Loading...
Minutes 05-14-02 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY MAY 14, 2002 AT 6:30 P.M.~ Present Larry Finkelstein, Chairman Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Jos~ Aguila Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Michelle Hoyland Henderson Tillman Nancy Byrne, Asst. Director of Development Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director I. Call to Order Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Roll Call The roll was called and a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval Chair Finkelstein ir~dicated that the agent for the First Baptist Church had requested that their items be heard at the beginning of the meeting to allow the applicantts architect to attend an out-of-town meeting. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the agenda as amended the motion that carried unanimously. Mr. DeMarco seconded IV. Minutes Approval 1) Special CRA Director Interview Meeting March 15, 2002 2) Special CRA Director Interview Meeting March 22, 2002 3) Special CRA Meeting April 9, 2002 4) Regular CRA Meeting Apdl 9, 2002 Michelle Hoyland requested that the minutes be amended as follows. On pages 9 and 10 of the March 15, 2002 minutes, the name Rodriguez should be changed to Dominguez. On page 15 of the Regular CRA meeting of April 9, 2002, the motion at the top of the page should be changed to reflect "Friday and Saturday' instead of Saturday and Sunday. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach. Florida May 14, 2002 Motion Jose Aguila movec to accept the subject minutes as amended. seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Vice Chair Heavilin VII. Public Hearing Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney, administered the Oath to all who would be speaking at the meeting· Maior Site Plan Modification Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: First Baptist Church (MSPM 01-021) Bradley Miller, AICP First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach 301 North Seacrest Boulevard Request for site plan approval to construct a two-story, 31,192 square foot expansion to the existing church facility for a total of 54,230 square feet on a 3 84-acre parcel. Eric Johnson, Plar~ner, gave an overview of the project. Staff recommends approval of the project contingent on the approval by the CRA of the next agenda it~em, a height exception, and the 24 staff Conditions of Approval· Chair Finkelstein acknowledged the presence in the audience of Mayor Gerald Broening and Dale Sugerman, Assistant City Manager, and welcomed them to the meeting. Bill Maddox, The Maddox Group, 1266 First Street, Sarasota, Florida, architect for applicant, described the project in detail. He noted that they were aware of the great difference in the dr ck "Co on a" style of the existing building and the proposed, ultra- modern building, and had made some facade changes that would help (o tie the two buildings together. These fa~,ade changes ~vould be the beginning of an ongoing attempt over the next severa years to br ng the two bu Id ngs nto closer harmony The church s desirous of establishing a fresh new look and cannot afford the bmeor money to completely replace the existing facility. Mr. Maddox noted that they had tri~d to create a park~like atmosphere instead of a large, paved parking lot. Chair Finkelstein acknowledged the presence in the audience of CommLssioner Mack McCray and welcomea him to the meeting. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, 298 Pineapple Grove Way, Delray Beach, Florida, indicated that the applicant agreed with all 24 Conditions of Approval. Mr. Aguila's major concerns were that there was not enough paved parkin~l anc that the building styles were incompatible. He asked Mr. Miller whether the applicant Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 would be agreeable to a condition that would allow the City to review the grassed part of the parking area at some point in the future and request that the applicant pave all of the parking lot if deemed desirable. Mr. Miller did not think the grassed parking area would become a problem~ The Code allows that stabilized sod may substitute for up to 50% of the required parking spaces and they had met this requirement. Also, they had to meet requirements for pervious land and if they paved any more land, they would not be able to meet those requirements. Mr. Miller did not believe that the applicant was going to "let the property go, including the grassed parking area and be ieved that th's matter could safely be left in the hands of the City's ~ode Enforcement Division. Mr. Aguila's general impression of the property was favorable. He was concferned about the ti~netable for impr(~vements to reduc~ the inCompat b ty between the ex st ng and proposed architectural styles and d~d not Support an ongo ng attempt, but wshed to know exactly what was going to be done and when. He, and other Board members, expressed disapp0intmer~t that the main orientation of the new building would be to the northwest, and not visible from Seacrest or Boynton Beach Boulevards since it could have had a dramatic impact on an important corner in the City. Ms. Hoyland asked for and received verification from Mr. Miller that the classrooms would be used for §unday school only. She inquired whether the playgroun~d was going to remain at its present location and Mr. Miller affirmed that it would. Ms. Hoyland also asked for and received verification from Mr. Miller that the 300 seats on the upper floor w~ere not pad of this proposal. She asked if one would be able to walk up to them. Mr. Miller responded that there would be an access point from~the sta rwe to get back to the 'Video area, but the area where the chairs would be in ~he balcony would be walled off with a temporary wall. Ms. Hoyland was concerned about the traffic emptying out onto N.W. Is' Street because she believed that the stacking distance was too shod. She suggested that the applicant work with staff about shifting this area. Ms. Hoyland agreed with Mr. Aguila about the elevations of the building and Condition #24 should be modified to bring the phasing plan back to the CRA before issuance of a building permit. Mr. Aguila indicated he also supported ihought that or approval Chis. Henderson Tillman thought the overall design for the building was wonderful and that the building would be an asset to the community. He was concerned about the access off of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 1st Street and how the large amount of traffic generated by such a project would affect the rest of the community when in use. Chair Finkelstein