Loading...
Minutes 03-09-04MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Larry Finkelstein, Chair Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Charlie Fisher (arrived 6:50 p.m.) Henderson Tillman Absent: Don Fenton Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. II. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III. AGENDA APPROVAL A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Chair Finkelstein announced that at staff's request, the Nixed Use Code Review, and Vehicle for Hire agenda items, should be tabled. At the applicant's request, Consideration of Facade Grant for Delray Boynton Academy should be tabled. B. Adoption of the Agenda Motion Mr. Tillman moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin and carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes February 10, 2004 Meeting Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 B. Financial Report C. Price list for CRA Documents and Maps Project Signage and Groundbreaking Event Date for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension and Promenade Project Consideration of Planning Services for a Comprehensive Consolidation/Update to Produce One CRA Master Plan Document Motion Mr. Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda items, seconded by Mr. DeMarco and carried unanimously. V. PUBLTC AUDTENCE Chair Finkelstein opened the floor for persons wishing to speak and when no one came forward, he closed it. Vt'. PUBL]:C HEAR]:NG Old Business: Code Review Project: Agent: Description: Mixed Use Code Review (CDRV 04-002) (Tabled) City-initiated Request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2. Zoning Section 6.F Mixed Use Zoning Districts The Board accepted staff's recommendation to table this item. New Business: Code Review Project: Agent: Description: Environmental Review Process Staff-initiated Request for amendments to the City's Land Development, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 4.N.5, 6, 7, Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 8, and 11 that simplify and refine the environmental review process, replacement of the committee process with a staff review process, and placing review and enforcement duties relative to hazardous material and substances under the Fire Marshall. Nancy Byrne, Assistant Development Director, presented this item. She explained that in the past, a Code-directed Committee comprised of six different departments was charged with reviewing the operations of the businesses in the City that had hazardous materials. The Development Department received numerous complaints from area businesses that felt that visits from six different departments was expensive, time- consuming, and intimidating. To simplify the process and make it less burdensome to the business community, the Development Department recommended repeal of the current Environmental Review Committee and permitting code regulations to be replaced with a new, updated hazardous material/toxic substance permit administered by the City's Fire Marshall. Under the revised process, hazardous/toxic materials will be identified during the normal occupational license process. The business will file for a separate permit through the Fire Department, who will then take on the bulk of the review to make sure that the business complies with containment and any other requirements. The Building Division will do an inspection of the site to make sure that the site itself has proper containment and proper tenant separation and then the Occupational License Department will do its standard inspection. This process would eliminate three other departments in the City that would only participate if the Fire Department, Building Division, or Occupational License Department's inspections should trigger an inspection by those departments. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the request for amendments to the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 4.N.5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 that simplify and refine the environmental review process, replacing the committee process with a staff review process, and placing review and enforcement duties relative to hazardous material and substances under the Fire Marshall. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Chair Finkelstein acknowledged the presence of and welcomed Assistant City Manager Dale Sugerman and Commissioners Ensler, McCoy, and McCray. ProJect: Owner: Description: Vehicle for Hire (Tabled) Staff-initiated Request to abolish City of Boynton Beach Ordinance Part II Chapter 24, "Taxicabs," replacing the entire Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 code section with Chapter 24 "Vehicles for Hire." The Department of Development has reviewed the existing Code of Ordinances chapter related to Taxicabs and determined that as written, the intent of this code is no longer broad enough to encompass the numerous modes of transportation services available to the general public. The revised code language better defines the various modes of transportation currently found in urban areas throughout South Florida. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to table the Vehicle for Hire agenda item at staff's request. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Zoning Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Mariners Way (ZNCV 04-001) K.P. Hislop Mariners Way Homeowners association 800 Mariners Way Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A, requiring a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet, to allow for a variance of thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10) feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district. Maxime Ducost~-Amed~e, Planner, presented this item. Staff recommended denial of this request due to 1) lack of traditional hardship, and specifically, that relief is not necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land; 2) The special conditions and circumstances are a result of actions taken by the applicant (e.g. design and layout of the proposed improvement); and 3) The proposed bathroom addition could be alternatively placed so as to maximize the setback and therefore minimize the magnitude of, or need for, a setback variance. The basis of the variance request was a tiki hut that encroaches into the setback. As a sub-request, the homeowners are asking that a bathroom be built adjacent to the pool area. Mr. Ducost6-Amed6e asked that a comment be added to Exhibit B to the effect that, "If this variance is approved, the owner would be required to submit a minor site plan modification and obtain all necessary building permits for the desired structure." 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Ken Hislop, 800 Mariners Way, Boynton Beach, Vice President of the Mariners Way Homeowners Association, presented the case for the homeowners. Mr. Hislop stated that the lack of a bathroom and shade at the pool area were detrimental to the enjoyment of the amenities by the homeowners and were grounds for a hardship. Many of their homeowners are elderly and it is all but impossible for them to walk the necessary distances. They also felt it was a health issue for obvious reasons. For these reasons, they wished to build a bathroom adjacent to the pool area. Mr. Hislop also cited several variances that had been granted to surrounding homeowners for the same size that they were requesting. In regard to their tiki hut blocking the view of the homeowner to the north, Mr. Hislop read an attorney's opinion from a Palm Beach Post article to the effect that under Florida law, a view was not guaranteed nor protected and that individual property rights outweigh someone's desire for a view. Mr. Hislop admitted that they had gotten off on the wrong foot with the City by constructing the tiki hut without a permit, but they had done so in the belief that they were acting within the limits of Florida law. They only learned after the fact that the Statutes called for the work to be done by a Miccosoukee or Seminole Indian, and a Cheyenne Indian had built it. Steve Black, President of Mariners Way Homeowners Association, submitted some pictures to the Board for their review. He stated that the property to the north of the pool area is now a vacant lot, and the owner has not yet built anything on it. They feel also that there would be no impingement of view due to the tiki hut since it is located behind the trees. He further stated that they had not received any firm recommendations of where they could move the tiki hut on their property. If a 40-foot setback were to be observed from the north and south boundaries of the land, they would intersect. There is no actual property in between on which to put any kind of structure. At the immediate edge of the pool there are mangroves, which cannot be disturbed according to Federal law. They did not believe that they were asking for anything out of the ordinary, or greater than the variances that the people to the north had already received. He did not know what the Code was at the time the property was built but no bathroom was built at the pool and no room was allowed for it. Due to the narrowness of the property, with current zoning restrictions, it was impossible for them to build anything anywhere on the property without some sort of variance. Seaumus Murphy, a property owner in Mariners Way, reiterated that many of their residents were elderly and could not get around easily. He said that the scarcity of land on their property limited where things could be put and this why they located the tiki hut and the proposed bathroom where they did. He stated that the tiki hut was not blocking a view of anything and that they just wanted to provide shade and have a bathroom close enough for people to use it during a day at the pool. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Louise Dacamara, 836 East Road, Harbor Estates, Lot 40, said that she lived very close to this property and had no problem with this request. Barry and Cheryl Hurwit, 1038 Sandalwood Lane, Weston, owner of Lot 30, immediately adjacent to and north of the pool in Mariners Way, came to the podium. He stated that they were the people most affected by the tiki hut and bathroom. They understood why the Mariners Way H.O.A. wanted to have a tiki hut and a bathroom next to the pool as required by today's Code, but they did not feel that a great hardship was involved. They bought their property about a year ago. Before that, they came to the Zoning Department and met with Mr. Ducost~-Amed~e to discuss their plans to build a beautiful, two-story home, which they expected should be worth in the neighborhood of $1.5M when completed. When they looked at the site, the variance that is in place for their 10-foot setback was already in place. The understanding they got from the Zoning Department was this was put in place because there was nothing behind them. And, because of the 40-foot setback, there could not be anything built behind them. Tf the variance is granted, the tiki hut would be 20 feet from the Hurwit's house. Mr. Hurwit distributed some photographs to the Board for review. He stated that the tiki hut would entirely block their view of the :[ntracoastal. The magnitude of the tiki hut is such that if Mariners Way had wanted to be good neighbors, they would have made it a fraction of its current size. He could not agree with putting the tiki hut in its current location. He suggested putting the bathroom in one of the parking spaces. For Mariners Way to put a bathroom and tiki hut right in the middle of the view for which they had purchased the property would create a hardship, but not for Mariners Way - for them. Mr. Heslip wished to speak again, and Chair Finkelstein stated that no rebuttal time would be given. Mr. Heslip brought up the view issue and was allowed to read the newspaper article from the Palm Beach Post on September 3, 2003 that gave the attorney's opinion about views not being guaranteed. David Hemingway, 610 Mariners Way, Boynton Beach, stated that in regard to the allusion to some parking spaces that were available to house the restroom, they did not have that luxury. Their parking was at a minimum now and they did not even have guest parking. He stated that if the proposed property to the north were put higher on grade, there would be no issue with the view. He invited the Board members to view the property in question and see for themselves that there would be no impingement of any views. He was confident that if they went out to the site, they would see this for themselves and agree. The Public Hearing was closed. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Mr. Fisher asked how tall the tiki hut was and how high the property owner to the north planned to build his property. Mr. Hurwit said that they planned to build a two-story house and he understood his house could be as high as 30 feet per Code. Since the tiki hut was not two-story and the house would be, Mr. Fisher did not understand how the view would be impeded. Mr. Hurwit stated that the pool deck on which the tiki hut was built was an elevated one. The H.O.A. representatives stated that the height of the tiki hut was eleven feet. Mr. Hurwit was convinced that the tiki hut would block their view. Mr. Barretta concurred that it would block the Hurwits' view. Mr. Barretta had not been convinced that the tiki hut and restroom could not be built without a variance. As far as the statement that it could not be placed in the parking lot because they would lose a parking space, Mr. Barretta would be much more inclined to grant a variance to eliminate one parking space than he would be to put it in the setback and obscure the neighbor's views. Vice Chair Heavilin asked where staff thought that the bathroom could be located that would provide a much larger setback. Mr. Ducost~e-Amed~e pointed the location out on the survey drawing. At the end of the cul-de-sac, there is a gate to access the pool area and there is an area between two palm trees that would accommodate the 6' x 6' bathroom. He stated that there was a question about the location of sewer and water lines, but he did not think this was something that should be considered when analyzing a variance request. :Infrastructures can be moved. :If the bathroom were to be located in this place, the variance would no longer be required. Vice Chair Heavilin asked if this location would cause a problem with the mangroves. Mr. Ducost~-Amed~e said that staff did not see any mangroves at that location when they visited the site and believed that the mangroves were lower on the property. Mr. Hislop distributed some photographs of the area to the Board that he felt would show the location of the mangroves. Chair Finkelstein asked staff if the applicant would fall short of parking spaces if they put a restroom in a parking space. Mr. Ducost~-Amed~e did not research this specific piece of information, but said that any parking spaces that would be eliminated could cause the property to go below what was required. However, if the applicant were to relocate the bathroom further south of their proposed location, it would not cause the loss of an existing parking space. Mr. Tillman said he did not perceive any hardship in this case. Also, the tiki hut was built without authorization. He felt that the homeowners had to try to find a more amiable solution to the problem. