Loading...
Minutes 06-09-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger (arrived at 6:41 p.m.) Steve Myott (arrived at 6:37 p.m.) Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Absent: Henderson Tillman, Vice Chairperson I. Call to Order Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared all members were present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Barretta and unanimously carried. IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes - May 10, 2005 Workshop Meeting; May 10, 2005 Meeting; and May 24,2005 Special Meeting. Chairperson Heavilin pulled A for discussion. B. Financial Report. C. Consideration to Purchase Sims Property Located at 909 N. Seacrest Boulevard Mr. Fenton pulled Item C. for discussion. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Barretta and unanimously carried. 1 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 V. Public Audience None Chairperson Heavilin recognized Commissioner Ensler in the audience. VI. Public Hearing Old Business A. Code Review 1. Project: Building Colors along Major Roadways (CDRV 05-009) (Postponed from May 1.0, 2005 meeting) City initiated N/A Proposal to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapters 4 and 9 to limit building colors, and require the review/approval for changes to building colors for buildings located along Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway and Congress Avenue Agent: Location: Description: Mr. Rumpf gave a PowerPoint presentation and reported the City Commission directed staff to research existing regulations and colors, and to consider regulations to meet the intent of regulating changes in building colors. Staff looked at this for specific corridors in the City, (1) U.S. 1, (2) Congress Avenue and (3) Boynton Beach Boulevard. It was not the intent, however, of staff to limit their research only to those areas and the Planning and Development Board recommended that staff's research go beyond the selected corridors. Mr. Rumpf noted that color regulations could be restrictive and contrary to the Heart of Boynton Plan theme as being "Floribbean." "Floribbean" colors could be bright hues of green, yellow and orange. Staff will be asking this Board how they want to approach the colors for the Heart of Boynton. Staff is recommending the following: · The aesthetic appearance of major roadway corridors in the City be maximized. · Establish a regulatory system, which could be subjective. · Regulations must be clear, concise and defensible. Staff will attempt to identify (1) what is on the horizon, (2) to discuss and identify preferences and colors found to be objectionable, (3) to discuss regulatory alternatives, (4) to get the feel for the subjective nature of color regulations in general, and (5) find a way to place an objective limit on colors using the Munsell Color Classification system. Staff also would like to obtain a of consensus or agreement on color groups that would be included in the regulations. They are proposing to add a less subjective element to the regulations, but to set some thresholds. Staff would like to determine what groups of colors are preferred and a group of colors that could be used. Lastly, they need to determine limits of the most intense colors. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Rumpf said he would introduce some terminology that he would be using throughout his presentation and the different words used to describe the different components of a fa<;ade. These definitions are contained in the agenda packet under "Definitions." Also, staff would attempt to show how attractive buildings could be created despite limitation of building colors. Therefore, the components of a building are (1) base, (2) secondary, (3) accent and (4) trim. Slides of various properties were shown and reviewed. Consideration would have to be given to whether their colors would be permitted today. Staff is looking at how the regulations need to be worded or changed to accommodate certain situations being displayed and discussed. Darker colors could be questionable and would be determined on how the standards are proposed. Staff's intent for showing these buildings was to present examples of how color and eye-catching and attractive elements can be introduced into a project without it appearing inappropriate for the project. Next discussed were general regulatory options. Mr. Rumpf reviewed the regulations of eight states throughout the country. Members were directed to the table on the first page of staff's report. The table presents a general example of various regulatory methodologies from the most restrictive to the least restrictive. The most limiting would be a color palette. A color palette would only allow a certain number of colors that developers could select from. The Planning and Development Board and this Board were against this type of regulatory system. Another possibility would be to have subjective codes that would be reviewed by a board. This would mean the colors would be appealing and consistent with adjacent properties. Color standards could be relative standards that would be consistent with established colors in the City. Lastly, the City could have no color requirements whatsoever. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that cities have not adopted very strict regulations, but have merely adopted general descriptions and categories. Slides of colors used throughout different cities were presented and reviewed. Ms. Horenburger referred to the handbook utilized by the City of Naples that they provide developers showing what is acceptable. Currently, the City reviews colors for new projects using the terminology and regulations that speak about compatibility. Mr. Rumpf reviewed major and minor changes to projects. Mr. Rumpf reviewed the language in Part III of the LOR, Chapter 9 (Community Design Plan) that is used to review new projects and is set out in paragraphs Band D of page 2 of the staff report. The language states the building should be designed compatible with an existing character in that area, if it so exists. Staff would apply this thinking to the entire building that would include details, appurtenances and colors. Currently, this is the limit to the City's regulations. Ms. Horenburger was in favor of having a process in place for painting commercial buildings for both new and old buildings. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that staff's proposed changes would address all changes, both old and new, on the selected corridors, except for single-family residences. Staff is proposing to include upper limits, or maximum colors in order to make the regulations defensible and less subjective. In order to achieve this, Mr. Rumpf explained the Munsell Color Classification system that staff is proposing be adopted. Samples of colors were presented to the Board in order to acquaint the Board with the Munsell system. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 The Munsell system breaks down colors into three different attributes - (1) hue (color family that is the primary and secondary color), (2) Value, and (3) Chroma, which Mr. Rumpf explained. Mr. Rumpf explained how the process worked. It is not staff's intention to deal with this on a daily basis because it can be very time consuming. The intent of the system is to provide a framework or limit on colors. Staff is proposing that the limits be at 8 for Value (the Planning and Development Board recommended 9) and a 6 for Chroma. This will not severely limit the secondary colors and does not put any limits on the accent or trim colors. What staff wants to achieve is to set maximum limits for the base color. Mr. Rumpf referred to Paragraph K under Part III, Section 11, Exterior Building Design in his report, that in essence states the regulations are important. If the City has to defend the regulations, they have to explain why they are important. He recited from Paragraph K that read, "The intent of this section is not to require identical colors, but to require the careful selection of colors that will contribute to the overall appearance of the City." Mr. Rumpf advised that when exterior paint colors are to be changed on an existing building located in the defined corridors, this section would apply. Actually only Section l1.K would apply to prevent someone who is only painting their building in order to meet rooftop screening requirements of accessory equipment or rooftop equipment, i.e., only the paint section would apply. Mr. Rumpf next reviewed the corridors he previously referred to, but noted the language is not entirely new to the Code. Mr. Fenton inquired if the bright-colored village on the south side of Gateway applies to the proposed regulations. Mr. Rumpf referred to Section B of the staff report that deals with residential projects that would allow more flexibility for residential projects. Mr. Rumpf responded that they would be allowed under the new regulations. Mr. Rumpf explained that staff is bringing these proposals forward to have something to start with as a base. Mr. Fenton did not equate the colors presented as being "Floribbean" that he feels are vibrant colors as opposed to the muted colors presented. Mr. Rumpf explained that the colors presented were what were on the street currently, and a majority of them would meet the regulations, but would not allow the intense colors of a Caribbean palette. Residential projects would be allowed a greater gamut of colors that would include white, beige and earth tones. As it is written now, the Caribbean gamut of colors would not be allowed. Mr. Barretta asked what would be considered a "mixed-use" project and Mr. Rumpf stated it would apply to commercial, not residential. Base colors would be light or high value colors, limited to whites, grays, and beiges. Atypical colors such as purple, pink, blue, green and teal will be substituted with more pastels or hue categories, such as yellow or peach. Secondary colors will not cover more than 25% of the wall area and would be consistent with the wall color standards or could be a moderately saturated wall color, or moderately saturated complimentary color. Trim and accent colors would be the most saturated colors allowed and it is encouraged to be complimentary earth tones and/or pastels. If applicants would like to use a color that is out of the recommended ranges, they may be required to provide proof using Munsell chips and research of their own and present them to staff to show what the values of those colors would be and their Chroma number. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Barretta requested that instead of secondary colors not being greater than 25%, it be stated it could be approximately 25%, because sometimes it might be necessary that a secondary colors could take up 26% or 27%. Mr. Rumpf agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Barretta was also concerned that all buildings have base, secondary and trim colors because some beautiful buildings could be single or two color buildings. He was opposed to a building being mandated to have base, secondary and trim colors. This could eliminate many examples of architecture throughout the world. Mr. Rumpf felt this was a good point, but many remarkable projects referred to by Mr. Barretta are done elegantly with a great deal of architectural appurtenances, elements and details. In that event, Mr. Rumpf felt it would be necessary to state the project would have those elements. Mr. Rumpf noted Mr. Barretta's suggestions. Mr. Myott was not in favor of raising the value up to 9. He thought 8 would be more than sufficient and Mr. Barretta agreed with this. Chairperson Heavilin noted that Mr. Rumpf displayed some very attractive buildings in light blues and teals and questioned if the new regulations would exclude those colors and Mr. Rumpf stated this was possible. Mr. Barretta inquired if pastels, such as yellow and peach, would be allowed. Mr. Rumpf responded that yellow and peach would be encouraged over teal, blue, and purples. Ms. Horenburger questioned why pink would not be allowed. Mr. Rumpf explained that the industry's description of white bases could include yellow. Ms. Horenburger also pointed out that earth tones could encompass a great many colors. Mr. Rumpf stated if the Board wanted to include pink, they could recommend that it be included. Mr. Myott felt it would be helpful if they were provided with the color charts. Ms. Horenburger inquired if the City ever had a Community Appearance Board that reviewed this type of issue. Mr. Rumpf responded that several years ago, the Community Design Plan was divided into three different districts. Depending upon where a project was located within the City, the project would fall within one of three design districts and it would have to be designed according to that district. This included architectural style and palette of colors and elements. Many years ago the City had a Community Appearance Board that reviewed projects and made recommendations. There also was a CRAB Board in the downtown area. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that if the board was comfortable with the color groups, but did not want to be restrictive on the value and chroma, those items could be modified. Mr. Myott questioned whether or not a disclaimer could be included that would say, "or upon consideration and approval of the City Commission and CRA board..,". If a developer really did not want to follow the guidelines and was able to make a good enough case, then the developer would have to convince the board and Commission to vary from the guidelines. Chairperson Heavilin confirmed that an appeals process is included in staff's recommendation. Mr. Myott felt that an appeal could be considered from the beginning, but the developer would know that a higher level of scrutiny would be involved. Ms. Horenburger felt that the developer should have the right to appeal any decision to the City Commission. Mr. Rumpf advised that staff is recommending that the Planning & Development Board or the Community Redevelopment Agency would be the board to hear the appeals and make the decisions. Appeals to the boards are the final step. The developers could not bring the appeals to the City Commission. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. DeMarco pointed out that developers should have an opportunity to try out a color on a wall since small paint chips can be deceiving. Many times the color is much darker on the wall than it appears on the paint chip. Mr. Rumpf felt there would be no problem with the developer splashing paint on the wall to ensure it is the correct color. Mr. Rumpf explained that there will always be a case where someone will not comply with the standards. It might be necessary to include language stating that the board or Commission could approve a project regardless of whether or not it meets the standards. Chairperson Heavilin felt it was necessary to have flexibility since there may be projects in the Heart of Boynton that would not be held to these standards. Mr. Rumpf explained that the majority of the projects in the Heart of Boynton will be residential buildings with bright colors. The "Floribbean" palette is different from the standards indicated. Mr. Fenton would like the word "and" changed to "or" in Number 5. The way it currently reads, review before both boards would be necessary. He is hopeful that the Planning & Development Board will be reviewing the ones outside the CRA and the CRA will be reviewing the projects within the CRA area. Mr. Rumpf confirmed that this was the intent and agreed to change the word "and" to "or". Ms. Horenburger referred to Page 8454C, Item B, Residential, and questioned whether that referred to only new projects or an existing structure. Mr. Rumpf responded that this referred to both changes and new projects. The entire chapter on new construction applies to the project. That text would fall under that chapter. On an existing project, Number 5 applies. Ms. Horenburger questioned how the people owning existing projects would know that they must meet certain regulations. Mr. Rumpf said that the City will have to get the word out. Mail-outs could be used. Mr. Rumpf feels