is that it's it's an independent operation. Um, it's essentially, you know, it's not, hey, I'm running a residential building and I'm going to, you know, have a gym and pretend that it's, you know, open to the public when it's maybe not really so much. Uh, or, you know, an interior, you know, convenience store or something like that. Um, it's got to have public accessibility. Um, you're not closing off access to, you know, the general public. Um, it's got to have ground floor exterior access. So, it has to essentially, you know, have an exterior door. So, we're trying to foster walkability. We're not trying to hide these things inside or have you have to come inside. We're trying to make the street uh a better walkable place. And this, yes, is a long road from where we

are here to there, but it's a good starting point and it's a it's a common sense requirement. Needs to have exterior exterior identification. essentially that means signage, public visibility and marketing. Uh you're actually out there trying to promote this business. Um and and so those things, you know, taken together are basically we're we're looking to make sure it's bonafideed, right? It's not you're not faking it. You're not trying to get away with something. Um and then with respect to the change of use, it just expressly says the city needs to review that if you're changing out a tenant or something to make sure that it still meets those requirements. Um so that's essentially what the ordinance does. Um it's a it's a improvement over the existing requirements and um staff finds that the approval will continue to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing in the city. The proposed ordinance will further the city's goals with respect to mobility and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and the ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As such, uh staff does recommend approval of the proposed amendment and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We'll start with the ladies first tonight. Miss McDar, do you have any questions? Um, well, I I know based on one of the um votes we had a few months ago about the fitness center that was part of the apartment complex, but um do you feel like the language around the fitness center would preclude even something as um like a Pilates studio?

So, I I should have been more clear on that. Um, so there's nothing in this language that would preclude that use. I just want to be very clear about that. It's just that it wouldn't meet that very minimal requirement for the retail sales or services, which again, if you're doing it on site, is only 2,000 ft. So, you can absolutely have those things. It's just that it doesn't count toward that again, very minimal requirement. Next, uh, Mitchell, I do have a couple questions.

Yeah. Um, one of the comments that were provided to us brought up some points of appealing to the city and um, I did have a question. If someone wants to put a gym and wants to use the gym as their 2000, would that be a variance that comes before our board as a request and we could approve it or not approve it or is it just an impossibility? It would not be allowed again to meet that very minimal requirement. So even if they they couldn't get permission to override it by coming to our board and then the city council. Correct.

Okay. Another question about the marketing. Um some smaller, you know, mom and pop type businesses don't necessarily have big marketing plans. Is how how flexible are you on that part? I mean I think in the implementation we're very flexible right I mean if you're you know hey we're we're putting flyers on people's cars we are you know out there you know whatever it doesn't take much it just takes you know demonstration that it's real Mr. Mitchell

no further questions okay next Mr. Mirably,

could you discuss the ground floor access requirements and um the reason for having a separate entrance and exit uh versus sharing an entrance? Sure. So, so we're trying to create walkability, right? So, um basic tenants of walkability essentially are the interaction between the exterior and the interior spaces, right? You're going to be able to go and and part of it is knowing that it's there. Um, part of it is the direct interaction between people that might be happening by or they might be, you know, there for another reason or whatever it is. Um, interior spaces just don't accomplish that. Um, if you can try to imagine a hotel with a restaurant inside of it, it doesn't do much for walkability. Anything else, Mr. Rob? Anything else? Sorry. No. Okay. Mr. Mr. Matthews,

thank you. Uh, the 2,000 square feet, is there been any thought given to making that smaller than 2,000 square ft? because having been a developer, um I've know that 2,000 ft² may be on the retail side a little bigger than some of the cafes and coffee shops and they're typically in the 1,200-,500 square ft with a you know bay depth of 60 ft and uh um so I'm just curious what the thought was for 2,000 square ft. So, um, by way of background, I can tell you that when the ordinance was adopted, there was a lot of discussion about the size. Um, and basically, I think that some members of the council really wanted to go with something more substantial, and 2,000 ft was sort of the what what everybody sort of compromised on. Um, to be frank with you, I've never heard anybody since we passed the ordinance say that they thought that was a excessively large uh space.

