Minutes 03-17-05MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M
II1.
A.
Motion
Present:
Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson
Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair
James Barretta
Alexander DeMarco
Don Fenton
Marie Horenburger
Steve Myott
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
II. Roll Call
The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared all members were present.
Agenda Approval
Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda
Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director
Ken Spillias, Board Attorney
Susan Vielhauer, Controller
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco
and unanimously carried.
B. Financial Report
IV. Consent Agenda
C. Consideration of Increasing the Travel Mileage Reimbursement from $.29
per mile to $.405 per mile
D. Consideration of Budget Transfer Request for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year
Chairperson Heavilin pulled Item IV. D. from the Consent Agenda for discussion
E. Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant Reimbursement Request for Colonial
Condo Association
F. Consideration of Facade Grant Request for the Boynton Women's Club
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
G. Consideration of Corporation Sponsorship for the NAACP
Mr. Fenton pulled Item IV.G. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
H. Consideration of Financial Advisor Work Order #4
Vice Chair Tillman pulled Item IV.H. from the Consent Agenda for discussion
I. Consideration of Purchase of Parcel #130 Adams Property
J. Consideration of a request for the City Commission for Eminent Domain
Acquisition of Certain Properties in MLK Phase 1 Redevelopment Area
Mr. Fenton pulled Item IV.J. from the consent agenda for discussion.
K. Consideration of Change Work Order #9 for Burkhart Construction
L. Consideration of Modified Procurement Policy
M. Consideration of Modified Direct Incentive Program
N. Consideration of Assistant Director Position and Advertising of Position
O. Consideration of CRA RFP No. 2005-01 Retail Demand Analysis
P. Blank
R. Consideration of Underwriting the Demolition of Boynton Terrace
Mr. Fenton pulled Item IV.R. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended. Motion
seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried.
VI. D. Consideration of Budget Transfer Request for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year
Chairperson Heavilin had a question regarding this item and requested Ms. Vielhauer
respond.
Susan Vielhauer, Controller, assumed the podium. Chairperson Heavilin questioned
Item 14 dealing with car allowances and asked if the car allowance for the Assistant
Director was included in this line item. Ms. Vielhauer stated that it had been included.
2
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval of Item IV.D. Motion seconded by Ms. Vielhauer
and unanimously carried.
IV. G. Consideration of Corporation Sponsorship for the NAACP
Mr. Fenton felt a contribution of $5,000 was a great deal of money and he felt that these
types of sponsorships would open up a Pandora's box. Once the CRA begins to offer
corporate sponsorships, requests will start pouring in. If the Board approves this
request, how will it deal when other agencies request money? He recognized that the
NAACP was a quality organization and was surprised that this type of item was place on
the Consent Agenda and it should be an item for discussion. He was not against this
organization; he felt that the CRA was not in the business of sending money to national
organizations, regardless of whom they are or what they are.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired what benefits the CRA would receive if it became a
corporate sponsor. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this would be a one-time corporate
contribution. He noted due to the work the CRA is doing in the minority communities, he
felt it would be a good idea to support this organization similar to the support the CRA
gives to the CDCs.
Vice Chair Tillman did not equate this as pouring money into a national organization, but
was for business reasons. He pointed out that 43% of the CRA is within a minority
community. He felt it would be a good business practice for the CRA to have an agency
from the minority community to come along side to make sure the business the CRA
does in this community is accepted. He also felt that the NAACP would provide the CRA
knowledge and insight to what the stakeholders in that community are looking for. Vice
Chair Tillman felt that this would create a worthwhile partnership between the CRA and
the NAACP.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired if the CRA could partner with the NAACP without being a
corporate sponsor. Mr. Fenton pointed out that the CRA is spending $2 million on the
Heart of Boynton (HOB) and questioned the need for a corporate sponsorship with this
agency. He felt that it was impossible for the CRA to give money to every agency that
requests funding.
Mr. Horenburger pointed out the request was for the South County NAACP, which
covers a specific area and is not for the national organization. Ms. Horenburger
inquired what the City Commission's policy were regarding contributions.
Vice Chair Tillman was not familiar with City policy, but felt that the CRA should have its
own rules to go by. He noted that the CRA has memberships in order to receive certain
publications that benefit the CRA members. Vice Chair Tillman stressed that the CRA
needed to be open to all segments in the community, not just the 43%. He also did not
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
feel that this involved church and state and felt it was something the CRA should do to
show its support for that segment of the community.
Mr. Fenton inquired how the item appeared on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Hutchinson
stated he put it on himself.
Ms. Horenburger felt it was impodant to send a message of commitment to the
community and recommended approval of the Gold Life Sponsorship at this time and
then reassess it at a future date whether to become a corporate sponsor.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired what these memberships entail. Mr. Hutchinson noted
that what was included in the agenda packet was the only information that he received.
He completed the application that was forwarded to him and what he thought was the
right one for the CRA. If the Board wanted to do something different, he felt this was
doable. He reported he has had very productive meetings with the NAACP and he
brought this to the Board for consideration. The reason the item was put on consent
was due to the fact that staff had been previously asked to put as many items on
consent as possible, since an item could always be pulled for discussion.
Ms. Horenburger inquired if the contribution could be done one time or annually. Mr.
Hutchinson felt that they would be flexible on this. Chairperson Heavilin felt that more
information would be helpful in making a decision. Mr. Hutchinson recommended
inviting the NAACP to the next Board meeting to make a presentation. He noted that
there was no urgency to the contribution and recommended tabling the item to the next
meeting.
Ms. Horenburger recommended when they make their presentation they inform the
Board how they differ in their structure, vision and purpose from other non-profit
agencies that might seek contributions from the CRA.
Mr. Myott also recommended that Mr. Hutchinson determine if the NAACP has worked
with other CRAs in other communities.
Mr. DeMarco would like to know how the money would be used in order to make a
decision.
Attorney Spillias stated when the item comes back to the Board the only appropriate
expenditure of public funds is for a public purpose. Therefore, when it comes back it
should be made clear what the public purpose would be for these funds.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to table to the next meeting. Motion seconded by Mr.
DeMarco.
Mr. Hutchinson will work with Legal staff to prepare the appropriate motion.
4
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Vote
Motion carried 7-0.
IV.H. Consideration of Financial Advisor Work Order #4
Vice Chair Tillman asked for some background on what this item deals with. Mr.
Hutchinson responded that when staff looked at concepts in putting together additional
downtown projects, such as parking garages and the Ocean One project, the first
discussions looked at was how to get a parking garage for public parking. It appears
that they will not have to go out for bonding to accomplish this and he feels that the
direct incentive project could provide what is needed. This item is to make sure that the
CRA bond covenants do not impede or affect this process. Mr. Hutchinson did not think
that a great deal of money would be needed to accomplish this nor would a great deal
of financial services be necessary. However, this item will keep Ms. Turner in the loop
so that she would be available to answer any questions that may arise.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired if the Board needed to act on this item. Mr. Hutchinson
stated that this could wait. Chairperson Heavilin noted that the item requested approval
of a work order and if the Board approves it, expenses would be incurred. Mr.
Hutchinson stated expenses would only be incurred if work were done under the work
order.
Ms. Horenburger noted that legal counsel does not sign off on work orders and she
would like to have legal counsel sign off on all contracts before any contract is brought
to the Board for consideration. Mr. Hutchinson responded that legal counsel is provided
with every legal contract. Ms. Horenburger requested a place be provided on every
contract for legal counsel to sign off on.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and
unanimously carried.
