Loading...
Minutes 02-14-06 I I MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006 AT 6:30IP.M. Present: Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Barretta Alexander DeMarco Marie Horenburger (arr. 6:38 p.m.) Steve Myott Stormet Norem Ken Spillias, Board Attorney Lisa Bright, CRA Director I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed the new Board member, Stormet Norem. II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. Chair Heavilin recognized the presence in the audience of Commissioner Ensler. III. Agenda Approval A. Additions. Deletions. Corrections to the Agenda Vice Chair Tillman asked to move New Business item IX.B, Consideration of a Redevelopment Proposal from the Heart of Boynton Self-Assembly Group for Phase I of the HOB Plan, to the beginning of the Public Hearing. Mr. Barretta asked to move Old Business item VIII.B, Consideration of the Final Draft for the Retail Demand Analysis, to follow Public Comments. He felt this should be heard prior to the other Old Business item VIII.A. Consideration of Additional Density within CRA. Attorney Spillias added an item under XI. Comments by Board Attorney, to consider request for assignment of direct incentive agreement in the Ocean Breezes matter and a report on the Ocean Breezes contract. Chair Heavilin added an item (L.) to the Consent Agenda, Resolution 05-15 regarding the necessity for two signatures on all Agency checks and authorizing signatories. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to accept the agenda as amended. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 6-0. I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 III. Consent Agenda A. Consideration to Negotiate a Contract with Ambit Marketing B. Consideration of Reimbursement of Fac;ade Grant to Hudson Realty in the amount or $15,000 C. Consideration of Resolution 05-13, Implementation of a Sick Leave Sharing Program D. Consideration of the Renewal to the City/CRA Interlocal Agreement for IT Services E. Acceptance of the Minutes from the Joint Workshop with City Commission - November 29, 2005 F. Consideration of a City/CRA Interlocal Agreement to allow CRA Staff to participate in the City's Insurance Program with Blue Cross/Blue Shield G. Acceptance of the Minutes from the CRA Board Meeting - January 10, 2006 Attorney Spillias pulled this item. H. Consideration of Employee Recognition Award - Robert Reardon I. Consideration of a Contract with L.J. Craig & Associates to provide Job Task Analysis and Establish FTE Staffing Requirements Chair Heavilin pulled this item. J. Consideration of an Employment Agreement with Lisa A. Bright, CRA Executive Director K. Consideration of a General Fund Budget Amendment for the CRA 2005-06 Approved Budget Mr. Myott pulled this item. L. Consideration of Resolution ROS-01S (added at agenda approval) Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 6-0. V. Public Comments: Chair Heavilin opened the floor to public comment on items not on the agenda. 2 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Lee Wische, 11302 S.W. 18th Street, Boynton Beach, referred to a problem between the Planning & Development Board and the CRA. The Planning & Development Board asked Ms. Diana Johnson to request a workshop meeting to allow staff to present the big picture of all the approved projects in the City to date. The request was made about two months previously and Mr. Wische inquired about the delay. Lisa Bright, CRA Director, responded she had made a recommendation to Ms. Johnson, copying Mr. Bressner, that this topic could be added to the March 23 workshop agenda. The CRA Board and the Planning & Development Board were in agreement the presentation was needed, but schedules of City staff and the City Commission had to be considered. Mr. Wische stated he would determine which Planning & Development Board members would be available at that time. Ms. Horenburger arrived at 6:38 p.m. Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comments when no one else came forward to speak. VIII. Old Business (heard out of order) B. Consideration of Final Draft for the Retail Demand Analysis Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, declared the additional scope of work on the Retail Demand Analysis report prepared by Howard Kohn of The Chesapeake Group had been received. The report covers the entire CRA area and concludes if the CRA were to develop retail in the seven nodes identified in the report, the City would need approximately 20K units of housing to make the retail viable. This was with the assumption that 25% of the new units would not be occupied full time and that there would be an approximate 50% capture rate of the inner and outer markets. Ms. Brooks sought policy direction from the Board to: 1) pursue higher density to accommodate development of retail in all seven nodes or, 2) reduce the amount of retail and concentrate it in fewer nodes. In the report, MLK Boulevard was assumed to have retail, but the consultant felt it would not be viable without subsidies. The submission to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was due on April 1, 2006. The submission was meant to facilitate the Land Use and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to adopt some of the existing Corridor Plans. There were approximately 1,500 units in the wings, and if the changes were approved, site plans could be written. Mr. Barretta understood from conversations with Mr. Kohn some 20,500 units would be required to support the recommended retail and this was in addition to the units already existing and in the pipeline. If the City reduced the number of units by 3,000 as they planned to do, the number of units would be reduced to 11,000, considerably less than what was recommended for the commercial nodes. Mr. Barretta felt they had to increase tesidential or cut back the commercial nodes and concentrate in one or two areas. The CRA was investing a lot of time and tax money to create a downtown, and the direction in which tjhey were heading was not adequate. He felt everyone shared a vision of creating a vibrant, vil:lble, exciting downtown of which Boynton Beach could be proud. Something had to be done. 3 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Vice Chair Tillman felt retail nodes should be modified to match density numbers, but did not think this decision should hold up moving forward on other issues. Also, they had to keep in mind they had to maintain the community aesthetics that were in place now and not destroy them. He was in favor of studies showing how to increase the viability of retail, but the overall aesthetics of the area in which it would be located had to be taken into consideration. There was more involved than just putting a lot of buildings on the ground and calling it the new downtown. There was a larger picture and they had to be aware of it. Mr. Barretta felt if they built retail without more rooftops to support it, they would end up with a new kind of blight in the form of vacant buildings with white paper in the windows. There had to be a demand for the buildings. Everyone the CRA had talked to told them they needed more rooftops in the downtown, but the CRA had not implemented this in its plans. He felt they would have to concentrate the retail in one place, and not spread it out over Ocean Avenue, Woolbright Road, Boynton Beach Boulevard, and MLK Boulevard at the same time. They had also talked about a "wedding cake" scenario in regard to building heights and transitioning into residential areas, but had never implemented this in its plans. The direction staff had been pushing developers for the past few years was to have retail with residential above, but the developers did not have a clue of how they were going to fill up the retail component. Mr. Kohn was coming to the workshop on February 22 and could be reached by telephone if anyone wanted to discuss it with him before that meeting. Mr. Myott had discussed this at length with CRA staff and felt the needs of the senior citizens had to be taken into consideration in any discussion of density. Also, there were quality of life concerns. There were other concerns besides the pleasure of strolling down a street with a number of shops and restaurants. Mr. Myott did not think it was as simple as saying they needed a certain "X" amount of retail to have a viable downtown. Mr. Myott wanted to see an overview of the optimum population for the entire City and how the population impacted such resources as water. He felt Woolbright Road was becoming a "power center" and did not really serve the purposes of the CRA. He needed more information from the bigger picture to make a decision about the retail demand analysis study. Ms. Horenburger asked whether Mr. Kohn had considered the towns of Ocean Ridge and Gulf Stream, since those residents routinely used retail establishments in Boynton Beach. Ms. Horenburger wanted to see examples of successful and unsuccessful downtowns, particularly examples in which Mr. Kohn's approach had been followed. She also questioned Mr. Kohn's comment that office space could be a tradeoff for residential when they all knew there was currently a great demand for residential. She recalled when the Board