echoed the concerns expressed so far but was especially concerned about the traffic flow an(~ the stacking problem on N.W. 1~ Street. He felt that exiting onto this street would require a right-hand turn sign and a concrete curb to direct traffic to drive around to Third Avenue and use that link for stacking. He was more concerned about when they came out on N.W. 1s~ Street, trying to access Boynton Beach 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Boulevard, because there was only stacking for four cars and then people trying to enter that neighborhood could not get in. Chair Finkelstein's other concern was with the difference in character between the style of the existing building and the proposed one. it was a major corridor and a prominent location in the City and he was desirous of seeing what they planned to do with the existing building to reduce the disparity between the styles. Mr. Aguila noted that there were several site plan concerns and believed that the applicant might want to go back and resolve some of the issues and bring the project back before the Board at a later date. Mr. Miller agreed that the applicant could address a right-in, right-out possibility onto N.W. 1st Street, which would route people around to the exterior of the project, but noted that this would create more traffic, They had tried to keep the stacking interior to the site and maintain it that way. They were not prepared to make a presentation on the fac.,ade issue at this meeting. The Church was u,ndertaking a $4.5M project and trying to keep within ~hat budget. They will try to develop the program for the fac.,ade and see how they can make it fit from an aesthetic and financial standpoint. They hoped to receive approval for the rest of the project so they could proceed and just bnng the fa~;ade plan back to the CRA. Ms. Hoyland asked about the timeframe from beginning to end for the entire project and the reply was twelve to eighteen months. Mr, Aguila wished to know when, after Certificate of Occupancy of the new sanctuary, they would be able to make the proposed fac.,ade improvements. He hoped that they would able to make the improvements in a reasonable period of time. Eric Johnson modified Condition of Approval #19, which calls for submission of a color sample of all major exterior finishes, to add "prior to the City Commission me~ting." Motion Ms. Hoyland rnove.d to approve the site plan request for the First Baptist Church based on the conditions listed in the staff report and modified as follows: that c~ndition #19 nclude the wording prior to the C~ty Comm ssion meet ng"; that cond t on #24 be modified to indicate that a phased plan for fa~.ade improvements (with timeline for implementation) be presented to the CRA prior to the issuance of a building permit; that the second floor balpony inside the sanctuary of the new building not be used for seating unless the applicant has the approval of the CRA; that forced right turns be provided at the access points on Seacrest Boulevard and N,W, 1~ Street. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion. Chair Finkelstein asked Ms. Hoyland if she wanted to include implementation in the fa~:ade phase plan. Ms. Hoyland modified her motion to include that the fa~;ade phase plan would ha~;e a t me ne for mp ementat on. This was acceptable to Mr, Aguila also, Mr. DeMarco asked the applicant if they had checked with the Police Department about the traffic flow at the site. Mr. Miller stated that as part of the Technical Review 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Committee, the Police Department had reviewed the project. They had preliminary concerns about an entrance on Boynton Beach Boulevard and when the applicant changed the design, the Police Department was satisfied. The motion carried unanimously. VII. Heiqht Exception Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: First Baptist Church (HTEX 02-001 ) Bradley Miller, AICP First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach 301 North Seacrest Boulevard Request for a height exception as defined by the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Sec. 4 F.1, to allow for an increase in the building height, of a "place of assembly" to exceed the maximum height ~mita owed within the R1A Single-Fam' y Residential zoning district. Request for a height',exception as defined by the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2;Zoning, Sec. 4 F.1, t~0 allow a church spireto e~ceed the maximum height limits allowed Witl~in the R1A Single-Family Residentia Zon ng district. There were no comments from staff, the applicant, or the public on this item. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the recommendations of staff pertaining to the height exception. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that carried unanimously. V. Director's Report Nancy Byrne. Assistant Development Director, presented the Director's Report. The Development Director, Quintus Greene. was not present because he was serving on a panel to select consultants to prepare downtown guidelines and land development regulations for the CRA in the City of Delray Beach. A. Financial 1) April 2002 Financial Statement Ms. Byrne related the highlights Of the financial statement. Also, she remarked that there were some Development Department staff costs that have exceeded ~the amount budgeted by the Board. Development staff will continue to track these expenses on behalf of the CRA, but the June financial statement will reflect payment of the budgeted amount to the City of $25;000: 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach Florida May 14, 2002 B. Project Updates 1) Federal Highway Standards and criteda for Mixed-Use Low and Mixed-Use High zoning d strcts authorized by the C ty Commission for inclusion in the Zoning Code, as well as a new infill PUD zoning district for the Federal Highway Corridor. are item(s) VII lA), lB), and lC) on tonight's agenda for Board action 2) Heart of Boynton (MLK) Plan Staff continues to work on a Comprehensve Plan Amendment for submission to the Department of COmmunity Affairs. The City Manager's office is ~.ontinuing its discussions with the County regarding a possible land swap that would facilitate the transfer of the Cherry Hill public housing site to the City. 3) Ocean District A community visioning session was held on April 11, 2002 at the Library to solicit input from residents and businesses in the area regard ng the future of the Dislrict. Staff is preparing alternative development scenarios based on deas and recommendations from the public as well as City staff. These w be presented at a follow-up meeting where final plan recommendatk~ns will be determined. 