direct notification works best. Ms. Horenburger suggested providing notices to establishments that sell paint. Ms. Horenburger asked what process is in place for existing commercial establishments within the corridor for a change in paint color. Chairperson Heavilin referred to 8454G. Mr. Rumpf referred to the major or minor criteria section in Chapter 4, Site Plan Review. These paragraphs explain what needs to be submitted. Mr. Barretta pointed out that multi-family projects are part of the residential criteria and a Mixed-Use project must follow the commercial criteria. He felt this needed more consideration. Mr. Rumpf explained that a majority of the mixed use projects will be on major corridors and based on the restrictions of Mixed-Use High and Mixed-Use Low. They do not have the same characteristics as residential projects. Mr. Rumpf said compatibility text is included in the guidelines and staff has the ability to review a project against the compatibility text. Mr. Fenton questioned how this would proceed after the CRA review. Mr. Rumpf said the board would not receive a final document. If the CRA feels comfortable with Mr. Rumpf's level of comfort of the compatibility text, then this will move forward. If the board is not comfortable, then the standards would require more language. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that changes that were requested by the Planning and Development Board that dealt with the change in value and rate, the topic of the Heart of Boynton and the Floribbean impact to the CRA, and the "should", and "will" would move forward to the Commission, unless the board is not comfortable with something in the text and would like a change made to the document. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Chairperson Heavilin said the Planning & Development Board recommended that the corridors be expanded to Hypoluxo Road, Miner Road, Lawrence Road, Knuth Road, Quantum, etc. Mr. Fenton wanted to know how many specific changes the CRA asked for and on the color palette, the minimum value they wanted to go to was 8 and they got 9. He felt this was a conflict. Mr. Barretta disagreed because he felt it could be one value in the CRA and another in the remainder of the City. Mr. Myott reminded the members that Mr. Rumpf's recommendation was for 8. Mr. Rumpf said staff will communicate all of the recommendations to the Commission. For the board's edification, Mr. Rumpf enumerated the board's specific changes as follows: 1. The limit to the secondary color is proposed at 25%. It was recommended to add the word "approximately". 2. Allow some wording to provide some flexibility so that it is not required to have all the four different components to the colors - prime or base, secondary, accent, trim. If the building has the physical attributes, architectural character and style, then it would not be required to have all those different colors. 3. Keep the minimum value at 8 versus 9. 4. Change in wording where it describes the appeals boards from "and" to "or". 5. The board expressed great emphasis on getting the word out and educating the public on this. 6. A little bit of concern was sensed on Mixed-Use projects and whether they are Residential or the Commercial (non-residential) category, and compatibility. Chairperson Heavilin announced the public hearing. Commissioner Bob Ensler felt it was appropriate to make some comments on this issue since there has been a great deal of press on this issue. This issue arose out of Commissioner Ensler's concern over the color of several buildings on major arteries throughout the City. In addressing these concerns with Messrs. Bressner and Rumpf, Commissioner Ensler learned that the way the Code is currently written, color is a minor site plan modification that does not require City approval. When the City Attorney got involved, he recommended that the City establish criteria in order to protect the City legally. Commissioner Ensler reviewed documents from 1992 wherein concern was expressed by Commissioners relative to lack of harmony of color of certain buildings. In 1994, there was Commission discussion about making projects more aesthetically pleasing. Even back in the 1970s when Emily Jackson was Mayor, there were discussions about compatibility of structures within the City. Commissioner Ensler reiterated that his major concern was with the major arteries and the commercial areas located along those major arteries. His concern was not with residential. Michael Weiner, Weiner & Aronson located on Seacrest Boulevard, felt it was good to hear the board state their concern about limiting creativity in Boynton Beach. While there should be community standards, it is important to remember that laws are being legislated. Laws should be a 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 last resort in curbing human behavior. The few times that people have erred in bad taste may not be a reason to put the City into a position of regulating color. It is important not to eliminate quaint. These things give character to a City. It would be a shame to eliminate that possibility. Ms. Horenburger stated the Spinosa theory as quoted by William F. Buckley. "My right to punch you in the nose stops right at the tip of your nose where your right not to be punched begins." We all need to have a voice and be involved. With no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Heavilin closed the public hearing. Mr. Barretta commented that staff had done a good job. Chairperson Heavilin referred to the base color and the comment that it be expanded beyond white, beige and gray, to light pastels. It is her opinion that this is too limiting. Mr. Myott felt that these hues would be included in the whites, beiges and grays. There are tints to these base colors. Ms. Horenburger asked that Gulfstream Boulevard be added to the list of major arteries. Mr. Rumpf advised that staff wrestled with what 36th Avenue was and then determined that it is Gulfstream Boulevard. Mr. Hutchinson felt it was necessary to have something to hand out that would show the details of the hues and the ranges. We need to give a more accurate portrayal of the color areas that have been discussed. Mr. DeMarco congratulated the Planning and Zoning Division for a job well done. Mr. Barretta felt that Mr. Rumpf had summarized the board's request very well and he did not feel the need to see the document again. Ms. Horenburger agreed. Messrs. Myott and DeMarco requested a copy of the colors once they are available. Motion Mr. Myott moved to proceed to the City Commission with the board's comments noted. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that carried unanimously. New Business A. Abandonment 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: 415 SE 5th Avenue (ABAN 05-002) - 8455 Jeanne Heavilin, Salefish Realty, Inc. James E. Ploen 415 SE 5th Avenue Request abandonment of a portion of Railroad Avenue, approximately 30 feet by 77 feet, immediately north of 5th Avenue South, west of Lot 11, Block B of Pence Subdivision and East of the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way Chairperson Heavilin recused herself from the discussion of this case and passed the gavel to Mr. DeMarco. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Ed Breese, Principal Planner, presented the case as described. This property is immediately north of SE 5th Avenue and is situated between a small parcel on the east owned by Mr. Ploen and the FEC on the west. The segment immediately north of this on Railroad Avenue was abandoned by Resolution in October of 1994. When a right-of-way is requested for abandonment, the City transfers ownership to the abutting property owners. In this case, that would be FEC on the west and Mr. Ploen on the east. Fifteen feet would go to each of the parties at no cost. The applicant was required to contact all utility departments. BellSouth is the only one with a buried cable within the right-of-way. BeIlSouth does not object to the abandonment, but wants to ensure that an easement is conveyed that will cover that utility. Staff has determined that the right-of-way does not serve a public purpose and recommends abandonment with the conditions noted in Exhibit "C". Those conditions include the provision of an easement for the BellSouth utility. Ms. Horenburger asked about the remainder of the property to the north and south. Mr. Breese advised that the northern portion has been abandoned to the property owners and SE 5th is on the south. Mr. DeMarco announced the public hearing. Dave Noble of Salefish Realty, Inc., represented Mr. Ploen and offered to answer questions from the board. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that carried unanimously. land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Peninsula at Boynton Beach (LUAR 05-004) Kim Glas-Castro, Bonnie Miskel, Ruden McClosky Jennie A. Smith East side of us 1, approximately 1,600 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (2649 North Federal Highway) Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Local Retail Commercial and High Density Residential to Special High Density Residential; and Request to rezone from C-3 Community Commercial District and R-3 Multiple-family Dwelling District to IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013) Kim Glas-Castro, Bonnie Miskel, Ruden McClosky Jennie A. Smith East side of US 1, approximately 1,600 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (2649 North Federal Highway) Request for New Site Plan approval to construct 30 town homes and 40 condominium units on a 3.S1-acre parcel. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Attorney Spillias commented on ex parte disclosures by members of the Board, advising that Items B & C, Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning and New Site Plan could be considered together for this purpose. The members disclosed their ex parte contacts with Ms. Miskel and the applicant as follows: Mr. Fenton spoke with Ms. Miskel in his office between the last meeting he attended and this one. Chair Heavilin met with Ms. Miskel and the applicant two months previously. Ms. Horenburger and Mr. Barretta also met Ms. Miskel and the applicant in their respective offices recently. Attorney Spillias reviewed the newly instituted procedures for quasi-judicial hearings. After all the witnesses are sworn and people make their appearances, City staff members will present a summary of the issues before the Board and testify as to their opinions and make recommendations. The Staff presentations should not exceed fifteen minutes in length. The applicant will then make their case and the interveners would make their case and the members of the public would offer their comments, limited to three minutes each, and then rebuttals, by the intervener, the applicant, and the staff. At that time the CRA will go into basically executive session and discuss the matter. CRA members can ask questions at anytime during anybody's presentation. If there is an extensive amount of interplay because of those questions at the discretion of the Chair, time limits can be extended, but they will try to stick to them as closely as possible. Attorney Spillias swore in all those who wished to offer testimony or discussion on the Peninsula at Boynton Beach agenda items. Chair Heavilin asked whether the Board could consider Items Band C for the Pensinula at one time, giving separate motions for each. Attorney Spillias indicated that this would be appropriate. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the staff summary of the Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning and advised that staff recommended approval of the request. The property is located in the redevelopment area, Study Area No.1, and is eligible for the density, the land use, and the zoning district. The project would not create any additional impacts on infrastructure that had not been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed Site Plan was consistent with the intent and requirements of the IPUD regulations and meets the requirements for compatibility with the adjacent properties based on the proposed uses, landscape buffers and setbacks; and the proposed project will have a positive impact on values of adjacent properties and will contribute to the overall development of the City. Staff reviewed the Land use Amendment and Rezoning based on the eight required criteria and Peninsula at Boynton Beach demonstrates compliance with all such criteria. There is one condition of approval with the rezoning request in Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval. Mr. Johnson then reviewed the New Site Plan request and advised that staff recommended approval of the request, with 46 Conditions of Approval, some of which had already been met. In his summary, Mr. Johnson related that the subject property was 3.51 acres in size and is developed as the Lake City Trailer Park. The applicant was required to submit a relocation study and the study indicated that there were 45 mobile home lots or spaces but only 32 of them were occupied with units, 25 of which were leased to long-term tenants. The proposed density would be 19.94 du/acre. Staff reviewed the project for concurrency and found that it met all concurrency requirements in the City, the County, and any other applicable agency. The Site Plan meets the minimum standards and exceeds the Code requirements in terms of the parking facility, the landscaping, the buffering, and the setbacks. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Johnson showed a rendering of the Site Plan to the public so they would be able to see where the buildings would be located. There were seven buildings in all and ample buffering. The Board members had seen the landscape plans and configuration of the lot. Mr. Barretta questioned the parking spaces numbered 22, 28, 29, 32, and 33, saying that they did not have the required 24 feet of back-up distance. The applicant responded that this might be an oversight and if it were a problem, those spaces would be eliminated. Mr. DeMarco stated that this had been one of his concerns also. Chair Heavilin asked if the applicant was in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Bonnie Miskel, appearing on behalf of the contract purchaser, stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions. In response to the concern about the parking spaces, Ms. Miskel stated that these spaces were all surplus and could be removed. They would be happy to make adjustments to the islands. They would work with staff to accommodate the Board's desires on this item. Ms. Miskel related a congenial conversation with the owner of the Lake City Trailer Park who had stated that they had a good run and it was time for a change. This project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the CRA goals and objectives as shown in the study performed previously. Ms. Miskel reiterated the high points of the design, commenting on the creative and flexible use of space in the IPUD. The buildings were oriented east and west and north and south. The size of the buildings would be mixed also with two and three story town homes and a four-story condominium building. Views of the water were maximized in all of the buildings. The landscaping for the entire project is lush and extensive. The applicant did not object to staff's request to increase the height of the trees. In summary, Ms. Miskel stated that these were luxury units and the starting price would be in the $400K range. I. Board Questions/Comments Mr. Myott asked the architect to elaborate on the railings for the balconies. Jay Colestock of Colestock and Muir Architects responded that the railing was an open picket rail and the solid line indicates the handrail. Mr. Myott questioned whether the trim was made of foam or cast stone. Mr. Colestock stated it would probably be foam with high-resin on the outside. It would have the appearance of the pecky cypress outriggers with stone crown molding and stone trim around the windows. Mr. Myott asked that staff give more architectural details on the materials in the future. Mr. DeMarco asked about the foam and whether it was stable in hurricane conditions. Mr. Colestock said he had never seen it blow off in a hurricane and it was attached with very thick mastic. The high-density resin on the outside of the foam was almost impenetrable. Ms. Horenburger confirmed that the foam met the requirements of the South Florida Building Code. Mr. Fenton asked Ms. Miskel to outline the applicant's plans to provide for relocating the residents of the existing Lake City Trailer Park. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Ms. Miskel stated that in accordance with Chapter 723, notice was given earlier this year when they filed their original application. A meeting had been held, and a relocation package was presented to the residents who attended. Less than twelve residents attended, although some were out of town and neighbors picked up packages for them. Under Chapter 723, the owner either contributes to the Mobile Home Trust Fund or makes arrangements directly with the mobile home owners. An offer has been made to the mobile home owners that nearly doubles the maximum value associated with the relocation of a singlewide mobile home (representing 90% of the mobile homes on this property). The applicant has agreed to extend the offer to recreational vehicles, which are not entitled to any compensation under State Statute. They believe that their offer was very fair. The meeting was positive and those with concerns wish to resolve them as quickly as possible. Under State Statute, the applicant is required to provide six months notice to vacate. That notice has not been given and the applicant did not intend to give it until September. A program was set up where the applicant was meeting with the mobile homeowners individually in order to assess their wants and needs. The package given to the residents include all the vacancies in other mobile home parks in the area. Some people may elect to look for more permanent housing and a specialist has been made available to them to help identify this when possible. They are doing their best to accommodate all the needs and wants of the residents. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Chris Ciasulli, resident of Boynton Beach, owner of Gateway Marina, and former mobile home park owner, stated that the "doubled value" spoken of by Ms. Miskel earlier was actually about $6,000 per owner. His family has owned this marina for 18 years and it houses over 2000 boats. Although the applicant's attorney referred to the marina as a "less than acceptable" use, there are many people in the community who use and enjoy it. He planned to keep the marina for a long time. He spoke of plans to expand, more than doubling his docks, which were in a zero-lot-line relationship to the proposed development. This would be over 500 feet from the seawall where his longest pier now was approximately 200 feet. His permit was under review by the Department of Environmental Protection and it appeared that it would be approved in September of 2005. One of the Peninsula buildings would directly overlook his docks. He wanted to be able to conduct his business in the same way as had been done for the last 18 years. The Marina has several customers with cigarette boats that pull up to the dock at 10:00 p.m. at night after going to the Banana Boat. There is normal marina activity including sword fisherman who return at 4:00 - 5:00 a.m. in the morning, unload their belongings, flush their engines, and do typical marina activity. The noise from these activities was even less than that of the fork lift trucks, back-up alarms, and other activity in the marina. He felt that a disclosure to the effect that the proposed housing units were next to a commercial business where normal marine activity would take place would be needed. The marina is open to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and he did not want the public to lose that. Although the marina had cohabited successfully with the trailer park and the Lakeshore condominiums during their ownership, and the marina driveway separates the massive storage building from Lakeshore, there was no such buffer to the south. The marina storage building is built on a zero lot line. He also spoke of an existing gutter that went down towards the trailer park into a drainage pipe. He was desirous of maintaining this drainage system (of undetermined ownership) for his 30K square foot roof. Mr. Ciasulli felt that allowing 20 units per acre in the proposed development would create very narrow parking spots. He did not agree that the proposed property was "terrible for commercial 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 use" (referring to a comment by Ms. Miskel earlier), and he would love to have it. The setback would be more on the south side than it would be on the marina side. Tony Morrow, 2611 Lake Drive, Boynton Beach, lives just to the south of the proposed project. He represented himself and many other community members who were concerned about the size of a building that would stick out over the peninsula. They felt that the proposed structure was considerably larger than the size of a normal home and in terms of impact to the current neighbors; it would be as if the proposed structure were a thousand times larger than a normal home. When he and his neighbors look to the north now, instead of seeing the bay, they will see a huge building. They were not opposed to the townhouses or development. If the proposed development had two-story structures or town homes, there would be much less opposition. He praised the City for its recent development of the City. This, however, was an example of a development that totally changed the feel of the area in a negative way. It was just "too much." Ms. Horenburger asked what kind of height was permitted in this area under existing zoning and Mr. Johnson responded that the two zoning districts represented at this property both allowed a maximum height of 45 feet. Mr. Johnson agreed that approving this change would not dramatically change what was currently allowed. Howard Lawson, a resident of Palm Beach County for sixty years and manager of the Gateway Marina, stated that he wanted to see the marina stay for a long time. It was one of the few places where large boats could be hauled out. He referred to the Morrell Marina to the north that had a large housing development alongside it. At that marina there was noise from sanding, grinding, and fiberglass work and the Gateway Marina would be quiet compared to that. There are Boynton Beach residents who have boats at Gateway Marina at this time. Mr. Myott confirmed that the Gateway Marina was outside the city limits of Boynton Beach and that the City had no jurisdiction over that marina and could not tell them to be quiet. The owner of Gateway Marina mentioned that the occupants of the trailer park had complained to the Town of Hypoluxo about the noise from the marina and he had been written up with no proof from the Police that a noise violation had actually taken place. Jane Miller, a neighbor of Mr. Morrow and resident of Lake Drive, Boynton Beach, spoke as a long-time resident of Boynton Beach. She recalled when Boynton was a nice, quiet fishing community. It was no longer that. Their Lakeside Gardens community was small and consisted of single-family homes. They could accept development, but changing their view from a single story house to that of a five-story condominium, with people looking down on their little quiet bay, would completely take away from the character of their community. She wanted to voice her objection to the proposed height, even if she could not stop it. Ms. Horenburger stated that this area had been zoned for a forty-five feet height for a long time and that would be at least a four-story building. Mike Mrotek, 2624 Lake Drive North, Boynton Beach, stated that he owned the property where the "AA" appeared on the diagram. The point and waterfront was backfilled with debris and rubble when the trailer park was developed, and the builder should be aware of this. The existing trailer park was comprised of 45 homes, largely seasonal in nature. The proposal would replace that with 70 units, largely year-round