Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

down. Everybody [music] Hey, hey, hey. [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music]

Hey. Hey. Hey. [music]

[music] [music] [music]

Data.

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

Hey. [music] Hey. Hey.

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

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

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

Heat. Hey, Heat.

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

November 6, 2025. It is 6 p.m. 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 which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Uh Kathy, please call the role. Chair Seville here. Vice Chair Salon here. Mr. Dorblazer here. Miss McDermott is absent. Mr. Mitchell here. Mr. Morgan here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Okay. Uh I don't think there's any amendments to the agenda this evening. Uh so we'll start with the minutes. The the regular meeting of August 21st, 2025. I'll look for a motion in a second. So motioned. Second. Any discussion? Okay. That all in favor? I I I. Okay. Next is the regular meeting of September 4th, 2025. Look for a motion and a second. So motioned. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? I Okay, thank you. Uh, next item is a quaza judicial related public hearing and I'll ask the city attorney to explain the procedure to everyone in the room.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Chris Fernandez, assistant city attorney. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval, relief, or other action from the planning and zoning board this evening shall disclose at the commencement or continuence of the public hearing any consideration or payment provided or committed directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested relief or action. Copy of the quasi judicial rules governing tonight's public hearing are attached to the agenda and are available from the city clerk.

Thank you. The first item is Martin Manor. Kathy, would you read this item into the record, please? Martin Manor conditional use a resolution of the city of Boca Raton considering for DM redevelopment to LTD a partnership between the Boca Raton Housing Authority and Atlantic Pacific Communities LLC for the approximately 10.04 04 acre property generally located at 1350 North Dixie Highway. An amendment to a conditional use approval city council resolution number 36,2024 pursuant to a universal conditional request to authorize an institution of an educational or philanthropic character in the multif family residential R5A zoning district providing for repealer providing an effective date.

Thank you. Uh, has anyone had any exparte communications? Mr. Morgan, I had a brief conversation with Ellie Zacharitas. Mr. Mitchell, I had a brief conversation with petitioner representative. Okay. I had a conversation with uh Ellie Zacharitus. And I had a Zoom meeting with Ellie Zacharitas. I had a Zoom meeting with Ellie as well. Okay. With that, I'll ask Jacob German to make his presentation. [clears throat]

Uh, good evening, chair and board members. Uh my name is Jacob German, planner two for the city and I'll be presenting the residences at Martin Manor project located at 1350 North Dixie Highway. Uh the applicant is requesting a universal conditional amendment to allow a second conditional use to authorize an institution of an educational or philanthropic character on the 10.04 04 acre property uh which is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dixie Highway and Glades Road adjacent to Hughes Park and Lincoln Court. Uh the property is zone R5A um multif family residential and has a future land use designation of RH or residential high. Uh the previously approved conditional use uh was for a nursery and after school program which will remain. Uh this application will add uh this conditional use to allow uh both the nursery and the museum to operate on the property. Uh on August 21st, 2025, the residences at Martin Manor phase 2 project came before the board for approval of a uh universal conditional amendment to amend the site plan uh which added two three-story buildings to the property. Uh the application was recommended approval in a vote of 6 to zero. Uh that application was scheduled for a public hearing at the September 9th, 2025 city council meeting for final action uh but was postponed at the request of the applicant due to the um applicant's desire to address questions and concerns raised in an email from uh developing interracial social change of Pearl City or DISC um regarding details about how uh this 1940s building would be used on the property. Um, in response to dis uh concerns, the applicant has proposed that the 1940s building become a museum devoted to the history of Dixie Manor. Uh, such facility uh in the property's R5A zoning district requires approval of a conditional use. Um, which the

official use is called institution of educational or philanthropic character. Um approximately 1,980 square feet of the 1940s building is proposed to be devoted to the museum's use. Uh the rest of the 1940s building would provide additional community center space for the residents. Um according to the applicant, the museum space would be devoted to the history of Dixie Manor with more uh specific exhibit spaces and material to be determined by the property owner. um while the museum space is closed um or not in operation. Uh this would not impact the uh impact or limit the resident's ability to utilize um the other spaces within the building. Um there are proposed modifications to this building as well um which would include raising the roof height, changing the roof pitch, adding clear stories, uh removing some doors and adding windows in the rear, and then demolishing some closet space that was added at a later date. Um during the analysis of this application, uh staff found that the proposed project meets the criteria for conditional use approval, is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies in the city's comprehensive plan, is compatible with the existing and plan development, and that the character of the district is suitable for the proposed use as it is located in a neighborhood with a rich history. Um, this project was heard at uh the CAB meeting on July 15th, 2025. It was formally recommended approval with conditions in a vote of 6 to zero. However, none of those uh conditions were relating to this 1940s building and the applicant has addressed those conditions as well with their um other application. Um, and then development services department recommends approval of the universal conditional amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for staff? Anyone?

Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Uh last the petitioner to come up and and make your lengthy part your lengthy uh very lengthy very lengthy presentation. Mr. Chair, I have not been sworn in. I'm sorry. As well as no one was sworn in. So, if anybody that's going to speak, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Everybody, please stand that will be giving testimony. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you may give during this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? I do. Thank you. Thank you for reminding us. We've been away too long.

I know. Um Ellie Zacharitas, 14 Southeast 4 Street. It's really quiet in here today. Um Jacob, thank you very much for your very thorough presentation. I do have a presentation. I will not give it unless you all desire to see it. Um, ultimately you have seen everything that Jacob presented to you last time we were here. Um, the only differential is that it's now going to be open to the public. And because the museum space is open to the public, that triggered that additional conditional use application. So that is what is before you this evening. Okay. With that, I'll be here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

It's a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter?

State your name and address for the record. Good evening, members of the planning and zoning board. Glenn Growin. My address is exempt under Florida statute 119. Uh I think this is a compatible use of fully supported. Uh the project is coming along very well. It looks good. hoping that the older building, the facade is uh is upgraded, which I'm sure it is going to be. So, I fully support the this uh this project and the compat compatibility aspects of it. Thank you. You got two minutes left.

I'll save that for the next speech. [laughter] Yeah, they don't acrewue, by the way. Yes. Okay. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Look for a motion in a second. Motion to approve. Second. So seconded. Okay. Any discussion? No. Anyway, Kathy, please call the role. Sibel, yes. Salon, yes. Dorblazer, yes. Mitchell, yes. Morgan, yes.

Motion passes. Five votes to zero. Okay. Thank you. Next item is a regular public hearing. It's regarding the Live Local Act 2024 and 2025 text amendment. Kathy, please read that item into the record.

Live local 2024 and 2025 text amendment. An ordinance of the city of Boca Raton amending chapter 28 zoning article 15 division 14 live local act of 2023 affordable housing sections 281637 281638 281639 and 281640 code of ordinances to align with chapter 2024 188 and 2025 172 laws of Florida with respect to maximum floor area ratio reductions to minimum parking requirements Limitations on minimum square footage of non-residential uses. Maximum building height adjacent to certain single family residential areas. Post expiration treatment of developments under the Live Local Act. Affordability requirements and enforcement. Exemptions for certain parcels near airport runways. Requiring affordable units to be rental and not owner occupied. Eliminating an appeal provision. Relocating standards for the determination of maximum density. and adding standards for maximum height and maximum floor area ratio providing for severability providing for repealer providing for cotification providing an effective date. Thank you. This will be presented by our city planning director Mr. Shad.

Good evening chair board members and shad development services director. So, we're talking tonight about um updates to our local ordinance that implements the live local act um based on some changes that have been made by the legislature in the last couple of years. So, u by way of background um in 2023 the Florida legislature um enacted the live local act um which preempts um lo all local jurisdictions in Florida um with respect to certain affordable housing developments. This is some of the major provisions um of the act as it was passed in 2023 um essentially allows um uh residential developments on in zoning districts where they're not otherwise allowed um commercial industrial mixeduse districts um with the caveats that at least 40% of the units must be affordable and affordable is defined in the statute for at least 30 years. Um, it allows a density that is the highest that's allowed in the jurisdiction. The height is the highest allowed within one mile. Um, there's a requirement for some jurisdictions like ours for these um, developments to be mixed use. Um, at least 65% of the floor area the legislation says has to be residential with no minimum given on the non-residential. Um this requires the act requires administrative approval uh meaning staff approval no public hearings for these um types of developments. Um required consideration of uh parking reductions for developments within a half a mile of a major transit stop. The term was not defined. Um and the applicable regulations aside from use density and height are those that are otherwise applicable to multif family residential um juris developments in the jurisdiction to implement this act. Um, on October

