Loading...
Minutes 11-14-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M. Present: Henderson 11l1man, Chair (arrv'd. 6:15 p.m.) Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev, Lance Chaney Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney In the absence of Chair 11l1man, Vice Chair Norem called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attorney Spillias announced the regular meeting would be preceded by a special, closed-door attorney/client meeting called to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy related to the litigation expenditures in the case of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency vs. Jesus House of Worship, Inc., Case No. 502005CA004252XXXXMB, Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The meeting room was cleared of all but the board, the Executive Director, the attorney, and a court reporter. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to adjourn the special meeting at 6:38 p.m. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. I. Call to Order Chair 1111man called the regular meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The members of the board asked why there was no invocation, as they had previously asked for this. Ms. Bright explained she had been unable to find anyone willing to come to the meeting to do this. Board member Reverend Chaney offered to give the invpcation in the future. Ms. Bright would see that it was added back on the agenda. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 IV. Agenda Approval Chair 1111man asked that item VII-E, EAR Report Revision, be moved to the beginning of the Public Hearing items. It would be heard first, followed by VII-A, Public Notice of Intent to Dispose of Real Property Identified as Lots 452 and 453, Cherry Hills. This would be followed by VII-C, Denmar Building. The Public Hearing Items were reordered as VII-E, A, C, and B. Attorney Spillias asked to add an item on the approval of documents for the Ocean Breeze Project under !X-D, Old Business. The supporting documentation was provided to the board. Attorney Spillias would present this item to the board without recommendation but with an explanation. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Reverend Chaney seconded the motion that passed 7-0. V. Public Comments Chair 1111man invited the public to speak on any items that were not on the agenda. David Zimet, Faith-Based Community Development Corporation, Boynton Beach, declared in reference to the MLK Corridor Agreement, that he hoped the board would pay particular attention to negotiating the contract and make certain the developer had sufficient wherewithal to bring the project to fruition. Otherwise, the area would end up in worse shape that it had ever been. Ms. Horenburger hoped the board would make a procedural change to allow one vote on the reordering of all agenda items. Herb Suss, citizen of Boynton Beach, asked for status on the Intown project. He stated he was quoting the Sun-Sentinel and Chair 1111man who declared it was a disgrace for Intown to come in at the 25th hour and ask the City for $2.5M of the taxpayer's money. He asked the board to strongly consider dumping Intown and look elsewhere for developers. He agreed with a board member who believed the Heart of Boynton project should proceed in smaller segments. He felt the people of the Heart of Boynton were not getting a fair shake and supported them in their desire for quality, affordable housing. VI. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meeting of October 25, 2006 (pulled by Attorney Spillias) B. Approval of the Financials - October 31, 2006 C. Approval of Budget Amendments (pulled by Guarn Sims) D. Approval of 2007 Board Meeting Dates 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 E. Update on CRA Boundaries (pulled by Marie Horenburger) F. Resolution No. 06-02 Regarding Sponsorship Funding (pulled by Guarn Sims) G. Update on Five Town's College (pulled by Guarn Sims) H. Contract Approval- Geoweb for CRA Property Database I. Fac;ade Grant Reimbursement - C.K.'s Locksmith - $15,000 (pulled by Guarn Sims) J. Contract for Issuing RFP for Continuing Contract Services - Corey O'Gorman (pulled by Jeanne Heavilin) K. MLK Corridor Development Agreement Update (pulled by Guarn Sims) L. Contract Approval - Kimley-Horn and Associates - for Regulatory Monitoring of the Mangrove Mitigation Area M. Contract Approval - Native Technologies for Maintenance of the Mangrove Mitigation Area N. Contract Approval - Burkhardt Construction for Maintenance of the Promenade. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the consent agenda items that were not pulled for discussion. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Ms. Brooks began addressing Consent Agenda Item E, but then realized the Pulled Consent Agenda items were scheduled for later on the agenda. VII. Public Hearing (as reordered) Old Business - None New Business: E. EAR Reoort Revision 1. Project: Agent: Description: EAR Report Revision City of Boynton Beach Request to approve the revised EAR, which addresses the deficiencies identified by the Department of Community Affairs in the original EAR report. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Hanna Matras, Planner, reported the City had submitted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required by statute, in December of 2005, but it was returned for revisions and required additions. The City revised the report and upon adoption by the City, the revised report will be transmitted to DCA for review. Some of the identified deficiencies were: . Lack of financial feasibility analysis for the Comprehensive Plan-determined improvements necessary to maintain adopted Level of Service standards; . Lack of review of changes to statutes, rules and Strategic Policy Plan and their relevance upon the City's Plan; and . Lack of analysis of successes and shortcomings of each Plan's elements. DCA had also been critical of the process that led to the identification of sanitary sewer capacity as the only "Major Issue" that would receive special attention through the evaluation process. Ms. Matras reported the shortage of workforce housing had been recognized as the other "Major Issue" facing the City. DCA had performed a courtesy review of the revisions and based on verbal communications, no deficiencies had been noted by DCA. Staff recommended approval of the revised report for transmission to the DCA. Ms. Horenburger confirmed the required revisions had been made. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Attorney Spillias mentioned he did not believe the floor had been opened for public comment on the EAR item. Chair 1111man opened the floor for the public to speak on item VII-E, Ear Report Revision. With no one coming forward, Chair 1111man closed the floor for public comment. A. Public Notice of Intent to Disoose of Real Prooertv Identified as Lots 452 and 453. Cherry Hills. Ms. Heavilin interjected she had been on the advisory board for Habitat for Humanity. She had not had any business relationships with them recently and none regarding this project. Vivian Brooks reported the CRA had recently purchased a lot in the Cherry Hills area of the Heart of Boynton. At the board's direction, it was proposed the CRA donate this property to the South Palm Beach Habitat for Humanity to help the CRA achieve its goals in developing workforce housing. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, when property was disposed of by a CRA for less than fair value, such disposition required the approval of the board at a duly noticed public hearing. If the board approved this transfer of property, staff would commence to publish notice of the intended transfer and if, after 30 days of publication of notice, no other developers had submitted proposals, the transfer would become effective and an agreement would be executed with the South Palm Beach Habitat for Humanity. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Chair 1111man inquired whether there were specific guidelines on what was desired for the footprint on this property. Ms. Brooks responded staff would be bringing a development agreement to the board for its approval and in it would be specifics of size, design, affordability, and so forth. They would also be bringing the board a development agreement on the Parker properties in December and that would also be very specific and include performance measures, timelines, and similar criteria. Mr. Sims noted the area map referred to Lot 452 and asked if that had been merged with Lot 453. Ms. Brooks responded the building lots in the Heart of Boynton, and especially the old areas, had two parcels of land under one property control number. Reverend Chaney had driven through the area and was concerned about, 1) the quality of the structure that Habitat for Humanity would build in that location, and 2) how the house would fit in with the overall Heart of Boynton Plan. Originally, phase 1 would be the MLK Corridor and phase 2 would be in the subject area. Ms. Brooks responded the public housing units in the Cherry Hills area would be coming down and they would be building single-family homes, so other single-family homes would fit in well. She assured Reverend Chaney that discussions had taken place with Habitat for Humanity who would be building an upgraded house compared to the traditional Habitat for Humanity house. The CRA was able to dictate this quality since it owned the land and that was a large part of the developer's cost. Habitat for Humanity is able to reach lower income residents since they worked with donated materials and labor. The CRA requirements were for standing-seam metal roofs, hurricane windows, Floribbean style, three bedrooms, and two baths, with one-car garages. These criteria would be in the agreement and the agreement would be brought before the board. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Chair 1111man opened the floor to public comment. Mike Campbell, Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity of South Palm Beach, was in agreement with the CRA's plans and criteria for the house. They had just finished a five- bedroom home on First Avenue that matched the design mentioned by Ms. Brooks. They were willing to change their designs to accommodate the needs in Boynton Beach, as long as they could continue to give homes to those in the 40-80% AMI category. Chair 1111man appreciated hearing that. With no one else coming forward, Chair 1111man closed the floor to the public. Vice Chair Norem recommended going along with staff's recommendation. The motion passed 7-0. Attorney Spillias asked if any members wished to disclose any ex parte communications with any of the development entities on the agenda. No ex parte communications were reported. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Attorney Spillias explained the quasi-judicial public hearing procedures and swore in those who might speak at the meeting. C. Denmar Buildina - New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Denmar Building (NWSP 06-024) George Brewer, Brewer Architecture, Inc. Mary Ann Monnin 615 N.E. 3'" Street Request for a new site plan approval to construct a 3,433 square foot commercial retail and contractor office/warehouse building and related site improvements on 0.34 acre in the C-4, General Commercial, zoning district. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, displayed the site plan. The project was a single story building divided into four bays to include a retail showroom and contractor offices with indoor storage. The bay doors would not be facing the street. A thorough staff review found the project complied with all Land Development regulations. Staff recommended approval with 24 conditions of approval. George Brewer, Brewer Architecture, Inc., declared they were in agreement with all conditions of approval. Chair 1111man opened the floor to the public to speak on this item, closing it when no one came forward. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of Item C with all conditions attached. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. B. Rezonina Description: Ellipse (Sunshine Square)(REZN 06-008) Bonnie Miskel, Esq. And Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, of Ruden McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Sunshine Square CRP LLC Southwest corner of Federal Highway and Woolbright Road Request to rezone from Community Commercial (C- 3) to Mixed Use Low Intensity 3 (MU-L3) for a proposed mixed-use project on 14.43 acres. 