That's to that and couldn't they split the space into two 10,000 square foot spaces? Yes, they can. So, that solves the problem. Oh, okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Lone Blazer. Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh so the other uh of the 2,000 square feet being a retail service or a restaurant, um the other 23,000 square ft, if it's a 25,000 square foot or whatever the amount is, anything over that 2,000 ft could be a gym or a use. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. I have a question. And I I thought I saw something and it said the business must have a website. Is it Did I misread that? I mean, it does say at least one publicly accessible online platform. You know, that could be a Facebook ad. That could be a be Craigslist. Maybe that's, you know, maybe that doesn't really happen anymore. I don't know. It doesn't have to be your own website. It doesn't have to be extensive.

Okay. [clears throat] change. Okay. The the uh in paragraph F the change of view seem to be a bit ownorous and could you explain how that will work? Um it really is um what would already happen anyway. You come in for your you know what t people typically call a business tax receipt um really is a certificate of use saying hey I want to open this business and staff is there to confirm that it's allowed in that location. So if it's being used to meet this minimum requirement, it's just clarifying that we need, you know, partially for staff that they need to look at that is that does that still meet this requirement?

Okay. There were there were also a couple of items that require development services director to sign off on. Can you confirm that these decisions can be appealed by the council or to the council? So the like you know many many many many determinations that I have to make all the time there is no express provision for it to be appealed to the council and to do that would be chaotic. Um but you know in the real world everybody is free to speak to their elected officials and say I think staff is doing a bad job and believe me it happens all the time. So it's no different with this.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any anything else for Okay, this is public hearing. I would ask anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this to come to the podium. Uh do we need to swear the witness? No, it's not that. Okay. Regular public hearing. [clears throat]

Uh good evening. David Millage for the record, 14 Southeast 4th Street, Boca Raton. Um, I [clears throat] just want to say that fundamentally, uh, we support that legitimate retail businesses need to be within these developments. We think it's a benefit. However, we have a lot of concerns as how the how this um, ordinance is written. Um, one clarification I present to the board is does this apply to off-site retail uses? So, for example, if you have to have a primary um ground floor external access, does the uses within the mall not apply anymore? I mean, if this is specifically for the retail uses within the residential building, I think that's a good step. But if this applies to all retail uses outside of the project, um it's there's too many examples that a lot of these requirements would cause for uh permissible retail uses to long no longer be applicable for the CIMD. Um it's possible that the alpha numeric outline within the ordinance is off. I'm not really sure. And it really goes back to the intent of whether or not this applies to the residential use only or to all off-site properties. I'll leave that up to Mr. Shad. Um, as it relates to the definition of a a uh retail use, um, I understand that the gym was excluded. I think that really it what it should exclude are all typical amenities of a residential product. Um, and because to uh Dorothy's point was you're excluding karate, you're excluding kickboxing, um, uh, Pilates, and I think

there's an opportunity to where those are still legitimate businesses because you don't typically have a Pilates studio. Um, we don't agree to this hour requirement. Um, I mean that's 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, or 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. I mean, for any restaurant, they're open during lunch or dinner or breakfast and dinner. So, I mean, I don't know how these hours really work out for a restaurant. Um, again, ground floor access, you know, the majority of residents aren't using the front entrance. They're going through their garage entrance or surface parking areas. Uh so provided that the retail unit is a self-contained um unit within the building, then why does it matter if you know there's still this main access shared by different types of uh visitors? And I'm just trying to be as brief as I can. Advertising, I don't know why the city wants to get into the operations of a uh retail operation. You know, you have your dry cleaners. They don't typically advertise. You have your national brands, they do, but your mom and pop store doesn't. I I think this is preventing our small local businesses from being able to operate within these um within these developments. And I'm just trying to meet my time. And I also just one thing just as a conflict the sign code the sign code requirement our concern with the sign code is that if we have to have prominent signage for the retail unit then we might be in conflict with the existing sign code for the city. Uh so whether or not there's a built-in waiver within this code language uh or that requirement is waved if you know we

eventually conflict with the requirements of Mr. Chad's or the city's uh recommendations. Um and that was as quickly as I can say it. Thank you. Thank you. Remember we gave you an extra minute tonight. Okay. I have a good question, Brandon. The access to the space from the outside of the building, that doesn't preclude them from having an entrance in the inside as well, does it? It does not. Okay. So, that's problem solved. Can I address a couple other things?

