Loading...
Minutes 08-09-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9,2005 at 6:30 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Vice Chairperson Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Absent Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson James Barretta I. Call to Order Vice Chair Tillman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and served as Chair in the absence of Chair Heavilin. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda None B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to adopt the agenda. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that passed 5-0. IV. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes - July 12, 2005 Meeting B. Financial Report - June 30, 2005** C. Consideration of Florida Employer Solutions Agreement to Perform a Human Resources Study** D. Authorization for Utility Easement of the Northern Portion of CRA Property for Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension Project** Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 E. Consideration of TUG's Supplement to Task Authorization CRA03-02 for Continued Real Estate Acquisition Services in the Heart of Boynton** **These items were pulled for discussion. Mr. Hutchinson suggested reordering the Public Hearing items to put the Arches project first in deference to the large number of participants in the audience for that project. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to reorder the agenda to allow the Arches project to be heard first. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. The board members in opposition to this believed that there were equal numbers of participants in the audience for the Uptown Lofts and the Arches projects. The motion failed 2-3, Vice Chair Tillman, Mr. Myott and Mr. Fenton dissenting. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 5-0. V. Public Audience Attorney Spillias reviewed the quasi-judicial board procedures. In response to the board's request, Attorney Spillias revised the procedure to include an item allowing the CRA staff members to offer their comments and recommendations. The revised procedure was distributed to the board members at the meeting. VI. Public Hearing Attorney Spillias swore in all persons who would be speaking during the public hearing. A. Abandonment 1. Project: Uptown Lofts @ Boynton Place (Gulfstream Lumber) (ABAN 05-003) James Vitter, Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. Gulfstream Lumber Northwest corner of Woolbright Road and Federal Highway Request for Abandonment of a portion of a 50-foot right-of-way (SE 3rd Street, formerly known as Alden Street) Agent: Owner: Location: Description: With the board's consent, the abandonment and the new site plan request were presented simultaneously. Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, affirmed the portion of S.E. 3rd Street to be vacated no longer served a public purpose. The remaining portion of the roadway will be configured to proVide access to the proposed development. The developer will provide a bump out on his property to facilitate the current resident's back out maneuvers. Staff recommended approval of the abandonment. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 New Site Plan 2. Project: Uptown Lofts @ Boynton Place (Gulfstream Lumber) (NWSP 05-021) James Vitter, Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. Gulfstream Lumber Northwest corner of Woolbright Road and Federal Highway Request site plan approval to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 43,361 square feet of retail, 474 multi-family dwelling units, and 20 townhouse units, on a 14.58-acre parcel in the Mixed Use-Low zoning district Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Eric Johnson, Planner, summarized the staff report. The intent is to raze the existing structures at the former Gulfstream Lumber Company on the corner of Woolbright Road and Federal Highway and replace them with a mix of retail and residential uses: two 5-story apartment buildings, a 3- story mixed-use building, and three 3-story townhouse buildings. The eastern third of the development would be comprised of the mixed-use buildings: commercial below and loft units above. The central third would be comprised of the townhouse buildings and the western third the apartment towers. Mr. Johnson stated that staff recommended approval of this project, contingent on approval of the associated abandonment. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, noted that the project had been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Federal Highway Corridor Plan. They also believe that the project exemplifies the spirit of what the CRA is trying to do in the area. There are two critical intersections in the CRA area: Ocean Avenue and Woolbright Road, and this project is one that would elevate the area to match the CRA's plans. CRA staff recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Myott expressed concern for how people would know where to park with the mixed retail and residential uses. Mr. Johnson responded that a signage program would be developed to address this in the near future. Mr. Myott expressed disappointment with the quality of the presentation materials given to the board members for a major project that would have an enormous impact on the City. The board and the public deserved and needed an easy-to-understand representation of the proposed project to see what was being proposed. He expressed further disappointment that the project architect was not in attendance to guide people through the project. M. Myott directed his comments to Planning & Zoning staff and the Arches project representatives as well. In other towns where he had observed large-scale development presentations, he had seen 3-D computer renderings that made the process of understanding the project much easier for the board members, commissioners, and residents, who were not all architects. He wanted to see developers for such large projects come before the board with first-class presentations including PowerPoint presentations and animation. Vice Chair Tillman, Ms. Horenburger, Mr. Fenton and others agreed with Mr. Myott's observations. Ms. Horenburger wanted to get a better idea of what the project would look like. The presentation provided made her wonder whether the project would actually be done or whether it would be flipped after approval to allow someone else to do it. She wanted to hear from the owner or his representative in addition to the Engineering firm. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Mr. Fenton was concerned about whether a fire truck could get around in the proposed site, and was assured that it could with the off-site improvements proposed by Engineering. Mr. DeMarco expressed concern about the safety of the people in the residential units. Ben Campbell, Kimley Horn, 601 21st Street, Vero Beach, representing Epoch Properties, explained that the residential units and residential parking would have card/key access and would not be open to the public. Mr. Campbell responded that they had provided several rounds of renderings for the project and had met with City staff on more than one occasion to discuss the architectural elements of the project and all the renderings that were included with their application. It was his understanding that what they were showing was what the approval would be contingent upon. Animation was possible and could be done with time and money, but they understood that what they were proposing was more than what was expected. Mr. Myott said it was not more than expected and the presentation was the dead minimum for what was required. While he was disappointed with the presentation materials provided, from an elevation standpoint it appeared to be a good-looking project. Kyle Riva, President of Epoch Properties, 