IV.J. Consideration of a request for the City Commission for Eminent Domain
Acquisition of Certain Properties in MLK Phase 1 Redevelopment Area
Mr. Fenton had several questions regarding this item. He noted that one of the
attorneys wanted to have a meeting on February 18th regarding parcels Nos. 104 and
106. Members have not received any information on whether the meeting actually took
place and what were the results of the meeting. He asked to be updated on this.
Chairperson Heavilin noted that additional time had been requested for other parcels,
but there were no set timeframes. She requested that the Urban Group provide an
update.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Barry Lazarus, from the Urban Group, together with Barbara Matlack, assumed the
podium.
With regard to parcels Nos. 104, 106 and 115 owned by Marwan Ghali, Ms. Matlack
reported that the meeting did take place. She reported that the owner wants to negotiate
with the CRA and she feels they are close on parcels 104 and 106; however, they want
a second appraisal for parcel #115, which is the Foot Mart and supports two of their
families. They would like to keep the business going as long as possible and participate
in the new development. She felt if the CRA could work with them, Ms. Matlack felt that
parcels 104 and 106 could be settled, but #115 is another issue.
Mr. Hutchinson reported that negotiations do not stop and asked Mr. Spillias to respond.
Mr. Spillias reported that the eminent domain process requires that an offer be made
prior to filing of the action. The CRA must ask the City to pass a resolution of taking of
the parcels for the public need and the CRA wants to begin the eminent domain process
for this purpose. The owner of the property must obtain an appraisal; the CRA would
obtain an appraisal; and the City would then make an offer. If the offer is not accepted,
the eminent domain process could proceed.
While this process is going on, there could be continuing negotiations. Mr. Spillias noted
that it would be beneficial to proceed with the filing of the petition of eminent domain
because if a price cannot be negotiated, the ultimate value of the property that the CRA
would have to pay is set as of the time of the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the
longer the CRA goes without filing the complaint, the property would continue to
appreciate and the more money the CRA would end up paying for it.
Mr. Fenton noted that one property owner is seeking $300,000 for his property and he
was offered $200,000. Mr. Fenton inquired what this property was and noted there was
no description of the properties included in the agenda backup. He felt it was important
that property descriptions be included. Mr. Hutchinson responded that this information
had been previously furnished, but if Mr. Fenton would like another copy of the property
descriptions, he would be glad to furnish it.
Mr. Fenton requested information on this particular property and was informed it was a
two-story duplex with two bedrooms and one bath on each floor and is an unwilling
seller. Originally he asked for $270,000 and now the price has gone up.
With regard to parcel #105, Mr. Fenton is familiar with the owner's name and recalls her
speaking at a CRA meeting. She indicated that she was unwilling to sell her property.
Mr. Fenton inquired what parcel #105 was. Mr. Lazarus stated it is a vacant lot.
Mr. Fenton inquired if there are any individual homeowners residing in their homes that
do not want to sell. Mr. Lazarus stated there were none in this category.
Mr. Fenton was opposed to using the eminent domain process for homesteaded
properties. Mr. Hutchinson noted staff had received this direction over a year ago and
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
he feels with approval of Ms. Adams' home, they would have taken care of all single-
family homesteaded properties.
Mr. Fenton inquired if parcels 104, 106 and 115 should be pulled from the blanket order.
Ms. Matlack stated they continue to negotiate with the property owners and
recommended moving forward and is doing her best to get these property owners under
contract.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that six parcels are being self-assembled and want to
redevelop and they need to move forward to start redevelopment.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of the resolution. Motion seconded by Vice Chair
Tillman.
Attorney Spillias will draft a request to the City. The City would then enact a proposed
resolution that would be signed by the Mayor. Mr. Hutchinson reported that legal
counsel has already drafted the resolution in order to expedite it.
Vote
Motion carried 7-0.
R. Consideration of Underwriting the Demolition of Boynton Terrace
Mr. Fenton had some legal questions regarding this item and noted the funds for the
demolition are not included in the budget. Mr. Fenton asked if the CRA was legally
obligated to do this and would the CRA become tied into the property considering all the
lawsuits against this property. Also, he inquired what the ramifications would be to the
CRA at a cost of $350,000 to raze the buildings.
Attorney Spillias responded there is no legal obligation to raze the buildings and the
issue is whether the CRA has the authority to do it. The City has made a determination
that the buildings are unsafe and under City codes is subject to demolition. Therefore, a
public entity can go in and perform the demolition and could then charge the property
owner the costs for the demolition. It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain
the property in an unblighted and safe condition.
The issue for the CRA is whether it is appropriate to spend the money for this purpose.
Attorney Spillias noted that the property is located within the CRA and the expenditure
would be furthering a public purpose, since the CRA is charged with the redevelopment
of blighted areas. Therefore, the CRA is authorized to demolish the buildings, but is not
obligated to do so. However, he noted the City has requested that the CRA follow
through on this and to pay the costs.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Mr. Fenton inquired who the ultimate owner of the property was. Attorney Spillias
responded it would depend upon whether the property was foreclosed upon and who
did the foreclosure. If the CRA expends the funds to demolish the property, presumably
the CRA would have a lien upon the property. Mr. Fenton inquired if this was a HUD
property.
Quintus Greene, Development Director, responded the properly is owned by a real
estate investment trust located in Beverly Hills, California called Boynton Associates.
The trustee is the Bank of New York and there are bondholders represented by an
organization in New Jersey. Therefore, who ultimately would own the property, Mr.
Greene did not know. With the assistance of the CRA, demolishing the buildings would
alleviate having 16 unsafe buildings in the middle of the HOB.
Prior to the hurricanes, the City had been working with the developer to rehabilitate the
buildings. However, after the hurricanes and after the City inspected the properties, it
was discovered that there was a great more damage than what was caused by the
hurricanes. The buildings were deteriorating and, therefore, staff felt it was incumbent
upon the City to retain the services of outside engineering and environmental
consultants to examine the buildings thoroughly. This was done over a 60 to 90 days
period, after which a report was presented to the City. After the report was presented,
the Building Official determined the buildings were unsafe.
Mr. Greene pointed out during the past 60 days residents were being relocated from
Boynton Terrace and the City has spent over $35,000 for this purpose. He anticipates
more bills will be forthcoming. He was pleased to report that all residents have been
relocated and are now residing in a safe housing situation. The City has gone above
and beyond the City's responsibilities. Since the property owner was receiving HUD
funds, they should have handled the relocation of the residents.
Now that the residents have been relocated, the City wants to move forward with
demolition of the property within the next month or so. It is anticipated a grassy field will
be put in its place for the time being until the ownership issues are sorted out.
Mr. Fenton inquired if the property owners received any insurance money. Mr. Greene
was not aware of this. Mr. Fenton asked how much money the City has invested in this
project. Mr. Greene responded over $35,000 has been spent in relocation expenses.
There are still bills that have not been received from the moving companies. The City is
spending $2,000 to house one family who has a paraplegic member for a month.
Mr. Fenton inquired where the CRA would come up with the $350,000 for the demolition
costs and asked why the City did not pay this cost as well. Mr. Hutchinson noted this
was discussed at the CRA workshop and the money would come from realigning and
phasing of some projects. Mr. Hutchinson noted there has been a savings with self-
assembly of six properties of almost $1 million.
Mr. Fenton was willing to move that the CRA pay $175,000 of the costs.
8
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Ms. Horenburger inquired if the contract was being let by the CRA or is the CRA giving
the money to the City for this purpose. Mr. Greene stated the City is requesting the
funding from the CRA and the City would be letting the demolition contract. In addition
to paying the relocation costs, the City also paid for the engineering and environmental
studies that were another $50,000.
