Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] [Music]

Good evening. It's 6 o'clock. Today is September 4th, 2025. This is the planning and zoning board meeting of the city of Boca Raton. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you Kathy. Please call the role. Mr. Sevel yes here. Mr. Salon here. Miss Richie here. Mr. Dorne Glazer here. Miss McDorman here. Mr. Mitchell present. Mr. Morgan

here. You have a quorum. Thank you. Uh we don't have any minutes this evening. We have two quaza judicial matters. I'll ask the city attorney to to explain the process. Evening Mr. Chair, members of the board. Chris Fernandez, city attorney's office. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval, relief, or other action from the planning and zoning board shall disclose at the commencement of the public hearing any consideration provided or committed directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested relief or action. A copy of the quasi judicial rules governing tonight's public hearing are attached to the agenda and are available from the city clerk.

Okay. Thank you. Will anybody who's going to speak on any item that's on the agenda please rise and be sworn in? Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you may give during this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Thank you.

Thank you. First item is Bokora Residential Center at 6401 Congress Avenue. Kathy, please read that item into the record. Oh, by the way, there's two parts to that. 5A1 and 52, which will be conducted contemporaneously but voted on separately. Bokora Residential Center, 6401 Congress Avenue. One, a resolution of the city of Bocraton considering for the approximately 21.35 acre property generally located at 6401 through 6481 Congress Avenue, an amendment to an approved planned mobility development PMD master plan and site plan resolution number 1372020 as amended by resolution number 32 2022 to incorporate and authorize a commercial industrial multifamily development CIMD to a add 21 additional residential dwelling units to an approved 277 unit multif family residential building for a total of 298 units including four affordable housing units. B add 24,852 square ft of floor area in the 8story multifamily residential building. C. Increase height of the approved parking structure associated with the multif family residential building from six levels to seven levels to accommodate 45 additional parking spaces and authorize an approximately 286q ft fitness facility on the ground floor of the multif family residential building providing for repealer providing an effective date. Two, a resolution of the city of Bocraton considering for the approximately 21.35 acre property generally located at 6401 through 6481 Congress Avenue, a conditional use approval pursuant to section 28978

code of ordinances to authorize a 2,000q ft school within an existing 17,355t building in the light industrial and research park LIRP zoning district providing for repeal providing an effective date. Thank you. Uh, Exparte Communications, Mr. Salon. Thank you. I did have a Zoom meeting with Ellie Zacharitus, the attorney for the applicant, and I visited the site. Mr. Don, please sir. Uh, yes. I had a Zoom meeting with Ellie Zacharitus and a phone conversation with John Unjin. Mr. Richie, I spoke with Ellie Zacharitis and Jonathan Unjun and I visited the site.

Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. I spoke with Miss Zacharetes and spoke to John Anjen and visited the site. Miss McDerman, I spoke to the petitioners representative and Jonathan Anjen. Okay. Mr. Morgan, I too had a zoom with Ellie Zacharitus and spoke with Jonathan on June. Okay. Okay. I spoke to Miss Zacharitas and John Anjen as well. With that, I'll ask the uh our Heather to make your presentation.

Sure. Good evening, chair, members of the board. I'm Heather Waldstein, senior planner with development services. So, the project before you is Bokeh Residential Center. The site, the approximately 21.35 acre project site is generally located on the west side of Congress Avenue, south of Northwest 65th Street, actually across the street from where we are tonight. Um it's within the lurp zoning district and has a future land use designation of plan mobility. The project site is surrounded by like zoning and like land use designations as well as uses. The applicant is requesting an amendment to an approved PMD master plan and site plan to allow for a commercial industrial multifamily development providing an additional 21 multif family residential units with uh 10% affordable. An increase in floor area which is relative to the additional dwelling units. An increase in the number of stories for the approved parking structure to accommodate 45 um additional parking spaces. And finally, a request for a conditional approval allowing a school use in the LURP zoning. I'd like to begin with a little bit of history for the benefit of any um anyone here, but any new board member since the previous approval, excuse me. The office campus was originally built in the mid1 1980s and received a PMD master plan approval in 2020 for the development of 2 uh 77 multifamily dwelling units. Um although the allowed density for the project site did not reach its maximum permitted uh these units did deplete the residential unit bank available for a plan M uh plan mobility development. Uh that approval was amended in 2022 to allow for an increase in floor area, an increase in the area and height of the

parking structure and approval of the site plan for the multifamily development. Both of these approvals included the existing office floor area with an F of60 as permitted by the PMD. Um, in addition, all other parameters of the PMD were met. The applicant is now seeking to utilize the commercial industrial multifamily development overlay to permit the addition of 21 residential units, bringing the approved total to 298 units. Again, there will be 10% affordable with four four dwelling units reserved for affordable households. Uh while the building footprint and overall height uh area are not increasing, the 21 units will be accommodated by an increase in floor area in portions of the building that previously um were approved to incorporate double height spaces. The CIMD takes advantage of the existing office space on the campus and is also including a 286 square foot ground floor commercial fitness center that will be available to both residents of the building and the public. The availability of the public availability to the public will be ensured by proposed conditions incorporated into the development order. In addition to the CIMD uh Exceed Academy, which currently operates on the campus within an exist existing office space as a tutoring facility, would like to expand its offerings to include a school component um in what the applicant is um calling a micro hybrid model. Um I'll let the applicant provide further details on that, but essentially it allows for students to receive u a personal education plan provided through mostly an online platform. Um, as proposed and conditioned, the maximum number of students enrolled at the school will be 100 and it's our understanding from the applicant that students will be on campus in a limited capacity. Um, they'll mostly be learning

online. However, the campus location will be open Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 400 p.m. for staff and um meetings with the students. Uh, this should hopefully help to visualize the proposed site layout. You have Congress Avenue at the bottom. Um, north is um to the right of the screen and south would be to the left. Um, the um proposed residential building is at the northwest corner of the site which is at the top right corner of the screen. It's accessed off of Northwest 65th Street just to the left. And south of the uh residential building will be the parking the eightstory parking structure. The remainder of the site includes the office existing office buildings and surface parking area. Um both of which are existing. And um I'd like to just mention that um there are 753 um surface parking spaces and um 1,389 garage parking spaces. At the corner of the sorry at the center of the screen outlined in blue with the label school is the location of the proposed school within the existing building space. The main access to the project site is from Congress Avenue and that's identified with those two arrows right above the word Congress Avenue. There is a secondary access along Northwest 65th Street which will be um which will have signage that restricts um to residential the residential users and um as well as the fitness center. Um, the existing public sidewalk along Congress Avenue and Northwest 65th Street will remain. In addition, the applicant is proposing a new six-foot sidewalk approximately 20 ft west of the rightway that will be buffered from Congress by shade trees. The internal

walkway system includes sidewalks and a 10-ft shared bike and pedestrian path. This is the east elevation. It's most visible along Congress Avenue. There are some changes to the architectural facade of the building due to the additional residential units. And as mentioned earlier, the double height lobby was changed to accommodate some of the residential units. So, you can see that on the ground floor how um the bottom part of this screen is the elevation that was approved in the in 2021 and then at the top of the screen is the current elevation. So you can see towards the center there's a little bit of a difference in the facade um which accommodates the additional dwelling units. Um and in addition to that the roof line you can see in the bottom elevation the roof line at the south portion of the building has changed slightly to accommodate some of those units. Uh this is the west elevation and that faces the western boundary of the site which backs up to the R&D buildings to the west. The parking structure facade screening has changed and during the cab review the architect was instructed to incorporate some additional landscape and trees to buffer the uh parking structure. You can also see the roof line of the residential building has changed to accommodate some of the additional dwelling units. Lastly, these are the north and south elevations with the north elevation visible from northwest 65th and the south elevation which is internal to the project site. Uh similar changes were made to the north elevation to allow for the additional dwelling units. Staff finds that this project will add 21 multif family residential units with 10% reserve for affordable households. The non-residential CIMD component includes a 2,86q ft commercial fitness center on the ground floor of the

residential building. In addition, the existing tutoring facility will now incorporate a school component with the conditional approval. Um, this project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding zone district and uses. It's designated to include an internal shared use path that connects to the existing and proposed public sidewalks and is served by bike lanes and transit stops. Finally, uh staff finds that this project meets both the criteria of the CIMD as well as the PMD. The CAB reviewed this project on two separate evenings and recommended approval with conditions which have since been incorporated into the plans that you have before you tonight. Staff recommends approval of the PMD and site plan amendments for the commercial I'm sorry for the uh commercial industrial multifamily development as well as the conditional approval for the school use in the lurp zone. Uh that concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, and I do want to mention the um the ordinance that we put in front of you tonight with some proposed changes to the conditions of approval. So, if you have any questions about that,

could you tell us the proposed changes?

