Loading...
Minutes 07-13-04 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, 3ULY 13, 2004, AT 6:30 P.M. Present Jeanne Heavilin, Chair Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair 3ames Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Quintus Greene, Development Director Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Lindsay Payne, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and recognized the presence in the audience of Mayor Taylor and Commissioners Ensler and McKoy. Chair Heavilin then welcomed the new Board members, Ms. Marie Horenburger and Mr. Steve Myott. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board to consider moving from New Business to the Consent Agenda Item E (Consideration of Six Month Extension of the Direct ]:ncentive Award to the Arches project), Item F (Consideration of Development Regions Grant Six Month Extension for Yellow Beard Inc. dba Boynton Seafood) and Item G (Consideration of Fred and Joe's Automotive). Chair Heavilin stated that Mr. Myott would have to recuse himself from voting on Ttem F, so perhaps he could abstain from voting on the entire Consent Agenda, which is what Mr. Myott elected to do. Mr. Myott indicated that the conflict arose through his employment with the architectural firm that was doing the Yellow Beard, ]:nc. dba/Boynton Seafood project. Mr. Myott duly filled out Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Chair Heavilin asked to. move from New Business to the Consent Agenda Item B (Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Application for Welch Plastering), Item H (Consideration of Business/Development Fair September 16, 2004, and Item ! (Consideration of"State- of-the CRA"/Recognition Event.) Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board to consider deferring consideration of the Police Pilot Program in the CRA Boundaries to the continuation meeting on July 15. The program was ready to be heard but the Police were not able to attend this meeting and requested that it be deferred. Ms. Horenburger asked how long the time extensions were and the response was, six months. .Hotion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Agenda as amended. the motion that passed 7-0. Mr. DeMarco seconded IV. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes of June 8, 2004; June 17, 2004 Workshop; and June 25, 2004 Special Meeting B. Financial Report C. Consideration of Budget Transfer Request D. Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant Extension for St. Mark Church E. Consideration of Mass Modeling Extension from 60 to 180 days for Reelization, !nc. F. Consideration of Facade Grant Application for Welch Plastering Consideration of Six-Month Extension of the Direct !ncentive Award to the Arches Project Consideration of Development Regions Grant Six-Month Extension for Yellow Beard !nc., d/b/a Boynton Seafood Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant Extension for Fred and Joe's Automotive Consideration of Business/Development Fair - September 16, 2004 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 K. Consideration of"State-of-the-CRA"/Recognition Event Items F-K were moved from Ne~v Business during Agenda Approva/. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-0, (Mr. Myott abstaining). V. Public Audience Chair Heavilin invited audience participation on any item that was not on the agenda. Hearing none, the Public Audience was closed. VI. Public Hearing Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying at the meeting. A. Annexation Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Waterside (ANNEX 04-002) Tabled 3une 9th Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Ballbe, Inc. Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC. East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer Road and Chukker Road Description: Request to annex 7.29 acres of property in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple town homes and related site improvements Motion Vice Chair Tillman removed the Item A, Waterside Annexation, from the table. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Waterside (LUAR 04-002) Tabled June 9th Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Ballbe, Inc. Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC. East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer Road and Chukker Road 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Description: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Use Map from Commercial High ]:ntensity and Medium Residential (Palm Beach County) to Special High Density Residential; and Request to rezone from General Commercial (Palm Beach County) and Multi- Family Residential to [nfill Planned Unit Development (I~PUD) in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple town homes and related site improvements C. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Waterside (NWSP 04-003) Tabled June 9th Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Baltbe, [nc. Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC. East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer Road and Chukker Road Description: Request for new site plan approval for 113 fee-simple town homes and related site improvements on a 7.29- acre parcel in a proposed 1PUD zoning district Hotion Ms. Horenburger moved to remove the Waterside items from the table. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, advised that the Annexation and Land Use Amendment for Waterside would be presented together, but asked that the Board consider making separate motions for the individual items. He presented the highlights of the Staff Report, covering the Annexation and the Land Use Amendment, and concluded with a positive recommendation from staff for approval. Hs. Bonnie Hiskel, Zoning & Land Use Attorney, 222 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, advised that she was representing Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC, and was available to answer any questions on this or any Waterside items. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment but hearing none, closed it. Hotion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Waterside request for annexation, ANEX 04-02, to annex 7.29 acres of property in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple town homes and related site improvements. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that carried 7-0. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 The Board proceeded to consideration of the Land Use Amendment. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Arthur Schilling, Chukker Road, Boynton Beach, asked if all eight conditions required for annexation and rezoning had been considered and met. Mr. Hudson responded that all conditions had been considered and met. Mr. Schilling asked Mr. Hudson to read them, which he did. Mr. Schilling was interested in the traffic impact of the Waterside project on the homes on Chukker Road. Mr. Hudson responded that a traffic study had been done in 2003 and it had considered the new developments such as Tuscany on the Intracoastal. Later in the meeting, the comment was made that considering the previous commercial use on the property, there would probably be a net decrease in traffic with the proposed development. Mr. Schilling inquired about the landscaping on Waterside and was told that this would be covered during the Site Plan review following this item. Since no one else came forward to speak, the floor was closed to public comment. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve LUAR 4-002, request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Use Map from Commercial High Intensity and Medium Residential (Palm Beach County) to Special High Density Residential. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Waterside request to rezone from General Commercial (Palm Beach County) and Multi-Family Residential to Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple town homes and related site improvements. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. The Board proceeded to consideration of the Waterside Site Plan. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the highlights of the Site Plan, giving a positive recommendation from staff for approval, contingent on satisfaction of all 68 conditions of approval. It was his understanding, and Ms. Miskel confirmed it, that the applicant accepted all 68 conditions of approval. In addition, the height of the project's clubhouse would exceed the 45 feet allowable in an IPUD zoning district, and approval of the Site Plan would be contingent upon approval of the height exception. There were timing issues and the height excepUon would not be presented until the Board's August meeting. The reason for the height exception was to provide a clear view from U.S. 1 to the Intracoastal Waterway. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida ~luly 13, 2004 Mr. Fenton inquired about the turning radius for emergency vehicles and the applicant responded that there was a 55-foot outside radius. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment on this item. t4arlene Sodoaro, Chukker Road, Boynton Beach, expressed concern for the traffic that Waterside would generate on Chukker Road, a road with only about a half dozen residents. Ms. Miskel stated that if the Board desired, the applicant would be wiling to limit use of Chukker Road to emergency access only. If the Board made that recommendation, the applicant would comply. She stated that Palmer Road was not up to the standards for safe and adequate access and that the project would have to be served by one entrance on Federal Highway. Arthur Schilling returned to the podium and expressed concern about the higher elevation of Waterside contributing to an existing drainage problem on Chukker Road. Mr. Johnson stated that staff had reviewed the applicant's preliminary drainage plan and found its solutions to be adequate. The applicant commented that they planned to handle this issue through a retention area, a berm surrounding their property, and ex- filtration trenches. The applicant did not believe that there would be any runoff onto Chukker Road, but if it should occur, they also had pipes that would discharge directly into the Intracoastal. They were required by South Florida Water Management District to have a drainage plan that would contain every storm event that had occurred in the last twenty-five years and their plan met those standards. Ms. Laurinda Logan, Sr. Engineer, stated that City Code required that excess water be retained and contained for drainage purposes on a site. Beyond that, no design could cover every possible rain event that might ever occur. The applicant maintained that there would be no increase in runoff beyond what had happened in the past. Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment. Mr. Barretta questioned Condition of Approval No. 27: "Every exterior wall within 15 feet of a property line shall be equipped with approved opening protectives per 2001 FBC, Section 705.1.1.2." A discussion ensued about protectives, a fire safety term and issue, and what was determined to be a percentage of the wall area that had to be open at fifteen feet from the property line. That was the actual intent of this condition. Mr. Greene pointed this out, stating that it was a typographical error. If it had been protectives, Mr. Barretta's point would have been to determine what style was going to be used and how many of them there would be. Some methods of providing protectives were quite unattractive. Ms. Horenburger suggested that the Board 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 recommend that the City adopt a standard pertaining to protectives at some time in the future. Ms. Miskel commented that this condition only affected a small section at the rear of the building that was within 15 feet of the property line and that the actual percentages of the wall area in the affected section were shown on Page A-10 of their plans. Mr. Barretta asked if their elevations were in compliance with the listed conditions and the answer was affirmative. He asked whether the applicant would bring elevation changes back to the Board for approval. Ms. Miskel commented that they would, if requested to do so, but that this would normally be handled as a minor adjustment through staff. Mr. Johnson confirmed this and said that it would be a minor modification with complimentary review of the Board, if that were acceptable. Motion Vice Chair 'l'illman moved to approve the request for new site plan approval for 113 fee- simple town homes and related site improvements on a 7.29-acre parcel in a proposed ]:PUD zoning district, subject to all 68 conditions of approval. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Mr. Tillman added the words, "contingent upon the approval of the height exception" and Ms. Horenburger agreed to the addition. Mr. Fenton asked for a restatement of the motion as it pertained to the height exception. Mr. Johnson did not want to hold up the project because of the height exception so that the applicant could go through the process and submit for building permits, even though the Board could not vote on the height exception until the following month. This was acceptable to the Board. The motion passed 7-0. D. Code Review Project: Owner: ]:PUD (CDRV 04-005) City-initiated Description: Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 zoning, Section 5.L Infill Planned Unit Development, providing additional standards for building design, usable open space and compatibility with surrounding development 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the highlights of the staff report. The intent was to insure compatibility of infill redevelopment with adjacent existing single-family developments, clarify setback requirements, provide standards for building design elements, and set additional standards for usable open space and compatibility. The draft amendments also included additions to the "Intent and Expectations" section and clarification of the requirement for unified control or common ownership. The Board reviewed some suggestions regarding this issue that arose from a meeting with concerned citizens, The Inlet Cove Association (INCA). Staff recommended approval with the inclusion of the INCA suggestions. The term "sanctity" was removed by general consent in reference to item (d.), which stated that in order to be approved, an 1PUD project "..must be compatible with and preserve the character and sanctity of adjacent residential neighborhoods.." Everyone understood the intent of the wording, but believed that it should be deleted. On page 3, Item 4 (2) it should read: "Such screening must shield neighboring properties .... "Ms. Horenburger added that it should say also, "shielded from any adverse effects from the proposed development." Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, President of INCA, expressed general satisfaction with the mutually crafted document. The citizens appreciated being able to give input and also appreciated the outstanding efforts of staff. I~lotion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the City-initiated request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 5.L Infill Planned Unit Development, providing additional standards for building design, usable open space and compatibility with surrounding development. Vice Chair Tillman seconded, the motion with the changes as discussed. The motion passed 7-0. New Business A. Abandonment Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Boynton Seafood (ABAN 04-002) 3im Hanson Jim Hanson and Carter Logan 1022 North Federal Highway Description: Request for abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot wide alley lying east of lots 20, 21 and 22, and west 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida 3uly 13, 2004 of lot 19 in Block 3, Lake Addition to Boynton Subdivision Mr. Myott recused himself from voting on this item since he was employed by the architectural firm involved in this project. Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planner, stated that the applicant had been unavoidably detained due to a crash on 1-95 and that Mr..]arvis Wyendem would be his representative. This was acceptable to the Board. Mr. Ducoste-Amedee reviewed the staff report and gave a positive staff recommendation for approval. .larvis Wyendem, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant agreed with the cOnditions of approval. Ms. Horenburger asked whether the City did abandonments for consideration, and Mr. Hutchinson responded that the City had not done so for at least the last two years, when he came to the Board. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot wide alley lying east of Lots 20, 21 and 22, and west of Lot 19 in Block 3, Lake Addition to Boynton subdivision. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining). Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Lake Drive North (ABAN 04-003) Rodney Regan Avon [nvestments, Inc. 2625 Lake Drive North Description: Request for abandonment of the north 4.2-foot wide walk easement in Lakeside Gardens Subdivision Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planner, presented the staff report. Staff's recommendation granting the request to abandon this walkway was based on its findings that the walk served no public purpose, could potentially create hazardous situations and be detrimental to the public welfare. The property owner to the south of the walk had requested the abandonment so that he could then vacate it and consolidate it with the property to the south in order to construct a single-family home. If the walk remained, the City would be obligated to maintain it. There was also a walkway to the south of the subject walk that the staff report described as being overgrown with vegetation and encroaching fences and that the City would have to look into that eventually as well. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida _July 13, 2004 Mr. Barretta asked if the property owners had been notified. Mr. Ducoste-Amedee stated that the Planning & Zoning Division had notified the property owners abutting the subject walk easement, as required. They also advertised this action in the newspapers. However, since they believed this would affect other property owners in the area, they posted the walkway with a sign on the day before the meeting. Chair Heavilin opened the floor to public comment. An extremely lengthy discussion ensued about this matter. In summary, residents in the neighborhood surrounding the site of the proposed abandonment were opposed to the abandonment. They believed that it would take away their supposed rights to access to the Intracoastal. They believed that their right to access had been initiated in 1922 through a dedication by the original owners, which dedication was bound and notarized to the plat. This was in effect at the time they purchased their homes and they strongly wished to continue being able to stroll down the walkway to view the Intracoastal. Having this access was a big selling point when they bought their homes. The spokesman for the majority of the Lakeside Gardens neighborhood, Mike Mrotek, indicated that he mowed the walkway twice a month. If the walkway was messier than usual, it was attributable to recent construction in the area. Various property owners stated that this access was a part of their deeds. This waterway access had direct impact on the value of their homes. They believed that to grant the abandonment would be to unjustly enrich the applicant at the expense of those living in the neighborhood who relied on this walkway for access to the water. A petition signed by 22 of the surrounding property owners was submitted for the record and is available in the City Clerk's office. Speaking for Lakeside Gardens were Mike Mrotek, 2624 Lake Drive, :John Pinkerton, Potter Road in Lakeside Gardens, and Sherry Easterling, 628 Dimick Road. Preston Fields, attorney representing the applicant, stated that there was no reference on the plat to walkways other than the drawings. He conceded that some ambiguity existed. Mr. Fields stated that if this were to be abandoned, he was not sure that it would go to his client, the applicant. [f there were a public gift of land through platting and it was subsequently abandoned, it would technically go back to the original grantors and their beneficiaries. He asked the Board to approve the abandonment because, if the City did not own the walkway, then it could not legally abandon it or if they did, it would not have any effect. Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Mr. Myott stated he had made an offer on lots in Lakeside Gardens at one time, and the realtor contended that the walkways and access to the water had been platted with the subdivision many years ago. The City's right to abandon the property and the issue of reversion rights were discussed and there was some ambiguity surrounding this issue. Mr. Barretta stated that he was inclined to allow the residents to continue to enjoy use of the walkway, regardless of any ambiguities that might exist. Motion Mr. Myott moved to deny the request for abandonment of the north 4.2-foot wide walk easement in the Lakeside Gardens subdivision. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion. Ms. Horenburger asked the Board Attorney whether the City actually owned the walkway in question and could, therefore, legally abandon it. Attorney Payne stated that she could not ascertain this from the documents provided. Further, she doubted whether this access was actually in anyone's deed. ]:f it were in their deeds, then it would become a different issue rather than an abandonment of a plat. If they had rights through their deeds, that was not being addressed at this time. The City was only addressing the plat. Mr. DeMarco believed that it would be prudent to postpone a decision on this item, pending a determination of whether the City actually owned the walkway. The motion to deny the abandonment was approved 7-0. Project: Agent: Location: NW 8m Avenue (ABAN 03-011) City-initiated Approximately 400 feet west of Seacrest Boulevard between lots 154 and 155 of Block "C," and lots 154 and 155 of Block "D." Boynton Hills Subdivision Description: Request for abandonment of a portion of an unimproved, 50-foot wide road right-of-way for NW 8m Avenue, adjacent to lots 154 and 155 Block C, Boynton Hills Subdivision Maxime Ducoste-Amedee presented the staff report, which recommended approval. This was an unimproved street that provided no public purpose except for utilities. He added two conditions of approval under Public Works - Traffic as follows: 1) One half of the existing right-of-way width shall be deeded to each of the adjacent property owners to the limits of those properties; and 2) to provide a minimum of 25 feet utility 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida 3uly 13, 2004 easement, which corresponds to the southern half of the existing right-of-way, to the City and franchise utility companies. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Charles Fix, Habitat for Humanity, stated that if the abandonment were to be approved, it would aid the effort to build homes in that area since it would eliminate the setback requirements for being on a street. The property owner to the north was also in favor of the abandonment. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of abandonment of a portion of an unimproved, 50- foot wide road right-of-way for N.W. 8t~ Avenue, adjacent to Lots 154 and 155, Block C, Boynton Hills subdivision. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Cha/r Heavi//n declared a lO-m/nute recess at 8:27p. m. The meeting resumed at 8:35 B. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Project: Owner: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPTA 04-004) City-initiated Description: Request to update Transportation Element data and analysis Figure 4 (Functional classification of roadways Map) by adding two roadway segments classified as Local Collectors Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. The passage of this item would be an aid to redevelopment in two areas of the City. Staff recommended approval of this item. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none, the floor was closed. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request to update Transportation Element Data and Analysis Figure 4 (Functional Classification of Roadways Map) by adding two roadway segments classified as Local Collectors. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .luly 13, 2004 Project: Owner: Transportation Concurrency (TCEA) (CPTA 04-003) City-initiated Exception Area Description: Request to amend existing and add new Objectives and Policies in the transportation Element designating a portion of the Community Redevelopment Area as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) to facilitate development and redevelopment of properties located within the TCEA Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report and recommended approval. Mr. Hutchinson commented that this request was important to encourage commercial development in the CRA area. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none, the floor was closed. Mr. Hutchinson commented that City staff had done an outstanding job in this effort. There were not very many cities in Florida that had a TCEA and it would really make a difference with development and the quality of life in the City. I~lotion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend existing and add new Objectives and Policies in the Transportation Element designating a portion of the Community Redevelopment Area as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) to facilitate development and redevelopment of properties located within the TCEA. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Rezoning Project: Agent: Owner: Location: The Promenade (REZN (04-002) Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Boynton Beach Waterways LLC Northeast corner of North Boynton Beach Boulevard Investment Associates, Federal Highway and Description: Request to rezone from Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) in connection with the request to build a mixed use 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 development consisting of retail, office and restaurant space and hotel and condominium units on 3.97 acres Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, explained that there were three issues related to The Promenade: 1) rezoning, 2) new site plan, and 3) Height Exception. All three would be reviewed concurrently, but he asked that separate votes be taken on each individual item. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request because the requested zoning category was 1) consistent with the adopted land use and with the directions for the City's downtown area; 2) would enable the redevelopment of the property consistent with adopted redevelopment plans for the Federal Highway Corridor; and 3) would serve to provide an economic contribution to both the neighborhood and the City. Michael Weiner, Weiner /ir Aronson, P.A., speaking on behalf of the applicant, introduced his team of associates. He stated that the agenda item regarding urban parking requirements was also his responsibility and that if the Board wished, he could include information that would relate to both items at the same time. The Board concurred. Mr. Weiner indicated that the applicant was in agreement with all 72 conditions of approval. The project is located on the northeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway, between Federal Highway and a lake. A slide presentation was given showing the site plan with townhouses facing towards the lake, a covered walkway arch across parking and retail on the street. This project met all eight criteria for rezoning as delineated in the staff report. The eight criteria for the height exception were also met. The City's current parking code requirements would require them to have 784 parking spaces. They were going to build 750 spaces and in the future, were looking at a code revision that would call for 675 spaces. Even at 675, Boynton Beach's requirements would be well above what was required in other jurisdictions. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to rezone from Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) in connection with the request to build a mixed-use development consisting of retail, office and restaurant space and hotel and condominium units on 3.97 acres. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 B. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: The Promenade (NWSP 04-009) Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Boynton Beach Waterways LLC. Northeast corner of North Boynton Beach Boulevard Investment Associates, Federal Highway and DescripUon: Request for new site plan approval to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 16,200 square feet of retail space, 3,000 square feet of restaurant space, 68 hotel rooms, and 318 condominium units on a 3.975- acre parcel in the Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) zoning district Eric Johnson, Planner, stated that there were 72 conditions of approval and staff recommended approval, based on satisfaction of those conditions. The applicant had previously stated agreement with all 72 conditions of approval. Mr. Hutchinson commented that this project avoided the pitfall of over massing and overbuilding on Federal Highway and would create "Mizner-type" courtyards and public areas in the front area between the hotel, intersections, and major areas. An elevated concrete platform where jazz or other entertainments could be enjoyed was proposed for the rear of the project facing the lake. The project was "pretty" from every elevation. They were not doing fiat mansard roofs, but had buildings with some peaks on them, an architectural feature that greatly added to the skyline. This would be the City's biggest area of mixed use. The parking deck had an amenity package that was quite striking. The two areas that rose up were L-shaped, and this was an important feature for massing. He appreciated what the applicant had done with this project and thought that The Promenade was going to be a unique, landmark project. Board Attorney Payne asked Mr. Johnson to inform the Board the existing land use, the proposed use, and the acreage. Mr. Johnson replied that the existing land use was Mixed Use, the existing zoning was CBD, and the proposed land use was Mixed-Use Core and the proposed zoning was MU-H. The acreage was 3.975, including a small portion located at the northeast corner of the property. The proposed uses were 3,000 sq. ft. of restaurant, 19,200 sq. ft. of retail, 68 hotel units, and 318 condominium units. Mr. Fenton expressed concern about the pending lawsuit against the City for exceeding the 45 ft. limitation. He asked the Board Attorney how this would impact the Board's decision about approving the Site Plan with some heights going over 150 feet. Board 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida 3uly 13, 2004 Attorney Payne stated that this Board would only be recommending approval to the City Commission. Also, the applicant had been informed of the lawsuit and was proceeding with that knowledge. Mr. Weiner stated that the City would not be in greater or lesser jeopardy if it approved this project. Ms. Horenburger inquired about the height on the project, and was told it was fourteen stories. Chair Heavilin asked how many of the 750 parking spaces would be public, and Mr. Weiner responded that there would be 100 for public use. All other open space was public. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, expressed concern about the traffic in the area around the proposed project. He thought that an over or under pass might be in order. Mr. Hutchinson stated that Boynton Beach Boulevard had been designed with five lanes. The CRA put $20M into that area with extensions and traffic and the traffic loading in this project was superior to what it was at the present time. The concerns of the citizens about traffic had led to the developer spending millions of dollars in redesign to reduce any negative impact. Laurinda Logan, Sr. Engineer, explained that staff had been working with the applicant on traffic issues. They had received concurrency from the County Traffic Engineer, so this was an achievement. The applicant was asked to redesign the project to eliminate a second driveway out onto Boynton Beach Boulevard due to the possibility for accidents. They restricted the movement to one driveway on Boynton Beach Boulevard that included some concurrent revisions being made to the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension project that was already under construction. The applicant would be widening N.E. 4m Avenue for the use of the residents to bring it up to a full two-lane roadway. At the moment, it was just barely a trail. They were not making any improvements except some possible signalization on the intersection of 4~ Avenue and Federal Highway to handle the church traffic. Federal Highway itself was a State road. These issues would be considered at the time of permitting. Ms. Horenburger asked Mr. Weiner if he had spoken to FDOT about Federal Highway in relation to Mr. Edwards' concerns. Mr. Weiner responded that they had focused all their efforts on the site plan but if upgrades to the project became necessary, they would look at some off site solutions. Ms. Horenburger stated that Mr. Edwards' concern was turning northbound onto Federal Highway from Boynton Beach Boulevard. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Mr. Weiner understood there was a pre-application meeting with FDOT on the day following the meeting. Mr. Hutchinson stated that they had just passed a Traffic Concurrency Exemption Area and that trolleys could be brought into the area rather than single-occupant vehicles. Mr. Barretta inquired about the four loading bays and adjacent parking that appeared to have parking spaces stacked behind each other with no access. Sandy Peaceman, representing the architects, stated that the spots to which Mr. Barretta referred were, in fact, valet spots and the hotel would be valet parked. Chair Heavilin closed the public audience when no one else came forward to speak. Ns. Horenburger /eft the dais at 9:24 p.m. Iqotion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request for new site plan approval to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 16,200 square feet of retail space, 3,000 square feet of restaurant space, 68 hotel rooms, and 318 condominium units on a 3.975 acre-parcel in the Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) zoning district, subject to all 72 conditions of approval. Chair Heavilin commented that the agenda was incorrect and that there was actually 19,200 square feet of retail space. Vice Chair ]qllman agreed to amend the motion to reflect this. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that passed 6-0 (Irs. Horenburger was not on the dais.) The Urban Group Excused Mr. Hutchinson suggested that consideration of New Business IX.J, Property Acquisition Contract in HOB Phase i Project Area be delayed until the Board's conUnuation meeting on Thursday, July 15, at 6:30 p.m. due to the lateness of the hour. He suggested that anyone else waiting for any New Business items should also plan to come back to the meeting on July 15. The Urban Group was excused with apologies and thanks. D. Height Exception Project: The Promenade (HTEX O4-OO2) Agent: Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Owner: Boynton Beach Waterways LLC Location: Northeast corner of North Boynton Beach Boulevard Investment Associates, Federal Highway and 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .luly ~3, 2004 Description: Request for a height exception of 17 feet to allow the peak of a decorative tower to extend above the 150- foot maximum height provision in the Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) Zoning District. Eric 3ohnson, Planner, presented the staff report on the height exception. The project met the height requirements at 142 feet, but the height exception was requested to provide for certain places on the roofline where walls would rise up 17 feet above the currently allowed 150 feet, primarily due to the need to screen mechanical equipment. Ms. Horenburger inquired whether elevators went up to the mechanical equipment and the architect responded that they did not. She related a story that took place with the Marriott on Atlantic Avenue when she was a City Commissioner for Delray Beach. They had equipment in an elevator and then ten years later, claimed that they had an additional floor they could enclose. The architect said that the elevators did not service the machine roomsi Mr. Fenton expressed the opinion that they could have designed it so that there was no height exception, even with the mechanical screening. Mr. DeMarco was in favor of that as well. Chair Heavilin opened the floor to public comment. Brian Edwards was concerned about a request for a height exception at a time when the City was being sued for a height issue. It would also set a precedent for other developers to do the same thing. He hoped there could be a compromise. Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment when no one else wished to speak. Various Board members expressed a lingering concern about approving a height exception at a time when the City was being sued for going over the 45-foot limit. It was thought that having mechanical screening was definitely preferable to not having any screening. Another comment was that the Board had approved other projects that had exceeded the height limitations for the same reason. One Board member suggested that the applicant consider having just 14 stories if it became a legal liability. If the City prevailed in the suit, they could proceed with the present plan. On the other hand, the quality of the design and the attractive appearance of the roofline made the height exception a good tradeoff to some Board members. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 Mr. Weiner remarked that if the BOard approved the height exception, the City would not be in any additional jeopardy. Also, to take a whole floor off the building would cause the loss of a substantial amount of what the City was trying to achieve. Attorney Payne stated that she agreed with Mr. Weiner and that the decision the Board made did not impact the lawsuit. The issue was anything over 45 ft., not over 150 ft. Any approval from this Board would not make it any worse. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request for height exception of 17 feet to allow the peak of a decorative tower to extend above the 150-foot maximum height provision in the Mixed Use High :Intensity (MU-H) zoning district. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that carried 7-0. it was past the Board's 9:30 p.m. time-certain adjournment. By mutual agreement, the Board opted to continue the public hearing items and then recess until Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. to handle the remaining agenda items. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to reorder the agenda to hear the Urban Parking Requirements before the Auto Repair in Commercial Master Plans. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that carried 7-0. E. Code Review Project: Agent: Auto Repair in Commercial Master Plans (CDRV 04-004) (C-3 Zoning District) (heard out of order) Michael S. Weiner, Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Description: Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C to allow minor auto repair as conditional uses in stand-alone buildings within commercial master plans in the C-3 Zoning District Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the staff report for this item. This item was proposed the previous month and approved by the Planning & Development Board. Staff was concerned about the level of impact on the citywide distribution of automotive repair uses and the public welfare within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Staff could only recommend approval with a language amendment detailed in the staff report. That amended language would allow minor automotive repair uses as conditional uses in subordinate buildings of shopping plazas zoned C-3. There was only one commercial Master Plan in the City and this was Grove Plaza on Lawrence and 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida .luly 13, 2004 Hypoluxo Roads. However, there was nothing to prevent a property owner from taking an existing shopping center with out parcels and converting it to a master plan. Staff felt that the amended language protected the integrity of the C-3 zoning districts while allowing the applicant to develop what they want to develop in Grove Plaza. This would apply citywide. Even if approved, this would be a conditional use and require a hearing before the Board for approval. The City did not want to see a shopping center with a former bank turned into a Jiffy Lube, for example. Chair Heavilin said that they also did not want to see 16 auto repair places on Federal Highway within a half a mile of each other. Ms. Horenburger thought that the City could restrict the ability to have more than one kind of a business within a certain distance. Mr..lohnson stated they could have a separation distance between them. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Bill Hegstrom, owner of an auto repair shop, asked for clarification and restatement of this item. Mr. 3ohnson provided that, reiterating that the intent of this application was to put an automotive repair facility in Grove Plaza, the only commercial master plan in the City. However, any C-3 shopping center could be converted to a commercial master plan. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C to allow minor auto repair as conditional uses in stand-alone buildings within commercial master plans in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Mr, Fenton dissentin!7. Project: Agent: Description: Urban Parking Requirements - Mixed Use (CDRV 04-007) (heard out of order) Michael S. Weiner, Weiner & Aronson Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H reducing parking ratios for multi-family, hotel and marina uses in mixed-use projects within the CBD Zoning District Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated that the applicant had submitted suggested amendments to the City's existing parking regulations and a comparative analysis of parking rates being utilized in downtowns and city centers in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties. The proposed amendments were detailed in the staff report and its attachments. The highlights were to reduce parking requirements as follows: 2O Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 ~ For studio or one-bedroom units, reduce from 1.5 spaces to 1.33 per unit ~ For 2+ bedroom units, reduce from 2 parking spaces to 1.66 per unit ~ For hotels, reduce from 1.25 parking spaces to 1.0 per bedroom and, ~ Allow for up to 25% of the required number of parking spaces to be provided in tandem configuration. This was seen in The Promenade site plan presentation. In addition to this request, staff was recommending companion modifications to an Urban Parking Code, separate and apart from those proposed by the applicant. Mixed Use projects should have the same consideration as Shopping Centers, which could have a mix of retail, office and restaurant uses. The Shopping Center parking allowed 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The same consideration should be given to Mixed-Use projects that are predominantly residential in nature, instead of breaking them down as 1-300 for office, 1-100 for restaurants, and 1-200 for retail. Lastly, staff recommended for the CBD, especially for the existing, older buildings, that an allowance be made for up to 100% expansion of the footprint up or out from the existing building and also change of use without triggering additional parking requirements. The City had been looking at the adaptive re-use of a lot of the older buildings in the center of the CBO and approval of this item would allow that item to move forward. Staff recommended approval of the request made by the applicant and the additions by staff and the conditions placed on it by staff in the report. Ms. Horenburger asked if the one parking space per room assumed that the hotel would never be full? What about staff? Mr. Breese said that it would seldom be full and was not a stand-alone hotel, but was part of a mixed-use project where other components of the project would not use their parking on a full-time basis. Chair Heavilin asked about the location of the adaptive re-use and its location. She heard that this would be applied to Ocean Avenue ~east from Seacrest Boulevard, I and this was not part of the CBD proper. Mr. Breese said they had mirrored the language from the Fee In Lieu of language and that this would bring it beyond the railroad tracks and toward City Hall, which would be desirable. Chair Heavilin commented that she was very much in favor of adaptive re-use because they had seen so many businesses that could not expand due to the former parking restrictions. Mr. Breese agreed that the former parking restrictions could lead to vacancies that one would not want to have in a healthy downtown. Ms. Horenburger expressed concern that under these recommendations, an individual with a new property with adequate parking could have a neighbor with insufficient parking who then improved their property, and this would impact the one with the 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida ]uly 13, 2004 adequate parking. She directed this question to Mr. Hutchinson as well and wondered what specific properties were under consideration for this. Mr. Hutchinson replied that there were corridors rather than properties, Mr. Breese said it was that portion of Federal Highway that was in the CBD and also Ocean Avenue. Ms. Horenburger asked what would happen if an individual improved his property more than 100%. Mr. Breese stated that all parking regulations would be applied above 100%. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one wished to speak. l~lotion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H reducing parking ratios for multi-family, hotel, and marina uses in mixed-use projects within the CBD zoning district, as presented by staff. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Project: Agent: Non-residential Uses in Single-family Zoning Districts (CDRV 04-008) City-Initiated Description: Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 with the addition of supplemental regulations to establish location, minimum lot area and frontage, landscaping and conditional use requirements for non-residential uses proposed within Single-family Zoning Districts Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the request be approved. It further recommended the extension of the Notice of Intent for one month to allow time to adopt the corresponding ordinances prior to its expiration. Staff recommended that churches, schools, and day care uses should be restricted to 1 acre or greater parcels located on state and county arterials and county collectors, meet a minimum frontage standard of 150 feet, and include a minimum 10-foot buffer width and "barrier" landscaping along parking areas to adequately screen them from adjacent residential properties. Staff also recommended that such uses be made conditional uses. Ms. Horenburger raised the question of house churches and how this would affect them. A lot of homes were used on a fairly regular basis for bible studies and there had 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 been complaints from neighbors about parking and so forth. Mr. Rumpf responded that this action would not affect such operations. Mr. Rumpf brought up the matter of either 1) grand fathering in existing uses, or 2) allowing them to exist as legal non-conforming uses and suggested that the Board consider this also. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 with the addition of supplemental regulations to establish location, minimum lot area and frontage, landscaping and conditional use requirements for non-residential uses proposed within single-family zoning districts, allowing the non-conforming uses to remain as legal non-conforming uses without special provisions. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Chair Heavilin inquired whether action was necessary on the portion of the request regarding the extension of the NO1, and Mr. Rumpf responded that the City Commission would address this and there was no need for action by the Board. The balance of the agenda was deferred until the meeting could reconvene on .luly :15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. VII. Director's Report VIII. Old Business IX. New Business A. Consideration of Contact for Police Pilot Program in the CRA Boundaries This item was deferred to the conUnuation meeting to be held on July 15, 2004. B. Consideration of the Annual Report C. Consideration of Legal Services Taskforce Consideration of Property AcquisiUon contracts in HOB Phase I Project Area Due to the large number of public hearing items at this meeting, it was not possible to address this item. The Urban Group was excused with apologies, and invited to attend the continuation of this meeting to be held on Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004 XI. XII. E. Consideration of New CRA Office Space Rental Commission Action Board I~lember Comments Legal XlII. Other Items XIV. Future Agenda Items A. Budget Workshops (July 8~ & 22nd) B. City/CRA Workshop (July) C. Direct Incentive Program for the Promenade XV. Adjournment At 10:30 p.m., the Board recessed until Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., at which time the rest of the agenda would be considered. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (071404) [ /LFORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ~DDRESS - TH~-BOAF~D, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON · WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: Q OTHER LOCAL AGENCY COUNTY ~ON n COUNTY UTICAL SUBDIVISION: IS: ELECTIVE l~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This'fi~ is for use by any person serving.at the 'county, city, or other local level of government on an. appo rtteo oF elect~l:-I~r~l', c~uncil, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive count, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidia~ of a co~orate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissionem of communi~ redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax dis~c~ elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capaci~. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any pemon or enti~ engaged in or car~ing on a business enterprise with the officer as a pa~ner, joint venturer, coowner of prope~, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the ~tuations described above, you must disclose the co~i~: ~IOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS A~ER THE VO~E OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the pemon, responsibJe for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should inc~rporate~ ~ the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you othe~ise may padicipate in these maEem. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any a~empt to influence the decision, ~ether orally or in wdting and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A~EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any a~empt to influence the decision) with the pemon responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will in~rporate the fo~ in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · ~ '"~ ~ '~.1' ' '' The form must be read pubhcly at t~,e;xt meetlt~t~ll~f m is filed. - IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT Ir, HE MEI;;T. JNG~ · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the mea%ure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 1~4,(~st& vote occurs with the person responsilSle for recor(Jin~ -: the minutes, of'th~ meeting, who must incorpor.are the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately te ~e ~tll~F'tne,rrfoefs of the agency, and the form must'be,read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ' I,_ ~ ~)J_ ~___~ ~.~,[(_~1.~.~_~ ~ M.....-~ hereby disclose that on ..... (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~" _~ inured to the special gain or loss of .1~0~ll3~14_I- ~_O"~t')c"'a~JlJ whom lam retained; or *~F~~ -- ___ inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidia~ of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which Date Filed Signature~ ~ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2