Ms. Horenburger inquired how the Palm Beach County Housing Padnership was
involved in this. Mr. Greene explained the Palm Beach County Housing Partnership was
the agent for the owners of the project. When the structures are demolished, this will
create an eight-acre developable parcel in the HOB. Ms. Horenburger also inquired how
the demolition would affect the bondholders. Mr. Greene did not know on this point.
Mr. Myott inquired if the City would place a lien on the owner of the property to recover
the City's costs. Mr. Greene thought the City already had in excess of $200,000 in liens
against the property. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Greene if he had a dollar figure for the value
of the land. Mr. Greene stated the bonds on the property were approximately $4 million.
Mr. Barretta inquired why the City was asking the CRA to pay these costs and Mr.
Greene stated the City did not have the funds for the demolition. They used CDBG
funds for the relocation costs and had to ask HUD for permission to use the money for
this purpose. The City never received a formal response from HUD and, therefore, went
ahead and relocated the people. Mr. Barretta inquired if the CRA funded the demolition
would it have a lien on the property and Mr. Greene stated this was correct.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired who would convert the land to a grassy field and Mr.
Greene said the City would take care of this. Chairperson Heavilin noted that the costs
included an asbestos survey and abatement. If there were no asbestos found, would
this reduce the costs of demolition?
Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator, explained that the Code Enforcement
Fine Account is empty because his Department paid for the consulting and inspection
fees. The asbestos report was received today and there is a minimal amount of
asbestos in the floor tiles, which means it would be a "wet" demolition. The report was
hand delivered to the County's Health Department today because they have the final
sign off. Mr. Blasie felt razing the building would be a big improvement to the
community.
Ms. Horenburger requested that legal counsel determine if there was a way to hold the
CRA harmless as a result of demolishing the buildings. Mr. Spillias responded that the
City has indicated it would be doing the demolition, but wanted the CRA to pay for it. He
would recommend the CRA enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City that would
include an indemnification clause, whereby the City would indemnify the CRA from any
actions that could result from the demolition of the property. They could request that the
CRA's lien come before the City's lien.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Mr. Fenton was of the opinion the CRA would never get its money back and questioned
why the CRA should be good Samaritans for the City that is much bigger than the CRA.
Mr. Greene explained currently there are 16 dilapidated buildings sitting on eight acres
of land. Once the buildings are demolished, this would provide an eight-acre
developable parcel in the HOB less than one-half mile north of City Hall and less than
another half-mile west of Federal Highway. When this property is developed, the tax
increment from this redevelopment would pay the $350,000 many times over.
Chairperson Heavilin confirmed this is why the CRA exists to take care of conditions like
this.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to provide funds to the City of Boynton Beach for the
demolition of Boynton Terrace, subject to a legal agreement between this Board and the
City that would hold this Board harmless in the event of complications relating to the
bonds and other matters as they would apply to the various owners and agents of this
property, insuring that this Board would not have any other exposure other than the
$350,000. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman.
Mr. Barretta asked the maker of the motion to consider amending her motion to include
language that it be stated in the Interlocai Agreement that the CRA's lien would precede
the City's lien. Ms. Horenburger agreed to amend her motion to include this language
and Vice Chair Tillman seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 6-1 (Mr.
Fenton dissenting).
Consideration of Facade Grant Reimbursement Request for Colonial Condo
Association
Chairperson Heavilin asked Ms. Cathy Appleton of Colonial Center Condominium
Association to come to the podium. Chairperson Heavilin presented Mr. Appleton with
the facade grant reimbursement check.
Chairperson Heavilin welcomed Commissioner Mike Ferguson.
V. Public Audience
Bob Katz, 306 SE Ist Avenue, Boynton Beach, indicated a willingness to sell his
propedies, but the process has been very difficult and goes back to December 2002
when specific properties were identified to be purchased. He referred to a letter he
received dated February 7, 2003 advising him that his properties were identified to be
targeted in phase I and within the next 12 months some kind of action would be taken.
Business owners are reluctant to improve their property knowing or not knowing that at
some point their property would be bought out. Also, if the property is leased, they are
unable to raise the rents because of fear of losing this source of income. He would like
these issues addressed. He furnished the Urban Group copies of invoices and costs on
]0
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
his property and then received an offer below his costs. He would like to work with the
parties to get this resolved, but it has been very difficult in getting something
accomplished.
Mr. Fenton noted that Mr. Katz is not included on the list of properties for eminent
domain. Mr. Katz responded that he is. The properties are held by a trustee, Keith Kern
and consist of four properties.
Vice Chair Tillman pointed out that this was an agenda item that had been previously
addressed and the Board is not supposed to comment under Public Audience.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public audience was closed.
VI. Public Hearing
Mr. Hutchinson requested that the Barr property items be considered as a group that
would include the consideration of the Direct Incentive Program.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to reorder the agenda that would include the Direct Incentive
Program and Site Plan. Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and unanimously carried.
Attorney Spillias called for a motion to remove the items from the table.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to remove the items from the table. Motion seconded by Mr.
Horenburger.
Mr. Myott recused himself from consideration of the Barr property items. He noted there
have been suggestions made regarding his voting on other items on the agenda. Mr.
Myott has served on City Boards for over eight years and never had to recuse himself
from any item other than those items that he was directly subject to financial gains and
requested he be permitted to only recuse himself from the Barr property items.
Chairperson Heavilin called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Attorney Spillias stated
that Mr. Myott could vote on removing the items from the table.
Vote
The motion carried 7-0.
Attorney Spillias reported on conflict of interest issues as they pertain to CRAs and
noted there is an exemption in the CRA statutes. Even though CRA Boards are subject
to Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Requirements for
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Public Officials, including local officials, CRAs are specifically exempted from the
Conflict of Interest requirement to recuse oneself, even when there is personal gain
from public vote. The conflict must still be declared and the Memorandum of Conflict
must be filed; however, Mr. Myott is required to vote on issues even if they inure to
one's private gain.
Attorney Spillias asked Mr. Myott for further clarification as to whether or not he
participated at all in the preparation, or assisted with the preparation in any way, of the
plans for this project. Mr. Myott responded that he did not assist in any way with the
project.
Attorney Spillias stated there is a "poison pill" conflict of interest situation when
someone's employment or has an agency contract with an interest that is regulated by
this Board or is to appear before the Board. If any Board members sought to represent
a client in front of this Board or assisted in the preparation of the presentation to this
Board, this is not allowed. In this case, the client would not retain the services of the
Board member's firm or the Board member would have to resign from the Board. There
is no middle ground and recusing oneself is not allowed. He felt that Mr. Myott could go
forward tonight, on counsel's advice and running the risk if there is an ethic's violation, it
is Mr. Myott's ethics violation. He will have this clarified by the next meeting.
Attorney Spillias recommended that Mr. Myott step down from this item and vote on the
remainder of the items on the agenda tonight. Mr. Myott agreed to this procedure and
he would not be discussing or voting on any of the Barr items.
Mr. Myott was furnished with Form 8B (Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County,
Municipal and Other Local Public Officers).
Attorney Spillias administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying.
Old Business
A. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq (Tabled to March 17, 2005)
1. Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Barr Property (LUAR 04-009) - (Tabled to
March 17, 2005)
John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities
BMVFL-1, Inc.