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 The idea of putting the tiki hut adjacent to the bathroom in the space suggested by staff was considered. It was thought to be too narrow to accommodate it. The hub of the parking cul-de-sac was also considered as a potential site for the bathroom, but there was a question as to whether this would allow sufficient turning space for emergency vehicles. Mr. Ducost~-Amed~e did not believe there was any other place on the site to place the tiki hut than where the homeowners had put it. Mr. Barretta suggested that the property owners try to seek an alternative location for each structure and he believed that this could be accommodated on the property. Mr. DeMarco reminded the other Board members that they had a lengthy agenda before them and they had already spent a great deal of time on this item. With all due respect to the applicant, he thought that the item should be tabled to allow the Planning & Zoning to Division to work with the applicant to find a solution. Vice Chair Heavilin stated she had been to the property and the locations of the tiki hut and proposed bathroom were the only logical choices. Also, trying to bring the property up to Code was something that the Board should encourage. Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, suggested to the applicant that since they had a current application in place and a legal advertisement in place, if the item were tabled until the Board's next meeting, alternative designs could be considered and it would not have to be readvertised or a new application submitted. The City Commission would still have the option of honoring the Board's recommendation but if it were tabled, the City Commission could consider that. Mr. Fisher said that the City wanted people to improve their neighborhoods, but the neighborhoods do not fit the City's zoning codes and this kind of situation had come up and would continue to come up all the time. He did not think that enough of the view would be obstructed to ruin the appeal of the proposed house. He did believe that they should have a bathroom near the pool for health reasons. From an aesthetic standpoint, it did not seem to him that the restroom was affecting the homeowner whose home was not yet built. He did not think it was necessary to table the item. Mr. Barretta felt that the hardship was that the homeowners had chosen the location they wanted to place the tiki hut in without any consideration of the neighbors or any consultation with the City. There are alternative places to put it that would not require a variance or that would require a lesser variance, and he did not think their actions should be rewarded. They should be made to improve their neighborhood, but in a responsible manner. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Motion Mr. Barretta moved to recommend that the City Commission table the Mariners Way request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A. requiring a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet, to allow for a variance of thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10) feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Mr. Barretta amended the motion to include, "so staff can work w/th the homeowners to determine an a/ternate /ocation for the bathroom." Mr. DeMarco accepted the amendment to the motion. The motion passed 5-1, Mr. ?/sher dissenting. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Deliverance by Faith Church (NWSP 04-001) Michael E. Sipula, .1MS Architectural Design Glenn Lyons Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Frank Weber Addition Request for New Site Plan approval for a 3,090 square foot church on a 0.32-acre parcel in a C-2 zoning district. Maxime Ducost~-Amed~e, Planner, presented this item. Staff recommended denial of the request and in summary, their recommendation was based on the fact that the project was not consistent with the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan, which recommends the site of the proposed church be developed as part of a larger 'gateway' activity node consisting of an integrated commercial/mixed-use development. If the request were to be approved, staff recommended that the approval be subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "C." Mike Sipula, .1MS Architectural Design, appeared for the owner, Glenn Lyons. He stated that they were very surprised by staff's recommendation because they had gone through a pre-application meeting and had a "blessing" to continue. They also went through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) with minimal comments. But, at the end of the TRC, they were told that staff would probably not recommend approval, and this was the first time he had heard that. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience. David Zimet, Faith-Based Community Development Corporation, 2191 North Seacrest Boulevard, stated that while he recognized the importance and significance of churches in the community, he had to look at the overall plan and the redevelopment effort that had been put forward. He felt that the Redevelopment Plan should be adhered to or the City would end up with even greater confusion than at present. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience. Mr. Barretta asked whether the agent's comment was correct that the applicant had gone through an extensive process with no one bringing the redevelopment plan obstacle to his attention or had the applicant misunderstood staff. Quintus Greene, Development Director, came to the podium and stated that the agent was correct, that there had been an oversight at the staff level early in the process, for which he took full responsibility. However, he had informed Mr. $ipula at the TRC meeting that this property was part of the Phase 1 Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Project Area and indicated to him then that if he chose to proceed to the CRA, the staff recommendation would be denial. He added that the owner of the project had been aware for some time that this was in the middle of the Phase 1 project area. He had received two letters from the Development Department and the owner and Mr. Greene had discussions about this property on a number of occasions. The owner who retained the architect was well aware of the fact that this property was in the Phase 1 project area. Mr. Barretta concurred with Mr. Zimet in his view that the City would not make much progress in the City if they developed visions and plans and then ignored them for particular pieces of property. He would support denial of the petition. Glenn Lyons, Pastor of Faith by Deliverance Church, owner of the proposed property, stated that when he purchased the property four years previously, it was for the purpose of constructing a sanctuary. Tt was before he had heard about the 2020 Vision of the City. Upon hearing about the Vision, they were in the process of having plans drawn up and submitting them to the City. The first they heard of the 2020 Vision was last year. As far as saying that he had known about this before they embarked on the process, this was not exactly true. They had been in the process for four years working their way up the ladder and now when it comes to this point, they were being told they had to go back down the ladder again. There is no place for them to go. He hoped that the Board would consider the matter very closely and carefully before making a decision. Chair Finkelstein asked Mr. Greene to discuss the Vision 2020 program as it relates to this project. Mr. Greene stated that with all due respect to Reverend Lyons, he was not prepared to dispute that the property was purchased to construct a church. However, the City had been holding an application for a parking lot on this site for the church that Reverend Lyons is currently occupying. Reverend Lyons has been proposing to pave these parcels as parking for an existing church that he is currently leasing in another building. Regardless, he thought that most of the Board members knew of the 2020 Vision 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 process that had begun in the mid 1990s and was completed in 1998. The Heart of Boynton project itself has gone on for approximately two years prior to last year when the first letter went out to the property owners in this particular area. There have been at least three or four years of history that have been specifically related to the Heart of Boynton project. Mr. Barretta added that this had included lots of public meetings, hearings, and public input. The Board concurred. Chair Finkelstein asked Mr. Greene what would happen if the church were to be allowed to go forward with their plans for a church at this location. Mr. Greene stated that the City would have to reconfigure the development parcel, which is currently proposed to be rectangular. Extracting this site from the proposed redevelopment parcel would skew the remaining parcel. The other alternative would be that the CRA would have to proceed to acquire the parcel in any case. Vice Chair Heavilin felt that the Board had made a commitment to the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan and they needed to continue that. She asked whether there was a strong likelihood that this church could be integrated into a commercial/mixed-use development as referenced by staff. Mr. Greene stated that the City welcomes churches in the Heart of Boynton as a project; however, since this particular Phase 1 project is an integrated mixed-use project, there is no place for a stand-alone building as part of that mixed-use project. That was the problem. Mr. Tillman stated that if any plan was going to work, all the units of the City would have to work together to achieve it and he was glad to see this was happening. Motion Mr. Tillman moved to deny the request for New Site Plan (NWSP 04-001) approval for a 3,090 square foot church on a 0.32-acre parcel in a C-2 zoning district. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that carried unanimously. The meet/ng recessed at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Presentation on Movinq Forward with Museum Feasibility Mr. Hutchinson related the content of a letter from the South Florida Water Management District recommending that the museum be relocated to an alternative, upland location. Mr. Robert Robbins, Director of Natural Resource Management Division, stated in the letter, "Situating such a facility in the mangrove wetlands or in the IC~/V would not meet Environmental Resource Permitting criteria." 