Boca Raton council opens review of CIMD text amendment as residents warn of traffic and school impacts

Councilmember Wigder opened a workshop discussion July 22 on proposed text amendments to the city's Commercial Industrial Mixed Use Development (CIMD) ordinance that would, under narrow conditions, allow certain RB‑1 parcels to be redeveloped with multifamily housing near single‑family neighborhoods.

Cliff Hertz of Nelson Mullins, representing Palmetto Park Square interests, summarized the applicant's proposal and the draft changes. Hertz said the amendments would apply only to RB‑1 parcels and only where the property was at least 20 contiguous acres; projects would be capped at 15 units per acre if abutting single‑family zoning, must provide 10% affordable and 5% workforce housing, and would be limited to the existing RB‑1 FAR of 0.5 with stepped setback requirements tied to building height. "The exception is added for properties containing at least 20 acres of contiguous land located within the RB‑1 zoning district," Hertz said, adding that the amendments do not lift the current ban east of the Intracoastal.

Council members pressed staff and the presenter on legal consistency with recent state law changes, specifically the Live Local-related provisions (discussed in the meeting as SB 328). Councilmember Wigder said he brought the item to start conversation, not to approve a project: "We're not here approving any projects today," he said, asking staff to evaluate height, setback, traffic and other parameters before any ordinance sponsorship.

Hundreds of pages of public comments were condensed into a string of in‑person remarks at the workshop. Laurie Colbert, a longtime homeowner near the Palmetto Park Square plaza, told the council she fears "placing 320 rental units in our backyard, literally, will have a negative impact on the property value," and called out traffic and unsafe school‑walking routes as urgent concerns. Roger Klein and other residents said schools and emergency services are already near capacity and asked for clear traffic and infrastructure assumptions and visuals comparing existing code allowances, the developer proposal and a potential worst‑case build‑out.

Several council members urged staff to prepare a detailed package of analyses—traffic studies, concurrency and school‑capacity information, and explicit comparisons to current RB‑1 entitlements—so the council and the public can weigh tradeoffs. Councilmember Thompson and others also questioned whether the draft text is ready to be sponsored under the city's text‑amendment prioritization process.

Hertz and the applicant said they heard the citizen concerns and will report back. No formal action was taken; council signaled interest in further study and public outreach before any ordinance introduction or future land‑use amendments.

Next steps: council asked staff to examine consistency with state statutes cited in the presentation, provide traffic and school‑capacity analyses, and return with draft prioritization and ordinance language for further review.