Loading...
Minutes 04-08-03MXNUTES OF THE COMMUNTrY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEE1/NG HELD ZN COMMZSSXON CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR/D~ ON TUESDAY, APR/L 8, 2003 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Larry FinkelsteJn, Chairman los& Aguila Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Michelle Hoyland Henderson 'rillman Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director LJndsey Payne, Assistant City Attorney Call to Order Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. Absences were noted but the entire Board appeared moments after the roll was taken so there were actually no absences. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chair Finkelstein asked to move the Landscape Appeal (Vermeer) to just before the Marina Project in the Public Hearing section. Also, he asked to add an item (8) H.R. Manual and (9) Audit RFP to the Director's Report. Vice Chair Heavilin noted that they had been asked to delete item (D) from the Consent Agenda, Terrorist Risk Insurance, and to table the Fa~;ade Grant request under Old Business. Chair Finkelstein stated that it was his intention to deal with these items as they came up on the agenda since they were both already tabled. Chair Finkelstein suggested moving the Purchasing Manual from (C) under Consent to (C) under Old Business. Mr. Aguila suggested creating a category in the agenda for future meetings where Consent Agenda items could be relocated and it was finally determined that such items would be moved to "Other." Mr. Aguila also suggested keeping similar items grouped together so that the Board did not have to keep rearranging the order of items. It was felt that items such as the Marina should be heard at one time and not interspersed with other items. He suggested moving part 2 of (C) Indoor Recreation Facilities/Athletic Competitions, under Public Hearing Items, to after (D) Height Exception. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton 8each, Florida April 8, 2003 Notion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to accept the agenda with the noted changes. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion that carried unanimously. ~V. Consent Agenda Chair Finkelstein noted that a new financial statement had been substituted for the one originally handed out by the Controller. Hotion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended with the financial corrections as noted. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed unanimously. V. Public Audience Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience for persons wishing to speak on items not on the agenda and closed it when no one came forward to speak. V~. Public Hearing New Business A. Zoning Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Schnars Business Center (ZNCV 03-02) Jeffrey T. Schnars 924 Venture EEC. 924 North Federal Highway Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 1.A.3, requiring parking lot driveways to be located 120 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along streets of higher classification to allow a 13-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 107 feet from the intersection of Federal Highway and N.E. 9th Avenue for a proposed office/retail building. Maxime DuCoste-Amedee, Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Staff determined that minimizing traffic impact at this location was a partial justification for granting this variance and recommended that the variance be approved, with no Conditions of Approval. Jeffrey Schnars, 924 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, offered to answer questions. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 David Fellows, 638 N.E 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, Vice President of iNCA, spoke for the residents who live near this intersection and support this variance because it would promote the flow of traffic away from N.E. 9m Avenue. Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired whether the driveways supported two-way traffic and the response was that they did. Ms. Hoyland wished to know if everything else about the property was exactly as it was when the Board first reviewed it and was assured that it was. Mr. DeMarco inquired about parking spaces and Mr. Ducoste-Amedee responded that they met the parking requirements of the City. I~lotion Mr. '1311man moved to grant relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 6, Article 1V, Section 1.A.3, requiring parking lot driveways to be located 120 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along streets of higher classification to allow a 13-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 107 feet from the intersection of Federal Highway and N.E. 9m Avenue for a proposed office/retail building. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion that carried unanimously. E. Landscape Appeal Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Vermeer Southeast Sales (LAAP 03-001) 3on E. Schmidt & Associates Denbesten & Bokhoven, Ltd. 1060 W. Tndustrial Avenue Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article 11, Section 5.E, buffer requirements, to avoid the requirement to install trees and continuous hedge along the east (rear) perimeter. Kevin Hallahan, City Forester and Environmentalist in the Planning Division, presented the Staff Report. The appeal is to eliminate the installation of the required rear landscape buffer along the entire 315-foot east perimeter of the property. Site Plan approval was granted on August 20, 2002, which included this rear landscape buffer. The perimeter in question abuts the Seaboard Coast Line railroad (CSX) right-of-way, and farther east, the 1-95 right-of-way. Part of the buffering is provided by the existing stand of Scrub Oak trees and under-story vegetation immediately adjacent to the east perimeter within the CSX right-of-way. The proposed new trees, hedge plants, and irrigation improvements would not provide any additional landscape buffering not already created by the existing, off-site Scrub Oak trees/vegetation. The City has two underground utility lines near the east property line of the project and the City Utilities Department prohibits the planting of shade trees within a utility easement. This would cause the required landscaping to be installed more than 20 feet from the east property line. This area is indicated as "open equipment display" on the approved Site Plan. In light of the existing trees and vegetation in the railroad right-of-way, staff recommended that this request to omit the Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton 8each, Florida April 8, 2003 proposed trees, hedge plants, and irrigation improvements along the site east perimeter be approved. A lengthy discussion ensued about the advisability of setting a precedent for property owners with similar situations, the possibility of CSX going to double-tracking and possibly eliminating the buffer, the cost to the developer of providing a buffer if the existing buffer were to be 'removed for some reason, and whether the developer could substitute other landscaping for this buffer. Kenneth Kruger, engineer for Vermeer Southeast Sales, offered to answer questions. He indicated that it would be quite expensive for Vermeer to put in the required landscaping. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Notion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the developer's request to omit the buffer. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion but wished to add the condition that should the existing stand of landscaping within the adjacent CSX right-of-way be removed, that the subject property owner shall be required to install a landscape buffer as required by today's Code. Mr. Fenton did not wish to amend h~is motion. Ms. Hoyland withdrew her second and Mr.'DeMarco seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion to approve failed 3-4, Afr. Agu//a, Afr. 77//rnan, V/ce Chair Hear~/~n, Afs. Hoy/and d/~ent/ng. Notion Ms. Hoyland moved to approve the Vermeer request to omit the landscaping buffer required by Code on the condition that should the existing stand of landscaping within the adjacent CSX Railroad right-of-way be removed, the subject property owner shall be required to install a landscape buffer as required by today's Code. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion. Mr. Fenton inquired about the economic impact on Vermeer Southeast Sales of having to replace the landscape buffer. He asked if this would be a problem and Mr. Kruger responded that it would be very expensive to make the concrete rubble soil plantable. Mr. Kruger did not think that CSX would be able to use the odd-shaped property for double-tracking and fully anticipated that the existing buffer would remain in place. Mr. Aguila called the question and the vote was inconclusive. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion to approve with a condition passed 5-2, Afr. Fenton and Afr. DeAfarco dissenlT'ng. C. Code Review Project: Agent: Owner: The Narina (CDRV 03-00Z) Lawrence .lustiz, TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Location: Description: D. Heiqht Exception 743 N.E. 1~t Avenue Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 6.F. MD(ED USE ZONING DTSTRICTS, TABLE 6F-1, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED PR[NCTPAL, ACCESSORY, AND CONDI-I'IONAL USES to include Residential, Single- Family, Attached, use as a permitted use in the Mixed Use-High l~ntensity (MU-H) zoning district. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: The Marina (HTEX 03-002) Lawrence 3ustiz, TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd. 743 N.E. 1~ Avenue Request for Height Exception of 18 feet above the MU-H district limitation of 150 feet. Chair Finkelstein made the following declaraUon. '7 was the real estate broker on the transact/on in which the applicant purchased the property which is the subject of tonight's discussion and vote. I have been involved in discussions w/th the Board Attorney on this matter for approximately live months and although I hav~ been advised by. the Board Attorney and ~he FIo/ida Ethics Commission that no conli/ct exists and that the State Statutes wou/d prefer I vote, I wi# abstain from participating in the voting and discussion on this matter tonight. I w#/now turn the meeting over to the V/ce Chair." Vice Chair Heavilin acted as Chair for the Public Hearings on the Marina Agenda items. The Board considered the Code Review and Height Exception items prior to the Site Plan. Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, gave a broad overview of the Site Plan changes, stating that the project had changed ownership and now had higher density, was comprised of condominiums and townhouse units instead of rental units, and that there was no retail component underneath the residences. The applicant and new owner, The Related Group (TRG-Boynton), proposes to construct two 15-story buildings and one 7-story building connected by a 740- space parking garage. The first floor of these buildings will contain 17,59! square feet of commercial space. Tn addition, the applicant proposes to construct 12 townhouse units along the pier adjacent to the north Marina. The applicant requested a height exception of 18 feet greater than the 150-foot allowable height on the two 15-story buildings in order to screen rooflcop mechanical items. The parking is an issue on this application since the applicant plans to provide only 786 of the 856-space requirement and is asking to use the fee-in-lieu-of provision for the parking space deficit. There is a minor issue with landscaping in that 50% of the landscaping must be made up of native plants. The plans do not indicate this and no variance was submitted. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report on the Code Review to allow townhouses in the Mixed-Use High zoning district. Staff did not see the necessity of- putting Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 townhouses in this location. There was a nice commercial attraction on the water and to obtain access to the commercial and to the waterfront would now require walking right next to someone's home. If the CRA wanted to approve this, staff suggested that a condition be added to severely limit single family attached units to no more than five percent (5%) of the total residential units in any single development. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the Staff Report on the Height Exception. Staff was not in favor of the height exception and recommended that Buildings #1 and #2 be redesigned to stay within the 150-foot height limitation. Ms. Bonnie Miskel, Zoning and Land Use Attorney, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She had lived in the area for 18 years and knew how much the residents wanted the waterfront area to be developed. She believed that the previous developer had the wrong product and that TRG-Boynton Beach had the right product - condos were hot and rentals were not. Tt was also her contention that this plan provided more public access than the previous one(s). There were no gates, no fences, and nothing to impede public access. Ms. Miskel explained the project using colored renderings on display at the meeting. The pedestrian areas behind the townhomes run from the drive to the end of the peninsula, around the restaurant, and back. They have opened the site up, made it more visible from the streets and friendlier to pedestrians. Tf the retail space were to be ret~urned, a need would be generated for additional parking spaces. " Acting Chair Heavilin opened the Public Audience. Lee Wische, 1302 S.W. 18m Street, Boynton Beach, stated that he had lived in the area for 30 years and had been part of the Marina project from the beginning but nothing had happened. He felt that the proposed project was spectacular and that any problems could be worked out between the builder and staff. He felt this was an important project for the redevelopment of the downtown and asked that the Board pass it. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Tnlet Drive, Boynton Beach, liked the idea of owned units versus rental units but questioned the effect of the townhouses in that area. He felt that putting the townhomes along the dock effectively put a damper on pedestrian use. He questioned having condo units on the first floor versus retail and felt that the retail would give people more reason to go to the area. He felt that there were things that could be done to buffer the effect of the retail if it were to be included. Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9m Avenue, Boynton Beach, stated that he was proud to be a witness to all the CRA had accomplished to date. He felt that this situation called for compromise. The City wants and needs access to the Mangrove Walk and the water and if everything came together, possibly a destination on the water that people could enjoy. He believed that the Board should consider carefully what was being proposed, especially at the ground floor level. Bruce Black, 656 Manor Drive, Boynton Beach, was pleased that the project was not a rental one but was very concerned about the potential loss of access to the water by the Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 citizens. He felt that having a public walkway right next to living quarters was an invitation for disgruntled residents to telephone the police when people were simply laughing, talking, and trying to have a good time. He felt that placing the townhomes immediately adjacent to the dock would be a deterrent to public access and use. Ns. Bonnie Miskel rebutted that they had not reduced one inch of pedestrian access from the previous plan or the plan that was approved in 2002. By expanding the roundabout and removing part of the commercial building, they had expanded public access. She felt that there was ample precedent for having townhomes in an urban environment and gave some examples. The applicant was willing to limit the townhomes to 5% of the total residential units as suggested by staff. Ms. Miskel noted that they were proposing 17K square feet of retail plus the proposed restaurant, so they actually had ample retail. She believed that the project met the spirit of the Code. Board Discussion Mr. Henderson '~llman was pleased that the development of the Marina would continue but had some concerns with the present proposal. He noted that widening the sidewalks did not correspond to increasing use by the public. He said that most of the townhomes that Ms. Niskel had mentioned were in large, open spaces and that this one was in a small area, with an almost "barricade" type of feeling. He did not agree witfl the placement of the townhomes at all. ~le thought that the developer should strive to offer Boynton Beach what Visions 20/20 had promised - true access to the marina and downtown. Mr. Don Fenton believed that the City needed developers and that a lot of people had fought to get the 45 foot height limitation raised to attract them. He commented that the Police Department had 63 calls in the last year from the Two Georges and the Banana Boat and 17 false alarm calls. Acting Chair Heavilin commented that the issue was whether or not to allow townhomes in the MU-H zoning district and that any decision would affect developments throughout the MU-H area and not just this project. Hs. Michelle Hoyland stated that she did not disagree with townhouses in this zoning district but agreed with some kind of cap on the number of them. She was concerned about the location of the townhomes in this proposed project and believed that the location would cut off access to the restaurant, the place where most people would go. She would support townhomes in this location if they began on the second floor. Mr. Al DeMarco stated that he did not see anything wrong with the townhomes but suggested that there could be 12 businesspeople in the community that would like to have their businesses on the ground floor and their home on the second and third floors. He was not in favor of any building at this location more than three stories high. t4otion Mr. Aguila moved to approve amending the Code to allow the use of townhomes in the MU-H zoning district, subject to a 5% cap of the total number of residential units on a per project basis, as recommended by staff. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Mr. Tillman was not in favor of having the Board determine what the percentage should be. He wanted more information about this from staff. Various Board members made comments about this. Mr. Hutchinson stated that staff was concerned about the impact this decision would have on other developments that were.' before the City for consideration at this time. Mr. Rumpf suggested not getting hung up on the exact percentage of allowable townhomes; the point was that the percentage should be very small. Mr. Fenton stated that if they passed this motion, which allowed 5%, the developer, who was asking for ~,%, could actually come back and ask for more units in an already-compacted area. Mr. Aguila withdrew the 5% cap portion of his motion and amended it to state that he supported townhomes in the mixed-use high zoning district, pending further study by the Planning & Zoning Division. Mr. DeMarco agreed to the amendment to the original motion. The point was made that this motion affected staff and that this Board's duty was to make recommendations to the City Commission. Ultimately, Mr. Aguila and Mr. DeMarco retracted the motion and second, respectively. Motion Ms. Hoyland moved to table the Code Review to allow residential single-family atta~ed uses in the MU-H zoning district, pending further review by staff but conveying a feeling of support by the Board to move forward with further review. Mr. 'rillman seconded the motion. Mr. Rumpf confirmed that the Board wanted staff to define the threshold of allowable residential single-family attached use. Staff suggested that these cases could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as conditional uses. Some Board members liked this idea. Ms. Hoyland wanted staff to come back to the Board with all the options. The motion passed 5-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. Ms. Bonnie Miskel stated that they agreed with the spirit of the Ordinance that was passed last year. According to staff's explanation to them, the Ordinance was intended to allow for disguising of mechanical equipment on the roof of buildings. They felt that their project met with the spirit and the intent of the Code. The actual deck is !44 feet high and this meets Code. The only treatments that go beyond that are ornamental and architectural and were chosen to offer a more creative design. Instead of just flattening the top of the buildings so they could comply, they added the false mansards. Staff spoke of extensions to cover the elevator and the elevator portion is actually at !6! feet, so they were 1! feet over the total height requirement. The additional 7 feet they are asking for is the mansard that was designed to be consistent with the other elevations in the building. Roger Frye, architect for the project, spoke of the design benefits of the building's height. He explained that they considered that a 150-foot building in a residential district would be a 15-story building. They were doing high ceilings because they were creating a high-end product. They were going to have very luxurious interiors. They also wanted to do some good architecture so they added a parapet and put in the mansards. In most