Sure. So on page seven um condition one um we did strike out that a change in the operator for the commercial fitness center um which was being required to um be subject to a review and approval. If there was a change in operator we struck that out. Um the next condition we've um we've modified so that um so that the uh the commercial fitness center is available to both the public and the residents at generally the same times and through the same um fees and membership the same operating standards. Uh the next condition um discusses the access to the commercial fitness center. Um before we were asking that it be a separate from any secured residential area and now we've struck that out. And finally the uh condition number six. Um this one is in regards to changing the commercial fitness center use on the ground floor. any uh future changes to that use um or swapping out that use would require um review by the development services director.

Um Brandon Chad, development services director. So um the applicant had requested some changes to these conditions and so we were not able to accommodate everything that they asked, but we're recommending these changes. I apologize. We we're working on these literally. I just printed these out before I left the office and and you know clearly I was in a hurry to get here. Um so I do have extra copies I believe that we can give anybody that's interested have a few extra copies. Um but I'm sure the applicant will have probably have more to say about this condition and we can discuss it further at that point. Thanks.

Thank you. Before we go to questions, a number of people came in in the last 10 minutes. Would you please rise and be sworn in if you're going to speak? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give during this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With that, I'll open it up to questions. Mr. Mr. Mitchell, I'll pass through. Okay, Mr. Morgan. Oh, okay. M. Richie,

does the fitness center it falls into the retail services category? Yes, the CIMD has a requirement to provide a certain amount of retail um commercial retail and could include office, but of that requirement, 2,000 square ft has to be restaurant uh retail or services. And this 286 foot fitness center falls into that later category. Mr. Don Blazer,

um I'm just quickly scanning the some of the changes here. Um I read something about access to that fitness center um that it's no longer a direct ground floor access. So then how are people getting to it if they don't live there? So um it it is through a lobby. Um but basically what the condition requires is that if during the hours that the gym are open and for context it's required to be open a minimum of 60 hours a week um that during all those times members would have access into that lobby as well as into the gym. Mr. Salon.

Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Miss Waldstein. It's a little bit unusual. I haven't seen this before where a PMD zoning designation and a CIMD are together on the same property. Can you explain how that works?

Sure. For this one, um it's really more of kind of a layering. The PMD allowed them to have the multifamily residential along with the office and um the CIMD because it applies to the entire project site allows them to go from um what was permitted in terms of the number of residential units and as I mentioned in my presentation that had been depleted with the PMD program. Uh so any available uh units in the unit bank for CIMD could be applied. Um the other component to that was the F. So the PMD allows them to go up to a 6 F and the CIMD allows them to go up to a 1.0 F. So they work kind of in conjunction with each other kind of in a layering fashion. So the PMD that we had before, you know, was up to a maximum of the F of 6, but now with the CIMD, we're exceeding that,

right? That allows it to exceed the 6 and go up to the 1.0 F. If they wanted to, could they fill in the lake and put a 200 unit CIMD proposal or some number? I mean um more than 17. Yeah, they um I believe they're at 14 dwelling units to the acre right now. So I think they'd be restricted by their density. Um and then they'd also of course be restricted by any remaining CIMD units. Right. So the density is 20 units per acre. Yes. Okay. So the gist of it is they could put a lot more than just the 21

correct is my thing. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Heather the the F now is like a hair under 6, isn't it? Yeah, it's at 0.5.

So it doesn't matter that the increase. Okay. Anybody else? Not this is a public hearing. I'll ask the petitioner to come up and make her presentation. Good evening, Ellie Zacharitas, 14 Southeast 4 Street. Thank you for my presentation. Uh, Mr. Salon, so I just did some quick math. The acreage is 21.35 and the CMD allows you to go to 25 units to the acre. So that would be a total of 533 units and we have 298 proposed. So, we could have another 235 units on this property. Thank you very much.

Yes. Okay, I'll turn my phone off now. This is the first time I've ever brought my phone up here. I had to do math. Okay, so many of you have seen this now for the third time. Um, just to orient yourselves again, Heather, thank you very much for your extremely thorough presentation. This is the total property. It's 21.35 acres. There are five existing office bu buildings which will remain on property. Um and this is our proposed site plan that was previously approved. Uh we came in 2020 and secured approval for our master plan and then two years later in 2022 we came in for our sight specific um site plan approval and at that time it had 277 units proposed and ultimately approved. As Heather noted, it was 277, which equates to, I believe, 12.9 units to the acre. Um, when the PMD allowed you to go to 20 units to the acre, we only did 12.9 because that was all that was remaining in the bucket. So, we exhausted that PMD bucket at that time. Um, now we're in for some minor changes and since we're going through this process, we thought it would be ideal to add some additional units. So the real change between what was previously before you in 2022 and what is before you today is the addition of 21 uh residential units in accordance with the CIMD. Um we are providing four affordable which actually equates to 19% of the total CIMD units when only 10% would be required to be affordable. We are also adding a conditional use request for a school which I will get into in more detail in just a moment. Um, the height has not changed. The maximum height that was previously before you and approved in 2022 was 82 feet. It is still 82 feet. Again, we

went from 277 to 298, which equates to 14 units to the acre. Uh, we meet or exceed all code requirements, open space, parking, height, setbacks, F, and the like. Um, okay. So, we already talked about that. So, you may be asking yourself, where did we put these 21 units if we haven't increased really the footprint or the height of the building? Um, as you can see in these two particular locations, the building that in those particular locations, the building stopped on the seventh floor where in these in this area here, this upside down U, the building went to eight stories. So what we've decided to do is go ahead and take the areas in the circles and put another floor. So there are eight stories like the balance of the building. Then on the ground floor in the bottom right hand corner we had double height ceilings. So what we did there is take away the double height and make them normal height ceilings and we added a second floor of residential. And you see that here highlighted barely in yellow. That is where the second floor units are going. The of the 21 units, some of them are going there. And then on the eighth floor, they're highlighted in yellow there. So, we just filled in what we already had. Um, Mr. Dornblazer, you asked about access. Uh, this is the access. It comes from the lobby. uh we are envisioning as we go through this process and we have an end operator for the gym what we are anticipating is some sort of key access or a fob or something of that nature. Um the section of the CIMD the regulation is written for you on the left side of the screen. It specifically requires a minimum of 2,000 square feet of either retail restaurant or services. And with

our gym exceeding 2,000 square feet we meet that criteria. All right. So, let's talk about the school a little bit. So, the school is already open and operating legally. Um, before I met them, the company's called Exceed. Before I met them, they had met with the city and explained their business model and the city rightfully so akin them more to a tutoring facility than a real school. Um, because they're not a real school. Um, Miss McDermott knows, I'm sure, quite well, having a world champion son that when you're an athlete or you're competing or things of that nature, you can't go to a traditional school. You can't have an 8:00 in the morning drop off and a 3:00 in the afternoon pickup. Um, that is what these schools are geared for. They're more online. Um, a lot of parents that homeschool use this type of service to subsidize their homeschooling. It's things of that nature. Again, it's not everybody comes in at 8:00 and everybody leaves at 3:00. That's not how it works. So, it is there. It is operating. To be honest, the only reason they're going through, to be completely transparent, that they're going through this conditional use process is because of the the private charter school vouchers. um they would not parents would not be eligible to utilize the state vouchers for this school if they were not categorized specifically as a school. That is why we are going through this process. But again, this is where it's located and Heather denoted it as well. This is a floor plan of what it exists today. As you can see, it's primarily very individualized. When kids do come to the facility, it's because they need some additional assistance one-on-one. So, that is how the classroom is set up. And here are some pretty pictures.