could not find an office in which to move the CRA staff. She believed the City needed to have people living and working downtown and not just working in retail. She looked forward to the workshop and hoped Mr. Kohn could bring information to back up his assumptions. Chair Heavilin said the study had been done from the point of view of what the City needed to do to support retail. She wanted it to go a step farther and speak to how much retail the City should have based on its proposed residential population. She thought they might consider not requiring space to be built as mixed use. Also, they might have to r~duce their concept of retail to the point that the population could support it. 4 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Ms. Brooks mentioned the DCA submittal involved heights and demsities, so they needed to know about the Board's desires in that regard so they could write the submission. They could always go back to the DCA later if they found it should be changed. She commented Mr. Kohn had addressed the plans and the proposed density and believed there should be around 72 du/acre to support the retail on all seven nodes. They could look for middle ground where they could increase density in some areas and pull back retail in others. Currently, retail was not required in the Mixed Use-Low category. If a policy decision were made, staff would encourage developers not to do retail outside of the nodes they designated as the City's retail cores. That was the kind of direction they needed. There were developers who were waiting for amendments to be made to the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Horenburger believed the issue should be community driven and not developer driven. Chair Heavilin saw the retail demand analysis as a tool to help them make decisions. She heard the Board asking for additional information, but felt they could make changes later if needed. Mr. DeMarco felt the CRA should give equal attention to the needs of the Heart of Boynton (HOB) area and other CRA areas. He recalled the meeting two months previously when 150 members of the HOB community had come to express their frustration that things were not happening fast enough in the HOB area. They complained of crime and drugs. The Board had talked for years about doing something there but there was very little to show for it. He mentioned a developer who presented a project with $2S0-300K homes. Mr. DeMarco wanted to see a building with apartments or condos in the amount of $100-lS0K. Ms. Brooks advised Mr. DeMarco there were a number of initiatives he would find of interest for the HOB later in the agenda. Mr. Barretta emphasized the Board had to move but had to move in the right way. If the wrong buildings were built in the wrong place, they could sit empty and have to be subsidized by the City for years and years. Ms. Brooks understood CRA staff was going to try to arrange a joint workshop at a time convenient to the CRA and the City Commission. The workshop would cover Mr. Kohn's retail demand presentation and a discussion on density. Mr. Barretta mentioned his difficulty in getting answers from City or CRA staff about the number of units in the CRA area. Ms. Horenburger asked to see figures on affordable housing at the workshop on February 22. She had seen a great article in the Palm Beach Post but did not know about the accuracy of the data or whether CRA staff could add to it. Ms. Brooks responded they would be identifying the existing housing stock in their presentation at the workshop. IX. New Business B. Consideration of a Redevelopment Proposal from the Heart of Boynton Self- Assembly Group for Phase 1 of the HOB Plan (heard out of order) 5 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, declared the CRA had been working with a method of redevelopment known as self-assembly, where the CRA encouraged property owners to create developable sites. In the CRA area, most of the parcels are small and not reasonably developable on their own. HOB Phase 1 was one area in which self-assembly was encouraged. The proposal in front of the Board at this time was to allow the property owners: Larry Finkelstein with MPLF, Carolyn Young, Zamir Olesoy, and Mr. Barry, to partner with the City and the CRA in a limited partnership to develop the property as a mixed-use development. The idea was that by combining properties, the parties could reasonably expect to realize a higher gain as opposed to selling the properties as land. The amounts of affordable and commercial space would be decided later. A point in favor of the approach was that it could happen fairly quickly. Going out for a Request for Proposal on this site would probably not result in much developer interest since it was a small, CRA-driven project. The CRA wanted to get affordable housing and affordable commercial space from this site. The site was not an optimum development site since it was small, separated by a street, and had a very shallow north side. She sought direction from the Board about pursuing this approach. Ms. Bright stated under the former CRA Director, this particular group had been excluded in the HOB Phase 1 Eminent Domain process. If the Board did not want to pursue a concept agreement with the CRA, Ms. Young, the City and Mr. Finkelstein as general partners, with the other participants agreeing to be a limited partnership, they would be sent offer letters under Eminent Domain for HOB Phase 1. Chair Heavilin felt this project was also unique because it contained City and CRA land as well as private land. Ms. Brooks said more than 60% of the sites were currently under control or contract. Mr. Barretta had discussed self-assembly with attorneys representing some of the self-assembly groups and their opinion was to get one of them to work was very difficult. He felt the Board should exercise caution in becoming a partner in a process that was going to be time- consuming and arduous. They did not have enough staff to keep up with normal demands as matters now stood. Mr. Barretta was also leery of participation in this because there still had not been an analysis of the infrastructure costs involved with redevelopment in the HOB area. The Board had asked for this several months previously and had not yet seen it. He had been told the costs for water, sewage and drainage might be so high that all of their plans to date would evaporate since they had not been built with knowledge of the required data. Mr. Myott asked how much it would cost to give the attorneys time to review the partnership agreement, and have an architect do a site plan and rendering. Ms. Bright responded it would cost $lS-20K maximum. Mr. Myott was aware of a need to do something in the HOB area and was pleased a group of people had gotten together and expressed interest. He felt comfortable with Mr. Finkelstein's track record as well. He was in support of trying it and letting them come back to make a presentation next month under New Project Review. Vice Chair Tillman was also pleased to see a private/public partner~hip and felt the group had the protocol and financial backing to do it. The Board had a res~onsibility to end slum and blight and the area covered by the proposed project definitely repre~ented that. The Board had to continue its mission to end slum and blight and that 'Nas why the'0 were in business. 6 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Vice Chair Tillman declared the Heart of Boynton was a large part of the CRA. A self-assembly team had come together that owns the land. They had come forward to propose to do business with the City in a private/public partnership. They had the protocol and the financial backing to do it. This Board has a responsibility to uphold what its mission is. Part of that mission is ending slum and blight. Certainly that area represents that. The responsibility facing this Board is to make this happen and follow our mission statement. That is whv we are in business. We have done what we have done downtown. We have moved the mission cross town. Now is not the time to stall. This is not a game. This is about business. Most of the Board members I have heard of support that. We need to make this unanimous. Ms. Horenburger agreed with Vice Chair Tillman but still wanted to see what part of the partnership and how much the CRA would have to fund before getting behind it all the way. She wanted to know because costs for land, building materials, etc. had spiraled since the HOB Plan was conceived. She would not be in favor of a single family affordable home that would cost the purchaser and person who would dwell in it $200-22SK, if that home would cost the CRA and the City $900K to build. She hoped the economic analysis currently underway would be done soon, since it might affect they way they looked at things. She was also concerned about developing the HOB area in a piece meal way, but could agree to move ahead on the initial phase, pending more information. Carolyn Young, 15112 Tall Oak Avenue, Delray Beach, spoke as one of the general partners trying to redevelop the area. The self-assembly group had been working for months with the former CRA Director and the City to develop this property. She was not happy with