Sure. So, the the question about whether it applies offsite is a good one. And uh and I do notice that because we drafted the ordinance based on how MUN code currently shows and which doesn't yet reflect the ordinance passed in November. There is a a minor scriveners error here on page four line 19. It should say um to to let make sure to C. It's only on site. It this doesn't require um apply offsite. Um I want to emphasize again that this is not precluding those other businesses from being there. It is just saying you it doesn't count toward that again what I I think is a very minimal requirement. Um with respect to the sign code um I'll say this all of these properties are allowed to have signage fairly substantial signage. So, while I am not in favor of the, you know, the language as it's been proposed here, I do think there may be room to sit down and work on something that would be clarifying. I don't I don't want to have a situation where it's like, well, we can't have the sign we want, so therefore, we don't have to have anything. if you you may have to replace a different sign, you may have to do something, but you know, you're going to be allowed to do some kind of signage. Um, and you know, if you want to have one of these developments, which is, you know, again, something that's not typically allowed in the zoning district, then you need to, you know, you need to meet this requirement. Um, but that that being said, like I I was mentioning, we can sit down and and come up with some clarifying language between now and when this is addressed to city council.

That's it. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Yes, Mr. Sir.

Um, Mr. Millig does make a a point on the hours per week of 60 hours. Having run another business that is more of a retail service, 60 hours a week is does seem a lot um that they would that uh the retail business would have to be open. I mean, you're you are talking, you know, 10 hours a day, six six days a week. Um I think 30 is, you know, with what his recommendation is a little light, but 60 does seem a heavy a heavy lift. um that that may be room for, you know, taking a look at that. Um I would say though that remember what we're trying to do here is, you know, the walkability. It's giving some people a place to go, a place to get things that they need, residents, office workers, whoever it may be. Um so it needs to be something substantial. Um

I I agree with you. 30 is way too few, but 60, I mean, having run a bar, you know, that's open seven days a week, even at seven days a week, I I'm only open 58 hours. So, that's, you know, looking at it going, that's, you know, trying to hit that 60 is a is a stretch. Do you think 50 is reasonable? I do. I think we could get behind that. Okay. Um, I do also want to say I I can't just not say it. Eyes on the street is also an important uh element of creating walkability and so these these types of uses are important for that too. Agreed. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Anything [clears throat] else?

Mr. Mitch. Okay. And I'll look for a motion in a second to approve with the correction of the scrier's error that Mr. Shad mentioned and to change the hours required to 50 hours. I'll make a motion to approve with correction of the scrier's error and to uh 50 hours per week. Okay, then you're making the motion. Sec. Do we have a second? Can I make a motion for discussion so we can talk about it real quick? We're going to have discussion if you second it. Okay, I'll second it. Okay, now for discussion.

Um I was thinking 45 hours. Um because I was thinking if someone puts a sandwich shop in there that they want to service the business people, they're going to be open 6 or seven hours from 6, you know, or to 2:00 5 days a week and they have to stay open till 4:00 if they're only open like many sandwich shops Monday through Friday. So that's why I was thinking 45 hours. Um I'm not opposed to 50, but I think 45 would give us a better number. Um, if there's any way we can tweak it, maybe say restaurants a little bit less. I don't know if we want to be that specific. Got to keep it uniform, I think. Okay. Yeah.

So, I would vote for 45, but if everyone says 50, I am not opposed. Well, do Mr. Dorlazer, do you want to change your from 50 to 45? I'm okay with going for with going with I'm okay going with 45. Then it's amended to 45. I'll amend my motion to say 45. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? I have no further discussion. Okay. With that Kathy, please call the role. Mitchell, yes. McDermad, yes. Matthews, yes. Morabi,

yes. Sevel, yes. Dorblazer, yes. Motion passes six votes to zero. Okay, let's see what else we got tonight. Do we have any public requests? Nobody here from the public. Okay, with that, do we have a director's report? I have no report. Okay, then at 6:29, we are adjourned.