I'm looking forward to seeing this every day I come here and leave chambers. Some materials. We did work very carefully with staff and with the community appearance board to make sure we do everything exactly as we're presenting it. Um we did get approval in 2022 and we did submit for permit. Construction has astronomically increased. Um so the building was value engineered. Um but this is after the value engineering. So this is what you are going to get. just some details and that's it. I'm here to answer. Oh, actually first uh Mr. Shad and Miss Waldstein, thank you very much for these revisions to these conditions of approval. I think we could pretty much live with almost everything in here. Um certainly we want the fitness center to be a success and to be utilized. The only one one minor change is I'm not really that concerned about the hours of operation because we again envision a FOB or a key pass. So if somebody wants to go at 1 in the morning, by all means if that's what they want to do. Uh we're just concerned about staffing 60 hours a week. U most of these small boutique gyms you're what I'm finding and I've done research on this in the last couple of days. They don't most of them don't even staff at all and they have staff sometimes and or and sometimes have no staff. So if we could limit that so we don't require 60 hours of staff time that would be fantastic and I think that would be our only ask.

Thank you. Okay. Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Salon? No questions. Mr. Dor. Yes. Um when I I spoke with you, we talked that uh I think it's 65th was going to be the only way in and then out would be down the next road. However, the presentation I just saw saw from staff showed in and out um offth of 65th. Okay. So that's Can you clarify what's actually going to happen?

Absolutely. Sure. So let's talk about what is happening today. Today you have five office buildings. Um, Heather, correct me if I'm wrong. I want to say it equates to 219,000 square feet of office, give or take. Yeah, it's about 221.

Okay. 221. So, a little over 200 square ft of office today. Today, with our building not there, the entirety of the office development, all 220,000 square ft, can ingress and egress off of 65th, which is where the roundabout is on the northern side of our property, or on the main entrance, or one of each. They can pick and choose. So, all that traffic or at least half of that traffic is going off of and on and off of 65th. With the introduction of our development, what we are doing is we are limiting all traffic to this 21 acres only ingress only and only for the residential and the gym. So what happens is if Ellie lives here and she turns onto 65th, as soon as she passes this roundabout, it turns into a one-way street. So, it turns into a one-way street and then goes into the parking garage. When you are leaving that parking garage, again, this is a one-way street. So, you are forced to egress out the main entrance. So, the only time somebody from our development, Mr. Dornblazer, can egress off of 65th is if Ellie's hungry and she orders Uber Eats. They could go to this roundabout right here, drop off, and then come back around. But as soon as you go past this roundabout, it's a culde-sac. Sorry. This culdeac. He couldn't handle. I was saying roundabout. The culde-sac. Once you pass this marker, you cannot go back down to 65th.

Does that clear it up or was that even more confusing? That clears it up. Okay. Um I believe and I don't remember exactly what you told me. Are there any improvements being made on Congress for access? Yes, there are multiple improvements in accordance with Palm Beach County TPS and maybe Mr. Donaldson can talk about those.

He's coming. Yes. And also, thanks for saying that while we're waiting for John. Um, there is a condition of approval both from the city and Palm Beach County for this intersection. I lost it. For the main intersection, not not 65th. Um, for this intersection, we have to bond money for a potential signal at this location. if it's warranted after the property is developed completely and seeded, Palm Beach County and only Palm Beach County will make that determination and all those monies will be held in in an escrow um until such time as Palm Beach County says you need it, which they have the money to now install it or it doesn't warrant a signal and then in in that case the money will get returned. So I'll hand it over to John for a TPS letter. John Donaldelson, JMD Engineering, 800 Crestwood Court, Royal Palm Beach. There are two improvements on Congress. Both of those are extending those northbound left turn lanes to the fullest extent that you can uh out there today. One of them is extended to 310 ft. The other is extended to 280 ft. Also, the uh the county also requested that that ingress off 65th be for the residential and the gym only. Well, they said residential, but the gym the gym is in the residential building. And at some point in time, if there is a signal installed at the main entrance, then we'll have to look across the street and make sure everything lines up and all the lanes line up so you're you're not opposing each other when you make your turns. But those are the improvements that the county had in their TPS letter.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Still asking questions, Miss Richie? Yes. The 19% of affordable houses. Housing. Great. Glad we're having affordable housing. But um that's on the newer proposed units. Were was there any affordable housing? I know it's not required, but is that that it? That's the only affordable housing in the building? Yes. So, the plan mobility, which is what was approved in accordance with the 277 vested units, did not have an affordable housing requirement. So, we're applying that to the CIMD and only the CIMD. How many square feet is the total CMD project? 30,000 Feder Rico.

He's looking. Okay. I'm going to ask you about the school while he's looking. Okay. Is anything changing with the operation of the school other than the fact that they would be able to take the vouchers? Absolutely nothing. Okay. You if you want to move on and then come back, that's fine. Yeah. While he's studying that, I'll move on. The 24,852 ft. Oh, thank you. Okay. Question answered. Mr. Morgan,

I'm just wondering the parking for the fitness center, is that going to be in the building as well? So, we've accounted for parking. It's hard to see on this one. There is parallel parking all along here as well as all the way along here and here is kind of our thought process. Um, certainly they can go into the garage. I suspect they'd probably rather not. So, we wanted to make sure we had ample parking exterior as well. Okay. Okay. And just so I understand correctly, if you're coming in from Amtch Center entry, the main entrance, that is two-way, right? But when you get to the back, it's only one way.

Accurate. Once you get past the culdeac, not roundabout. Um I don't know why this isn't working. Uh once you get west of the culdeac, you can only go one way. You cannot come back out. Okay. West being the top of the screen. Okay. And then uh is there a reason why we wouldn't have it that if you're coming in from the main entrance in the center and you're you're entering that way that it wouldn't be two-way just until the garage. So this way some traffic can go that way and some can go that way and then meaning as opposed to having the one way all the way around just that you could enter from that way as well. Sorry if I'm pointing to my screen but

it's okay. I think somebody who's going to be speaking after me this evening is would not appreciate that. A lot of this was discussions with our neighbors and trying to be considerate with our neighbors as well. Thank you.

Okay, Miss McDerman. So, is this fitness center just going to be part of the building and people outside of the building can buy a membership or is it like a franchised facility that's going to be there that's going to attract more people? So, we still need to find out who the end tenant is going to be for that space. So, we're still working on all those details. Um, I suspect in my heart of hearts it's going to be the majority is going to be the residents obviously of the multif family development as well as the five office buildings that are 221,000. Um, maybe our neighbors to the north might want to come and work out there too.

But yes, it will be open to the public. One of the conditions requires that we advertise like commercial how other gyms advertise and the like. So yes, we're hoping it will be successful. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Just so I'm clear, if you park at the office building, in order to park in the garage, you got to go down to Congress, over back up, and all the way around. If it's a one-way street to the garage,

or is there another entrance not on the west side of the building? So, if you're in the office building and you want to access the garage, you would park really over here. I mean, there's so much parking, right? But assuming there's someone who lives there who wants to drive around because it's raining, it's a possibility you have to leave the parking lot, drive on a main road, and drive back into the parking lot. Is that correct? I think that's an accurate statement.

Seems odd. Well, I'm sincerely hoping I mean I get pretty lazy sometimes, Mr. Mitchell, but I'm sincerely hoping that if somebody lives here that they are not driving here. Like I I am sincerely hoping that's not the case. And if it is the case, I'm glad it's painful. And the other question is the four units because they're relating to the 21 four um set aside units. Are they only going to fit into the 21 units or are they going to be spread about anywhere within the entire property?

So we talked with staff about that really early on. There is very stringent code requirements for the CIMD. There's equivalency factors. um you have to have if you have let's say 10 onebedroom, 10 twobedrooms, 10 threebedrooms, you have to do 10% of each of that unit type. So we were trying to keep the CIMD units together at the request of the city if memory serves. Um we wanted to make sure we did that for multiple reasons. number one to understand the square footage that we were adding um that are associated to the CIMD and also to make sure we're meeting all those equivalency factors.

