Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

this is the planning and zoning meeting of the city of boca raton it is july 16 2026 it is 6 p.m 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 i don't think we have any amendments to the agenda this evening next item would be the regular the minutes of the regular meeting of april 16th chair could we do roll call please oh sorry okay it's been a while it's been a while we know who we are chair savelle here mr vice chair dorm blazer here mr mitchell president mr camejo here

Mr. Matthews is absent. Mr. Mirably is absent. And Mr. Morgan is absent. You have a quorum.

OK. Now we'll get to the minutes of April 16. Do we have a motion and a second for discussion?

Make a motion to approve. So seconded.

any comments corrections no if not all in favor say aye aye anybody that doesn't want to who no one we're good okay next we have quasi-judicial and related public hearings and i asked the city attorney to explain the procedure

Evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Chris Fernandez, senior assistant city attorney. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval, relief, or other action from the board this evening 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.

Thank you. Will everyone who is going to speak on any topic tonight please rise and be sworn in?

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you may give during this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Thank you.

Thank you all. First item is 1000 Federal Highway. I would ask the clerk to read that into the record. Thank you.

1,000 federal investments phase two. A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton considering for an approximately 2.527 acre property, generally located at 1,000 North Federal Highway, an amendment to an approved site plan amending minor site plan amendment order number SPA 8434R3A, currently improved with an existing 9,652 square foot commercial bank building, to authorize the construction of an approximately 10,000 square foot one-story commercial building of which 8,000 square feet is designated for a furniture showroom and 2,000 square feet of retail space and other site related improvements including the removal of an existing driveway connection to North Federal Highway widening the existing sidewalk fronting North Federal Highway and to provide additional landscaping providing for repealer providing an effective date

Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to Owen Devlin, who's going to present for us.

Good evening, Chair and board members. My name is Owen Devlin, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Mr. Owen, before you start, any ex parte communications on this?

I spoke to the Petitioner's Council.

I did as well. Okay. I did as well. And visited the site. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

I'm here tonight to present an application for a site plan amendment for the property located at 1000 North Federal Highway. Towson Federal Limited LLC, the applicant is the owner of the property generally located at a Towson North Federal Highway and seeking site plan approval to authorize the construction of a new approximately 10,000 square foot one story commercial building of which 8,000 square feet will be furniture showroom and 2,000 square feet of general retail. The applicant proposed removing existing egress only driveway on North Federal Highway and also redesigning the site to accommodate the new building. The proposed site plan is on screen. It encompasses approximately 2.5 acres. The grey building to the north is the existing bank that will remain. The orange building to the south represents the proposed 10,000 square foot structure. The proposed application includes the reconfiguration of the service parking area and the internal vehicular circulation to accommodate the proposed building. the provision of additional parking spaces to meet code requirements, and the removal of the existing egress-only driveway along North Federal Highway. The laser is not working, but it's pretty much to the north of the frontage on South Federal Highway. The applicant is also proposing the addition of a new loading area to support the proposed commercial use. And the applicant also includes enhancements to the landscaping throughout the site, including the reconfiguration of landscape islands, streetscape enhancements, such as widening the sidewalk along North Federal Highway, a pedestrian plaza, which will be just outside the new proposed building, and bicycle park facilities along the frontage on North Federal Highway. Displayed on the screen is a rendering of the proposed building on the top, along with the elevation facing Federal Highway on the bottom, which includes the existing bank building, which has recently been remodeled for comparison. The project complies with the B4 general business zoning district and meets all relevant code requirements, enhance functionality on the property by removing the existing driveway on our fellow highway and redesigning the drive aisles. The project improves the pedestrian environment by widening the sidewalk and reducing a conflict point for pedestrians on North Federal Highway by removing the driveway. The furniture showroom and retail use are compatible with nearby properties along the North Federal Highway corridor. It also supports the comprehensive plans and goals for infill, redevelopment, corridor enhancements, pedestrian connectivity, and motor mobility. The application was presented to the Community Appearance Board on April 7th, 2026. After discussion between the applicant and the CAB regarding the floor plan design and the measurements shown on the plan, the Community Appearance Board made a motion to postpone the item to a later date to allow the applicant to update their plans to better display the dimensions. The applicant revised the proposed plans and presented the updated plans to the Community Appearance Board on April 21st and the Community Appearance Board recommended approval of the application as submitted with a vote of 4-0. Staff have reviewed the application and find that the proposed site plan amendment meets all applicable criteria and is consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the bocratone comprehensive plan that concludes my presentation and if you have any questions for staff i'm happy to answer thank you so normally sir no questions i do um looking at the site plan um just seems like there's a lot of asphalt

and a lot of parking considering that the proposed building is going to be a furniture showroom that is probably one of the lowest parking requirements in the code.

