Loading...
Minutes 01-11-05 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Stormet Norem Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to Order Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. and welcomed new Board member Stormet Norem. 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 reported that the Barr Property public hearing items VII.A.1. and VI.B.I would be tabled, along with Item VIII.A. (Consideration of Direct Incentive Program for Cornerstone Development's Barr Property Project). These items are being tabled in order to address incentive packages that would be offered to the residents of the trailer park. The items will appear on the March 17, 2004 agenda. The regular meeting date of the Mamh meeting has been changed to Thursday, March 17th, because of Tallahassee Days. Chairperson Heavilin reported that Item VII.A. (Consideration of the Extension of the Arches Incentive Agreement) would be considered with the applicant's request for site plan extension. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Norem and unanimously carried. Chairperson Heavilin welcomed Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor McCray and Commissioner Ferguson to the meeting. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of December 6, 2004 and December 14, 2004 Meetings B. Adoption of Agenda C. Consideration of Work Order #3 for Financial Advisory Services D. Consideration of Motion to Accept the Financial Audit Draft 2003-2004 Mr. Fenton removed Item D. from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Consideration of Adoption of Safety Plan for Boynton Beach CRA Trolley Plan Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Reimbursement Request from Boynton Boundless, LLC. Mr. Hutchinson removed Item F. from the Consent Agenda because a Board member has a conflict and the item needed to be addressed separately. Motion. Mr. Fenton moved for approval, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried. VI. D. Consideration of Motion to Accept the Financial Audit Draft 2003-2004 Mr. Fenton inquired about the exceptions for the over expenditure of budget. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the former Chair had requested that the funds for the CRA events be accounted for directly against the line item for the event and that those funds needed to be separated. This does not change the figures, but is merely an accounting adjustment. In making these changes, the line items needed to be adjusted with the revenue. With regard to the accrual, Mr. Hutchinson noted that when the year was closed, a budget adjustment was made because two weeks of salary had been left out. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if the Board had to formally amend the Financial Audit Draft with the two amendments and Mr. Hutchinson stated that this was necessary. The Board must accept the draft audit report with the two amendments. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the amendments of the auditor as provided by Florida Statutes 189.418(3) and the budget. Motion seconded by Mr. Demarco and unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Reimbursement Request from Boynton Boundless, LLC. Mr. Barretta explained that he had a conflict with this item and recused himself from voting. Mr. Barretta was furnished with Form 8B, which he completed and furnished to the Recording Secretary for inclusion with the records of the meeting. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of consideration for the Fa(;ade Grant Reimbursement Request from Boynton Boundless, LLC. that unanimously carried. Chairperson Heavilin presented the check to Michael Weiner of Boynton Boundless, LLC. and his Comptroller. Chairperson Heavilin commented Attorney Weiner for doing an excellent job in rehabilitating the building. V. Public Audience None VI. Public Hearing Old Business A. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq (Tabled to January 11,2005) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Barr Property (LUAR 04-009) John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities BMVFL-1, Inc. East side of Northeast 4th Street, approximately 1,000 feet south of Gateway Boulevard Description: Request to reclassify ±9.88 acres of land by amending the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map from High Density Residential to Special High Density Residential; and Request to rezone from R-3 Multi- family Residential to (PUD) Planned Unit Development Proposed use: Townhouse community of 180 units At the request of the applicant, Item VI. A.1. was tabled to the March 17, 2004 meeting. B. New Site Plan (Tabled to January 11,2005) Project: Agent: Owner: Barr Property (NWSP 04-013) John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities BMVFL-1, Inc. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Location: East side of Northeast 4th Street, approximately 1,000 feet south of Gateway Boulevard Description: Request new site plan approval for a 180-unit townhome development on a ±9.88 acre parcel in a proposed PUD zoning district At the request of the applicant, item VI. A.1. was tabled to the March 17, 2004 meeting. Chairperson Heavilin reviewed the procedures for public hearings. Staff will first present the project along with staff's recommendation. The applicant will be provided an opportunity to make a presentation, after which any members of the public are allowed to speak. All persons would be afforded three minutes to speak. After public input, the applicant would be allowed a three-minute rebuttal. The Community Redevelopment Agency is a fact-finding body that receives public testimony; therefore, only Board members are permitted to ask questions during the public hearing. Chairperson Heaviiin announced that Attorney Michael Morrell requested that he be allowed an opportunity to represent interested parties dealing with the Seaview Park Club items. Attorney Morrell will be allowed during the public hearing to briefly present his clients' positions and to cross-examine staff and the applicant. Attorney Spillias explained that any person presenting any comments, opinions or evidence to the Board must be sworn in since these are quasi-judicial hearings. Attorney Spillias administered the oath to ail persons who would be testifying. Attorney Spillias also explained that all Board members must disclose any ex-parte communications they may have had with any of the applicants or their representatives regarding any items on the agenda. Attorney Spillias asked each Board member if they had anything that needed to be disclosed. Don Fenton met with Michael Weiner and Andy McGregor. Attorney Spillias inquired if Mr. Fenton would be able to make a decision based upon the facts presented tonight regardless of his communication with Attorney Weiner. Mr. Fenton stated that he would be able to do this. Steve Myott spoke with Michael Weiner and Andy McGregor of Lennar. Attorney Spillias asked Mr. Myott the same question and Mr. Myott stated that he would be able to do that. Alexander DeMamo had none. Chairperson Heavilin met with Michael Weiner and Andy McGregor to review the changes in the plan. Chairperson Heavilin also met with both Mr. Weisfisches and their attorney. Attorney Spillias asked Chairperson Heaviiin the same question and Chairperson Heavilin stated that she would be able to do that. Mr. Fenton further responded that he spoke with Mr. Weisfisch and his son. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Alexander DeMarco further responded that he met with Mr. Weisfisch. Attorney Spillias asked Mr. DeMarco the same question and Mr. DeMarco stated that he would be able to do that. Mr. Norem met with Mr. Weisfisch and his father. Attorney Spillias asked Mr. Norem the same question and Mr. Norem stated that he would be able to do that. Ms. Horenburger met with both Mr. Weisfisches and Andy McGregor and Michael Weiner. Ms. Horenburger also attended an INCA meeting where Attorney Michael Morrell was present and introduced himself to her. Attorney Spillias asked Ms. Horenburger the same question and she stated that she would be able to do that. Mr. Barretta spoke with both Mr. Weisfisches. Attorney Spillias asked Mr. Barretta the same question and he stated that he would be able to do that. Attorney Spillias inquired if there were any other attorneys present in a representative capacity on any of the items. There were none. Chairperson Heavilin welcomed Commissioner McKoy to the meeting. C. Site Plan Time Extension (Tabled to January 11,2005) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Arches (SPTE 05-001) Ryan Weisfisch, Boynton Ventures 1, LLC Multiple Owners Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Description: Request for a second time extension of the site plan approval granted on June 3, 2003 for one (1) year from the previously extended date of December 3, 2004 to December 3, 2005 Eric Johnson, Planner with the City's Planning and Zoning Division, noted that the site plan for the Arches was approved on June 3, 2004 for Boynton Ventures 1, LLC. Prior to the application, the applicant submitted a request for a site plan time extension, which was approved for six months ending December 3, 2004. The applicant is again requesting another extension for one year ending December 3, 2005. Staff is recommending approval of the project, subject to the same 53 conditions of approval for the site plan. Bonnie Miskel, Attorney on behalf of the owner and Developer, assumed the podium and explained that the applicant, the developer, and their employees have been working diligently on the real estate transaction itself. In August 2003 an environmental issue was identified that was not corrected by the seller until December 2004. As soon as the correction was made, the applicant closed on the property within 10 days and has since assembled a team to move the project through the City as quickly as possible. She explained that they have spent over $10 million at this time. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Since early December they have been in negotiations two acquire to additional parcels. One is the Katz property and the other is the Leiffer parcel. With these acquisitions, the applicant now feels that they have a better parcel to be developed. As a result, the site plan would have to be modified to include the new parcels, as well as obtaining other necessary approvals that result in additional time being needed. The applicant's engineer has indicated that a year is necessary to accomplish all of the foregoing. Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the build out year on the traffic concurrency is 2005 and this would have to be extended. Ms. Miskel acknowledged that they would have to submit a new letter to the City. The project would be coming back to the Board to address renewal of the incentives. Mr. DeMarco requested that the Board be furnished with periodic progress reports and Ms. Miskel agreed to provide them. Motion Mr. Fenton moved for approval of the site plan extension for the Arches (SPTE 05-001) until December 15, 2005. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Mr. Rumpf stated that there was a discrepancy between the agenda and staff's report and the correct date should be December 3, 2005. Mr. Fenton amended his motion to approve the site plan extension until December 3, 2005. Ms. Horenburger amended her second of the motion. The motion carried 7-0. VII.A. (Consideration of the Extension of the Arches Incentive Agreement) (Heard Out of Order) Mr. Hutchinson explained that the Incentive Agreement goes with the site plan approval and he would like the Board to consider extending the Incentive Program to coincide with the site plan process. .Motion Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of the Incentive Plan for the project known as Arches (SPTE 05-001) to run concurrently with the extension just approved to December 3, 2005. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if approval of a major site plan modification could affect the Board's scoring for the incentive and the Board would have an opportunity to review this. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Board could either grandfather in the old scoring or could do new scoring. He was optimistic that the new plan would score higher than the old plan. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Vote Motion carried 7-0. With regard to the Barr Property postponement, Ms. Horenburger noted that the letter requested that the item be postponed until February. She questioned if the applicant was made aware of the advertising schedules and that the project could not be heard until the March meeting. Mr. Hudson responded that the applicant was not aware of this when he requested the postponement. However, staff informed the applicant that the advertising requirements for February could not be met, and, therefore, the applicant requested that the item be postponed until March 8% The applicant has since been informed that the meeting was moved to March 17th. After the March 17th meeting, the items would go to the Commission for their April 5th meeting. New Business A. Land Use Plan AmendmenFRezoninq Project: Agent: Owner: Seaview Park Club (LUAR 04-010) Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Wayne Irving and Charlene Darst Location: 1620 North Federal Highway [east side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,000' north of the Boynton (C-16) Canal] Description: Request to reclassify ±3.81 acres of land by amending the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential and Local Retail Commercial to Special High Density Residential; and Request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family Residential and C-3 Community Commercial to Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) Weiner & Aronson, P.A. Wayne Irving and Charlene Darst 1620 North Federal Highway [east side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,000' north of the Boynton (C- 16) Canal] Description: Request for new site plan approval for the construction of 69 condominium units on 3.756 acres in the IPUD Zoning District 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Dick Hudson, AICP Senior Planner, presented the item for staff. The request was to amend the future land use designation from Local Retail Commercial and Low Density Residential to Special High Density Residential and to rezone the property from C-3 (Community Commercial) and R1-AAA single family residential to IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development The parcel size is 3.756 acres and is located on the east side of Federal Highway, approximately 1,000' north of the Boynton C-16 Canal as indicated on the site plan displayed on the screen. The purpose of the request was to construct a 69-unit condominium development. Mr. Hudson reviewed the adjacent uses. To the north is Manatee Bay, which is a multi-family residential complex, zoned R-3 Multi-family residential; to the south along Federal Highway is a developed commemial shopping strip entitled Yachtsman's Plaza, which is designated local retail commercial and zoned C-3 Community Commercial. To the east is a developed single-family neighborhood entitled Yatchtsman's Cove, which is designated Iow density at 4.84 dua and zoned R-1 AA single- family residential. The Intracoastal Waterway is east of the site and to the west are the rights-of-way to Federal Highway and the FEC Railroad and developed property fronting on NE 4th Street, which is designated high-density residential and zoned R-3 multi-family residential. Staff recommended approval of the request for the following reasons: The proposed redevelopment is located in Planning Area 1 as defined in the Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed redevelopment meets the criteria for consideration for a Land Use Amendment as described in Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The project will have no additional impacts on the infrastructure. If the proposed site plan meets the conditions of approval, it would be consistent with the intent and requirements of the IPUD regulations and would meet the compatibility requirements with the adjacent single-family neighborhood based upon the proposed landscaping buffer, the extra setbacks and through creative architectural design. The proposed project would have a positive impact upon the values of the adjacent property and would contribute to the overall economic development of the City. Since this is a small-scale land use amendment, it would be adopted at the City level before being sent to the State for review. IPUD regulations require that a site plan be adopted simultaneously with the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning. Mr. Hudson inquired if the Board wanted to review the site plan at this point. There was a consensus to review both items. Mr. Barretta had to recuse himself from voting on this project since Lennar Homes is one of his clients. Mr. Barretta completed the necessary Form 8B and furnished it to the Recording Secretary for inclusion with the minutes of the meeting. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Eric Johnson, AICP Planner for the City of Boynton Beach, presented the site plan item on behalf of staff. Currently there are 64 licensed mobile homes on the property and the applicant is requesting 69 condominium units in four separate buildings. Condominium units are permitted uses within the IPUD zoning district. This would result in a project density of 18.37 dua. Staff reviewed the project for concurrency and a traffic statement was sent to the County's Traffic Division for review and the County determined that the project lies within the Coastal Residential Exception Area of the County and meets the County's traffic performance standards. The build out date is 2006, after which date no building permits could be issued. Staff reviewed the project for potable water and sanitary sewer, of which there is sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the project. Police and Fire feel that current staff levels are sufficient to meet the needs of the project. The conceptual drainage plan is adequate and a more detailed review of the drainage would be done at the time of permitting. Lastly, the County's School District has determined that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the 69 dwelling units. Mr. Johnson reviewed the curb cuts on U.S. 1 on the site plan and these would be improved to meet the City's engineering standards. Ingress would be from the north and egress would be from the south. This method of traffic flow was recommended by FDOT. The code requires that one bedroom units provide 1.5 parking spaces and two and three bedroom units require 2 parking spaces. The project only has 1 and 3 bedroom units and requires 142 parking spaces; whereas the site plan provides a total of 175 parking spaces. This equates to an excess of 33 parking spaces. The parking design calls for 72 garages, 72 tandem parking spaces and 31 off-street parking spaces. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Johnson noted that the north landscape buffer would be 3' wide and the south landscape buffer is almost 10' wide. The east landscape buffer is 10' wide by the pool and the west landscape buffer, adjacent to Federal Highway, is 20' wide. The 3' northerly buffer is not adequate; however, the project intends to combine the existing landscape buffer of the property to the north with the proposed 3'. This is acceptable to staff. The south landscape buffer is important for compliance of this project with regard to the design, compatibility requirements, and standards of the IPUD zoning district. Staff is recommending that the plant material for the south landscape buffer be mature enough to provide immediate buffering and Mr. Johnson explained how this could be accomplished. Mr. Johnson presented a diagram of how the buffer would look in front of the portion of the building at 34' and 6". The buffer with the wall would be almost 10' wide, but the planting area would be 7'9" as proposed. Mr. Johnson reviewed the line of sight from the single- family neighborhood from the south. Staff feels that the landscaping would provide adequate screening to buffer the project from the neighborhood to the south. The building as proposed would be 45' at the parapet wall and complies with code. The IPUD zoning district regulations allow a building up to 45'. However, staff must insure that Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 the project is compatible with the neighborhood. The property to the south is zoned R-1AA, the property to the north is zoned R-3, and along Federal Highway the zoning is C-3. The C-3 zoning district allows for a maximum building height of 45'. The R-1AA zoning district allows for a maximum building height of 30' and the R-3 allows for a maximum building height of 45'. Staff used a formula to come up with an appropriate height of 37½? Mr. Johnson explained how staff arrived at the recommended 37~' height for the project. Mr. Johnson next presented a drawing of the elevation of the project for the benefit of the audience. He noted that staff reviewed the project for compliance with the zoning district and the intent of the IPUD and is recommending approval, subject to 54 conditions of approval. One of those conditions would be to reduce the building height of buildings 2, 3 and 4 to 38' in order to maximize compatibility of the project and the abutting properties. Mr. Myott inquired if the height of the building were reduced would this result in the loss of nine units. Mr. Johnson responded that this was probable. Mr. Fenton inquired about the economic impact this would have upon the project and Mr. Johnson was not sure on this. Mr. Hudson assumed the podium and explained that a project must meet certain criteria in Chapter 2 of the Land Development Regulations. Staff has reviewed the criteria and has looked at the Comprehensive Plan Policies and other policies that could apply to this project and determined that the proposed 69-condominium community would be replacing an existing, legal non-conforming use that is licensed for 64 mobile home units. This results in a net increase of only five units. Staff feels that the project would be replacing an antiquated mobile home park with improvements. These improvements would be a significant improvement to combating the effects of major wind damage, compared to mobile homes. The new buildings will meet the minimum standards for high velocity hurricane zones as required by the Florida Building Code. Staff has concluded that even though the project's density is greater than the abutting developments, it is consistent with the transition uses recommended in the Federal Highway Corridor Plan. Mr. Hudson explained that the applicant, at the suggestion of staff, reduced the height on the south elevation from 45' to 34' 6". On the north elevation the 45' height would be consistent with the maximum height allowed in the adjacent multi-family district. However, after staff evaluated the effects of similar situations where single-family neighborhoods abut a similar project and that the majority of homes in the single-family neighborhood are less than 30', staff has determined that compatibility would be achieved by having a structure no higher than 38'. Mr. Hudson pointed out that the starting prices of the units would be from $300,000 to $600,000 and would most likely have a positive affect upon adjacent properties. He noted that commercial uses could be allowed, but staff would prefer not to have any further commercial development along the coastal areas. This is a highly visible part of the City and the project would support the City's trend to have greater residential uses in the area. While Mr. Hudson spoke, photos of the mobile home park were displayed on the screen. Mr. Hudson reiterated that staff is recommending approval of the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning. ]0 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Attorney Mike Weiner assumed the podium and