Mr. Donaldson has additional comments. There are two entrances to the garage. There's one on the south end as well. So, they would not need to do the hoke pokey to get in. They can just come in through the south entrance. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. I would rather them do the hokeyp pokey. Okay, my questions have been answered. Anybody else have anything? Not. This is a public hearing. We have members of the public that want to speak on this item. You have cards, Kathy? Yeah. Jonathan,

please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Before starting, I'd like to ask, as I'm an adverse party, I've actually sued the city over this development previously. I'd like to ask for maybe just an extra minute or two um to be able to speak to not be constrained to the time, especially after a 20-minute presentation. Okay, one minute. You have four minutes.

Um so, first off, I want to be clear, Mr. Shad, um, is it not true that part of the PMD that the parking garage, uh, there was parking for office that was required? Uh, I want to say it was 70 spaces. I can't remember the exact number. Um, and I I didn't see where your exit was or entrance for the office. Um, but um, so to kind of go through this quickly, uh, my office building is the one that you see at the top there. Um, in the center of my office building is where the exit to my building is. It is a very, very, very short distance to 65th Street. As you can see there, these are not complimentary. As the applicant indicated, the reality is is this is a conflicting traffic pattern. The entire development sits just to the left of that lake there. This is not 300 units that are spread about 21 acres. This is 300 units sitting on three acre parking lot right there off of 65th Street. So, bad planning, bad development. Um, but there's a need for a deceleration lane because people are going to be egressing out of the front of my property out at the same time that these people are going to be slamming on their brakes to make a right-hand turn to enter their residential garage. Nobody's going to be entering through the main entrance as that is going to be a busy offloading office complex at the same exact time. There are warrants a need for a deceleration lane. According to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, who is the organization that funds and publishes research for state departments of transportation to keep

roads safe, not the IT, that's a little group of traffic engineers paid for by developers to advocate for great uses. Otherwise, we would be applying it rates for everything we do in the city, but we don't, I believe. Is that correct, Mr. Shad? I think it's a good question to ask. So, here's the distance that you can see between where people are going to be leaving the front of my exit to that corner right there, where people are going to be slamming on their brakes with no turn signal as people are trying to accelerate to 45 m an hour, 45 mph road. So, again, like I said, these are not complimentary uses. These are actually conflicting uses. Um the new units will also further increase the turns um that will occur there. Uh deceleration was already removed from the main entrance. I don't see the rest of my slides. Um but anyway, let's start off with the main point. This was improperly noticed. This project shouldn't be a CIMD project whatsoever. There is no, if I listen to to Meisner Plaza, there's no unity of title here. This parking lot in this development was sold. It is not the same owners as the 21 acres. This should be just a 3 acre parcel. Most importantly. So, as you heard the last argument here by the attorney that was here present, it can't be good for one and not good for the other. Um, most importantly regarding this gym, um, who will be operating the gym? Can the same developer/owner create another entity that will be a shell to operate this? It is key. And I've never seen any fitness facility other than a joke fitness facility that you live in in a residential building that has no staff. I've never seen a

fitness facility that is open to the public that has no employee. Never find one. They should have one. Time's up. I mean, I just got my slides slides. They gave you four minutes. Time's up. They got 20 and I'm an adverse party. M, you know, done. It's a joke. You guys are a joke. Stamp this one like you guys do. So, well, stamp it. Thank you, Kathy. Anyone else? That's it. Anyone else want to speak on this? Okay. If not, I'll give the staff a rebuttal time.

Sure. Um, just a couple of the questions that Mr. Engine asked. So, um, the parking requirements across the entire site, the office portion, the residential portion, all of it. It's all collective. So, we don't distinguish these parking spaces are for residential, those are for office. Obviously, the location suggests where different users would tend to park. But from our perspective, from the regulatory perspective, it's collective. Um, with respect to it rates, I didn't exactly understand what the question was. I think the question was about parking rates, which IT does publish parking rates, and it's true that we do not uniformally apply those. We have our own legislatively determined u parking requirements. Um, IT is um a well-known and respected uh traffic and transportation engineering organization um that that does publish trip generation rates and things like that that are widely used throughout the industry. With respect to the uh unity of title question, um there is a condition of approval in the prior approvals. Um, these properties will have to be unified either under a unity of title or a unity of control uh prior to the issuance of a building permit for for this building. Um, and those are the questions that I wrote down. I may have missed something. I'm happy to address anything.

Thank you. Miss Aarat, do you have any closing remarks? Hi, I just wanted to add again the 277 units are already approved and vested. That approval is very much alive and well. We are talking about adding 21 additional units, which equates to 8 a.m. peak hour trips and 8:00 p.m. peak hour trips, which is approximately one car every 7 and 12 minutes. Um, with regard to the deceleration lane, Mr. engine has asked for this on numerous occasions. Both the city, the county, the traffic department, the city, and our personal traffic engineer. It does not feel that it's warranted. I do understand that he has concerns about one of his two egress points, his one on Congress getting backed up. I will tell you, I'm very much in support of the next item on the agenda. Very much in support. I'm so excited to have something built there. but there are significant U-turns that will be happening right in front of his building based on that development that he's supporting. So, just wanted to set the record straight on that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I'll look for a motion in a second for discussion for 5A1, which is the PMD and the site plan approval, which is a recommendation to council. Motion for discussion. Second.

Any discussion? The issue of the turn lane is at least for me the biggest angst. Um, just as I look at it and when you saw the picture, it was pretty narrow and people getting on and off the road. But adding 21 since I was not here on the board at the time the other one was approved. I cannot opine on the reasons that one was or wasn't approved. But adding 21 units, even if they're fully occupied at all times, can't be more than 8, 10, 12 trips at peak time. So, I don't think it's enough, but it is something that does get me concerned, and I hope the city looks into it should there be accidents or concerns and addresses it after it's been built.

Anyone else,

Mr. Don? Um, in general, I I don't love the the 2000 286 foot gym as the retail portion. I I do think that that's going to end up just being residents only. I don't see anybody else coming in to use it. But I think in general with all these residential uh apartment buildings we're putting up, there's no retail portion to these. So, anytime anybody wants a cup of coffee or grab breakfast or something, they're leaving the site. And I just there's nothing I think we can do about it necessarily on this one, but in general there doesn't seem to be any retail contingent on any of these type projects and kind of bothers me. Okay,

Mr. Richie,

sort of echo that. Um, I think that Mr. Unjun had some really good questions in his paper and his in his presentation. I think this resolution really addresses like good job at the last minute. I hope you had a chance to look at it. It addresses a lot of the questions. Um, we did talk when he and I spoke about legislative intent being important, which I agree with. And I think this gym is slipping it in, checking the box. I think it checks the box, though. So, I don't think I can, you know, not support it because of that, but I'm not in support of chipping away at it. I do think that it should be staffed and it should be held out to the public for the benefit of the community as a gym. Um, and I just want to suggest, you know, we're putting some city staff over here soon in the near future. Maybe they get a discount um, on the gym membership and they'll be using it.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, Mr. Yes.

Um, Mr. Shad, you you talked about or Ellie talked about changing the hours and staffing. Is that part of Can you agree to that or is that part of this resolution? So to be clear, I mean we do have concerns about the gym as well. Um and that's why we came up with these conditions. Um when it comes specifically to the staffing, um we we do have city council to come after this and we are going to take a look at it. I' I've asked for substantiation that, you know, unstaffed commercial fitness centers, gyms are a real thing in the world. And so I'm not familiar with them personally, but we're going to look into that between now and council. Um, I did remember after I spoke before a question that Mr. Engine was asking about um whether they could use a Shell entity to run the the the fitness center. And so the the first part of the condition reads, "The commercial fitness center shall be operated by a distinct and independent commercial business entity, not by the multif family residential project, property management company, condominium association, or homeowners association." So I a shell organization meant to have the appearance of being separate but not really separate would would be a violation in in my interpretation. And um I recognize that it's not the easiest thing to enforce, but it is something that we would um enforce if it came to our attention. Um so I thought that was important to point out, but at we're not ready at this point to commit to agreeing to unstaffed uh an unstaffed fitness center.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Sure. I don't know if Mrs. Long. Oh, yes. Thank you. Are you done? Thank you. Yes.