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 It was Mr. Hutchinson's opinion, with much support from the Board, that this negative response had not been based on a definite plan, design, or footprint and that in the absence of those things, the negative response was somewhat predictable. It was believed that with a firm plan and greater understanding of the project, this opinion could be turned around. The Board believed that the feasibility study was important in order to properly assess the impacts of the project on protected resources. The feasibility study will consider museum size, design, and visitation levels along with an evaluation of the proposed site and could also recommend alternate sites. Chair Finkelstein was in favor of being more specific in the feasibility study regarding recommendations for alternate sites. He had read in a report that it was not a water- dependent project and this was one of SFWMD's requirements for approval. There was a lot of feeling on the board that even if this or similar projects had been denied in the past, it was important to develop a destination for Boynton Beach and that the feasibility study was necessary to adequately assess all the variables involved with this project. 3ose Aguila, of Currie Sowards Aguila Architects, and part of The Baker Leisure Group Team, expressed great confidence in the team that had been selected to perform the feasibility study and was certain that it could answer any and every possible question that could be raised about the project. He stated that the project was generated with the proposed site in mind and that they would focus on that site. If their honest analysis of all the factors indicated that the project could not be done at this site, they would take direction from the Board about studying other sites. Hotion Mr. Fisher moved to proceed with the project. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Chair Finkelstein asked Mr. Fisher if he wanted to amend the motion to say, "approve mov/ng ahead ~vith the agreement for serv/ces for Baker Le/sure Group for the Savage Seas Museum," and Messrs. Fisher and DeMarco agreed to the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension, Promenade and Riverwalk Design and Probable Project Cost Mr. Hutchinson presented an alternative version of this project that included features that were not present on the original design. His intent was to bring the project in at a price with which the Board could live. Some of the new features include an EMS equipment storage area and a police center at the entry, a "day deck" for fishing, boat drop-off and pick-up and water linkage at the Intracoastal. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 The consensus of the Board was to complete the project using the original, "no-frills" design originally approved and to consider additional embellishments at a later date. There was a feeling that many infrastructure items could be installed in the first phase and expanded upon in later phases. For example, the infrastructure for artwork would be put in, but not the artwork itself. There was a lot of agreement on wanting more of a destination and place to hold events as opposed to a place to go fishing. Mr. Hutchinson thought it was important to realize how many people were using the area for fishing and how popular fishing was as a pastime in this area. He had gotten a lot of pressure from marine businesses to make it easier to drop off people and pick them up. The Board wanted the Promenade to be as wide as possible to facilitate booths for fairs and events. The phased approach to the project was discussed and generally favored. As time goes on, the Board will discuss the specifics of the next phases. The Board was very desirous of moving ahead with the project and getting a "shovel in the ground," and wanted to know what they had to do to make that happen. Dennis Haynes, Vice President of Burkhardt Construction, Tnc. in West Palm Beach, came to the podium. He said that they were ready to go to work if the Board so desired. After some discussion, the Board's attention was drawn to page 4779 of the agenda, the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Contract Proposal. Board Attorney Payne commented that this was not a contract and all parties agreed. Mr. Haynes said if this proposal came back to the Board, it would come back with this proposal with a cover sheet that would be the Work Authorization. Mr. Hutchinson asked if Mr. Haynes wanted approval for the Chairman, upon approval of the legal documents, to sign that contract in this amount. Mr. Haynes said that this was up to the Board but that this was a vehicle that would enable them to proceed on the project. Wanting to go ahead with the project without further time passing, the Board considered the specifics of the proposed Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Contract. The proposal had a left-hand full-price column and a right-hand team recommended price column. Chairman Finkelstein said that he wanted to see some of the items pared down such as the uplighting and sculpture lighting. He envisioned doing the electrical and conduit work only in the first phase. Vice Chair Heavilin thought that the trolley shelters could be done in a later phase also. Mr. Hutchinson directed the Board's attention to the proposal that had a left-hand column reflecting the full price and a right-hand column showing the Team's recommendation. Mr. Haynes said that some the architectural features could be put in 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 later, simply laying the foundations for them