Yeah, so the building itself was parked as a furniture showroom, which, as mentioned, has a different parking requirement than traditional retail. And then the 2,000 square foot was parked as traditional retail. I don't know the exact numbers. I can check now. But they're pretty close on parking. I think they have excess of two or three parking spaces. So, pardon? So you are parking it at 1 to 500 for the furniture showroom? We are parking at whatever the code provision is. Yeah, I can check now for the exact number.

And just the driveway width, I was on the site today. I said you could drive at 35 miles an hour around that property and you wouldn't have to slow down.

Yeah, so the design of the site is changing from what's existing. With the removal of the driveway also on Federal, it makes it an easier site to navigate, which might not address your speed concern.

What are the driveway widths on the property? Are they 12 or...

I presume that they're 24. The applicant might have .

Honestly, I think that that is so wide. That's as wide as lanes on I-95. That is so excessive for a city that prides itself in pedestrian safety and all these goals that we are trying to accomplish to slow traffic and create pedestrian safety. Providing 12 foot lanes inside a parking lot is totally counter to that, in my opinion.

To answer the first question, there's 81 parking spaces required and they're providing 90.

So they have nine spaces beyond what they need. I mean, that's a significant increase. Is the issue that if the furniture showroom goes away, they want to make sure that whatever it's replaced with would have enough parking?

So the way the resolution is written is pretty much restricting the parking and trips based on the two uses, 8,000 square feet of retail of showroom and 2,000 square feet of retail. So we did it address that concern. So if they did want to make them changes, they'd have to come back into the city So but in the meantime the furniture showroom has nine extra parking spaces The whole site has nine extra parking spaces. So the bank the furniture room and retail There's no assigned parking. So Well, you know, whatever way you want to split these days the the bank

which at one time was parked almost the same as retail. Banks are just not generating the kind of activity that they once did. So the bank and the furniture are not gonna draw huge numbers at peak hour or throughout the day unless they land a Chick-fil-A in the retail or something. I just don't see this site coming even close to the number of parking spaces that are on there and and again the driveway width that that we're providing and i'm assuming the parking stalls are probably 10 feet wide i think they're 9 by 18. oh they are 9 by 18 okay that's good um anyway that's that's my opinion I just I just think that we should practice what we preach and we preach a lot about pedestrian safety and to approve something like this without considering you know what we're creating is I I don't think uh smart for the future of our city

A little bit about the drive aisle widths. So drive aisle widths being too wide and asking them to decrease them is a typical thing that we do talk about during development review. There's often resistance to it because, you know, Cars have gotten a lot bigger. So when people want to back out of 90 degree spaces, they want to make sure that they have enough room to do that and not be constrained. That's the pushback we often get. Obviously, as you probably are aware, we don't have a maximum drive out within the code.

Anyway, that's my thought. I just get frustrated when we wonder why people are speeding. And the reason they're speeding is because we're designing for speed. It is a little more difficult to back into an error lane, but you're not going to do it fast. You're going to do that slowly. And you're less likely to hit a pedestrian as a result.

Anything else? I have two questions. Because of the increase in would would this had been administrative if there wasn't more than a 10% increase in parking spaces?

Yes. So based on the other criteria.

That's what this whole thing is about, the parking spaces.

Yeah. So yeah, obviously the site was parked for just the bank.

We should probably amend the code to say that if there's more spaces that we don't have to worry about it. The other point, the practitioner brought this up to me, they're being charged a beautification fee for the entire site, all the street sides. This site has been in existence for a long time. They paid a small fee years ago when they built the bank building. So why are we charging them for the whole site again?

So the property is one property under one ownership. They did pay a fee when the original bank or an addition to the bank was brought in in the 80s, which was $1,000. We calculated the project on $70 of every foot of frontage. which for this property, I think it's 610 feet of frontage. They did come in for two administrative amendments in last year. There was no fees associated with them. So what we did is we calculated the price and then took off the thousand dollars that they paid back in 85.

which obviously was probably more money back in 85, $1,000 was probably more significant than what it is now, but that was our... My point is, why are they paying for the entire site again, irrespective of the credit?

They're paying for the site because it's one site. I saw in the applicant's presentation who I think is going to talk about it more. She wanted to maybe split the site in two. We base it on the frontage of South Federal Highway and Northeast 11th. Technically, it's not a street to the south of the site, but that was our calculation. That's normally what we do. I don't know if Brandon has any more to add.

This is another issue for the to-do list. Okay. Is there one place that you seem to want to say something?

Yeah, I have a question. Since this site is over parked by nine spaces, we're always a big fan of green space. I mean, is that something we can discuss with the applicant to not put in those nine extra spaces and grass or something better than asphalt?

It is within the board's power to grant a modified approval. If you would like to do that and condition to remove nine spaces, you could do that. I would suggest hearing from the applicant before discussing it.

Thank you. We could put in turf block or something on those spaces and just making something better than black asphalt.