Okay. Sure. You're done. What is the rationale for not, and this may be just my uninformedness, that it has to be a separate entity? Because if there's a gym run by the community association that holds it out to the public, and I'm again, maybe just showing my ignorance, why would that matter? It's still a public gym. People can pay and they can still go. The patrons don't care who the owner is so long as it's serviced, right? That's part one. And then part two is if they don't do what they're supposed to do, let's say the gym is not following these rules, what is the enforcement mechanism? Is it just a daily fine as a code violation? I'll take the second part first. The um the condition requires that this be put into a restrictive covenant on the property. So yes, it's a code violation and we could enforce it through code enforcement. The city would also have the option to uh sue the property owner for to compel compliance because it would be a a deed restriction. I may be using the legal terms incorrectly, but you know, I'm not a lawyer, but you get the idea. Um the other part of the question was about the independence of the operator.

Yes. And that is based on I'm trying to find the code provision. Okay. So the the requirement for the non-residential on the property includes the the provision such non-residential component shall be devoted to one or more distinct independent rather than accessory uses. And it goes on to describe the uses. So the the requirement is that they be separate there not be you know um it's it's clear that it can't be accessory it must be its own thing and uses the words distinct and independent. So that's that's the basis of the requirement. Thank you.

Yeah Mr. chairman. Um to go to further the discussion about is it a real gym or just checking the box thing. If you have to pay someone to be there 60 hours, it's going to have to be run as a business. So that makes it more of a legitimate use. So I'm happy with that. Anyone else?

Okay. McDerman. Um so Miss Zacharitus mentioned um that there was bond um money bonded for a potential um light signal and um at the Amt Parkway where it intersects with Congress and um if I'm corre I may be wrong but it she said the county will determine whether or not there will need to be a light there. Do we know how long it will go before the county makes that determination? I'm just thinking it might address some of um Mr. Unen's traffic.

Was that two years, Mr. Concerns? Two years. Two years. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, seeing none, uh Kathy, call the roll. Sibel, yes. Salon, yes. Dornblazer, yes. Mitchell, yes. Morgan, yes. McDermad, yes. Richie, yes. Motion passes, seven votes to zero.

Okay. 5 A2 which is the resolution recommendation of city council regarding the conditional use approval. Any discussion? We need a motion and a second on that. Move to approve. So motion. Second. Okay. Any discussion on this? Miss Mcder did you? Okay. Seeing none. Kathy, please call the role. Yes. Dornblazer. Yes. Mitchell, yes. Morgan, yes. McDermad, yes. Richie, yes. Sevel, yes. Motion passes. Seven votes to zero.

Thank you. Thank you everyone on this. Okay. The next item is TR Danberg Bokeh. Kathy, please read that item into the record.

TR Danberg Bokeh, 6730 Congress Avenue. a resolution of the planning and zoning board considering for the approximately 1.76 acre property generally located at 6730 Congress Avenue which is the neighborhood serving retail property sorry component of the overall approximately 14.13 acre Danberg planned mobility development PMD generally located at 6700 and 6730 Congress Avenue site plan amendment amending resolution number 12, 2015 to authorize the construction of two onestory retail and restaurant buildings totaling 10,5005 ft with two drive-through operations with a technical deviation from section 28-1655 code of ordinances to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 91 to 64 spaces for a reduction of 27 spaces providing for repealer providing an effective date. Okay, thank you. Uh, anyone have any exparte communications on this one?

I don't think so. Okay. I mean, I just drove by it like a thousand times in my life. Yeah, me too. Yeah. Okay. I'll turn it over to Tamas Raman for your presentation.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, um, board. My name is Tamash Ben. I'm the chief planner with, uh, the city. Um this evening I'm presenting the Danberg plan mobility development or PMD at 6700 and 6730 Congress Avenue. This is for a site plan amendment and a technical deviation for parking reduction for the com uh for the commercial component of this plan mobility development. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Clintmore Road and Congress Avenue. It has a zoning of light industrial research park with a feature land use designation of planned mobility. In 2015, the PMD was approved which included a 282 unit apartment complex which has been constructed and been occupied. Um there was also a retail component which included a 2,500 ft drive-through bank and a 8,000 foot retail building. This is a request for a site plan amendment to authorize the construction of two one-story retail restaurant buildings that will total 10,55 square ft with a drive-thru operation. Those buildings will be located where um the grass pads are shown on this slide. There's also a technical deviation for a parking reduction to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 91 spaces to 64 spaces, which equates to a reduction of 27 spaces. Here is a proposed site plan. The subject site has multiple access points off of Northwest 65th Street from Congress Avenue and Clintmore Road. Those access points will not be revised with this project. There's also a number of existing multimodal improvements that exist today, including a bus shelter along Congress Avenue, another bus shelter along Clintmore Road. There are 8 foot wide sidewalks along both, excuse me, Clintmore Road and Congress Avenue. and all of those improvements will remain. You can see the freestanding uh

restaurant building to the left, which is um the north part of this property, and also the retail restaurant building to the south uh with the one drive-thru operation. In terms of the parking reduction technical deviation, there's 91 spaces required and 64 parking spaces. Staff, we are recommending approval of this request. And the reasons for this is that the required parking that is um calculated. It's based on standalone uses. This is a mixeduse project where there's residential component. So there's an internal capture component that is not accounted for with the standalone uses. Um it is in close proximity to employment centers, a number of office uses. Um and there are shuttle connections to the tri rail station and these employment centers. So there's a synergy with this site. Um, also there's transportation demand management strategies that have been implemented for this project. Um, this site currently contributes to the city's shuttle program. There's a number of shuttles that run adjacent to this pro pro uh property um that stop at those two existing bus uh shuttles that I mentioned earlier. And so with this project, the applicant will also contribute approximately $17,000 to the shuttle program. And according to the international traffic engineers manual pursuant to their rate only 60 spaces are appropriate for this property and again 64 spaces will be provided and based on these reasons we're recommending approval of this technical deviation. Um here are the building elevations. You can see the freestanding restaurant to the left and then also the um the multiple tenant restaurant and retail building to the right. staff has uh determined that the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the city's comprehensive plan that the construction of the retail and restaurant building it will fulfill the PMD requirements of the city code which requires complimentary commercial uses. Um and then again for the parking

technical deviation we feel it is justified based on the mixeduse nature of the project in context of the surrounding uses. Um, there are some minor corrections to the accompanying site plan resolution that I would like to note. One is the on the title of the resolution, there was a reference to two drive-through operations that are proposed with the project. That's incorrect. There's one drive-through operation. So, that's corrected on this um on page one. You can see on the slide to the left. And then the same for page number six, there's a reference to the two drive-through operations, and that has been corrected to a singular drive-through operation. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and technical deviation with the revisions that I just indicated and the community appearance board recommends approval of the proposed architecture and landscaping. This concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, M. Richie. Mr. Dorlazer, no questions. Mr. Saline, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a a question maybe for Mr. Shad. Our last building that had 298 units, they were contributing $48,900 a year to our shuttle program. And then you mentioned this, this one's going to be contributing $17,000 a year to the program. So the property um in total will contribute $33,000 approximately $33,000 for the existing residential plus this retail of which $17,000 is for the retail component.

You know looking at this the size of things you know this under 11,000 square foot retail is paying a disproportionate amount. So um the the way this number is uh determined is based on the number of uh traffic trips that are associated with the project. So office generates less trips than restaurant or retail. So that's why this has a I guess a high proportionate that that's a great explanation. I'm really happy with these uh these rates coming in. Mr. Chad, it's a successful program. The shuttle program it is. Um over the years it's had a very high writership. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. No more questions. Okay. Thank you Mr. Mitchell, M. McDerman, Mr. Morgan. Chair has no questions with that. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing Oh, the petitioner. Mr. Sperling, do you want to make a presentation or not?