stated that was present on behalf of the applicant, Lennar Homes, Inc. He noted that Attorney Michael Morrell was present on behalf of some residents and requested that if there were some procedural issues that needed to be reviewed, he was amenable to Mr. Morrell addressing the Board. Attorney Michael Morrell assumed the podium and stated he practices Administrative, Governmental and Land Use Law in West Palm Beach. Attorney Morrell was representing 16 clients in this matter. He was under the impression that he would be allowed to cross examine the witnesses, but Attorney Spillias informed him that the Board's normal practice was to allow him to cross examine at the end of his case in chief. He was willing to abide by this, but he felt it was the Board's responsibility to instruct witnesses who testify before their case in chief and is lay testimony in support of the project that they would need to remain within the room so he would have the right to cross-examine them. Attorney Morrell stated that they filed a request for party status because they feel that the City's code did not specify what procedures the Board offered. He acknowledged that the City Attorney furnished him with the procedures that have now been provided to Attorney Spillias. If he had known this, he would not have filed this document. After Attorney Morrell filed the document, Attorney Weiner, on behalf of the applicant, filed a letter questioning the right of all but six of Mr. Morrell's clients to participate on the grounds that they were not aggrieved and adversely affected. He was not going to argue that point now. However during his case in chief, he would present evidence to show that residents on the south side of the 15th Place and along the coast and the cove at the end of the street are aggrieved and adversely affected. Attorney Weiner introduced representatives for the applicant who were in the audience as follows: Andrew McGregor from Lennar Homes; Annabelle Garcia and Andy Sullivan from the Martin Architectural Group; John Hinden, an attorney and expert on mobile home parks; and Christine Springer, from Carter and Burgess, the project manager, along with an additional representative from Carter and Burgess. Attorney Weiner questioned whether the six people that are located next to the subject property are "aggrieved parties or otherwise." He acknowledged that the Board has allowed these six people to speak, but whether they are aggrieved parties under Section 163 would be determined at another time and the applicant's acquiescence in these procedures does not mean that they have in fact consented to that status. Attorney Weiner noted that the parcel being developed is exceptional in that it is 150' wide and is seven times longer than its width, which means any development on this property would have to be unique. Attorney Weiner noted that the property is already permitted to have a development at 45' along the entire north end. Along the south end, approximately one-third is also zoned 45'. Attorney Weiner presented photos of the current conditions of the mobile home park. The mobile home park was approved for 64 units and the current project would be for 69 units for a difference of 5 units. The project would carry out the plans, policies and objectives of the City, the Federal Highway Corridor Plan and the City's 20/20 Plan in addition to 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 contributing significantly to the tax base of the City. The project would be built that would allow people to live along the Intracoastal in safety. The project would be compatible with the surrounding area and fits the criteria of the City for Future Land Use Map changes, rezoning and site plans. Attorney Weiner presented to the Recording Secretary for inclusion in the record the following documents: · Code Enforcement violations for the mobile home park. · Curriculum Vitae for their expert witness, Andrew T. Sullivan. · List of additional Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Polices that support the land use change and rezoning. Attorney Weiner noted that staff has recommended approval of the project that meets eight criteria with respect to the Future Land Use Map and rezoning. The only comment made by staff relates to the site plan. The applicant has made substantial revisions to the project after meeting with the neighbors, CRA members, Commissioners and others. Attorney Weiner displayed the site plan of how the project would look when it was developed. The trip generation for the mobile home park is currently 503, whereas the proposed development would create 475, which is a decrease in traffic. Also, the site plan parking has an excess of 33 parking spaces. They would be planting 180 trees on the site in addition to 3,913 shrubs and plants. The code would allow a density of 20 dua, but they are requesting a little more than 18 dua. The setback for the southerly boundary (INCA) neighborhood could be 45', but they are allowing 48.32'. In accordance with the IPUD Ordinance, the site plan equals or exceeds many requirements and is providing a superior project. Attorney Weiner stated that the project would be the perfect transition from apartment rentals on the north end to single family homes on the south. The staff report approved of the architecture selected for the project and presented sample colors for the project. In summary, Attorney Weiner stated that they have done everything possible to avoid any kind of incompatibility. Andrew T. Sullivan, a registered architect and planner on behalf of the applicant, assumed the podium and stated his credentials, a printed copy of Mr. Sullivan's credentials are on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Sullivan reported that he has been working with the applicant since the inception of the project and explained the approach he took in bringing the project to fruition and gave a history of the project to date. He did not feel that the project would have any impact upon the density issue. Originally, the project called for four-story buildings and they requested a variance to 48'. Staff requested that the project be brought down to 45'. They have met with the neighbors several times and after each meeting concessions on their part were made. He felt that they have gone out of their way to accommodate the neighboring community. Of the 54 staff comments, they have agreed to 53 of them. The one remaining Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 comment is crucial to the success of the project. This project would eliminate the blight in this area of the City. If they had to reduce three units in each building, this would reduce 25% of the value of the development because these are the penthouse units. Mr. Sullivan passed around an exhibit of the elevations to the Board for review. They have worked hard to bring forth a good project and have added more detail and awnings of different shades with variations in the roofline. The size of the windows was changed many times and they are proud of the architecture of the project. After one meeting with the neighbors, they decided to reduce the south side of the building to three stories, which is the first time that he has stepped a building in this manner. If they wished to do so, they could put a 30' single-family building with a 25' setback that would have no requirement to include supplemental landscaping. If they so wished, they could build 10 such homes that would have 10 pools in each backyard, 10' from the property line. Mr. Sullivan explained that the proposed project would only have one pool that would be 100' from the property line and the buildings are set back 48.3' from the property line. He also requested that the record indicate that a cross section of the buildings on a drawing was passed around to the Board members. Mr. Sullivan summarized what he had previously stated. He anticipated that when all the units are sold, the value of every home along the property line would increase 25%. He also pointed out that in addition to all the