the crime and drugs in the area. When people from the area were willing to invest their resources to improve the area, she would expect some positive support from the Board for an implementation plan for the HOB area. Pami Maugham of Weiner &. Aronson in Delray Beach, commented the concept of self- assembly was laudable but fraught with dangers. Landowners were not land developers. It took time, money and skill to insure redevelopment happened correctly. Doing a few parcels here and there was not a route that would lead to long-term stability and economic vitality. It would hinder development because of increased the costs of construction and acquisition. She felt many self-assembly groups had their expectations raised to the pOint they were no longer realistic. She urged the Board to reject self-assembly as a tool because the members were being asked to risk too much. If the market were to take a downturn, this could be the most costly mistake of their lives. For most people, their property is their major asset and they would be risking it all. Mr. Barretta asked Ms. Maugham if her firm had been involved in any self-assembly efforts. Ms. Maugham responded they had been asked to represent some, but tended to shy away from them since they were difficult. David Zimet, Faith-Based Community Development Corporation, 2191 North Sea crest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, felt the people behind the ~elf-assembly idea should be lauded. It could be a tremendous benefit to the area. As Vice Chair Tillman had said, it was time to get something done and this was a way to do that. The City alnd CRA would participate and private individuals were willing to participate. That was a wonderf~11 mix. He felt the people 7 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 involved in the self-assembly group were able to protect their own interests. It was not up to someone else to tell them they did not know how to do that. Larry Finkelstein, 1114 North Federal Highway, Suite 202, Boynton Beach, responded the self-assembly had been in progress for two years. It was not being done piece meal. They planned to do the Phase I project as previously approved. He heard a Board member suggest they be given 30 days and he asked for 60 days. They also wanted to do a feasibility study as they would do if they were regular developers. Mr. Barretta commented if the self-assembly group had been working on the project for two years, could it not wait for one more month so the City could provide the information needed to accurately assess the fiscal impact of the project? Mr. Finkelstein believed every month was critical in terms of the rising cost of materials. The main point was the zoning and land use still had not been changed. If the CRA did not go to DCA with that, they could not build anything there anyway. They hoped to be a catalyst to nudge that process along a little faster so they could actually come before the Board with a product. If they did not have to wait, they did not want to wait. Ms. Horenburger did not believe Mr. Finkelstein lived in the area of the proposed project and understood the assembly would be done by persons living and owning property in an area. Mr. Finkelstein said he did not live there and most of the property was zoned commercial. Mr. Finkelstein commented he had two lots, one in Phase I and one in another phase. Ms. Horenburger had been under the impression that assembly would be done by persons living and owning property in an area but was now hearing that was never the concept. Investors could come in and assemble it themselves. Chair Heavilin responded it was almost impossible for a commercial property owner to be a resident. Brian Edwards, 629 N. E. 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, thanked the Board members who had spoken about the community, especially on the issue of self-assembly. A precedent was set recently and everybody rallied around the effort and assisted that group of people. Now was not the time to backpedal when somebody was trying to move forward, in his opinion. When he heard about analyses, surveys, and high-paid consultants coming in with numbers that went through the roof, he was concerned about the CRA forgetting the people in the community had a voice about how their community should look. The community wanted to be heard. He felt a few people were losing sight of that. Ms. Horenburger would support authorizing staff to begin negotiations towards a partnership agreement with the self-assembly group but she wanted to know how much it would cost. She wanted to know what the infrastructure costs would be to do even this Phase I project. She felt the self-assembly group could be given sixty days, or even ninety days if it took that long to get the infrastructure costs. She could not make a commitment not knowing what the real costs would be to the CRA. Mr. Barretta agreed with Ms. Horenburger and would also not vot~ yes on a project without knowing the cost to the CRA. He would also not be prepared to vot~ on a project until he knew the overall direction for the downtown and the HOB. He could not a~prove a single project in a vacuum. 8 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Mr. Myott felt a feaSibility study would be a first step, but he would appreciate a status update at next month's meeting anyway. Motion Vice Chair Tillman moved to authorize staff to enter into an agreement after the self-assembly group had done a feasibility study not more than 90 days from now, determining the financial viability of the CRA and City working with the self-assembly group to provide a redevelopment proposal for the HOB Phase I Plan. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. Chair Heavilin asked if he meant project plan or authorization of partnership agreement. Ms. Brooks indicated if the Board wanted staff to move forward with a site plan and feasibility analysis, some funds had to be authorized to do that. Ms. Horenburger did not think the CRA was doing the feasibility analysis. Ms. Brooks stated the CRA had to do a site plan as a general partner. The money would be put up and received back at the end. It would count as a share towards the partnership. Vice Chair Tillman asked to be updated regularly on this. Chair Heavilin thought the partnership agreement was a separate issue from the self-assembly group development proposal and site plan. Ms. Bright said she had been given direction at the previous month's meeting to negotiate a contract with Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding the feasibility study of the HOB area. Staff had just gotten a proposal back from Treasure Coast at 5 p.m. today. The timeline given in the proposal, if approved by the Board, was eight weeks. Mr. DeMarco believed there were five acres in the HOB that would be available, with help from the City to purchase, where they could at least start building some apartment units. The units could be 1 bedroom 1 bath or 2 bedroom 2 bath. There could be a recreation center and pool and accommodations where people could enjoy life, especially senior citizens. The complex could be from 100 to 150 units and be reasonable to purchase if the City owned the land. He thought the 1 bedroom 1 bath units could be built for $100K and 2 bedrooms 2 bath for $lS0K. He believed everyone should think positively about this and just move forward on it. There was a way to do it if the community, the CRA and the City worked as a team. Chair Heavilin felt a month's delay was very important in light of the rapidly rising market costs. She mentioned the "paralysis of analysis." She felt the CRA should get back to what the community needed. Mr. Norem called the question. The motion passed 7-0. VI. Public Hearing Attorney Spillias asked the Board members if they had any ex pa~ communications with the developers having projects before the Board at this meeting. Chair Heavilin indicated she had 9 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 been present at a meeting where some of the plans for Yachtsman's Cove had been presented. Attorney Spillias swore in all the persons who expected to speak during the public hearing. A. Land Use Amendment Plan Amendment Rezoning 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Yachtsman's Cove (LUAR 06-003) Atlantis Environmental Engineering, Inc. Yachtsman's Property, LLC East side of Federal Highway approximately 375 feet north of the Boynton (C-16) Canal Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Special High Density Residential (SHDR); and Description: Proposed Use: Request to rezone from Community Commercial (C-3) to IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development 61 townhouse units Abandonment 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Yachtsman's Cove (ABAN 06-001) Atlantis Environmental Engineering, Inc. Yachtsman's Property, LLC East side of Federal Highway approximately 375 feet north of the Boynton (C-16) Canal Request to abandon a portion of the Northeast 15th Place right-of-way Description: New Site Plan 3. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Yachtsman's Cove (NWSP 06-003) Atlantis Environmental Engineering, Inc. Yachtsman's Property, LLC East side of Federal Highway approximately 375 feet north of the Boynton (C-16) Canal Request new site plan approval to construct 612 fee-simple townhouse units and related site improvements on a 3.3S-acre parcel in the Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) zoning district Description: Eric Johnson, Planner, presented all three Yachtsman's Cove items at the same time. Staff recommended approval of the land use amendment and rezonihg, new site plan, and abandonment, with conditions. The buildings were presented as two land three-story buildings and did not negatively impact any of the surrounding residentiijl communities with the exception of Building 1. Building 1 was proposed as a three-story buil~ing but was only 12 feet away from a single-family detached home abutting the project. Staffl determined compatibility 10 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 would best be achieved by limiting the structure height to a maximum of two stories on Building 1. The project has more than sufficient parking and meets the traffic performance standards of Palm Beach County. Potable water and sanitary sewer requirements would not exceed supply. Fire and Police determined the current staffing levels would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services. Mr. Johnson indicated the project had been compared to the required criteria used to review projects that include an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and met all criteria. Vice Chair Tillman left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The decorative cupolas are 46' 9" tall and do not meet the 45 feet zoning regulations. Staff recommended reducing the cupola height to 45 feet or requiring the applicant to request approval for a height exception. Staff reviewed the design of the buildings and found them to be acceptable. The site plan had 61 conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of all requests, believing the proposed project would have a positive impact on the values of adjacent properties and would contribute to the overall economic development of the City. The conditions of approval associated with the abandonment request relate to underground utilities, which have to be redirected to the site through easement or the re-routing of N.E. 15th Place. There was one condition of approval for the land use amendment/rezoning since the subject property lies within the hurricane evacuation zone. Projects having more than 50 units have to have proper notification by homeowner's association in the event of a hurricane. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, declared she had been working with the adjacent neighborhood and the applicant for eight months. The applicant was more than willing to address issues raised by the neighborhood. The neighborhood was concerned about the proposed re-alignment and straightening of N.E. 15th Place to the south. There would be a large amount of traffic generated by 61 units, especially at peak hours. The neighborhood requested the applicant ask permission from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to create a turn lane slightly to the north of the project to help alleviate this. Ms. Brooks learned the applicant had now received that permission. The neighborhood also wanted the landscaping on the medians of the new N.E. 15th Place to be significant enough so the homeowners would not have a visual of Federal Highway. The CRA recommended approval with conditions. Board Comments Ms. Horenburger inquired whether the Inlet Cove Neighorhood Association (INCA) had reviewed the plans and Chair Heavilin responded they had done so and were present. AI Capellini, Atlantis Environmental Engineering, Inc., agerjt for applicant, introduced himself and Slattery Associates, the project architects. 11 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Chair Heavilin asked the applicant if he agreed with all conditions of approval and the response was affirmative. Kobe Cohen, the developer, indicated the project would meet the CRA's need for increased residential to support retail. It would also reduce the discharge of stormwater by increasing the amount of green area. And, they would be removing old buildings. In regard to the abandonment of a portion of the N.E. 15th Place right-of-way, the applicant asked the City to accept the dedication of the new road. All the necessary infrastructure changes would be relocated to the new road and paid by the applicant. Several Board members indicated they would be willing to waive the presentation by the developer unless the public had questions. Mr. Norem asked whether the applicant had any disagreements with staff's presentation and recommendations, and they had no disagreements. Chair Heavilin asked what the applicant's intentions were in regard to condition of approval #51, the alternatives for Building 1. Mr. Cohen responded they would be reducing the height of Building 1 to two stories. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak. Stanley Nitkowski, 670 N.E. 15th Place, Boynton Beach, 2006 INCA President and only spokesman at this meeting, presented a letter summarizing the agreements between the applicant and INCA. He asked to be able to read the summary of agreements. Chair Heavilin asked if the contents of the summary had been included in the conditions of approval and Mr. Nitkowski responded they had not been included. A considerable discussion ensued. Although the Board was interested in accommodating INCA and its requests, it was finally determined the requested revisions/agreements between INCA and the developer would have to be submitted by the developer in a revised site plan application, which staff could review and the Board could consider. It was made clear to the INCA representative the Board could only approve plans that were before it, plans that had been submitted and reviewed by City and CRA staff. Although the changes seemed to relate to minor modifications such as fencing and landscaping, one of the changes was the moving of a building by five feet. It was felt staff had to review the proposed changes to determine whether they met City codes before making a recommendation. Mr. Johnson explained modifications to site plans required staff review. Although it would seem that increasing landscaping was acceptable, reducing setbacks and moving buildings might not be acceptable. Staff would have to determine whether or not the modification(s) were major or minor. If the recommendation was to approve the site plan at this meeting as is and there were subsequent changes to the site plan, the changes would then be reviewed by staff. If the changes were deemed minor, staff would handle them administratively. If the changes were deemed major, a revised site plan would need to be brought before the CRA and the City Commission for approval. Ms. Horenburger introduced a motion but was advised it would have! to follow the closing of the Public Hearing. 12 I I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Steve Homrich, 690 N.E. 15th Place, Boynton Beach, former INCA President, referred to a dispute between a developer and the neighborhood a year ago that resulted in a determination by INCA that in future, it would try to work out its concerns with the developer before coming to the City. They had a little trouble with this one because the former Executive CRA Director had not helped them get together and actually kept them apart. The day after the former CRA Director resigned, the current CRA staff worked to get INCA together with the developer. The plan on the table before them showed N.E. 15th Place would be straightened out like an arrow right down to Federal Highway. Nobody wanted that. INCA and the developer had worked hard to put a little curve back into the road and make some changes, all of which were not shown on the plan before the Board. He said the Board was considering approval of a plan that did not include any trees on the medians on the revised roadway. Those were the types of changes they were talking about. They felt they were minor, but he hoped the Board would include their landscaping requests, at least. He asked the Board to instruct the developer to meet with INCA one more time so they could come forward to the City with a finalized site plan that took their requests and agreements into consideration. He felt the changes were minor. Ms. Horenburger said in the motion she was going to make, staff would be authorized to review the proposed changes recommended by INCA. Chair Heavilin closed the public hearing when no one else came forward. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the request for land use plan amendment/rezoning for Yachtsman's Cove, subject to all staff conditions. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Local Retail Commercial (LRC) to Special High Density Residential (SHDR), related to the Yachtsman's Cove request, subject to any conditions. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve Yachtsman's Cove's request for new site plan approval NWSP 06-003, subject to satisfaction of all comments indicated in Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the conditions of approval. The CRA recommends the City review the adjustments and changes recommended by INCA. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-0. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve Yachtsman's Cove's request for abandonment (ABAN 06-001), and relocation of a portion of the N.E. 15th Place right-of-way per the approved site plan. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. The Board complimented staff and the developer for the presentatibn of a nice project and a much-needed improvement. 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida I I February 14, 2006 B. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Proposed Use: Major Site Plan Modification 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Height Exception 3. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Wilson Center Complex (LUAR 06-005) Wally Majors, Recreation & Parks Director City of Boynton Beach 211 N.W. 13th Avenue Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential (MeDR) to Recreational (R); and Request to rezone from Single and Two- Family Dwelling District (R-2) to Recreation (REe) district. Recreation (expansion of the Wilson Center Park Complex) Wilson Center Complex (MSPM 05- 011) Wally Majors, Recreation & Parks Director City of Boynton Beach 211 N.W. 13th Avenue Request Major Site Plan Modification approval for park expansion and improvements to include a 13,816 square foot recreation community center, a lighted multi-purpose athletic field, playground, picnic area, basketball courts, new swimming pool, and a refurbished pool building and additional parking on 5.27 acres zoned REC. Wilson Center Complex (HTEX 06-002) Wally Majors, Rectreation & Parks Director City of Boynton Beach 211 N.W. 13th Avenue Request for Height Exception approval to allow a decorative cupola on the roof of the proposed two (2)-story Wilson Park community center building at a height of 52 feet, seven (7) Ifeet above the maximum building height Iilmit of 45 feet in the REC zoning district. 14 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommendations for the land use plan amendment and rezoning changes. The City-owned and operated park is expanding in the Heart of Boynton area. The proposed expansion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff recommends approval of the land use and rezoning. Also, there was a major site plan modification for the expansion where additional lots were being added. The City proposes to increase the site from approximately four acres to 5.72 acres. Ms. Horenburger was curious since there was an expansion and yet the report said, "Fiscal Impact Funding Source - None." The explanation was that there was no cost to the CRA. Ms. Zeitler showed floor plans for the Center detailing classrooms, computer rooms, small kitchens, restrooms, and large lobby areas. The building was of Floribbean architecture with a standing seam metal roof. The building itself was 42 feet in height but the decorative cupolas planned for the two-story Wilson Park Community Center building extended to 52 feet and required a height exception. Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, indicated this was one of the key projects in the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan and she was excited to see it come forward. This project represented real movement in the HOB area, which should be well received by the residents. She recommended approval. Mr. Myott asked for a colored rendering of the project and one was provided. The building is light blue in color. Wally Majors, Recreation & Parks Director, indicated the City had no issues with the conditions of approval and was looking forward to moving the project forward. Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Since no one came forward, Chair Heavilin closed the floor. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve amendment of the Wilson Center Complex (LUAR 06-005) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Recreational and to rezone from Single and Two-family Dwelling District to Recreation district. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 5-0. (Mr. DeMarco was out of the room.) Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Wilson Center Complex (MSPM 05-011) major site plan modification for park expansion improvements to include a 13,8116 square foot recreation community center, a lighted multi-purpose athletic field, playground, picnic area, basketball courts, new swimming pool, and a refurbished pool building and additional parking on 55.27 acres zoned Recreation. Mr. Norem seconded the motion that passed 5-0. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Wilson Center Complex ~KTEX 06-002) request for height exception approval to allow a decorative cupola on the roof! of the proposed two-story Wilson Park Community Center building at a height of 52 feet, seveh feet above the maximum 15 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 building height limit of 45 feet in the Recreation zoning district. Mr. Norem seconded the motion. Ms. Horenburger suggested City staff or the CRA move forward with a Code amendment stating cupolas would be exempt from the height limitations. They were a recurring issue. Mr. Barretta did not believe the Board had voted on the height exception issue in the Yachtsman's Cove project. Attorney Spillias pointed out they had not made an application for a height exception and when they did, it would be brought before the Board. The conditions indicated a height exception request and approval would be necessary. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. DeMarco was back on the dais.) VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items IV-G Acceptance of the Minutes from the CRA Board Meeting - January 10, 2006 Attorney Spillias indicated on page 15 of the subject minutes, first full paragraph, second sentence, the words would be should be inserted in front of determined and the word determined followed by later, with the rest of the sentence proceeding as stated. He wanted it to be clear the quick take process did not have the taking and the amount determined at the same time. He was saying that in the quick take method, you get the property and the amount is determined at a later time. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the subject minutes as amended. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. IV-I Consideration of a Contract with L.J. Craig & Associates to provide Job Task Analysis and Establish Full Time Employee (FTE) Staffing Requirements Chair Heavilin wanted assurance that setting of goals and accountability for the different positions would be part of the scope of work. Ms. Bright responded several Board members had expressed interest in having work plans and management by objectives. L. J. Craig & Associates would be analyzing the CRA job descriptions, establishing accountability and determining individual workloads. Chair Heavilin felt that prior to this, there had been very little goal setting or accountability and Ms. Bright agreed. Motion Mr. Norem moved to approve a Contract with LJ. Craig & Associates to provide Job Task Analysis and Establish FTE Staffing Requirements. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. IV-K Consideration of a General Fund Budget Amendmen~ for the CRA 2005-2006 Approved Budget (Resolution 05-14) Mr. Myott asked Mr. Reardon to comment on this item. 16 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Robert Reardon, CRA Finance Director, explained the item related to amendments to the 2005- 2006 Budget. Mr. Myott asked about losing the contingency in Exhibit A. Mr. Reardon indicated he had found the money in the bond principal payment "guesstimate, and put it into the contingency account when the budget transitioned from a narrative one to account-based budgeting. In the future, he would be in charge of budget preparation and would work with the Board. If the Board chose to have a contingency account for its own purposes, he would only suggest changes to the contingency account based on the Board's recommendation. In every other account, he would be able to move money from department to department on hiS own. He would be coming to the Board monthly since his credo was not to ever let over expended accounts go beyond one month. This allowed staff to cut programs if necessary to "plug a hole" that was not expected. Mr. Myott agreed with Mr. Reardon's methods and hoped they could recreate a contingency along the way from accounts that were not spent. Mr. Reardon said they could, but at the end of the year, everything would go to the fund balance. They had recently concluded the 2004-2005 audit and he would give this to the Board at its next meeting, along with the next budget report from the new software. In response to a question from Chair Heavilin, Mr. Reardon explained he was asking for approval to make intra-departmental changes to the budget. It had been his practice to make amendments within a department himself if it were found too little was budgeted. If it had to come outside of the department, by law, it was in the Board's purview. He stated all the increases in Exhibit A were being offset by appropriations to other departments and not within. He did not want to waste the Board's time moving $300 from one line to another, but he had to move the larger numbers. For example, they no longer had the Police program so those monies were available. Mr. Reardon commented the Board's approval of this Resolution wouild give him the authority to move the listed amounts of money as shown in Exhibit A, right now. Next month, he would bring the Board another "wish list." Motion Mr. Norem moved to approve Resolution No. 05-14 Budget Amendment Request. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-0. VIII. Old Business A. Consideration of Additional Density Change to MU Districts Within CRA CRA and Planning & Zoning staff sought direction from the Board on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations for submission to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) by April 1. Ms. Brooks asked the Board to verify the proposed recommendations regarding density, height and the designated "Dovfntown District." A considerable discussion followed. 17 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Ms. Brooks indicated if the Board wished to consider additional density, City and CRA staff had worked together to designate areas (marked in blue on the map) where additional density could be placed and not affect adjoining single-family residential communities. That area is basically west of Federal Highway, south of 2nd Avenue down to approximately 10th Avenue, and includes areas at the two western corners of Woolbright Road and Federal Highway. Mr. Barretta felt that having additional height and density at Woolbright Road ran contrary to the recommendations of the Federal Highway Corridor Study, and Ms. Brooks agreed to an extent. Mr. Barretta contended the study suggested stepping height down away from the core. Ms. Brooks responded the Study did acknowledge a higher intensity node at Woolbright Road up to 100 feet. Mr. Barretta could support the recommendation from CRA and City staff for the purposes of getting it in to the DCA, with the hope it would be amended some time during the process. He felt it was a shame they wanted to vary from the Federal Highway Corridor Study, which they had all endorsed and embraced. Losing 3,400 units and replacing them with 700 units, when they probably need something between 700 and 10,000 units, was woefully inadequate and did not represent thorough planning. He hoped the upcoming workshop would take another look at this. Chair Heavilin pointed out INCA zoning had always been residential and the 3K units would never have been put there. Mr. Barretta felt it was a loss of potential density. Ms. Brooks responded the actual adoption of the Federal Highway Corridor Study superseded the mixed- use land use that now lay on INCA and that called for single-family development. In the Comprehensive Plan, those units were never counted so if you did not have them, you could not lose them, she said. Ms. Brooks referred to the 1M sq. ft. of retail suggested by Mr. Kohn, saying she believed it was too much in light of the closeness to Congress Avenue. She felt a compromise would be to add some density somewhere else and actually pull the retail into a tighter area. Mr. Barretta fully supported that, but was concerned the Board was taking action on the amount of retail at the Woolbright Road node. He felt that would impact what could be done in the central Ocean Avenue node and was not the kind of retail they would prefer downtown. The Woolbright Road area was more like a power center, as Mr. Myott indicated. The City's zoning ordinances encouraged that kind of development at the Woolbright Road node, and it was counterproductive. He felt retail should be cut back at the Woolbright Road node and not at Ocean Avenue. Ms. Brooks commented the only additional retail at Woolbright Road was the Gulfstream site but it would only have 43,000 sq. ft. Mr. Barretta did not believe it was a matter of additional retail. The Winn Dixie site could have been developed as something other than retail. Mr. Barretta felt retail should be discouraged at the Woolbright Road node so it could be encouraged at the Ocean Avenue core node, which was where they wanted to build the downtown. People would not walk from Ocean Avenue or Marina Towers to Woolbright Road to go shopping, but they would walk to Ocean Avenue. Ms. Horenburger felt the two retail nodes at Woolbright Road were Very successful. Mr. Barretta did not believe that meant they could not be redeveloped into condotniniums. 18 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Ms. Brooks declared there would be approximately 1,100 units on the Winn Dixie and Sunshine Square sites, as proposed. Mr. Barretta felt they would still have several hundred thousand square feet of retail and that was taking away from the core at Ocean Avenue where it was needed and wanted. Mr. Myott commented most of that retail was grocery stores. Mr. Barretta felt Ocean Avenue could support an urban Publix or Whole Foods Market as a downtown area so people could walk to it. Ms. Brooks said they had been speaking to someone about that. Ms. Horenburger did not see the rush to get the proposed amendments to the DCA. She was not in favor of 100 feet at the listed locations in consideration of some of the residential that existed around it. She wanted to take a closer look at it and workshop it some more. She was not prepared to move forward with this. Ms. Brooks declared staff still needed direction to move forward with the proposed changes affecting the HOB, Woolbright and Federal Highway areas. Mr. Barretta said it all started at the workshop when the Planning Department presented options to change current zoning districts. The net effect of that was when they asked what the impact was on residential density, nobody had the answer. After research, staff determined they would be losing about 3,500 plus or minus units. When the economic effect was perceived, the implications to the viability of the downtown became evident. Thils led staff to look for other places to put density back. They found a place for 700+ units but it was not nearly enough and was not the answer. Mr. Myott did not believe the location for the 700+ units warranted 100 feet heights. Mr. Barretta felt there were better ways of getting additional density and better places to put it. Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, said: 1) The "wedding cake" theory and stepping down heights was not something that had been emphasized in the Federal Highway Corridor Study. The Study recommended two mixed-use districts numbered from 1 to S. There is logically a more intense core with a lower, subordinate area to the north and south at 75 feet and a density which is half that of the core. From that, the outlying areas have heights of 45 feet. Staff had described this as a "wedding cake," but it was not a vital component of the Study. The Study was more focused on uses and redevelopment; 2) The density of those areas in INCA or commercial conversion of it did not really exist. The Plan also recommended redeveloping those areas consistent with residential, increasing some lot development potential, decreasing setbacks and so forth, but not converting those areas to commercial; 3) Mr. Rumpf was not a retail expert but as a planner, it would be unique to say you need "X" number of units to have this much square footage of retail. If they had an economic development strategy saying they wanted to be "X," and "X" was defined as some type of activity center including say 1M sq. ft. of commercial space and high-end stores, they might want to follow that approach. Mr. Barretta had not been to as many conferences as Mr. Rumpf, but within the last year, he had attended a conference and heard an expert on downtown planning. He said "the" way to create a downtown was to establish a vision for what was wanted. Did they want it to look like Atlantic Avenue, for example? If they did, they would need 1M sq.i ft. of retail. If they were going to end up with 1M sq. ft. of retail, X number of units would ~e needed to support that. There were experts who insist that is the proper way to plan. Ms. H9renburger responded that would be true only if it were the will of the community. 19 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Mr. Rumpf proclaimed staff was hesitant to place greater density and intensity in the coastal area, based upon DCA's policy prohibiting it. That theory was tested and proven when they did their initial changes for the Mixed Use-High in the downtown. Based on that, the Comprehensive Plan regulates density in the coastal area and keeps it at an average of what the maximum was at that time when they went to 80 du/acre. DCA saw it as averaging at 40 du/acre in the core area. Staff had influenced a commercial component of a mixed-use project, as noted by Board member Barretta. Mr. Rumpf commented the majority of projects staff had reviewed to date had been in the downtown core. It was hard to compare Promenade/Arches/Marina projects with anything else happening in Mixed Use-Low. That was where they wanted to concentrate the commercial so they endorsed the ordinance requiring it on the first floor against arterial roadways. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Rumpf what his recommendation would be for Board direction. Mr. Rumpf responded the Comprehensive Plan changes proposed were very minimal and were detailed on the map included in the agenda packet. He recommended the Board advise staff to go forward to the DCA on the proposed amendments and recommendations and consider them in the future if further changes were desired. The DCA changes would only pertain to the R-3 category because R-3 for the HOB was being changed, possibly to incorporate affordable housing. The greatest role on the part of the CRA would be to amend the Redevelopment Plans to correspond with the proposed changes. Mr. Myott believed Mr. Rumpf suggested the Board move to submit the plan as it stood with the amendments outlined in the agenda package. Mr. Rumpf agreed. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve moving ahead with the amendments and submission to the DCA as presented and consider changes in the future if needed. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion. Mr. Barretta was willing to support this, but hoped it could be looked at again after the CRA and the City Commission workshop because it was important. He did not really care what kind of downtown came into being, but thought the Commission appointed the CRA to create a vibrant, viable downtown. If that was not what the Commission or the City wanted, he would readjust his thinking. Chair Heavilin declared part of the vision of what the downtown should be should come from the CRA. Ms. Horenburger commented it was a public policy matter on which the elected officials would have to deal with their electorate. The CRA did not have to do that. In regard to white paper on stores, Ms. Horenburger believed that was also seer) on successful downtowns because of escalating rents and businesses that could not afford them. That kind of thing was out of the CRA's control. Mr. Barretta said it was different than mandating that people build retail they could not rent. The motion passed 5-1, Ms. Horenburger dissenting. Mr. Myott recalled when the City had a unified vision after the Vision$ 2020 conference in 1996. There was consensus by the board, planning, and the community on what people wanted. He thought there was more civic involvement today than back then ard wanted to see another visioning effort. Mr. Barretta and Ms. Horenburger agreed wholeheartjedly. 20 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Mr. Barretta noted half of the HOB area seemed to want what the Intown developers proposed and the other half wanted something else. What was their consensus today? Had it changed since the Heart of Boynton Plan had been approved? What was the consensus on Ocean Avenue? Did they want something like Las Olas Boulevard? Did they want all residential with people going to Congress Avenue for their shopping and not have restaurants and clubs and museums on Ocean Avenue? He thought it was essential to refresh the vision because they were making decisions monthly without really knowing what the vision was. Chair Heavilin asked the Board if they wished to direct staff to discuss revisioning with the City. A comment was made about the philosophy and vision of the City's Development Department and the importance of hearing what the residents had to say. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to have the CRA initiate a new visioning plan. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-0. IX. New Business A. Consideration of a Purchase Agreement for HOB Properties at 603 & 607 Sea crest Boulevard Ms. Brooks asserted the former CRA Director had agreed to purchase the subject properties by buying down the difference between the value of residential and the value of commercial property, a figure shown to be $210K. The CRA initiated an appraisal of the property (two lots each with a house), which showed a value as commercial of $380K and $170K as residential. Staff supported the option to purchase the property outright rather than buy it down. The buy down option would not result in significant change to the neighborhood since it was likely the blighted houses would remain on Seacrest as rentals. The homes were not worth rehabilitating due to their poor condition and small size. Mr. Parker, the owner, was asking $42SK for the property. Purchasing the property would allow the CRA to facilitate the building of two new affordable homes on the site. However, staff did not support purchasing the property at above appraised value unless the owner could support the higher price with a qualified appraisal. Ms. Brooks said the down zoning of this site was consistent with the Heart of Boynton Redevelopment Plan from C-2 to Single Family Residential. Michael Parker, 502 Sunshine Drive, Delray Beach, declared he bought the property to build a commercial building but when they started getting engineering bids, the City placed a zoning moratorium on the property. They wanted to sell and would agree to a selling price of $380K. They did not want to be exposed to having to spend any more money out of their pocket in case there was damage during the upcoming hurricane season. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to approve the purchase of the properties ,at 603 and 607 Sea crest Boulevard for $380K. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Ms. Brooks asked that the properties be sold without tenants, if th$y did not have leases. Mr. Parker advised he would give the tenants appropriate notice. He oWned about an acre across 21 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 the street from these properties and planned to develop them for housing and expressed concern about what the tenants would do. There was a family of seven living in one of the houses now. Most people could not afford the $1,500 and $1,600 rents in the area. Ms. Horenburger commented they would be paying $190K each for two lots with houses on them that would have to come down for new single-family houses. Mr. Barretta reminded the Board they had talked about this previously and Mr. Hutchinson advised he had been meeting with the developer who wanted to build commercial and it was properly zoned as commercial. Quintus Greene, Development Director, declared the Heart of Boynton Plan called for single family in that area. He questioned why the Board was talking about commercial there. The Board responded there was commercial zoning in place and the City had never rezoned the property in concert with the Heart of Boynton Plan. The answer was to declare a zoning moratorium, stop commercial development, and rewrite the zoning. He felt the Board had to allow Mr. Parker to build a commercial development, which he had a right to do, or pay him the fair value for a commercial piece of property. What would be done with the property later was a separate issue. Mr. Parker declared his understanding the $380K would be net and the CRA would take care of closing costs and demolishing the existing properties. Mr. Barretta amended his motion to state a "net amount of $380K." Mr. Myott agreed to the change. The motion passed 5-1, Ms. Horenburger dissenting. Chair Heavilin noted they had passed the 9:30 p.m. time certain adjournment and asked the Board what it wished to do. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to extend the adjournment to 10:00 p.m. at the latest. Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-0. B. Consideration of a Redevelopment Proposal from the Heart of Boynton Self- Assembly Group for Phase I of the HOB Plan (heard earlier) C. Consideration of a CRA Homeownership Assistance Program Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, declared the CRA Board recently approved the issuance of a second bond, in part to assist with the development of affordable housing initiatives. One of the proposed projects was a "buy down" voucher to be used to help low and moderate income families purchase homes. Staff drafted the Homebuyer Assistance Program that would work in tandem with the City's SHIP program, a down payment assistanc~ program. The CRA funds would provide gap funding between the mortgage amount and t~e State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds. By combining the two funding sources, tMe CRA and City would help to close the gap between what a family could afford and the price ofl housing. The gap between wages and the cost of housing was well known. 