4) Marina/Promenade/Riverwalk The rewsed Marina development agreement is tentatively scheduled for the May 21, 2002 City Commis~;ion meeting. The reso ution of necessity authorizinq the use of eminent domain to acquire property for the Promenade and Riverwalk has been deferred to a June City Commission meeting. 5) Way,finding Signage Program This project was temporarily placed on hold by the Public Works Department staff due to other, more immediate priorities (i.e. space needs study and greenways/bikeways study). There nave also been changes in senior management in the City of Hollywood that raise questions about their continued role in this project. More information will be provided at the next meeting. 6) Property Acquisition Update Ms. Byrne introduce¢ Jim Nardi of the Urban Group, who gave a report on the status of accuisitions in the CRA area. Ms. Byrne stated that Quintus Greene, as current Director of the CRA was requesting Board authorization for the Real Estate Admin strator to proceed with securin~l additional 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 appraisals, with the objective of eventual acq uisition, for three small, blighted, non- residential properties in the MLK Corridor. Two of the properties are in the "MLK Core Area" and the other is directly across the street to the west. Mr. Nardi referred to seven parcels that they were trying to acquire that had six separate owners. All six owners have been contacted. Of the six, there is one firm refusal to sell. There are two owners that are willing to sell but at unreasonable pdces. There are three potential properties that could be acquired at or near fair market value and they are in the midst of negotiations at this time. Mr. Nardi indicated that one of the properties in question, the Relax Inn, was at a point that terms could be discussed and possibly authorization given to execute the agreement. The agreement on the Relax Inn is an option contract that The Urban Gtc through the City Attorney's office and 't allows a 120-day review period i diligence activities ~an be performed. An asbestos and enwronmental s have to be done. The purchase price on the contract is $900K. The appra provided by the CRA indicates a fair market value of $850K. In the e~ agreement is accepted Mr. Nardi advised that there would be a "grant o where the CRA pays $1,000 to the property owner to secure the right property off the market while it performs due diligence, n addition, th refundable security escrow deposits that would be required. Both are $20, up obtained which due Jrvey would sal that was ent that the option fee" [o hold the ~re are two :)00 with the first being due on execution of the contract and the second upon exercising the option agreement, anywhere within the 120-day period. The only changes made ~:o the option agreement were that the seller had dele!ed the langua,,ge in the option .~ontract that offers the contingency that the property 'appraises out. The second change to our contract was an addendum disclosing the use of a 1031 exchange. Mr. Nardi asked the Board if he would be rec~ L~ired to get another appraisal, thinking that there might be such a requirement if a property were over a certain value. The Board Attorney was unaware of any such legal requirement. Vice Chair Heavilin asked when the appraisal had been done and Mr. Nardi replied, June 4, 2001. Mr. DeMarco asked about the assessment and Mr. Nardi stated that it had been assessed in 2001 for $385K. Mr. Fenton asked if that were the new 2001 assessment and Mr. Nardi responded that it was listeo in the public records of Palm Beach County as a 2001 cart f ed assessed and taxab e va ue - assessed value $385.091. It did not say when the assessment was made. Mr. Fenton and Mr. DeMarco w~shed to know when the assessment was made. Chair Finkelstein indicated that $650K was transferred to the CRA by the City from the Visions 20/20 Plan for parking so that the property could be demolished a~nd support a temporary parking lot to service the Pond and the Promenade until other arrangements are made, as discussed at several workshops. They hac~ about $700K fo~ the Promenade. the main reason the property was needed, because the City held back Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 $380K for another parcel that was not needed for the Promenade. If the CRA got the $380K back from the City, he thought they would still have some seed money left. It is a matter of whether the Board wants to use the funds it has to move this prloject forward. The value of this property was arguable and Chair F nkelstein believed the price was too high. He was not happy with the appraisal because it had been based on the sale of a piece of land that was not really comparable to this property. The appraiser did not do as instructed, which was to base the appraisal on a mote on ~ acre of a d N · . ct much can be developed on the prope w~th the serb . n .... t,- ........ ~ .. _ ~ . ack and parcel requ~rement~ but t ~s n -~ .%~_y_ o_r rnowng ~ne ~romena(~e forward. Chair Finkelstein thoueht it would cost ~0-$50K to demolish the property. ~ - ~' ...... Chair Finkelstein inqu. ired about eliminating the option agreement and purchasing the ePxacr~lnb_~t. Wl~rn. dr~red.. !f t.h.e C.R~.. w.o..u:d be held up by the owner's desire to dca 1031 ~ · . are~ Deueved that tn~s would not affect the closing and that the present owner would have time to identify the property following the dos ng. C~ncern ng the option agreement, Mr. Nardi state~ {hat ~ey wanted to do environmenta and asbestos assessments any~vay. Chair Finkelstein inquired whether the se er would be w ng to participate in the cost of remediation of any problems that might be found Mr. Nardi stated that the CRA could just walk away if a problem came up during the ssessments and the owner would be stuck with the problem. Whether the Seller would re;negotiate or assist in the abatement had not been~ addressed. It was Mr. Nardi's opinion that the owner would probably not agree to participate in the remediation Mr. Tillman believed that the owner should:.be a part of any env ronmental asseSSment in t,,e. rms of ?e mpact it might have later on. He d d not want the City: to get stuck with a they failed to perfo.