Okay. Good evening everyone. Josephina representing Norskin Architecture. So thank you for your time and thank you Tomas for the presentation. Uh here tonight to present a revision to a project that was previously approved by this board. This is not a new development. This is all just an improvement to an already entitled project. The core layout concept remain the same, but we've made some updates to improve the site's functionality and tenant flexibility. So, the most notable change is going to be the relocation of the drive-thru. Um, originally the drive-thru was attached to the formerly building 2, which was designed for a bank, and that structure had a covered drive-thru directly adjacent to the building it was attached. Uh, in the revised plan, the drive-thru has been moved to the back of retail one, which is now open to sky, and the building has been bumped out to accommodate that. This change improves the vehicular circulation on site and it also does significantly increases the stacking distance which helps to reduce the congestion and improve the efficiency overall. Uh second there was also programmatic changes to the buildings as I mentioned the previous um building two was proposed bank and now is proposed a ret restaurant space as well as the north corner of retail one which is also restaurant space. Uh that's about it for the changes for this presentation. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Mr. Mitchell,

do you have a tenant in mind for the drive-thru? Not yet. Hoping it was a Dunkin Donuts. It's worth asking. All right. It's a proposed coffee shop, but no. All right. Anybody else? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this? State your name and address. And you have three minutes.

Three minutes are fine. Jonathan Unian 6501 Congress Avenue. Um, so you got all my neighbors here tonight and you guys do this really well. You always put a project that do you do something good for me at the same time you do something bad for me. This is not the first time. Um, so um, first off, this is like so overdue, so needed, so welcome, especially considering you're about to have your new city hall literally right behind this. Um, I own the building directly across the street. There will be no U-turns in front of my building because of this project. The only people that will do that is if they want to take a U-turn out of my leaving my property. Otherwise, in every direction you go, you get to this property without needing to do that. The 902 Clintmore building would be the only other one, and they've got an exit straight onto Clintmore. Go through Congress, make a right into there. So, Miss Sacaritis was 100% wrong. Uh secondly, um I do food trucks at my building every Tuesday. They beg to come to my building. The food trucks, Cousins Main, Lobster, I've got another one on Monday. You name it, because people would love to walk and go get lunch. This is a food desert. This food use is so needed. The reality is there are so many buildings whether it being the lovely Bora that's going to be coming in 300 units or a lore that's right there and was part of this or my building or the Johnson Controls building or your city hall or either of the Clintmore buildings. These people are all going to walk take cars off the road. Take Uber Eats off the road coming to our buildings to drop off food. So I hope this is like record time approval. I'm done talking. Have a good one. Thanks. Thank you. You gave us back the minute. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else?

Okay. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion in a second for the site plan amendment 5B. Motion to approve. So seconded. Any discussion? It's going to be really nice to have. I'm super excited. I've been waiting for this to happen since they built the buildings behind it. Long overdue. Okay, with that, I'll look for a motion. in a second. We so motioned again. Okay. Do we Sorry. No, we got so caught up in the uh Okay. Okay. Call the roll, please. Can I Doran Blazer? Yes. Mitchell, yes. Morgan, yes. McDermad, yes. Richie, yes. Seville,

yes. Salon, yes. Motion passes. Seven votes to zero.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sparling. Okay. Okay. The next item is a regular public hearing. It's a CIMD text amendment. Uh Peter Bgovich is going to make the presentation. 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 section 28-1644 land development regulations for commercial industrial multif family development CIMD pursuant to the statute code of ordinances to provide ified that the requirement for CIMDs include non-residential uses including office, restaurant, and/or rental sales or services either on the same property or within a quarter mile of the CIMD may be satisfied by a certain combination of on-site and off-site non-residential uses and to correct a scrivener's error providing for serability providing for repealer providing for codification providing an effective date. Okay,

thank you Peter Povich you have the floor. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Chair Seville. For the record, Peter Begoich, uh, senior planner with development services. Uh, tonight I'll be presenting a city initiated application to amend section 28 1644, uh, code of ordinances pertaining to the proximity of existing and proposed non-residential uh, uses in commercial and industrial multifamily developments. Uh, a brief history. Back on February 13th, 2024, the city council approved ordinance number 5684 approving regulations for commercial industrial multif family developments. Um, as we've heard previously tonight, uh 10% of units must be affordable in CIMDs. Uh, and 5% of units may be provided uh at the workforce uh rate for a density bonus. CIMDs are required to meet one of two criteria provided in section 281644 code of ordinances related to the development's proximity to non-residential uses. The first criterion is that a CIMD is located within a/4 mile of uh 25,000 square ft of existing non-residential uses which can be office, restaurant and or retail sales or services which must be a minimum of 10,000 square ft of restaurant retail sales or services. Um, the second criterion B is that the project includes a non-residential component consisting of at least the greater 5,000 square ft or 10% of the total square footage of the CIMD up to 25,000 square ft uh with with a minimum of 2,000 square feet being the restaurant retail or services.

So, in applying the code, staff found that proposals for larger CIMDs, say 25,000 square feet of residential development or larger with no existing non-residential uses on site, um, but are surrounded by neighboring sites with large amounts of office buildings, but with no existing, um, retail, res, restaurant, or service uses. uh they're required to construct 25,000 square feet of non-residential uses on site under the current code, which was kind of a glitch. Um the amendment will provide potential developers uh of affordable or workforce housing within CIMD's a third locational criterion. Um, and that would be for projects located within a/4 mile of existing non-residential uses, the office, restaurant, or retail sales or services. and the CIMD includes a non-residential component that's either existing or would be constructed concurrently with non-residential uses pursuant to the division provided that the total of such non-residential uses is at least uh 25,000 square ft and includes at least 10,000 square ft of restaurant or retail sales or services. Um, this ordinance will allow potential developers to use existing off-site office development to count towards the required non-residential uses in a CIMD without having to construct additional office space or more than 10,000 square ft of restaurant or retail sales on site in locations where such development does not exist currently or is not economically feasible to locate or construct. Um, the ordinance also proposes to correct that min minor scriveners error which made a reference to an ill

irrelevant subsection of uh section 281644. Um, staff found that approval of the proposed ordinance will continue to facilitate development of affordable workforce housing in the city and that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In conclusion, development staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Okay. Thank you. Summarizes my questions for staff. Mr. Salon.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Begovich. Um, so I'm reading the ordinance itself and I was just a little bit confused when your narrative talks about how the developer can use off-site properties to satisfy the retail, restaurant, and nonresidential areas. But I don't see that language in the ordinance that that he doesn't have to build the non-residential himself or or the retail himself.

So if I understand your question correctly, um currently you can utilize all off-site retail, restaurant or services um to satisfy the non-residential component for a CIMD. So, the CIMD can have no um non-residential and no restaurant retail. Correct. If it's within a quarter of a mile. A good a good example of that was the Bokeh Center residential project that was approved

and that project relied on McDonald's and basically Bokeh Center. um within a/4 mile you had 25,000 square ft which was uh Total Wine and McDonald's and then the rest of the center exceeded the requirement. Okay. I just didn't see the language specifically saying that they can use the offsite but if you're satisfied with it that's fine. If I could just add this is all very complicated. It's kind of hurts your head to try to figure it out. But the the basic idea is when we when we wrote it, we didn't realize that you couldn't do a combination of onsite and off-site. This is just fixing that. That's all.

Do you have a slide? Sorry. Do you have a slide? Excuse you. You have a slide with the whole statute so I can see what the new one would look like.