landscaping they would be planting, they would be putting in a 6' masonry wall along the south property line. Mr. Sullivan noted that the drainage from many of the single-family homes on the south side drains north onto their property. When the developer was made aware of this, Lennar determined to keep the 6' wall, but would build it 12" off the ground to allow the drainage from the neighboring properties to flow into the development and they will control it to make that drainage legal. Mr. Sullivan requested that the condition of lowering the building not become a requirement and that the height remain as submitted. Attorney Weiner assumed the podium and stated that cross-examination would take place later. Further, he was under the impression that he would have a three-minute rebuttal and would be the last person to speak. Attorney Weiner was of the opinion that they presented substantial competent evidence so that the Board could vote in favor of the Future Land Use Map Change, a rezoning and a site plan approval, to which they would agree to 53 of the 54 staff conditions. Chairperson Heavilin opened the public audience first to all persons in favor of the project. Since no one came forward, this portion of the public audience was closed. Attorney Michael Morrell assumed the podium and commended the City staff and CRA staff for their courtesies. Attorney Morrell would not be cross-examining staff tonight, but t3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 reserved the right to do so. He noted that he did not receive the staff report until mid- morning on Friday. They have hired professional consultants and provided them with copies of the staff report. However, they have not received the consultants' reports and are reserving their right to cross-examine staff when the item goes before the Commission. Attorney Morrell introduced the people that he was representing as follows: John and Sandy AIvaro; Robert and Joan Corey; Steve and Rose Homrich; Ossie and Rosa Leal; Stanley and Stacey Nitkowski; Adrian and Helen Winfield; James and Susan Buchanan; and Harry and Joy Woodworth. Attorney Morrell stated that the project is incompatible with the quiet single-family residential neighborhood. It is not only the height that makes it incompatible, it is the scale, the mass, density and the impact it will have upon two specific communities, the upland community and the coastal community. He pointed out that the project was especially incompatible with Yachtsman's Cove, which abuts the mangroves. Attorney Morrell asserted that the presentations of Attorney Weiner and the planner were not presented truthfully. The existing 64 units in the trailer park are a non-conforming use, which is the reason why the current owner wants to sell the property. The real increase in density of the project is the proposed special height of allowing 18.4 units per acre density from the existing land use, which is 4.84 dua. This project would dramatically increase the intensity of the property Stephan Homrich, 690 NE 15th Place, President of INCA, looked forward to working with the CRA on issues of mutual importance. INCA has a membership of over 350 households and provides a voice for its membership that is located within the CRA District. The Seaview Trailer Park belongs to INCA and is a good neighbor. They are not opposed to change, but wanted to have assurances that the change would be beneficial. INCA felt that the Lennar project would place a massive structure on a narrow lot that would create buildings that would tower over the existing homes in Yachtsman's Cove. If the Board approved the project, it would set a bad precedent for future infill development. He noted that staff and INCA worked together to re-write the new IPUD Ordinance and compatibility was of utmost importance to avoid another "Harbors Development." The re- write of the Ordinance provides that in order for the project to be approved, an IPUD project must be compatible with and preserve the character and sanctity of adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Ordinance also states that any IPUD located adjacent to existing single-family residential development must locate structures of the same unit type or height allowed by the adjacent zoning district unless vegetation, screening or other barriers achieve compatibility. INCA opines that this project would blight the area and are opposed to the project moving forward. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, helped develop the IPUD regulations as President of INCA. The heart of the IPUD regulations is compatibility and he felt that neither Lennar nor City staff has addressed the waterfront area. The Cove is a quiet and unique area and has remained this way because it is surrounded by single-family homes, small docks and Iow noise level, to which the project has given no such consideration. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 He was opposed to having a 45' building along the cove and pointed out that the swimming pool would extend beyond the current sea walls. The noise from the pool would disturb their quiet neighborhood and he would like to see the pool moved elsewhere within the project. He would like to have a restriction that any dock that the project decided to develop would extend no further than the current docks, otherwise the character of the cove would completely change. Mr. Buchanan urged the Board to deny the project. Ms. Rose Homrich, 690 NE 15th Place, Yachtsman's Cove, was offended that only residents that reside adjacent to the Seaview property were allowed to speak. Ms. Homrich asserted that her house would provide a clear view to the fourth floor of the buildings. The CRA application criteria stated that the proposed developments should not be disruptive to the character of neighborhood, but should be in harmony and compatible with the present developments in the area. She does not feel that the proposed development meets this criterion. When she purchased her house, she was aware that the mobile home park was a non- conforming use and if the property were redeveloped she expected that it would be held to the same standards as the existing neighborhoods. She concurred with the previous testifiers that the project was not compatible and she was opposed to having it in her neighborhood. Further, she did not think that the landscape buffer would sufficiently screen the building. Ossie Leal, 660 NE 15th Place, resides on the south side of the proposed development. They chose to live in Boynton Beach because of its character and the character of their neighborhood, where all neighbors look out for each other. Mr. Leal reiterated what the previous speakers brought out regarding the project's incompatibility with the current communities. He felt that this project would generate excessive noise, traffic, and result in excessive overcrowding of people. Mr. Leal stated that the Comprehensive Plan in Land Use Element Policy 1.17.5 stated that the City would continue to maintain and improve the character of the existing single family and lower density neighborhoods to prevent conversions to higher density, unless it were consistent with adjacent land uses. This project is not consistent with this policy. Mr. Leal did not feel that the City Officials and developers were listening to its residents and their interests carry more weight than the neighborhoods. The codes and ordinances were too broad and as a result, his lifestyle would be affected by the size of the project. Stanley Nitkowski, 670 NE 15th Place, felt that it was the responsibility of City Officials to interpret and define policies on how to run a local government. City Officials are entrusted with the accountability of interpreting and defining how local government directly or indirectly affects its citizens and should make decisions taking these responsibilities into consideration. The new IPUD was put in place to provide structure and parameters for acceptable land development of 5 or less acres. Mr. Nitkowski noted that this Board and the Commission must enforce the intent of the IPUD to maintain the maximum height of the project at 38' as recommended by staff. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Harry Woodworth, 685 NE 15th Place, explained that his property is at the end of the street and forms the southeast boundary of the proposed project. He concurred with previous testimony that a four-story condominium project was totally incompatible with the single-family neighborhoods. Their neighborhood is a quiet neighborhood, their docks are the same length, there are no lights shining out into the neighborhood and everyone takes care of each other. Mr. Woodworth could not see how a 45' building was a transition project. He could not comprehend how the project could fit on a 150' wide lot. He was also opposed to the location of the pool because it was approximately 30 yards from his backyard. The noise and the lights would disturb the entire bay. He was not opposed to some kind of project, but was opposed to this project. Their neighborhood is an established neighborhood and the last house that sold in the community was at $400,000 and the waterfront homes are now selling for $1 million. He was of the opinion that the existing neighborhoods should be rewarded, not destroyed. Attorney Morrell noted that Mr. Woodworth was the last of his clients to testify. Attorney Morrell referred to the line-of-sight drawing presented by the applicant. The drawing showed that only the landowners on the north side of the street, if they stood on their lot line immediately next to Lennar's lot, would not see the four stories. However, if you step back 5', all the residents on the south side of 15th Place would see the entire top floor. He pointed out that the back elevation was bare with very little architectural articulation and the people residing in the project would be able to look down into the entire Yachtsman's Cove community. Mr. Morrell concluded his presentation. Brian Edwards, 628 NE 9th Avenue, was in agreement with the people who have testified in opposition to the project. He felt that the entire project was an injustice to the citizens. Don McPherson, 75 Seaview Circle thought that the photographs of the trailer park were negative photos. He asked where the people who live there were going to go if the project moved forward and one of Lennar's representatives informed him that there was no recourse to the trailer park residents. The trailers were not a hurricane hazard because when the hurricanes came through the City this year, there was very little damage to the trailer park and they collected less than $10,000 in damages. He did not feel that the trailer park was a blight and they paid their share of taxes. Mr. McPherson has gone blind in the past three months and was concerned how he could find a place to live since he is unemployable and has lived at the trailer park for 15 years and 645 people will have no home. David Fine, 2 G Street, lived in another mobile home park in the City and noted that the City's seal states "diversity," which he felt was allowing people to live in mobile home parks, Iow income housing, high rise condos and single family homes. He did not want the City to become Boca Raton. He pointed out that the single-family homeowners had the right to keep the homes the way they want them. He equated living next to the proposed project an atrocity. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Chairperson Heavilin closed the public hearing. Attorney Weiner pointed out that the testimony of the residents does not qualify as substantial competent testimony and reviewed some of the testimony that the residents presented. He pointed out that most of the people that spoke against the project assumed that the height of the project would destroy the neighborhood, but no one offered any testimony that height destroys. Attorney Weiner was not against the citizens of the City. He was present on behalf of the citizens that worked for many years to put together the Visions 20/20 Plan and the people who worked diligently on the Federal Highway Corridor Plan. Ms. Horenburger understood that there are some conditional uses allowed in the R1-AA Zoning District, which a large portion of this project encompassed, and she further understood that conditional uses are permitted uses under certain conditions. Ms. Horenburger also inquired what conditional uses were permitted in a R1-AA zoning district. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, was not certain what conditional uses were permitted in this zoning district, if any. R1-AA is very restrictive and allows detached single-family homes. Churches, schools and the like are allowed in that zoning district on a case-bye-case review. Ms. Horenburger was appalled that residents in the trailer park were told that they had no recourse. She felt that the applicant should be aware of the Florida statutes that address people being displaced. The Attorney for Lennar requested to respond to Ms. Horenburger's remark. Attorney Morrell inquired if the public hearing was being reopened. The Attorney responded that he was merely responding to a Board member's question. Attorney Spillias stated that the Board members were permitted to ask questions. Attorney Morrell took exception to this and felt that he should be permitted to cross-examine the witness. Mr. Fenton pointed out that this was not a trial and that Board members were permitted to ask questions. Attorney Spillias stated that a Board member asked a legal question and since a legal response was being given, there would be no need to cross-examine a legal response and recommended that the response be limited to a legal response. John Hinden, of the law firm of Webber, Hinden, McLean & Arbiter, in the Town of Davie, Florida, represented the applicant and stated he was the Assistant Town Attorney for Davie and their Planning and Zoning Board Attorney for 15 years and is familiar with tonight's process. Attorney Hinden stated that the residents of the trailer park have recourse and he recalled speaking with Mr. McPherson at the trailer park and advised him what his recourse was under Florida Statute Chapter 723. He answered all the questions when he met with the residents of the trailer park and confirmed that all the residents were entitled to the protections under this Chapter. ]7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Ms. Horenburger pointed out that the Board was dealing with another trailer park and in those negotiations the developer was asked to go above and beyond the requirements of Chapter 723. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the reason the developer of the other trailer park was asked to go above and beyond the Statutes was due to the fact that it fit within a special district within the Heart of Boynton and the project has special conditions and covenants. This project does not qualify for those special conditions. Mr. Hutchinson noted that Lennar has not asked, nor does it qualify, for incentives. Ms. Horenburger felt that the Board should come up with a policy on dealing with people who are displaced when a new development takes over their property. Mr. Fenton was confused by staff's presentation and was surprised that they were trying to cut down the height of the project to 37~' since they had such great praise for the project. He noted that he did not receive this information until Friday by special delivery when he had already received the agenda packet previously and asked staff why they decided to change the height requirement. He felt that the applicant went above and beyond the setback and landscape requirements. He did not understand why a willing seller and buyer were being penalized by making them lower the height of the project. This action sent a terrible message to developers. He felt that Item 48 of staff conditions should be deleted. Mr. DeMamo was pleased that Lennar wanted to build something in the City, but he was concerned about the citizens on the north and south sides and felt