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: New Site Plan 2. Project: Agent: Ellipse (Sunshine Square) (NWSP 06-021) Bonnie Miskel, Esq. and Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, of Ruden McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Sunshine Square CRP LLC Owner: 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Description: Southwest corner of Federal Highway and Woolbright Road Request for a new site plan approval to construct a mixed-use (residential/office/retail) complex on a 14.43-acre parcel in the Mixed Use-Low Intensity 3 (MU-L3) zoning district. Location: Heiaht Exceotion Description: Ellipse (Sunshine Square) (HTEX 07-001) Bonnie Miskel, Esq. And Kim Glas-Castro, AICP, of Ruden McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Sunshine Square CRP LLC Southwest corner of Federal Highway and Woolbright Road Request for a height exception of 19 feet to allow for a total height of 94 feet to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, stairwells, and roof profiles, to exceed the maximum building height of 75 feet on the MU-L3 zoning district 3. Project : Agent: Owner: Location: Ed Breese, Principal Planner, requested and received the board's approval to present all three Ellipse items concurrently. Rezonina Earlier in 2006 this item came before the CRA as a large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment, which was for land use, rezoning and a master plan. Along with that the applicant was requesting to rezone to Mixed Use Low. As a result of various meetings with the CRA, the Planning & Development Board and the City Commission, the mixed use districts were undergoing a change and there would now be three mixed use districts: MU-Ll, MU-L2, and MU-L3. The applicant requested to modify their previous request from Mixed Use Low to MU-L3 because there would no longer be a Mixed Use Low by the time their application went before the City Commission. MU-L3 is the most comparable to the previous Mixed Use Low zoning district, which allowed 75 feet in height and 40 du/acre. One of the other things changed in MU-L3 from Mixed Use Low was that supermarkets in MU-L3 were allowed at 80K square feet, as compared to the Mixed Use Low restriction of 30K square feet. This would accommodate Publix at Sunshine Square. The members received a copy of the original staff report dated June 1, 2006. Staff concluded that the rezoning before the board was consistent with the previously approved staff analysis, report and Commission action, and therefore, recommended approval of the rezoning. Site Plan Mr. Breese displayed the site plan and reviewed its highlights. The project is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Federal Highway and Woolbright Road. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 The project would be done in phases. The site was divided into four quadrants. The first phase would be on the northeast quadrant, known as l-A, wrapped around the existing gas station, and would be a seven-story building with retail on the first floor and 126 dwelling units of residential above it. The next phase (2) would be directly to the south of l-A, and is known as l-B. It is in the southeast quadrant. Another seven-story building was proposed with retail on the first floor and 102 dwelling units above it. The stores to the south of this quadrant that fronted on S.W. 18th Avenue were not included in the proposed project. The next phase (3) would be in the northwest quadrant of the site, known as 2-A, abutting Woolbright Road and the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way, and was to be the home of the new Publix. There would be retail buildings around Publix so it would not be visible from Woolbright Road or the internal portion of the project. There would be one deck of parking above Publix and above the retail spaces would be an additional 90 dwelling units. Once the existing Publix was demolished, the last phase (4) would be on the southwest quadrant of the site, known as 2-B. The proposal called for a mixed-use building of seven stories with retail live/work units topped with an additional 90 dwelling units of residential. This would wrap the southeast and south side of the project. There would be 18 town homes, live/work units in this section and above them, residential, for a total of 258 residential units above them, wrapping a parking garage. The project proposed two main access points: 1) off Woolbright Road at a signalized intersection corresponding with the Las Ventanas (old Gulfstream Lumber property) to the north; and 2) an east west route coming off Federal Highway. The north/south route would connect to S.W. 18th Avenue and proceed out to Federal Highway. An elliptical median was proposed for the center of the project and this would have lush landscaping and a pair of fountains on either side of the east and west access roads. The proposal called for wide sidewalks and arcades for retail shops and restaurants that would allow some outdoor cafe operations. The applicant submitted a shared parking analysis. Parking to Code would require 1,854 parking spaces, but a shared parking analysis prepared by a professional engineer showed that 1,656 parking spaces would be available. The shared parking analysis was reviewed by staff and found to be acceptable. Mr. Breese commented at time of permitting, the applicant must show they had met another requirement that was new in the mixed-use district rewrite - "Sky Exposure Plane." This required buildings to "step back" as they got higher on a 6-1 ratio to be compatible with buildings adjacent to it. This came along late in the review process and the applicant had already developed plans without knowing this would be a regulation. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Heiaht Exceotion Mr. Breese reported all buildings would be seven stories, 75 feet in height. There were portions of the building that were above that and they were the typical mechanical equipment enclosures, elevator shafts, and stair towers, the highest of which was 94 feet. This would be 19 feet over the 75 ft. height maximum. The areas that reached 94 feet made up 9% of the roof area and those areas at lower levels at 85 feet made up 17% of the roof area. The City had approved a number of height exceptions for mechanical equipment in the past. Staff recommended approval for all three issues: rezoning, site plan, and height exception. Hugo Pacanins, Project Development Manager with RAM Development, gave an overview of the presentation they had already made earlier in the year at the time of their first application. The site was said to be an L-shaped one with Publix to the south. The site was presently 86% occupied. They had met with the existing retail tenants several times over the past months to guide them through the redevelopment process and get their input on the relocation process. They had gotten a lot of input from them and had given them copies of the site plan showing where they would be relocated to during the process and where they would be ultimately. They had received a great response from the current retail tenants. When they demolish the east side of the existing shopping center, they would relocate the retailers to the open spaces available on the west side of the property. By doing so, they would free up the east side of the property to allow for the redevelopment. Once the first two phases were built, all the retailers from the west side would occupy the new spaces created on the east side, allowing them to demolish the west side of the property and make space for Publix . They would then tear down Publix and they would be relocated to the northwest part of the site, leaving room to develop the southwestern part of the site. They were trying to create a pedestrian friendly environment by adding ground floor retail with residential above. They were allowing 17 foot of height for the retail on the bottom and 9.8-foot ceilings on the upper floors for the residential. . Publix had agreed to the site plan. They now had a 40K sq. foot store and wanted to increase its size to 56K sq. ft. in the new store. Mr. Pacanins showed elevations of the project. He displayed what the development would look like from Federal Highway facing west towards the railroad and also from Woolbright Road facing south. They hoped to start working on the drawings and then the permits. Construction would begin in the fourth quarter of 2007. They were thinking of doing the first two phases simultaneously and expected to be finished by December of 2008. The other phases would follow immediately. Board Ouestions Ms. Horenburger confirmed her understanding of the numerical designations on the different phases. She inquired about the Sky Exposure Plane and the building step backs and asked Mr. Breese what page contained this condition. Mr. Breese responded, the last page of the 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 conditions of approval, condition #100. Ms. Horenburger also asked if the Boynton Diner was moving and when. Mr. Pacanins responded they had already spoken to the owners of the Boynton Diner and they had selected the site they would occupy. Mr. Myott asked if the developer had given any thought to the FEC railroad being used in the future for different modes of transportation. He believed the developer should have looked ahead and taken rapid transit and other mass transit forms of the future into account in the plans. Mr. Myott expressed disappointment in the presentation, saying that for a multi million-dollar project in such a prominent location, there were no "fly-throughs," and no 3-D or cut-away views. It was impossible to tell from the elevations what it would be like on the interior of the project. It appeared the developer took a big box and cut roads through it and put in a curve to add something. The elevations were attractive, but he had no clue from them as to the real massing and volume of the ellipse area, which was being represented as the quality space of the project. He asked what would happen over the next several years while development was taking place. Would there be huge vacant lots? What would it look like when they had not built the residential towers on the backside? Mr. Myott believed the presentation was too vague. This was a huge project and the board was being given very little information. It reminded him of the Marina project when it first came through in its earliest stages. He also thought not acquiring the gas station or incorporating it into the project was unacceptable. He felt there should have at least been a back up plan for when and if they did acquire the building. Bonnie Miskel, Ruden McClosky, agent for the developer, responded there was a piece of property on the southwest corner that was not included in the plan and was left available in the event a mass transit opportunity became a reality. They intentionally left out this area for green space or parking and actually envisioned the CRA might approach them and ask this land be donated for the benefit of a transit program; however, the City was not there yet and they did not want to wait one to ten years to incorporate it, so left it vacant. Ms. Miskel apologized for any perceived lacks in the presentation. They had rushed to get the application in, acknowledging it was not the way Mr. Weiner would normally present architectural details. However, when filing a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City's Code required the developer to actually have a site plan running concurrent with it. They fully realized this was a big project, but were told they had to get the site plan in right away or miss the cycle. The submittal was complete and not deficient in any way, according to the Code. They were sorry they could not do a 3-D model. Finally, they had made a concerted effort to try to acquire the adjacent properties and when they failed to do that, made a plan that would easily incorporate them into the project in the future if they should change their minds. Mr. Myott had some experience of how long it took to obtain a 3-D model, so he could not accept that part of the explanation. He knew it would have been possible to acquire one in the time that had elapsed from the original presentation to the current one. They had recently approved a 5K square foot office building that had one. It was like the presentation was a "brushover" to get a huge density and massive site plan approval. The CRA would be doing a transportation study and were going to start requiring each project to address future mass transit requirements. He respected the design of the project and felt their architect was 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 talented, but he did not have enough information to approve this project. He felt the height exceptions should not be for stair towers, but for some architectural features that would enhance the skyline. He hoped they would do better in the future. Ms. Miskel responded the City might want to consider its requirement that Comprehensive Plan amendment requests had to be accompanied by site plans. Mr. Myott thought the developer might want to reconsider