1801 NE 4th Street
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map for High Density
Residential to Special High Density
Residential; and
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family
Residential to Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
Proposed use: Townhouse community of 180
units
Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the Future Land Use Amendment and
Rezoning items on behalf of staff. The property is comprised of 9.88 acres and the
location of the property was displayed on the screen. The proposed use of the properly
would be for 180 condominium units. Staff is recommending approval of the requested
Land Use Amendment and Rezoning for three reasons as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The request is consistent with the relevant policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and the adopted "Federal Highway Corridor Community
Redevelopment Plan."
The redevelopment of the property is desirable; the proposed rezoning
maintains the residential character of the area and will provide an
aesthetically pleasing living environment in proximity to the downtown.
The proposed development meets the standards expected when the
Planned Unit Development is requested in the Special High Density
Residential land use category.
B. New Site Plan
2. Project: Barr Property (NWSP 04-013 (Tabled .to
March 17, 2005 (Addressed out of order)
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities
BMVFL-1, Inc.
1801 NE 4th Street
Request new site plan approval for a 180-unit
townhome development on a 9.88 acre parcel
in a proposed PUD zoning district
Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the item on behalf of staff. Currently the property is
developed with 110 mobile homes with parking areas, of which 94 mobile homes are
licensed by the City's Occupational Licensing Division. The proposed density of the new
project would consist of 18 dua and the entire project would be built in one phase.
Staff reviewed the project for traffic, utility, fire, police, drainage and school concurrency
and has determined that the project complies with all concurrency requirements.
There will be one point of ingress and egress. There will also be one point of ingress
and egress for emergency vehicles only. The dwelling units require two parking spaces
per unit and the pool area requires five parking spaces. Therefore, the project requires a
]3
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
total of 365 parking spaces and the site plan proposes 398 parking spaces, for an
excess of 33 parking spaces.
The landscape buffer along NE 4th Street would be 40' in width and the rear landscape
buffer along the railroad tracks would be 20' in width. The buffer along the sides would
vary between 3Y2' to 20'. When the property is rezoned to PUD, staff must insure that
the development would be compatible with surrounding developments and staff has
determined that the proposed project would be adequate in terms of the proposed
setbacks.
Each building would vary in dwelling units, ranging from 8 to 14 units. The sizes of the
units would vary from 1,356 square foot to 1,879 square feet. The units would be three
stories tall. A drawing of the project was presented. The garages would be in the rear of
each unit with a privacy wall. A monument sign would be located at the point of
ingress/egress.
Staff is recommending approval of the project, subject to the 36 conditions of approval
as contained in Exhibit C.
Chairperson Heavilin noted that the background information the Board has is dated
November 3, 2004 and inquired if there have been any changes since that date. Mr.
Johnson responded that both the traffic and school concurrency requirements have
been updated.
Attorney Spillias requested that the members of the Board declare any ex-parte
communications any member may have had with either the applicant or anyone else
regarding the project. Attorney Spillias also requested that members state if they could
make their decision based upon the information presented tonight.
Mr. Fenton reported he spoke with Mr. Weiner and Lenny Wolf.
Mr. DeMarco spoke with Mr. Weiner.
Chairperson Heavilin spoke with Mr. Weiner and Mr. Wolfe and attended a
homeowner's association meeting several months ago.
Vice Chair Tillman spoke with Mr. Wolf and Mr. Weiner at Mr. Weiner's office.
Ms. Horenburger spoke with Mr. Wolf and Mr. Weiner. She also spoke with a
resident of the mobile home park.
Mr. Barretta spoke with Mr. Weiner and Mr. Wolf.
Attorney Weiner requested that the Board vote on the two Land Use items and then
move to the Direct Incentive item. The Board agreed to address the items in this order.
Michael Weiner was present on behalf of Cornerstone Development. He pointed
out that the project would be located west of Federal Highway and the railroad tracks,
on the north side of town. He felt that this was a great area for a project of this type. Mr.
Weiner introduced all the parties that were present on behalf of the applicant and who
were involved in bringing the project to the City. Attorney Weiner presented
]4
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
photographs of the property to the members, along with a PowerPoint presentation of
how the property would look when it was developed.
The project would be built in one phase and would include two and three bedroom
townhouses and villas. There would be a large clubhouse with many amenities,
including a park. The developer, as a condition of approval, would be beautifying the
remainder of NE 4th Avenue. As a result, NE 4th Avenue would become a beautiful
residential street. The property is currently a mobile home park and many of the trailers
do not meet the current hurricane standards.
Since the property is less than 10 acres, it is considered a small-scale amendment. The
staff report supports the Future Land Use Change and Rezoning of the property.
Attorney Weiner read into the record the applicable policies pertaining to the
Comprehensive Plan that support the rezoning and comprehensive plan changes.
Attorney Weiner pointed out that because the current use is an aging mobile home park,
this property is geared for redevelopment. Many of the trailers were manufactured
before 1992 and this type of housing needs to be replaced. He pointed out that they
have met all concurrency requirements, which was confirmed by staff. Attorney Weiner
noted this development would increase the property values of the homes in the area.
An artist's rendering of the site plan and the surrounding area was presented. The
entryways would create a boulevard effect and would eliminate the current five
entryways. The monument signage and landscape plan were displayed. Attorney
Weiner pointed out that there are over 5,000 individual plants and 500 trees included in
the project. The applicant far exceeded the landscaping requirements and the maximum
height of the buildings is around 35' with an additional setback from NE 4th Street.
Ms. Horenburger also reported that some time ago she met with Anita Mitchell, who is a
representative of Mr. Wolf.
Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing.
Frank Hunt, lF Street, Boynton Mobile Village Park, did not like the way the property
was described and pointed out that this was his home to which he retired. He felt that
the developers were buying everything up and kicking people out. He was offered a
place in Lake Worth to move to, but he wanted to stay in Boynton Beach.
Harriet Weinstein, 342 Boynton Bay Circle, Boynton Beach, lives across the street
from the mobile home park. The apartments she resides in are Iow to middle income
apartments and she did not want to see people being put out into the streets. She
pointed out the neighborhood is run down and needs improvement, but she would like
assurances that the residents being displaced are provided a place to live.
Ray D. Young, 3F Street, was originally opposed to the development of the mobile
home park. He has since had many meetings with the people involved with the project
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
and they informed him that they would be bending over backward to work with the
residents and they have. He also spoke with Dave Zimet of the Boynton Beach CDC
about purchasing a home and stated that Mr. Zimet was an asset to the community. He
has since purchased a mobile home in another park and was pleased the way he was
treated.
Jim Roth, a resident of Boynton Mobile Village, has heard threats and intimidation if
he did not move in a timely manner the money being offered now would not be
guaranteed. Mr. Roth inquired if the project was approved would the money still be
available to the residents. He is looking to purchase a home and is concerned about
using his own money for this purpose. He needs the money promised to help with the
down payment for a new home. He has requested something in writing and was told
they would not give him anything in writing.
Betty Hopkins, 8C Street, Boynton Mobile Village has lived there for seven years.
She felt the manager and Mr. Peterson have been very helpful in assisting her with
relocating and appreciated their assistance.
Barbara Petrie, 3C Street, Boynton Mobile Village, purchased a mobile home in the
village approximately 2Y2 years ago. She pointed out the manager has been very helpful
with assisting her in locating a new place to live. She was very thankful for the help they
provided.
Nina Watson, 8D Street, Boynton Mobile Village, were originally going to move their
mobile home at a cost of $3,000 and the developer would be giving her $6,000 to move.
The cost of moving increased over $1,000. She pointed out she was not allowed to find
her own mover to move their trailer. The developer said they would keep the money, but
would pay for the move. If there were any funds leftover, she would receive it. In order
to move their mobile home, they had to find a place to stay and they had intended to
use this money for that purpose.