that those citizens' concerns needed to be addressed. He noted that there was not one citizen present that spoke in favor of the project and he was reluctant to vote for a project that no one was in favor of. He would like Lennar to come back with a project that the citizens would favor. Mr. Myott commented that he reviewed ail of the plans and he favored the plan that was submitted prior to tonight's plan. He was not in favor of having the blank wall facing south, which was Lennar's attempt to satisfy the residents. However, Mr. Myott did not think that any kind of plan would please the neighborhood. He also acknowledged that INCA helped develop the IPUD with the 45' height limitation and should not be surprised with the design of the project. Mr. Myott recommended that the project be reconfigured to accommodate the residents; however, he thought the buildings were attractive and well designed and would not be bad neighbors from an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Myott asked the applicant if they would be willing to reduce the height of some of the buildings along the water. Attorney Weiner noted that there have been numerous meetings with the residents and the applicant did decrease the southern half of the project. Lennar does not feel that the height of the project would destroy the neighborhood and want to keep the project as submitted, which they feel would be a great project for the City. Chairperson Heavilin requested that the dockage and lighting be addressed. Attorney Weiner responded that a photometric plan would be provided. He explained that they would be required to screen the lights to make sure the lights do not shine into the neighborhoods. He further stated that the lighting would not go beyond the borders of the property. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 With regard to the docks, Attorney Weiner noted that there are non-permitted docks everywhere with boats going in and out at all hours of the day and night. He further stated that there are no docks involved in the development. Quintus Greene, Development Director, responded to Mr. Fenton's comment regarding staff's request to lower the height of the buildings while at the same time praising the project. Staff worked closely with INCA in revising the IPUD regulations and during that process compatibility was a major consideration. This took place after the Harbor's project was built and staff wanted to make sure that this kind of project would not happen again. Staff feels that they have an obligation to keep faith with the community and looked at how this project would fit in with the surrounding communities. Currently there is a multi-family development in the area, which is 38' high, and staff felt that this development should be no higher than the adjacent existing multi-family development. Mr. Fenton asked about the height of the Harbor's project and Mr. Greene stated that it was 43' in height. Chairperson Heavilin did not think that the project would result in a great deal of noise, but she had some concerns about the compatibility of the project. However, she did agree with Mr. Myott's comment that there would never be a perfect project and the project being presented tonight was about the best you could get. She could support the project if it met the 38' height limit. She noted that the Federal Highway Corridor Plan was to steep the heights towards the north and south ends of the City. Ms. Horenburger could support the Land Use and staff's recommendation. If the Board did proceed in this direction, what affect would this have upon the site plan? Mr. Fenton felt that if the nine top apartments were eliminated this would result in an economic impact for the developer, which was contrary to one of the functions of the CRA. The applicant asked for no incentives and has not exceeded the height limitation. Mike Rumpf responded to Ms. Horenburger's question and noted that staff takes these things into consideration, especially when they support the project and tries to avoid having an applicant go back through an application process. Staff feels that the project could move forward if the applicant eliminated the floor that could be done subsequent to the approval process. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to amend the Future Land Use Designation from Local Retail Commercial and Low Density Residential to Special High Density Residential. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott. The Motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Barretta abstained). Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to rezone the property from C-3 (Community Commercial) and R1-AA (single family residential) to IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development). Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and carried 5-1 (Mr. DeMarco dissenting) (Mr. Barretta abstained). Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the site plan for Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) with all staff recommendations. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion Mr. Norem moved for approval of the site plan for Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) incorporating all staff recommendations with the exception of Condition #48. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton. The Recording Secretary called the roil. The motion failed 3-3 (Chairperson Heavilin, Mr. DeMarco and Ms. Horenburger dissenting). (Mr. Barretta abstained). Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the site plan for Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) with all staff recommendations. Motion failed for lack of a second. Attorney Spillias explained that the recommendation to the City Commission from the CRA would be to approve the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning. There would be no recommendation on the site plan approval. Mr. Norem requested that the Board proceed with the balance of the agenda items, to which the Board agreed. Recess was declared at 9:30 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Chairperson Heavilin noted that the Board voted on two items dealing with the Arches without removing them from the table. Chairperson Heavilin inquired if the entire motions would have to be made again. Attorney Spillias stated that the motions would not have to be made again, but the items had to be removed from the table. C. Site Plan Time Extension (Tabled to January 11,2005) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Arches (SPTE 05-001) Ryan Weisfisch, Boynton Ventures 1, LLC Multiple Owners Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Description: Request for a second time extension of the site plan on June 3, 2003 for one (1) year from the previously extended date of December 3, 2004 to December 3, 2005 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 Motion Mr. Myott moved to remove Item VI.A.1 from the table. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to ratify the Board's action regarding Item VI.A. to extend the site plan to December 3, 2005. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and unanimously carried. Consideration of Extension of the Arches Incentive Agreement (Tabled to January 11,2005) Motion Mr. Norem moved to ratify the Board's action regarding Item VII.A. to approve the Incentive Plan for the project known as the Arches (SPTE 05-001) to run concurrently with the extension. Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried. VII. Old Business Consideration of Extension of the Arches Incentive Agreement (Tabled to January 11,2005) (Previously addressed) VIII. New Business Consideration of Direct Incentive Program for Cornerstone Development's Barr Property Project IX. Commission Action A. Barr Property (LUAR 04-009) Tabled B. Barr Property (NWSP 04-013) Tabled X. Director's Report Mr. Hutchinson announced that the March meeting would take place on March 17, 2004. Anyone wanting to attend the Tallahassee Day event should let Mr. Hutchinson know. The CRA retreat has been scheduled for Friday evening, February 18th through noon on Sunday, February 20th in Naples, Florida. The hotel that they would be staying in is owned by the Chairperson of Naples' CRA. He would like for both Boards to meet. 2] Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 XI. Board Member Comments Mr. Myott asked Mr. Hutchinson to consult with other parties, such as Kurt Bressner, Mike Rumpf and Legal to determine what the Board needed to know. He felt that this might help the Board garner more information when addressing complex issues. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the CRA operations consist of: design, operation, organization, promotion, and economic restructuring. Each of these categories will be discussed at the retreat. Board members will be provided within a week with an outline of discussion for the retreat. Board members are encouraged, to request items that they would like to see included in the agenda. Mr. Hutchinson reported that an opportunity has arisen to fill the position of Assistant CRA Director. Mr. Dale Sugerman has indicated that he would be open to accepting the position as Assistant CRA Director. Mr. Sugerman is the liaison for all of the Board's purchasing in the Heart of Boynton, with his forte being on the operation side of the CRA. He noted that currently staff has to wear many hats. He would like the Board to approve hiring Mr. Sugerman at an annual salary of $97,850. Mr. Hutchinson noted that this was out of the pay scale, but he felt that the pay scale needed to be adjusted. Mr. Sugerman's salary would be prorated to October 1, 2004. During this period, the CRA would be revamping its pay scale, benefit packages, etc. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that this would be a pay decrease for Mr. Sugerman and Mr. Sugerman requested that from this date to the end of the fiscal year, the salary pro rata would remain in effect. There is a great discrepancy in the benefits paid by the City and the CRA and this needed to be addressed. Mr. Hutchinson would bring this back to the Board to make the CRA benefit package more equitable. Mr. Hutchinson would like to bring Mr. Sugerman onboard as soon as possible because he would like him included in the retreat. This was a great opportunity for the CRA to have the caliber of Mr. Sugerman's expertise onboard. Mr. Bressner and Mayor Taylor were present to answer any questions. Mr. Hutchinson spoke with Mr. Bressner regarding Mr. Sugerman coming to the CRA and if any Board member had any questions or concerns, they were welcomed to express them. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the City was under the State's pension system. Mr. Bressner responded that the City had its own pension plan. The CRA has a pension plan governed by Code 457 of the IRS. Mr. Hutchinson explained that this would be further examined and this would be an area that Mr. Sugerman could look into. Mr. Bressner stated that Mr. Hutchinson informed him that he spoke with Mr. Sugerman about joining the CRA. Mr. Bressner felt that this would work well and would be a good opportunity for the CRA to have a person onboard with Mr. Sugerman's background. He felt that when the CRA becomes involved in the Museum project there would be a multitude of issues to deal with that Mr. Sugerman could easily handle. Mr. Bressner stated that this was a move that he could support and would encourage it. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11,2005 Chairperson Heavilin was very excited about having Mr. Sugerman join the CRA and has worked with Mr. Sugerman on many projects over the years. She felt that he would be the perfect person to round off the CRA personnel. Mr. Fenton inquired if there was an Assistant Director position and Mr. Hutchinson stated that it was included in the CRA job classifications. Mr. Fenton questioned why Mr. Hutchinson would hire an Assistant that would make more money than he did. Mr. Fenton felt that it was ridiculous to have an Assistant Director make more money than the Director himself. Mr. Fenton also stated that he was not in a position to increase Mr. Hutchinson's salary at this time. Mr. Hutchinson felt that this could be better discussed at the retreat and why he would like to bring Mr. Sugerman on board. He acknowledged that some adjustments in the pay scale would have to be made. With all the projects that the Board is involved in, Mr. Hutchinson felt it was important to have skilled personnel on staff and that it was unfair to have the CRA Controller running a trolley system. Mr. Myott inquired if Mr. Hutchinson wanted the Board to approve making an offer to Mr. Sugerman tonight. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this was his intent and that the offer would be at a pro rata share of the $97,850 until the first of the year. Motion Mr. Myott moved that the CRA extend an offer to Dale Sugerman of the Assistant Director's position at the salary of $97,850 that would be in effect until the end of the CRA fiscal year. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco. The Board would then entertain entering into an employment contract similar to the contract with Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Norem asked if the CRA's benefit package was a defined contribution or defined benefit plan. Mr. Fenton explained that it was a defined contribution plan. Vote The motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Fenton dissenting). Xll. Legal XlII. Other Items Ms. Horenburger requested that the Board's agenda be furnished in a binder. XlV. Future Agenda Items A. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Boynton Beach for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Promenade and Riverwalk (February) B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for the MLK Phase I Project (February) 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida January 11, 2005 C. Consideration of amendment to CRA Procurement Policy (February) D. Consideration of Options for CRA Office Space (February) E. Consideration of Final Direct Incentive Agreement for the Promenade Project (February) F. Consideration of CRA Retreat (February) Mr. Hutchinson noted that two budget items needed to be addressed. The CRA would be saving approximately $300,000 on the pumhase of an office building. Secondly, the County informed him that the CRA would be receiving $420,000 in additional TIF funds that were not forecasted. Chairperson Heavilin noted that there was no Vice Chair and asked Mr. Hutchinson if the Board could appoint a second signatory in the event she was not available to sign checks. Attorney Spillias requested that the election of a Vice Chair be added to next month's agenda, but was informed that the City Commission elects the Chair and Vice Chair. He requested that the City Commission add this to their next Agenda. Mr. Bressner stated that this would normally be done during the last week in March. Motion Mr. Myott nominated Don Fenton as a signatory for the CRA until a Vice Chair is elected. Motion Mr. Fenton nominated Stormet Norem as a signatory for the CRA until a Vice Chair is elected. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that carried 6-0. (Mr. Norem abstaining). With regard to the Board's retreat, Mr. Bressner noted that the City Commission adopted a strategic plan last June, and he will update Mr. Hutchinson on the highlights of the Plan. There were many things in that Plan that could impact the CRA's work plan and he wanted to make sure that the elements of the Commission's strategic plan are included in the CRA discussions because the Commission expects the CRA to carry out the intent of their Plan. Chairperson Heavilin thanked Attorney Spillias for keeping the Board abreast on the legality of the procedure process and recommended that the Board hold a workshop on meeting procedures sometime in the future. 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida XV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary January 11, 2005 (January 13, 2005)