Loading...
Minutes 01-10-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Lisa Bright, Interim CRA Director Absent: Don Fenton I. Call to Order Chairperson Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. Lisa Bright, Interim CRA Director, introduced two new CRA staff members. Ms. ShuWanda Peoples, Receptionist and Administrative Assistant, had taken over the agenda packet process and was trying to streamline it. Ms. Bright thanked Ms. Peoples for all the hours and effort she had put in to deliver a quality agenda. Ms. Bright then introduced Ms. Susan Harris, who would serve as Assistant Finance Director. Ms. Harris received advanced degrees in Economics from New York University, and had an extensive background in the field of communications. The two new CRA staff members were warmly welcomed. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the agenda. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. DeMarco. The motion passed 6-0. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Mr. DeMarco. The motion passed 6-0. Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida IV. Consent Agenda January 10, 2006 A. Approval of Minutes - CRA Board Meeting December 13, 2005 B. Approval of Minutes - CRA Board Meeting December 15, 2005 C. Consideration of In-Kind sponsorship for City's Medieval Faire D. Update on Heart of Boynton Phase I Progress E. Update on the Self-Assembly Program F. Consideration of a Fa<;:ade Grant - C.K.'s Security Systems & Sounds G. Monthly Report to the Board H. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Workshop December 21, 2005 1. Consideration of a Jazz Concert Series J. Consideration of Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension FPL Additional Costs Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 6-0. V. Public Comments Eric Johnson spoke on behalf of the Lakeview Baptist Church at 2599 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, who were promoting a hurricane relief fundraiser called Bike for Relief on February 4, 2006 from 8:00 a. to 12:00 noon. The bike ride is an eleven-mile ride that begins and ends in Boynton Beach. They were asking for participants. The riders' safety was to be insured by the Florida Highway Patrol. David Zimet, Boynton Beach Faith-based Community Development Corporation, reminded the Board that TIF (Tax Increment Funds) monies had to be used wisely on behalf of the community. He felt it was important to spend on economic development going forward as well as on affordable housing. More money needed to be put back into the community and not just into development. Lisa Landis, 620 N.E. 20th Lane, Boynton Beach, spoke on behalf of the Watersedge complex adjacent to the Intracoastal Park. The residents were concerned about the location of the proposed clubhouse at Intracoastal Park. Chair Heavilin asked Ms. Landis to reserve her comments until the item was heard later in the meeting. Since no one else came forward to speak, Chair Heavilin closed the Public Comments portion of the meeting. VI. Public Hearing Board Attorney Spillias referred to the quasi-judicial board procedures shown on the agendas and invited interested parties to peruse them. He then asked the Board members to reveal any ex parte communications they might have had with anyone appearing before the Board at this meeting. There were none. Board Attorney Spillias then swore in all who planned to speak during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Chair Heavilin welcomed Mayor Taylor to the meeting. 2 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Old Business A. Maior Site Plan Modification 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Intracoastal Pavilion (MSPM 05-013) David Stump, Project Manager, Engineering, City of Boynton Beach City of Boynton Beach 2240 North Federal Highway Request for major site plan modification to construct a 12,SOO square foot two-story community center on the S.SS-acre Intracoastal Park zoned REC. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the staff report. This was a major site plan modification for the City's B.SS-acre passive park on Federal Highway. Phase 1 had been completed. Phase 2 had received concurrency for traffic and been reviewed by Fire and Police. The driveways and parking were already in place; however, a one-way turnaround was added in front of the proposed building. Also, a loading area was proposed next to the dumpster. No new lighting was proposed. The only light fixtures would be mounted on the building. No new signage was proposed. The palm trees currently located there would be placed around the building. The building had a 10-foot wraparound covered porch on each floor. The second floor had a balcony with railings. The blue roof would match the existing structures. The overall roof height of 42 feet met the 45 feet allowed in a Recreation Zoning District. The project would be located 55 feet from the water line and 69 feet from the north property line. The setbacks were 25 feet for the front, rear and sides. Staff reviewed the project and recommended approval, contingent on 17 Conditions of Approval. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, declared this project supported one of the CRA's goals, which was to increase access to the waterfront and reinforce waterfront history. It complied with the desired Floribbean architecture and CRA staff recommended approval. David Stump, Project Manager, Engineering Department, City of Boynton Beach, declared this clubhouse had always been in the plan and represented Phase 2 of an original set of plans from when the Intracoastal Park was first created. Mr. Stump introduced the engineer of record and architect for the project, Mr. Anderson Slocum of CH2M Hill. Anderson Slocum, CH2M Hill, said the building was planned during the previously approved site plan and this was the second phase of that plan. They had tried to minimize the impact on access to the water. His organization had attended all the technical review meetings and had complied with all the recommendations. They were in the process of applying for permits for the building. Jody Rivers, Parks Superintendent, City of Boynton Beach, reported the bottom floors would be used for standard recreation programming such as art camp and summer camp for the kids, adult art, and similar programs. The second floor would be a rental facility or could be used for non-rental meetings. Some typical uses might be business meetings, weddings, and homeowner association meetings. 3 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 The operating hours would begin at S:OO a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. There could be some Saturday programming, but the Park would still close at 9:00 p.m. The City had noise ordinances in place and did not allow amplified music in its parks. These were assurances the building would not become a noisy gathering place. It was thought most of the activities would take place within the building, further minimizing any noise. Chair Heavilin voiced her understanding people could not use the building past 9:00 p.m., and Ms. Rivers confirmed 9:00 p.m. was the absolute cut-off time. Mr. Myott confirmed his understanding there would be two full-time staff persons: a Recreation Supervisor and a Recreation Specialist. The City felt this full-time presence would tend to discourage any negative activities in the Park. It would also help with the issue of security. Mr. Myott asked about the change in elevation relative to the parking lot up to the building. Mr. Anderson responded it was graded up, partly to comply with ADA requirements. Mr. Stump indicated if anyone came into the building at night, they could not get onto the second deck due to a locked gate. All the lights were set up not to interfere with the neighboring community. Mr. DeMarco wanted to insure there was security after the Park was closed. Mr. Stump reiterated the security gate would prevent access to the upper floor of the building after the Park was closed. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak. Lisa Landis, 620 N.E. 20th Lane, Boynton Beach, indicated she had been concerned with the location, but felt reassured when the saw where the building would actually be placed. She asked for the cost of the building. Mr. Anderson stated the budget for the project was just over $2M, but with material cost increases, it could go to $3M. Clifford Lloyd, Vice President, Harbors Homeowner Association, declared he represented the property owners to the north side, who were most affected by this project. Mr. Lloyd commented his community was 69 feet from the proposed clubhouse and the Watersedge community was 262 feet from it. The Park already had a noise issue and there had been many complaints from the homeowners. Calls to the Police had not been satisfactory as they were advised the Police were busy and noise complaints were not a priority. The residents felt this project would impact them in terms of additional noise and additional potential disturbances from alcohol use during functions. The location of the building was felt to be a detriment to their development and the use of their properties. His community wanted to see the clubhouse relocated, possibly even to some other Park. Mr. Myott explained this building had been planned for about ten years as a replacement for a clubhouse that used to be located on Gateway Boulevard where the big drainage swale was now. He further commented this development had been planned before the project to the north and the information about the clubhouse could have been obtained from the City on request before purchasing a home to the north of the Park. 4 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Mr. Lloyd asked if personnel would be present from opening until 9:00 p.m. and whether renters would be advised they had to completely vacate the building by 9:00 p.m. Ms. Horenburger felt some of the issues being raised were not issues the CRA Board had the authority or power to consider. The Board was being asked to review a Site Plan and questions of cost, location, and so forth would be more legitimately raised at a City Commission meeting. Jeff Silver, resident at The Harbors, indicated there had been many changes in Boynton Beach in the last ten years and although this clubhouse might have seemed like a good idea then, it did not mean it was a good idea now. He heard the clubhouse was being installed to draw traffic to the Park and he felt the Park was already used quite a lot. Also, having activities on the second floor was not consistent with the goal of increasing access to the water. The adjacent residents had experienced many problems due to the Park already. He did not feel the clubhouse would benefit the community. David Bradley, 146 Harbors, Boynton Beach and 2400 High Ridge Road (business), commented there was very little parking space at the Park now and if weddings took place, he did not believe the parking would be sufficient. He spoke of the 69 feet separating his residence from a two-story clubhouse and questioned why the clubhouse would be located so close to a residence. Ms. Horenburger responded the CRA Board had not decided where to locate the building, but were only asked to review the Site Plan. Jeff Sheffield, Sachs, Sax, & Klein, P.A., appeared on behalf of The Harbors Homeowners Association. He felt the Board could at least express concern to the City Commission about how the project might affect the adjoining residential properties, even if the CRA did not control the location of the building. The residents wanted assurance that: 1) City staff would be on hand to lock up the facility and see that exiting was accomplished in an orderly fashion; 2) Use of alcohol would not become a problem, since the Park was currently posted for no alcoholic beverages; 3) Parties would not be able to open the doors on the second floor while amplified sound was playing; and 4) The dumpster would be relocated away from their development; and 5) That food waste from cooking would not accumulate and cause an odor problem. Chair Heavilin closed the Public Audience portion of the hearing when no one else wished to speak. Ms. Horenburger asked for input from staff concerning amplified sound inside the building. Ms. Rivers responded the City was not allowing amplified sound in the building, because they realized having the doors open would have the same effect as if it were in the Park. Ms. Horenburger asked if the Board could establish that as a Condition of Approval, and Ms. Rivers stated it could be on record, certainly. Ms. Horenburger addressed the staffing issue, and Attorney Spillias said that would not normally be an appropriate condition for site plan approval. The benefit here was the City was the applicant and the owner of the property. Any conditions could be suggested to the City Commission and if they were not appropriate as site plan approval conditions, they could be dealt with through the City's regulatory power over the Parks. 5 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Ms. Horenburger asked about the dumpster on the side of the building. Ms. Rivers said the dumpster had been in place since the Park was built. The City could assure the dumpster was emptied regularly, especially after an event. Mr. Stump indicated the City could also advise caterers and renters they were responsible for taking any food waste with them when they left the premises. The City was concerned about the residents and was willing to sit down with them to see what could be worked out. Mr. DeMarco was concerned about insufficient parking since there were only 73 parking spaces. Ms. Rivers responded there was a large green area adjacent to Federal Highway that could be used for overflow parking if necessary and it would hold 50 vehicles and more if it were striped. The upper rental room would accommodate 100 people when set up theater style. The programs downstairs would usually be limited to 15-25 people at one time. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Major Site Plan Modification for Intracoastal Pavilion (MSPM 05-013). Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. New Business A. Conditional Use 1. Project: Little Achiever Learning Center (COUS 04-007) Dave Beasley Stewart Davis Northwest corner of Northeast 11th Avenue and Railroad Avenue Request for Conditional Use/New Site Plan approval for the construction of a 6,097 square foot daycare and related site improvements on a 37,391 square foot parcel in the Single-family and Two-family Residential (R-2) zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the staff report. Points of ingress and egress were provided along N.E. 11th Avenue. Parking would occur in front and to the rear of the property. A playground would be located on the northwest corner of the property. A dumpster would be located along Railroad Avenue, which was not an ideal location, but was the only place this site plan could accommodate the dumpster in the interior of the site. The gates to the dumpster would be closed at all times except during trash removal. A height exception would be required to accommodate the decorative cupolas that extended 8 feet above the 25 feet allowed in an R- 2 zoning district. Approval of the site plan was contingent upon approval of the height exception. Staff recommended approval of the project dependent on meeting the conditions of approval and approval of the height exception. Mr. Johnson pointed out condition of approval #38 could be deleted because they provided a color rendering. The words "including the cabana" should be stricken in condition #39. The rest of condition #39 should be changed to read: "All building 6 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 elevations should indicate paint manufacturers name and color codes. Staff recommends using a color schedule." The color rendering provided was displayed. The paint swatches were not exactly as shown. Staff reviewed the paint swatches and found them to be acceptable, but staff would not be in favor of using a color as yellow as the one shown on the displayed rendering. The Board was very much against the location of the dumpster along Railroad Avenue, a road thought to be smaller than standard at best. Emptying the dumpster would completely block the road and negatively impact the surrounding residents. The Board was reminded it had already approved a similar dumpster set-up in the Gulfstream Gardens facing Old Dixie Highway. There were other concerns about the desirability of having a daycare at this location in general since it was near the railroad tracks and commercial trucks and close to a strip club. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to table the item until the petitioner could devise a plan that relocated the dumpster away from Railroad Avenue. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion. Chair Heavilin preferred to hear from the applicant instead of tabling the item. Board Attorney Spillias commented a date certain should be included in the tabling motion. Ms. Horenburger and Vice Chair Tillman agreed to set a time certain of the Board's next meeting on February 14, 2006. The motion failed 2-4, Chair Heavilin, and Messrs. Barretta, DeMarco and Myott dissenting. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planner, did not see any major issue with the dumpster because it would be screened from the street and from the project itself. The proposed lighting was of a commercial style and height and she did not believe it was compatible with the adjacent single or multi- family neighborhood. She had asked the petitioner to change this. Mr. Myott asked if rollout trash removal were an option. He believed the daycare could be served by a few residential containers and completely eliminate the dumpster. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, responded to a question from the Board for an explanation of the dumpster issue. Mr. Rumpf said he could not speak for Public Works, who were not represented at the meeting, but he was sure extensive discussion had taken place about it. Also, Public Works had experience with other daycare centers and were very familiar with the types of waste daycares produce: diapers, food, and so forth. Mr. Rumpf did not know how adamant Public Works was about the necessity of a dumpster. David Beasley, agent for owner, also believed regular containers would be sufficient. Mr. Beasley then responded to concerns about safety, saying the Board had previously approved the Charter School across the street from the proposed daycare, and the dumpster location had been similar. He believed it was in the same proximity to the railroad tracks, traffic, and strip club. Another daycare center was on the corner of Seacrest Boulevard and 5th Avenue, with much more traffic than the proposed daycare. The children in daycares were supervised and in a fenced area all the time. A train came along much less frequently than a car. He did not see the location as a major safety deterrent. The proposed daycare was, in his mind, in a better location for safety and traffic than most other daycares in Boynton Beach. 7 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Samantha Simons, Delray Beach, asked about what other uses would be acceptable at this location. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, indicated schools and churches were the only other uses that came to mind, and they would have to follow the same process for approval as this case. There were not very many permitted uses either. Ms. Simons commented 11th Avenue was particularly narrow and she expressed concern about evacuating the children in case of fire. Mr. Rumpf said the Fire Department would take the most expeditious route and he was not certain it would be down that particular street. Ms. Simons said there was a great land and affordable housing shortage in Palm Beach County. She questioned whether a daycare was the best use for residentially zoned property in a multi- family area at a time when there was a desperate need to build houses. Did the City need another daycare center and was this the most appropriate location for it. Chair Heavilin closed the Public Audience when no one else came forward to speak. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to postpone consideration of the Conditional Use application of Little Achiever Learning Center until the Board's next regular meeting, to give staff and petitioner time to redesign the site plan. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Heiaht Exceotion 2. Project: Little Achiever Learning Center {HTEX 06-001 Dave Beasley Stewart Davis Northwest corner of Northeast 11th Avenue and Railroad Avenue Request for Height Exception approval to allow the to allow the proposed decorative cupolas on the roof of a one (l)-story building at a height of 33 feet, eight (B) feet above the maximum height limit of 25 feet for a daycare use within the Single-family and Two-family Residential (R-2) zoning district Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Since the conditional use and height exception had to be addressed concurrently, and there were problems with the site plan, the Board decided to postpone both items to give staff and the petitioner time to revise the Plan. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to postpone consideration of the Height Exception for the Little Achiever Learning Center until the Board's next regular meeting, to give staff and petitioner time to redesign the site plan. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. B Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida B. Site Plan Time Extension January 10, 2006 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Edward Medical Offices (SPTE 06-001) Hany Edward Hany Edward 3908 South Federal Highway Request for a one-year Site Plan Time Extension for site plan approval granted on November 16, 2004, from November 16, 2005 to November 16, 2006 Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the staff report. She explained Mr. Edward had requested the extension to November 16, 2006 because he had been trying to get a construction loan for the past 8 months. Traffic concurrency for this project was obtained for the original site plan approval, but the build out date was 2005 and no building permits could be issued after that date. Therefore, a new traffic concurrency approval would have to be obtained for an extension. The site plan was subject to the 40 original conditions of approval. Since the site plan was approved, the City adopted an Urban Commercial District Overlay Zone, which amended the setback regulations for commercially zoned properties within established redevelopment plans. Staff recommended, though, that no change be made to the existing approved site plan, the subject of this time extension request. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, stated her comments were contained in the staff report and she had nothing to add. Hany Edward, 2657 N.E. 29th Avenue, Boca Raton, said he had gotten a proposal from two doctors who were interested in leasing some of the proposed spaces, and that should help him get a construction loan. Fidelity Federal Bank wanted to see 50% of the project under lease or sold and the two doctors would make that goal. He anticipated being able to break ground in about 6 months. Ms. Horenburger was concerned because she read in the backup that Mr. Edward had not even submitted drawings to the Building Division for building or infrastructure type permits, an act that would demonstrate the applicant's good faith. She thought inserting a deadline for permit application that was some months before the expiration of the deadline as a "kicker," would be appropriate. He would lose his site plan extension if he had not applied for a permit by May, for example. He could have the extension if a permit were pulled by that time. If he needed another month or two beyond November, he would be substantially underway in the project. Ms. Zeitler explained the extension was for the permitting process and would give the applicant time to get his financing, get construction drawings done and submitted to the Building Department and get a building permit prior to that date in November. Attorney Spillias said the site plan would still be valid as long as he pulled it by the expiration date of November 16, 2006. Ms. Horenburger thought there were standards in other cities in regard to site plans. A project had to be underway or have demolition to show good faith to continue the site plan extension. Attorney Spillias stated building permits themselves had time 9 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 limitations. Once a building permit had been pulled, at some point in time the developer would have had to undertake some kind of activity. The Planning staff responded that calling for an inspection was considered sufficient activity in Boynton Beach. Mr. Barretta had voted against this project initially and with the advent of the new Overlay Zoning District, the City wanted to see a different type of project with a new look and appeal than the one that was previously approved. He saw no reason to grant the extension. Mr. Myott declared the nature of the site itself forced the side of the building all the way to the property line. He did not know that the Overlay District would help it because of the triangles coming out of the site and visibility, and so forth. The current site configuration was for the highest and best use. He did not think that ten months would be enough time and believed Mr. Edward would come back again. He thought the CRA's site plan approvals for commercial projects over a certain size should be given 1B months from the beginning. Ms. Horenburger agreed one year was extremely limiting. Ms. Zeitler stated the site plan extension process gave the authority and opportunity for the City Commission to address any kind of site plan changes before approval. Mr. Barretta believed that changes to the site plan were in order. The entire south side of the building was exposed with barely any landscaping and it was right up against the property line. It would be a real eyesore. A different site plan for a three-story building could be put in there that would allow more landscaping. There were half a dozen solutions to give Mr. Edwards the square footage he needed and give the City the kind of aesthetic it was trying to achieve. Ms. Zeitler asked if it could be addressed at the hearings through a condition of approval that the applicant comply with the new Overlay District regulations and making changes to the plan prior to the permitting process. Mr. Barretta said that would require consideration of a whole new site plan. Mr. DeMarco had worked on several buildings for doctors where the acreage was a full acre or more, which allowed a building of about 12K square feet. This project was close to 12K square feet on less than three-quarters of an acre. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to deny the request for site plan extension to give the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project based on the Urban Commercial Overlay zoning. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 4-2, Mr. Myott and Chair Heavilin dissenting. VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items There were none. Chair Heavilin welcomed Commissioner Ensler to the meeting. VIII. Old Business A. Consideration of the CRA Executive Director Position 10 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Chair Heavilin indicated the Board had several options in this area. It could seek a new Executive Director, promote Lisa Bright to the position of Executive Director, or continue the status quo. In her opinion the Board had already come to a decision at previous meetings that an Assistant Director was much needed in light of the volume of work associated with the office. The Board members spoke one by one in support of naming Lisa Bright to the position of Executive Director and seeking an Assistant Director. Mr. Myott confirmed with Ms. Bright her willingness to accept the position. Chair Heavilin declared she had heard a lot of very positive comments from other agencies, the development community, and the public concerning how Ms. Bright had handled the affairs of the CRA and she certainly concurred with the promotion. Ms. Bright had stepped up to the plate in some very challenging circumstances and done an admirable job. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to appoint the current Interim CRA Director Lisa Bright to the position of CRA Executive Director under contract. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Congratulations were proffered to Ms. Bright by one and all. The Job Description for CRA Executive Director had been revised as a result of the Human Resource Study conducted in the fall of 2005. The Board approved it on December 15, 2005. The salary for the position was discussed. Ms. Horenburger believed the Board had just granted Ms. Bright the former Executive Director's salary. Ms. Horenburger asked if the contract took the new year into consideration, and Ms. Bright responded it had not. Vice Chair Tillman suggested Ms. Bright's salary remain the same for a period of six months, after which a full salary review could be made, with adjustments as appropriate. Ms. Bright was more than comfortable with Vice Chair Tillman's recommendation. Ms. Bright stated her current position was under contract, so the contract would just be revised. There was one item she wanted to discuss with the Board Attorney, and then it would be brought to the Board. By consensus, the Board directed the CRA Executive Director to begin a search for a CRA Assistant Director immediately. The new CRA Executive Director, Lisa Bright, proffered thanks to the Board for their vote of confidence. She looked forward to working with the Board, the City, the City Commission and the community in the new position. It was noted that the Kidd Group, the marketing consultants for the eRA's trolley program, were in the audience. Ms. Bright commented she hoped to have the Kidd Group give a trolley ridership update as part of her Staff Comments. It was an oversight to not have it on the agenda. The Board concurred. 11 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 B. Consideration of the Removal of the Promenade Bathroom Facility If the restroom facility were to be located in the Promenade, as approved previously, Ms. Bright had learned the project would face cost overruns. Instead, staff recommended locating the facility in the building at the end of the Two Georges Marina, since they were moving forward quickly to purchase the Marina Agreement. Vice Chair Tillman was concerned about an access issue. If the bathroom were to be located at the Marina, how would the individuals on the Promenade be able to use it? Jonathan Ricketts, project engineer, stated there was a public street running from the cul-de-sac at the restroom's current position and there would be public access from either location. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve eliminating the bathroom facility at the Boynton Beach Promenade. Mr. Myott seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Ricketts if there would be plumbing at the Promenade location for potential use. Mr. Ricketts responded water and sanitary services had been put in and if the Board decided to complete the bathroom at a later date, the infrastructure was in place. The motion passed 6-0. C. Review of Direct Incentive Funding Agreement with Boynton Associates, Ltd. Staff recommended discontinuing the Direct Incentive Program in order to address legal issues that emerged from recent negotiations. Proposed changes in the program would be brought back to the Board for discussion and ratification. Larry Finkelstein, Boynton Associates, appeared to answer questions. The Board gave Ms. Bright the authority to negotiate changes to the Direct Incentive language administratively. However, in discussions between Ms. Bright and Attorney Spillias, it appeared the changes constituted more than could be considered administrative and the issue was brought back to the Board for discussion. Two basic issues surfaced. One was that Boynton Associates wanted to delete all reference to the term "developer" and replace it with Boynton Associates because from a tax standpoint, leaving it in would destroy their capital gains. Also, Boynton Associates requested a change that had to do with whether or not the property could be assigned without the consent of the Board. Attorney Spillias was not comfortable with the changes to the Agreement requested by Boynton Associates. Attorney Spillias commented under Successors and Assigns, it was stipulated the CRA and the Developer each bound itself and its executors, administrators and assigns to the other party and to the successors, etc. in respect to all covenants of this Agreement. "Prior to substantial completion of the project, this Agreement may not be assigned by Developer without the prior consent of the CRA, without the assignees' specific written assumption of all of the obligations. Boynton Associates inserted a provision to say, "Prior to substantial completion of the project, 12 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Boynton Associates may transfer the property to an affiliate who reaffirms that Boynton Associates and the affiliate shall continue to be responsible without the prior written consent of the CRA." A similar language change was made to Section B.2. Attorney Spillias did not mean to imply nefarious intent on the part of Boynton Associates, but wanted to give the Board the maximum protection the money would be utilized in the way in which the Board intended. He was uncomfortable with the deletion of the Board's consent in the requested language changes. Also, some Board members felt the term Developer and Boynton Associates were one and the same and were not comfortable with deleting the term "Developer." Mr. Finkelstein responded the only time they could assign the agreement without the Board's approval was to an affiliate, an affiliate being Boynton Associates or an owner of Boynton Associates. It would not be going to an unknown third party, but to an affiliate who would be a part of Boynton Associates. Mr. Finkelstein felt it would be a matter of assigning the Agreement among affiliates of Boynton Associates and as such, did not think the Board would be concerned. He did not want to confuse the term Developer with Boynton Associates. He felt the Board still had the right to review any assignment to a third party. Boynton Associates did not believe the requested changes took the Board's oversight capability away. There was considerable feeling on the Board the agreement should have been ironed out before presentation to the Board. They were further handicapped by looking at different versions of the agreement. Mr. Finkelstein indicated he had no problem with the respective attorneys getting together to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to table the review of the Direct Incentive Funding Agreement with Boynton Associates to the next meeting. This would give the respective attorneys an opportunity to craft a mutually agreeable document that preserved the Board's approval authority as appropriate. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion for discussion. A discussion ensued. Board Attorney Spillias felt that with more discussion, it might be possible to come up with mutually agreeable language. Mr. DeMarco suggested checking with the Secretary of State to find out the officers in the corporation or partnership. If all the parties were to sign the agreement, there would be no question. The motion passed 6-0. IX. New Business A. Consideration of an Assemblage Request for Three Commercial Properties in the First Financial Plaza Ms. Bright distributed a letter she received from Marinus Real Estate Company, LLC to the Board regarding the assemblage of property in First Financial Plaza for the project known as 13 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Ocean One. This letter added an additional suite to their earlier request, making a total of 4 suites, for which they were requesting the City Commission to authorize the use of eminent domain (Suite 101, 102, 104, and 209). The group had well-documented support of the many attempts they had made to acquire these properties voluntarily but had reached impasse, necessitating the consideration