Boca Raton planning board approves Steiger Plaza site plan, grants two technical deviations

The Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board on June 6 approved the Steiger Plaza site plan and two technical deviations for the property at 1395 North Federal Highway in a 4–0 vote.

Staff presented the application as a proposal to add a 3,633‑square‑foot second story to an existing 5,429‑square‑foot one‑story building (bringing total building area to about 8,675 square feet), to demolish a 387‑square‑foot portion of the first floor and to update the facade and streetscape. Owen Devlin, GIS planner with Development Services, said the building — constructed in 1962 and legally nonconforming — is proposed to be stepped back to meet a 10‑foot setback. He said the plan expands sidewalks to 8 feet on North Federal Highway and to 6 feet on Northeast 14th Street, adds street and shade trees (live oaks, silver buttonwoods and pigeon plums), and meets parking requirements. "Staff has recommended approval of the application," Devlin said.

The applicant requested two technical deviations from the city's code of ordinances. Devlin described the first deviation as a reduction in the required driveway reservoir depth (the staff presentation clarified the change is to depth, not width) because the narrow parcel and existing driveway connections would not accommodate the standard 25‑foot reservoir without eliminating on‑site parking. The second deviation would allow limited off‑site vehicle circulation; staff said the applicant will establish a one‑way circulation system on‑site and install signage to manage circulation.

Architect Steve Brandt, representing the applicant, said the project is a mixed‑use redevelopment with retail on the ground floor and medical or general offices above. "What we're doing is providing a mixed‑use building — retail on the bottom and offices and medical offices on the second floor," Brandt said, and added that the design is intended to fit between taller neighboring buildings. Board members praised the presentation and the applicant's video; one member said the video "was very helpful."

Board members also asked about cross‑access with the adjacent southern property and about the nature of first‑floor tenants. Devlin said a prior development order required the adjacent property owner to extend cross‑access to the property line and that the applicant will be required to bring the cross‑access to the property line as part of the current approval; he noted that adjacent owners would need to obtain any permits for work on their sites.

After closing the public hearing with no public speakers, a motion to approve the site plan and technical deviations was made and seconded. The clerk called the roll; the board recorded four yes votes and the motion passed 4–0. The board recorded no abstentions. The meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m.

The approval allows the applicant to proceed with conditions and permitting; the record of required permits, cross‑access easements and any subsequent development orders will be handled through the city's permitting process.