Agree. Wasteland.

That is an amendment.

okay with that i will ask the petitioner to come up good evening good evening ellie zacharitis mystical backman on behalf of the applicant um you guys really took my thunder away from me this evening so i'll start with mr camejo I couldn't agree with you more. You are preaching to the choir. However, the code is the code. I would completely be in support of revising the code to reduce driveway widths. But as you know, the code's minimum driveway width is 24 feet. If we go anything less than that, that is a technical deviation, and that is now an ask. of relief from the code that we are asking of all of you i again wholeheartedly would support that and agree with you and perhaps that's something you can direct staff to review and analyze and in fact revise the code to reduce the driveway wiz um can i ask a quick question on on that yeah is that something that is in our own manual or is that actually in the code of the city of belarus so it's in the edsm the engineering design standards manual which i believe was just recently updated i do not believe that they went ahead and reduced driveway west

So that's a staff-driven document, not a policy document of the city council, for example.

It is not a policy document. It is not part and parcel of the code, but we still have to abide by it.

right right so I mean we we control that we do she's not like you know being dictated from you know at the top of the mountain so to speak okay but any revisions to the edsm would require a variation or a technical deviation And I don't want to put you guys into a tailspin since you're doing what the city is telling you to do. Right. But I bring that up solely because I think that's something that we could come up with some rational approach to those standards that might make more sense.

Let's hold our questions.

I have a very short presentation. Chair Seville, with regard to the parking, I want to make it very clear, the increase, it's not nine spaces, it's actually an increase of eight spaces above code. it the 10 rule that has brought me before you all today in lieu of having this approved administratively is not because of those aid spaces the bank when we the bank was approved had about 50 and change spaces let's call it 53 or 54 i believe and we're now by code required to have 84 82 or 84. so that differential is more than 10 it is not because we have eight additional parking spaces i just want to make that very clear all right owen thank you very much for your thorough presentation i have a very thorough presentation but i'll skip it unless you all want to see it in lieu of that presentation i'd rather just talk about a couple of issues that i'm hoping to get some guidance from the four of you so the Voluntary Median Beautification Fund and thank you Chair Seville for bringing that up so it is not in the code it is voluntary and I in my tenure have never once asked that we not pay it never once have I stood before you and asked for relief but in this particular case and I'm not asking for it to be removed I'm asking for it to be reduced and the reason being is they are calculating the linear frontage all along federal highway all along federal highway this entire linear frontage end on 11th okay as as owen said the south side is not technically a street so they did not count that there is already a building there when that building got approvals in the 80s we had this voluntary median beautification fund i don't know if it was less than less per linear feet then or whether they negotiated a different price, I don't know. But they paid what was code required, not code required, what was requested of them at the time, which was $1,000. That building is there and is still there. What we're proposing that what I'll call the affected area is everything south or on the bottom of this red line. So what we would request respectfully is to pay for this amount of linear frontage on Federal Highway, whatever that number is. That is our request. That's it. okay and then my other request similar to Mr. Camejo's position is we do need to reevaluate our code we are still very suburban and it's not just as it relates to parking per se but driveway widths and things of that nature all together do not create a nice urban area so with this With these changes to the code that hopefully will be made at some point, I would request that we analyze the minor site plan approval process criteria. I've highlighted the section. We meet A through E with the exception of B. And the reason we don't meet B is for what we were just discussing. We increased parking because we put a 10,000 square foot building that previously didn't exist on this site, or we're proposing a 10,000 square foot building. So clearly we're gonna increase parking. paragraph a allows you to build 50 000 square feet through the minor administrative site plan process how can you possibly build 50 000 square feet without increasing parking by 10 percent So you have this code that you can't hardly ever utilize because of this 10% parking. So what I would recommend is the Planning and Zoning Board request staff to evaluate this section of the code and change it. I just made a minor change. Everything in bold and underlined is the change. So on the bottom is the code as it reads today. And what I would propose is the top where you just take out the 10%. Just take it out. If you increase or decrease parking so long as you're meeting code required parking, you're fine. And that's it. Any questions?

Question from Mr. Shad. What's your thought on this we just presented regarding the parking?

So I don't think your mic was on, so I'm going to repeat the question. You were just asking me what my thought was about the provision of the code about the parking. Yes. So a little bit of context. Before the minor site plan amendment process was passed in 2021 or 2022, I think it was, there was no such thing as a minor site plan, an administrative site plan in the city. It doesn't strike me as true that this is preventing that from ever happening because we do process quite a few of them overall. So that's context. I've said on the microphone many times that I will take as much administrative authority as the city council feels like granting. I'm not against that. But I think these thresholds have to do with what the city council feels is how much of a change in a site is appropriate for staff to act on versus it coming in front of a board and being in an open public hearing. So that's the answer.

Any questions for the petition? Mr. Mitchell?