Codes, this was given as a matter of course and administratively approved. The Code in Boynton Beach, however, requires a height exception for anything beyond 150 feet. They believed that since it was not inhabitable space, and was not a 16th or 17th floor, that it would be allowed. The Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 building height was 15 stories because they wanted something significant to happen on the site. They felt that the 15 stories were particularly appropriate on this site because of the access from Boynton Beach Boulevard, being on the water, and having premium views - it is the best place to put higher buildings. They believed that the additional height was insignificant in terms of the powerful presence the buildings would have. Mr. Frye commented that they were not building 15-story buildings because they wanted higher density. The site would actually permit another 250 units based on 80-units/acre and they were at 40-units/acre density. The result of saying no to this request would be to reduce the fifteen story buildings to thirteen stories and raise the seven story buildings to ten, in order to get back to the density of the preferred configuration. They did not like the way that 10-story and 13-story buildings worked. Ms. Miskel commented that what they were asking for was consistent with the practice in other municipalities surrounding Boynton Beach. Boca Raton, for example, did not count any uninhabitable space in their considerations on building height. Ms. Miskel showed a drawing of the buildings without the mansards, showing a fiat surface with the elevator sticking out. Acting Chair Heavilin opened the Public Audience. Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9m Avenue, Boyn{On Beach, stated that he appreciated t~is project and hoped that something similar to it would ultimately be approved. He suggested giving the developer the height they were asking for but ensuring that at the bottom of the 150 feet (plus) buildings there would be access to the water that could be appreciated, from a ground floor view, by the citizens of Boynton Beach. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Znlet Drive, Boynton Beach, recalled the history of height deliberations in the City. He was in support of the project in general but felt that the 150-foot height restriction should be strictly upheld. Lee Wische, 1302 S.W. 18m Street, Boynton Beach, stated that nothing was perfect and that the question had to be asked, "Do we finally want to do some redevelopment?" Things can be worked out. He felt that this could work out, given the intestinal fortitude needed to push things through instead of procrastinating. He wanted, to see something happen in this area during his lifetime. He said that we were trying to develop downtown, not hinder it. This project could be the catalyst that allows everything else to fall in place. Bruce Black, 656 Manor Drive, Boynton Beach, stated that this was the first project that would be of this magnitude in the City. He did not agree with the statements he had heard that the design was for the benefit of Boynton Beach. He believed that the design was driven by a desire for profit, and that the developers would be gone when the buildings were finished since they did not have a significant stake in the community. He was not opposed to having 7 and 14-story buildings. Everyone wants to have something done in this area. He wanted it to be good for the developers and for the citizens. Mr. Black wanted the height limit of 150 feet upheld. Acting Chair Heavilin closed the Public Audience. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Ms. Bonnie Miskel rebutted the comment made by Mr. Black about not having a significant stake in the community. This was a $90N project and that was a very significant stake. The architect stated that the buildings could be done differently but as an expert, did not believe that they would be as appealing. There was no oceanfront property in Boynton Beach and this would be ocean view. At seven stories, there would be no ocean view. The biggest reason they were asking for the height exception was architectural appeal and diversity. Board Discussion of Height Mr. Aguila stated that the project was great and that he wanted to see it move forward, but was not convinced by anything he had heard for need for additional height, except for purposes of getting more units. Having a fiat building with an elevator showing would not be approved anyway, he said. Mr. Tillman agreed with Mr. Aguila, saying that the height limitation in tile City was 150 feet and disagreed that a 150-foot building would be aesthetically unappealing. Ms. Hoyland agreed with Nr. Aguila. She commented that to allow this height exception would open the door for others and she did not want to have to fight the height battle again. She believed that the applicant could make it work at 1~50 feet. Mr. Fenton did not have a problem with the height but did not like the idea of fee-in-lieu of instead of additional parking spaces. Acting Chair Heavilin stated that the project looked great and that she supported the applicant's request for the additional height. She believed that the Board needed to bend. Mr. DeMarco was in favor of the project and suggested that they make the buildings 14 stories and add another story on the 7-story building. He thought this would be a good compromise. In any case, Mr. DeMarco expressed support for the applicant's request. Ms. Miskel responded to Mr. DeMarco's request by saying that she was not sure they wanted to do that. That would mean redesigning and recalculating and her client wished to move forward with the project. MotiQn Mr. Aguila moved to deny the request for height exception of 18 feet above the MU-H district limitation of 150 feet, based on no positive findings as to why it was necessary. Mr. 'lqllman seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary called the roll and the motion to deny failed 3-3, V/ce Cha/r Hear~/~n, Mr. DelVarco, and IVr. Fenton d/ssen~'ng. Mr. Fenton made a motion to approve the height request in exchange for additional parking but withdrew it. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 THE MEETING RECESSED AT 9:00 P.M. AND RESUMED AT 9:08 P.M. The Board considered the Marina Site Plan. Ms. Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, spoke about the Site Plan, saying that staff could not make a positive recommendation because of their objection to the height and the inclusion of townhomes. The other two issues with the site plan were the fee-in-lieu of in exchange for 70 required parking spaces and the requirement for 50% of the landscaping to be made up of native plant material. With regard to the landscaping, the applicant needs to either revise the plans or submit a variance request. :If the plans were to be revised, it would have to come back before the Board. Acting Chair Heavilin asked the applicant if there were any questions with which they did not agree. Mr. Frye, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that they were in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Aguila asked staff to explain Condition of Approval #3 about the applicant having to dedicate 25 feet of land to the City or petition for abandonment. Sandy Dunkirk, engineer for the applicant, pointed out the east side of Marina Drive on a map as the area in question. Ms. Miskel stated that the applicant had no problem width dedicating additional right-of-way and t~t it would continue to stay public. Mr. Aguila also pointed out that the year should be changed from 200 to 2000 in Condition of Approval #33. Applicant Comments Ms. Miskel stated that they would talk about the highlights of the Site Plan but focus on some of the concerns. She responded to Mr. Fenton's concern about parking, saying that as a mixed-use project, certain community residents would be frequenting the retail facilities that are provided on the site. They believe that based on shared parking and common usage between the different principal uses on site, they had no problem with parking and stated that staff was in support of that. Ms. Miskel asked Mr. Roger Frye to speak about the townhome portion of the project, even though that was not passed at this meeting. Mr. Roger Frye stated that the Site Plan was fundamentally the same as the Site Plan brought to the City previously. They put roads and sidewalks out on the marina and in places where people would actually want to walk. They felt that it was important to connect Boynton Beach Boulevard to Ocean Avenue in a walkable, friendly way. They also felt that the park was underutilized and that it was critical to connect it to Marina Village. That use of the roadway out on the Marina was a key component of their Plan. Tt was their intention to make this a public site, to the point where the buildings that are accessed from Ocean Avenue have retail at their base. Building #2, the tower in the South facing the roadway, has retail at the base. Out on the point, there is the restaurant and some additional retail. On the apartment building to the North, the base of the building facing the park is made up of rooms that are perceived as retail such as the community rooms, the public rooms, the offices for the staff, and the fitness center. They did not think that regular retail would work in that area. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 They put a 7-story building on Ocean Avenue because the scale related to Ocean Avenue, the buildings across the street, and the bridge. They put the big buildings in the middle of the site in the premier location, he felt, in the City of Boynton Beach. They felt that a community was made by a variety of buildings, variations in shape and color, and good landscaping. Mr. Frye expressed that housing was the key component to making something like this work. He believed that marinas were perceived as relatively unsafe environments. There are a number of transients that show up at marinas and people do not feel comfortable in them at night, for example. The way to make the place feel friendly and welcoming was to put in housing. They put in large buildings, smaller buildings, 3-story buildings, and 2-story buildings. The garage, which they had located on the back, was moved to allow a 20-foot area for additional landscaping. Also, the garage has been lowered one level, giving a better relationship between the garage and the apartment buildings. The other advantage of the two towers is the open space between the two buildings. Mr. Frye believed that putting retail where the townhomes were proposed would be the worst possible choice. Retail has one front; retailers do not want people coming in the back and the front. They keep storage and bathrooms and so forth in the back. When they draw real buildings the back will be the service entrance. ?hat would be terrible in this location. Re~il does not work on the second floor. :If offices were put on the second floor, people leave them at night and they are vacant and dark. At night, the townhomes will provide life, light, and people, creating a friendly, safe environment for people to go from the park to the restaurant. He felt that having the townhomes was greatly preferable to having the back of an office building or a strip center and would facilitate public access. He thought it was a mistake to deny the townhomes. Acting Chair Heavilin opened the Public Audience. Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, felt that the applicant was going to have to have some clear guidance to make the parking situation work for this location. He spoke of wanting access to the site from other areas in the CRA. He was in favor of the height. He was concerned about the parking in the area and the parking for downtown. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean %nlet Drive, Boynton Beach, liked a lot about the project. He did not believe that all marinas were dangerous. He was concerned about parking. He thought that the fee-in-lieu-of provision had been instituted to help people who had small parcels and were not able to provide parking and as a way to get money for the parking garage. He stated that using that option on a project of this magnitude was somewhat inexcusable. He felt that townhomes were an impediment to pedestrian access. He felt, also, that the townhomes would not be year-round residences and would be dark in the evening anyway for most of the year. At least retail on the bottom would provide some activity. Barkley Garnsey, 326 S.W. :]..t Avenue, Boynton Beach, spoke as a business owner and property owner adjacent to the Marina project. He spoke of his support for property owners and the right of The Related Group to develop their property; however, he was concerned about public access and public parking. He said that as a business owner in the area, they had 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 waited a long time for this development so that their business would improve. He stated that the issue of public access and parking had to be made extremely clear in the Conditions of Approval. He referred to a Greenways matter in which the Conditions of Approval had not been written as clearly and specifically as they might have been and as a result, the developer did not provide Greenways access. He was in support of the townhomes and the height exception request. Access to the waterfront and public parking were critical. He understood from conversations with Mr. Lawrence .lustiz that the applicant's intent was not to provide public parking but only parking for their project. He praised the CRA Director's ideas for the museum in the area. Ms. 8onnie Miskel rebutted, saying that she was not sure why there was the impression that public access had been reduced by their plan. The retail buildings in the former design were connected in a concrete barrier fashion. They had enlarged the cul-de-sac paver area and made a break between the buildings to encourage pedestrian flow. Also, all of the pedestrian areas, including the access to the overlook and around, will all be public easements. In addition to moving the road over next to the Marina so that the connection that previously detoured around the back of the building was now up front, right by the water and the park, they were agreeing to do public easements around the entire perimeter of the site. They had expanded public