22 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 The program was designed to assist people of low to moderate income who were short of money, $SK up to $SOK, to buy a home. In looking at some examples today, staff found three people working for the City who were trying to build houses on City land in the Heart of Boynton that could not afford to do it, even though the land was free. This program would allow those people to build affordable houses. The program document had been reviewed and approved by legal counsel. Ms. Horenburger said a feasibility infrastructure study was being done for the HOB area and nothing should be built there until that study was completed and reviewed. Ms. Brooks stated this was single- family infill on the west side of Seacrest Boulevard, in the single-family area. Mr. Barretta asked the CRA Finance Director, Robert Reardon, if he had assisted in the creation of the document. Mr. Reardon responded he had not, but the money was available in the bond proceeds to cover it. Mr. Barretta expressed a desire for someone with financial expertise to review the program. Mr. Myott asked if this issue would be brought up for discussion on February 22. Ms. Brooks responded it was a project discussed as a part of Bond #2. She was simply implementing the program. The concept was not new. Mr. Myott asked if they could mention police, teachers, and firefighters and other classifications. Ms. Brooks said it was open to anyone of low to moderate income purchasing a home within the CRA area. Mr. Myott asked if there were limitations on the sale of homes. Ms. Brooks indicated this was set by SHIP guidelines. If a homeowner sold to a non-income qualified buyer, they would have to pay back the money plus interest on the money from the time they received it. Also, they would have to pay the City back for the land that had been given to them. There was some concern about how this program would be monitored for compliance. Ms. Brooks responded if the homeowner leased their home out and bought another one and moved into it, they could only Homestead one property. It could be monitored through the Internet periodically. Chair Heavilin thought that a lot of people who could not afford housing now would still not be able to afford it, even with this program. The program would probably benefit a handful of people at best. Chair Heavilin added it might have been helpful for the Board to look at the SHIP guidelines, since much of this program was predicated on it. She confirmed with Ms. Brooks that City and CRA funding would not exceed 40% of the purchase price and the maximum amount of funding would be $SOK. Mr. DeMarco felt parcels of land in the HOB should not be sold until the big picture there was assessed. Once the CRA sold or leased any parcel, they might find they had tied up a section that could disrupt something else they might want to do in the area. David Zimet, Boynton Beach Faith-Based Community De~elopment Corporation, 2191 North Sea crest, Boynton Beach, commended the introduction of this additional layer of financing. The three persons mentioned were clients of his iganization. Mr. Zimet's organization was working with 12 people in all who had been inco e-certified, but could not find a home they could afford. They were still faced with a first mort age and the gap between what they could afford and the amount of mortgage they could . upport. They were hard 23 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 working people with no credit issues, assets to the community, who needed this kind of help. He did not believe the situation was only for City or CRA-owned property, but it was for private property also. Two weeks ago, a standard Cherry Hills lot sold for over $70K. That was in an area where a year ago people refused to build on lots that were offered to them. People could no longer live where they used to be able to live because they could not afford to. He hoped the CRA assistance package would go forward. The Board was not opposed to the program in concept, but wanted further details. Ms. Bright will bring it back to the next meeting with the necessary backup. Mr. Horenburger commented Boynton Beach had plenty of affordable housing, but no decent low-income housing. X. Comments by Board Attorney Attorney Spillias spoke of the Direct Incentive Agreement with Boynton Associates, Ltd. for the Ocean Breeze project that was approved by the Board subject to some language revisions being made between the developer and the attorneys. It came back to the Board last month and there were still open issues, one dealing with the definition of "developer" and the other with the procedures for assignment of the contract. They had worked those issues out and the contract was ready to be executed. Since the Board's original motion was for approval and subject only to the language being worked out between the attorneys, Attorney Spillias did not believe it had to come back to the Board. The Board had already basically approved it except for the language on the assignment issue. The attorney received a formal request from Mr. Finkelstein for this Board to approve the assignment of the contract to an affiliate, Tradewinds Development, LLC, which had been represented to him as being an affiliate under the definition of the contract. The Board could: 1) approve this in concept and have him bring back the actual assigrnment document for review and formal approval or, 2) approve it today, subject to the approval of the Executive Director and Attorney of the language and confirmation of the affiliation between Boynton Associates and Tradewinds Development. Motion Mr. Barretta moved the Board approve option two as outlined by the Attorney. Mr. Norem seconded the motion. Attorney Spillias stated that would be presupposed by both Boynton Associates and the CRA signing the original contract. Mr. Myott asked if there were any value in having Mr. Finkelstein comment on that. Mr. Spillias indicated he had already done the corporate records check with the Department of State to confirm the relationship between the two corporations. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Finkelstein if he would work within that structure and he responded affirmatively. Larry Finkelstein came to the podium, saying Attorney Dukes' letten to him asked for a formal letter, which he provided. Obviously there would be a formal assign~ent agreement and he did not have any problem with review of their internal assignment agrednent. 24 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Attorney Spillias stated they had to make sure the assignment agreement conformed to the assignment requirement as drafted, and Mr. Finkelstein concurred. The motion passed unanimously. XII. Comments by Staff Ms. Bright asked for direction on the proposal from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to perform the Heart of Boynton economic feasibility study for a fee of $SOK. They estimated the project would require a minimum of eight weeks for analysis. Since the information was very time sensitive to the CRA, Ms. Bright asked for Board approval to accept the contract or direct her to find another bidder. The consensus on the Board was to proceed with the Treasure Coast contract to get the information as quickly as possible. Ms. Bright indicated the Board had assigned the scope of services on the Request for Proposal for the Old High School to Corey O'Gorman, who would be sending her a timeline for the work. Three charrettes would be started and the project was to be tied to a funding source. The Board will be given monthly updates. Mr. O'Gorman would be attending the March Board meeting. By mutual agreement, the opportunity for Eric Johnson to come to the CRA as a Planner was rescinded, so Ms. Brooks and Ms. Bright will be working to bring someone else on board in that capacity. They had now hired an Administrative Assistant who would start at the end of February. Ms. Rosalind Murray would also start at the end of the month as Economic Development Director. Chair Heavilin noted the Board agreed at the last meeting to have a governance workshop. She proposed a two-day retreat, with one day being a governance workshop and the other a discussion of strategic planning, visioning, and priority setting. May was the month chosen and the details would follow. The Board discussed the pros and cons of having the meeting in town or out of town. Mr. Reardon recalled the auditor's forensic findings covering the last retreat and noted Florida Statutes recommended retreats be done locally. The CRA received some criticism for having the last retreat out of Palm Beach County. The auditors recommended Florida Atlantic University, Florida International University or other local government retreat possibilities. He urged the Board to consider this before going out of the County. Ms. Horenburger noted the idea was to go far enough out of town that the participants were not able to run home to their businesses. Popular locations in this area for retreats were the Indian River Plantation or PGA National. Mr. Barretta suggested ha~ing a retreat in a City like Hollywood, which had something going on with its downtown. Ch~ir Heavilin responded that was part of the reason they went to Naples for the retreat the previoius year. 25 1 I Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 14, 2006 Mr. Reardon offered to discuss this with the auditor to refine her recommendation and bring the response to the Board in staff's monthly report. XIII. Project Review . Harbor Cay Developer: AmerCan Development Corporation Sid Von Rosepunt, Principal RKB Architects & Planners This item had to be cancelled since ITS support was not available. XIV. Future Workshops . CRA/City Housing Workshop - February 22, 2006 City Hall, City Commission Chambers . Savage Creatures Workshop - March 23, 2006 City Hall, City Commission Chambers XV. Adjournment Motion Mr. Barretta moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:02 p.m., seconded by Mr. Norem and passed 6-0. Respectfully submitted, ~~; Susan Collins Recording Secretary (021506) 26