at this time. He thought that the furnishings and the landscaping were items that they might want to do now so they would have a "finished" product. Dale Sugerman, Assistant City Manager, stated that he had worked with Burkhardt on multimillion-dollar projects before. He recommended that the Board approve a contract for a bottom-line price, put in an amount of money for contingency, have them start on the hardscape items the Board knew it wanted, and then have them come back later when the Board could begin eliminating the items on which the Board did not wish to spend money. He believed that the contractor would spend the Board's money wisely. Notion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Contract Proposal, subject to legal review and approval, for $5,035,076.45, of which $1.5M would be moved to contingency. Chair Finkelstein asked if Mr. Barretta would consider increasing the contingency portion of this. If the items that were being taken out of the first phase were removed, it could be rounded off to $2,035,076.45. Mr. Barretta agreed. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. A discussion ensued about the amount of the approved contract and the contingency. Different people suggested different ways of doing this. With Mr. Barretta's acceptance, Chair Finkelstein restated the motion and the amended motion follows: Hotion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Contract Proposal, subject to legal review and approval, for a base contract price of $2,988,076.45 as shown on agenda page 4783, Subtota/ Contract Va/ue, which contains a// the items above that in the right-hand column save and except under Electrical and Street Lighting, Up#ghting, for $80K, and Sculpture Lighting for $1g.2K. Any other items will have to come back to the Board for approval before proceeding. Messrs. Barretta and DeMarco accepted this restatement of the original motion. Vice Chair Heavilin asked Mr. Haynes whether having to wait for a go-ahead on the Undergrounding of FPL Utilities and the Mitigation would hold up the project. Mr. Haynes said that it would not because there was earthwork and some City utilities that could be installed first. Mr. Hutchinson said the pricetag for the Mitigation item would be brought before the board along with the FPL item at the Board's April meeting. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 The motion carried unanimous/y, Mr. Haynes stated that the balance of the design fees to complete the design and permitting for those elements was up in the air. Chair Finkelstein stated that the Board wanted to move ahead with the project in its entirety and that Mr. Haynes should bring this back to the Board at its next meeting as a Task Order. Mr. Sugerman announced that the proposed groundbreaking ceremony was tentatively scheduled for March 18. Although all of the permits had to be in hand before a shovel hit the dirt, they were very close to getting all of them. The Board thanked Mr. Sugerman for his participation. In keeping with its established practice, the Board voted on whether to continue with the agenda items or carry them over to the next meeting on March 18. Mr. Hutchinson commented that he really needed to get the Board's direction on the MLK Purchase Process Update. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to hear the MLK Purchase Process Update item and to postpone the rest until the March 18 meeting. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that was carried unanimously. C. MLK Purchase Process Update Mr. Hutchinson believed that the CRA should follow a uniform process in the acquisition of the Phase 1 Properties in the MLK Corridor. He favored following the HUD Uniform Relocation Act process, which would add to the cost but ensure a fair process for all parties concerned. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve staff's recommendation to following the HUD Uniform Relocation Act in the acquisition of Phase 1 Properties in the MLK Corridor. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously. The fo/lowing agenda items are postponed until the ~larch 18, 2004 meeting: B. Cash Flows, Budgets, and Financial Projections for Board Direction C. Design Guidelines: Request for Comments 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant for Delray Boynton Academy (Tabled) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of Revised Direct Incentive Program B. Consideration of the Business Genesis Program C. Consideration of Special Pilot Program for Police Patrol in Heart of Boynton and the CBD D. Consideration of Regions Core Grant Applicants X. COMMISSION AGENDA XI. BOARD I~IEf4BER COMMENTS XII. LEGAL XIII. OTHER ITEMS XIV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEf4S A. Consideration of Securing CBD Surface Parking Rights (April) B. Youth Community Improvement Grant (April) C. 2002/2003 Annual Report (April) D. Consideration of Pilot Program for Trolley Service in the CBD (May) XV. ADJOURNf4ENT By mutual consent, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:56 p.m. The Board will reconvene to complete the balance of the agenda items on March 18, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida March 9, 2004 Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (03:~004) 17