access. They had no issues with the native vegetation issue and were agreeable~to expanding the right-of-way by dedicating addition,[ square footage. Acting Chair Heavilin closed the Public Audience. Acting Chair Heavilin asked for a clarification on the parking issue. She asked how much of the garage would be public versus residential only. Ms. Miskel asked Mr. Lawrence .]ustiz to speak on this point. Mr. Larry :lustiz, Director of Land Acquisition, 2828 Coral Way, Coral Gables, Florida, stated that the parking garage would total 7~,0 spaces and they were getting credit for 22 of the 45 spaces off of Casa Loma Boulevard for a total of 762 spaces, which they were providing. If they met the strict residential and non-residential requirements and ratios of the City Code, they would have to provide a total of 832, which they thought was overkill for an urban project of this type. Therefore, they were requesting that the City, under the fee-in-lieu of program, allow a 70-space reduction from this requirement in exchange for $1,000 per space that will go into the City's public parking garage fund. They did not believe that those 70 spaces were actually needed for this project. Acting Chair Heavilin stated that her question had actually been about the number of spaces in the parking garage itself and whether any of the 786 spaces would be for the public. Mr..lustiz stated that the parking spaces in the garage were for this project only. They would have valet parking at the restaurant and so they would have quasi-public parking in their parking garage for the people who come to their restaurant. The parking in their parking garage and the 22 spaces they were taking credit for, which was half of Casa Loma Boulevard, were for their project only. They did not have any public parking in their parking garage. Acting Chair Heavilin recalled that on the previous site plan, a certain number of floors would be public and then it would be gated from that point upwards for the residents only. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Mr. Roberto Rocha, The Related Group, 2828 Coral Way, Coral Gables, Florida, clarified Mr..~ustiz' response, by saying that they had 762 parking spaces, of which 740 were in the parking garage. The parking garage would offer parking to the public other than that required for the condominium owners. They offer one parking space to each unit, which would be 338 spaces out of the 762 parking spaces and would probably offer one more space for those who required it. That would leave over 300 parking spaces that would be available for the public if they want to walk around the Marina, use their boat, go to the restaurant, or visit any of the retail spaces. The parking garage would not restrict public access in any way. Mr. Tillman stated that there were some spaces originally deeded for public use. He stated that Mr..lustiz had just clearly stated that the public parking was for private use. Mr..lustiz said that he used the term quasi-public parking for people using the valet service. Mr. 'RIIman said if they eliminated public parking, they would be increasing private ownership. He was concerned about the density - they were going from 282 up to 338 and we would lose 71 spaces. ]:n lieu of parking, the applicant would give the City $70K. As the demand for parking increases in the area, surface parking spaces cost $8K. This is something the Board might have to take a look at. The City will lose in the end when they have to provide those actual 71 parking spaces. Ms. Miskel responded that in Mixed-Use cases, residents are double counted. ]~f a resident, is going over to the restaurant, the assumption is that they are double-counted. Some of the people living there will be walking to the shops and restaurant and won't need parking, specifically. They were asking for less than a 10% reduction in the overall scheme, which was not significant. Mr. 'l'illman contended that if the 71 spaces were eliminated, public access would be curbed. Ms. Miskel stated that the City had a Code provision for fee-in-lieu-of and they were going to comply with that, as would anyone else in their position. Ms. Hoyland asked about the 22 spaces on Casa Loma and whether they were currently in the right-of-way and public parking spaces now. Ms. Nancy Byrne, Assistant Development Director, stated that the public parking spaces on Casa Loma Boulevard were covered by the Amended Mediation Agreement, which was a tri- party agreement between the City, Two Georges, and the owners of the Marina. At the time that the agreement was entered into, the Marina owner was Edward Garcia but that has passed with each sale of the property on to the new owner. Those are to be shared public spaces, available to all uses at the Marina. Ms. Hoyland subtracted those 22 spaces from the 786 that the applicant was providing. Ms. Hoyland calculated that there was actually a 92-space shortage. She realized that as a party to the tri-party agreement, those spaces belonged to the applicant. The spaces were for the City, Two Georges, and this development. Ms. Byrne stated that the Gamsey-Hall property was a part of it as well. Ms. Hoyland noted that in the staff report, the statement was made that the parking garage would have 740 spaces, and that a total of 22 spaces would be provided on Casa Loma. That is 762 spaces. She heard the developer say they had 786. Where were the other 20 spaces? 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 There is a discrepancy. Ms. Miskel did not know where the 786 number came from and Mr. Aquila said it was on the drawing and that it said parking provided: 786. Ms. Miskel stated that the 22 spaces were within their property so they counted them because they were on their property. Ms. Hoyland asked how many parking spaces they were providing including the 22. Ms. Miskel stated that there were garages and there was parking within the townhomes and so it was 786. Ms. Hoyland saw a discrepancy between the Staff Report and the statement on the drawings. Ms. Hoyland voiced a concern at the time the Board did the fee-in-lieu-of option that parking spaces cost more than $1,000 each. At the time, the direction was that Boynton Beach wanted people to come to Boynton and they wanted to make it friendly. In the first year they did not even charge anything. Tt was in the Code. Ms. Byrne said that per Code, they had to provide parking for the residential element but could, technically, pay for commercial spaces in lieu of. Ms. Miskel said that it would be a number like 196 and they were only asking for 70. Ms. Byrne noted that fee-in-lieu-of was not a right by Code; it was granted or denied by the City Commission. Ms. Hoyland then asked whether the applicant had done any parking study that looked at shared parking calculations and usage times. Ms. Lusia Galav responded that this was the way they calculated parking for Mixed-Use-High, There is a chart in the Code that is calculated based on percentages for the peak hours in the weekends. That is how staff came up with the 856 number. It was not a straight 100% but was based on the highest number in that table of all those calculations in those timeframes, Hs. Hoyland stated that they would look at