~r~, due. dil,gence at this p~iht. Chair Finkelstein re~ieWd~lalt tbheeC~3UF~ would have the right to back away after finding out the results Of the environmental assessment. Chair FJnkelstein asked if $900K was a negotiated price and Mr. Nardi replied thai it was. The owner referred to two offers he ~ad on the property, one beir~g an option contract that he accepted for $950K and a second contract for $875Ki which he rejected. Chair Finkelstein said it was up to the Board whether they wanted to go back with a counter proposal, accept, or pass. He thought thai ;a complete e~vironmental assessment would probably cost around $3-5K. Mr. Tillman asked how much there had been for the Promenade Fund and Chair Finkelstein believed that in December of 2001 there was $1,274,162. Mr. Fenton inquired whether the environmental survey was a condition of accepting the option and Mr. Nardi responded that it was. Mr. Fenton did not want to qdibb e about $50K because it was key to the development of the downtown area. He asked if the Board thought the appraisal was reasonable. He was speaking about the assessed value. Chair Finkelstein said that one must remember that it is a ~ acre piece of property with an old 1960's motel with eighteen units on land that is practically useless for development. Chair Finkelstein indicated that the property where Eckerd Drugs currently exists sold for the high teens per square foot and he believed that the Relax Inn property was at $21 per square foot. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Motion Mr. Fenton moved that the CRA accept Mr. Nardi's recommendation to take the option for $900K for the Relax Inn conditioned on the acceptance of the environmental assessment. Chair Finkelstein asked that the environmental assessment be brought to the Board for review and that the Board be able to see the option contract. Ms. Payne said that the agreement was structured so that the Board w~uld have to approve it again after the environmental assessment was done. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Appraisals & Acquisition of Three Parcels in CRA Area Ms. Byrne indicated that Mr. Nardi was prepared to give estimated costs f r his firm lo provide both the appraisal service and the acquisition work for these thee parcels if authorized by the Board. Mr. Nardi distributed a report to the Board members dated May 13, 2002 entitled Task Authorization No. CRA-02 - Proposed Scope of Work, Acquisition/Property Management Services from his firm, the Urban Group· The Scope of Work was followed by a document entitled Pdce Proposal for the Acquisition of CRA Sites· Mr. Nardi advised that the Proposed Scope of Work before the Board was identica to the one for the work they are current y doing. The chi difference ' ' · were asked to provde the a ra . Y __- . !sth~tt.hs. b.m.e, they assfgnment, st,uutured the same way aRa ~,,,-~,,~ ,,._ _. , i~ . e first · . .... pp sal. The pnce proposal ~s ~denbcal to tn ' ,, ,~ ,,,v,uu~_..~ Luu price for an a Dralsal He commented that the first pr ce nronosal a,,d *~- .............. P~ ' ~ ~- ,, ,,,,o ,~,,~ wu[u Do[n s[ruc[urea in. milestones and in the event they go out and speak to owners and they are unw ng to sell. their assignment ends there and no additional funds are expended. ' Vice Chair Heavilin asked if they were referring to the Darce s in t · Identified by the Board. Chair Finkelste. d d not knc~w u.. ,.:_~h.e_~M.L.K, area pr,ev o.usly · . , ~ VVc~H[UU [O Know wna[ they were and what the appraised va/ues were. He did not want to spendl money for appraisals f they did not even know if they had an inte had ~dentlhed these ar . .. ;. _ y nbons ,of selhng. He~f~sked who p ceis for acqu~s~tfon. Ms. Byrne responded that she Iieved that Development Director Quintus Greene had identified them. Ms. Byme indicated that two properties were in the core area and one was immediately across the street and to the west of the core area. Mr. Nardi stated that his office could provide fair market value but they like( third party appraisal performed. In the case jUst discussed, The Relax Inn ti difference between the assessed value and appraiSed ValUe. Aisc, the ~'ur purchased it for $570K in 1990 and had an offer for it of $950K. With all the~ numbers, it is nice to !have an apPraisal. At the request of Chair Finkelstein, Mr. Nardi confirmed that all three prol: structures and that he had not made any contact to date with the owners. 9 to have a ~ere was a 'ent owner different erties had Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Ms. Hoyland referred to page 3 of the document where there was a total of $4,250 and asked that he clarify this. Mr. Nardi stated that the title to the far left described this as "Self-contained Complete Apprasal Report" Ms. Hoyland said they paid for an appraisal under Task 1 and then would pay for it again? Mr. Nardi responded that this was correct and that Tasks I through 5 identifies labor hours and expenses and that under Other Expenses, they would order the appraisals as a separate item. Chair Finkelstein said that one was setting up a file and the other was doing the appraisal. Ms. Hoyland stated that it appeared that the work done by the Urba~ Group costs $8,750 per property and Mr. Nardi said that was correct, including the apl: raisal, if they acquire the propE dy through demolition and turn il over to the CRA. Ms. Payne commented that tt is probably ncluded acquisition costs as well and Mr. ardi agreed that it did. Ms. Pa: ~e emphasized that $8 750 included the cost of the ap ,c.ost..of a. cqu sition = d negotiation to acqu re the propertv Ms P*vn¢ r')~ isal and the · ¢ . _ _ --, ~ ...... ~ented thai ~wr. Nara~ had not ~ ne the app. ra~sal work on the property dscussed pre 4ously. The Board was concert E about the cost of the appraisals and acquisition l~lr. ~lardi offered to go out for bids fbr ppraisal Services for the ihree propertieS. Mr Nardi's nositio~ -- · ,- . un appraisals was that it was important to have an a. ppraisal that would stand up n Court, particU ady if the ssue of em nent doma n were to be called into play. He woul~l hav~ on~ of the re¢iew appraisers put together a short scope of work, fax it to three State-certified ASA appraiserS, get a quote, and proceed from there· Consensus Chair Finkelstein dgtermined that it was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Nardi would come back to the CpA with three bid proposals for appraisals on the properties, at which time the Board would take the next step. Vice Chair Heavilin [wanted to know what the total acquisition costs would b~ if the CRA were able to acquire the seven parcels that Mr. Nardi was pursuing. Mr. Na 'di said that he had worked with Quintus Greene when the scope of work was put togetl' er and they identified all the appraised values and what the total ex en . ~ Greene had that information. Chair Finkelstein asked wha~Plh;S~ot~)~lsdsebses; nd that Mr. on the three parcels in question and Mr. Nardi did not know. He had not dot t value was on this task yet. 