The Mobile Village did provide them with a travel trailer to stay in and after they gave
$75 for an application to move to another mobile home park, their trailer has not been
moved yet. They requested the money, but there is nothing in writing. She said that a
lot of threats have been made that they would not receive the money. If they do not
receive this money, they will be out in the street. Ms. Watson requested the return of her
$75 and her $6,000. Also, she has a problem with the title to her property. She has the
title to the mobile home behind her mobile home and they were given the wrong title.
Therefore, they do not have a title to a home they have paid off and they have to sign
over their title in order to receive their money. Ms. Watson would like to know what
would happen to her if the project goes through tonight.
David Fine, is a former resident at 2G Street in Boynton Mobile Village, but now lives in
Delray Beach. He pointed out that the move went well and felt he was well taken care of
by the people of Cornerstone. He pointed out he received $6,000 for relocating. He
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
noted many residents have a much higher investment in the property and would not be
fully compensated.
Mr. Hudson pointed out the CRA Board does not make the final decision for the
projects. The Board makes a recommendation to the City Commission at their next
meeting and there will be another public hearing.
The person residing in the Boynton Mobile Village at 8F Street stated his home could
not be moved, but representatives of Cornerstone told him they would get him another
one and are in the process of doing so. He was pleased with the way he was being
treated.
Hazel Forbes, previously lived at 1G Street, and has moved into an apartment with
the assistance of Mr. Wolf. She was provided with three free months rent in addition to
the $6,000. Ms. Forbes thanked Mr. Wolf and his manager.
Jose Soto, 4D Street, Boynton Mobile Village, said some residents felt they were
being discriminated against. He would like to have something in writing and felt some
people are not being treated equitably.
Wilson Lazera, lC Street, stated many of the problems people are having are not with
the management of the park, but with the movers who are supposed to move the
trailers. Because permits are involved, this takes time. He urged People to have
patience with the process.
Doug Peterson, General Manager of Casa De Monte Mobile Home Park, reported
they have absorbed many of the mobile homes from Boynton Mobile Village and was
glad to have them. He explained it takes six to eight weeks to go through the permit
process. Three homes have permits pending, but he anticipates things would be moving
forward.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Attorney Weiner reported they have spent $186,000 to assist with relocating the
residents of the Mobile Park not knowing if they would be approved for the Direct
Incentive Program. He acknowledged some residents are still having problems and he
empathized with these people, but this was not the fault of the applicant. He equated
this to the rules and regulations required in moving mobile homes and straightening out
ownership problems. They have people trying to straighten out these problems that
involved110 trailers.
With regard to the remarks people wanted something in writing, Attorney Weiner noted
the residents were provided a written list of options a long time ago when Cornerstone
first took possession of the park. There has been a fulltime person from Cornerstone at
the park answering questions. When a person selected an option, they would have
17
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
received a check or began the process of moving their mobile home. Problems have
arisen because some people have been unable to make a selection.
Attorney Weiner stated no one is having their home padlocked and being asked to
leave. Even though people have not paid their rent, they have not been asked to leave.
Mr. Barretta stated he had no problem with the rezoning or land use amendment, but he
has a problem with the site plan. He did not think the Board should be asked to approve
a project that has 36 conditions of approval. This Board, through its Director, has asked
to meet with City staff to discuss the manner in which conditions are attached to
projects and were told this meeting would not take place. If the Board had any
problems, they should simply table the projects and send them back to staff. Therefore,
he is prepared to make a motion to table the site plan. He did not think the Board should
approve a site plan that would change after the Board approved it.
Mr. Fenton asked the applicant if they agreed with staff conditions of approval. Attorney
Weiner responded they agreed with all staff conditions. Mr. Weiner felt that 36
conditions of approval for a 9.8-acre project are minimal. Chairperson Heavilin noted
there are times when they have asked an applicant to readdress some of the conditions
of approval, but she did not want to start tabling projects just because they come with
conditions of approval.
Mr. Barretta felt they should table everything until the City staff is willing to meet with
them to discuss this issue. Chairperson Heavilin felt this would be unfair to the
development community.
Ms. Horenburger inquired if any conditions of approval modify the site plan. Attorney
Weiner noted staff reviews the site plan before it comes before the Board and then
again when the applicant applies for a building permit. None of the conditions of
approval have any kind of substantial difference in the plan itself. Ms. Horenburger
asked if staff agreed with Mr. Weiner's assessment of the conditions of approval. Mr.
Johnson responded that the conditions are reasonable.
Mr. Hutchinson reported he asked Quintus Green, the Development Director, if he could
have a meeting with staff and the CRA Board, which would have to be a posted meeting
and the process would be to re-score the projects and have the applicants resubmit site
plan information. Mr. Hutchinson was informed that there was not enough time for this
meeting to take place.
Mr. DeMarco asked Mr. Weiner if they could assist the few people that needed help with
relocating. Attorney Weiner stated Mr. Wolf would discuss this when the Direct Incentive
Program is addressed. He pointed out that they are going beyond what the State
requires to assist these people.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the proposed Land Use Change for property
located at 1801 NE 4th Street to Special High Density Residential at 20 units per acre.
Motion seconded by Mr. DeMarco and carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining).
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to change the zoning to PUD at 1801 NE 4th Street. Motion
seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining).
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the site plan subject to all 36 staff conditions.
Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman. The motion carried 5-1 (Mr. Barretta dissenting
and Mr. Myott abstaining).
VII. Old Business
A. Consideration of Direct Incentive Program for Cornerstone Development's
Barr Property Project (Tabled to March 17, 2005) (Addressed Out of Order)
Ms. Horenburger asked about the $186,000 that has been spent. Attorney Weiner
provided a breakdown of these costs.
Mr. Hutchinson reported that the CRA wanted to make sure that the citizens received a
fair deal with this project going forward, which was over and above what the developer
had put in place. This was a good project and the developer is offering residents of the
trailer park that want to buy into the project $48,000 in discounts per unit. The entire
180 units fit within workforce housing, which is a good project for the City. Staff has
scored the project over 100 points. Mr. Hutchinson's calculations are included in the
agenda packet. His biggest exclusion from scoring was the $165,000 to reimburse the
State of Florida fund for trailer park relocation. He felt this was part of doing business
and was an obligation on the part of the developer. Mr. Hutchinson anticipated the
incentive would be paid off in approximately five years in dollar-certain returns.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out the applicant has gone above and beyond landscaping the
project and he pointed out the developer has offered the clubhouse as a meeting area
for property owner associates and local groups. The total increment is approximately
$195,000 and is performance based. If it went for ten years it would come to
approximately $1.9 million and staff is recommending $1 million.
Michael Weiner addressed the Direct Incentive Program. Attorney Weiner noted the
scoring of the project was excellent, was at least 120 points and it could be even more.
Mr. Weiner noted the CRA has given away over $4 million to other projects in the CRA
area based upon the fact that these projects scored well. Some of the incentive money
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
will be used to help the mobile home park residents. He pointed out the incentive they
have been approved for is less than other approved projects.
Mr. Lenny Wolf of the Cornerstone Group, 2121 Ponce Deleon Boulevard, Coral
Gables, Florida, assumed the podium and thanked the CRA for the scoring of their
Direct Incentive Award. Mr. Wolf wished to address the needs of the residents of the
mobile home park. The first meeting with the residents did not go well and they went
back to the drawing board with the assistance of David Zimet who identified the needs
of various people. They cannot address every single person's need and they have
come up with a plan to accommodate the needs of as many people as possible.
