Loading...
Minutes 09-14-02 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE ROOM, 639 E. OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 108, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott I. Call to Order Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Susan Vielhauer, Controller Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda Mr. Hutchinson requested that the items for the individual projects under Public Hearings be grouped together and heard at the same time. There are two in this category--Edward Medical Office Building and Gulfstream Gardens. Mr. Hutchinson noted that item A. under New Business (Consideration of Direct Incentive Application for the Promenade at Boynton Project) would be tabled. The application is not complete and will be heard at the next Board meeting. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the Agenda, as amended. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried. IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of August 10, 2004 Regular Meeting B. Financial Report Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 C. Consideration of Payment of Facade Grant for Scully Burgers D. Consideration of a Motion to Extend the Time on Work Order #1 of Financial Advisory Contract Consideration of Approval of Community Redevelopment Agency Pay Plan for 2004/2005 F. Consideration of Budget Transfer Request in 2003/2004 G. Consideration of Fa(j:ade Grant for Sailfish Realty H0 Consideration of Property Acquisition Contracts in HOB Phase 1 Project Area Mr. Fenton removed Item H. for discussion. Consideration of Phase II of the Financial Advisory Contract, Work Order #2 Consideration of Letter of Engagement of Mark Raymond for CRA Bond Counsel Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. Mr. Fenton inquired if the letter distributed by Bond Counsel Mark Raymond had anything to do with the engagement of that firm. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there is a correction in the letter that changes the bond issue from $17 million to $19,575 million. This does not affect the fee structure, but is a housekeeping issue and was corrected in the agenda packet as well. This does not require any action. IV.H. Consideration of Property Acquisition Contracts in HOB Phase 1 Project Area Mr. Hutchinson reported that there are two properties that the Board is being asked to consider purchasing in the Heart of Boynton Phase 1. One is a vacant lot and the other is a dwelling on North Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Fenton stated that he has no questions regarding the vacant lot. He does have questions concerning the appraisal for the dwelling owned by Denise Scott. The property was appraised on June 15, 2004 and he questioned why it took three months to come to the Board for approval. Mr. Hutchinson responded that this was proper procedure. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Mr. Fenton noted that the appraisal was $84,000 and the CRA is offering $112,000. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the $112,000 is the total package price and the actual offer on the house was $84,000. Mr. Fenton noted that the contract amount is actually $92,200 and inquired why the CRA is paying the seller "lost rent" of $3,400. Mr. Hutchinson explained that when the offer was made, the seller was in the process of renting the house. As a result of the offer, they did not rent the house out. In order for the seller to cover the mortgage payments without receiving any income, this amount is part of the settlement package to cover these costs. Mr. Hutchinson explained that if the property had been rented out only for one month, the relocation costs could have been $18,000 under HUD rules that the CRA must follow. The analysis showed that the seller was due this amount and the seller actually saved the CRA money by not renting the property out. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that this put a burden on the seller by carrying the property without any income coming in. Mr. Fenton stated that it appeared the seller was receiving $200 per square foot for her property, which he considered very high. Mr. Hutchinson responded that if the CRA took the property by condemnation, it would cost a lot more money, plus they would be responsible for all costs incurred by both sides. Mr. Hutchinson felt that the appraisals were a little behind the market and that this was a reasonable price. Mr. Fenton inquired why the seller was being paid relocation costs since there was no renter on the property. Mr. Hutchinson explained that under HUD regulations, a landlord is entitled up to $10,000 to find a new property. The seller is only reimbursed for money actually spent up to $10,000. This is tracked and verified and then is reviewed by HUD before the seller receives reimbursement funds. Chairperson Heavilin explained that the Board approved following HUD Guidelines for these acquisitions. Mr. Fenton noted by using these guidelines the seller actually is receiving $101,700 for the property, plus up to a possible $11,000 for locating another property. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that they are costing this at $112,700 and the actual cost would be this figure or less. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve purchasing both properties. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the Board approved two facade grants under the Consent Agenda. At future meetings, the recipients would be awarded their checks at the meeting so that photos could be taken of the people accepting their checks. The photos would be used for the newsletter and on the website. V. Public Audience None VI. Public Hearing 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Old Business None New Business A. Annexation Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Edward Medical Office Building (ANEX 04-004) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 North Federal Highway Delray Beach (unincorporated) Request for annexation of a 0.72-acre partially developed lot located in unincorporated Palm Beach County (ADDRESSED LATER IN THE AGENDA) Chairperson Heavilin noted that the annexation, land use amendment and rezoning, and new site plan approval would be heard simultaneously. Ed Breese, Senior Planner noted that the applicant was not present and requested that they move to the next item. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the reorder of the Agenda to hear the Gulfstream Gardens' Items, which is Item No. 2, before Item No. 1, which is Edward Medical Office Building. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton and unanimously carried. A. Annexation Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Gulfstream Gardens (ANEX 04-003) Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc. Multiple Ownership West side of Federal Highway, approximately ¼ mile north of Gulfstream Boulevard Request for annexation of 9.99 acres of partially developed parcels located in unincorporated Palm Beach County (Addressed Out of Order) Land Use Plan AmendmentJRezoning Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Gulfstream Gardens (LUAR 04-004) Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc. Multiple Ownership West side of Federal Highway, approximately ~A mile north of Gulfstream Boulevard Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map from Commercial High/5 (Palm Beach 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 County), General Commercial and Local Retail Commercial (Boynton Beach) to Special High Density Residential; and Request to rezone from Commercial General (CG) (Palm Beach County), C-4 General Commercial and C-3 Community Commercial (Boynton Beach) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Proposed use: Multi-family residential development. (Addressed Out of Order) Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that there was no location map in her agenda package and Mr. Hudson displayed the map on the screen. Mr. Hutchinson explained that staff had to put the agenda packets together under very trying circumstances considering there was no electricity and the City was in the midsts of a Hurricane. Chairperson Heavilin commended staff for doing an excellent job. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the item on behalf of staff. This is a three-part request by the applicant. The request consists of annexation of approximately 9.99 acres and amendment of the land use designation from a variety of designations since part of the property is in the City and part in the County. The third request is to rezone to a PUD for the purpose of developing a multi-family residential development with 199 units. Mr. Hudson pointed out the location on the location map. Staff is recommending approval of all three requests. The land use amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation of enclaves. The project would benefit the City economically and aesthetically. Mr. Hudson noted that as part of a PUD development, staff requires that a master plan be submitted and he did not get a copy into the packets. He displayed a copy of the master plan on the screen. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that site plan approval would come back the Board. Mr. Hudson explained that a Master Plan gives general information about the proposed development, but is not specific as to the placement of buildings, architectural elements, colors and landscaping. All this information will be furnished at site plan approval. The applicant has satisfied the requirements that must be submitted with a Master Plan that includes density, unit types, setbacks, access, circulation and infrastructure. Mr. Barretta requested that Mr. Hudson review the tabular data, which he did. The total site consists of 9.99 acres. Building type I consists of 16 buildings with 11 units per building; one building has 10 units and the four type 2 buildings contain 6 units in each building. Mr. Barretta noted that the Board is being asked to approve a Master Plan that contains inaccurate data. Ms. Horenburger stated that the Board would be approving the site 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 plan at a future date that would contain accurate information. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the Master Plan presents an idea of how the development would look. Mr. Hudson noted that a Master Plan must show the ingress and egress, which this Plan does. Mr. Barretta pointed out that the Code requires that the Board review a Master Plan, and he felt it was incumbent upon the Board to understand the Master Plan. Mr. Hudson confirmed that a Master Plan or site plan must be submitted with a PUD request and the Plan being displayed is the Master Plan for the PUD, but is not the site plan. Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Mr. Barretta requested that Mr. Hudson present what the Master Plan contains because it may be different from what the applicant would be presenting. Mr. Hudson responded that access to the development would be from Federal Highway with Dixie Highway as a secondary access. The locations, size, setback, height and garages were reviewed. The building types are two and three stories high and provide for a mix of fee simple townhomes and residential condominium units. Maximum height would be 45'. Proposed recreation amenities include two swimming pools and a passive recreation area, which is a landscaped courtyard with a central water feature. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that this information was contained in the Board's backup material. Ms. Horenburger inquired if staff was recommending approval and Mr. Hudson responded that staff is recommending approval of all three items. Mr. DeMarco asked Attorney Payne if he had a conflict of interest because at one time he had sold 3Y2 acres of property involved in the development to the Peters Corporation. Attorney Payne inquired if Mr. DeMarco sold it to the current owner and he stated that the Peters Corporation is the current owner. Mr. DeMarco was informed that the Peters Corporation was not involved with this application in any way and that the applicants had the Peters' property under contract to purchase the property. Under these circumstances, it was determined that Mr. DeMarco did not have a conflict. Chairperson Heavilin requested that the applicant give a brief presentation. Bradley Miller, of Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc., was present on behalf of the applicant, Gulfstream Gardens. He explained that the parcel is located on the south end of the City and presented an aerial photo of the property location. Part of the property is a mobile home park and scattered businesses throughout some of the other parcels. Since they made application, Gulfstream owns all the property except for the Peters property. They will be closing on this property in November at the request of the seller for capital gains purposes. Once they take ownership of all of the property, the billboard will be taken down. They are proposing to build a condominium project consisting of 199 units. The design is unique and is not a typical townhouse design. The buildings will be mixed and units would consist of flats and townhomes. Most units would have attached garages and those without a garage would have assigned parking. The plan is being refined and 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 when it comes back for approval it would have the same general layout as the Master Plan presented tonight. Mr. Miller pointed out the importance of this development since it is located at the southern boundary of the City and would give an impression of the City as you enter it. He feels that the development would be a great asset to the City and requested that the Board approve their application. Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the annexation. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the rezoning. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and unanimously carried. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation to special high density residential. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and unanimously carried. A. Annexation Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Edward Medical Office Building (ANEX 04-004) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 North Federal Highway Delray Beach (unincorporated) Request for annexation of a 0.72-acre partially developed lot located in unincorporated Palm Beach County (ADDRESSED OUT OF ORDER) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Edward Medical Office (LUAR 04-008) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 North Federal Highway (Delray Beach (unincorporated) Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial High Intensity (CH- 5) (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC); and Request to rezone from General 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Commercial (CG) (Palm Beach County) to Community Commercial (C-3). Proposed use: 11,957 square foot medical building. (ADDRESSED OUT OF ORDER) D. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Edward Medical Office (NWSP 04-012) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 North Federal Highway Delray Beach (unincorporated) Description: Request for new site plan approval for a 11,957 square foot medical office building in a proposed C-3 zoning district (ADDRESSED OUT OF ORDER) Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the items on behalf of staff and noted that the Board would be considering three items. The applicant is requesting that the City annex 0.72 acres and reclassify the land use to local retail commercial in order to construct an 11,957 square foot medical office building. The property is currently located in unincorporated Palm Beach County. Staff has reviewed the requests and is recommending approval. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the Board would be approving the site plan and was informed that a site plan is part of the approval. Chairperson Heavilin requested that Mr. Johnson give a brief overview of the site plan. Ms. Horenburger inquired what was presently on the property and was informed that it is currently vacant, but had been a nursery. Mr. Barretta asked what properties surrounded the subject property and was informed that there was a small shopping plaza to the north, to the south was the Kent Way Trailer and Storage business, as well as other licensed businesses. Further south is the new Victoria Storage business. Annexing the property would change the City boundary. Mr. Johnson next presented the site plan for review. The building is a two-story structure consisting of 11,957 square feet. Ingress and egress would be along Federal Highway. The project requires 60 parking spaces that the applicant is providing. The parking requirements were based upon a medical office use. Since the applicant is also requesting to rezone to a C-3 zoning district, retail use would be allowed. The project was reviewed for traffic concurrency by Palm Beach County that found it met concurrency requirements. Staff reviewed the plans for drainage. No school concurrency is required and there is sufficient potable water pressure to provide domestic and fire-flow needs. The project would connect to the existing 4' main for sanitary sewer. Police and Fire have reviewed the plan and found it acceptable. There 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 are 35 staff conditions of approval and the applicant agrees with all of them. Staff is recommending approval of all three applications. Attorney Payne administered the oath to Hany Edward, the applicant. Mr. Edward presented an artist's rendering of the building. There will be parking under the second floor of the building. All handicap parking spaces will be located in front of the building and would be covered by the second story. Mr. Edward presented swatches of the colors of the buildings. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the color is a condition of approval. Mr. Barretta inquired how the air conditioning units would be screened. Mr. Barretta pointed out that the parapet, according to the drawings, is only 2'. Mr. Edward responded that the parapet was 4'. Mr. Barretta stated that if the applicant changed the design to screen the air conditioning, this would not be what the Board would be approving. Mr. Fenton recommended adding a condition #36 requiring that the parapet be raised to cover the air conditioning. Chairperson Heavilin asked for staff's opinion. Mr. Johnson responded that the parapet would have to be made larger to screen the air conditioning since Code requires that the equipment cannot be visible from 600'. He pointed out that there would be sufficient room to increase the height of the parapet. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that staff would recommend including a condition to support the project if a parapet were added sufficient to screen the equipment in accordance with the Code. This was an oversight by staff. The applicant stated that the top height of the building was 35'. He would have sufficient room to extend the parapet and was agreeable to extending the parapet. Mr. Barretta pointed out that if the height of the building were increased, this would affect how the building looked. Mr. DeMarco recommended that the applicant go back to the drawing board and get together with staff to resolve this issue. Mr. Barretta was not in favor of approving something that he did not know how it would look. Vice Chair Tillman recommended that the air conditioning units be placed behind the towers on the building. Mr. Myott recommended that there could be two separate enclosures set back on the roof to hide the equipment, rather than raising the parapet. Mr. Barretta did not approve the elevations and felt they did not include any of the Board's criteria. The south elevation has no relief except for the stucco bands. He also pointed out that the entryway to the building that is 3-stories high does not meet the ground and presents a poor appearance. He could not support the project as presented. Mr. Edward agreed with Mr. Barretta and stated that he would be willing to extend the walls to the ground floor. Mr. Barretta pointed out that if these changes were made, it would change the site plan. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Discussion ensued about the design of the building and members felt that it needed to be enhanced. Mr. Hutchinson noted that there was no landscaping in front of the building, and Mr. Barretta stated there was no landscaping along the south side of the building. Mr. Edward responded that he intended to plant three palm trees along the south side of the building. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that it was important that the buildings at the north and south entryway of the City are aesthetically pleasing and that cedain standards need to be met. Various design ideas were offered to the applicant. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the staff recommended the breezeway effect in order for the site to comply with the parking requirements. Vice Chair Tillman suggested that the Board approve the annexation, land use and rezoning and to table the site plan approval to allow the applicant to come back with an improved site plan. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of the request for annexation of a 0.72-acre partially developed lot located in unincorporated Palm Beach County on the west side of South Federal Highway, approximately 350' south of the intersection of Old Dixie Highway and South Federal Highway as described on the Location Map (Exhibit A). Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial High Intensity (CH-5) (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and the request to rezone from General Commercial (CG) (Palm Beach County) to Community Commercial (C-3). Proposed use: 11,957 square foot medical building. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to table the site plan. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton. Mr. Hutchinson inquired if the motion to table was to the next meeting. Discussion ensued to table to a date certain. Board members felt that this might not be sufficient time for the applicant to go through a new review process. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that if it were tabled to the next meeting, the current legal ad would still apply, as well as the notifications. Mr. Fenton requested that the motion be amended to table for 30 days. Mr. Barretta did not wish to amend his motion. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Vote The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Myott inquired if the guidelines were available to the applicant and the applicant was referred to the CRA office. C. Abandonment Project: 306 Boynton Beach Boulevard L.C. (NE 2nd Street) (ABAN 04-005) Agent: Roger B. DeCapito/Jim Knight Owner: N/A Location: South side of Boynton Beach Boulevard between NE 1st Street and NE 3rd Streets Description: Request for abandonment of a 40-foot wide unimproved right-of-way (Northeast 2'd Street) Eric Johnson, Planner presented the item on behalf of staff. A survey of the right-of-way was displayed. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that there was a very large oak tree in the right of way, along with dumpsters and it would almost be impossible to use the easement. Mr. Johnson stated that the right-of-way is 5,059 square feet. Staff reviewed the request and did not find any problems. However, Bell South indicated that they might have some underground lines. If this were the case and the abandonment was improved, the applicant would be required to provide an easement. The City's Engineering Division would oversee the dedication of the easement. All other service providers have reviewed the request and are recommending approval. Bell South is recommending approval with the caveat that an easement be granted. Staff has determined that the subject alley serves no public purpose and is recommending approval. Mr. Johnson also noted that the CRA has no objections to the request because the right-of-way is not in any of the CRA plans for linkage or connection. Staff is recommending approval, subject to staff conditions. Mr. Barretta inquired if each adjacent owner would receive one-half of the abandonment and Mr. Johnson stated that would be the case. Jim Knight, one of the applicants, was present. Mr. Barretta inquired why they were requesting the abandonment. Mr. Knight stated that the property would be used for additional parking. Dr. Herman, a chiropractor located to the west of the property, got together with Mr. Knight and Mr. DeCapito, the other applicant, and they agreed to seek the abandonment. Dr. Herman would like to use the property for additional parking. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Mr. Fenton requested clarification on the fact that Bell South may have lines under the property. Mr. Johnson spoke with two Bell South representatives who think that there are lines, but they do not show up on the survey. Mr. Knight stated that they would like to have proof from Bell South that there are lines underground before they grant them an easement. Chairperson Heavilin noted that this was a condition of approval and staff has indicated that Engineering would follow through on this. Mr. Johnson stated that if there were no Bell South lines, the applicant would not be required to dedicate anything. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that the second reading of the Ordinance would not take place until this was confirmed and completion of the easement document. Mr. Fenton asked Legal if this was all right and Attorney Payne stated that it was. Chairperson Heavilin opened the public audience. Since no one wished to speak, the public audience was closed. Motion Mr. Barretta moved for approval of the abandonment with the change in the condition regarding the easement not be mandated if Bell South is willing to relocate the line if one should be found. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Vice Chair Tillman disagreed with the motion. If Bell South has a line in the property, they would be grandfathered. He did not feel it was proper for the City to dictate the relocation of the line. He would recommend that the motion be amended to state that if there is no line, then the applicant is free to move forward. If there were a line, then there would be the need for an easement. If the Board dictated that the line be moved, it could end up in litigation. Mr. Barretta stated he was not trying to get Bell South to move the line. Mr. Knight indicated that they would be willing to negotiate with Bell South to move the line and that the applicants would be responsible for any expenses. Mr. Knight did not intend to put any burden on the City or Bell South. Mr. Myott recommended that the motion could be amended to require a utility easement or relocation of the existing utility, if there is a utility line. Amendment Ms. Horenburger recommended that the motion be amended to state that the abandonment would be subject to the dedication of the utility easement or an agreement with Bell South to move the utility, if one exists. Mr. Barretta agreed to the amendment of his motion that was seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Motion unanimously carried. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 D. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Edward Medical Office (NWSP 04-012) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 North Federal Highway Delray Beach (unincorporated) Description: Request for new site plan approval for a 11,957 square foot medical office building in a proposed C-3 zoning district (Previously Addressed) VII. Director's Report Mr. Hutchinson reported on the following: · They are moving forward with publication of the newsletter and information is contained in the agenda packet. · The website that was developed in-house is up. · The report on the final study on the feasibility for the Savage Creatures Museum was due "yesterday," and he anticipates receiving the report any time now. Mr. Myott inquired about the newsletter and whether it was a Palm Beach Post newsletter. Mr. Hutchinson stated that it was and it would be identical to the Chamber of Commerce's newsletter. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that there would be no cost to the CRA. VIII. Old Business None IX. New Business A. Consideration of Direct Incentive Application for the Promenade at Boynton Project (TABLED) B. Consideration of the CRA 2004/2005 Budget Mr. Hutchinson noted that they would be looking at two budgets. The first one is an interim budget that meets statutory requirements using the existing TIF revenue stream. This will be the official budget for October 1, 2004. Changes discussed at the workshops were made to this budget. The CRA could work with this budget for the entire year, if needed. The budget, if approved, will be passed by resolution and then be sent to the City Commission. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Interim 2004-2005 budget. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. C. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the CRA 2004/2005 Budget Attorney Payne read Proposed Resolution No. R04-01 by title only. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve proposed Resolution No. R04-01. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton and unanimously carried. D. Consideration of a Formal "Letter of Request" for the CRA to Acquire Debt and Further Requesting the City to Consider Granting the CRA Credit Enhancement for Underwriting purposes Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Board is being asked to authorize the Chairperson to send a letter to the City setting forth the CRA's plans for moving forward with the bond issue and the sources and uses of the funds. The budget that was worked on at the workshop would also be forwarded. The letter will request that these items be placed on the City Commission agenda. If the Commission approves the CRA's request, Bond Counsel Mark Raymond will prepare a Resolution for adoption. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he reviewed the bond request and budget with the City Manager who had some questions. Mr. Raymond quickly responded to the City Manager's concerns, which were E-mailed to the Board members. Mr. Hutchinson felt that the budget was a good budget and carried out the work that the residents wanted to see. There are funds to do the projects, but without the bond issue, it could take up to ten years to complete them. Mr. Hutchinson requested that a motion be offered authorizing the Chairperson to sign the letter of formal request and to ask the City to consider underwriting the CRA's credit in order to receive a more favorable interest rate. This would save the City $4 million in interest that could be used for other new projects in the City. He pointed out that the City has the option to approve the bond without guaranteeing it. At that point the Board could move forward, but it would cost more money. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the bond issue would be competitive or on a negotiated basis. Ms. Turner of RBC Dain Rauscher recommended that this be done on a negotiated basis, since this is the CRA's first bond issue. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the budget would have to come back to the Board to be adopted after the funds are made available. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Chairperson Heavilin introduced Commissioner Ensler who had joined the meeting earlier. Mr. Hutchinson introduced Mark Raymond, who has been the City's Bond Counsel since 1988 and is very familiar with the City. Also introduced was Julie Turner, the Board's financial adviser, who has worked with Mr. Raymond on other matters. This is a big step for the CRA and Mr. Hutchinson expressed confidence in the consultants that have been retained. The audit was successful and he felt they were in good shape to move ahead. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to request that the City approve the CRA to secure debt in the approximate amount of $19,575,000. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton and unanimously carried. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to request that the City grant the CRA a City-backed Pledge for a 20-year Tax-Exempt CRA TIF revenue backed bond issue. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton and unanimously carried. Mr. DeMarco remarked how well the workshop went when the Board reviewed the entire budget, and he thanked staff for a job well done. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the budget was redone 35 times. Chairperson Heavilin concurred with Mr. DeMarco considering a great deal of the work was done during two hurricanes. E. Consideration of Legal Contract Amendment of Goren, Cherof, Doody and Ezrol Mr. Hutchinson reported that Legal Counsel is requesting that their contract be amended. Staff has received proposals to the RFP and the fee structures are in line with the request of current Counsel. He felt that the amendment to the fee schedule was reasonable and recommended that the Board approve it since the services of Attorney Payne will be needed during the transition period when a new Counsel is selected. Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that the new fee structure would take effect October 1, 2004. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Legal Contract Amendment of Goren, Cherof, Doddy and Ezrol. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried. Ms. Horenburger stated that she would like to be included on the selection committee. She explained that when she originally withdrew from participating on the selection committee, it was due to her concerns that a staff member was also on the committee. She pointed out that the Attorney would be selected by the Board and would be working 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 for the Board, not staff. She also felt that having a staff member on a committee could place that staff member in a precarious situation. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if the Board wanted to make a motion that would add Ms. Horenburger to the selection committee. Mr. Fenton inquired about the progress of the search committee. Chairperson Heavilin responded that the responses have been reviewed and ranked and will be presented to the Board. Mr. Fenton inquired if the top two selected would be making a presentation at the October meeting. Mr. Hutchinson responded that at that meeting they would be making recommendations. Members stated they would like to have the opportunity to interview the top selections from the seven received. Chairperson Heavilin stated that once the top two or three are selected, they would be interviewed. X. Commission Action XI. Board Member Comments Chairperson Heavilin reported that she attended the Chamber of Commerce Luncheon and complimented the CRA for making a wonderful PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Hutchinson stated that it is available for presentations in other venues and is also available on the website. Mr. Hutchinson reported that the CRA events cancelled as the result of the hurricanes are being rescheduled. XlI. Legal Xlll. Other Items A. Discussion Item: Consider Regulating Building Colors On Major Thoroughfares Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that one of the City Commissioners requested that staff re-evaluate the current regulations regarding building colors. He will be bringing this to the Planning and Zoning Board as well. Currently, there are no regulations governing colors. Mr. Rumpf presented a history of community guidelines in the City. Chapter 9 of the Code has a paragraph that states that projects would be designed comparable to surrounding existing projects. It was the intent to establish themes that would include colors, signage, and character. At one time there were three different architectural districts in the City, but this did not work very well. This concept was replaced with Chapter 9 just mentioned. Mr. Rumpf explained that some older projects might request a change in colors and those are treated as minor modifications to the site plan and are processed administratively. Mr. Rumpf referred to the memorandum in the agenda package from the City's Development Director, Quintus Greene, stating his position on this. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 Currently when a site plan is approved, if the applicant wants to change the color originally submitted, this would be considered a site plan change. Staff would be in favor of changing the Code that if a color change were requested, it would have to undergo some kind of review for minor modification. He did point out, however, that a permit is not required to change colors. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if it could be made a condition of the original site plan application that if the colors were changed, it would be a minor site plan modification. Mr. Rumpf recommended that if this were to be a requirement, it would be best to place it in the Code. The City could put it in the conditions of approval, but if it is not supported by the LDR, it may not be enforceable. Mr. Rumpf noted that many older site plans do not include a color pallet where this requirement could be applied. Mr. Barretta recommended that the Code be amended to require a permit to paint your building. Ms. Horenburger noted that there are municipalities that currently require a permit. Mr. Fenton questioned if it would be feasible to require every property, including residences, to obtain a permit to paint their property. Mr. Barretta stated that single- family residences would be excluded. Mr. Barretta did not feel that this should be treated as a minor site plan amendment with staff having the burden of approving colors. He would like this to be a Board decision. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if a City required permits for colors, who would be the issuing authority. Mr. Barretta stated that some cities have Community Appearance Boards that do this, or the CRA or Planning and Development Board could do it. He did not think it would be necessary to have a separate board for this function. Mr. Fenton was not in favor of regulating colors. Mr. Myott pointed out that cities that have Community Appearance Boards have a tremendous agenda that lasts well into the night that simply deal with paint, signage, equipment screening, etc. Mr. Barretta inquired if the Board agreed by consensus to have staff review colors as minor modifications or the request come to a Board. Mr. Myott recommended requiring a permit and if it the request was a significant request, it would be referred to a Board. Ms. Horenburger noted that staff was asking this Board if the City should regulate building colors and she felt that it should be regulated by some method. Chairperson Heavilin was not in favor of regulating colors. Commissioner Ensler addressed the Board. He stated that he was the one who raised the question originally. When he first learned that changing colors was a minor modification, he had concerns about Federal Highway, Boynton Beach Boulevard, Congress Avenue, Woolbright Road and other main thoroughfares. Commissioner Ensler did not think that the City should select colors, but he would like a requirement that if a project changes colors sometime in the future, it would be a requirement to come back to the City for approval. He did not feel that this should apply to single-family residences. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 14, 2004 There was a consensus among the Board that this was an issue that needed to be addressed, XlV. Future Agenda Items A. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Boynton Beach for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Promenade and Riverwalk (October) B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for the MLK Phase I Project (October) C. Consideration of Assembly and Redevelopment Incentive Grant Program (October) D. Consideration of Residential Fa(;ade Grant Program (October) E. Consideration of Modification to the Direct Incentive Program to include Arts Commission Elements for Incentive Scoring (November) XV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (September 15, 2004) 18