'Cica Chair Heavilin wanted to know what they were [e any work lanning on spending and where they were dollar-wise with all these acquisitions bef( they go ahead and approve three more properties. Chair Finkelstein thought thal the Board might want to set up a workshop to consider their strategy for further acquisiti, )ns. Chair Finkelstein noted that the six properties had been n the works since last November and asked Mr· Nardi when there would be some definitive inf rmation on them, other than theRelax Inn. Mr. Nardi advised that of the two potentia ~eller . would be taking a vote about the sale in m .... ., ,^... ~_ .... ;2, , s. one · , ~,,~ ~AL Ir~W ilion[ns~una r hinKel t ' that the CRA was first in line for that nrone~/s~ k ........... ' ...... ~, e~n noted '' --' J ~ ,~' ' '~' '~ ' '~ vvcl;~ HULwornea al:)ou~ [na~ one Mr r~ard~ mentioned that in the last otential . · ' P sa e, he was told that some assistance would be required from his office to find a replacement site and they were in the process of d?ing that now. He ,~elieved that as soon as they were able to offer them a re I s,te, the CRA would be able to acquire the property at or Close to fair market ~al~ae?menl 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redeve opment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Ms. Byrne concluded the Director's Report with a City Commission action update. Future agenda items scheduled for the June 11 meeting are a new site plan and land use amendment for Showcase Townhomes and a new site plan and zoning code variances for Woolbright Grill. Ms. Byrne advised that in recent staff discussions about the pending hire of the new CRA Director, Assistant City Manager Da e Sugerman had graciously offered temporary office quarters n the East ~Vater Plant for the new Director for a period of sixty days, if the Board so desired. Chair Finkelstein stated that $750K had been held back from the mot transferred from th~ City to the CRA but there was no interest shown for tf the report. Ms. Byrne did not know about th s but stated that she would f r Finkelstein also a~ked about the $2 024 for pr nt ng and bind rig. Ms. Byme was related to dupiibation costs for the Heart OCBoyntor{.study. Quite a fey ~ad,e, af~:.er !he Public Hear,rig and the CRA has absorbed about ~ of the s. Hoy~and askec~ if the books,were made available to the publ c and Ms. I that they were for sale to:'the ,public for $32 each Ms. Hoyland asked · comes back into the'(~RA and Ms, Byme believed t goes b~ck nto the C Fund. Chair Finkelstein asked about the $800 for land acqu s tion in the Byme stated that this had. been for Anderson and Oarr, who did the appi Relax Inn. Chair F~l~elste n did nbt believe the Board had a roved anot[ and Ms. Byrne will Investigate and report .ba_ck to the, Board. ~PhPair Finkelst~i this had been paid for in February with $1,2K a~d he d~d not.w~nt to pay it tw VI. Unfinished Business ey that was at money on d out. Chair believed this ~ books were cost of that. ~yrne replied that money ty's General )udget. Ms. aisal for the er appraisal 1 stated that ce. A. Approval of contract for CRA Director Chair Finkelstein a. dvised the Board that Ms. Beverly Tew-Circe had unexpectedlv declined to accept the position as the new CRA Director fo ........ , ....... -- . .- . . , '-'- ~'~,~,,~, ~pns. ~o[ing o~n ~n,e p,r!o,r ,aumonzatlon of the Board Chair Finke stein presented an offer to uouglas Hu[cninsoR, the Board's second chr~in~ ~,. u..,_,-- - '"-' ....... ~w~. r~uusnlnson made a counter-offer and that contract was being brought to the Board for review. The Board discussed the contract at length and made the following changes. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the contract for Mr. Douglas Hutchinson with the following modifications: 1) leave salary as is at $77,500 with $80K after 90 days; 2) delete sections 3.5 and 3.6 pertaining to holidays and sick pay; 3) change c r allowance from $400 a month to $300 a month; 4) reduce 3.3 to $20K contingent on C~iass A term life insurance of $1500 or $2K a year, f in good health and reneg,,,otiate after one year; 6) nsurance cancellation notce [o be In writing; 7) add 10.2, No subcontractor or outside employees allowed unless approved by the CRA." Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Chair Finkelstein will present the amended contract to Mr. Hutchinson on the day following this meeting. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 THE MEETING RECESSED AT 8:55 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. VII, Public Hearing (Resumed) _Code Review Project Name: Agent: Descnption: Project Name: Agent: Description: Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan Mixed Use-Low Zoning District (MU-L) City of Boynton Beach Request for an amendment to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6, to establish the Mixed Use-Low Intensity (MU-L) zon ng district for the purposes of i~'nplementing t~ Federa Highway Corridor RedeVelopment Plan and accommodating redevelopmenf with n its planning areas #2 and ¢¢4. Federal Highway Corridor Comm. unity Redevelopment Plan Mixed Use-High Zoning District (MU-H)- City of Boynton Beach Request for an ame.ndment to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6, to establish tt-;e Mixed Use-High Intensity(MU-H) zoning d strict for the purPoSes of i~lementing th~ Federal Highway Corridor I~edevelopment Plan and accommodaf~ing redevelopment within its planning area #3. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, explained that staff was seeking an amendment to Part Ill of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordnances to add two mixed use zonl ~g intensity districts (High and Low Intensity). The proposed districts are consistel recommendations of the "Federal Hi"hw-,,, '" ......... ~t with the ~ ,=y ~,umuor L, ommunity ~edevelopl nent Plan," adopted by the City on May 15, 2001. Mr. Hudson remarked that the C~ these recommendations several times and that they were coming back n the ~ had seen same form as previously reviewed with one exception - that lhey were not includin~l any map amendments but were only establishing these zoning intensity districts in the ~ ;ode. At a later date, they will come back and define the area where MU-H can be placed through a large-scale and use map amendment Th - that currently has the m xed-u . . _ .e .MU L can be placed anywhere ..... se land use deslgnabun, but whoever uses it ha~s to ask for ~t aha rezone to that designation Later, they can come in and ask for la - amendment to mixed, use companioned with ~ ~'-~,,.;,,,-, ~ .