in nature. He was very concerned with the traffic that would result from it. Mr. Mrotek referred to a case where the residents had fought the building of a home on the point (behind the Ladies Club in Boynton Beach), where the proposed building would block the view 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 of the current residents. The residents won the case. That was exactly what was happening with the proposed project. Mr. Mrotek thought that the proposed project was five stories high and a story was 10 feet. This would eliminate any view to the north. He asked that his comments be taken into consideration and passed on to the Commission. Mr. Barretta stated that prior to the public input, he had a very different opinion of the proposed project. He knew that the Marina was not in the Boynton Beach City limits, but it was a neighboring community and there should be a good-neighbor policy. He was concerned about what the developer would do to insure that the marina was not driven out of business by complaints from owners of three-quarters of a million dollar units, when he was already having trouble from the trailer park. He was there first and Ms. Miskel had already referred to the Marina in a disparaging way as an unsuitable neighbor. He wanted to know what the developer was going to do to mitigate the problems that this development would impose upon the Marina. Ms. Miskel said that the beauty of the IPUD was that they might be able to mitigate what they could not under R-3 zoning. As an example, there would be a wall running along the entire north end. She did not mean to disparage Mr. Ciasulli's use, because there were a lot of projects outside of Boynton and projects in Boynton that were marina projects. The fact that a marina is next to residential is not incompatible in and of itself. There was, however, an illegal, non-conforming building on the site of the Marina. His building was closer to his property line than they were allowed to put a building. Unfortunately, that was not a desirable location for his building. However, they did not dispute the fact that he was there first. The project does want to be a good neighbor. They had pushed their buildings away from the border, and the only portion of the building that would be close, the 3-story town home running north south, had no direct openings contiguous to the Marina. They did not have any problem with a disclosure in the association documents that could state the obvious, "If you have not noticed, you are next to a marina." Certain communities that are next to major rights-of-way have language incorporated to put the buyers on notice as in, "Buyer beware. You are in an urban infill area and there are people and uses around you that are going to make noise." They believed their design would promote a good relationship and they had every intention of being good neighbors. They had made no application to change or harm his business. She also commented that they were abutting a multi-family neighborhood, not a single-family one. The people who are located in the R-1-AA actually have a multi-family property to the north of them. They were not directly contiguous to them. Their largest building was a four-story building and it represented only one third of the total site, That four-story building did not exceed the present height limitations. Of greater concern would be the development of the nursery business in this area because that is zoned R-3 multi-family and they are permitted to have heights of 45 feet. There would probably be buildings on that property which would obstruct their view as well. Mr. Barretta asked Ms. Miskel to have someone give a visual presentation of where the large building was. Mr. Fenton did not believe that there would be much of a view going north south anyway. Jay Colestock, the architect, showed the Board where the view started and ended. Anything south of the nursery was in the single-family category, At the very tip of the peninsula, they planned a clubhouse and swimming pool area. They did not intend to have docks, which would probably be an advantage to their Marina neighbor, since there would be no interference and no intermingling of boat traffic. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Baretta asked that someone point out where the most noise-generating part of the Marina's operation would be. Since the answer was not readily forthcoming, Mr. Barretta followed it up by asking how they attempted to mitigate the problem. Mr. Colestock said he had mitigated for the visual effects of the metal building on the zero lot line. Mr. Barretta confirmed that other than the wall and landscaping, there were no mitigating features pertaining to noise. Ms. Miskel said that they were using wind-resistant glass and they thought this would help to mitigate the exterior noise. Also, they planned to provide for soundproofing within the buildings. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Doug Hutchinson whether any conversations had been held regarding any affordable access in this project. Mr. Hutchinson said they were not in the Heart of Boynton area and did not qualify for any direct incentives of any type. Mr. Myott commented to Mr. Morrow and his neighbors that a project had come in to the Board a few months before where the compatibility of existing single-family homes was discussed in contrast to the proposed new buildings. They were very well organized and were able to reduce that building by one story. He felt there were some compatibility issues with this project, but they might not be as significant as ones that could come in when the nursery property was developed. Tony Morrow reappeared at the podium and asked if the building was five stories or four stories. Mr. Myott remarked that the parking was underneath and partially recessed, so there were five levels, but four stories of units. The overall height did not exceed 45 feet. A question was raised about the drainage, and Ms. Horenburger said this would have to be addressed in the Development Plan. Chair Heavilin closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Horenburger was offended by the Marina owner's comment that the Board was here to make changes because of money. He was telling the Board that he was applying to the DEP to extend his docks and surely he was doing that for money. She wondered if the City or the County could protest the extension of the docks at the Marina. Chair Heavilin did not think that this had anything to do with the agenda. Chair Heavilin commented that although some people would lose some of their view, it was a good- looking, well-designed project. She was thankful that this project was before the Board instead of some others that might have been proposed for this property. She was glad to hear that the relocation was underway. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to amend the Future Land Use designation from Local Retail Commercial LRC and High Density to Special High Density Residential, and to rezone the property for C-3 Community Commercial in an R-3 multiple family residential to IPUD for the Peninsula at Boynton Beach LUAR 5- 004. Attorney Spillias commented that the Rezoning had to be in a separate motion. Mr. Fenton amended his motion to exclude Rezoning. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-0. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the rezoning of said property from Community Commercial and Multiple Family Dwelling District to Infill Planned Unit Development. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. Mr. Fenton asked that the motion be made contingent to acceptance of all staff report and conditions. Ms. Horenburger agreed to add this to her motion and Mr. Barretta agreed as well. The motion passed 6-0. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Site Plan for the Peninsula project incorporating all of the conditions and comments of staff. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion. Mr. Myott asked if this was going to be put on the Consent Agenda of the City Commission considering the unanimous vote. Attorney Spillias responded that a Public Hearing was required. The motion passed 5-1, Mr. Barretta dissenting. Code Review Agent: Commercial Uses in Planned Unit Development District (PUD) (CDRV 05-11) S taff- initiated 1. Project: Location: Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Description: Request to amend the Land Commercial Standards, to allow commercial uses to front on exterior or perimeter streets, when such locations are consistent with adopted redevelopment plans. Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, said that the City requested a Code amendment to allow commercial uses in PUDs on the exterior or perimeter streets when such locations are consistent with adopted redevelopment plans and policies. This is another case where suburban development regulations conflict with urban redevelopment plans. In the Redevelopment Areas 1 and 5, when applications are made for the Special High Density Land Use, they also can apply for PUD regulations if they are above five acres. If they are between one and five acres, it is an Infill PUD. In an Infill PUD, commercial uses are allowed only when they front on arterial roadways. There are instances where properties larger than five acres are in areas where a commercial node is already established, and it would be nice to be able to continue commercial along the major roadway and not force residential into that area where it might create incompatibility. There are not many locations where this would apply, but there are some. The proposed language would require only a minor change to the existing language, which says, "Areas designated for commercial activity shall not generally front on exterior or perimeter streets and shall be preferably centrally located within the project." What is being added is: after the word project, "unless these criteria would be inconsistent with or contrary to adopted redevelopment plans. In instances where a PUD and redevelopment area includes commercial uses, it shall be developed consistent with adopted design guidelines or requirements contained in the redevelopment plan." 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of Agenda Item D as requested by staff, Commercial Uses in Planned Unit Development District (PUD). Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the Public Hearing, and closed it when no one wished to speak. Motion Mr. Myott moved approval of Agenda Item D as requested by staff. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-0. VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items A) Aoproval of Minutes from Mav 24. 2005 Chair Heavilin noted that on the last page of the May 24, 2005 meeting workshop minutes, there was a motion and a second to approve the hiring of an Assistant Director. The outcome was not in the minutes. The vote passed unanimously according to Mr. Hutchinson and no one disputed that. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2005 meeting as amended. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0 (Ms. Horenburger was not on the dais.) C) Consideration to Purchase Sims Property at 909 N. Seacrest Boulevard Mr. Fenton asked for an official vote on this Consent Agenda item. They would be paying 123% above the appraised value and over the property owner's appraisal. This purchase would be a fiduciary responsibility that should be shared by the Board. He felt that it should not have been in the Consent Agenda. Chair Heavilin had some concerns about the discrepancies in the two appraisals. Mr. Fenton agreed, saying there was a huge difference. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the first offer had been based on the first set of appraisals that were found to be off by as much as this. Also, this gentleman also has a business in the area and has other fees for relocation that added to this total price. It was not just the single appraised value, but other considerations too. The value the CRA would pay is in line with adjacent properties in the area. Mrs. Adams, two doors away, was paid in the same range. Mr. Sims has a larger lot and an operating business on the property. Chair Heavilin did not dispute the $223K appraisal; her question was the $100K appraisal. Mr. Hutchinson said those appraisals were being thrown out and they were in the process of re- appraising all the properties going through Eminent Domain and using a new appraisal company. The appraisers were using property appraisals that were about a year old and that was not suitable in his opinion. They had seen a 41% increase annually in this area and this had been documented. Mr. Hutchinson was confident that the price range was correct and would be the price range if they were in Court. Mr. Myott asked for the square footage on this property. Barry Lazarus, The Urban Group, said that they would be paying about $40 per square foot. In his opinion, relative to the other properties in the area, this seemed to be a fair deal. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the purchase of the Sims property located at 909 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. VIII. Old Business (not addressed) IX. New Business (not addressed) X. Commission Action (not addressed) XI. Director's Report Mr. Hutchinson stated his report had been given to the members, who had also received updates. Mr. Hutchinson asked that the Board members provide their comments to him. He especially appreciated having their comments in writing. It also helps to have Legal and staff response to the comments. Mr. Myott questioned an E-mail he had received from the CRA office about the preliminary proposed draft ordinance for affordable access. Mr. Hutchinson responded that they were applying the matrices for this program now. This was an early peek for the Board members. Chair Heavilin asked about the Director's Report memorandum, saying that the LDR project was about 25% complete and the project is about 80% complete. Mr. Hutchinson said the LDR was 25% complete and the 80% was on the Design Guidelines and the updated Vision 20/30. There were three separate documents, he said. Chair Heavilin noted that there was: 1) Design Guidelines at 80%, 2) The Unified Update CRA Plan at 85 and 80%, and so forth. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he would apply additional proofreading to the documents that were sent to the Board members. Mr. Barretta asked when the actual Design Guidelines could be expected. Mr. Hutchinson noted that this would be brought to the Board for a workshop in July of 2005. Staff would have the revised corrections by the end of this month and the Board members would have them in time to review before the workshops. In perspective, there used to be the full City staff and a consulting company working on this and it did not get very far and this is why the CRA brought it back in house. With the advent of the Assistant Director, Mr. Hutchinson and Ms. Brooks will be able to redouble their efforts on this issue. Mr. Hutchinson invited the Board members to stop in at the CRA office and obtain a copy of his marked-up version and make comments at the same time. The CRA staff is marking it up and sending a marked-up copy to City staff. Most of it is good, and there is only a narrow section where a new Urban R-3 is being written for compatibility since the existing R-3 is not compatible with the CRA redevelopment. This is a top priority for staff because they want it to go through the Board and on to the City Commission to meet submittal deadlines for the Department of Community Affairs. This has to be transmitted to them in October of 2005 for the April placement. XII. Board Member Comments Mr. Fenton asked about a comment from earlier minutes where the statement was made that the signs would be up for the trolley in three weeks. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the stakes were in the ground and the City crew had been a little pressed for time. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Fenton inquired about the Events Coordinator and whether or not one was going to be hired. He also asked if there was an actual position for a Marketing Director. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the Administrative Assistant Position was changed to Marketing Director with its associated pay scale. The Events Coordinator fits into this pay scale scheme. Ads had been published for the Secretary and Events Coordinator. When the Assistant Director arrives, she will sit in on the interviews and that process will begin on the 20th of June. Final interviews are projected to take place by the end of June. Ms. Horenburger asked if the Secretary was the General Secretary/Receptionist or was the Secretary an assistant to the Director or Assistant Director. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the Secretary was a receptionist who also answered the phones and took direction for secretarial assignments from Mr. Hutchinson. Ms. Horenburger asked how many people had been in this position for the last three years, and Mr. Hutchinson responded, that there had been three in four years, but this was not unusual for secretarial turnover in the industry. XIII. Legal (not addressed) XIV. Other Items (not addressed) XV. Future Agenda Items Mr. Hutchinson commented that on Item G under Future Agenda Items, the workshop dates and locations were still accurate. Ms. Horenburger asked how much money had been spent so far on the Attraction Complex, and Mr. Hutchinson responded, "about $7SK." Ms. Horenburger noted that it was still unclear whether they would be able to put this facility on the Intracoastal and Mr. Hutchinson responded that they should know this by August 2005. Ms. Horenburger stated that for the information of the Board members, the Army Corps of Engineers had just turned down a project on the Intracoastal. Attorney Spillias stated that he had copies since his firm had represented hc had bccn thc ;)ttornc'f for the unsuccessful applicant. Great emphasis had been put on the fact that the proposed project was residential in nature, that there were other alternatives on land that the City owned already. They were analyzing the opinion right now to see how it might impact the CRA's project in Boynton Beach. Attorney Spillias will come back to the Board with an informed opinion on the likelihood of success of this project. Chair Heavilin asked about the issue of the ordinance concerning the car wash in the M-l zoning. Mr. Hutchinson said the process had been changed and preliminary hearings would be held before the issue comes before the CRA to give the CRA guidance. The Commission made this policy change. It will then go back to the Commission. Chair Heavilin asked about the impact to an applicant, and Mr. Hutchinson responded that this was not the CRA's decision. The Commission can pass what it likes and the City Commission will decide whether the CRA needs to hear a particular item. Ms. Horenburger stated that she was talking about future procedures. The CRA Board advocated something and it changed from the CRA Board's decision to the City Commission. Mr. Hutchinson said that the CRA was a recommending Board only. Ms. Horenburger agreed, but stated that the CRA had recommended something and then it changed. Mr. Hutchinson was told this is the City Commission's prerogative. Attorney Spillias stated it could change from "here to there." The CRA could turn down a project and if the developer made changes that satisfied the City Commission, the City Commission could decide in favor of the project. Or, the City Commission could just not accept 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 the CRA's recommendation. Mr. Hutchinson said the record did show what the CRA recommended. Ms. Horenburger asked who changed the recommendation. Mr. Hutchinson stated she would have to speak to Mr. Bressner. His understanding was it came from a third party to the Commission. Staff only had a few minutes to review it before it went before the City Commission. This was hearsay, however. Chair Heavilin said in an effort to streamline the CRA meetings, Legal had been asked to come up with a quasi-judiCial procedure, the Board liked it, and it was adopted. There was some confusion about the Board being able to ask questions at any point. In the middle of public hearing, staff or the applicant should not be called to answer questions, Attorney Spillias saidL ~6f anyone from the public does not raise the question of his or her time being taken up with questions in the middle of his or her presentation. Chair Heavlin wanted to suggest that during the Public Hearing, questions only be addressed to the person who is speaking, not to the applicant or staff. Ms. Horenburger said at times, a person from the public will come up with something that is absolutely incorrect and she felt it should be corrected right away. Chair Heavilin still thought jumping from the public to staff to applicant was confusing. Commissioner Ensler came forward to clarify the carwash ordinance issue. He stated that when the Ordinance came before the Commission, it was for a carwash on the main arteries. Because of the applicant, there was concern that it might be equivalent to spot zoning since there was a specific place in mind. This came up during first reading of the ordinance before the Commission. At that point in the meeting, staff recommended a change that the ordinance apply to having a carwash anywhere in the M-l Zone as a conditional use. It was either at first reading or at the prior meeting. Because of the change, a "third" reading had to be added to the process. This is why Ms. Horenburger suggested that staff make it clear on the second reading if there was opportunity to comment that what was before them was not what the CRA recommended. Commissioner Ensler said her point was well taken because the ordinance that was before the Commission is not the ordinance that was brought before the P & D Board or the CRA. Commissioner said the Board might want to make a decision about whether it wanted to forward a recommendation to the Commission before it voted on the second reading, that the ordinance come back to the CRA for its review again. Mr. Hutchinson said as staff, the answer would be absolutely. Otherwise, what the CRA had recommended needed to be stricken from the record in regard to this issue since it was "apples and oranges." The current form of the ordinance does affect the CRA now in a negative manner. All the provisions that were advantageous to the CRA were stricken and it was said the CRA had approved the recommendation. He felt this was not the case because it was completely different from what was shown to the CRA when it made a recommendation. The Board should have had an opportunity to look at the ordinance if its opinion was going to be considered. The Board agreed. Attorney Spillias suggested that a way of handling it would be to make a motion to authorize a letter to the City Commission expressing the intent and request of the Board to have this issue brought back to the CRA for consideration. This could be drafted by staff and signed by the Chair. Ms. Horenburger left the dais. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to authorize a letter to the City Commission expressing the intent and request of the CRA Board to have the carwash ordinance on main arteries issue brought back to the CRA for consideration. The letter would be drafted by staff and signed by the Chair. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida June 9, 2005 Mr. Fenton asked if the intent was to bring the ordinance back for CRA consideration, the Board wanted to see the "other" version from the City Commission come back to the Board. Mr. Hutchinson said the ordinance could be amended to make carwashes conditional uses in the CRA zone. In order for the Board to recommend that amendment, the issue had to come back before the CRA. The motion passed 6-9 5-0. Ms. ,'1orCAIJurgex feft the fflcct/Ag.Jt 9:51 p.m. XVI. Future Project Review (not addressed) XVII. Adjournment The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Minutes transcribed from recording by: ~<-~~ ~ /lC<<-~~ Barbara Madden, Recording Secretary ~,~ ~YI1t ~I Susan Collins, Recording Secretary ~p~ Unet Prainito, City Clerk (June 27, 2005) 21