No question.

Mr. Kamau? Mr. Hornblaser?

Yes. What are your thoughts on removing the eight additional spaces or changing them from asphalt to turf block or something other than black asphalt wasteland?

Sure. I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing that up because I forgot about that part. Sorry. Now I have to go through all my plans. Okay. So I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Devlin that any expansion let me back up we did provide some additional parking to have some cushion let's call it so for example we don't have the end user right now solidified we may it may come that a furniture store comes and wants all 10 000 square feet in which case we have even more than eight excess parking spaces it may be that we have a furniture showroom come in that wants six thousand square feet and we need to expand our retail from two thousand to four thousand so we did want to have a little bit of a buffer and a little bit of flexibility i do not necessarily agree that if we were to expand it's a permitted use and we have parking i'm i i don't know that we'd have to come back but i guess i'd have to look at the code and confirm that but that is the reason why we provided ourselves a little bit of buffer okay

Anything else? Okay, this is a public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Do you have any cards? Kathy?

Yes, Dean Pol.

I'm not here for this.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion and a second for discussion.

Motion for discussion? Second.

OK. So I don't think it's fair to charge them for the entire site for the beautification.

I don't think it's fair either, but I don't know how we're going to calculate it because I think we have to be fair to everybody. The way it's done right now, though I think has unfair results at times, is an easy, fair way to describe it. As an attorney, you try to think, okay, how can good facts make bad law or bad facts make good law? In this case, if you make the change here, there'll be other people that say, well, you did it for her. Why don't you do it for me? And in that case, it may not be something we want to do. We have a clear cut rule. It follows the frontage of the property. It makes sense. It is voluntary. And my understanding is voluntary means you don't have to do it. Maybe I misunderstand what voluntary means, but I would not necessarily agree that we need to change it or we change it for everybody. Because I don't know how you enforce it with a red line across and it gets a bit iffy in my opinion. Though I do believe the outcome is unfair today.

Mr. Kamau? Well, like you, Mr. Chairman, having worked with the original creator of this opportunity. Yes, may he rest in peace. Over the years, there were many instances where slight modifications to the policy were made. I think what Ms. Zacharias is proposing I think is reasonable. I think you can discern on the site plan the frontage of the proposed building which is approximately a third of the area that is the total frontage of the site. I just, I can't disagree that it is unfair to calculate the frontage on the entire property given that there's only one building being added and the technical frontage of that building fronting on Federal Highway is approximately a third of that total area. And given that it's voluntary, If I were Ms. Zacharias, I'd write a check voluntarily for a third of the property, or a third of the frontage. I think that's reasonable.

I think, let's see, the city attorney needs to listen to this one. I think we could add an amendment that says that the voluntary contribution will be recalculated when somebody can actually measure this and figure out exactly what it is.

It would be much simpler to just add a number and much more clear-cut. I would hate for there to be a disagreement after the fact about how it's calculated. I assume the applicant wouldn't want that either. So much better if we came up with a number that the applicant would live with, I guess.

Then I'll propose that it gets reduced to 14,000. What does everybody think?

I think that's reasonable. And I'd like to apologize to Robert Haggerty, may he rest in peace, because what he started many, many years ago is really the reason why Medians throughout Boca Raton look the way they do. So he started that.

Thank you, Robert.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I was at some of those meetings. I'm okay with, yeah. I mean, cut it down, cut it down by two thirds to 14,000.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. So I'll need it. Do we need to have a separate amendment for this, Chris, or do we just

You've already made a motion to approve, so the maker of the motion could always amend to Mr. Mitchell.

Before we amend it, let's see if there's any other amendments. Anything else? Not for me. Then look for the motion to be amended to reduce the beautification fee to $14,000.

The voluntary beautification fee to $14,000.

Mr. Mitchell.

Do you want to call the roll on that, Kathy?

That was the amendment of the motion. Mr. Mitchell's motion is what I was asking.

Yes, it's my motion. So I would agree, I amend my motion to the 14,000 for the beautification voluntary fee. Second.

Okay, you can call the roll.

Savelle?

Yes.

Dornblazer?

Yes.

Mitchell?

Yes.

Kamehameha?

Yes.

Motion passes. Four votes to zero.

And I'd like to thank Ms. Zachary for her volunteer spirit.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Do you have that money with you tonight? OK. OK. All right. Next item is a variance item. It's 900 Lagomar Lane. Kathy, would you please read that into the record?

900 Lagomar wall variance a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton considering for the approximately 0.35 acre property generally located at 900 Lagomar Lane a variance from section 28 1356 a 1i code of ordinances to allow a fence with a height of up to 10.3 feet along the northern property line in lieu of the maximum allowed height of six feet

Okay, that's it. Any ex parte communications on that? Mitchell?

None.

I spoke with Bonnie Miskell and I drove the site and had great difficulty leaving the site.

