BOCA RATON, FL (Boca Post) (Copyright © 2026) — Boca Raton is preparing to revisit a city policy that has helped reshape commercial and industrial land into housing, a shift driven by intense residential demand and softer expectations for new office space.
The ordinance at the center of the debate is the city’s Commercial-Industrial Multi-family Development program — known as CIMD — which allows a limited number of commercially or industrially zoned sites to convert to residential use. The catch is that CIMD projects are supposed to include commercial businesses as part of the development concept, framed as a way to keep communities “thriving and livable” while bringing housing to places that were once planned for jobs and offices.
That balance has become the flashpoint.
Some city officials and residents argue developers have been meeting the commercial requirement with uses that are technically open to the public, but function more like private amenities for residents — small gyms, tutoring centers, and other “personal services” that don’t look or feel like the retail activity the code was meant to encourage.
The tension sharpened around a CIMD-approved project known as Bocora at City Center, tied to a site at 6419 Congress Avenue. In that case, opponents pointed to a planned gym that was changed from a private amenity into a publicly available facility — a 2,086-square-foot space — so the project could satisfy CIMD’s commercial requirement. The criticism wasn’t that the gym use is unlawful on its face, but that it misses the intended purpose of CIMD: attracting businesses that complement a neighborhood and serve broader day-to-day needs.
Now, the city appears poised to draw a harder line.
Last week, Boca Raton’s Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend a change that would specifically disallow gyms, fitness centers, and “personal services” — a category that includes tutoring and similar uses — from counting toward the ordinance’s commercial requirement.
City staff framed the issue as one of intent and enforceable clarity. A staff memorandum argued that these uses do not meet the purpose of providing “retail sales or services” as part of, or near, CIMD projects. The proposed rewrite would tighten the definition of “retail sales or services” to focus on the sale of goods or merchandise directly to the ultimate consumer.
Under the proposed revision, the city would expressly exclude a fitness center or gym, along with uses that “primarily provide on-site activities or memberships rather than retail transactions.” Tutoring and similar educational or instructional services would also be carved out.
The aim is not just to narrow categories, but to make the qualifying commercial piece look and operate like a real, separate business.
To ensure any “retail sales or services” space is bona fide, the proposal would require a distinct operation that is publicly accessible during posted business hours for a minimum number of hours each week. City staff proposed at least 60 hours per week, though planning board members pared that down to 45 hours in the recommendation expected to go before the Boca Raton City Council at a future meeting.
The proposal also adds physical and operational markers meant to separate commercial space from residential amenities: a ground-floor pedestrian entrance from outdoors that is separate from residential entry, exterior signage that markets the business the way a typical storefront would, and a requirement that any change of use be specifically approved by the city to ensure the commercial obligation remains fulfilled over time.
Those details are designed to address a recurring complaint in mixed-use projects: a space can be labeled “commercial,” but if it sits behind resident-only access, keeps limited hours, or looks like part of the apartment complex, it may not serve the surrounding area in any meaningful way.
CIMD already includes baseline non-residential requirements. As described in current standards, those uses must be located within a quarter-mile of the residential portion and occupy at least 10,000 square feet of space. Some properties also trigger an additional rule requiring commercial uses equal to at least 10 percent of the residential development.
City staff’s position is that enforcement experience has exposed gray areas — especially around what qualifies as “retail” — and that the city needs tighter language to produce outcomes the ordinance was meant to create: accessible businesses that meet daily needs, reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and encourage trips by transportation modes other than single-occupant vehicles.
At the planning board meeting, City Planner Brandon Schaad described the thrust of the changes as a test of legitimacy, not window dressing.
“It just takes a demonstration that it’s real,” Schaad said, pointing to marketing and visibility expectations. “Eyes on the street is an important element.”
What happens next is a City Council decision on whether to adopt the revised definition and the added operating standards, including the weekly hours requirement recommended by the planning board. For residents watching Boca Raton’s growth, the practical question is whether future CIMD projects will be pushed toward true storefront-style retail — and whether projects already in the pipeline will adjust to meet the city’s tighter line between “commercial space” and “building amenity.”
Boca Post delivers independent Boca News covering city hall, public safety, schools, development, courts, and community issues shaping Boca Raton.
Surprise, surprise… developers cannot ever be trusted… they will do anything to circumvent the letter, the meaning and the spirit of the rules to put a few extra pennies in their own pockets.. This type of thing is hardly an isolated instance. Developers and the corrupt politicians that enable them have destroyed parts of the City of Boca Raton and now they are coming for the rest. There is little that can be done to stop building on private land but we can be sticklers for detail and hold their feet to the fire as much as possible… and under no circumstances allow them to profit by gaining access to public land