Board recommends approval of 9‑story, 28‑unit 280 East Palmetto Park Road project

The Boca Raton Planning and Zoning Board on July 18 recommended approval of the 280 East Residential project, a proposed 9‑story, 28‑unit building at 280 East Palmetto Park Road that would include two levels of below‑grade parking and an abandonment of a 10‑foot‑wide utility easement that conflicts with the proposed building footprint.

Planner Jacob Behrman presented the application (IDA CRP2302), describing the project as approximately 112,249 square feet of multifamily residential space on a 0.629‑acre site. Behrman said the proposal provides 61 parking spaces (including 44 in 22 two‑car garages) and exceeds the project’s 40% open‑space requirement by providing roughly 11,346 square feet of open space. He said staff found the project consistent with DDRI development order requirements and the downtown Subarea C land‑use designation and recommended approval with conditions, including standard public‑works review requirements for water service.

Applicant representative David Millage (and architect George Garcia) described streetscape improvements, a redesigned sidewalk and underground/relocated utilities where necessary. Millage emphasized that the existing water main serving the current building is not part of a loop system, so the abandonment will require a separate new easement or water‑service solution during public works review.

Several nearby residents spoke during public comment and raised concerns. Paul Ambrone, who lives directly south of the site, asked where an emergency generator would be sited, questioned the traffic study and raised concerns about excavation and vibration from retaining wall construction. Donald Schneider and other residents questioned cumulative density and traffic on East Palmetto Park Road, saying recent nearby projects have increased vehicle volumes and pedestrian safety concerns. William Pruitt said the proposed building would obstruct views from adjacent condominiums and described the change as damaging to residents’ investments.

Board members discussed parking and the site’s prior office use. One board member said the proposed residential use likely would generate less daily traffic than the existing bank and office use and that redevelopment could improve conditions. Another member confirmed the condition requiring the applicant to underground overhead utilities adjacent to the property applies only to the applicant and cannot force third parties like FPL to pay for third‑party relocations.

After discussion, the board moved to recommend approval; the roll call showed a 4–0 vote in favor. The vote approves staff’s recommended IDA and forwards the recommendation consistent with conditions listed in the staff report; public‑works approvals and final permitting remain outstanding.