One alternative was to provide residents $6,000 for their trailer, whether they kept the
trailer or not. A second alternative was an $8,000 reduction in the purchase price of a
townhouse, which is already being offered at a reduced price. $200 discounts were
given to residents for their mortgage or rental payment for a period of five years. This
amounts to a $12,000 benefit.
Residents of the trailer park were also offered the $8,000 discount if they wanted to
move to another project Cornerstone was building in Riviera Beach called Marsh
Harbour. This project consists of 402 units on 40 acres with a large clubhouse with
many amenities.
They held a housing fair and Mr. Zimet presented the housing opportunities in Boynton
Beach, together with a mortgage broker and realtors. For the past three months, Mr.
Wolf personally has been dealing with the mobile home park residents. They have had
a fulltime person on the premises to assist the residents. Mr. Wolf stated they will
accommodate all the residents and will try to give everyone what they want. He pointed
out they gave away seven trailers to tenants that did not own trailers because these
people needed them. They have asked for nothing in return and have helped move
them if the tenant wanted their trailer moved.
They have worked with disabled residents; provided free rent to residents; and have
bought groceries because a person ran out of money. They did this because it was the
right thing to do.
As to the amount of money they have expended, they have spent $185,000 that
included a moving bill of $32,000 and they anticipate they would continue to spend
money for this purpose. They did this without any CRA incentives.
Some people mentioned there was nothing in writing, but there was something in
writing. Residents were provided a list of incentives and if someone needed the check
before they moved, they would be given the check.
Mr. Wolf noted there was a question on whether they should be reimbursed for the
money they put into the State Relocation Fund. He felt they should be reimbursed for
these funds. His understanding of the Direct Incentive Program is an incentive to
20
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
developers to redevelop property in certain areas. They should receive the $165,000
they are required to pay into the relocation fund plus the $45,000 for demolition of the
trailers. He pointed out they are going into a "tough" area and will be doing a nice
project.
Mr. Weiner referred to Mr. Hutchinson's figures contained on page 7978 in the agenda
packet. He noted that they are already up to $185,000 for relocation funds, not
$126,000 as indicated in those figures. Attorney Weiner felt the future relocation
expenditures would remain at $323,920.
Attorney Weiner referred to the seven unit discounts at $40,000 each for a total of
$280,000. Mr. Hutchinson stated this was the figure provided to him. Mr. Hutchinson's
report included additional units with deed restrictions and Attorney Weiner did not think
it would be fair they had to sell a greater number of units at a discount and only get
credit for seven units. They feel seven units are appropriate. Attorney Weiner also did
not think that deed restrictions should be included because it would restrict the people
who purchase the units when they go to sell them.
Chairperson Heavilin asked for clarification of the seven units discussed by Attorney
Weiner. Attorney Weiner explained that Cornerstone would be selling seven units to
seven mobile park residents at a discount. Mr. Hutchinson's memo indicated they would
also be restricting an additional ten units. He felt that the City would better address this
by ordinance dealing with Iow-income housing. These units are not Iow-income housing,
but are moderately price.
Mr. Hutchinson explained under the CRA Direct Incentive Program, affordable access is
mandated in the document itself. He pointed out that there are 16 units in the
Promenade that are deed restricted. The CRA is asking for an additional 10 deed
restricted units besides the seven already included. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the
CRA is charged with providing affordable workforce housing for a 10-year period in the
marketplace. These types of units flip fast and prices escalate quickly making them
prohibitive for working families unless deed restrictions are in place. Mr. Hutchinson
explained that the 10 units the CRA is requesting have deed restrictions and would be
sold at market rates.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired what the benefit would be to purchase a deed restricted
property. Mr. Hutchinson explained it is important to have some of these units set aside.
Deed-restricted properties have income qualifications and he wants assurances that
Boynton Beach will offer affordable housing.
Chairperson Heavilin asked what the benefits would be for the buyer at the initial sale.
Mr. Hutchinson explained the buyer would receive a 3% inflation limit on the sale of the
unit and would receive an affordable unit. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out they are only
asking to have 10% of the unit deeds restricted.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Ms. Horenburger noted that the 3% inflation limit is not stated in the memorandum. Mr.
Hutchinson stated that this would be part of the agreement between the parties.
Attorney Spillias explained that deed-restricted units could only be sold to people within
an income bracket that is 120% of median. If a person makes more money than that,
they cannot purchase this unit. The intent is to keep those units available to people who
meet the median income requirements. He pointed out the median does go up and,
therefore, the deed restriction would apply.
Attorney Weiner requested that deed-restricted units be limited to 10 units total. He
pointed out the prices of the project are well below the median house price of $360,000
in Palm Beach County. He also felt this would make things very complicated for people.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that TCA mandates this. If steps are not taken to keep
affordable housing, Boynton Beach will begin to lose its workforce housing.
Attorney Weiner inquired if the Board would be amenable to five-year restrictions
instead of 10 years. Mr. Barretta inquired how deed restricting ten units would hurt the
developer. Attorney Weiner felt the units should be saleable and they did not think
there would be that much difference in the price of the units. If there were deed
restrictions on some units, it would require disclosure.
Mr. Wolf pointed out if there were deed restrictions placed on cedain units, it would
prevent the owners from making a profit when they sell them. He would agree to a
short-term deed restriction to prevent flipping of the property. He felt it would be unfair to
those people who owned their properly for ten years and then sold it and could only
realize a 3% inflation rate profit.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that in 10 years the CRA will be built out and it would be
impossible to replace those units at affordable workforce prices.
Mr. DeMarco noted they have been discussing this for over an hour and he felt it should
be postponed if the Board cannot come to a decision regarding the restricted units.
Chairperson Heavilin recommended scoring the project to determine the maximum
award.
Attorney Weiner stated they would agree to 10 units being deed restricted for 10 years.
Chairperson Heavilin noted staff recommended 10 years and Mr. Barretta felt that 10%
of the units at 10 years would be appropriate.
With regard to the award, Chairperson Heavilin did not recall the incentive awards being
tied into specific costs and expenses. Mr. Hutchinson stated the project was presented
with needing incentives. It was a standalone project and when the developer made a
presentation did not ask about incentives. He was instructed to add incentives in order
to accommodate the residents of Boynton Beach with affordable housing. Originally, the
developer did not submit an application for the direct incentive program until they had to
22
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
deal with the residents of the mobile park. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out the project is
unique, even though it is not in the HOB area, it is in a good neighborhood.
Ms. Horenburger would be amenable to include the $165,000 expended by the
developer in scoring the award.
With regard to scoring the project, Mr. Hutchinson stated if the Board went with staff's
scoring, anything above 100 would be eligible for the incentive program. The Board
could agree with the figure recommended by staff, the $165,000, plus interest.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of staff's recommendation on points and in
accordance with the figures contained on page 7983 of the agenda, with the following
changes: the $126,030 for Relocation Funds be changed to $185,000; the State of
Florida Reimbursement figure of $165,000 be included; and the transpodation costs of
$20,000 be changed to $32,000 for an incentive award of approximately $1,081,000.
Mr. Fenton recommended that the award be rounded off to $1,100,000. Ms.
Horenburger agreed to amend her motion to this amount.
Mr. Hutchinson inquired if the motion also included staff's recommendation for
reimbursement of the money at prime plus two over the term it takes for the developer
to get their money back. Ms. Horenburger agreed to include this language in her
motion. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion.