Yes. So this is the beginning of the modifications which uh we just you know changed to one we wrote at one. So that that's the that's the first um requirement that we were talking about where like Bokeh Center you can use a quarter mile is at least 25,000 square feet of existing. So, and then the second one is what the new language we're proposing. Um, Mr. Mr. Bevich, I also noticed in this the first line the CIMD is located within a quarter mile of existing and then on and on the other two u examples that we have and this is the third one. There's a specific number of square footage associated with how much they how much they needed to be 25,000 square feet or but this the third one doesn't have that. Y cmd

provided that the total is 25,000 square feet and include so it's at towards the end of that sentence. So the total needs to be 25,000 square feet and include at least 10,000 square feet of restaurant. So for for instance I think a good example would be in the middle of Apoch right or by the park of commerce or park of broken sound you have a property that might have an old office building that you would tear down. It's old and it's not needed. It's outmoded and you're going to build a CIMD there on the one site but you got a bunch of office buildings around it but no existing uh retail restaurant or services. So that person that owner would have to build at least 25,000 square feet of commercial under the code being 2,000 square feet of uh retail restaurant or services and then maybe they would do the rest in in office. So they're building more office when there's a ton of office around or they could do 25,000 square foot a small shopping center maybe in the middle of of Apoch. But is that really what we're looking for? So what this is is allows them to build 10,000 square ft of commercial, you know, uses without office and rely on the 15,000 foot remaining to be the office that's right next door.

That makes perfect sense. Yes. Anyone else? This is a public hearing.

This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Jonathan Unen 6501 Congress Avenue. Um, so it looks like we're bending over to developers a little bit more, allowing them to get away with a lot more, not giving the the vibrant 15minute city that everybody talks about that everybody wants to move towards. We're going to now just give credit for what other people have done that are in close proximity. For instance, when I see this, what I think about is the project you just heard, Bora. Would Jamie Danberg's retail be within a quarter mile of Bora that then they wouldn't need to have their farce of a gym? I'll wait for that answer, that question to be answered. But the reality is Fran Knackas, who's running for mayor, fought so hard, had to beg developers sadly during the CIMD project to have the language that you see here to have the multiple uses. Yes, we need more retail. We need 25,000 square ft of retail. Drive around this area other than the vacant bank pads. Find me one open retail spot from 95 to military. I'm talking next to 10x the fresh market. I'm talking next to the Lifetime Fitness. I'm talking next to Brick. I'm talking at Yamato. Other than the Wendy's, excuse me, the Wendy's as well went out. But other than that, there's not a single retail spot. Why are we trying to give credit again and continue to have the the the the desert of retail uses around this area? This is the prime area to develop. Please devel

you know development services tell me where are all the CIMD projects other than the one that you pointed out which happens to be by the mall they're all around here in Apoch in the desert I'd like to know who is asking for this which developers that maybe is giving campaign contributions to you or to you or you know to you or whoever is running for city council because we do a lot of that. I live in Deerfield Beach. What they do when you listen to a project such as this, you know what they do? But beyond your exparte disclosure, they give their financial disclosures. Ellie Zacharitus, Bonnie Msll, you know, Ms. Bachman, whatever it is, they give it to you in every way possible. packs, everything. Stop bending over to the developers. Plan for a community. Do better. Thank you.

All of you have a rubber stand. Please state your name and address.

John Pearlman, 498 North 498 Northeast A Street. So, John Unian is asking the right question and the question is where is this coming from? What is the source of the origination of this proposal? This is a representative of the city of Boca Raton, Peter Begoich, senior planner. Mr. Begoich, where where is this plan originating from? This this idea, this concept to transform residential dwellings that had an an an initial intention to provide commercial industrial commercial industrial is the key word here. What does commercial industrial mean? Housing for commercial industrial units. It means that it's in an area where there's not re there's not food, restaurants, there's not retail space. So the idea is that it's in in the middle of a a location that doesn't have amenities to the people living here living there and therefore these requirements are necessary to enable livability for those those residents. By passing this, you're you're you're turning this designation of commercial commercial industrial multif family housing into standard development into standard development, residential development. So what you're ultimately doing is you're enabling the ability of traditional developers of residential units to build anywhere without any any stipulation as to the classification of the original intention of this. And therefore they

can now build anywhere in the city with no restrictions as to their the the requirement to build a multi-use facility that includes retail and restaurants and amenities for those developments. So what is this ultimately doing? It's it's turning over the entire city to all developers. All clients of Miscll Bachmann who every single time it comes forward it's a 7 to zero vote and all clients of all the other lobbyists that come forward to this board board and are approved by a 7 to zero v vote and uh Mr. Shad tried to say that this is a difficult concept to work in the brain, but let me tell you in his brain and the brain of all of his employees, they've been working through it very consistently and very methodically for probably a long period of time at the behest of the person who facilitated this concept, which I would like to know who it is. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening, Mr. Chair, board. David Millage, 14 Southeast 4th Street. So, I I appreciate staff's uh review of the CIMD ordinance and seeing its shortfalls as it relates to how it's applied to the projects throughout the city. The the intent of the CIMD ordinance was to allow for residential units in otherwise commercial industrial zoning districts. As part of that, as Mr. Begovich and Mr. Shad had stated that there are certain criteria for CIMD ordinances, its land use, its zoning, also its location. Those two location criteria as of today is non-residential uses of which 10,000 square feet is retail or restaurant or service within a/4 mile. That's staying the same. The other criteria was a developer actually add those non-residential unit or non-residential uses on the property itself. And again, this is the purpose of of creating somewhat of a mixuse, whether it's within a quarter mile or actually on site. The the problem as the code was written was that if there wasn't non-residential unit uses within a quarter mile, the developer would add those uses to his own project. But the issue came to the retail or restaurant. Um, you would have your 2,000 square feet on site, but then the balance could, as Mr. Begovich stated, it could be the balance could be more

retail or restaurant, which would be a more vibrant uh, use, but the code amendment here um, really still accomplishes what's already written in the code. There's still going going to be 25,000 square feet of non-residential uses around the project or on the project. Um there's still going to be retailer restaurant either near the project or on on the project itself. Um, this just provides a developer the opportunity not to have to build 23,000 ft of more office when there could be a million square ft of office around it. So, this isn't creating, I would say, additional privileges or entitlements to any developers. the city and the community is still getting the same level of project with between 2,000 square feet of retailer restaurant up to 10,000 square feet of retailer restaurant. Um, and if this really was going to be a hybrid approach to what was existing today, it would probably be closer to 5,000 square feet of retail restaurant on the site. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on this? Mr. Shad, do you want to respond?

Yeah, I would. Um, so hearing uh Mr. Parlman and Mr. Punjen's comments, um, I, you know, I understand being a skeptic. Um, I understand thinking something's something's a miss. You know, I come from that perspective, too, on a lot of things. I get that. It's just not what's going on here at all. Um, we have two buckets that you can fall into. You can meet the requirement entirely off-site or you can meet the requirement a different requirement entirely on-site but you can't do a combination like just to put it in simple terms that wasn't our intent. When we wrote this when the council passed this ordinance in 2024 staff me supported it because this is what we're trying to accomplish. We're on the same page. We're trying to do the same things. Um but we were writing a lot of this during the meeting not you know having the opportunity to pour over it in great detail and the result was somebody asked us well we could do a combination right and I remember specifically saying I I'm 90% sure the answer is yes but we'll have to look at the code and just verify and when we did said wow actually you can't we need to fix that and that's what we're That's all. We're going to end up with more mixed uses. We're going to end up with more viable projects. So, I understand the skepticism. I really do. But it's just not what's going on here. And if anybody wants to sit down with me and we can walk through it and if I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. Happy to do it. But this is just a glitch. It's just a fix to a glitch. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. With that any there's no one else that wants to speak. So I will uh close the public hearing and uh ask for a motion in a second for the amendment to the ordinance item 7A. Move move to approve. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Yeah, just I know one of the comments were made that um well now nobody actually has to build it. they can just use anything offsite. The way I read it and everything that Mr. Shad just explained, we've already had that. It's already been that way for forever. You know, it's correct.