Yeah, the three-point turn was almost impossible.

Yeah, right. I had to back out a whole block. With that, I'll turn it over to Tori. Tori Boone?

Good evening, Chair Savelle and members of Planning and Zoning Board. For the record, Tori Boone, Zoning Manager. I'll be presenting the variance this evening. The property is located on the barrier island along the intercoastal at 900 Lago Mar Lane. Some history is in 1965, a preliminary land plot for Lagomare Shores was granted by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, which included development parameters for the main building use. In 2014, variances for Finger Pier were approved by the former Builders Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In 2016, a construction of a three-story residential building with three units was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. In 2022, the building permit was issued for that condominium building. And in 2025, a building permit was issued for fences along the perimeter of the property. The variance that the applicant is requesting is from Section 28-1356A1I, Code of Ordinances to allow a fence with a height of up to 10.3 feet along the northern property line in lieu of the maximum allowed height of six feet. The fence is required to be measured from the lowest adjacent grade per the fence code. So the elevations varying along the property lines requires the relief of up to four feet and three inches. The maximum building, maximum fence height is six feet. The elevation disparity between the property and the adjacent northern lot is a pre-existing condition and not attributable to the applicant's actions. The property's existing higher elevation complies with FEMA flood zone risk mitigation requirements and the retaining wall was already in place before the condominium building was developed. Only miter grade adjustments were made during construction. The code requires measurements from the lowest adjacent grade resulting in a taller fence height when measured from the adjacent lot creating a compliance issue. Strict application of the code would limit the fence height to a level that the Florida building code considers a fall hazard. A compliant guard of at least 42 inches is required when walking surface or similar area has a grade change of at least 30 inches. The property has a grade change of up to four feet and three inches. The requested variance will allow a 10.3 foot high fence as measured from the adjacent lots grade or a six foot high fence as measured from the property's finished grade. The photos show on the left the property view and the adjacent property view on the right. The variance meets all requirements for approval and does not conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies in the comprehensive plan related to land use, health, and safety, or the welfare of the adjacent surrounding neighborhood. the surrounding properties did also provide letters of support to the north and to the east and Therefore development services recommends approval.

Thank you

Real quick, it's important to note that there is a condition of approval. The fence height shall be measured from the existing grade of the adjacent property to the north based on the elevation survey that was provided. That way, if the property to the north does get redeveloped and the grade does go up or does get raised, that doesn't mean that they can now raise the height of their fence.

Right. But the fence I get my presentation for yes, we become conforming Okay, thank you questions for staff Mr. Mitchell none. Mr. Camille none. Mr. Dorn but none chair has no questions With that I'll ask the petitioner to come up and Make their presentation

Good evening, Chair, Board, David Millich for the record here on behalf of the applicant. I do not have a presentation, but this is a great opportunity for the board to approve a variance that desperately is needed. It meets all the requirements. You know, what's unique about the property is the elevation changes between the intercoastal and as you go up the dune. this again is appropriate the if anything this could potentially be just a temporary variance as Ms. Boone had mentioned whenever that property to the north redevelops it's going to have to meet its own elevation requirements meeting floodplain certificate requirements and that's kind of why we're here today is because with the increase of fill for the original construction of the building the elevation came up created this unfortunate differential between the elevation to the north and this really kind of just captures that so we're seeking the approval of the board happy to answer any other questions And I want to thank Tori for her good staff report. I think that really laid it out, all the requirements and the difficulties we have here and how the variance really is needed, not only because it's practical for this property, but also it's a requirement that would meet the Florida building code as it relates to I forgot the term of art, but essentially the drop off to the neighboring property. So thank you.

Thank you. Questions for Mr. Millard? Seeing none, anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Dean Pohl and I reside at 955 Logo Amar. I received the papers and I came down here. I'm new to Boca Raton and enjoying my time here and I want to get more involved. I speak on behalf of the Logomar HOA, and we are all in support of this. It does not adversely affect any of us. It's down there. These people spent a lot of money building this building down there. It's in good taste, and I think they deserve it.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. With that, I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion and a second to approve.

Motion to approve. So seconded.

Any discussion? Seeing none, Kathy, please call the roll.

Dornblazer?

Yes.

Mitchell?

Yes.

Camejo? Yes. Savelle?

Yes.

Motion passes, four votes to zero.

Next variance is 1150 Innovation Center. Kathy, will you please read that into the record?

1150 Innovation Center. A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton considering for the approximately 11.68 acre property generally located at 1150 Northwest Brokensound Parkway, a variance from section 28-980 code of ordinances To reduce the minimum street yard depth setback along Northwest Broken Sound Boulevard from 100 feet to 70 feet, 9 inches. A reduction of 29 feet, 3 inches for the two two-story office light industrial buildings totaling approximately 71,624 square feet in the Light Industrial Research Park Zoning District. Providing for repealer, providing an effective date.