Mr. Hutchinson inquired how many restricted units the Board was authorizing. Vice
Chair Tillman stated that the motion should include staff's recommendation. Ms.
Horenburger amended her motion to include staff's recommendation on the number of
deed restricted units and term.
Chairperson Heavilin commended the developer on the project.
Vote
The motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining).
Recess was declared at 9:45 p.m.
The Meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
23
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Eric Johnson, Planner, requested that the three items for this project (land use
amendment and rezoning, new site plan and height exception) be heard together.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to remove the items from the table. Motion seconded by Ms.
Horenburger and unanimously carried.
Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq (Tabled to March 17, 2005)
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Boynton Beach Lofts (LUAR 05-003)
(Tabled to March 17, 2005)
Mr. Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning
Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Louis F. Mascia/Boynton Motel LLC
623 South Federal Highway
Request to amend the Future Land Use
designation from Local Retail Commercial
(LRC) to Mixed Use (MX); and
Request to rezone from Community
Commercial (C-3) to Mixed-Use Low (MU-L)
Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the items on behalf of staff and displayed the location
of the project on the location map. Staff reviewed the request for the land use and
rezoning and is recommending approval based upon the fact the requested land use
and rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Highway
Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Policy 1.13.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the
City shall continue to encourage infill development and redevelopment by implementing
actions of the Boynton Beach 20/20 Master Plan and the policies contained in the
Coastal Management Element.
Staff reviews Land Use Amendment/rezoning requests based on eight criteria and the
applicant has adequately addressed the eight criteria. The project is located within the
boundaries of the Federal Highway Corridor Study Area #4 that allows for mixed use
land use designations and mixed use Iow zoning category. They reviewed the project to
insure that adequate public facilities are in place to support the development and the
project has been reviewed for traffic concurrency, utilities, police and fire service,
drainage and school concurrency and the project will comply with all those components
at the time of permitting.
24
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
B. New Site Plan (Tabled to March 17, 2005)
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Boynton Beach Lofts (NWSP 05-008)
(Tabled to March 17, 2005)
Mr. Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning
Consultants, Inc.
Louis F. Mascia/Boynton Motel LLC
623 South Federal Highway
Request for new site plan approval to construct
a mixed-use project consisting of 48 multi-
family dwelling units, 5,364 square feet of retail
and 13,354 square feet of office on a 1.21 acre
parcel in a MU-L zoning district
Mr. Johnson displayed the site plan on the screen and noted the project consisted of
one building, comprised of two towers. There would be a five-story tower on the west
side, fronting on SE 4th Street and a six-story tower on the east side fronting on Federal
Highway. A two-story parking garage would be in the center of the two towers.
C. Height Exception (Tabled to March 17, 2005)
1. Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Boynton Beach Lofts (HTEX 05-001)
(Tabled to March 17, 2005) (Moved up on
the agenda)
Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning
Consultants, Inc.
Louis F. Mascia/Boynton Motel LLC
623 South Federal Highway
Request for a height exception of three (3) feet
- two (2) inches pursuant to the City's Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning,
Section 4.F.2, to allow the mechanical room
housing elevator/stair tower to be 78 feet - two
(2) inches above the 75~foot maximum height
allowed in the Mixed-Use Low (MU-L) zoning
district.
The MUL zoning district allows for a maximum height of 75'. The building complies with
the height, but there is a portion of the building that exceeds the 75', which is an
elevator tower. The building itself is less than 75', but the portion that exceeds the 75' is
eligible for a height exception. The applicant is requesting a height exception of 3'2" and
staff has found the request reasonable and is recommending approval.
The project will have two points of ingress and one point of egress. One ingress would
be along Federal Highway and would be an entrance only. Egress would be only on SE
4th Street.
25
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
The project will have 48 dwelling units that would be comprised of one and two bedroom
units that require 85 parking spaces. The project will have 5,364 square feet of retail
space on the bottom floor along Federal Highway and there will be 13,354 square feet
of ground-floor office space fronting SE 4th Street.
Under normal circumstances, 156 parking spaces would be required and the project
would have a deficit of 37 spaces. However, in the mixed use-low zoning district, they
can avail themselves of the Urban Land Institute's shared parking table methodology to
determine how many parking spaces are required. Using this methodology, the project
would require 116 parking spaces. The applicant will be providing 116 parking spaces,
plus three additional ones.
The project complies with the 20% pervious area. The applicant has proposed a large
area of landscaping along Federal Highway and Mr. Johnson displayed the landscape
plan. Staff is recommending that the previous area be decreased in order to create
more of a gathering place that would provide more walking and meeting areas.
Next displayed were the elevations of the project and photos were presented to the
Board. Mr. Johnson reviewed the elevations and stated that the building did comply with
MUL zoning district in terms of height. The building meets all the setback requirements
and requested that the architect discuss the architecture of the building itself. Mr.
Johnson pointed out that in the immediate area there is no "theme" and therefore
compatibility is not an issue.
There are 56 conditions of approval and Mr. Johnson stated the applicant agreed to all
56 conditions. There are no conditions of approval for the height exception and staff is
recommending approval of the land use amendment/rezoning. Mr. Johnson concluded
that the project would provide an economic contribution to the neighborhood and the
C ty.
Bradley Miller, of Miller Land Planning Consultants, represented the applicant,
Addison Properties' of South Florida. Mr. Miller will address the three items
simultaneously. Also present with Mr. Miller was Francesco Perez, the architect of the
project, along with James Seifert of Addison Properties. Mr. Miller reviewed the project
as previously presented by staff. He explained that on top of the second story of the
garage there would be a recreational area for the residents of the community. The
recreational area would include a pool, cabana and landscaping that will provide a nice
area for the residents of the residential units.
Mr. Miller reviewed the colors of the building. The need for the height exception is due
to the elevator shaft and stairwells and is only required in one area. Only 2~ % of the
entire roof area would exceed the 75' height limit. This would provide access for fire
apparatus to the roofline.
26
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Mr. Miller reviewed the architecture of the buildings and noted the project has been
modified as a result of receiving input from staff and some of the Board members.
Features that have been added to the elevations include a cornice at the top of the
building, awnings above the balconies on the top floor of the building, some balconies
have been opened up, and they used more railing. Additional windows have been
introduced and the solid wall on the side of the building has been opened up to expose
the stairwell for visual relief on that side.
Similar features have been introduced on the Federal Highway side that Mr. Miller
reviewed. They have opened up the project to make it more visual.
Mr. Miller concurred with all 56 staff conditions and comments included in the staff
report. He noted a great majority of the comments relate to permit issues or are required
by another agency.
Mr. Myott inquired why comment #56 was still in the staff report that reads, "staff
recommends adding more architectural elements and accents to all facades to enhance
the overall appearance of the building." Mr. Myott inquired if this comment should be
removed from the comments.
Mr. Johnson responded that the applicant has not formally resubmitted revised plans.
Therefore, for the record, the plans being reviewed tonight reflect what the project is.
What Mr. Miller has presented and what he has shown staff are some enhancements
that will satisfy the Board's demands. Mr. Johnson was of the opinion that what the
applicant presented would satisfy condition #56, but he recommended it remain in the
conditions of approval until the plans are submitted to staff.
Mr. Barretta did not think that the enhancements addressed comment #56 because
comment #56 states architectural elements should be added to all facades and this has
not been presented for the two long facades where the garage is located. Mr. Barretta
felt comment #56 left the project open to a staff negotiated design that may or may not
look like what was being presented tonight.