359 Carolina Avenue, Winter Park, FI appeared to answer questions about the project. Mr. Riva apologized for the presentation's shortcomings and offered to show a PowerPoint presentation of many of the project's colored elevations. The board expressed a desire to see the presentation. With one exception, staff had not seen this presentation. Handout copies of the PowerPoint presentation were given to the board and circulated through the audience. The temporary project name is Las Ventanas of Boynton Beach. An overhead view of the entire Gulfstream property outlined in red was displayed. All of the residential units in the project are rentals in a range of $1,300 - $3,000 per month. The parking decks for the two residential buildings were displayed. The parking deck is one level and totally open to the public on grade level, so people coming to the retail can park and walk. Access to the top level is restricted and the residents would use catwalks from their parking area to their residential units. There is street- level parking throughout the complex as well. Mr. DeMarco was concerned about the colors proposed for the building. Mr. Riva stated that the colors were intended to be Mediterranean in type and the colors would have to be approved before proceeding. Mr. DeMarco asked Mr. Rumpf whether the recent adoption of a color code applied to this project. Mr. Rumpf responded that the color code was still in process and had not yet received Commission review. Mr. Myott asked if there were any plans for commuter rail access for the rental towers adjacent to the tracks. Mr. Riva responded that they had not considered this at this point. Mr. Myott expressed appreciation for the PowerPoint presentation, which was a big help in understanding the project. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Hutchinson how this project fit in to the affordable housing issue. Mr. Hutchinson did not think that $1,300 per month would be considered affordable housing. The CRA is considering several projects and programs concerning affordable housing, but this project did not come in for incentives. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Mr. Myott noted that some of the details shown in the presentation were rather schematic and asked whether they would be presented in detail in the final construction plans and Mr. Riva responded in the affirmative. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Riva to be certain that the CRA Planner and the Planning & Zoning staff are made aware of the element details. Mr. DeMarco reiterated his concern about security for the residents. Mr. Riva responded that the individual units would have alarm systems. The alarms would not be monitored but could be if the individual renters so desired. They go from their units to the card/key restricted access top two levels of the parking garages. Mr. DeMarco asked if there would be on-site security. Mr. Riva remarked that they were managing about 8,500 units across the country at present and had yet to determine a need for 24-hour security. Mr. Hutchinson expressed appreciation to the developers for their efforts to bring a project forward that would enhance the CRA area. Vice ChairTil/man opened the floor to the publiC to speak and closed it when no one came forward to do so. There were no further questions from the board. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve request for abandonment of a portion of a 50-foot right-of-way (SE 3rd Street formerly known as Alden Street). Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve request for site plan approval (Uptown Lofts @ Boynton Place) to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 43,361 square feet of retail, 474 multi-family dwelling units, and 20 townhouse units, on a 14.58-acre parcel in the Mixed Use-Low zoning district, subject to all conditions of approval. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that passed 5-0. B. Maior Site Plan Modification Attorney Spillias swore in the people who arrived after the first swearing in. 1. Project: Agent: Arches (MSPM 05-008) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Request major site plan modification approval for the construction of a large scale mixed-use project consisting of 378 dwelling units and 38,599 square feet of retail on :i:468 acres in the Mixed Use-High (MU-H) zoning district Owner: Location: Description: 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Heiqht Exception 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Arches (HTEX 05-006) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, Ruden McClosky Boynton Ventures, I, LLC Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Request for a height exception of 17 feet pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.2, to allow the top of the elevator shafts and stair towers to be 167 feet in height, a distance of 17 feet above the 150-foot maximum height allowed in the Mixed Use-High (MU-H) zoning district. Description: Attorney Spillias addressed the board concerning the existing direct incentive grant agreement entered into with the principals for the Arches project at the time the project was originally approved. The agreement is tied to the site plan and any modifications to it. Conversations were held with staff and the developer to determine what impact, if any, this site plan modification has on the existing direct incentive grant agreement. A disagreement exists between the developer's attorneys and staff in this area. The legal issue centers on Section 4 of the direct incentive grant agreement provision called "Developer's Construction of the Project." It reads: "Developer agrees to construct the project as described in the site plan and to maintain the public parking and other public areas as set out therein. The site plan may be modified from time to time by the developer in accordance with and pursuant to the code of ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach, provided however, that the developer shall not have the right to substantially reduce the number of residential units, the amount of commercial square footage, the size of the public improvements, the number of commercial or publiC parking spaces or any other change which would substantially reduce the taxable value of the project without the prior approval of the eRA. " Substantially as used in this section means any change that would trigger a major site plan modification. When the CRA staff reviewed the requested site plan modification, they took the position that the changes did substantially reduce square footages for the commercial area and that the proposed changes do trigger a major site plan modification. CRA staff's view is that this would constitute a violation of the agreement and call for having the developer go back through the scoring process and enter into an amended agreement. Attorney Spillias pointed out that the current agreement calls for potential incentives of $5M, $2M of which is to be paid up front. Counsel for the Arches maintains that the changes are not substantial because the value of the project, if the site plan modifications are approved, will go up rather than down. They feel that this should allow the incentive agreement to remain in place as is. Another potential argument in favor of that position would be that this board's approval of the site plan modifications would be approval of the changes as set out in section 4 and therefore, the incentive agreement would remain in place as it exists. Attorney Spillias thought that the better argument and more reasonable interpretation was that the intent of the board was for the incentives to be tied together with the site plan that was approved and any major changes to the site plan would call for a rescoring. He could not guarantee that if this went to litigation, a judge would agree. Attorney Spillias outlined the options. He announced that he had not spoken to any of the board members about this and had no idea how the board was thinking. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Options: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Recommend approval of site plan modifications and keep current incentive agreement intact (no legal impact) Recommend approval of site plan modifications but require rescoring of the current incentive agreement (may have to defend against a claim that site plan approval automatically grants approval of existing incentive agreement) Recommend denial of site plan modifications based on land use, zoning code criteria not tied to incentive agreement (no legal impact to incentive grant because this would not trigger section 4) Recommend denial of site plan modification based on desire not to risk automatically approving the incentive agreement going forward (may trigger section 4) If the City Commission approves the modification of the land use over the CRA's objections, there is no issue (could require developer to go through rescoring process) If the City denies the site plan modifications based at least in part on the CRA's recommendation of denial, and the CRA's denial recommendation indicates it was based on the incentive grant agreement, the issue would be raised as to whether or not the CRA applied appropriate land use criteria to the decision and whether or not the CRA would be permitted to consider the incentive grant approval or denial as part of its decision. He realized this was all somewhat complicated and suggested that when the board made its decision, it should be based on land use criteria. After the public hearing, if the board were concerned about getting into a legal quagmire over this, it could forward the item to the City Commission with no recommendation one way or another. This would leave the issue of the site plan approval with the City Commission but the CRA would clearly not have approved the site plan and no argument could be made that the CRA approved the extension of the incentive grant to this particular site plan. Vice Chair Tillman heard that the board had to make it clear whether or not its decision on the site plan modification did or did not include the original incentives. Attorney Spillias said the board was not being specifically asked to rule on the incentive agreement at this meeting. As it was presented to Attorney Spillias, the developer's attorney believes that the incentive agreement did not belong on tonight's agenda because the changes would not trigger section 4 in any event. Therefore, the board could approve the site plan modifications and the City could approve it and they would be entitled to the grant funds. CRA staff does not agree with that position. The issue he had not had time to research was that when there is an incentive agreement that is not a land use document but is tied to the site plan, was whether it was legal and appropriate for the CRA to consider the impact on the incentive agreement when it considers the site plan approval. Ms. Horenburger had met with the CRA Director the day before this meeting and this was not mentioned. She was concerned about that. She confirmed what she had heard in section 4, that a major site plan modification that would affect the taxable value of the property would trigger a rescoring. She inquired what the date of the original agreement was, and Attorney Spillias responded that it was dated and signed on November 19, 2003. Ms. Horenburger was confident that property values had increased significantly in the last two years and that the suggested improvements would not reduce the taxable value of the property. In response to what constituted a major change to a site plan, Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, stated that the most objective and quantifiable criterion was an increase in buildable square footage up to 5%. Another criterion would be a change in the site plan whereby it did not 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 resemble the prior site plan. Another would be that the project required a variance in conjunction with the change or was deficient in regard to the regulations. Since this developer went through the major site plan modification process and given the changes, they did not need to review it for these criteria. Ms. Horenburger stated this project had acquired additional property since that agreement, so the taxable value was obviously greater than it was in 2003. Attorney Spillias re-read section 4 of the incentive grant agreement. He was not the attorney for the board when this agreement was established and did not know what the intent of the board was at the time the agreement was made. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the board members had asked to hear both sides of the issue. Ms. Horenburger asked which board members had asked for this, and Mr. Hutchinson responded: Vice Chair Tillman, Mr. Barretta, and Mr. Myott. They had asked Mr. Hutchinson to look into the standing of the incentive grant agreement. That had been done and it was now in the board's hands. It may become a moot point. The board may decide to go ahead with the project and at some future time might wish to put the incentive agreement on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Myott asked Attorney Spillias if it would be an option to have the attorneys work this out before the board had to make a decision. Attorney Spillias said this would depend on the developer's timeframes and finding the time to negotiate. It also hinged on the intent of the board and the intent of the developer upon entering into the agreement. It would have to be discerned from the documentation. He would sit down with the developer's attorneys if requested to do so. Vice Chair Tillman said the board had a project in front of them. He believed that the incentive agreement issue could come after the board's decision. At the end of the discussion, if the board wished to tie in the incentive agreement and the intent of the parties, it could do so. Mr. Myott asked if they could feel free to bring up these options during the discussion on the project. Attorney Spillias suggested that the incentive agreement was about providing funding and was, to some extent, a separate issue from that of determining whether or not the site plan changes are appropriate for this project and this location. He suggested that this discussion be left to the end. Ms. Horenburger suggested that she did not believe this needed to be worked out between the attorneys. They had already stated they disagreed. The Board had to decide this and the decision, based on her understanding of what was read, was whether the site plan modification, major or minor, reduces the taxable value of the property. She submitted the idea that with additional land attachment, the taxable value would definitely not be reduced. Eric Johnson, Planner, explained that this project had originally been approved in 2003 for a new site plan. Since then, the owner had acquired additional property. The property is in the study area of the Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and as such, is eligible for Mixed Use-High zoning and Mixed Use-Core land use. The newly acquired property has a classification of Mixed Use, so a Land Use Amendment and Rezoning needs to take place. At a subsequent meeting there will be three requests for abandonment and one request for a land use amendment and rezoning. The commercial square footage has decreased overall by 14,568 square feet. The applicant did not bring forth a plan that itemizes office or restaurant uses. This can be addressed at a later time if the applicant wishes to convert commercial to those other uses. Right now, they were presenting a plan that shows 487,596 sq. ft. of retail and 378 one and two-bedroom units. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Mr. Johnson displayed a drawing of the site and pointed to an alley that had been abandoned at the time of the original site plan approval. The applicant will be requesting that a right-of-way be abandoned. There are sidewalks that the applicant desires to be abandoned. Staff does not support the abandonment of the sidewalks but will support abandonment of the right-of-way and of the alley. Staff reviewed the project for traffic concurrency and the Palm Beach Traffic Division determined that the project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. City Utilities staff determined there would be enough potable water and sanitary sewer service to accommodate the proposed uses. The drainage plan was reviewed initially with a more thorough review to follow during the permitting process. The School District determined that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the new residents. The project now takes up two full blocks. The main entrance point is off Federal Highway with alternate entrances off S.E. 4th Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue. All lead to an interior courtyard. There is a three-story retail building and residential towers that are fifteen stories tall. There is also an internal five-story parking garage facing S.E. 4th Street. The project requires 753 parking spaces and the plans provide 777 parking spaces. This does not include the parallel spaces on Ocean Avenue or on S.E. 2nd Avenue. The MU-H zoning district requires 15% pervious area and the plans provide above and beyond that. Staff noted that at the time of permitting the developer has to provide 5% natives in the landscaping of the project. The trees would be spaced at one per twenty feet. One of the fifteen-story towers has an elevator, stairwell and some decorative elements that exceeds the allowed 150 feet threshold, so the request is before the board for a 17 foot height exception, dependent upon this space remaining uninhabitable. Staff understood that the applicant agrees with all 77 conditions of approval. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, reviewed the project for consistency with the Federal Highway Corridor Plan and Ocean District Plan and made recommendations to improve the pedestrian area of the project. This was the major intersection of the CityjCRA. She recommended approval with the listed conditions and recommendations. Mr. Fenton asked about the CRA item #76. He saw a water element in the northeast corner on the developer's drawing. Ms. Brooks stated CRA staff was looking for additional features of architectural significance on all corners of the project, to relieve the long, massive buildings, especially on the intersections. Ms. Horenburger asked about condition #69 calling for a reduction in the size of the public plaza and Ocean and Federal Highway. She had met with the applicant and spoken about some of these issues. The other condition she questioned was the condition to have a staging area in front of the fountain that would accommodate live music and entertainment. One condition asks for a reduction in the size of the public area and the other asks for the addition of a staging area. When Ms. Horenburger asked the developer about this comment, they stated they were designing it so that there could be staging and that the fountain itself would actually accommodate a stage for live music and entertainment rather than designating a space that would be rarely used for that. Ms. Horenburger agreed with having a feature on each corner of the property such as architectural, landscaping, and lighting, but did not feel that a water feature on each corner was appropriate. Attorney Bonnie Miskel, a land use attorney with Ruden McMcClosky appeared on behalf of the developer. She thanked CRA and City staff for the extraordinary efforts they had 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 made to bring this project before the board and for their assistance and cooperation throughout this and the original process. They also thanked Mr. Spillias for the time he had spent on evaluating the legal issues. Ms. Miskel commented on Mr. Johnson's statement that the applicant agreed with all the conditions. Although they agreed with all City staff conditions, they did have some problems with some of the CRA staff conditions and would address them after their presentation. When Ms. Miskel asked to bring up an associate to address the incentive agreement issue Vice Chair Tillman expressed a preference to continue with the project presentation and discuss the incentive agreement at the end, if necessary. Ms. Miskel introduced the project team starting with her client, Ryan Weisfisch of Maxwelle Realty, who brought the project to the City originally. She then introduced Howard Hirsch, architect with Hirsch Associates, and Erez Bar-Nur of Bradshaw & Associates, the landscape architect. The new site plan has placed all of the retail space on the thoroughfare frontages of Federal Highway, Ocean Avenue and S.E. 4th Street and Ms. Miskel highlighted this as one of the major improvements of the new plan. The previous plan located 30% of the retail interior to the project. The original plan had trash locations on Ocean Avenue and no trash removal for Block 2 and this was now moved off Ocean Avenue at a more conveniently located trash removal site on the other side. For 40,200 sq. ft. of retail, they were now offering 202 parking spaces. The original plan for 56,000 sq. ft. had 167 spaces. The parking garage was seven stories and it was now down to five stories. The ground level was only for 42 spaces in the original plan and they were now offering 127 spaces. The traffic pattern was also greatly improved. They did not agree with reducing the size of the public plaza and, in fact, had tripled it and added extensive landscaping. The water features they originally intended had been expanded to an 18-foot by 18-foot fountain, a significant water feature. Their amenity deck is now twice the size of the one in the original plan. They had added 102 residential units and were expecting the prices to be in the neighborhood of $200K to $600K per unit. With the additional 102 units, there would be an increase in value of nearly $40M and they believe that would be a significant improvement that would give greater value to the CRA and the community. Howard Hirsch, President and Owner of Hirsch Associates LLC, an architectural and planning firm located in Chicago, Illinois explained the history of his firm and their other projects. Most of their projects are residential in nature or multi-use developments in urban settings known as infill developments. Mr. Hirsch showed a presentation depicting numerous projects including ones in the West Loop area of Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona. Each has a very strong presence along the street and contains a mixed-use program of retail, parking and residential that is integrated into the project. Their most current Florida project is a condominium in Long Boat Key that was about to begin construction of 14 very high-end units on the Intracoastal complete with boat slips. These units will sell for $1.5M and up. Mr. Hirsch presented a PowerPoint program about the site plan for the Arches project. The buildings are L-shaped around a central courtyard. The L-shaped buildings have a taller east/west component of fifteen stories and a north/south component of four stories. The four- 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 200S story component is pulled out to the street and becomes the scale that Boynton Beach is looking for on Federal Highway and contains retail on the ground floor with residential units above. The fifteen story buildings have been pulled back from the fal;ade, creating very