its schedule. The CRA had not seen any projects like this one that had gotten on the ground in a year's time. Chair 1111man opened the floor for public comment. Herb Suss, resident of Boynton Beach, supported the project and thought it was a good idea. He had a problem, though, with the 95 feet. Although it was not the CRA's issue, when this project was combined with the huge project on Congress called Renaissance Commons, he began to feel hemmed in. He thought there would be noise pollution, smoke, traffic problems, population, and water problems. The infrastructure had to be there first. As a citizen, he felt overwhelmed. More recreation area was needed also. Mr. Suss asked, "What about affordable housing?" Jim Patterson, representing Patterson Plaza on the southeast corner of the proposed project, stated he had been on that corner since 1949. He had seen a lot of development and growth. He reminded everyone that some years previously, the City of Boynton Beach had a referendum and the voters of Boynton Beach voted to have a maximum height on buildings of 45 feet. He did not know how the City had gotten away with having as many tall buildings as it now had. They always heard the development was needed for the tax base. He asked everyone to consider whether their personal taxes had ever gone down as a result of all the development additions to the tax rolls. He did not believe they had. Mr. Patterson thought S.W. 18th Avenue was a narrow road and would not be getting any larger. It was possible for the traffic to back up all the way to Publix if there were a red light. Now they were talking about adding 500+ more units in addition to the businesses. He suggested the board table the project and come down to the site and take a look at the situation. Every one of the stores in the project would be getting Fed-X and UPS trucks in all day long. Publix would be getting deliveries day and night and he did not think the residents would be too interested in buying around a grocery store for that reason. Chair 1111man closed the floor for public comment when no one else came forward. Board Comments Mr. Sims asked Ms. Miskel what could be done to alleviate crowding on S.W. 18th Avenue. Ms. Miskel responded there would probably not be much of a problem since they were relocating Publix to the other end of the site and Publix customers would not be using S.W. 18th Avenue as they now were doing. The major ingress and egress points were from Woolbright Road and Federal Highway, and that should also help to alleviate any potential crowding on S. W. 18th Avenue. Also, residential uses were much less intense as traffic generators. Mr. Sims inquired whether there was still no movement in the case of the acquisition of the gas station, now that the project could be seen to be moving forward. Ms. Miskel responded there 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 had been no signs of movement from the gas station owner. The owner had not participated in any of the meetings to which he had been invited to date. There appeared to be a total lack of interest. Ms. Miskel responded to the comment heard earlier about deferring or delaying the project. She noted according to Chapter 163, there were very strict procedures that had to be adhered to in order to process and adopt a land use amendment. The DCA had reviewed this amendment and elected not to comment on it, which meant they did not object to it. They directed City staff to go forward and adopt it. They had a time period during which it had to be adopted. The City's Code required the zoning to go along with the adoption of the land use plan amendment. Should the board defer the project this evening, this project would fall out of the cycle and it would be delayed. In fact, according to a conversation she had with Ed Breese, the developer would have to start over again because they could not simply adopt in the next cycle. Mr. Breese agreed. They were here as a result of that Comp Plan amendment and to start over again would be unnecessarily delaying a project that would add a tremendous amount of value to that area and a great deal to the community. Ms. Horenburger frequented this shopping center and over the years, had never seen traffic back up in the Publix area, even during the holidays. She respected Mr. Myott's opinion in relation to the design issues and shared a concern about not having a case where Phase 1 would take place and then no other phases. She especially appreciated his mention of the transit dedication and suggested the board might want to consider asking the developer to do this. She asked if it was the little wedge-shaped piece of land. Ms. Miskel confirmed she was correct and her client would have no problem with dedicating or conveying that piece of property to the City. Ms. Horenburger thought they might see something material in the way of mass transit in the next ten to twelve years. The State was starting to move on the FEC Railroad Corridor as they spoke. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to support Item VII-Bl for rezoning to clean up the zoning on this in light of the City's creation of a MU-L3 zoning district, and that it be rezoned from Community Commercial C-3 to Mixed Use Low Intensity MU-L3, because that was what the City's mixed use projects fit into now. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Mr. Myott dissenting. Ms. Heavilin did not believe the applicant had been asked whether they agreed to the 100 conditions of approval. Bonnie Miskel responded the applicant was in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Ms. Heavilin commented they had asked staff to try to limit the number of conditions of approval and this one had quite a large number of conditions. They hoped by the time it got to the board, many of the items would have been cleared up already. Mr. Breese understood that, saying the project originally had over 200 conditions and the applicant had done a good job of paring that down. Mr. Breese indicated close to 40 of the conditions were standard conditions that would apply to many cases. Ms. Heavilin thanked the applicant for phasing the project. It was the first major project she had seen where the existing businesses were being relocated and she hoped to see more of that in the future. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Vice Chair Norem mentioned the wedge-shaped parcel suitable for public transportation; however, there would be no access on the western side of the property near Publix. It went right to the lot line. Ms. Miskel stated it was directly connected to S.E. 18th Avenue and would be connected through their internal road systems. It would not run along the tracks, but it would have access. Vice Chair Norem expressed concern about the commuters streaming through the project when the residents were trying to get in and out to go to work. Ms. Miskel responded the access point for non-residents could be S.E. 18th Avenue, a public right-of-way. They would expect that would be the route that would be promoted. Vice Chair Norem responded if people were coming from the east, they could take Federal Highway down to S.E. 18th. He was concerned about people coming from the west across the tracks. It would only make sense, even if it were only a one-way road, to have a road along the western property line, to get down there. Mr. Pacanins declared if that side had been chosen as a location for a train station in the future, it would be ideal to control the west side of the tracks and try to add access to the train station from that side as well. So, people coming in from the west that want to gain access to that train station would not have to go through the tracks and into the development and access through S.E. 18th Avenue. They would probably have access from the west side of the tracks like they do on most of the Tri-Rail stations, which usually have access on both sides of the tracks. People could actually park on the west side and get into the train from the west side. Mr. Norem asked what they would do with the water plant. Mr. Pacanins agreed that ideally, this was not the best location for a train station and that was something the City would have to consider in the future. If it were to be put there, access to the west would be limited, but a lot of access would be gained from the people coming in from the east. Ms. Horenburger said the new stations had been built with access on both sides. They did not have access on each side to parking all the time, but the access had to be there on both sides. For the handicapped, they had an elevated walkway. Mr. Pacanins mentioned Tri-Rail did double tracking so people could get on both southbound and northbound trains. Ms. Horenburger added this was true if they had the elevated walkway. Reverend Chaney confirmed the timeline for the various phases. There was a question about vacant land. Ms. Miskel stated the idea with the phasing was to disturb the tenants as little as possible so they could operate until they could move into their phase. For example, while they were demolishing one section, they would be relocating some of the tenants in that section to open space. Their section would then be demolished. The reason they believed that Phase lA and 18 were likely to go at the same time was that they would need parking for lA, so the likelihood was that lB would have been demolished and used as a surface lot. Ms. Horenburger stated that based on studies and analysis done in the FEC Corridor, the likelihood of this piece of property being chosen as a train station was slim. A more likely location would be closer to Boynton Beach Boulevard and the downtown. They might still want 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 to consider this wedge-shaped piece of property on the Ellipse site for other types of transit, including a trolley depot. Ms. Miskel stated they did incorporate two trolley stops in their project. Ms. Horenburger felt having a trolley depot would enhance the trolley system and give it a sense of presence. Ms. Horenburger asked Attorney Spillias what the board could do about this piece of property. Attorney Spillias felt dedication would be premature. It could be set out for potential civic use and when the time came for it to be used, a decision could be made. Ms. Horenburger wanted to add a condition to the 100 conditions that this piece of property would be held for civic use of some type. Ms. Heavilin stated they first had to determine if they even needed a trolley or a trolley hub. Mr. Myott remarked other developers had said the market was not good and they could not build their projects. He asked if they had a commitment that they were not going to hear that from the developer on Phase lA and that despite the market, they were going ahead with the project. Ms. Miskel commented no one could say they could not respond to future market conditions. The developer had spent a huge amount of money and invested a great deal to come forward with this plan. The one thing different about this product that was different from the other products they had seen was that this was intended as a rental; it was not intended as a condo, although they could be converted and if the market changed, it may be converted. Right now, the plan was based on the developer's best judgment of what they could do today. She could not promise that would not change later on. If they change their position, they would have to come back before the board for a new approval. Mr. Myott confirmed that Phase 1 was an immediate action to be under construction in a year. Ms. Miskel stated it was the developer's intention right now to start working on the drawings and work on what they presented this evening. Ms. Bright commented CRA staff had been working with the developer for the past year. They originally had eminent domain as a tool and were working towards that for the gas station. They were amenable to the trolley stops in the project. She recently asked them about affordable housing and they stated this project did not need any type of funding since it was a large project. She would expect that relationship to continue to try to get the best product for the City. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the new site plan with 100 conditions of approval with the addition of a 101 st condition to provide for the possibility of civic use of some sort on the wedge-shaped piece on the site. There was no second on this motion. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request for new site plan approval to construct a mixed use (residential/office/retail) complex on a 14.43-acre parcel in the Mixed Use-Low Intensity 3 (MU- L3) zoning district, subject to all conditions of approval and comments as provided. Mr. Sims seconded the motion that passed 5-2, Vice Chair Norem and Mr. Myott dissenting. Vice Chair Norem commented he agreed with Mr. Myott in his observation as far as the developer taking it to the highest possible height and then extending it as much as they were doing. He did not believe that much of a height was allowed, so he would be voting against it. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the height exception for a height of 19 feet to allow for a total height of 94 feet to accommodate the parapet, rooftop mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, stairwells, and roof profiles, to exceed the maximum building height of 75 feet on the MU-L3 zoning district. Ms. Heavilin seconded the motion that passed 5-2, Vice Chair Norem and Mr. Myott dissenting. C. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Arches (SPTE 06-011) Ruden McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Request for a 12-month site plan time extension for site plan approval granted on September 6, 2005, to extend site plan approval from September 6, 2006 to September 6, 2007. Description: Gabriel Webb, Wuebben. Planner, reported Boynton Ventures LLC was requesting a one year site plan time extension for The Arches site plan and height exception development orders, which were approved by the City Commission on September 6, 2005. The project had been delayed by a series of apparently inevitable and unpredictable obstacles, resulting in previous site plan time extension applications and a major site plan modification. However, the developer had completed a full set of plans and specifications for the project at a cost of over $800K, which had been delivered to the City for a courtesy review. They performed demolition and site clearing, completed a replat of the project, which was also submitted to the City for review and paid multiple fees associated with the development. Although it had been awarded two previous site plan time extensions, the major site plan modification in effect begins an entirely new development clock and marks a new departure point for which is, essentially, a new approval procedure. In this respect, this is essentially the first site plan time extension for this project. Traffic concurrency was not a problem. They should have adequate time to complete the project in the given time. No new land development regulations were now in place against which the project should be reviewed or modified. Regarding the Art in Public Places Ordinance, site plan approval occurred prior to the adoption of Ordinance 05-060. Staff recommended approval of the major site plan modification and height exception. Bonnie Miskel appeared on behalf of the applicant. Shortly after the project received approval, they began preparing construction drawings for the Building Department. During that submittal, they had to obtain certain approvals through FPL and Bell South. At the time they approached Bell South, Bell South advised them of utilities that had not been previously identified either by their surveyor or the City. They learned of a major, massive trunk line that would either need to be relocated or they would have to work out a way to get around it. The costs of the relocation were incredible, beyond feasibly economically, so they commenced to retrofit their site in order to work around it. Hence, the permit drawings were held up. All that had been done and they had submitted for courtesy review, from which they should get comments shortly. Also during the permitting process a new comment arose through the Engineering Department requiring them to replat, notwithstanding that the Code did not require it nor was that a condition to the site plan approval. They were forced to go back and prepare 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 a plat mylar, which they had done and submitted to the City. They had gotten comments back and it was now in their court to make revisions. This had all cost them time they could not have anticipated nor could they have afforded. Chair l111man opened the floor to the public for comments, closing it when no one wished to speak. Ms. Heavilin asked what the timeframe was for building now. Ms. Miskel stated the plans had been submitted and when they were permitted, it was the developer's intention to commence. There was no intention to delay, even though the market was weak. Ms. Heavilin asked when they would be opening the sales office. Ms. Miskel responded the trailer had been located on the site, but she did not know the answer to that question. Ms. Bright commented 500 Ocean Avenue Plaza was open and she would try to arrange a tour for the board. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve the request for a 12-month site plan time extension for site plan approval granted on September 6, 2005, to extend site plan approval from September 6, 2006 to September 6, 2007. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. VIII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items A. Aooroval of the Minutes - CRA Board Meetina - October 25, 2006 Attorney Spillias suggested a correction to page 26 in the second paragraph, third line, where the attorney's name should be "Worsham." On page 30, third paragraph, first line, the same correction should be made. On page 34, the name of the church should be Jesus House of Worship. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to accept the minutes with the listed changes. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Aooroval of Budaet Amendments Mr. Sims inquired whether the salary adjustments were retroactive. Ms. Susan Harris, Financial Assistant and H.R. Administrator, stated it would be retroactive back to October 1, which was the beginning of the budget year. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve Consent Agenda Item C. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. E. Uodate on CRA Boundaries Ms. Brooks stated the CRA boundaries had not been amended as projects in the south end of the CRA area had been annexed into the City. This was informational. No action was required. Staff would send its findings to the City with a list of identified projects. The City would have to do a CRA boundary amendment, which only they could do. It would then go to the Property Appraiser so those properties would then put revenue back into the CRA. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Ms. Heavilin asked if in the future the CRA boundaries could automatically be updated on annexation requests. Ms. Brooks replied they discussed this with City staff and the CRA boundary adjustment would become part of the application package for annexation requests. Ms. Horenburger thought the City could change the boundary ahead of time. Ms. Brooks was not sure why the City did not do that. It was possibly because if it was not in the City, it could not be in the CRA. Ms. Horenburger asked whether the City could do an overlay. Ms. Brooks spoke to the Property Appraiser, who stated if the property was not in the City, it could not be in the CRA. Ms. Horenburger thought an overlay would make it automatic on anything annexed into the City. Attorney Spillias commented the requested action was for the board to recommend the City change the boundaries. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to recommend the CRA boundaries be changed per the discussion. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. F. Resolution 06-02 - Reaardina Soonsorshio Fundina Mr. Sims mentioned on page two of this document, his name had been misspelled. It was spelled Garn Simms and it should be Guarn Sims. Reverend Chaney commented there was one "N" in his name and not two. Ms. Horenburger took issue with the term "identifiable population" in Section 2. Was it meant to cover more than just festivals and street fairs? Mr. Reardon stated it would cover any special program they did. Ms. Bright added if they wanted to sponsor an event in the Heart of Boynton area that would affect the Children's Youth board, for example, it would give the board more latitude. Ms. Horenburger did not want to see it in a way that every event always had to have a specific impact on a specifically identified population. Mr. Reardon would work on it to modify it. Mr. Myott noted the next statement said the board could alter the parameters at its discretion. Ms. Horenburger stated that would mean it would have to come back to the board before doing an event. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve Resolution 06-02 with the grammatical corrections that were made. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. G. Uodate on Five Towns Colleae Reverend Chaney asked if there was a timeline for progress on this. Ms. Bright stated they were having another negotiation on the day following this meeting. It had been held up due to a lack of local legal counsel to work with the CRA's counsel. That person would, however, now be coming in for the meeting. Mr. Myott asked how their finances were holding up. Ms. Bright indicated they wanted to get the agreement in place and were trying to get the $800K bond. The current architect is saying it is about an $8M renovation and that was what they stated the night they won the award. She spoke to the City Manager who was to start working with Ms. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Bright on strategies to relocate Code and the parking agreement. She hoped to bring it before the board in December. This was an information only item. I. Facade Grant Reimbursement - C.K.'s Locksmith - $15.000 Mr. Sims asked if there were any other projects where applications had been filed before the program was amended. Ms. Brooks mentioned for clarification, the fac;ade program they amended was the residential one. This was the commercial one. Ms. Horenburger mentioned she was disappointed there was not any landscaping of any kind. She could not see any fac;ade improvement. Ms. Brooks stated this came about because somebody ran into the front of their building and smashed the concrete front of their building. Their actual front was into the parking facing north. They asked for the CRA's assistance to help them bring it out a little and add windows along the front. Ms. Horenburger thought all fac;ade grants were about fixing up properties that faced main streets. Ms. Brooks stated it could be seen while going north on 4th Street. Ms. Brooks indicated they still had to paint. It was not what they would want if it were on Federal Highway, but it was a commercial building used for a commercial business. Ms. Horenburger would be happy to give them a little more money to spruce it up with landscaping. Ms. Brooks indicated they did not have any room for landscaping. Ms. Horenburger said they could have potted plants between those windows - anything would help. Reverend Chaney asked if they paid upon completion and was told that was the case. He asked why it was on the agenda. Ms. Brooks stated the applicant had not asked for this part of it. The amount of money they requested was for construction, which was completed, and they were paid. The painting was yet to be done and that was this request. Mr. Myott stated Ms. Horenburger had a point. It was a construction project on 4th Street and they were hoping it would be a nice street. He thought they could talk to the applicant and encourage them to make some curb appeal changes along the way. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve Consent Agenda Item I. Reverend Chaney seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Ms. Horenburger dissenting. J. Contract for Issuina RFP for Continuina Contract Services - Corey O'Gorman Ms. Heavilin asked why they would be paying a consultant to implement an RFP. Ms. Bright indicated if they went out for this particular type of service, there were certain legal requirements that had to be met. The consultant was a planner working with Amy Dukes, a CRA lawyer. They also had some money left in Mr. O'Gorman's contract related to the old high school and were trying to use his services up since he had expertise in this area. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve Consent Agenda Item J. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 18 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 K. MLK Corridor Aareement Mr. Sims was not comfortable progressing on this agreement until he could get an update from the developer on what had transpired since the CRA's meeting in October. The residents were asking him a lot of questions and he felt they were owed answers. There were numerous concerns. Chair 1111man responded the board had been advised how the agenda items were set by the Chair and the Executive Director. In a previous meeting they asked staff for updates and staff worked diligently to bring the board those updates. The information, then, has to come through staff. If the board felt the information was lacking in terms of what had been asked for, the board could ask for additional information. Otherwise, they would be undercutting the authority they had given staff when the motions were made. Mr. Sims did not want his words misinterpreted. It was not an indictment of any work the staff had done on giving the board information. Also, no one was trying to infringe on the rules that govern this board. He was asking whether he had to wait until the December meeting to answer the numerous concerns of residents. He would prefer having the developer in front of the board in order to answer these questions. He felt he had been kept adequately abreast of the developments in the matter. In light of the importance of the project, Mr. Myott suggested it be put on the agenda every month. The expectation could be that the applicant would appear each month to give an update and address the board on the issues. Attorney Spillias stated the board could set the agenda any way it wished. They had a report and they could choose to ask for more information or ask questions of staff or Intown at this meeting, since there was an agenda item for discussion, not action. Staff was responding to action taken at the last meeting where staff would provide the board with a monthly update. If the board wished to expand that they could. Mr. Myott had read the email in the same way as Mr. Sims and felt if they had it on the agenda each month, there would not be any issue. Chair 1111man stated that was understandable, but they had to keep in mind what was going on at this time. Staff and the attorney were trying to come up with a workable agreement, based on what came out of the meeting held in August at the Clayton Conference Center at Bethesda Hospital. The clock was ticking. They had to pay the attorney for all the time and effort that was going in to try to work out some kind of agreement. Whether that panned out or not, they did not know. The board needed to start the clock ticking on when they would ask staff to determine, or come to a determination by the board on when they move to the next group in line. In other words, had staff done a sufficient job or did they feel they were at impasse and that this developer did not meet the qualifications and they needed to move forward. In regard to monthly schedules, as long as their attorney was working on this, that was billable hours. As long as staff was working on it, that was billable hours. The board needed to start looking at how much time they were going to spend on this and how much they would recoup on it and whether it was feasible to continue to go down this road in terms of what they would get out of it. Would it be more feasible for the CRA to go to the next developer in line as opposed to 19 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 staying with Intown since they were not financially fit? These were some hard questions they needed to deal with because that was in the RFP. There was a legitimate concern there. Was the CRA going to provide financial aid or not? At the last meeting, they said they were not. So, where were they? Could they move forward with an agreement? Obviously, they could not since they had not met the requirements for part of what had to be done. Until those items were done, the attorney cannot work on an agreement. They were putting the cart before the horse. What the CRA needed to do, right now, was be sure, and etch it in stone and go back to what they said they would do in terms of following their policies and procedures. Otherwise, they would open themselves up to litigation. Ms. Horenburger agreed with all viewpoints expressed so far. She definitely would want to see monthly updates on the agenda, once they had selected a master developer. Their summary stated that as of November 9, neither CRA staff nor CRA counsel received a response from Intown Partners counsel on the draft development agreement submitted to their counsel on September 27. That said it all. Everyone in the process needed to be cognizant of the CRA deadlines. They could not expect staff to be cramming something on the agenda at the last minute, especially something as important as that, without massive review and there were dozens of other things on their agenda. The attorney did not work for the CRA exclusively. There had to be time to analyze this. She asked if the draft agreement had come back to the attorney yet. Attorney Spillias responded they had received a responsive draft agreement on Friday, November 10, 2006 at about 4:00 p.m. His associate had the opportunity to peruse it and compare it to the draft sent by the CRA, but not go through it line by line, since it was not a red-lined version. The documents had to be merged to be able to see the details. He had some general ideas of where some of the differences were. He had spoken with Ms. Bright and even though she was going to be away for the holidays, a meeting had been set for Monday, November 20. In the meantime, they would be going through their document more closely and come up with questions that Ms. Bright can address and other questions the CRA can address to the developer and questions that the CRA might ultimately need to address. After they met with Ms. Bright, it was their hope to do a draft revision to send back to Intown. The process was one of trying to narrow the areas of difference and get down to the real obstacles, if any, where the CRA would have to make decisions and/or the developer would have to make decisions that maybe had not been anticipated in the beginning. Ms. Horenburger spoke to the funding issues, saying she did not know that it was ever envisioned from the beginning that there would not be a major partnership type of assistance of some sort in making sure this project was just the right project for this neighborhood and for the whole City as a "set piece" project, which it was. When they turned down funding at last month's meeting, it was because there .still was no development agreement. That did not mean there would not be some incentives for affordable housing or other kinds of amenities they may decide they wanted. That was why her original motion said "subject to policy decisions by this board and by the City Commission," because they were going to have to be land use and zoning and all sorts of decisions made in relation to whatever came through. They could not even begin to have reports about anything until they had a development agreement in place. Then they could have updates, community participation, and a coming together on every aspect of the project. They could not negotiate the agreement in public. 20 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Attorney Spillias noted there would be some policy decisions to be made with regard to financial assistance, infrastructure improvements, and these were at the staff/attorney level and could be negotiated up to a point but then they would have to be brought back to the board for some decisions, once they can get to specific numbers. They were not anywhere near having specific numbers at this time. Ms. Horenburger asked if they expected to see specific numbers in a development agreement? Attorney Spillias stated if there were going to be financial commitments from the board, he would expect to see a range, if not specifics. Ms. Horenburger thought it was going to be a boilerplate development agreement and a lot of decisions had to be made afterward, in which case the board could still say it did not work for them. Ms. Heavilin agreed having updates from Intown each month would be inappropriate until the development agreement was in place. She suggested the only updates they received be from staff, as they were now receiving, unless there was an action item or a policy decision that had to be made. Ms. Bright reported staff met with the City Manager today and the developer and the City Manager was looking for policy issues, obstacles the developer saw, where the City could get involved and so that piece was on board. Now that they had the returned draft agreement, they now had a good framework to create a structure and say what could or could not work. Mr. Myott asked what a realistic expectation would be for December's meeting. Attorney Spillias confirmed they would have sent their response back to the developer (to their suggested changes) and anything new they had inserted. Ms. Bright remarked this was why she was coming in from vacation on Monday, so Attorney Spillias could proceed on that response. They were trying to be as efficient as possible. Their drop-dead date for the agenda packet was November 29. She did not know if they would make that date. There was consensus to have this item on the agenda, since it could either be approved on the Consent Agenda if there were no questions, or pulled and discussed. Reverend Chaney was in agreement in moving forward on the development agreement. He was excited they had gotten the draft response back. They were trusting staff to work with all the developers and bring recommendations to them and that should not be circumvented. In order for them to make any kind of decisions, he was depending on the staff to bring the issues to them. If he had questions then, he would ask them. He also believed, though, that this particular project was so important, they did need to get some information. He agreed with Mr. Sims. He knew people were asking a lot of questions, especially after the last meeting when it appeared the CRA made some decisions that they were not going to go with certain funding. IX. Old Business A. Consideration of Neiahborhood Imorovement Grant to the Bovnton Beach Faith Based CDC Ms. Brooks declared this was a line item in the Heart of Boynton Work Program. They were looking at doing a Neighborhood Improvement program. The CDC had submitted this program to keep the neighborhood "clean and green." It worked with an existing program the CDC 21 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 already had called "Peacemakers" that was in two area schools. They would work with the neighborhood youth to do doing quarterly clean ups in a targeted area. The children would be supervised and reimbursed for their labor, by gift cards, savings accounts, or a savings bond. If the direction of the board were to go forward, they would bring back an agreement to administer the program with the CDC for a year, as a trial. Reverend Chaney asked if there would be levels of accountability. Ms. Brooks said there would be quarterly reports. The children would have to submit photographs and provide the sign-in sheets of the children who participated. Chair Tillman left the dais at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Sims asked why the fiscal impact was higher than the number shown in the Work Program detail, and Ms. Brooks explained the budget, when prepared, was a conceptual budget only. Also, they put in all the money they would need, although they planned to get donations for the trash bags, gloves, food, ice, sodas, from the local businesses. If they got that, the budget would be reduced. Mr. Sims asked if part of the money would be used to pay staff for the program and Ms. Brooks agreed that was the case. Mr. Sims asked if the staff would be outside of or within the current organization that would be managing the program. Ms. Brooks' understanding was that the staff person who oversaw the Peacemakers was already on the staff and would be assisted by an Americorp volunteer. Motion A motion was duly made and seconded by Ms. Horenburger to direct staff to pursue this program as presented. The motion that passed 6-0 (Chair 1111man was out of the room.) Chair Tillman returned to the dais at 9:03 p.m. B. The Promenade Direct Incentive Fundina Aareement (DIFA) Attorney Spillias reported that at the previous month's meeting, staff was directed to negotiate with the developer of The Promenade on the DIFA. The particular issue was the requirement under the agreement for the developer to hold available for a particular period of time 16 units that could be considered affordable. Attorney Spillias provided a revised version of the DIFA prepared according to the current negotiation status with the developer. The new language was underlined. They had come to an agreement where the developer would set aside a minimum of five units designated as affordable access. The price would be calculated based upon 120% of the Palm Beach median household income for the year of purchase. They had set out specific advertising requirements for those units, which had not been clearly spelled out in the original agreement. Attorney Spillias examined the minutes from the meeting at which the original agreement was approved and also the agenda memo that the former Executive Director provided to the board in terms of the scoring of this project and the board's ultimate decision of how much to give as a direct incentive. In line with the developer's request, Attorney