11th of 2023, the city council passed ordinance number 5653 um provides for in accordance with the statute administrative site plan review process um with an appeal provision to city council and we'll talk about that more in a second. Um the ordinance um applies the maximum floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district. So, for example, if it's in a RB1 district, um there's a maximum floor area ratio of.5. Um the minimum non-residential square footage that I was talking about a moment ago, since the act was silent on um what is enough to count as mixed use, the ordinance specifies 5,000 square feet or 10% of the total square footage of the development, whichever is greater. Um there are setbacks and additional setbacks established based on height. Essentially the taller the building the bigger the setbacks have to get. Um there are you know in again in accordance with the act potential parking reductions near major transit hubs. And a couple of things that again the act was silent on. One, um, our ordinance specifically requires that affordable and market rate units be um, equivalent and that there be proportionality between the types of units. Essentially meaning if 10% of the market rate units, for example, are two bedrooms, then approximately 10% of the affordable units also have to be two-bedroom. Um, with respect to the affordability commitment, the act is entirely silent on the um, the issue of enforcement. So, our ordinance specifically provides that the developer, the property owner will sign a restrictive covenant and lays out some processes for um the city to ensure that the the units are actually being rented at an affordable rate.

So, in the last two legislative sessions, the legislature has made some fairly significant uh revisions to the act. And so this ordinance is intended to bring um us in line our local ordinance with um what the state has changed. So I'm going to just briefly touch on those ones that impact us directly um without a lot of detail. We don't have a lot of choice. Again, we're preempted. We we must follow what the state has uh laid out. So if we want to talk about any more of these in detail, we can do so. So, uh, one change is clarifies that, um, commercial pods of PUDs are eligible, not just commercial industrial zoning districts, but also commercial pods of residential planned unit developments. Um, the act specifies now that we can't require more than 10% of building square footage of non-residential. So, that's that's a very minor change to our ordinance. This would be in the event that 5,000 square feet is more than 10%. um then we would not be able to enforce that. We'd have to limit it to 10%. So, we're making that clarification. Um the legislature has um specified that if we have a maximum F, it must be um 150% of the highest F allowed in the jurisdiction. So, we our highest allowed currently is 1.0. So, um any live local project could go up to 150% or a 1.5 F. Um there are certain mandated parking reductions. Um essentially I will try to explain those um just briefly. So the city must reduce minimum parking requirements by 15% for any of the following um scenarios. If the development is located within a quarter mile of a transit stop that's accessible

by uh accessible from the development. If the development is within a half a mile of a major transportation hub, this would be things like a train station. Um that's accessible by safe pedestrian-friendly means. Or three, if there is parking within 600 ft of the project that is available for use by residents of the proposed development. That could be on street parking. It could be a parking structure open to the public. Um all different, you know, not all different, several different scenarios that would be eligible. So again, in all of those cases, the city must reduce minimum parking by 15%. Additionally, uh the city must eliminate parking requirements, so no minimum parking requirements for a live local project that is within a transit oriented development. Um so as I mentioned before the original legislation said that um the maximum height of these projects would be the highest that's allowed within a mile of the site. Um there have been some changes that provide for um situations where these projects are abudding single family development. So where that is the case, the city now has the option to and this ordinance would um limit the height to the greatest of these three that I'm about to tell you. 150% of the tallest building on any property that's adjacent to the site. Two, the maximum but no but no more than 10 stories. The maximum height permitted in the underlying zoning district. So if the underlying zoning district has a um limit of 50 feet and that's the highest of these three that would then be the maximum height again if it's adjacent or sorry a budding single family or three stories that's the third three stories.