It's been that way for years and now we're just fixing it. So, if there's 25,000 ft of office next door, but no retail, they can build the 10,000 on site, use the 25 next door, and now we get 10,000 feet of retail on the site next door to 25,000 ft of office. If I could just jump in, I should have said that actually. Okay. The the ability to to use 25,000 total of off-site within a quarter mile, including 10,000 square feet of offsite uh retail restaurant. That's in the code. Now, this will allow you to put some of it on site, which is better

because I I mean, from what I see in a lot of these areas, there is tons of office, there's tons of industrial, there's no retail. Correct. So, They can use all of that retail. They can all use all of that, but now they're going to be forced to add 10,000 square feet of retail and restaurant and all of that. Essentially, either if there is nothing within a quarter mile, then they h then they can build that on their site to be able to use a CIMD. That's right. Okay. And if I can follow up on that, and if there is a lot of restaurant, a lot of retail, a lot of office all within a quarter mile, they still have to put 2,000 square feet of restaurant

under today's code. No. So they if that's the the the second criteria now, well the first criteria now if there's 25,000 square feet within a quarter mile and 10,000 square feet of is a retail and restaurant, they don't have to build any on site. Okay? But if there's 100,000 square feet of office on site, they only have to build 2,000 square feet of re retail or restaurant on site, right? But if there's no office on site, they have to build 25,000 square feet of something. 2,000 square feet of it has to be retail, restaurant. The rest can be an office building,

23,000 square feet. But now, okay. Sorry. And so in addition to being more likely to get those services onsite with the residential, which is again is better, it also is more likely to make smaller properties viable for uh CIMD development. Mr. Blazer, yeah. Can I just clarify real quick? You mentioned that it's they would only need to build 2,000 square ft of retail, restaurant, or whatever. From what I saw there, it's 10,000. It was 10,000 ft. Where's the 2,000 coming from? That's the existing code which I we could pull up again and look at it.

I So there's the two options. The offsite would be 25,000 10,000, right? And then the on-site and I got to remind myself is uh 5,000 the greater of 5,000 or 10% of the total square footage on site up and the the requirement caps at 25,000 and then of that 2,000 is retail restaurant. Got it. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Anyone else? So currently the way it's written, it's almost like a developer could use it as like a loophole to not put anything on site.

I don't know if you call it a loophole. I mean, that's the way the code was written. That's that was part of the intent. But, you know, again, if there's the the best example, there's tons of office around you. Why can't I build some retail on my site instead of being required to build a a ton of office on site when there's already a ton of office offsite plus a little bit of retail? Okay. It doesn't make sense. It'll help with the desert we have currently around here.

Yeah. Um and the smaller now will facilitate smaller and I saw on your your screen um more affordable housing as well be encouraged. Well, what it'll do is it will encourage more CIMDs because they're they're not having to build office buildings that they don't need on site or a 25,000 square foot all commercial, you know, retail and restaurant building. They build 10,000 10,000 on site. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, with that, please call the RO. Kathy, okay. Mitchell, yes. Morgan,

yes. McDermad, yes. Richie, yes. Sevel, yes. Salon, yes. Dornblazer, yes. Motion passes, seven votes to zero. Okay, thank you. Now, we're at the public request section. Does anybody from the public wish to speak on any issue? State your name and address. You have three minutes.

Jonathan Anian, 6501 Congress Avenue. Congratulations, guys. We're going to do keep these 7 1970 office buildings. You know, the ranchers like Amtech. We're going to promote great development in this city. We're going to put brand new residential right next to crap office. You guys do no service. The city does no service to to the tax base and to creating a more vibrant area. Ask any good businesses, where's the class A office in this city? You need to require it. You need to put some pain in the gifts that you handle and these developers. But you don't. You just rubber stamp approved. That's why this board is such a joke to show up to. But I can promise you this, I'm getting a big bigger and bigger following in this city because I always try and stand up for what's right. There's a big movement in this city to get the rubber stamp out of here. And I see a bunch of rubber stamps up here. So the reality of what you approved earlier, that 10,000 square foot that Mr. Danberg's doing that he did long before this that he did the right thing in his plan. The reality is now all other developers within a quarter mile of him are going to be able to use that. So let's get back to Bokora because he didn't let me finish as an adverse party and kind of shame on you. So Miss Zacharitas is wrong. that school is in front of you. Tell them why, Mr. Shad, in my public comment. It's because I pointed it out when she first tried to use the school as the complimentary use. I called your city manager. Your city manager said, "Absolutely not. That's

not a service." Okay. I went to a school similar to that. It was All-Star Academy at the time at the time. Okay. It's now American Heritage. I was a phenomenal tennis player in juniors as was this guy. Okay. The reality is is you still go to school. The fact that you all just approve a conditional use in the middle of a dilapitated office complex, which you look at that drawing with I counted 12 driveways within that. You're going to send your kid to walk out of there. Shame on you all. Shame on you all. that gym. You know how many traffic trips they have in PM Peak for that gym for the public? Four. Four. It was all about keeping trip counts down because Mr. Donaldson knew the problem that I pointed out with that intersection. Four. What gym can stay in business with four trips in the afternoon?

Okay. Wrap it up. None. Wrap it up, please. And you don't want a real gym there. You're a farce. All of you. John Pearlman, 498 Northeast 8th Street. There's a major flaw in this in this plan, this ordinance that was, you know, drafted by this senior planner and that your office has been working on tirelessly at the behest of this. Is this guy a lawyer? Who who is this guy?

Yeah. I So again, the lobbyists are you know, I don't know what's going on, but things are coming out in this city. As Mr. Anjin said the national eye is on Boca Raton right now and things things are being discovered here things that people don't want discovered and uh there's the major flaw is think of a ven diagram these developers now commercial industrial you're wiping the term out now it's just normal apartment development buildings of residential can wrap around a single a single facility a single retail space, a single office, and they no longer have to build the space. So, they can wrap around, you know, these developers like the, you know, crows that they are, they'll wrap around one one use, one space in the center of this ven diagram, and they're all going to feed on it. They're all going to feed on it and not be required to build the necessary non-residential space that was uh drafted in the agreement as per the original founders of the city because they they were on, you know, they were honest and they wanted a great city for this people of Boca Raton. They they had integrity integrity because they loved they loved the city of Boca Raton. They weren't in the pockets of anybody and they wanted they wanted to promote a great city for the people. But that's now the the language of everything that's being done here is being modified, twisted, rearranged. They they would be really disappointed to see what's going on here. So now these developers, they don't have to buy they don't have to build these non-residential spaces and they can all use one one non-residential space in the center of their ark. and not have to do anything. So, you might want to go back to the drawing board on that. Another point which is going to very negatively impact Mr. Onen's building is how are they going to build that during the

construction phase? All of these trucks, these bulldozers are going to be turning right onto that road because this development is tucked away in the back of the property. That's going to create an incredible hazard for his tenants as these large construction trucks cuz he's see he was just talking about normal vehicles. Imagine a a huge dump truck coming in, stopping short to turn down that little road. And this is a massive development. They're going to be having massive vehicles stopping right there. That photo that he showed, it's it's feet feet away from that turn. A massive dump truck is going to be coming down that road about to slowing down to make the the right turn. One of his tenants is going to come out. You're going to have some serious liability on your hands. It's it's a very scary thought. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, the portion of the meeting is concluded. Do we have a director's report?

Can I respond to that? I'm sorry. Can I respond to that? Okay. That at 7:40. Can I respond to the comments? I'm sorry. Um,

it sounds like we have the same goals, right? I either I'm misunderstanding the ordinance that we've written or they are. But we we want the same thing. So I I I'm not I I think it's them that is misreading it. I you know I've been over this many many times but they're saying the things they're saying are the goals that we have. So I'm not quite understanding that. Also with respect to construction. Yes, construction is inconvenient, especially in an urbanized area, but we it happens all the time and I don't know how you continue with the civilization if it doesn't happen.

Downtown is a perfect example. So, that's my response. Is that it? Mr. Salon, do you want to make a comment? Well, not about that. I would comment about something else. We're going to have a meeting. Our next meeting is a special meeting. No, it's not. It's it's the meeting after the next meeting. The meeting after that. Okay. Yeah. Uh are we going to be voting on something for the downtown? Do you know?

Uh there is a special meeting on September 24th that will have a number of items related to the um uh downtown campus master plan. Yes. So, so we'll be voting on items then for I believe they will all be recommendations to the city council. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Anything else? If not, at 7:44 we are adjourned. [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music]