Spillias declared if the board were amenable to approving this first amendment, it would have to make a motion to reconsider the action it had taken the previous month and then if that were approved, make a motion to approve the first 22 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 amendment to the DIFA. The developer and his representative could speak more to that, but Attorney Spillias thought it was probably because they would not want the agreement to be viewed as ever having been interrupted, for financing reasons. History of The Promenade DIFA Attorney Spillias gave a history of this issue. It first came to the board in October of 2004, at which time it was approved. The scoring at that time provided that if the developer got up to 100 points, they would get 100% of the available TIF (Tax Increment Funding), which was 50% of the TIF generated by the project. Anything less than 100 points would reduce the available TIF correspondingly. There were specific provisions that had specific numbers of maximum points that could be earned. For example, the economic impact on the community. Affordable access was one of those provisions and was broken up into two parts, 1) affordable commercial access, and 2) affordable residential access. In this instance, they were dealing with the affordable residential access. The original scoring was 68 points on the specific designated criteria and 30 points on the average of the board's individual determinations as to the overall value of the project. The system was set up that they could give a bonus of up to 40 points and the board's determination as a group was 30 points. This left a number of 98 points, which calculated out to 49% of the TIF being available for a DIFA grant. The portion of the 98 points that was attributed to the affordable residential component of the project was 3 points. This was the first DIFA that had an affordable housing component to it. According to the minutes, the board and the previous Executive Director were particularly interested in and laudatory of some of the public amenities: large plaza, public art, and other public amenities. The affordable commercial access was given 10 points. That was still within the agreement and still a requirement, if the board moved forward with the DIFA. The 3 points for affordable residential access had to do with only 5% of the units at a cost at that time in the $260 to under $280K range. Attorney Spillias declared what was before the board was staff's recommendation to move forward on the revised DIFA. The developer had agreed to this first amendment in total and he was present with his attorney. Board Discussion Ms. Horenburger appreciated staff's negotiation effort and the bringing back of some of the units originally discussed; however, she still did not see anything about the actual provision of the units, just the advertising of them. She asked Attorney Spillias to elaborate about a provision concerning the affordable units and what would happen if they did not have any affordable housing. Attomey Spillias mentioned there was a formula in the agreement that once the affordable housing criterion had been established, that if in any year they did not meet that level of units as affordable, that their was a corresponding reduction in the amount of TIF. Ms. Horenburger thought this could be contradicted by the 180-day language. Attorney Spillias noted that if the board accepted this agreement, it would be 90 days with requirements to advertise. But, if the time period passed and they had done all they could do to market and try to sell the 5 or 16 units, whatever number, and had not been able to do that, then there was no obligation on them. 23 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Ms. Horenburger mentioned an individual who had tried to purchase an affordable unit from The Promenade, but was told they had to advertise it, but did not have to sell it. She did not see anything that would require the developer to actually sell the affordable units. Attorney Spillias noted this was not how the agreement was intended to work. The idea was if the developer marketed the affordable units and there was a bona fide offer to purchase, they must accept that offer to purchase. Ms. Horenburger asked how they would know if the developer were made a bona fide offer and refused to take it. Attorney Spillias thought this issue could be clearly defined in the revised DIFA, that the developer was required to accept and close on all bona fide offers to purchase on the affordable units, up to five units, assuming the offer was made by a person who met the qualifications. Mr. Myott's understanding was that the incentive was being given to sell affordable units to low- income individuals, not just advertise them for 90 days and be released from the obligation. He could support language to the effect the developer could sell the 5 units to people of the specified income level and if they did not, then their TIF would go down. Ms. Heavilin commented this had been discussed at the previous month's meeting and they could not dictate to the developer whether the market would buy the product at that price or not. For the up to $280K price range, there would be $500 a month maintenance fees, roughly, for a two-bedroom, taxes of about $500 a month. It was almost a moot point. The individuals in this income bracket could not afford to carry those units. She did not believe the developer could sell sixteen, and would be surprised if they were able to sell one. Chair 1111man mentioned the whole idea of the incentive was to add an extra emphasis or emphasis on the affordable units. Chair 1111man agreed with Mr. Myott and Ms. Horenburger. They would advertise, negotiate, and sell and if they could not sell, there would be a reduction in TIF. Attorney Spillias clarified if the board took the three points for affordable residential and assumed they sold none, then the total TIF score would go from 98 to 95, reducing the DIFA from 49% of TIF to 47.5% of TIF. There would be a 1.5% swing between 0 and 5 units. The developer would have to address that. Ms. Bright noted they had gone out to the archives and pulled out all this data. They had a developer who had refused the CRA's incentive during the same time period as this DIFA because they could buy a unit that was not deed restricted of the same value and not have the ten-year restriction for $20-25K more. Three percent was a very small component of this project, compared to the board's comments on the project's amenities such as public plazas and subsidized commercial. Reverend Chaney asked how they could make the five units realistically affordable, considering the points mentioned by Ms. Heavilin about monthly maintenance and tax requirements. If they were going to have an agreement, the units needed to be truly affordable. He also questioned the reduction from 16 units to 5 units. Attorney Spillias asked the board to keep in mind the reason they were discussing this was that there was a difference of legal opinion as to whether or not the DIFA had lapsed. If it did not lapse and if their interpretation of their obligations under 16 affordable units was correct, and 24 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 they went to litigation and lost, the CRA stood to lose some significant damages. If they won, they were required to do what they said, but by the time they got there in a year or two from now, they were not going to be doing this project. If a mutually agreement could not be achieved, the CRA might find itself in litigation. Mr. Myott was still all for the project; however, it would be easy to take out the affordable units altogether and drop the incentive proportionately. What did the 1.5% change equate to in dollars? Attorney Spillias noted $6M over ten years at 1.5% would be about $90K total (not per year). Mr. Myott noted this was not a lot of money. They would certainly have other affordable housing stock, but wanted to be fair in terms of what they were giving and reduce the TIF accordingly. Ms. Horenburger asked the applicant how it would affect his funding if the affordable component were removed. She found the CRA had been putting themselves in the past in a position of being almost a partner in the funding of some of the projects. Ms. Horenburger supported dropping the incentive to 47.5% and removing the affordable component. She agreed with Ms. Heavilin that a qualified buyer could not afford the maintenance and the taxes and other things, even on an affordable level for a unit in that location. Paul D'Arelli, Greenberg Traurig, stated he had an opportunity to confer with the client and appreciated the opportunity to speak. If that were the direction in which the board wished to go, the client would be amenable to revising the language to eliminate the affordable access in exchange for a 1.5% reduction in the award. Perhaps the board could use that savings in funds to do something more meaningful for affordable access. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to reconsider the board's action at its October 12 meeting regarding the DIFA. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Attorney Spillias recommended a two-part motion as follows: 1) Amend the DIFA to extend the commencement date by 180 days, which would take it to 180 days from July 20, 2006; and 2) Remove affordable access residential requirement and reduce DIFA Award to 47.5% of the TIF over a ten-year period. Motion Ms. Horenburger so moved. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Attorney Spillias remarked his office would prepare an amendment to reflect this and return to the board or alternatively, asked whether the board would consider allowing staff and the attorney to revise the language and have the Chair sign it. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to allow staff and the attorney to work out the language on the DIFA for the Promenade and have the Chair sign it. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 25 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 C. Aooroval of the Marina Pad Purchase Aareement Ms. Bright reported the purchase agreement was being negotiated and they had not received some exhibits and some final agreements with the City were still pending, so they did not have a final agreement on which the board could authorize execution. If the board still wished to proceed, staff asked for an extension of 30 days to allow staff and legal counsel to finalize the agreement. She hoped it could be brought back to the board at its December meeting. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve staff's recommendation for a 30-day extension. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. Attorney Spillias clarified the effect of the motion. If the developer agreed to the 30-day extension, then they would have time to work something out and bring it to the December 12 meeting. If they did not agree to the extension, they would not sign the agreement and it would terminate and the CRA would get its deposit back. They could then build a restaurant, or new negotiations could be undertaken. The agreement had to be signed by the day after this meeting or let them know by tomorrow they were not going to, in order to get the deposit back. Ms. Bright had just found out they had spoken to the City about this and were trying to clarify their problems with the City. There was a meeting on Monday and CRA Attorney Amy Dukes worked with staff to get a representative from The Related Group to determine if the language in this agreement matched language in the Second Amended Mediation Tri-Party Agreement. CRA staff was also trying to get an exhibit for the required parking spaces. Ms. Dukes mentioned they had received everything at the last minute. They were receiving exhibits on a daily basis, after the board packet had been prepared. They had been asking for them for weeks. That was why it was not ready. Attorney Spillias noted this had been a constant problem they had been having with most of the developers the CRA was in the process of working out development agreements with, the DIFA agreements and others. The previous month, Intown brought a request for the CRA to purchase property to the board meeting that night. The CRA entered into this Letter of Intent with The Related Group 95 days previously. There was a 90-day due diligence period, and while they were doing their environmental studies, it was known they had to sign a contract within five days after the end of that 90-day due diligence period, but they did not get a contract from them until more than two months had passed from that period. Up to today, there were still some required exhibits that had not been submitted. There had been unanticipated issues that were not brought up in the Letter of Intent. They could not put together a multi-million