Loading...
Minutes 02-10-04MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Larry Finkelstein, Chair Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Charlie Fisher Henderson Tillman I. Call to Order Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chairman Finkelstein recommended moving Items IX. D., E. and F. to the consent agenda with the proviso that staff is recommending six-month extensions only for all the applicants. These would become Items IV. G., H. and I. As a notice to the public, the Code Review Item VI. C. (Mixed Use Code Review), will not be voted upon tonight. There will only be discussion and public input due to the new changes that the Board has just received. Mr. Dick Hudson distributed the latest version of the Code Review to the Board. Chairman Finkelstein noted that there is a new page 4602 that should be substituted for the current page 4602 in the agenda packet. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that there is a new package for Item IX.B. (Page 4644), "Consideration of Funding of the Wheels Weekend Event" that is not part of the consent agenda. B. Adoption of Agenda Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. IV. Consent Agenda Ao B. C. D. E. Approval of Minutes of January 13, 2004 Meeting Financial Report Budget Transfer Requests Consideration of designations of colors for the districts Recommendation of members to be selected for the Evaluation Selection Committee to Review the Central Business District Massing Model Services RFP Consideration of Burkhardt Construction Contract amendment for Change Order #3 Consideration of Facade Grant Extension for Fred and Joe's Automotive Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Extension for Boynton Boundless, LLC Consideration of Fac,,ade Grant Extension for Grace Fellowship Church Vice Chair Heavilin requested that Items D. and E. be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher requested that Item C. be removed from the Consent Agenda. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin and unanimously carried. IV.C. Budget Transfer Requests Mr. Fisher inquired if the funds included in the line items for interest earned and other available monies are already committed. Mr. Hutchinson stated that these funds had been projected in the budget and have been accounted for. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve Item IV.C. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin and unanimously carried. IV. D. Consideration of designations of colors for the districts Vice Chair Heavilin had questions on the designations of the signs and felt that there was redundancy on the sign illustrated on page 4607 of the agenda packet. She inquired if these were merely examples or were they final signs. Mr. Hutchinson stated 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm, Boynton Beach, Florida · Agency February10,2004 that the final signs would have adjustments and will be cleaned up in accordance with the memo contained on page 4602. Mr. Hutchinson explained that people would be going to two areas; one is Town Square and the other is the Marina District. All other signs are basically directional street signs to certain streets. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that these are the initial signs and are closely packed within the areas. Mr. Fisher recommended that before the final signs are actually made that final versions be submitted to the members identifying the location of the signs. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this information had already been furnished along with a map of the location of the signs, its direction and wording. Mr. Hutchinson stated that any signs that are changed would be furnished to the members. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve Item IV.D. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried. Chairman Finkelstein welcomed Commissioner Cad McKoy to the meeting. Recommendation of members to be selected for the Evaluation Selection Committee to Review the Central Business District Massing Model Services RFP Vice Chair Heavilin inquired if any of the architectural firms on the committee would be responding to the RFP and Mr. Hutchinson stated that they would not. Mr. Fisher inquired if Jose Aguila, while serving on this committee, would constitute a conflict of interest because of the contract that his firm was awarded. Mr. Hutchinson did not think that this would apply since the committee will be reviewing models, and Mr. Aguila's firm was awarded a contract in response to an RFP. Mr. Fisher asked Attomey Payne for her opinion on this. Attorney Payne was not certain and said that she would have to look into it. Mr. Hutchinson recommended that the item be approved, pending legal's determination. If Attorney Payne determines that y Mr. Aguila serving on the committee is a conflict of interest, he will be removed, and they would proceed with the remaining members of the selection committee. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve as stated by Mr. Hutchinson. Motion seconded by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. V. Public Audience None 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. VI. Public Hearing A. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: 503 North Seacrest (LUAR 03-010) Don Stacks Edward Eatman III 503 North Seacrest Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) at 4.84 dwelling units per acre; and Request to rezone from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to R-1-A Single Family Residential. Proposed use is single-family residence. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the item on behalf of staff. The property consists of approximately 0.11 of an acre and classified as Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned C-2 (Neighborhood/Commercial). The request is to reclassify from LRC to Iow density residential and to rezone from C-2 to R-lA (single family residential). The applicant is making the request to be consistent with the current use of the property, which is a single-family home. Mr. Hudson pointed out that the properties to the north are designated LRC, but contain single-family residential. The properties across Seacrest are designated Medium Density Residential and are developed with both single-family homes and duplexes. The current use is a single-family home that is a non-conforming use. Since the value of the improvements on the property is less than $60,000, in accordance with the LDR, Chapter 2, Section 11.1.C.8, a single-family home cannot be converted to commercial use without a variance. The lot has remained as it currently exists since it was originally platted in 1925 and does not meet the minimum lot standards for C-2 zoning. Mr. Hudson pointed out that it would be very difficult to sell the property because lenders do not normally lend on non-conforming properties. Mr. Hudson reported that land use amendment and rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives and in particular with the Heart of Boynton Plan that designates that all land on the west side of Seacrest would be rezoned for single-family residential. The property is non-conforming for commercial development and there has been no market support for conversion to commercial along the west side of Seacrest. This would have negligible impact upon the City as a whole and staff recommends approval of both the Land Use Amendment and the Rezoning. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,,t Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 The applicant was present, but did not wish to speak. Chairman Finkelstein opened up the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Finkelstein inquired why this item originated and Mr. Hudson thought that the applicant wanted to sell his property. Chairman Finkelstein noted that the Visions 20/20 Plan called for the same zoning. He envisioned Seacrest becoming similar to Swinton Avenue in Delray Beach that would contain small offices fronting both sides of Seacrest, north and south of Boynton Beach Boulevard. He was not in favor of having one residential parcel in the middle of a retail zoned area and did not agree with staff's recommendation. Mr. Hudson pointed out that the recent adopted Heart of Boynton Plan recommends single family residences on the west side of Seacrest. Chairman Finkelstein had also disagreed with that recommendation as well. Mr. DeMarco concurred with Chairman Finkelstein and pointed out that the First Baptist Church, which is just south of the property, is being renovated and will be generating a great deal of traffic. He also foresees that this area might be needed for future commercial development and did not think that it would fit into the plans of the City. Mr. Hudson responded that the Heart of Boynton Plan calls for the east side of Seacrest to be developed as Mixed Use and the west side would be for single-family development. Mr. Tillman did not think it was wise to have a single-family home ingress and egress onto Seacrest. He would like to see some kind of buffering in place along Seacrest at least one block in, so that the residential on the west side of Seacrest would extend up to the buffering instead of sitting right on the street. He would like to see some kind of Mixed Use in this area and was not in favor of having a single-family residence at this location. Mr. Fenton pointed out that if the Heart of Boynton Plan calls for everything west of Seacrest to be single-family, maybe they should have created a buffer zone, but there is none. He felt that the application should be approved since it is in accordance with the Plan. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that everything west of this parcel is single- family. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the recommendation of staff to change the land use from LRC to single family at 503 North Seacrest Boulevard. Motion died for lack of a second. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Motion Mr. Tillman moved for denial. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and carried 6-1 (Mr. Fenton dissenting). B. Zoning Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Woolbright Grill (ZNCV 03-028) John Therien John Therien 700 Woolbright Road (Southside of Woolbright Road at the Intracoastal Waterway) Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C.3, requiring a minimum rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet, to allow for a variance of twenty (20) feet, and a rear yard setback of zero (0) feet for a restaurant in a C-3 zoning district. Maxime Ducoste-Ambdbe, Planner, presented the item on behalf of staff. The property is located on the south side of Woolbright Road, east of the Riverwalk Plaza and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Board approved the project in June 2002 for a two- story, sit-down restaurant, containing 7,829 square feet. The original site plan approval had several variances and one was for a cantilever awning on the east side of the restaurant. The applicant is now requesting a different awning that would be supported by columns that would encroach into the 20' setback. The original variance was for an overhang of the cantilever awning for 7 %'. The new awning would extend all the way to the property line. Staff looked at the Code requirements for approving variances. Staff does concur with the applicant that the property is unusual in shape and is difficult to develop. However, when the project was originally improved, staff acknowledged that this was the bare minimum to make reasonable use of the land. Mr. Ducoste-Ambd~e referred to the criteria that an applicant must meet in order to receive a variance. One criterion states that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. He pointed out that the applicant has created a need for this variance and when the project was approved the cantilever awning was feasible. The project is now under construction and approval of the variance request would grant special privileges to the applicant that could cause an increase in the building envelope. Denial of the request would not deprive the applicant of rights that others enjoy and staff feels that the variance is not justified. The project is separated from nearby properties by significant barriers, such as the Intracoastal Waterway. Approval of the vadance along the rear property line would allow the applicant to potentially increase the outdoor seating area or even expand the building itself. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,,t Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 With regard to the parking, the present use was approved with the bare minimum- parking requirement and there is no surplus of parking spaces. Therefore, staff is recommending that the request be denied due to the lack of traditional hardship and due to the circumstances that the applicant has created. There are no conditions of approval. However, if the Board approves the variance, staff requests that the approval be restricted to an awning. Paul Slattery, of Slattery & Associates, 2060 NW Boca Raton Boulevard, Boca Raton, is the architect for the project. He explained that they are asking to put up an awning for an approved patio and dining deck. Staff was not accurate when they said that the applicant would have the ability to increase the occupancy of the building. This is not the case. The approved deck area would be the same that was approved in 2002. They would like to extend the awning to the outside of the deck. Mr. Slattery pointed out that extending the awning to the east would provide additional benefit to the properties across the Intracoastal Waterway. When those residents spoke at the meeting in 2002 they expressed concern about the lighting and noise. Increasing the awning to cover the entire patio would help contain some of the noise and the light fixtures could be installed under the awning, cutting down on light spillage. They are not requesting any increase in occupancy; they merely want to keep the occupants dry on the deck dry. Chairman Finkelstein opened the public hearing. He informed Mr. Slattery that he would have the right of rebuttal. Eleanor Roland