Mr. Barretta noted staff comment #55 states that aluminum framework inside the
"window" openings of the parking garage in order to enhance their appearance be
added. If the Board approves the project tonight, they will have no way to know what
the parking garage would look like. Recommendation #54 recommends installing more
brick pavers in the front to increase the size of the pedestrian/public gathering space,
which means the site plan would change. Mr. Barretta was opposed to approving a site
plan they would not know how it would look since this is negotiated with staff and
referred to several other staff conditions that would change the look of the project.
Mr. Barretta felt comment #47 appeared that staff wants the applicant to match the
quantities of the landscaping plan with the tabular data, which he equated to mean that
staff had some doubt what was presented would meet what was on the tabular data.
27
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
To Mr. Barretta, there were too many open-ended conditions for this Board to approve
the project tonight. He noted he had requested that the Board have an opportunity to
meet with staff to discuss these kind of open-ended conditions and he would
recommend the project be tabled and sent back to staff to readdress the conditions of
approval. Mr. Barretta will withhold his motion to table to allow the other members to
speak.
Mr. Francesco Perez, the architect, disagreed with Mr. Barretta comments and
requested he be allowed to address them. He met with Mr. Barretta and specifically
addressed his concerns and Mr. Barretta told him he was agreeable with the way they
were approaching the project. With regard to Comment #42 addressing the revised
massing model was made because the massing model showed that the two towers
exceeded the 75', which is not the case. Staff is requesting that they accurately show
that only one tower exceeds 75'. Mr. Perez did not consider staff comments to be loose
ends.
Regarding the tabular data for the landscape plan, this does not change the project and
he did not feel that the project should not be approved because of some tabular data.
With regard to comment #54 regarding staff's recommendation to install more brick
pavers, this has been reviewed with staff. He does not feel that adding some brick
pavers would significantly change the site plan, nor the look of the project. They have
done a good job with the project and have agreed to all staff conditions.
With regard to comment #55, the aluminum framing, this has been provided and is
included in the drawings submitted. In comment #56 where staff recommends more
architectural elements, they have also complied with this comment.
Mr. Barretta disagreed with Mr. Perez's comment that he met with him and addressed
his comments. Mr. Barretta stated that he met with Mr. Perez twice and felt that Mr.
Perez ignored his comments. He never told Mr. Perez that his comments were
addressed. Mr. Barretta would vote against the project because his comments
regarding the parking garage have been ignored. Mr. Barretta is recommending the
project be sent back to address the open-ended comments.
Discussion ensued regarding comment #43 dealing with the massing model. Mr. Miller
stated that the plans were prepared in accordance with the step back. Mr. Johnson
stated that this comment merely means that the dimensions of the step back need to be
shown on the massing model, which does not change the design of the building. Mr.
Johnson further stated if the dimensions meet code, there should be no problem and it
appears that the dimensions do meet code.
Mr. Miller stated the grillwork for the parking garage has been submitted and they have
addressed the sides of the building by opening up the stairwells and have provided
more windows on the north and south sides.
28
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Members offered their individual views of the project and several members felt that the
windows needed more treatment.
Mr. DeMarco inquired if the applicant was complying with staff recommendations. Mr.
Johnson responded that staff recommendations are not required by code and the
applicant and staff have had discussions and stated that they agreed with all
recommendations. Mr. Johnson explained that when a project goes through the
Technical Review Committee that is when these issues are addressed. Staff makes
recommendations to make a better project and staff feels that the recommendations
would make the project better. He pointed out that the applicant is in agreement with
those recommendations.
Motion
Mr. Barretta moved to table the site plan approval to allow the applicant to address staff
conditions and that the site plan come back to the Board without any conditions
because they would have been addressed. Motion seconded by Mr. Fenton
The Recording Secretary called the roll and the motion to table the site plan carried 4-3
(Chairperson Heavilin, Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Myott dissenting).
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that staff brings the items to the
Board with full knowledge that some of the comments are open-ended. The purpose of
this is to keep a "hook" on the project and it allows the members to interject and
participate in the process. What the Board just did was not provide staff with specific
comments and direction, but sent everything back to the drawing board to begin all over
again.
Mr. Barretta stated that at the CRA retreat they discussed the availability of a petitioner
being able to come before the CRA Board for preliminary review for specific comments.
Mr. Miller requested that they be provided with some specific direction and Chairperson
Heavilin explained that the item has been tabled and therefore it cannot be discussed
any further. Individual Board members, however, could convey their concerns to the
applicant.
Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing on the Future Land Use designation for
Boynton Beach Lofts. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing on the request to rezone from
Community Commercial (C-3) to Mixed-Use Low (MU-L) for Boynton Beach Lofts.
Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Heavilin opened the public hearing on the request for height exception for
Boynton Beach Lofts. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
29
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to amend the Future Land Use
designation from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Mixed Use (MX). Motion seconded
by Mr. Barretta and unanimously carried.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to rezone from Community Commercial
(C-3) to Mixed-Used Low (MU-L) with the restriction on retail uses. Motion seconded by
Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request for a height exception for three (3) feet-
two (2) inches. Motion seconded by Mr. Barretta.
Chairperson Heavilin questioned if the height exception should be approved without site
plan approval.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that the remainder of the meeting would have to be continued.
He recommended that the height exception, along with the site plan, be tabled to a
future date and perhaps the items could be brought back to the continued meeting
along with the site plan. It was noted that the site plan had already been tabled.
After discussion, it was determined to continue the meeting to Wednesday, March
23, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in Commission Chambers.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger withdrew her motion to approve the request for a height exception and
Mr. Barretta withdrew his second of the motion.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to table the height exception for consideration with the site
plan. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried.
Attorney Spillias noted that Mr. Barretta's motion was to table the site plan and send it
back to staff. Therefore, it needs to be determined if staff and the applicant could get
together before Wednesday to address the issues that were raised.
Mr. Rumpf stated that staff needed direction. It was just stated that the applicant would
be given time to meet with the individual Board members for their direction regarding
the site plan. He did not think there was enough time between now and Wednesday for
30
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
staff to meet with the applicant to review revisions and reformulate the site plan in
writing.
Attorney Spillias noted that since Wednesday is a continued meeting, the site plan
would appropriately be on the Board's next regular agenda for April and on Wednesday
the Board would deal with the remainder of the agenda.
2. Project: Barr Property (NWSP 04-013 (Tabled to
March 17, 2005 (Addressed previously)
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities
BMVFL-1, Inc.
1801 NE 4th Street
Request new site plan approval for a 180-unit
townhome development on a 9.88 acre parcel
in a proposed PUD zoning district
C. Height Exception (Tabled to March 17, 2005)
1. Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Boynton Beach Lofts (HTEX 05-001)
(Tabled to March 17, 2005) (Moved up on
the Agenda)
Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning
Consultants, Inc.
Louis F. MasciaJBoynton Motel LLC
623 South Federal Highway
Request for a height exception of three (3) feet
- two (2) inches pursuant to the City's Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning,
Section 4.F.2, to allow the mechanical room
housing elevator/stair tower to be 78 feet - two
(2) inches above the 75-foot maximum height
allowed in the Mixed-Use Low (MU-L) zoning
district.
Motion
VII. Old Business
Consideration of Direct Incentive Program for Cornerstone Development's
Barr Properly Project (Tabled to March 17, 2005) (moved up on the
agenda)
Mr. Barretta moved to continue the meeting to Wednesday, Mamh 23, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Motion seconded by Ms. Horenburger and unanimously carried.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 17, 2005
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. and the remainder
of the agenda was continued to March 23, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara M. Madden
Recording Secretary
(March 22, 2005)