~', ..... ~ na use ...... ,~,-,,,,,~ ~u ~v~U-L. /ne did t !hey kne. w that the Heart of Boynton stud~, has s ............ Y. hls because De put in place west of the FEC tracks in the area ~uo+ .-~.~,- -- ~. mlxed_use t.o Boulevard. j o, u~,, u, Ul Doynton tCeacn 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 Mr. Hudson pointed Out the following changes from a previous version already reviewed by the CRA. Table 6.F.1, Schedule of Permitted Principal, Accessory, and Conditional Uses, was changed to add "Post Office" as a perm tted use "Warehouse/Distribution" as a not- permitted use in General Commercial Use Group; and "Soup Kitchens/Substance Abuse Centers/Shelters/Half-way Houses" as prohibited uses in the Service Use Group. Section 6.F.4, Bui dng and Site Regulations, was changed by the addition of a reduction in the required rear yard setbacks for "multi-family" and "other" uses adjacent to the Intracoastal WaterWay (ICVVW~ wh ch makes th ~ v~ ~uc~u~t~ ~UDJeC[ ~0 requirements OT any permitting agencyhav ng jurisdicti0'n over construction abutting the ICV~V. Section 8.F.7, Landscaping, has been expanded to nclude additona re ureme la. ndscel~ing within the MU~H distr ct. n addition to the m,.,~,.,.~,,,~.L* ~-'q-,u, ~uueL -~ .... n.t.S[rees,fOr stan..dards .are included for sidewalk replacement to replicate ihe paver-block sidewalk- on ucean Avenue. Section 6.F. 13, Del: nitions, has been expanded from the four definitions n the original draft to a total of twenty-three which staff considers important for the ~:larity of the proposed ordinance. r~ Mixed Use High Intensity, a requirement was added that any development facing an arterial road like ~:~deral Highway, Ocean Avenue, and Boynton Beach Bo~ evard have a mixture of residential and commercial along the street frontage for the establishment of mass and density. Mr. Hudson gave a oriel slide show presentation of some local streets that showed ideas for redevelopment that could be applied in Boynton Beach. Board Comments & Questions Chair Finkelstein was concerned about the addition of Governmenl Office/Civic Center/Libraries as permitted uses n the Federal Highway Corridor. These entities do not pay taxes and he was not n favor of Iosina ~vhat little land ' redevelopment for any more of these fa "' ~ _ was available, for. ...... c~l~t~es. Mr. Hudson ~tated that ~the ~-eaera~ r~gnway g;orraor Was not the only place that this would be applied. To make government offices a conditional use would make the Senior Center a non-conforming use and the Board did not wish to do that. Mr. Rumpf stated that the intent was to allow Future flexibility. If the Board were comfortable with a conditional use restriction note being added to this 'zero, then staffwould probably support it. It could be re,~iewed on a case-by-case basis. Chair Finkelstein thought this would be satisfactory. Ms. Hoyland asked if the Board was comfortable with allowing houses of wc~r,s, hip in the area. Mr. Hudson ~tated that this had not been changed since the Boards original review. Mr. Rumpf responded that they had told the consultant that churches should be excluded from the r~development area, but later changed this position in lig. ht of some Supreme Court or State rulings that ran counter to this. Ms. Hoyland thought they could be allowed through conditional use subject to square footage or other limitations such 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach. Florida May 14, 2002 that they could maintain large buildings but not completely overtake an area. Vice Chair Heavilin stated that they were talking about adding residential units to this area and at some point they may need some houses of worsh p to accommodate the residents. Ms. Hoyland did not necessarily agree with that. Vice Chair Heavilin favored making the entire Use Group subject to conditional use approval. Ms. Hoyland would not have a problem with that except that a public park should be a permitted use. Chair Finkelstein asked Mr. Hudson for an example of "Recreation Outdoor" that would be permitted in Mixed Use Light, since parks were listed elsewhere. Ms. Hoyland asked what the difference was between this item and a public park. Mr. Hudson stated that a shuffleboard area would qualify. Chair Finkelstein asked about Postal Center (Retail Sales Only), which had an attached comment, about. ,, square, footage.per structure,, . What if. t were a bav?~ He f, vored sa ~n something hke structure or retail space Instead. It might not be a stand-ai~ne structtYulrneg. Also, there were no restrictions on post offices Ms Hoyand thought th~a! post offices should fa under (~.ondftional. use as we l because if an existing post office wanted to expand, you would run the risk Of it ~)ecoming a d stdbution center. Ch~ir Finkelstein suggested add ng comment ~5 to post office and Ms. Hoyland stated that this would make the exist ng J~ost office non-conforming. Mr. Hudson explained that post offices were great attractions for downtown areas because they increase traffic. Char Finkelstein was nol sure that the storage of pOStal vehicles was the best us~e of the land at the existing post office. Regarding the vet offices and the limitation of not exceeding 30% of the grqss floor area of a development, Chair Finkelstein thought that with a 150-foot high development with 80 units to the acre, 30% of that would represent a huge amount of square fOotage. Mr. Hudson stated thatlthere may be small infill parce s too where it may only be 500 s uare feet. Chair Finke ste n thought there shou d be ~ ¢.~n f thC ....... -,-.~ q - --,- ..... uu.u ng were ~uur~ square feet, 30% wou d be 90,',000 Square feet, Chair Finkelstein a~ked about auction houses like they have in Lake Worth and this document prohibits them Ms. Hoyland thought that an aucton house would be like Sotheby's. Chair Finkelstein thought an antiqu~ store could have an ' called an auction house. Mr. Hudson stated that this covered a shopat~°hn~dnadunc~itobnse on a regular basis. Ms. Hoyland asked about antique malls. They operate !n a similar fashion to flea marl<ets and occupy large areas of land and were not desirab e. Mr ,,Rump. f. !.ho,ught !,he reCuired distance separations would take care of thi~ ~4,, o,,~ mougn[ ma~ qua~y antique stores were desirable. " ........ Chair Finkelstein asked about the Dive Shop and Instruction as Accessory Use, noting that it was permitted in the high density and restricted in the Iow-density category. The Board noticed that under General Commercial in the Use Group/Use List, Outdoor Storage or Display was not permitted in either MU-L or MU-H and Personal V~atercraft Sales/Rental/Parts/Repairs was a permitted use but no outdoor displays allowed. Ms. Hoyland did not think note #13 should be included since it was addressed as a category in both areas and not permitted in either. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach. Florida May 14, 2002 Chair Finkelstein inquired about the category Residential, Single Family Detached with Accessory Unit - is Accessory Unit the same as an apartment? The response was yes. Chair Finkelstein thought that the requirement for Minimum Livng Area, Sing e Family Detached of 1,000 square feet was too sma I· Vice Chair Heavilin thought there were a number of homes in the area that would be less than 1,000 square feet. Ms. Hoyland thought parkinq for apartments and town homes should be based on the number of bedrooms provided. Mr. Rumpf replied that these requirements were comparable to the existing Code, which specifies a minimum total square footage instead. Mr. Rumpf indicated that there was no min'imum number of bedroom un ts in an apartment, just minimum total area. Each residential dwel[ing unit requ res two parking spaces. Mr. Rumpf stated that there was a 50% reduction for parking in the Cen District. These parking requirements reflect equivalent ratios and do repre: reduction· The one element that this excludes, which is in the current shared parking requirement. If you provide less than 100% of the spaces, allows that but mandates that you not restr ct your parking to private use, b to public use. Ms. Hoyland stated that one space per unit did not all~ parking· Mr. Aguila also did not believe one parking space per dwelli sufficient. Mr. Hudson stated that this was the downtown area and they pr( not want a lot of cars in that area. Ms. Hoyland thought if this were chart parking spaces per dwelling unit or something close to that, that there some room for guest parking. ral Business ;ent the 50% 3ode, is the ;urrent Code ut open it up ,w for guest ~g unit was ,bably would ~d to 1-1/2 uld still be Chair Finkelstein referred to comment #3 on the · "Elements r ' ' . bottom of p.a.ge 7 h~ch stated, p ojecbng over a pedestr an walkway sha,!l allow a m~n~mum ~foot vertical clearance and 5 foot horizontal pedestr an clearance. He thought that at o e time th had tried to get an 8-foot cearance Ms Hovland thou,,ht ¢-.-* ,~- .... ,o~ ey. · J ~ ,,,~, ,,~ U-lUO[ requlremen~ was part of the Americans with Disabilities AcT. Mr. Aguila was not in favor of the commen! about having to have flower containers planted with blooming annuals or perennials along facades of new building§ fronting on artedal readways in'the MU-Id District. He believed this was too much like telling people "what tie to wear." There were a lot of other ways to add color and soften sidewalk paving without having to re,,sort to th!,s. Mr. Rumpf asked what he would sueeest The compromised on striking shall be and sub-" ...... ,, ~., . ,, Y ~uLuung language like recommend or "encourage." This was satisfactory to staff and the Board. Ms. Hoyland commented that the minimum frontage for multi le-fa ' ' . ' 100 feet and that thins was too .qh~, ~o,, ,~.~ ~~. ....... P! .rnlly re.s~ent~al was ...... ~ much ...... ~-, ~-~,uu.L ,~L ~u ~eet ~or residential sing e family ae~acnea was too much in a district like the Federa ' . . Hoyland asked why a minimum frontage was required. H~ghway Corndor Ms Vice Chair Heavilin stated that the restaurants that were only open for brfakfast and lunch would change the percentages [or shared parking. Mr. Rumpf stated that they would look at this. Mr. Aguila left the meeting at 9:50 p.m. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14. 2002 Mr. Rumpf returned to Ms. Hoyland's concern about frontage and indicated that there would not be any harm done if they reduced the areas for lot width and minimum lot frontage. Ms. Hoyland was thinking of infill. Mr. Rumpf said there might be some odd- shap(~d propertie~ like the Mar na {~at Would probab y exceed these requirements. Ms. Hoyland asked Mr. Rumpf to think about what would happen if the Shipwreck property on Ocean were multi-family. Mr. Hudson asked what the point was of having higher density and height if you are only going to have a narrowwidth. Ms. Hoyland returned to the Shipwreck example saying that someone m ght want to come in and do multi-fam housing and cannot ~1o land assemb y and' they v~ill have to go through a variance, Y Mr. Fen[on left the meefing at 10:00 p.m. Ginny Foot, owner of The Art of Framing, East Ocean Avenue, spoke on behalf of BODA, Boynton Ocean District Association. The president. Kristin Con,i, was out of town but on behalf of the rest of the association, she wanted to offer sbpport for the CRAs effOrts~ They were concerned in the beginning when there would be blanket rezonmgs, but were comfortable with the way it was going now for their area. They salute the CRA and are very much in favor of mixed use and looking forward to the new downtown. Mary Law, 625 South Federal Highway, stated, "Here we go again." She did not understand why they had to have a mimmum parcel size and a minimu~ lot frontage. She thought this was forcing the small owners to have to go with a bigger lot and that this would be a factor in negotiations. If a property is non-conforming the owner could not get as much money for the parcel when the parcels are put together. And, if someone like Ginny Foot wants to relocate, she would not be able to use a parcel that was less than one hundred feet in width. She asked if there were a reason for this. Mr. Rumpf stated that these provisions were being placed n the Code so what will happen is that a developer will assemble property a~d see the goodies that are in this package an~ go after it. They are not going to go to this knowing that it iS not going to work in their situation. They would only go after and specifically select thi~ rezon ng or zoning district for their development project when they know it is going to work. Ms. Hoyland stated that Ms. Law was concerned about minimum lot frontage that she may not need under this Code but this would not apply to her. Chair Fink~lste n stated that it was important to note that this was not being applied on the lance, but on the books. It would not change any zoning on the land. Ms. Law asked whether she would be able to build on the lot across the street from her office. Her lot was only 80 feet wide. Mr. Rumpf stated that it could be done under C-3 zoning regulations or a variance, if necessary. Ms. Law stated that this, then, would not apply to those properties. Mr. Rumpf stated that it would on y apply to someone who ,s, pecificall,y,r,ezones .his or, her property to one of the three new zoning districts. Aisc, [nerd wou~o De a penoo wnen this would be closely monitored and that this was normal. Ms. Law stated, "So I can use 0-3 now, even if this goes into effect." Chair Finkelstein said that this does not have any effect on the property period. It was being put in the books so someone could use it on request noth ng was being placed onthe property tse f. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 For the record Mr. Rumpf stated that he had specifically stated a zoning district in responding to Ms, Law's request. He wanted to retract that since he did not know the wSpec fac parcel_ of land to which she was referring. He knew that her. real estate practice ,as, zo.n. ed.C ,3, b~ut Would not want lo state what she could do w~th ~)the~' land that he naa no[ IOoKea up on a zoning map. Louise Dacamara, 836 East Drive, Harbor Estates, stated that she understood what was taking place item an ad that was in the newspaper. She read the May 5, 2002 memo regarding the Code Review for these terns and there was no r~ention of excluding Harb(~r Estates, which lies within the ge0graph cai ocat on d , ' · re'eot . · e, cnbed fn the P J descnpbon. She d~strJbuted a co~)v of an excernt fr¢,m eebn.g, of Decem~)er 18 2001, when the C~ty Commission arant H~rh r · ~; ed ....... exemption that all0wed them to rotan R-l-AA zonin,, ,~,, ~,,-, ..... e.s an. ~- ~,,, u~Jl~ l U/ trlS reS aems Of Harbor Estates, sh~ requested that some provis on be made to exclude the r group from the restriotions and provisions of the COde Re~/ew chart e Chair F th ' : . _g . nkelste n stated that way.ey were not de~ng rezonmg and were not affecbng the HarborEstates pfc )erties in any Motion Ms. Hoyland moved that the subject text amendments, as the proposed amendments to the zoning cede, following the directions of the City Commission an · , for implementation of the Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevde~oh~m~qn~l~amne, ~eS approved, subject to the documented recommendations made by the Community Redevelopment Agency throughout the preceding discussion, and at staff's discretion Staff to revisit the parking requirements and the ssue of an antique mall an~ flea market This motion covers~ agenda items VII (A) and (B). Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that carried unanimously. C. Project Name: Federal Highway Corridor Communi.ty Redevelopment Plan Infill Planned Unit Development District (IPUD) Agent: City of Boynton Beach Description: Request for an amendment to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5, to establish the Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district for t~e purposes of implementing t~e Federal I~'ghway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and acco~nmodating redevelopment within its planning areas#1 and #5. Dick Hudson explained that for some time staff has realized a Code shortcoming in that the smallest size PUD that is permissible under the Code s five acres. Staff sees a real opportunity for small parce nfill and redevelopment in the Corridor, particultr~y in areas #1 and #5. There has a been a lot of interest shown in small, two to three acre parcels by people who want to develop townhouses or single family and there ~s no rev s~on for it· ' I~ '' ' Ms. Hoyland liked it but did not understand the minimum usable open space Der dwelling unit criteria and wanted to know if this was an aggregate of the entire property. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 200? Mr. Hudson replied that it was usable common open space as a minimum. Ms, Hoyland said there could be Zero Lot Line developments. Is there a m~mmum requirement for each lot of open space? The response was no, and Ms. Hoyland observed that they could have no green space on,, those lots. Mr ,,Hudson said t,,hey would look at each case carefully and st~ff could say, We want more. Ms. Hoyland s concern was for drainage on zero lot line single-family dwelling lots - they cannot drain off onto ubli onto adjacent prc~Perties. She suggested that instead of saying 10~ s~%aP~P~ellety, Oar percentage could be defined and app ied. Mr. Hudson agreed that th s could be done Ms. Hoyland inquired about the a Iowable density in an IPUD with a mu t-family town house. Mr. Hudson said they could bud at 10 8 or up to 20 pe[ acre depending on the land Use Ms. Hoyand made some caculatons an ' d dec~ded that thts wo d adequate drainage. She stated that t was t cai for d ' u oP/rowd_e o . , YP owntowns to have~f5 or 10 ~ ope. space and 10~ of an a~cre would be 4K square feet Mr Rumpf thou t that it was possible that this stiPulaton shopId be taken out and re aced w th o , . , .,~., P me bnd of Performance standard s_uch as adequate dra nage. V~ce Chair. Heavi n indiCted'that she would prefer,to see this addressed by Sta is t~ dm ¢_nf~ ~m,~ n ~..- ~.-. . - , , ¢ ~ _e ,-~_._~.L_ .........one a a not be eve that ~t was the job of th~s Board to 6~ctate ail ~he specifications. Ms. Hoyland disagreed Mr. Hudson stated that staff had experienced people corn r~g n with propos ~d site plans asking if their project Wou d work ir~ this area. one of the~ had a rec~eat on area that was very central to his, development. It was almost a squa[e wit~a loop roa :1 around the recreation' area and pool. They had five parking spaces by th~ poo and were having circulation problems. He said there were a really two cat, garages and ( tra parking spaces in fi:ont of every unit and none o,f~he uni;ts ~vere mc~r,b thah':b~vo hbn(;I d feet from the pool. ,He woulc~ b~ wil ng to give u'p those five sp~ce~,iand~t~ey, d sagn ;d because they wanted to have sPace fc~r guesis ~0 m gh~ want t~ en[entaln: Ms. Hoyland's concern was that zero lot lines could be applied to this requirement. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved that, without object on, the Board approve staff's recommendat ons, subject to the modifications as discussed. Vice Char Heavilin seconded the ~otion. Mr. Rumpf stated that he favored replacing the "minimum usable open space per dwelling unit" standard with a performance standard. He also stated that these requirements were subject to future review, problem solving, and debugging. The motion carried 3-1 Ms. Hoyland dissenting. Ms. Hoyland wished to add a change to the motion but the vote had already been taken. VIII. New Business - None IX. Other A. Changes to CRA Legislation There was an article in the Board members' packets that was for information only. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida May 14, 2002 X. Adjournment As there was no further buSiness to come before the Board, the mee' adjOUrned at 10:30 p.m: Respectfully submitted, Recording Secret~ry (three tapes) (051402) 19 ing waS duly