resides directly across from the restaurant. When she spoke two years ago she represented the residents of Crown Colony and her residence is located at the far end of the building and faces the parking lot. She pointed out that there is no landscaping and all the lighting shines into her building. Ms. Roland said that the noise and lights are affecting her sleep and she has concerns about the awning hanging over the Intracoastal. She requested that some trees be planted along the parking lot to cut down on the noise. The dumpsters should have sound barriers and she would like assurances that the restaurant would comply with that regulation. Ms. Roland did not want to see boats pulling up to the restaurant because there are Manatees and wildlife living in this area. Farah Ali, the Manager of the Gulfstream Harbor Apartments, located at northeast side of Woolbright Road and the Intracoastal, had concerns about the noise and the lights. She also questioned if there would be adequate parking. Ms. Ali did not think that the awning would pose a problem to their development. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that tonight's application was for a variance for an awning and that the restaurant has already been approved. Mr. Slattery responded that there is a plan to install landscaping from the north end all the way to the south end of the property line. Also, the awning would not encroach over Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 the deck and would just cover the edge of the approved deck. He felt that the awning would help contain the lighting and noise. Attorney Payne administered the oath to Maryanne Lamb, a resident of Crown Colony, who is concerned that since the deck extends to the edge of the water, how would it be possible to put landscaping on the deck? Chairman Finkelstein reminded Ms. Lamb that her remarks should be limited to the variance for the awning. She was under the impression that there would be no outside dining. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that this was not correct and that the restaurant was approved with outside dining. Ms. Lamb stated that she was against the awning. Mr. Tillman inquired how many feet the deck extends out into the Intracoastal past the sea wall. Mr. Slattery responded it was 10'. Mr. Slattery stated that the deck extends 20' from the building and the sea wall is 10' from the building; therefore, the deck extends an additional 10' into the waterway. Mr. Slattery also stated that the awning would match the line of the approved deck. Mr. Fenton asked a question about the landscaping and Mr. Slattery noted that they would be placing landscaping not only on their parcel, but also the shopping center parcel to the south end of the property. Mr. Fenton inquired if the awning would completely enclose the deck and Mr. Slattery stated that the sides would be open. Mr. Fenton thought it would be a good idea to be able to close the sides in the event of rain. Mr. Slattery said they might do something about that, but it would not extend beyond the deck. Mr. Fisher felt that this new awning would be beneficial to the neighbors by cutting down on the noise and the light. Mr. Tillman pointed out that the awning would extend an additional 10' out, but the applicant has not presented any hardship to justify the variance. Mr. Fisher felt that because of the location of the property this does create a hardship. Mr. Tillman was not certain that an awning would actually cut down on the sound or light emanating from the restaurant. He also pointed out that the City has regulations that this Board is supposed to adhere to. Mr. DeMarco felt that the addition of the new awning would make the patio area larger to accommodate more people. Mr. Slattery responded that the patio area would remain the same size as approved; they only want to cover the entire patio. Mr. DeMarco inquired how the awning would be handled in the event of a hurricane. Mr. Slattery said that in this event, the awning would be cut off and the frame would be left standing. Chairman Finkelstein asked staff to cladfy the statement that the granting of the variance would "grant special privilege to the applicant by allowing a possible increase in the building envelope." Mr. Ducoste-Am6d6e responded that the building setback is 20'. Because columns support the awning, technically it is building setback that the applicant is requesting a variance for. Therefore, if the City allows a reduction in the setback, they could build a wall to the limit. Mr. Ducoste-^m6dbe stated that if the Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,,c Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Board chose to approve the variance, staff would request that the variance apply only to the awning and not the building. Mr. Ducoste-Am6d6e agreed with Mr. Tillman's assessment of the variance that it was the applicant's actions that caused the necessity for the variance and the applicant did not meet the criteria of the LDR. He did agree, however, that the shape of the property is unusual and the applicant meets this requirement, but does not meet any other criteria. Chairman Finkelstein stated that if the Board did approve the variance, it should be restricted to allow the awning into the setback and not the structure itself. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the petition for relief of Woolbright Grill for construction of an awning on a 20' area and limited only to an awning. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and carried 6-1 (Mr. Tillman dissenting). Mr. Fisher asked about the color of the awning. Mr. Slattery stated that it would be blue and white stripe and presented a swatch of the material that contained the same colors of the building. Chairman Finkelstein asked staff if there was anything that would require that the colors of the awning would have to match the colors of the building. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, responded that if the larger awning that the applicant would be putting up deviates from the approved awning, the applicant should contact staff for review and modification of the awning. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Happy Home Heights Lot 11 (ZNCV 03-029 thru 03-033) Anthony McCray Anthony McCray Southside of NE 12th Avenue, approximately 168 feet west of NE 3rd Street Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.E.2.a, requiring a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet to allow a variance of 2,200 square feet, resulting in a lot area of 3,800 square feet for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: February 10, 2004 Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.E.2.a, requiring a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet to allow a twenty (20) foot variance, resulting in a forty (40) foot frontage for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a, requiring a 10 foot side yard setback on each side to allow a 2.5 foot variance, resulting in a 7.5 foot side yard setback on each side for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a, requiring a 25 foot rear yard setback to allow a 15 foot variance resulting in a 10 foot rear yard setback for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district. Happy Home Heights Lot 5 (ZNCV 03-034 thru 03-38) Anthony McCray Anthony McCray Southside of NE 13th Avenue, approximately 168 feet west of NE 3rd Street Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.E.2.a, requiring a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet to allow a variance of 2,220 square feet, resulting in a lot area of 3,780 square feet for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.E.2.a, requiring a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet to allow an eighteen (18) foot variance, resulting in a forty-two (42) foot frontage for a proposed 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopmer~t Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a, requiring a 10 foot side yard setback on each side to allow a 2.5 foot variance, resulting in a 7.5 foot side yard setback on each side for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district; and Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a, requiring a 25 foot rear yard setback to allow a 15 foot variance, resulting in a 10 foot rear yard setback for a proposed single-family residence within the R-2 single and two-family zoning district. Mr. Rumpf distributed a letter from the applicant requesting that items B. 2 and B. 3 be postponed. Staff has some new findings that affect these applications. Therefore, the applicant has asked for more time. Mr. Rumpf requested that the items be tabled to a date certain. Chairman Finkelstein asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on these items. There was no one present that wished to speak. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to table until the March meeting the Happy Homes Lot 11, Item No. VI.B. 2 and Item No. B.3., Happy Homes Lot 5, as it appears on the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that a new version of the code review was presented to the Board tonight. Therefore, the Board would take comments on the item, but would not be voting on it tonight. G. Code Review Project: Agent: Description: Mixed Use Code Review (CDRV 04-002) City-initiated Request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 6.F, Mixed Use Zoning Districts. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the item on behalf of staff. Mr. Hudson pointed out that Mixed Use-High/Mixed Use-Low zoning is currently permitted along the Federal Highway Corridor, between the C-16 Canal on the north to Woolbright Road on the south and between the Intracoastal on the east to the right of way of the FEC Railway on the west. The Heart of Boynton Plan has requested that it also apply along Boynton Beach Boulevard and up Seacrest Boulevard. The regulations were adopted in June 2002 and staff has discovered some flaws that need to be corrected. Mr. Hudson reviewed the changes to the code review. It is staffs intent that any request for rezoning Mixed Use would be accompanied by a site plan and this has been clarified in Section F.I. that states "All development and redevelopment shall be represented by corresponding site plan to be processed concurrent with the application for rezoning." Paragraph 2 has been changed to add "uses" after the word "Permitted" in the third sentence of the first paragraph. A new sentence has been added at the end of this paragraph that reads, "Heights, densities and intensities of development are regulated according to the classification of the roadway determined to be the frontage." Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that the previous draft already contained the word "uses" and Mr. Hudson stated that the word should not have been underlined. The definition of a vertical mix has been clarified in Paragraph 2 to read as follows: "The district allows a maximum height of one hundred-fifty (150) feet and a residential density of 80 dwelling units per acre, provided that all new developments within this district that front on streets designated as 'arterial' or 'collector' roadways on the 'Functional Classification of Roadways Map' contain a vertical mixture of retail, office and/or residential uses. Mr. Hudson is also proposing a change to the second paragraph of paragraph b. that is not in the new draft. The sentence that currently reads "All new Mixed Use developments within this district" would be changed to read "All new developments containing a mix of uses..." Also, two more street categories have been added, "collector" and "local collector." The last sentence of the same paragraph has been changed by adding the following phrase after the words "residential uses: "which may be arranged either vertically or horizontally." · Live/work units have been added to the use list with "note p~5,,. Mr. Tillman inquired if there could be vertical and horizontal mixed-uses next to each other. Mr. Hudson felt that this would be feasible, but pointed out that is the reason staff wants to look at the site plans before they are approved. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,,~ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 With regard to the live/work units, Mr. Hudson stated that usually the living area is smaller than the work area and a person would own both areas. Staff has put in regulations to control the type of uses that would be allowed. Normally, a person would live on top with the business underneath and would have to obtain an occupational license for the business on the bottom. Houses of worship are now permitted in mixed-high if they are an integral part of a mixed-use development and not the major portion of the development. Also, the distance requirement has been eliminated. · Marina has been added as a conditional use. · Self-storage or mini warehouse is now permitted in Mixed-Use Low district and a series of design standards have been included. Restriction Note I has been changed to read: "Must be an integral part of a Mixed-Use development comprising a maximum of 30 percent of the gross floor area of the entire development." This would apply mainly to churches. · Under the Restriction Notes, Notes 14 and 15 have been added for the live/work and storage uses. · The note that was included between the "minimum parcel size" and "minimum living area" is being stricken and the 3-acre minimum is no longer required. The maximum height for residential for all other uses has now been separated from this category. It is possible to develop a single-family detached in Mixed- Use Low with a maximum height of 35' as a conditional use. Also, duplexes and townhouses could be developed to a maximum height of 35'. "All other uses" have been stricken and new Iocational requirements for height, density and floor area ratio for all other uses have been added. This would be for multi-family and all other Mixed Uses. · Mixed-Use Low: If a project fronts on an arterial road, there is a range of 75' to 100' with no height change. · A density of 40 dua is allowed and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 2.0. This is the same FAR that is allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. · If the property fronts on a collector street, 45' to 75' in height is permitted with a range of 20-40 dua and a FAR of I to 1.5. · If the property fronts on a local collector, the maximum height is 45' and a maximum density of 20 dua. Vice Chair Heavilin asked for the definition of "collector" and "local collector." 