Thank you. Any expertise on this one? Mr. Mitchell?

None.

Mr. Camillo?

None.

Mr. Dorn? None. Seems I'm the only one talking to anybody this week.

I spoke with Bonnie Miskell about this.

With that, I'll turn it over to Jacob Gurman.

Good evening, chair and board members. My name is Jacob Gurman, senior planner for the city, and I'll be presenting the 1150 Innovation Center Variance Project. So on April 16th, 2026, this project came before you guys where you recommended approval of an amendment to an approved site plan that included an active approval for a CIMD to replace a previously approved office building with two two-story office light industrial buildings totaling approximately 71,624 square feet. And it included a conditional use technical deviation of variance application as well. for an update no components have changed with this project which you previously recommended approval of however today the reduced setback variance component is returning for final action which would reduce the minimum street yard setback requirements along northwest brokensound boulevard from 100 feet to 70 feet 9 inches Although the overall project includes the other components pursuant to section 28 127 Code of Ordinances, a street yard setback variance is a distinct request that the City Code authorizes you, the Planning and Zoning Board, to act upon. And as such, you have the jurisdiction to consider and take final action on variance requests of this nature. The remaining components of the application will continue to proceed to the City Council for final consideration. As a result, your review at this stage will be limited to the reduced setback variance only, while the balance of the application will move forward to City Council following your action. Just to recap, during the development review process, staff strongly recommended that the applicant shift the office light industrial buildings closer to Northwest Broken Sound Boulevard to the east of the multifamily residential building, which provides approximately 142 feet of separation between the uses for the southern building and approximately 162 feet of separation between the uses for the northern building. As a result of shifting the office light industrial buildings, the buildings encroach within the required street yard setback along Northwest Broken Sound Boulevard, which in turn require the applicant to request a variance to reduce such setback. Now, this reallocates a portion of the required landscape buffer from between the office light industrial buildings and Northwest Broken Sound Boulevard to be between the office light industrial buildings and the multifamily residential building. The applicant has provided additional landscaping and buffer screening between the two distinct uses which includes a combination of live oaks, bridal veils, other shade trees, palms, ground cover, and shrubs. Staff recommends approval of the application for the following reasons. Granting the variance is appropriate given the unique and special conditions specific to commercial industrial multifamily residential developments. This application represents the minimum deviation necessary to achieve the applicant's functional objectives without creating adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm. The proposed reduction in street yard setback is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan, and the variance will allow the applicant to bring the buildings closer to the street, provide additional landscaping and buffer between the two uses on the property, and reduce the amount of paving on the property. To recap, the project was heard at CAB on January 6, 2026, and was recommended approval and a vote of six to zero. Last one, you guys heard it on April 16th, 2026. You guys also recommended approval and a vote of seven to zero. Development Service Department continues to recommend approval of the variance subject to the conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions for staff?

It's not for me.

I just want to say, I'm not going to bring up the parking stall width on this one, primarily because it is more suburban and out in the APOC, you expect to have room for trucks, et cetera. But along the US one, corridor where we talked about earlier, you do expect that to be more urban and more pedestrian oriented. So I don't have an issue with this.

Thank you. Applications. Okay. Petitioner would like to make this presentation.

Good evening again. David Millage here on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, board. Thank you, Jacob. Thank you, Jacob. Thank you, Mr. Shad. Yeah, so this is an ALERP. It's an overall project with multiple components relating to residential and the proposed office and industrial building. It's in the middle of the Parks of Broken Sound off the old Broken Sound golf course. This is just a colored site plan. The previously approved residential buildings on the west side of the property and the new two 35,000 square foot office industrial buildings are on the eastern portion as shown in red. So while we're here tonight, it's really this variance. So with this variance, what we're really doing is we're providing additional green space between the residents and the non-residential component of the project. We actually are now this green buffer before we go across this driveway into the residential component now it's 35 to 40 feet in width of nice lush green buffer that really provides privacy for the residents it it provides this additional pedestrian comfort for those walking the sidewalks And really it's a smart use of the land, especially in this area of the city. It is a reduction of the street yard setback from 100 down to approximately 70 feet. And we look forward to your support on this application. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Millage?

None for me.

Okay. This is a public hearing. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion and a second to approve 6B.

So motioned. Second.

Any discussion? Kathy, please call the roll.

Mitchell?

Yes.

Camejo? Yes. Savelle?

Yes.

Thornblazer? Yes. Motion passes, four votes to zero.

Thank you. With that, any public requests? Is anybody from the public wishing to speak on any particular item? Seeing none, we'll close that public request section. Do we have a director's report this evening? No report. OK. We have a board member that wants to discuss something. Mr. Cameo?

