Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs Boca Village Tri‑Rail CIMD plan, forwarding density and tax‑allocation changes to council
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend changes that would allow a CIMD at the Tri‑Rail/Bridal Station with up to 42 dwelling units per acre and a separate allocation of 340 units exempt from the city's 2,500‑unit cap; public commenters called the package 'spot zoning.'
The City of Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend a comprehensive‑plan and zoning text amendment to create a transit‑oriented mixed‑use district at the Tri‑Rail/Bridal Station, forwarding the proposals to city council for final action.
Staff told the board the amendment would allow a maximum density of 42 dwelling units per acre and a 1.18 floor‑area ratio for a Boca Village CIMD and would create a separate allocation of 340 residential units exempt from the city's 2,500‑unit cap for CMD projects. "This is going to serve as a bonus and incentive to encourage such development at the Tri Rail Station," staff said during the presentation.
Why it matters: Staff and the applicant framed the changes as a way to implement transit‑oriented development near a major transit stop and to support multimodal trips. The project includes 51 affordable and workforce housing units and a commitment to provide transit subsidies for residents and employees, measures staff said further the city's land‑use, transportation and housing policies.
Public opposition centered on fairness and the scale of the incentive. Jonathan Ungeen, a resident who identified his address for the record, said he was "not against this project" but opposed "the gift that the city is giving this developer in the form of a bonus or incentive," calling the proposal "truly the definition of spot zoning." He noted that other applicants pursuing Live Local incentives had faced lower density caps and said the difference created an unfair advantage.
Staff and the applicant responded that the CIMD designation carries specific requirements meant to protect the public realm. "There's a specific requirement to provide street trees along all street frontages in a CIMD project," Development Services Director Brandon Shad said, noting that street‑tree requirements and other site‑plan details are already in the code and would apply to these projects.
Board members pressed the applicant and staff on when public‑realm elements such as wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes and other pedestrian improvements could be required. The applicant said site‑plan review is where specific conditions would be negotiated. "You can request anything you want," the applicant's representative, David Millidge, said, adding that details could be worked out during site‑plan review.
Formal action: The board moved to recommend approval of the comprehensive‑plan amendment and, in a separate roll call, recommended the zoning/code amendments (including the tax allocation) to city council; both recommendations passed unanimously on recorded votes.
What happens next: The recommendations will go to city council for public hearing and final decisions on the comp‑plan and the zoning/text amendments. Site‑plan approval, including any public‑realm conditions, would come later if the council approves the text changes.
Clarifying details: The proposal cites a base CIMD density tied to the inclusion of affordable housing (20 units per acre with 10% affordable; up to 25 units per acre with a 5% workforce set‑aside), while the amendment under consideration would permit higher density (up to 42 du/acre) as an incentive tied to the Tri‑Rail station; the applicant proposes 51 affordable/workforce units on site and transit subsidies for residents.