dollar real estate deal in six days. There would be another item tonight of a similar nature. Most of them had to do with the developer's financing problems. He was not trying to be critical of developers, but thought the message should go out that they could not do business this way. Under such pressure, there was the possibility of mistakes on the part of the lawyers, staff, or the board when everything came in at the last minute. Vice Chair Norem asked why legal counselor staff, when within 30 days of execution, start negotiating an extension and bring that back to them. Attorney Spillias responded they had 26 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 done so. Ms. Bright commented they tried to get that a week previously, but the developer was not amenable to that position. The developer had been in Mexico on vacation. Staff was trying to be as proactive to move the documents through efficiently, but there did not seem to be much more they could do. Attorney Spillias clarified the motion as asking for a 30-day extension from The Related Group to try to work out a contract that could be brought to the board on December 12 and failing that, either hearing back from them yes or no by tomorrow, notifying them the CRA was not signing the contract and wanted its deposit back. Motion Vice Chair Norem so moved, seconded by Mr. Myott and approved 7-0. D. Aooroval of Documents for Ocean Breeze Attorney Spillias reported at the last meeting, the board directed staff to get another appraisal of the Ocean Breeze property in order to further the negotiations and/or decision-making process as to whether to purchase the property from the present owner, Boynton Associates, the principal managing partner of which was Larry Finkelstein. They had not been able to get the appraisal completed, so they did not have a number to work from pursuant to the board's direction. The CRA had a $6.4M appraisal and Mr. Finkelstein presented them with an $8.2M appraisal. The board asked for a review appraisal to give as clear a picture as possible of the range of values so it could make a determination on what it was willing to pay, subject to the availability of funds. In the meantime, Attorney Spillias reported they had been contacted by the developer's attorneys, informing them they had a loan commitment from Mellon Bank that was supposed to close no later than today for the financing for taking care of the mortgage foreclosure, the bond foreclosure, that was outstanding. Pursuant to their closing requirements, they asked for the board to approve or consent to the assignment of the DlFA. The board had previously approved that action, subject to the attorney's approval of the form, which they had now approved. The bank had also asked for two more items and he provided them to the board at the start of the meeting. One item was an estoppel certificate that was a document laying out the existence of and continued validity of the DIFA. This was a document he made clear to counsel for the developer they could not agree to execute without having it brought before the board. The third item the bank requested was that the demolition lien be released. Attorney Spillias informed the developer's attorney that staff could not agree to a release at the staff level. He suggested they try to get an extension of the closing date as the first step so the board could consider this item tonight. He was informed they had gotten an extension of the closing date. Before the board was: 1) Assignment of Direct Incentive Funding Agreement signed by Mr. Finkelstein on behalf of Boynton Associates and Tradewinds Development's Agreement to Perform, also signed by Mr. Finkelstein as the managing member of that entity; and 2) the Consent to Assignment they were asking the CRA to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute. From Attorney Spillias' perspective, the language was appropriate and permitted in the agreement, the Assignment. There had been an issue with the estoppel certificate, but they had removed the language he had questioned. There were provisions that would have required the CRA to give the lender notice and get their consent any time they wanted to amend the DIFA. It basically put them in a contractual relationship with the developer's lender, 27 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 who was not the construction, but the lender taking out the bondholder. While the board discussed this, Attorney Spillias would review the documents to make sure there were no other matters of concern to him. In regard to the demolition lien, Attorney Spillias suggested to the developer and his attorney that he could not recommend a release of the lien without the CRA receiving some additional security by way of a surety, letter of credit, or some type of security, because waiver of the demolition lien was part of the DIFA grant. If they were to waive the lien now with no security and the project was never completed to where the developer would be entitled to the incentive, the CRA would have given up $375K. If they could provide security in lieu of the lien, they could waive the lien and it would remove the issue for their financing and should they not complete the project to where they would be entitled to incentives, they would be able to draw down on the letter of credit or surety, or some other security instrument. The developer's attorney was present and could elaborate on the entire issue. Ms. Heavilin asked Attorney Spillias about the security agreement and whether that would be the collateral assignment of the DIFA, the estoppel certificate. Attorney Spillias said that had nothing to do with the lien. The DIFA agreement did allow them to, with CRA approval, assign the DIFA agreement to a lender as collateral. Attorney Spillias would not recommend this type of language in agreements in the future. Chair 1111man asked Mr. Reardon what the CRA's obligation was, if any, to these requests. What did the CRA have to do and what did it not have to do? And, do you have any recommendation? Attorney Spillias responded there were no financial ramifications to this to the CRA. It was basically leaving the DIFA in place, assigning it to another entity, which the DIFA did permit. They would be preserving their lien right on the demolition lien. The estoppel certificate had as an exhibit the DIFA itself, so the lender had total knowledge of what the obligations of the developer were, what the CRA's obligations were, and the termination dates and events were under the DIFA. The lender was not being misled or kept in the dark with regard to any of that. Was the CRA required to do any of this? No. The CRA was not obligated to sign the estoppel certificate or waive the demolition lien. The purpose of this was for the developer to preserve his position in the property, remove the foreclosure action (and he had been told the land use restriction agreement had been resolved with the County). That would be another requirement. Either the developer could move forward with the agreement, since the DIFA was good until February of 2007, or remove obstacles to the sale of the property to the CRA if they chose to buy it. Mr. Myott inquired whether if approved, this would come back and add additional value to the land and cause the next appraisal to go up even more. Some impact fee waivers were determined to have increased the value of the land already. So, if the incentive were assigned to the property too, would that drive the price of it up if they went to buy it? If the appraisal could include the value of an impact fee waiver, could it also look at incentives that went along with the land? Attorney Spillias stated the incentives were already there. Mr. Myott wanted to know if they did this, would it affect the value of the next appraisal. Why would they do something that cost them more in the end? Attorney Spillias could not answer that question. 28 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Ms. Bright noted the impact fee waivers the developer asked them to consider were not regarded as having a large impact on the appraisal. This action could possibly add the value that they were talking about, but why would they do that. She agreed with Mr. Myott. Mr. Myott stated also, the incentives were being transferred so that indicated to him that they were transferring the incentives to Mr. Finkelstein in another development entity that would indicate that yes, he would be the developer and that was not where they had been heading in the last month or so when they were trying to purchase the property. Ms. Bright expected the review appraisal to come back November 22. Mr. Myott declared this process would clear up the foreclosure and allow Mr. Finkelstein to obtain financing from Mellon so he could hold the property and the CRA could buy it from him. Ms. Bright stated that was correct. When Ms. Bright last spoke to Mr. Finkelstein a week ago, he tried to intimate that a lot of the challenges to developing the property were incumbent upon the CRA's staff. She told him, with all due respect, they had been working with him diligently since July 1 to increase their DIFA to the tune of $4M and at the end of September, the board began to consider purchase. Mr. Finkelstein declared in the recent meeting that a purchase agreement was required. Ms. Bright advised that if she had to go to the board with a purchase agreement, it would be for $6.4M, because they did not have the review appraisal. Chair 1111man stated if there was no true appraisal, this was all premature. Ms. Bright advised it was all about Larry Finkelstein and his financing. Chair 1111man asked why it was in front of the board. Ms. Bright said because there was a request and out of respect, they presented it to the board. William Shannon, Attorney for Larry Finkelstein, who was the manager of Tradewinds Development, stated this was not about the purchase agreement. What they were attempting to do was get a mortgage in place so that they could clear the property. The CRA had previously seen and approved the assignment form. The purpose of the assignment was to collateralize the DIFA. If something happened to them and the lender had to step in, the lender wanted to be able to step into their shoes and do whatever they could do, in which case they would want to take over the DIFA. The estoppel certificate had been revised per Attorney Spillias'direction. They were trying to get these "lender documents" finished. When the lender documents were finished and they closed on this loan, which would be within the week, they would then be able to satisfy the Bank of New York and clear them off the land. They would be able to resolve the land use restriction with Palm Beach County. They had an estoppel letter from Palm Beach County that would permit them to do that. Basically, these actions would clear the property so the title was now "squeaky clean." Next was the demolition lien and by removing it from the land and moving it to some other type of surety, the CRA and its funds were being protected and the land was cleared of the lien. They had a letter from the CRA saying they would waive it if they complied with the terms of the DIFA, and they were grateful for that. They understood why the board would want to protect that lien in the interim and, therefore, were fully in agreement with transferring it from a land lien to some other form of surety; in which case, if they did not perform, the CRA would get the surety instead of a lien on the land. They understood the CRA had not had an opportunity to complete its review appraisal. Mr. Finkelstein had an idea in his mind of what he would like to sell the land for and the CRA had a 29 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 lower appraisal at present, but they were not talking about the land purchase. They wanted to clear the land so either they could move forward with it or the CRA, or some other entity. Vice Chair Norem asked Attorney Shannon to give a scenario on what would take place if they did not go along with Mr. Finkelstein's requests from the bank. Attorney Shannon responded they would not be able to close on the mortgage loan, the foreclosure would stay in place. What happened after that would depend on how quickly they moved ahead on the foreclosure. He did not know how quickly the review appraisal would be available. He did not know if the developer and the CRA would actually enter into an agreement to buy and sell. If they did, they would have to clean up the property at that time from the title standpoint. If they ran out of time with the foreclosure and hadn't agreed to sell, it made matters more difficult. Vice Chair Norem stated it made matters more difficult for the developer. If the CRA went ahead and did this, it just puts the developer in a tougher position against the CRA on the property. Attorney Shannon did not believe