Thank you for allowing me to do this. And I hope I don't take up too much time. The last thing I'd want to do is keep us here later than normal. But there's a few things. And today, as I was looking at the 1100 North Federal Highway site, I made it a point to drive through the neighborhood east of Weisner Park. And it is alarming. I mean, what is happening in that neighborhood. They all, the homes that are being built make the bank building fronting on Federal look humble. Right. It is really something. And Brandon and I before, you know, I came to the board, we had talked about what had been an interpretation of the residential building height that could potentially create a scenario where you would have three-story buildings in residential neighborhoods. Now, in speaking with Brandon, he informs me that the current city council has already kind of put a kibosh on that and directed staff to clarify that in single-family residential neighborhoods, habitable area shall be only two stories. but if you think about it every single building that is built say within the last 10 years in that neighborhood would have been three stories so thank god that we didn't interpret the code you know too soon on that on that particular point they would be restricted by the 35-foot height limit Correct, but the issue is that you're now, and I was only able to see about one or two east of Meisner Park that are built with habitable space in a three-story configuration. But I'm thankful that apparently that issue has already been discussed with the current city council.

Most of the townhouses that have been built in recent years have been three stories.

right well and now townhouses will typically fall into something other than a an r1 uh you know residential uh zoning area but i i just want to clarify and and thank brandon for moving forward on that clarification because again i i just feel like every single neighborhood that has made booker its own what Boca Raton is today is disappearing quickly and and you know humble single-family homes are being replaced with these boxes that are frankly very cold and and I don't know I don't find them very appealing quite honestly I hope I hope I'm not uh that's the shaming anybody that's a stark architecture I agree with it right right everybody has changed to the

to modern and gotten away from the Meisner-esque and those warmer colors and all of that. It's now all gray and white and just cold.

I also wanted to point out I think an issue that we have with planting in the swale again primarily in single-family neighborhoods. I think we should encourage residents to plant appropriate trees in the swale. where they have opportunity to do that. Now you don't have to look very far to see that a lot of residents the individual that I bought my house from in particular like coconut palms and so there are five coconut palms in in my swale which I had to secure permits for after the fact. After I acquired the house I received a notice telling me that I needed a permit for trees that were easily 30 to 40 feet high but i did it i got the permit etc but now i'm finding out that the staff is not approving any coconut palms in the swale to which i suggested well if those coconut palms are already in the swale then we need to get those residents to acknowledge their maintenance obligation with respect to those trees, as opposed to just ignoring the reality of having unapproved trees in the swale. So as long as that resident agrees that they're going to trim the coconuts before they become coconuts, I think that's a rational approach as opposed to just sticking our head in the sand and pretending that there isn't an issue because the issue is that we have hundreds of homes throughout the city that have planted coconut palms in the swale. And in my opinion, if it's an unmaintained coconut palm or an unmaintained oak tree, Both are just as bad because the oak tree, God forbid, loses a branch and falls on a car can potentially do just as much damage as a coconut.

I think you're bringing up this code enforcement issues.

Well, I think it's about the remedy because you can make that homeowner remove those trees.

This board doesn't do anything with single family homes.

Well, but it's a policy of tree planting in the public right of way. I'm not viewing it as directing single family development. I'm viewing it as public policy in the public right of way. Maybe the attorney can clarify.

I agree with you, but whose jurisdiction?

My concern is long-term. I think we need to figure out what the solution is for this issue moving forward. I don't see that as being outside the purview, given that it is the public right-of-way, which this board does oversee at times.

We need an opinion from Chris and from Brandon.

You know, I prefer it. You can think about it. We can come back at the next meeting. I mean, this issue is not going away.

It's an issue on my own street. Exactly. That I live on. I don't have them, but a neighbor of mine has.

I was just picturing the coconuts falling as somebody's driving by. Right, right.

Do you have sidewalks in your neighborhood?

I do.

So my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks, so it's hard to tell where the public swale is. And so many people plant hedges. Thinking it's their property, yeah. Because they water it, they mow the grass, and they find out from the lawyer later that it's not theirs.

And honestly, we want them to do that. That's my point. So as long as that homeowner acknowledges that it's their responsibility, I mean, 90% of the time, they know that it's their responsibility. But I think if the city's concerned about having an inappropriate tree in the swale, that homeowner, presumably with a homeowner's insurance policy, will be covered by that occurrence and hopefully leave the city out of that equation.

Well, it would, FPL already has right tree, you know, right place. It's almost, you almost need something along those lines that, hey, here are trees you can't plant in this way.

FPL just randomly removes stuff. Well, yes.

But is the city really going to go through code enforcement and force several hundred people If not 1,000 residents to remove the trees.

If you had an ordinance, who would enforce it?

Code enforcement.