the time of day that residents are not at their homes and there was usage crossover for the time of day that people were using businesses; therefore, we allow what is kind of like a shared parking calculation to allow a reduction. Ms. Galav agreed, rvls. Hoyland continued that if it had been a 100% requirement, they would have been up over 1,000, and Ms. Galav agreed. Ms. Galav stated that this was the only district in the Code where the shared parking formula was allowed. Ms. Hoyland thought that 70 spaces seemed like a lot. She thought they had some on-street parking on Boynton Beach Boulevard that went down to the Marina. She thought there was some on-street rather than drop-off areas. Mr. Aguila agreed that this was on one of the earlier plans. Mr. Frye responded that this had required an additional right-of-way dedication that had not happened. Staff requested that they put in what was actually possible to build so that when they got their Certificate of Occupancy, whatever was drawn up was something that would actually work. So, that parking was removed, l~n addition, they moved the building slightly closer to the Marina in order to provide an additional buffer on the West side of the garage so some of the parking spaces on that link were taken out. Ms. Hoyland asked how many on-street, parallel parking spaces had been lost in this plan compared to earlier ones. Mr. Frye thought that there were 12, based on his memory of what was happening on North Marina Drive. Mr. Aguila said that counting the 22, there were about 37, so he agreed. Ms. Byrne said these spaces were not within their property and they could not use them as part of their calculation. Ms. Hoyland asked if the spaces were previously dedicated to the public. Ms. Byrne stated her belief that the spaces were never used in any of 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 the Marina calculations. They were there for public use as part of the Promenade. Also it was dedicated public parking by virtue of the fact that it was a public street. Ms. Hoyland was concerned because there was a water feature that was sitting there and supposed to be part of the whole dynamic and in order to get to it you would have to park in the garage. Ms. Byrne stated that the CRA had the design of the Promenade and could control this. Ms. Hoylalnd confirmed with Ms. Byrne that the City was not requiring the developer to build the on-street parking spaces. Ms. Byrne indicated that the City did not require them to build the on-street parking spaces but required them to have access to their project from Boynton Beach Boulevard. If the CRA wished to talk to them about something different, that would be up the Board. A 70-space deficit seemed rather large to Ms. Hoyland. She supported the request for fee-in- lieu of in general; however, she felt that 70 spaces on a shared parking calculation would be even more using raw calculations. Mr. Aguila noted that the whole spirit behind fee-in-lieu-of was to help the very small Boynton Beach project. There was a developer with a lot of land and very little ability to provide parking and they wanted to assist people in this situation. Ms. Byrne stated that part of what was being recalled was contained in the original Developer's Agreement where the City asked for more parking; however, this developer was suggesting dissolving that earlier agreement. " Mr. Aguila expressed concern with the aesthetic features of the proposed buildings, saying that the Board had seen elevations that were considerably more interesting than what was presented. The appearance was of a straight shot, monotonous, with nothing breaking up the building to establish base, middle, and high sections. He wanted to see more interest on the towers as well. Mr. Aguila commented on the public access on the north side of the townhomes. He saw a drawing with a measurement of 7.5 feet on one end and 6.5 feet on the other side. He thought that at a marina, there were poles and lights and hoses and boxes and so forth and that this would tend to reduce the width of the pedestrian walkway even further. He did not think that pedestrians would find this inviting and would find it too small. If the proposed museum were to be added to the mix, it would make it even worse. Ms. Hoyland did not like the townhomes in the proposed location and preferred to see more of a promenade effect in front of them. Mr. DeMarco thought the project could be approved with the understanding that staff and the applicant could work out the remaining details. He was in favor of ample parking, landscaping, police protection, fire protection, open space, and quality construction. Motion Mr. qqllman moved to deny approval of the proposed Site Plan Modification for the Residences at Marina Village. This motion died for lack of a second. Acting Chair Heavilin believed that the Board's consensus was that they wanted the project but that some issues had to be ironed out. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Ns. Hoyland mentioned that staff did not support the height and the townhomes and the Board did not support the height and the townhomes got tabled and a positive recommendation was not provided. She wondered how a Site Plan Nodification could be sent on to the City Commission when a Code Revision had been tabled. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to deny approval of the Site Plan Modification for the Residences at Marina Village. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion. Mr. Dale Sugerman, Assistant City Manager, asked the Assistant City Attorney to swear him in. He commented that there were many Conditions of Approval that conditioned the Site Plan. For example, Condition of Approval #27 says, "Site Plan approval is contingent upon approval of the Height Exception." The Board does not have to rule on the height exception tonight. Also, Condition of Approval #24 says, "The residential single-family attached units (which they are referring to as townhomes), are not permitted in this district. The applicant has requested a Code Review to add townhomes to the list of permitted uses. Site Plan approval is contingent on approval of this amendment to the Land Development Regulations." Nr. Sugerman's point was that the Board could approve the Site Plan with the conditions that had already been incorporated into it by staff, l:t would not mean that those hurdles had been removed. It would be contingent upon the applicant to get o~er those hurdles. He was not sure that the Board had to solve all the problems tonight. He suggested that the Board look again at the Conditions of Approval and see if they could be comfortable with them and whether they wished to add further conditions. Mr. Sugerman commented that the Site Plan approval, which was ultimately the responsibility of the City Commission, was going to be contingent on approval of the height exception, which the Board did not grant. Mr. Aguila and Ns. Hoyland still had several reservations about the project such as the parking, height, the townhomes, landscaping, and the aesthetic issues, and yet they liked many things about the proposed project. The Recording Secretary polled the vote. The motion to deny failed 3-3, Ms. Hoyland, Mr. Aguila, and Mr. 