that was the case. All they were doing was eliminating these issues so that if the CRA did not purchase the property, they could move forward. If the CRA did not purchase the property, the property would end up in foreclosure. Vice Chair Norem said if it fell into foreclosure, the CRA could meet them on the courthouse steps and bid against the developer for the property. Mr. Reardon asked Attorney Shannon if they were not using the CRA's money to secure a loan to clear the title to sell the CRA the property at a higher appraisal? That was ultimately what they were suggesting. Attorney Shannon stated they were not using the CRA's money. Mr. Reardon stated they would be using the pledge of the CRA's money to secure the loan. Attorney Shannon stated that was not the case and they were clearing the CRA's lien on the property. The CRA was entitled to a $375K for the demolition lien. Mr. Reardon was referring to the DIFA component. Attorney Shannon declared all they were looking for on the DlFA was the agreement of the CRA to adhere to some type of financial surety as opposed to the land. They would be taking it out of one bank and putting it into another bank and they were agreeing to that. They were taking it off the land so they could clean the title. Ms. Horenburger stated they were asking the CRA to save the deal for the current owner by transferring the DlFA to the bank and thereby saving this property from foreclosure, which made the CRA a partner in saving the land and put them nowhere in relation to acquiring the land. She understood the $8.2M appraisal contained items in the appraisal report that led to that figure that in her opinion should not be there. She referred to the impact fees and asked if they had been included. Mr. Reardon stated that was correct. Ms. Horenburger said the CRA would have to pay twice. The seller was including impact fees in the sale price to the CRA and the CRA had to pay impact fees or someone else did again. That was insane to her. Mr. Reardon agreed. Ms. Horenburger would not be in favor of approving either of these at this time. Attorney Shannon stated they were not talking about the purchase at this time. The assignment that was before the CRA had been previously approved as part of the DIFA. It was something the CRA previously agreed to do. Ms. Horenburger declared as the Chair had pointed out, there was nothing here that inured to the benefit at all. It was all to the benefit of the applicant in this case. There was nothing at all that inured to the benefit of the community or the board. Attorney Shannon disagreed, saying it complied with their agreement. As parties in good faith, they agreed with the DlFA and the CRA agreed with the DlFA and this was in accordance with that. Ms. Horenburger asked if denying the requests put the board in legal jeopardy of any kind. 30 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Attorney Spillias noted the only item to which the CRA had already committed itself was the assignment of the DIFA. Some did not recall this. Ms. Bright recalled it specifically. It happened and Amy Dukes and Ms. Bright had tried for an extended period of time to get it from Mr. Finkelstein, and then he had a serious accident and it fell through the cracks and it was not his first priority at a staff level once negotiations resumed. The DIFA was not of value to Mr. Finkelstein then because he could no longer develop the project. He came in June and the CRA spent $15K with the TIF consultant and staff to negotiate for three months, up until September, when they changed their position. It was interesting that now the DIFA had so much value. Attorney Spillias responded the assignment of the DIFA from Boynton Associates to Tradewinds Development and affiliated companies had been previously approved, or so he thought. Ms. Heavilin recalled it. Ms. Bright also believed this was the case. Ms. Heavilin did not believe the assignment had ever been approved, but there was a lot of discussion about it. Attorney Spillias believed it had been approved but never executed. Ms. Bright said that was the case since Mr. Finkelstein got in the accident before signing it. Attorney Spillias would have to double-check this, but he believed that was the only item before the board that it may have an obligation to consummate. The other two would not. Ms. Horenburger asked why they would be asked to approve it again if they had already approved it. Attorney Spillias stated it was simply there for signature. The question was whether it had to be brought back to the board if they had already taken the action of approving it. Before he would ask the Chair to sign it, he would certainly go back and check the minutes. Under the DIFA, there were certain circumstances under which they were entitled to assign the DIFA to an affiliated entity. The estoppel letter and demolition lien waiver were not obligations as part of the DIFA. Ms. Horenburger noted in any event, the bank would not be an affiliated entity and Attorney Spillias agreed. Vice Chair Norem asked again what would happen if they did not sign the estoppel certificate or waiver of demolition lien. Attorney Shannon stated they would simply sign the Assignment and not sign the other two documents. How the bank would react to not having an estoppel certificate, he did not know. They might not want to give them the loan. If they did go forward with the loan, they would have to payoff the demolition lien and close on the loan. Chair l111man asked staff if they had to take any action at this meeting. Ms. Bright stated they did not. Chair 1111man confirmed the board would take no action, but wait for a further update at the board's next meeting. X. New Business A. Consideration of Issuance of an RFP to Conduct a Transit Study and Local Circulation Plan Ms. Brooks reported the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) required them to do a traffic study and transit study to say how they were going to handle all the new development in the area. The City did not feel a traffic study was warranted since from the time of the implementation of the Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area (TCEA) to the date of the first report, there had not been any significant development. The County did not agree with that and found Boynton Beach to be deficient in workforce housing and with not having the study done. They had since complied with the affordable housing part of it and still needed to do a 31 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 transit study. This was an RFP to go out and find a traffic engineer to conduct that and help them to find the best places for a transit or trolley hub for the downtown. Reverend Chaney inquired how much this would cost? Ms. Brooks thought it would be between $20K to $30K. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved to approve staff's recommendation to issue the RFP. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion. For discussion, Mr. Myott said this should be done, but not just to satisfy the requirement of DCA, but to really understand how they could plan transit and intermodal connections for the City's future. He thought this should be part of staff review of projects. Was the project under review fitting into the overall plan and were there not only places for the trolley to stop, but indications of how people could use it to lessen their reliance on cars. Ms. Brooks did believe it would be helpful in their planning for the future of the trolley. Mr. Myott said it should include all the other methods of transportation also. There were no objections to the motion or to Mr. Myott's comments. B. WiFi This item was not on the agenda, but Mr. Reardon explained he had been asked by Ms. Horenburger to provide an analysis of the origin and current use of the WiFi initiative currently supported by the CRA. He distributed a letter to board members detailing his response to this request. Mr. Reardon explained that WiFi was a broadband mobile Internet access system that served the boundaries of the CRA. When fully operational, the entire CRA area of operations would be able to connect to the Internet from either enabled laptop computers or Internet-capable call phones. A device could be procured to bring the signal from outside to inside, but it was $1,500, and the normal household could not afford it. Mr. Myott inquired whether there would be any way to track the people using the WiFi system the CRA was providing. Mr. Reardon responded this was shown in exhibits six and seven. There was a six-day picture of activity in the backup. Ms. Horenburger explained she had a client she was working for on some issues related to utilities. He had a client that did Wifi. The Tri-Rail Railroad Transportation Authority was also looking at WiFi initiatives. Commissioner McCarty was heading up a County study on Wifi. Ms. Horenburger's client told her he purchased the ability to do WiFi in a two square mile area for $25K. She recalled when this started, she had asked some questions but had been "shut down." Later the City was doing it and they were paying $44K a year for the seryice and they did not know what they were getting and how many were accessing it, what kind of advertising was being sold from it. She was upset they only kept data for six days on users, since this was a public agency and it was a matter of public record. Attorney Spillias asked if this had been covered in the agreement that they only had to keep data for six days? Ms. Horenburger stated the CRA did not even have an interlocal agreement that said they had to pay the City for this. She asked that it be put on the agenda for discussion at the CRA's next meeting. 32 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 Chair 1111man asked if any action were required, and was advised there was not. XI. Comments by Staff None XII. Comments by Executive Director None XIII. Comments by CRA Board Attorney Attorney Spillias indicated his thanks for the board's patience when he brought them last- minute items. They did try to make the board aware of anything that impinged on any properties in which the CRA was interested. They could stick totally to the agenda deadlines if so directed, but now and then, last-minute things came up. He thought their handling of these items tonight was appropriate and good. XIV. Comments by CRA Board Ms. Horenburger inquired what happened with the Dive Shop. Ms. Bright responded she and Amy Dukes had met with the subject owners and discussed an interim lease agreement. The owners were amenable to no longer serying food and staff would work with them until a full plan was in place. The facility had to be upgraded. Mr. Myott regretted he had to vote against the Ellipse project, but on a project of that value, he thought the presentation was very, very weak and should never happen again. He did not know if they needed to request a change to the City's requirements for submissions, but on a $200M project, reviewers had to be able to "fly through" and look at places where apartments were 26 feet away from and looking into a parking garage. There were buildings that were seven stories high and 26 feet wide. Would anything grow down there? He felt like it was a real estate deal rather than a real project. Ms. Bright responded they had let the original development manager go five or six months previously and Mr. Myott was right on target. Mr. Myott said when a project crossed $10M, they should get a whole different presentation. This was a landmark type project of huge scale and you could not rely on those flat drawings that did not provide any sense of what the project was really like. Whoever looked at the project first should encourage that. Ms. Horenburger was hearing from realtors on big properties that had been stuck by potential developers who came before them and sought extensions and had not closed on the properties past the closing dates. They said the only recourse they had was to take them to court and it was too expensive. Ms. Bright mentioned four major projects in Delray Beach's core had pulled out. She confirmed with the Ellipse developer that they were not interested in affordable housing incentives, but it would be interesting to see what happened with 576 units. Ms. Heavilin heard Heritage Club was done. Ms. Bright stated they had been in to see CRA staff. New Century had already released three of their properties so they may release that property. She had heard unofficially the project (the land) was being "shopped" for sale. 33 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida November 14, 2006 XV. Other There was no discussion of some informational items in the agenda packet. XVI. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was properly adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~'J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (111506) 34