Boca Raton planning board approves CIMD retail-use clarification, sets 45-hour weekly threshold

The Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board on Jan. 22 unanimously approved an amendment to the city’s CIMD (commercial industrial multifamily development) rules that tightens the definition of qualifying on-site retail and sets a weekly-hours threshold for businesses that count toward the program’s nonresidential requirement.

Brandon Shad, the city’s Development Services Director, told the board the amendment adds a definition of “retail sales or services” that covers the sale of goods directly to the consumer or uses that meet the code’s personal-service-shop definition, and that it “expressly excludes a fitness center or gym or substantially similar uses” and tutoring or similar instructional services because those uses primarily serve recurring members rather than walk-in customers.

The change comes as part of the CIMD program adopted in February 2024 (Ordinance 56-84), which allows multifamily development in certain commercial and industrial zones in return for affordable units and additional density. Under the program Shad summarized, 10% of units must be affordable (up to 120% of area median income) and projects may qualify for density bonuses when additional workforce units are provided.

Shad said there are three ways a project can meet the nonresidential requirement: be within a quarter-mile of 25,000 square feet of existing nonresidential uses (including at least 10,000 square feet of restaurant or retail), include on-site nonresidential space (the greater of 5,000 square feet or 10% of the project up to 25,000 square feet, with at least 2,000 square feet required for restaurant/retail), or use a combination of on- and off-site space totaling 25,000 square feet. He emphasized the on-site retail component must be a bona fide, independent operation with public accessibility, including a separate ground-floor pedestrian entrance and exterior business identification.

During discussion board members pressed staff on several operational details. Board member Matthews asked whether the 2,000-square-foot on-site threshold was too large for some cafes; Shad responded that developers could split the required area into two 1,000-square-foot spaces if needed and that the 2,000 figure reflected a council compromise when the ordinance was adopted. Board member Mitchell asked whether a gym could be approved by variance to satisfy the requirement; Shad said gyms would not qualify even if a variance or council action were sought to count them toward the retail minimum.

A public commenter, David Millish of Southeast 4th Street, said he supported putting legitimate retail into these developments but raised concerns that the draft language might unintentionally apply to off-site mall tenants, exclude routine residential amenities from qualifying, and impose marketing and signage requirements that could disadvantage small businesses. "I don't know why the city wants to get into the operations of a retail operation," Millish said, warning that the sign-code interaction and advertising expectations could create conflicts for mom-and-pop operators.

Shad acknowledged a scrivener’s error in the draft ordinance (page 4, line 19) and confirmed that the provision is intended to apply only to on-site uses associated with a CIMD, not to unrelated off-site retail. He also said staff intended to be flexible on marketing demonstration and that a modest publicly accessible online presence (for example, a Facebook listing) would suffice to demonstrate the business is publicly advertised.

Members also debated the proposed weekly-hours threshold for qualifying retail. The original language in the draft required 60 hours per week; board members said that amount could be onerous for many retailers. After discussion, the motion to approve the ordinance was amended on the floor to require a 45-hour weekly minimum for qualifying businesses, and the board adopted the ordinance on a 6-0 roll-call vote.

The amendment requires that qualifying on-site retail be independently operated, provide exterior ground-floor access and exterior identification, and be subject to city review when tenants change to ensure continued compliance. Staff told the board it would work with stakeholders and the sign-code administrator to clarify implementation details before the item proceeds to City Council.

The board had no director’s report and adjourned at 6:29 p.m.