of the CRA. The First Financial Plaza was actually the public parking garage they were working with the developer to get for the Ocean One project. pryse Elam, President of Marinus Real Estate Company and his attorney, appeared to answer questions. For almost a year they had been negotiating with the 35 unit owners in First Financial Plaza. They had been able to get 31 of the 35 owners under contract. One of the four signed the initial contract but failed to sign the supplemental agreement and wanted to enter into additional negotiations to obtain more concessions. They had extended written offers to each of the four "holdouts." They were happy to make written documentation available on all the negotiations to date. The issue was money. They had offered above market prices and most of the 31 owners would acknowledge that. The four that remained were looking for values far in excess of what their property would bring on the open market. Chair Heavilin asked if money were an issue with Unit 102 and Mr. Elam responded the listing price was approximately double that of the other unit owners. Mr. Barretta tried to find out how much money was being requested over and above what Marinus had offered and Mr. Elam responded, nearly $lM over what they offered. Ms. Brooks responded if the City entered into eminent domain proceedings, the City would have to pay an eminent domain attorney, if they required one. The City would be required to pay the seller's attorney's fees. The developer would ultimately end up reimbursing the cost of the eminent domain proceedings. Attorney Spillias observed the City was implementing eminent domain for the benefit of the developer. Ms. Horenburger asked if the eminent domain costs would be less than the cost of paying the owners their inflated asking prices and Mr. Elam responded affirmatively. Mr. Elam indicated the other issue was that of time. In one case, they were unable to enter into meaningful negotiations. Vice Chair Tillman noted the question might arise concerning whether the CRA was doing this for the public good or for profit for a developer. Attorney Spillias said that defense could be raised, but he suggested in the CRA district there was a plan in place that had identified this area as a proper area for this type of activity. There was no guarantee, but he did not believe such a defense would be successful. The battle was, for the most part, about money. Since the developer offered the owners a significant amount over market, if the amount that came in from a jury was less than that, it might be that the City would not have to pay all the attorneys fees if they were successful in proving the case. Attorney Spillias commented the City would have its own attorney fees. Ms. Horenburger did not feel the question of how much the eminent domain proceeding would cost had been answered. Attorney Spillias declined to make a guess, saying, "It would not be six figures." Ms. Bright reminded the Board that this particular portion of the site plan was for access to a public parking garage. The CRA was working diligently with the developer on this since these 14 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 The type of eminent domain was discussed and Ms. Bright indicated they would be pursuing the "quick take" method. Attorney Spillias said the difference between the processes was in the "quick take," an order of taking from the Court was obtained and the amount to be paid would be determined later, but the property can be obtained immediately. An entity would end up paying whatever a jury said it had to pay. The traditional or longer method involved a trial that determined the right to take the property and the amount to be paid. In the latter method, a party could withdraw up until the final verdict. Charles Siemon, Siemon and Larsen, P.A., counsel for Ocean One, indicated in response to Mr. Barretta the City Codes allowed an application to be processed where a majority of the property owners were signed on to it. They suggested the eminent domain proceedings be instituted to avoid complications and move forward. They were confident the schedule they had followed was in concert with the City's Code and allowed them to go forward. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to forward the request of Marinus Real Estate for eminent domain to the City Commission for action. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. At 8:59 p.m., Ms. Horenburger advised it was necessary for her to leave the meeting. x. Unfinished Business A. Request to Temporarily Remove the Direct Incentive Program for Board Revision Ms. Bright requested the Board allow CRA staff to remove the Direct Incentive as it currently stood from the Web Site as well as from printed materials and to meet with CRA attorneys to work through some of the revisions of the program to better meet the needs of the CRA. Input from all Board members was requested. If any Board members wanted to attend meetings at which it would be discussed, they could attend and Ms. Bright would make the meeting public. Attorney Spillias noted the Board's input would be crucial, since this was a policy of the Board and had to be set by the Board. Ms. Bright targeted the next meeting to bring the suggested revisions back to the Board for consideration. Vice Chair Tillman suggested Ms. Bright address this during the one-on-one sessions with each Board member and bring back a document incorporating the concerns of the Board. It was generally agreed that anyone who had asked about the agreement to date would have to be covered under the existing gUidelines if they applied. Anything new would be stopped pending final approval of a revised set of guidelines. By consensus the Board agreed to allow CRA staff to pull the Direct Incentive Agreement from the Web Site and printed materials in order to revise it and bring it back to the Board after discussing it with each Board member. 15 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 XI. Project Review . Review of Heart of Boynton Plan - Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Ms. Bright proclaimed a Board member requested a review of the financial feasibility of the Heart of Boynton Plan be looked at in relation to today's market. An email from Kim Delaney, the Growth Management Coordinator at Treasure Coast, was included in the agenda packets for discussion. Ms. Bright felt some of the topics mentioned by Ms. Delaney would be covered at the Housing Needs Assessment workshop in February. Ms. Bright estimated the cost would be $20K at minimum for such an analysis and gave a timeframe of from six to eight weeks for completion. She sought the Board's approval to enter into a contract to perform this analysis. Mr. Myott felt it was important to understand what the deliverables were and know the status of the current plan versus what they said about the current financial picture. Ms. Bright said the original costs of construction had gone up considerably. Mr. Barretta thought the infrastructure costs for that property would render the existing Heart of Boynton Plan unfeasible, or something the City or CRA would have to subsidize for 30 or 40 years. If that was the case, they should certainly know that before undertaking a commitment to the project. Ms. Bright noted the urgent demand to meet the April 1 deadlines with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as well as the housing needs issues. If the Board wanted to have a more specific contract with more specific or additional deliverables, she would be glad to do that. The Board felt time was of the essence. Mr. Myott felt the deliverables might have to be presented at the next meeting after four weeks of work had been done in order to meet the April 1 deadline for submission of the LDR to DCA. That would give the Board an opportunity to give input based on where they were at that time. Ms. Bright felt this study would help the Board evaluate the feasibility of the plan, the cost to the CRA, and other issues, as the Board looked ahead to the implementation of the Plan. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to authorize the CRA Director to enter into a contract through the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to assess the financial feasibility of the Heart of Boynton Plan. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 5-0. . The Promenade Ms. Bright spoke with Jeff Krinsky of the Promenade project who indicated he was turning back the reservations for space in the Promenade, returning their money with interest, explaining that extremely high construction costs had changed the status of the project. Therefore, he was going to open up the project to the public next week. He gave Ms. Bright assurances about the project and she advised him she would be working with him much more closely to insure the project moved forward and there were no delays on the CRA's side. Chair Heavilin asked when the project had to be vertical to obtain the incentive. She did not have the trigger date, but would find out and bring it back to the next meeting. 16 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 . 500 Ocean Plaza (Arches) Ms. Bright advised the date this project had to be vertical was May 19, 2006. Ms. Bright needed to work with the attorney to find out what vertical meant with respect to this particular project and agreement. . Old High School Ms Bright noted the RFP was under review at the City. They hoped to publish it within the next week pending City Manager approval. . Marina The City Manager asked Ms. Bright to tie the Marina grant into the purchase agreement of Two Georges Marina. She was not able to secure that, but she did speak with Commissioner Newell on the day before this meeting and got his assurance and direction on how to proceed to secure the $2M. She would be starting that process as well so they could do their renovations and insure public access to Two Georges Marina. . Land Trust Ms. Bright advised the Land Trust had been set up for the Articles of Incorporation as well as the Board of Directors, but they were not moving forward to implement it. She asked for consent of the Board to start contract negotiations with Burlington Associates over the course of the next month, and bring it back to the Board for consideration. Currently, when developers did not provide affordable housing there was no mechanism for payment in lieu. There was also no provision currently to allow a developer to buy property and build it for the affordable program. She did not want to wait 30 days unless the Board wanted her to go out for RFQ to find someone to implement this. Ms. Brooks was approached by the City of Boca Raton to partner with them in the Land Trust and Ms. Bright thought it was important to get this moving. Vice Chair Tillman asked why Burlington Associates, and Ms. Brooks responded they had the credentials. Burlington Associates was an offshoot of the Burlington Land Trust, which was the original land trust that was still going on today. They basically formed another non-profit organization to go out and teach people how to do this. They were the "granddaddy" of them all. They would not run it for the City, but would tell the City how to set it up. It was a technical assistance issue. She thought they were the best and most recognized in the country. Ms. Bright would open a dialogue with them and come back to the Board with a cost to assist the CRA to get its land trust going. The consensus was to authorize Ms. Bright to enter into negotiations with Boynton Associates to determine the cost to assist the CRA in establishing its land trust and bring that information back to the Board. 17 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida . RMPK Design Guidelines January 10, 2006 Ms. Brooks stated the guidelines would be brought back to the Board in February. What she had done to eliminate any further delay over height or density or things of this nature, was to confine the categories to Mixed Use High and Mixed Use Low. That simplified it so the Mixed Use Low design guidelines would be the same throughout the various categories. Mixed Use High would have a different set of standards. She also had the Boynton Beach Corridor Plan in final form and Vision 2030 and would be bringing them to the Board in February. Mr. Barretta asked how much time the Board would be given to review the design guidelines. He had been asking for it as it was completed for the last two months and had not received anything. Ms. Brooks had the document in a form he could not read unless he had the program to do so. She could print it, but the graphics would not show up. She only had the text. She planned on giving Mr. Barretta the final draft documents a week before getting the Board packet. He had requested that as sections were done, he allow those who were interested to review them. He personally did not need diagrams, and wanted to see the text. He thought it would be helpful so the Board would not give them so much to correct at the end that it would be overwhelming. Ms. Brooks responded she had both sets of Mr. Barretta's comments and had gone through them. She would be happy to give him what she had and would deliver it to his office tomorrow. Mr. Myott could not accept that graphics and text could not be produced when the CRA had spent as much money as it had. He felt the CRA should demand they send a full in-progress copy for Mr. Barretta immediately. Ms. Bright mentioned they would get the text without graphics at the least and would request a full in-progress copy for Mr. Barretta. . Jazz Series Concert - HeritageFest Ms. Bright said they had a large meeting at the City level recently and the Board had approved a jazz series concert. They would be dedicating that concert on February 27 to the HeritageFest and were allocating some of the money the Board had originally appropriated to cover the Youth Banquet for the HeritageFest. . Bust for Carolyn Sims Mr. Myott asked about status of this item. Ms. Bright responded she believed they were going to ask the Board for $10K, but she needed to investigate further. She had to discuss this with the Recreation & Parks Department, because she heard the bust was going to cost approximately $60K. Chair Heavilin asked if this could come out of the new 1% public art fee. Ms. Bright was going to investigate and get back to the Board. Mr. Barretta, as liaison to the Arts Commission, was going to look into it also. XII. Comments by Board Members Mr. Barretta commented it had been seven years since the initial visioning workshops for the Heart of Boynton Plan. Opinion about the Plan seemed to be divided in the community. He thought it was time to conduct another series of visioning sessions to see if the community had changed its mind over the last seven years. 