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Mr. Hudson pointed out that it is based upon the functional classification map that the County develops for State and County roads and then the City can add the local collectors that are not classified. Arterials are main roads that carry traffic regionally; collectors are inter-regional that are shorter distance roads and carry less traffic. Knuth Road and Miner Road are the only designated local collector roads. Local collector roads generally connect principal roadways. All other streets are classified as local streets. Mr. Hudson pointed out that the notes have been moved under the category of "Locational Requirements for Height, Density and Floor Area Ratio/All Other Uses." Mr. Hutchinson noted that these requirements would keep density on the streets that can handle it. Mr. Hudson added that even though the height can go up to a maximum 45' on the street fa(;ade, for every 50' in height the project would have to step back 10'. This is being required to prevent having straight walls along street frontages. · The built in line has been increased to a maximum of 15' from the property line in order to build wider sidewalks in the downtown. Sidewalks must be a minimum of 10' wide on an arterial road. · Paragraph 8, "Acc," has been changed to read, "Within the MU-H and MU-L Zones, vehicular access to parking shall not be directly from an arterial roadway, if an alternative is available." The purpose of this requirement is to cut down on vehicular access from arterial roadways. · The sidewalk requirement is now contained in Paragraph 9.d. In Paragraph 9.e the language has been changed to read "To add color and soften sidewalk paving with plants, flower containers containing blooming annuals or perennials shall, where practical, be planted and maintained along facades of new buildings fronting on arterial roadways in the MU-H District." · Paragraph 10.c. states that single use-parking garages have a maximum height of 75'. If the garage is combined with another use, it could go up higher. If a parking garage is built on Federal Highway, Boynton Beach Boulevard, or Ocean Avenue, staff is requiring that it be wrapped with commercial uses on the ground floor at least to a depth of 20'. The regulations dealing with self-storage in Paragraph 14 state that they are only allowed above the first floor of a mixed-use structure and must have ground floor retail along the street frontages. One or more retail uses must not be related to the use of self-storage and to a depth of at least 20'. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm~... Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February10,2004 · Self-storage facilities cannot be accessed from an arterial roadway and the access must be screened from the public right-of-way. · The buildings must be designed to have the appearance of multi-story retail, office or residential. The regulations dealing with live/work units are as follows: There is a minimum floor area of 1,000. There must be a separation between the live/work unit and the access must be from the outside or a corridor. Each unit must have at least 2% parking spaces. The work activities in the live/work units are limited. Occupational licenses are required for the work unit and the property cannot be sold separately; it must be sold as a live/work unit. Also, the units cannot be converted to either all residential or all commercial. Mr. Hutchinson referred to "Child Care" in the Definitions paragraph. He pointed out that childcare for an office or shopping area is allowed. This would include an office business that had daycare for the children whose parents work there. Also, shopping center or theaters that have daycare are permitted. Mr. Hudson pointed out that having employers with daycare would help cut down on traffic. Mr. Fenton inquired if private clubs would be permitted in Boynton Beach in accordance with the rules and was informed that they would be allowed. · A definition for "Fitness/Health Club" has been added. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired if bed and breakfast establishments would be allowed. Mr. Hutchinson felt that there could be problems with bed and breakfast establishments, but in many urban areas there are "boutique inns" that are actually small hotels. He thought that this might fit well with 10 or more rooms. Mr. Hudson pointed out that bed and breakfast is a conditional use. Mr. DeMarco complimented the staff of the Planning and Zoning Division for doing an excellent job. Mr. Fisher inquired why an auction house is not permitted. Mr. Hudson pointed out that there are all types of auctions. Mr. Fisher would like to see an upscale type auction house allowed and requested that this be redefined. Mr. Hudson noted that the code allows antique shops. Chairman Finkelstein recommended that the definition be changed from not allowed to allowed with conditions. With regard to bus terminals, Mr. Fisher felt that this needed to be better defined because there will be more public transportation downtown over the next few years. Mr. Fenton recommended having a workshop on this so that Board members could have more opportunity to review the material. Members agreed that this would be the best way to review the information. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Chairman Finkelstein welcomed Mayor Taylor to the meeting. Chairman Finkelstein opened the public audience. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, President of INCA, noted that all the regulations are based upon the type of road that property fronts on. He wanted to know that if his property sat on a small piece of an arterial read would it encompass the entire parcel, even though most of the parcel would be on a neighborhood street. He was concerned that someone could come along and place a high rise in his neighborhood. Mr. Hudson explained that for every foot of height over 45', a project would have to step back one foot from the property line, but there were many circumstances that would have to be considered. Attorney Payne administered the oath to David Zimet, of the Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC, who inquired why MLK was not on the map. Mr. Hudson explained that the map is six to eight years old and the streets have been reclassified since the original plan was adopted. The map will be updated. Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, was glad that another workshop would be scheduled. There are concerns in some of the residential areas regarding the properties that abut Federal Highway and the Intracoastal Waterway. He would like to see something in writing that if a project were in a residential area it would not be developed unless it was along one of those corridors. He was concerned that there is a possibility that high rises would go up along the Intracoastal Waterway. He was against any development in the residential area, especially Mangrove Walk. Chairman Finkelstein closed the public hearing. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to table until the Workshop. Motion seconded by vice Chair Heavilin and unanimously carried. THE MEETING RECESSED AT 8:12 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:25 P.M. VII. Director's Report A. Updates Chairman Finkelstein remarked that the CRA has yet to acquire its first piece of property. Mr. Hutchinson stated that staff is waiting for a letter or ruling from HUD regarding the appraisal process before any property could be acquired. Chairman Finkelstein inquired if this has been confirmed as necessary and Attomey Payne responded that Assistant City Manager Dale Sugerman requested that she find out from 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm~..~ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 HUD about the process. City staff feels that the CRA must obtain HUD's opinion because all HUD rules for the project must be followed. Chairman Finkelstein inquired if these regulations would also apply to willing sellers and Mr. Hutchinson said that it did. The City is concemed that if the CRA did not proceed properly by going through HUD, it could have repercussions upon the entire City. Chairman Finkelstein inquired if Attorney Payne requested a ruling from HUD and she said that she did this verbally, but now HUD wants it in writing. Mr. Fisher requested that staff make this a priority to get the proper paperwork done. Mr. Tillman asked for a report at the next meeting. Mr. Hutchinson announced that the CDC is having an event and he felt it was important for the CRA to participate and to purchase a table. He had previously asked the Board if the CRA could reserve a table at a cost of $750. The money has already been budgeted. Mr. Fenton was not in favor of participating. He felt if they purchased a table for this event, how many tables and how many events would they be participating in? He felt that this would set a bad precedent. Mr. Tillman noted that this was a working relationship that is part of the community and he was in favor of the CRA participating. Mr. Fenton felt that if the Board wanted to purchase a table, members should pay for it themselves. Mr. Fisher said that this would send a good message to the CDC by having the CRA participate since it is in partnership with the CDC. Vice Chair Heavilin also pointed out that the speaker would be addressing redevelopment. Mr. Hutchinson asked Mr. Zimet what the deadline was for purchasing a table and he said that February 18~h was the cut off date. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the funds to purchase a table at this event. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin. Mr. DeMarco felt that the Board should support the CDC, but wanted to avoid the look of impropriety. Vote Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Fenton dissenting). VII. Old Business None 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme~ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 IX. New Business A. Consideration of CRA Logo and Web Site Layout Mr. Hutchinson reported that members were furnished a packet with several Iogos and a Web page printout. Staff is recommending the first two Iogos that used the "CRA" with a modified City logo. He said it is important to move forward on this because it ties in with a lot of other ideas and projects. There was a consensus on the Board to move forward with the logo on page 4634 in the agenda packet. Chairman Finkelstein liked the logo, but he was not happy about moving Palm Trees. Mr. Fenton asked why the word "Florida" is not mentioned anywhere. Mr. Fenton would like to have a splash on the tail of the dolphins. Vice Chair Heavilin thought that they could have come up with something better. Mr. Fisher said that the background banners can be easily changed. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the logo on Page 4634 of the agenda packet. Motion seconded by Mr. Tillman and unanimously carried. B. Consideration of Funding of the Wheels Weekend Event Chairman Finkelstein noted that a new Item B. was distributed and should replace the one in the agenda packet. The request for funding is now from the Chamber of Commerce as opposed to BODA. Mr. Hutchinson noted that this is a great event and he would like to keep the momentum going. Because BODA is undergoing changes, they are not in a position to participate in the event. Therefore, the Chamber has agreed to be a partner with the CRA. He noted that some BODA members are also Chamber members and will be participating. The CRA has partnered with the Chamber in the past on the Sunday event. Chairman Finkelstein asked where the big truck rally would take place that is put on by the City. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this would take place near the Children's Museum and will begin earlier in the day. The City staff was nice enough to change the weekend to have the City event coincide with the CRA event. Mr. DeMarco inquired how many members of the Chamber are members of BODA as well and would these members be helping with the program. Mr. DeMarco requested that Ms. Johnson respond to his question. Diana Johnson, President of the Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that all downtown merchants will be invited to participate and they do not have to be members of the Chamber of Commerce. This is a partnership event and anyone within the CRA or in their membership could participate. Ms. Johnson also noted that the 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm~. Boynton Beach, Florida .Agency February 10, 2004 Chamber is stepping forward this year to help, but does not intend to maintain this role with hopes that BODA can take it over again next year. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried. B. Consideration of Fa(~ade Grant for St. Mark's Catholic Church Mr. Hutchinson noted that there had been prior discussion regarding not-for-profit companies and churches participating in the fa(~ade grant program. Staff would like direction on this application. There was nothing final mentioned in prior minutes when this was previously discussed. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that St. Mark Catholic Church was very active in the downtown area and has helped the CRA. The project is outstanding and staff is seeking better direction from the Board. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that the City leases the Mangrove Park Walk from the Church for $1.00. Ms. Carrie Parker Hill was present on behalf of the Church, along with Ken Kaleel who is Chairman of St. Mark School Board and Mr. Stormet Norman, who is also a member of the School Board. Ms. Hill pointed out that the Church operates a fulltime school on site serving 280 students and 40 employees with annual payroll of $931,000. Mr. Tillman noted that St. Mark has always been an integral part of Boynton Beach. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to approve the grant. Motion seconded by Mr. Fisher and unanimously carried. Vice Chair Heavilin pointed out that the issue still needs to be clarified on how these applications should be handled. Mr. Hutchinson recommended bringing the applications in on a case-by-case basis. There was a consensus to deal with these applications on a case-by-case basis. C. Consideration and Approval of the Financial Advisory Contract Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that Ms. Vielhauer has worked very hard on this contract and after checking, they received excellent reviews on the company. They would like to move forward with this in March because staff feels they need a financial advisor onboard. Chairman Finkelstein noted that on page 4680 in Paragraph 2, in the sixth line, middle of the sentence, he felt that the "or" should be an "and" so that it would read "...thirty 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,[ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 (30) days written notice to the other party, and at that time..." Attorney Payne confirmed that this should be corrected. In the same paragraph, Chairman Finkelstein felt that the word "on" in the next to the last line should be changed to "for" so that it would read, "the Financial Advisor shall be compensated for all projects in progress..." Chairman Finkelstein questioned the lettering of paragraph a. (Planning and Development Phase I) and the next paragraph that was numbered b. (Bond Phase II). He pointed out that in sections 1 through 12, bonds are discussed and then 13 states "solicit bids on investment of idle funds, if requested." He questioned if this was the proper place for 13. He also noted that in Paragraph 4 (Compensation), there is a subparagraph b. (Bond Phase II) and this relates to the items under 3.b. as compensation for those items. Chairman Finkelstein thought that Bond Phase II should be changed to Bond Phase I. He also wanted to know who would give the okay for any of the actions in subparagraph c. to take place. Mr. Hutchinson stated it would be the CRA Board. Chairman Finkelstein also thought that they should receive an estimate of the time it would take to perform a specific item. Mr. Hutchinson did not think this was possible at this time. Mr. Tillman pointed out in the subparagraph entitled Bond Phase II, it states that "there shall be a surcharge of $5,000 for competitive sales and/or refundings." Mr. Tillman requested that competitive sales be defined. Julie Turner of William R. Hough & Co. explained that in a competitive sale of a bond offering, the CRA would prepare for the financing and would request on the day of the sale, bids submission from several different underwriters. This process is usually done in securing a general obligation credit and she did not envision that the CRA would be entering into this type of sale, nor would this fee apply. Attorney Payne recommended adding under Paragraph 3 on page 4680 the wording "and approval of the CRA Board" so that the first sentence would read, "The financial Advisor agrees that upon request, and approval of the CRA Board, the following services may be performed by the Financial Advisor in consideration of the compensation in Paragraph 4 hereto." The Board was agreeable to this amendment to the contract. Mr. Hutchinson inquired who would be authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the Board. Attorney Payne said that the Board Chairman would sign anything the Board approves, unless someone else was authorized. Attorney Payne also pointed out that Phase I was "Planning and Development" and Phase II was "Bond." Attorney Payne recommended reversing the wording so that it would be clearer. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,.~ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Mr. Hutchinson also inquired that every time staff gives Hough & Co. an assignment or works with them would this have to be brought to the Board for a decision. Attorney Payne explained that if Hough & Co. calls staff with a question, there is a cost to the CRA and Mr. Hutchinson is asking how this would be handled. Ms. Turner responded that there are always questions and an hourly rate is incurred. Chairman Finkelstein felt that there were no guidelines in the contract on what staff could do. Ms. Turner responded that the CRA staff cannot enter into a financing obligation without the Board's permission. Chairman Finkelstein did not have a problem with Mr. Hutchinson responding to questions since this is part of his job. Also, Mr. Tillman questioned how many questions would be received in a month's time. Mr. Tillman felt if something comes up that Mr. Hutchinson feels would incur a lot of money, he should bring it to the Board. He did not envision that the CRA's financial advisor would be a great expense during a month's time. Vice Chair Heavilin agreed with Mr. Tillman and felt that staff should certainly have the authority to ask a question. Ms. Vielhauer asked if the Board was willing to approve Phase 1 once the cost is determined. Chairman Finkelstein stated that the Board was being asked to approve the entire contract. Ms. Vielhauer agreed with Chairman Finkelstein, but also stated that the Board was being asked to move forward with Phase 1. Ms. Turner responded that Phase I would take place now and Ms. Vielhauer has asked her to prepare a preliminary financing analysis to determine the amount of bonds that the CRA could issue and provide some financing options. Mr. Fisher stated that these were two distinct areas. Chairman Finkelstein asked Ms. Turner what the cost would be for Phase I and she responded that it would depend on how involved they get. She could provide a draft analysis on February 24th, but stated she has not done a great amount of work since they have not been formally engaged. She did not anticipate that this would be a significant amount. When the CRA gets to the Bond Phase, the houdy charges would cease, and they would pay on a per bond basis. Mr. Fenton noted that the memo on Page 4679 states that the Board is being asked to consider a Financial Advisory Service Contract and to move forward with developing a financial strategy. Mr. Fisher asked how much was budgeted for this item and Mr. Hutchinson stated that it is $20,000 for the year. Chairman Finkelstein felt comfortable in approving Planning and Development Phase I, Paragraph 3.a., No. 1 through 3 and the contract with the changes as outlined. He inquired whether the board needs to see a comprehensive plan for the offering of bonds, which he did not think was necessary at this time. Mr. Fenton felt that they should also move forward with the comprehensive plan for the offering of the bonds. Chairman Finkelstein felt before they got to that point, they needed to know if they in fact needed to offer bonds, how much, etc. before coming up with a comprehensive plan. Ms. Turner agreed with this. 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme.¢ Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Turner if the "not to exceed $20,000" was reasonable and she stated that it was. Ms. Turner suggested that instead of parceling out the contract, she stated that they also do work orders for clients up to a certain amount of money. If she receives a work order up to a certain amount and has to go over, she would come back to the Board for approval. Chairman Finkelstein did not think there was a rush to go out for bonding. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that staff will continually report to the Board and then the Board can determine if it wants to move forward with additional items. Ms. Turner anticipates coming back on February 24th and sharing her conversations with the rating agencies and bond insurers based upon the CRA's level of previous tax increment revenues and looking at different financing sensitivity analysis. This would show the Board that if the CRA wanted to do a financing today, how much debt it could issue. Chairman Finkelstein requested that Ms. Turner come back and tell the Board what they need, as opposed to just doing bonds. Ms. Turner responded that the CRA is going to have to incur some debt if it wanted to do some of the projects in the budget and it does not have to be a bond issue. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the contract with the changes stated. Motion seconded by Mr. Tillman and unanimously carried. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved that the first phase would be Planning and Development Items 1, 2 and 3, as listed in the contract. Motion seconded by Mr. Tillman. Mr. Fisher requested that a not to exceed amount be included. Vice Chair Heavilin amended her motion to state not to exceed $20,000 and Mr. Tillman agreed to the amendment of the motion. Mr. Fenton said that he was against the motion because he felt that paragraphs 4 and 5 should be included in the motion. Ms. Turner said that she could not do her analysis if she would not get paid because this is an integral part of her report. Chairman Finkelstein would like Ms. Turner to tell the Board what they need before she goes out to speak with people. He did not think there was any emergency for the Board to go out and borrow millions of dollars. He wants the Financial Advisor to make recommendations. Ms. Turner said that she would not be getting bond ratings, but she would be consulting with the rating agencies and bond insurers to determine what the CRA could support 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm~ Boynton Beach, Florida . Agency February 10, 2004 based on the CPA's tax increment revenues of $1.3 million in 2002 and how much debt could the CRA issue. This is a fundamental question on where the Board wants to go and what projects you want to do. From her preliminary calculations she has determined that they could issue approximately $8 million in debt. She has to talk to the bond insurers and rating agencies to determine how they would rate the CPA based on its tax increment revenue history, or would the CPA be better off doing a non-rated transaction, if the CPA wanted to issue debt. Chairman Finkelstein said that he did not want to get to this step yet. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the CPA is about to embark on writing some very large checks and he would like the Board to consider other alternatives to cash. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired if Ms. Turner can perform the first three tasks and she said that she could, but it would be on a limited analysis. Vote Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Fenton dissenting). X. Commission Action A. New Fire Station Approved B. Dance Studio Approved Chairman Finkelstein inquired how the dance studio was approved and Mr. Hutchinson responded that it was a conditional use, but is still being discussed by the City. C. Delray Boynton Academy Approved with Newly Designed Roof Chairman Finkelstein asked about the roof for the Delray Boynton Academy. Mr. Hutchinson stated it was a new design and the entire building now has a roof, which the Board has not seen. They will be coming back before the Board with a fa(;ade grant application and the City Commission has requested that the Board hear the application. Xl. Board Member Comments Mr. Fisher reported that the Advisory Board on Children and Youth has done projects in the past that focused on the stakeholders in the area involving the youth. Since the CRA focuses on adult stakeholders, he would like the CPA to spend time with the youth in order to get them to buy into their communities. He proposed coming up with some kind of grant project for neighborhood beautification that would focus on the youth. Mr. Fisher did present this idea to staff and staff is prepared to present guidelines for a grant program at the next meeting. He was informed that there is $10,000 in the miscellaneous line item that could be used for this. He would like to begin with three grants at $1,000 each and then see how this works out. Mr. Fisher requested that staff bring something back to the Board and Mr. Hutchinson stated he would have something for the April meeting. 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopme,.. Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 10, 2004 Mr. Barretta reported that he was abstaining from voting on an item that was on the consent agenda for the fac,,ade grant extension for Boynton Boundless, LLC. Mr. Barretta furnished a completed Form 8B to the Recording Secretary, which has been filed with the records of the meeting. For clarification, Attorney Payne stated that Mr. Barretta was stating for the record that he had a voting conflict on this item. XlI. Legal Attorney Payne announced that the City Board members have been getting updates on the Sunshine and Public Records Law and requested that this be scheduled for a future meeting. Mr. Fisher recommended doing this before the April meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. Members agreed with this. Mr. Hutchinson requested that he be furnished with a memo on this from Attorney Payne. Xlll. XlV. Other Items Future Agenda Items A. Consideration of Planning Services for Consolidation and Comprehensive Update to the entire CRA Plan to produce one document (March) B. Consideration of Revised Direct Incentive Program (March) C. Consideration of the Business Genesis Program (March) D. Consideration of Special Pilot Program for Police Patrol in Heard of Boynton and the CBD (March) E. Downtown Parking Study (March) F. Consideration of Regions Core Grant Applicant (March) G. Consideration of Planning Services for Boynton Extension from Seacrest to Federal (March) H. Draft 2002/2003 Annual Report (March) I. J. Beach Corridor Plan Consideration of Securing CBD Surface Parking Rights (April) Consideration of Pilot Program for Trolley Service in the CBD (2004/2005 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopm~ Boynton Beach, Florida Agency February 10, 2004 XV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting propedy adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (February 11,2004) 25