Loading...
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)