18 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 Ms. Bright responded the City Manager was in favor of that and wanted to have a community meeting on it. She would move ahead on this and try to set something up. Chair Heavilin mentioned when she was at a conference in Denver recently, she had attended a Board Governance session that focused on the mission and role of the Board versus staff, how the Board governed itself, and its expectations. She thought it would be really helpful for this Board to attend a session like this. She suggested a one to two day workshop to cover it. It would require 100% participation to have the most value. There was a group doing a workshop on the west coast of Florida in early May and this Board could possibly attend. She could get more information and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Barretta agreed such training was in order. He had spoken to the City Manager who was bothered by individual Board members directing the CRA staff as opposed to the Board directing CRA staff. Chair Heavilin agreed clarification of the Board's role was in order. The consensus of the Board was to undertake this training. XIII. Comments by Board Attorney - None XIV. Comments by Staff . Trolley Update Tom Derzypowlski and Jerry Kidd of the Kidd Group, marketing consultants for the Boynton Beach trolley program, gave a status update on the trolley. A soft launch was in mid-July 2005 and people became aware of it. A press conference announcing the start of service was held in August 2005. In September they began considering the Congress Avenue route, now called the Cross Town trolley, and tried to adjust it to be more efficient to meet the needs of the community. They looked at the amount of service available on Ocean Avenue during the end of summer and before season and decided it would be more efficient to suspend that service temporarily until they could decide how to best use that route. Hurricane Wilma intervened. The Ocean Avenue route came under consideration in November to see how to utilize that route as the season began. Some routes were renamed and revisions were made to the maps. In December, the weekend service was kicked off for the Ocean Avenue Beach trolley. They continued to see strong ridership numbers in January. They determine success in a trolley in various ways, not just by assessing ridership. Metropolitan Planning Associations around the country look at a goal of 6 riders per hour as an opportunity and a goal where you decide whether to add another route or another trolley to your system. That is the benchmark to identify success. A chart was displayed showing riders per hour on a monthly basis. Beginning in July, it steadily and positively increased until December, which was a very powerful month. Monthly ridership started at 500 in July/August and they broke 4,000 in December. This was also when the Ocean Avenue beach trolley resumed full service. 19 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 In comparison, over 10 years, Bay Town Trolley, which operated 9 trolleys on 7 routes serving Panama City Beach and the surrounding communities, had over 15,000 riders in its first year. They believed the Boynton Beach trolley was going to far surpass that in 2006. This is proof there was a need in the community and that now a full marketing effort was in order. With this history behind it, they would be better able to sell advertising to advertisers, who held off to see whether they would get enough exposure. Some media relations had taken place. They had done a lot of grass roots efforts with places like Boynton Bay Apartments, Village Royale on the Green, Sterling Village, Coastal Towers, to get the obvious riders on the trolleys to increase the ridership without having to spend a lot of advertising monies to support the trolley system. Some of the things that were ready to go were a poster available in the hotels, restaurants, the Senior Centers, and the apartment complexes, including a simple newspaper ad. The Board was directed to go www.bovntonbeachtrollev.com to read the update information. Advertising was also planned for the food court tents and at community events such as Pirates of the Intracoastal, the Medieval Fair. The trolley was able to support the hurricane effort as well by bringing food down to Village Royale on the Green. In 2006 they saw the trolley and its role beyond transportation in the community. It was in itself a marketing tool for why Boynton Beach was a great place to be. If the City embraced the trolley and made it a part of the community, ridership would increase. Jerry Kidd of the Kidd Group displayed a picture of a San Francisco cable car. He declared the trolley could become part of the City's brand essence to add some vitality and a feeling. It could become a cornerstone. The key point was the trolley was already a success according to MPO standards with over 6 riders per hour. The City had already proven there was a community need for the trolley and with advertising, ridership would only increase. They had looked at the San Francisco system and the cost of that system was $550M. The revenues from advertising were $4M so it was roughly a little less than '/2 a percent. The revenues from fares and parking fees were about $250M. The contribution by the community of San Francisco was about $300M. This provided an identity for San Francisco. San Francisco to him was trolleys, good food and fog, and without that, it was just another town. Mr. Kidd thought Boynton Beach had a great situation with the beach at one end and the mall at the other. Once people understood it was a free ride to the beach, ridership would increase even further. Mr. Derzypowlski believed to small business owners who were holding on until the redevelopment materialized, the trolley was important. Chair Heavilin liked the idea of using the trolley to help brand Boynton Beach. The contract would come up for renewal in February. Ms. Bright said staff was concerned it was missing a great opportunity for Ocean Avenue of going down towards Gulfstream where there was a lot of density off Federal Highway Corridor: Murano Bay, Sterling Village, and so forth. They were going to look at that and talk to MPO and see if they could get a grant. If they would do another grant, they would come back to the Board and say they think they should add this direction to the contract. The trolley had been vitally important during the hurricane when 20 Meeting Minutes CRA Board Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida January 10, 2006 people did not have access to gas also. Mr. Myott thought it should go down Boynton Beach Boulevard and out to Leisureville as well. Chair Heavilin said the Board had to decide between now and when the contract was up for renewal whether the CRA wanted to make that kind of commitment and use the trolley in the ways suggested. XV. Future Project Review - None XVI. Future Workshops 1. February 22, 2006, Housing Needs Assessment, Library Program Room, 6:30 p.m. XVII. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~t~{~./ Susan Collins Recording Secretary (011106) 21