'rillman in favor of denial and Act~rig Chair Hear~lin, I~lr. DeNlar¢o, and IYr. Fenton d/ssent/ng. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the Site Plan except that Conditions #24 and #30 would have to come back before the CRA for approval. The motion failed for lack of a second. l~t was acknowledged that since the motion to deny failed, the net result was "no recommendation." The Board was concerned about the "no recommendaton" and the Board Attorney advised that they should report the results of their vote as a factual matter. The background and history would be evident. Acting Chair Heavilin did not want the applicant to go away thinking that the project was not wanted when it was only a matter of some things that needed to be worked out. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Ms. Miskel appreciated all of the comments, heard them, understood them, and would proceed along. They appreciated the time involved in the consideration of the matter. Chair Finkelstein resumed his duties as Chair. He commented that the Board had a rule that they would decide at 9:30 p.m. whether they would go ahead or not and it was now 10:15 p.m. The Board's consensus was to continue with the Code Review for indoor Recreation Facilities, and the Urban Group invoice matter. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to continue the meeting to hear Agenda Items (C) 2 and 7 (A)i and defer the rest of the Agenda. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. C. Code Review Project: Agent: Location: Description: ]:ndoor Recreation Facilities/Athletic Competitions City-initiated C3, Community Commercial, and C-,~, General Commercial Districts To a~end the Land Development Regulations, " Chapter 1, Definitions, by adding a definition for "Athletic Competitions," and to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C.l.m by adding "Athletic Competitions" as a conditional use and creating a separate use group for outdoor recreation uses. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the Staff Report for this item. Mr. Hudson explained that this request was to amend the Land Development Regulations to add 7 definitions and to add athletic competitions as a conditional use and create a separate use group for indoor and outdoor recreation uses. Staff surveyed local governments (Delray Beach and West Palm Beach) to obtain their respective regulations. Neither of the cities cited by the applicant and contacted by staff specifically address boxing as a permitted or conditional use. Each considers the permitted facilities, which would be expected to host a variety of events that may include boxing, to be sufficient. Staff recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations as the minimum changes necessary to allow amateur and professional competitions, such as boxing, martial arts, and wrestling, subject to conditional use approval, within the C-3, Community Commercial Zoning District. Due to the standard zoning structure, such uses would also be construed as conditional uses within the C- 4, General Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Fenton recalled that there used to be a Police Athletic League boxing event in the Civic Center on a monthly basis. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Randy Grinter, owner/operator of Club Ovation, stated that he wanted to have some professional boxing events at his facility. He offered to answer questions. Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience when no one wished to speak. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the City-initiated request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Definitions, by adding a definition for "Athletic Competitions", and to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C.lm by adding "Athletic Competitions" as a conditional use and creating a separate use group for outdoor recreation uses. This will allow amateur and professional competitions, such as boxing, martial arts, and wrestling, subject to conditional use approval, within the C-3 and C-4 Zoning Districts. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. VZZ. Director's Report A. Updates 1) The Urban Group Znvoice Detail Mr. Hutchinson explained that he had sent out a packet of information on this subject to the Board members with the backup that was sent by Jim Nardi of The Urban Group that detailed each of the parcels, the date and how many hours were spent on each for the task, including some of Mr. Nardi's administrative hours. The detail was arranged by date and gave an hour- by-hour explanation of the work they had done on the parcels for which they had submitted invoicing for the next draw. This contract was done before this staff was here so he looked to the Board for direction on whether this satisfied what the Board had in mind when they entered into the agreement with The Urban Group. The Urban Group invoiced based on 40% completion and Chair Finkelstein did not think this was warranted. There was one property on which they were never able to make contact with the owner, for example. Howard Steinholz, a Principal of The Urban Group, stated that they had provided services based on some specific tasks and that they had done a lot of up-front work. They set up files, did research into County records and encumbrances and generally did a lot of work. The project was a willing seller program and the willing seller program ended when it was determined that there was no further interest in their moving forward. They arrived at a determination that there were no willing sellers and at that time the task was ended. A lengthy discussion ensued with points being made on both sides. :It was eventually agreed that the contract had been somewhat lacking because of its subjective content. The Urban Group admitted that the scope could have been clearer and were willing to improve that the next time around. However, they felt that they had earned the money based on what they had done and based on the hours as submitted by the Project Manager, Jim Nardi. A compromise was reached. 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 8, 2003 Motion Mr. Aguila moved to settle the issue by paying $3,400 instead of $5,100 for Task Authorization No. 2, "Property Acquisition". Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 6-1, /~r. Fenton dissenting. Mr. Fenton wanted to pay them more than $3,400 but less than $5,100. Mr. Aguila told Mr. Steinholz that the Board wanted to work with The Urban Group and hoped that The Urban Group still wanted to work with the CRA. For the record, Mr. Steinholz stated that he would accept the $3,400 to move the matter forward. Next Meeting The Board decided to continue with the deferred Agenda items on Thursday, April 24, at 6:30 p.m. with the place to be determined. (Subsequent to the meeting, the continuation of this meeting was scheduled for April 17 at 6:30 p.m. in the Chambers. There will also be a workshop on April 24 at 6:30 p.m. in the Library Program Room.) VIII. Adjournment Since the Board decided by motion to defer the balance of the Agenda items, the meeting was duly adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (o,togos) 20