Right. Right. Again, I'm more in pursuit of a rational solution that would make sense. That's my point. We don't have any enforcement powers, do we? No, no, not enforcement. But we have policy power. and we can say hey you know this might be a good way to resolve this uh i'm not suggesting that we go out it would be you still have to have code enforcement if somebody doesn't do what they're supposed to right so it's back to code enforcement right but i mean but but code enforcement could go out and have that conversation with the resident to say hey we have a form that as long as you fill it out and you agree that you're going to maintain those trees then we don't have an issue Anyway, again, I will await the input from our esteemed council. Wondering what is happening with the Royal Palm Hotel. I know it was in for permit. We had a conversation about the triangle of the lot and getting them started. Has that permit been issued?

It's not been issued, but it's under review.

Are we still trying to get the triangular lot, the parking lot specifically underway?

Yes. We are actively reviewing the issue and trying to find something that's going to work. Yes. Okay.

And then the last thing is we installed these pedestrian safety barriers on Second Street and Meisner Boulevard adjacent to the downtown post office. And I'm just wondering, is anybody paying attention to that? Because frankly, it looks hideous. It's been run over so many times. There's almost nothing left. And it's not being maintained. I'm wondering if anybody has gone out there to look at it. Because in an environment where the CRA has plenty of resources to fix it, let's fix it or get rid of it, I think. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

OK. Mr. Mitchell, you seem like you want to bring something up.

The only thing I wanted to bring up, for all the variances we grant for someone who has to raise their lot by law,

we have to tell them okay you have to come before us because you had to build a fence is there any way we can have that like administratively approved because it's like how could you not give them a fence because they have to raise their law if you if you look at it in this case they actually got a permit for the fence a year ago they did and so i was wondering where did that was it on final fence inspection that somebody went out there and went This now doesn't be code you now we've issued the permit now you need to go spend a year getting a variance They got a permit, but they didn't build to plan Got it.

Okay that So it's going to show the fence at six feet Yes That would be a problem but is there a way that can be done or do we just want to say, you know Let's do variances so that every time we have the right to approve or disapprove. I

So it is an issue we're looking at. But it's not as simple as, hey, let's just let them put whatever they need. Because sometimes you're going to have a very significant grade difference, right? Right. And so from the neighbor's perspective, they might be looking at a 10-foot fence, for example, right? So there is a balancing of interests that we need to think about. I agree with you that there needs to be some kind of a solution that doesn't require coming in front of the board for a variance every time. What that looks like exactly, we don't have yet, but it is something that we're looking at.

No, and I agree that all neighbors have to approve or you come before the board or something like that. So it's like, hey, if everyone's good with it, it's different than if someone objects or doesn't respond. yeah but i just think it's to make someone come for three four months yeah i mean i don't mind because i read it and then i approve it but yeah yeah i mean these fema finished floor requirements can create some really crazy configurations And it will continue to until everyone gets knocked down and built up.

Yeah, and so that's a really good point. It's not just about fences. This creates a lot of issues. I mean, these elevation requirements are put in place for a very good reason, but they have a lot of downstream impacts as well.

Yeah, they do. A two-story house that's already...

six feet higher than the next guy's that looks like a giant compared to you if you're an old one-story house it's a nice waterfall about a year ago where a lot was filled and then the guy had to get permission because from his lot you could look like you were looking down in a valley remember that yeah yeah and that was uh

some individuals that now sit on City Council that came in and actually lectured us against voting for that.

I do recall just saying.

I wanted to give a little more context to Mr. Camillo's comments as well. Just to be clear, The City Council hasn't directed anything, any change specifically with respect to the single-family homes. But it is an issue that's been brought up and that we are looking at. So I just want to make sure that's clear. When it comes to planting coconut palms in the swales, the Engineering Design Standards Manual, which governs largely the public right of way was changed in 2025 i don't have the exact date but it was last year sometime to no longer allow planting of coconut palms in the swales because of the potential damage of the falling coconuts right so um it can be a code enforcement issue but you know we all deal with limited resources right i mean code enforcement has many, many, many, many things to deal with. So, you know, like so many issues, it's not so simple.

Sure. Thank you. Okay. One question I have is mentioning the design manual. And I know Mr. Kamado brought up the 24-foot drive aisle width. I, just from building, I know that is generally the case of their 24-foot drive aisle width. everywhere in South Florida that I build. So I'm just curious, anybody know of an area that allows smaller than 24 foot drive aisle? Since I know you brought it up.

You know, what could make sense from, you know, I guess a traffic engineering perspective is to look at the site and decide, like for example, where do you need to accommodate an ems vehicle to circulate the site and maybe that area can be 24 feet but other internal you know regular driveway connections maybe those could be a little bit narrower um i mean again it's a case-by-case basis but i can tell you being on that site today it's just ridiculously overdone in terms of every there's a 60 degree curvature everywhere you turn you never have to slow down well you do but they don't it's a pet peeve of mine as you can tell okay anything else guys okay with that at 703 we are adjourned