interesting and set back corners at S.E. 2nd Avenue and at the plaza on Ocean Avenue. The corners have been designed to have glass canopies. The setback and the vertical nature of that really brings the special prominence to the corners that staff was desirous of seeing. There is a tall, two-story element on the corner at S.E. 4th Street that makes a transition around the corner. In the center of Federal there is access by automobile to a landscaped courtyard in the center. That courtyard is the entrance and access to the residential towers. The lobbies are located off that interior courtyard as opposed to off of the streets around the perimeter, allowing for more retail and a more coherent look to the plaza and street frontage. There is a one-way traffic flow in the courtyard that has very convenient parking for visitors and protected access points for each of the residential buildings, as well as access into the parking structure that is located along S.E. 4th Street. There is also access to the parking structure off of 4th and access off of 2nd Street, so that people who are coming to shop or dine do not have to go through the plaza although they can. The signature plaza on the corner has been designed as a series of courtyards defined by trees and plantings anp a type of activity zones. This allows more defined zones for outdoor dining for potential restaurants or outdoor retail sales. There are some smaller and more comfortable interior zones that can be used for small gatherings, seating, activities, and significantly more green space along Ocean Avenue as well. The fountain has been moved to a third zone that provides a strong focus point for the entire corner. There is seating around it and this is the point at which there can be a stage and activities if desired. The trees have been planted in raised planters that provide seating areas for people so that it has become a more active plaza. Mr. Hirsch showed slides of the upper stories, stating that the first major change starts on the fifth floor where the L-shaped portion of the building along Federal drops off, which gives some large rooftop areas that can be used as a kind of amenity. There were some large terraces or decks for the units on those corners. One slide depicted the sixth floor rooftop amenity deck that goes over the entire parking structure. The amenity deck has been designed to provide a swimming pool, cabanas, a shaded rooftop element, exercise and meeting rooms in each of the buildings that will have access to gathering areas. This is a place for the residents only so there would be no increase in traffic because of it. This was one of the key selling points of their entire project. The seventh through the 15th floors are typical tower elements. Each of the corners is treated with glass elements with recessed balconies providing shadow and a sense of scale. There is no "back" to the buildings, having all been treated equally. In reference to the height exception, the main roof is within the 150 feet allowable height for this district. The elevator and stair towers are the only elements that exceed the height limitations. The elevator and stairs/penthouse/access to the roof are understandable. The ones on the corners, though, are the result of an effort to create some more variation to the rooftop, to provide a stronger vertical element and to provide a special element at each of the transition points and building entrances. The amount of total space for these decorative elements that exceed the height limitations is quite small in relation to the total amount of area of the project. Mr. Hirsch showed the Federal Highway four-story elevations. There are fabric awnings, all-glass storefronts, and a very open and inviting frontage that would draw visitors to shop at the stores and create the activity the CRA wants to see. Up above, there are three stories of residential with recessed balconies and punched windows in order to create a variation in types of windows and fenestration. At the top of the element there is a strong, cantilevered roofline that creates a shadow that creates a strong top for the building. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Mr. Myott asked if the glass railings were frameless or with metal caps. Mr. Hirsch responded that the railings had metal caps. Mr. Myott asked what the finish of the walls would be. Mr. Hirsch responded that they would be a post tension concrete block building with a stucco finish. Mr. Hirsch introduced Erez Bar-Nur, the landscape architect from Bradshaw & Associates in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida, who gave a very detailed, informative PowerPoint presentation on the landscaping for the site. His firm specializes in "Place Making," where they design gathering spaces for the enjoyment of all people. They strive for a powerful project image with planting, water, lighting, and landscape features. He showed images of past projects including CityPlace in West Palm Beach, the entryways for Olympia and Buena Vida in Wellington, and a water garden in downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Mr. Bar-Nur went on to describe the various site character details including landscaping, lighting, and so on for the Arches. The board thanked him for a very informative, professional presentation. Bonnie Miskel affirmed that the applicant had no objection to the conditions of approval through and including item #68. Condition #69 to reduce the size of the plaza was a surprise. They believe the proposed plaza is more versatile and because of its size, enables more activities. Ms. Miskel added that one of the most significant improvements to the current project over the old one is the addition of three more parcels to make it two entire blocks. The applicant also took exception to Condition #70. They had provided an 18-foot fountain as a significant feature, although it was not interactive. Regarding Condition #72, there was a point of clarification. The minimum size of the planter/benches was specified to be 6 x 6 X 30, and the applicant recommends a height of 24 inches as being more conducive to comfortable seating than 30 inch. The original plan did not proVide for any retail uses on S.E. 4th Street and none were provided in this plan. Ms. Miskel commented that they had spent a lot of time evaluating the market and looking at what made sense and where the commercial frontage should be. They had located it in the right locations. Condition #75 is not indicative of market, and in the original meetings, this is what they were told to do. Regarding Condition #76 and the water features, the design provides for features at every street corner and had expanded the water feature from the original plan. They were landscaping and architectural features, but they felt they had provided features that would draw the eye. The concern they had about water features, especially on S.E. 4th Street and the thoroughfares not as heavily traveled, is that they may end up being attractions for vagrants, loiterers, and the homeless, possibly even being used as restroom facilities. Mr. Myott asked about Condition #43 regarding the sidewalk abandonment that has a major impact on density and related matters. Ms. Miskel said that this was on the CRA's next agenda and not before them today. If not approved, the applicant recognizes that they would be required to reduce units. Although it may seem extraordinary to the City, it is done regularly in other cities. You are allowed to provide a sidewalk by easement versus dedication and this is what they were proposing to do. Regarding Condition #75, CRA staff recommended that the frontages have active uses such as office or retail or, if approved without the condition, garage openings at all levels of S.E. 4th Street should have metal trellises with bougainvillea or equivalent species. The applicant did not object to the latter. They did not consent to changing the uses on S.E. 4th Street, but were willing to convert to trellises on S.E. 4th Street if the board wishes. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9,2005 Ms. Miskel summed up with the request the board consider approval with recognition of their objections to the listed conditions. Vice Chair Tillman opened the floor to the public. David Zimet, Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC, referred to the legal discussion about the incentive agreement and potential rescoring. If the developer is rescored, he asked that the CRA give consideration to affordable housing. Mayor Jerry Taylor, 1086 S.W. 26th Avenue, Boynton Beach, complimented the board for the work and effort they were putting in to get a downtown for this community. He believes the board is doing outstanding work and asking the right questions. He thanked them for that. Mayor Taylor's interest in the site went way back to when there was a little biker bar on the corner, which later became The Dolphin Restaurant. Then the original Arches project was presented on a much smaller footprint than the project now before the board. The current developer did what was necessary to purchase the additional property to give the City a much nicer project for the downtown, including the lovely amenities. He liked the water fountain very much and commented that the City was working on having an interactive fountain elsewhere. He felt that water features on all four corners would be "overkill." He suggested to the developer that they consider the type of fountain that is capable of different colors of water, which was beautiful. People would sit for hours and watch that and the idea was to bring people downtown. He liked the large size of the plaza because it would give people room to circulate. The parking is increased considerably and the whole layout is more significant than the original plan. Mayor Taylor felt the City should regulate the color of such things as awnings in the City's residences, but not in the commercial/marketing arena. If the original project, which had a worse layout, an 8-story garage, and less area for people to walk around in was worthy of the incentives, then the present project with its layout, 5-story garage, and large public areas would certainly be entitled to the incentives. He felt it was responsible of the board to ask about the incentives, but after hearing what the City would be getting, the only conclusion could be that this project was more than worthy of the incentives. The City had waited a long time and it was time to act, time to make this happen. He encouraged the board to approve the project, get it done, and give it to the community. Harvey Oyer, 512 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, owner of the property across the street from the proposed project, declared he was a member of a group that opposed this project originally and filed suit to get a declaratory judgment. The legal issue is not settled. The people in the community voted in 1982 for a 45-foot height limitation. This was either the second or third referendum to establish such a limitation. It was done after the then City Attorney Raymond Ray wrote to the then Attorney General Bob Butterworth, who ruled or gave the opinion that the legislature, in setting up a Home Rule Law, overrode previous legislation. Then the people voted again. There has been a precedent in Volusia County, Ponce Inlet District, where the Court upheld the validity of a referendum over the actions of a city council. He thought the developer was being left open to future litigation. A few years back, a group of over a hundred people had a planning session and the city adopted a plan where along Ocean Avenue it was to be more of a historic district, multi-use, with low height limits. The City put in new sidewalks, cut down the park to make it pedestrian friendly, and another political group came along and did away with it. They did not elect to go into the administrative court to see if the City had violated an administrative code, but he suggested the courts in the past had upheld referendums over ordinances. He thinks the City has made a mistake and that the City should have gone to the court and asked for a declaratory judgment instead of taking the position that people don't fight city hall. In summation, "the Methodist Church owned the subject corner when u.s. #1 was a two-lane road. The traffic in 1925 and 1926 was too great to hold church services 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 there so they sold the property. A group came in to put in a seven-story hotel. The Florida land boom busted, they did not pay the rest of the money, and the court ruled the steel in it belonged to the seller because he had not been paid. The Japanese bought it and shot it back at us in World War II. The banks busted." He felt this project was a mistake and damaging to the City from an economic and a legal standpoint. Brian Edwards, 629 Northeast 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, offered his opinion that "things had changed." He supported this project before and supported it now. The project had grown and improved and he hoped the incentives issue would not hold the CRA back from a unanimous vote of approval. He felt the precedent was already set on height. This project complements what is already happening downtown and will draw interest to further that. He hoped that as the CRA moved forward with this type of project, some of the other issues would not be lost such as the Children's Museum, the new Library, and the Old High School improvements. Commissioner Bob Ensler, 26 Woods Lane, Boynton Beach, expressed disappointment about the way the incentive agreement issue came to light at the last minute. He thought this was like throwing in a "red herring" and that this issue should have been researched and decided a long time ago. He strongly disagreed with the interpretation of a simple statement that says that the incentive is tied to the value of the property. To come before the CRA and the Commission at this late date without all the research having been done was wrong, in his opinion. Mr. Myott asked what he thought the incentive was tied to. Commissioner Ensler said it was tied to the taxable value. The intent, as he understood it, was that if you give "X" number of dollars, you expect a certain amount of revenue in exchange for that. The concern was not to let anything happen that would affect that revenue. He did not see how it could be read any differently. Mr. Fenton did not see the relevance to a discussion of the incentive agreement. The developer enhanced the value of the property and the CRA will realize more T.I.F. income from it. Creating affordable housing in this project would raise other issues. He was concerned about Condition #43 regarding the sidewalk abandonment request. The answer was that approval of the project would be contingent upon this condition and the request would be submitted at the August 30, 2005 meeting. Mr. Myott said that time changed things. Regarding the discussion on affordable units, that discussion would not have taken place in 2003 when the project was first submitted. You could still buy a condo unit for $150K or less. Two years later, there's been a big increase in the cost of housing. He was in favor of rescoring the project. He wanted to make sure that Planning staff receives more details on the construction such as samples of wall construction, finishes, the railing, the window, and a mock-up of what the building is going to look like. Even though the renderings are better, they still do not go far enough. Mr. DeMarco looked at the project in terms of the big picture and was comfortable with what he had heard in the presentation. He congratulated Planning staff for doing a great job. He felt that any discrepancies could be worked out between Planning staff and the developer and he was behind the project 100%. Mr. Myott asked for the schedule for start of construction and delivery and whether there would be more requests for extensions. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 Ms. Horenburger noted that the Uptown Lofts project was not asked to provide certain colors, but staff recommended that the Arches provide awnings of a certain color. She agreed with most of the board member comments. Ms. Miskel stated that she had been to an Affordable Housing Workshop put on by Palm Beach County and their cap for affordability in Palm Beach County is currently $350K. Judged by that standard, their units starting at $200K were affordable. Ryan Weisfisch declared that they planned to break ground by the end of this year and delivery would be in the middle to third quarter of 2007. The timing was partially dependent on the receipt of permits. If there were a delay, it would be more like two months and not six or twelve months. Vice Chair Tillman spoke in favor of the analysis of the incentive agreement and how it related to this project. As a taxpayer, he appreciated having his financial interests protected. From what he had seen of this project, he would vote in favor of it. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve request for major site plan modification approval for the construction of a large scale mixed-use project (Arches MSPM 05-008) consisting of 378 dwelling units and 38,599 square feet of retail on :i:4.68 acres in the Mixed Use-High (MU-H) zoning district, incorporating staff conditions of approval # 1 through 68, eliminating item #69 that asked for a reduction in size of the public plaza, eliminating word "interactive" in item #70, eliminating #71 because the fountain incorporates a public staging area, revising item #72 that calls for 30 inch high seating on the planter benches with 24 inch high seating, eliminating item #75 requiring S.E. 4th Street frontage to have active uses, and eliminating item #76 requiring fountains on all corners. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Mr. Fenton confirmed that Ms. Horenburger's intention was to eliminate the first sentence of item #75 and she agreed to a revision to her motion, as did Mr. DeMarco. Mr. Myott was in favor of rescoring the project for a new incentive agreement. Ms. Horenburger added to her motion that the original incentive agreement would remain in effect based on the taxable value of property being increased since the agreement was made. Mr. DeMarco agreed to this addition. The amended motion passed 5-0. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve request for a height exception (Arches HTEX 05-006) of 17 feet pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.2, to allow the top of the elevator shafts and stair towers to be 167 feet in height, a distance of 17 feet above the 150-foot maximum height allowed in the Mixed Use-High (MU-H) zoning district, subject to staffs comment that at the time of permitting, the elevations shall be revised to indicate by note that the roof profiles (proposed at 161 feet - 8 inches in height) are non- inhabitable spaces and are decorative elements. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Attorney Spillias commented that he would not normally bring something like the incentive agreement to them at the last minute. He received the letter from the applicant's attorney on Tuesday or Wednesday of the week prior to this meeting when he returned from vacation. He felt it was his obligation to let the board know what the options were. He represents this board and nobody else. Mr. Myott hoped that any future incentive agreements would be more flexible and allow room to negotiate and Attorney Spillias responded that it had already been done. 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 At 9:42 p.m., the board decided to continue the meeting until 10:00 in order to hear the Chow Hut public hearing item. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to continue the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0. C. Major Site Plan Modification 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Chow Hut (MSPM 05-007) George Brewer Anthony J. Mauro and Dough Peters 558 N.E. 22nd Avenue Request for major site plan modification to construct a 1,718 square foot addition to an existing 702 square foot building for a 2,420 square foot restaurant on an 8,060 square foot parcel zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, described the proposed project as a take-out restaurant with outdoor seating on Gateway Boulevard west of the railroad tracks on the corner of Gateway and Federal Highway. The restaurant would be a high-turnover restaurant. Covered dining areas would be located on each side of the building and constructed like Indian chickee huts. The restaurant is supposed to be open for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and "late late" night meals. A service bar is included within the outdoor dining area; however, the applicant has indicated that the majority of sales (90%) will be from food, not alcoholic beverages. The applicant also indicated that no amplified music would be played indoors or outdoors. The site is non-conforming on landscaping, but the proposed site improvements will bring the site up to Code as much as possible. The current survey indicates 14 parking spaces on site, but no space designated for handicap use, which is required per ADA standards. The applicant proposes to re-stripe the existing parking spaces to provide 8 spaces in front with 1 of the spaces designated for handicap use (van accessible space with loading/unloading area), and 5 parking spaces in the rear. Staff recommended approval of the request. George Brewer, architect and agent for the owners of Chow Hut, stated that the chickee hut theme was not intended to be an Indian in nature, but to provide reminders of the past and provide comfort in a non-air conditioned space. The applicant was in agreement with all conditions of approval except condition #24 regarding the color. They wanted to have their own identity and keep the colors they had suggested. They felt that their color selections worked well with the wood and thatch and they did not want to duplicate or be tied to another project as suggested in the color recommendations. Bharat Patel, owner of BMT Discount Beverages, the shop to the east of the proposed Chow Hut, spoke of the extremely limited parking conditions in the area. He did not understand how Chow Hut could have 32 seats and only a few parking spaces. He also did not understand why a take-out restaurant could have 32 seats. People coming to BMT are only there for a minute or two and the people frequenting the Chow Hut would require 20 to 30 minutes at minimum. He did not know how this project was going to affect his parking lot. Also, there was no room for parking in the rear of the proposed project. He feared customers coming to his store would have no place to park if the proposed project were put in place. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9,2005 Ms. Zietler responded that the proposed project complies with the parking requirements for the proposed use, a high turnover takeout restaurant. They are limited to 32 seats based on 13 parking spaces. Mr. Brewer likened the Chow Hut to Doc's Soft Serve Ice Cream in Delray Beach, a well-known community style restaurant facility with very little parking space. It is also primarily a takeout restaurant. Mr. Myott commented that there were a lot of residences in the area that could generate pedestrian traffic for the Chow Hut such as The Crossings and a new residential complex being built on the site of the former Boynton Mobile Village. Vice Chair Tillman visited the site and noted that currently, people were using the space between the two businesses (BMT and proposed Chow Hut) as a short-cut, which was dangerous in itself. He believed that the Chow Hut would be a definite improvement for the area. Mr. DeMarco asked if signs could be put up designating which parking was for the Chow Hut and which was for BMT. Ms. Zeitler remarked that all of BMT's parking was facing Federal Highway. Mr. Myott asked Ms. Zeitler if Planning staff could support the architect's request for colors. She offered to show the board paint chips and samples. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the major site plan modification for Chow Hut to construct a 1,718 square foot addition to an existing 702 square foot building for a 2,420 square foot restaurant on an 8,060 square foot parcel zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2), subject to staff conditions of approval except for condition #24, the color recommendations. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 5-0. D. Code Review 1. Project: Agent: Code Section: Description: R-O-W Widths in PUDs (CDRV 05-014) Staff-initiated Part III Land Development Regulation, Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Development, Section 9.F Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5, Section 9, Internal PUD standards, paragraph F. RIGHT OF WAY to allow secondary roadways within a PUD to be approved with right-of-way widths of less than 40 feet. This item will be added to the agenda of the August 30, 2005 meeting. VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items Attorney Spillias declared that Consent Agenda Item IV-D had to be addressed at this meeting since it had been noticed. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to continue the meeting for an additional ten minutes. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Consent Agenda Item IV-D, is an easement by the CRA to FPL to allow them to put their lines underground along Boynton Beach Boulevard extension rather than aboveground. Attorney 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 200S Spillias pulled this item because it required a resolution authorizing the chair or vice chair to sign it. The resolution was given to board members before the meeting. He requested the board to approve the resolution and the easement. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to approve the easement and associated resolution to FPL to allow the installation of underground lines along the Boynton Beach Boulevard extension. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Consent Agenda Item IV-C, Consideration of Florida Employer Solutions Agreement to Perform a Human Resources Study, was discussed. Ms. Horenburger expressed surprise that the CRA could not find a firm in south Florida, the largest region in the state, to perform this study. She believed that some incentive had to be given in the numbers and ranking to accommodate local firms of all kinds. She hoped they would not come back with a lot of comparisons to business and not recommend contracts over one year. She also hoped they would restrict the comparison to public agencies of similar size. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the Florida Employer Solutions Human Resources Study agreement. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Mr. Fenton pulled Consent Item IV-B, Financial Report, because he was not sure whether it was appropriate to approve it prior to the audit. Mr. Hutchinson said that the monthly reports were going in and the audit would address any findings in regard to the financial reports. Ms. Horenburger felt that this was a "receive and file" item, not one in which every item was approved. Mr. Hutchinson agreed. Mr. Fenton pointed out a discrepancy on page 8725 where there were current expenditures for the CBD parking garage of $168K, but year-to-date expenditures of only $96K. Mr. Hutchinson said this would be corrected and the report would be presented again. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to postpone receiving and filing the June Financial Report until the next meeting, pending amendments as discussed. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Ms. Horenburger spoke about Consent Agenda item IV-E, The Urban Group's (TUG) contract, stating that so far, the CRA had spent $239,298.81 on real estate acquisitions. She felt that this item should be postponed until the board had an opportunity to discuss some of the property acquisition practices in the Heart of Boynton area. She knew the board had a policy in place, but it was starting to appear that the CRA was competing against the private sector. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to postpone this item pending board discussion of the item. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion. Ms. Horenburger clarified that TUG would need to continue to perform this service on an as- needed basis. It was not clear that the current agreement with them had expired. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this agreement was for acquisition through eminent domain and management of properties. He felt it was appropriate to table it until the board decided what it wanted to do about it. He added that there was a Task Order with TUG that was still in place. Mr. Fenton asked if TUG would continue business as usual if this motion were to be passed. Mr. Hutchinson stated they were not working on these items yet because the City did not move 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9,2005 forward with the CRA's request to proceed. This is on hold until the CRA and the City discuss and jointly decide to move forward on this and related items for the assembly of Phase One. The motion passed 5-0. At 10:14 p.m., the agenda was not completely addressed and the agreed-to time for the meeting's end was reached. Motion With apologies to those who had been waiting for their items to come up, Ms. Horenburger moved to continue the unheard agenda items (VIII through XV) to the August 30, 2005 meeting. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 5-0. VIII. Old Business IX. New Business A. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement for the Old High School Adaptive Reuse B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement of the Boynton Beach Promenade Project Extension C. Consideration of S.E. 4th Street Project Upgrades D. Consideration of "The Promenade" Direct Incentive Agreement Extension Request X. Board Member Comments XI. Director's Report XII. Legal XIII. Other Items XIV. Future Agenda Items A. Special Meeting: 1, Tuesday, August 30th at 6:30. p.m. City Hall Chambers · Consideration for Requests from Arches Project . Workshop - 2nd Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget B. Workshop Meetings to be held on the following dates: 1. Thursday. August 18th at 6:30 p.m. Suite 107 · Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget 2. Thursday. Seotember 2200 at 6:30 o.m. Suite 107 · Consideration of Human Resource Policy Recommendations · Consideration of CRA 20/30 Plan, Design Guidelines & CRA Land Development Regulations (LDR) 3. Thursday. October 20th at 6:30 p.m. at Holiday Inn Catalina 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida August 9, 2005 · Consideration of Feasibility of Attraction Complex 4. Thursday. November 1ih at 6:30 p.m. Suite 107 · Consideration and Review of Parks & Recreation plans for CRA District C. Future Project Review - September 15, 2005: 1. In-Town Development Group - Samantha Simon 2. Ocean Breeze Townhomes - Larry Finkelstein 3. HOB Self-Assembly Group - Frank Chirkinian XV. Future Project Preview XVI. Adjournment The meeting was duly adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. ~;1?tt1. c:;fd,u Susan Collins Recording Secretary (081005) 20