Boca Raton planning board approves Atrium CIMD, clearing way for 222‑unit building with long‑term affordability covenant

The Boca Raton Planning and Zoning Board on Nov. 20 voted 4‑0 to approve a coordinated package of actions clearing the way for the Atrium Residential Commercial/Industrial/Multi‑family Development (CIMD), an eight‑story, 222‑unit multifamily building and associated site changes at 1700 Clintmore Road and 611 Northwest Broken Sound Parkway.

City staff presented the two interrelated applications — a site‑plan/conditional‑use amendment to remove a 0.9‑acre portion from the Broken Sound Old Golf Course approvals and the Atrium CIMD application, which included a future land‑use map amendment (PR, recreation/open space → PM, planned mobility), a rezoning of the 0.9‑acre portion to Light Industrial Research Park, a replat and a site‑plan amendment for the overall 8.92‑acre property. Jim Bell, long‑range project manager in the Development Services Department, told the board the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and development standards and that the submitted traffic study met the county's standards.

Staff described the proposal as an integrated development that retains the existing three‑story office building while adding an eight‑story residential building with a four‑level integrated parking structure, two ground‑floor restaurant/retail spaces totaling about 2,015 square feet, a shared‑use pathway and a pedestrian crosswalk with a rapid beacon. The project includes 10% of units designated as affordable housing (23 units) and 5% as workforce housing (12 units), secured by a restrictive covenant that staff said would run for 30 years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Bell said the rezoning and FLUM amendment would allow an additional 22 rental dwelling units to be accommodated on the Atrium office property as part of this overall development; the project as presented would result in a 222‑unit residential building.

Board member Mitchell questioned the location of the shuttle/bus shelter and whether pedestrian access was convenient to the residences; Bell said the shelter is generally located near the middle of the property and adjacent to the shared‑use path. Mitchell also asked about restrictive covenants and easements over the 0.9‑acre parcel; applicant representatives explained the 2.43‑acre parcel is owned by the applicant, not the golf course, and that a golf‑course easement permits golf use but would be amended to release the 0.9‑acre area while other covenants tied to the approved site plan would need to be modified to allow new development.

Jeffrey Barker, counsel for the petitioner, said the project team — including civil, traffic and landscape engineers — was available to answer questions. Resident Kolter Nizgotsky spoke during public comment in support, saying, "I believe that this project will increase . . . units, that that should ease rising rent prices in the area," and praised the proposal's walkability and the addition of retail that could reduce vehicle trips.

The board took separate roll‑call votes on the five related items — the site‑plan/conditional‑use amendment, the FLUM amendment, the rezoning, the plat approval and the CIMD site‑plan resolution — and each motion passed by a 4‑0 vote.

What happens next: the board’s approvals are recommendations to the City Council where related ordinances and the plat will be considered; any council action or additional conditions will be handled in subsequent proceedings.