So it would be the greatest that's allowed of those three um projects must be treated as conforming even after the expiration of the live local act. the live local act um expires in uh 2033 if it's not extended. So even after that expires, a project built under this would be treated as a conforming use. Um legislation now provides that projects that violate the affordability requirement after they've been given a reasonable opportunity to cure that violation are to be treated as non-conforming uses. So non-conforming uses restrictions are things like you can't expand them. If there if it's destroyed by a natural disaster, it can't be rebuilt. Those sorts of things. Um and the legislation clarifies that affordable units must be rentals. So um it's theoretically possible to have one of these projects that has market rate um owner occupied, but the the affordable units must be rentals. um and clarifies that the requirements for administrative approvals also applies to quote any quasi judicial or administrative board overviewing body. Based on this language, um we have uh proposed to eliminate the appeal to city council that was previously in our ordinance. It now seems the legislaturator's intent is even more clear than it was before. Um and finally administrative consideration um also extends to the demolition of existing structures that are associated with live local projects. So if somebody comes in gets a live local approval need to demolish buildings um that demolition must be approved administratively as well. So we've addressed all of those in this ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Um and I would be happy to

answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Shad, Mr. Salon. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shad, just one thing I was just a little bit confused of on the market rate owner occupied, you know, units. How does why is there a rate if the owner occupies it? Sort of like, you know, he owns the I'm not sure I understand the question. So, you say they have to be rental units. They cannot be owner occupied at the market rate. I'm just It sounds like those are rentals also. So, it's confusing.

Okay. So, if a live local project was built, 40% of the units at least must be affordable and meet those affordability requirements. So, that leaves 60% that could be market rate. So those market rate units theoretically could be owner occupied units, but the 40% that are required to be affordable must be rentals. So yeah, it's the market rate owner occupied. I mean, you it's either like a condo or an apartment or is it some corporate owner?

Excuse me. Isn't affordable mean based on income, not on what the building may be worth? Um, it does, but but to be clear, so so almost any situation, a building is either going to be owner occupied or rental, not a mix, but theoretically it could be. So, but what the legislation is clarifying is that those 40% that are uh affordable, meet the affordability requirements, must be rentals. So the rest of them can be too or in some unusual situation the developer may choose to make those market rate units condos. Okay. Okay. Thank you Mr. Shad.

Sure. Okay. Anything else? Mr. Mr. Doriser. No questions. Mr. Mitchell. No questions. Mr. Morgan. No questions. Okay.

Chair has no questions. They've all been answered. It's a public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak on this item? uh Glenn Groman uh address exempt under Florida statute uh 119. Um I think it's important to note for the residents of the city and the folks at home to understand that um each year the legislature takes the opportunity to change and amend state statutes wherein the cities of course have to uh reflect that in their ordinance. So this is the requirement but um this is a state statute state legislature enacted requirement. It's not something that the city's doing and a lot of people don't understand that. Um that that we have to do unfortunately sometimes what the state legislator forces us to do. That's my only comment. I support the the the uh the the the ordinance because we we have to the state has you know we have to uh approve it in order to tie with the state statutes. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion and a second to recommend to the city council amendment ordinance 7A.

So motioned. Second. Any discussion? Kathy, please call the role. Morgan, yes. Mitchell, yes. Dorblazer, yes. Salon, yes. Sevel, yes. Motion passes. Five votes to zero. Okay. Thank you. Uh are there any public requests this evening? Anybody from the public wishing to speak on any particular topic? Okay, seeing none, public request portion is closed. Uh next item for the board is the calendar for 2026. Okay, everybody have a copy of that?

Sure. [laughter] Okay. Okay. Anyway, uh I would suggest the calendar as given to us except for July 2nd, August 6th should be cancelled because we usually have only one meeting in the summer and December 17th because it is too close to Christmas. Do we have agreement on that? List the dates again if you would. The canceled dates. Cancelled dates would be July 2nd, August 6th, and December 17th. Any disc everybody in agreement with that? of a voice vote. All in favor of the revised calendar say I. I.

Thank you. Okay. Got that taken care of. Okay. Anybody have any reports? Mr. Shad, anything else? I have no report.

Okay, then at 6:26 we are adjourned. Now, it is uh barring some calamity. This will be my last meeting on the planning and zoning board, and I'm grateful for the city council to give me this honor to serve the city like this. I'm certainly enjoyed working with my colleagues. Um, Brandon, I can't say enough good things about you and the staff. You know, week after week and year after year, you've been providing us summaries which have always been professionally um, prepared and, you know, thoughtfully given to us and I appreciate that and I just want you to know that I hold you and your team in the highest regard. So, that concludes those remarks.

Okay. We're going to miss you, Mr. Salon. one we will miss all of your input has been invaluable I will say that indeed thank you very much okay then we are rejourned at 6:27