Loading...
Minutes 12-12-06 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M. Present: Henderson Tillman, Chair Stormet Norem, Vice Chair Rev. Lance Chaney Jeanne Heavilin Marie Horenburger Steve Myott Guarn Sims Lisa Bright, CRA Executive Director Ken Spillias, Board Attorney I. Call to order Chair Tillman called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M. II. Pledge to the Flag The board recited the Pledge to the Flag. Rev. Chaney gave the invocation. III. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and determined a quorum was present. IV. Agenda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda B. Adoption of Agenda Chair Tillman announced the Agenda Approval would include the Consent Agenda Items. Ms. Heavilin pulled Consent Agenda Item D. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda less Item D. Rev Chaney seconded the motion that unanimously passed. V. Public Comments: None. 1 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 VI. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes - November 14, 2006 B. Approval of the Financials C. 2007 Annual Dinner Dance D. Consideration of a Commercial Fa<;ade Grant to Law Realty Ms. Heavilin pulled this item. E. Lease of CRA Property to Panther Real Estate Partners F. Dive Shop Lease - Lynn Simmons D. Consideration of a Commercial Facade Grant to Law Realtv Ms. Heavilin had questions about the Commercial Fa<;ade Grant to Law Realty. She explained it appeared there were two grants for the property. She wanted to know how that fit into the guidelines. Vivian Brooks, Planning Director, explained there were not two grants. The amount was $15K for the entire property. The board discussed the items the grant funds could be used for. It appeared grant funds would be used for items not allowed, such as a roof. Ms. Brooks clarified the program was a matching grant. The request would be in compliance with the grant requirements as long as the improvement did not exceed a certain percentage of the property value. The matched portion of the grant would be used to improve the items not covered under the Fa<;ade Grant guidelines. It was noted the verbiage for the request and back-up materials about eligible exterior improvements to qualify was not clear and it was suggested clarifying the information. Ms. Brooks explained she would be bringing back the Commercial Fa<;ade Grant in the future and the program could be used in a more specific manner. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the Fa<;ade Grant for Law Realty. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-1, (Vice Chair Norem dissenting). VII. Public Hearing Old Business None. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 New Business Attorney Spillias asked the board to disclose any ex parte communications. Mr. Sims disclosed communications with the developer on Item F, the MLK Corridor. Despite the communications, Mr. Sims reported he could make his decisions based on the evidence presented at the meeting. Attorney Spillias explained the quasi-judicial meeting procedures and administered the oath to all persons who would testify. A. North General Building - New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: North General Building (NWSP 07-001) Roy Dunworth, Dunworth Construction Dr. Jean Renelien, United Medical Enterprises, Inc. West side of Federal Highway; south of the C-16 canal Request for a new site plan approval to construct a two-story, 3,990 square foot office building and related site improvements on a 14.77 square foot parcel, in the C-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. North General Building - Zoning Code Variance 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: North General Building (ZNCV 07-002) Roy Dunworth, Dunworth Construction Dr. Jean Renelien, United Medical Enterprises, Inc. West side of Federal Highway; south of the C-16 canal Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.D.3. requiring a minimum lot depth of 100 feet, to allow a variance of 18 feet and an approximate lot depth of 82 +/- feet for a proposed commerCial/office development within the C-4 General Commercial zoning district. Gabriel Wuebben, Planner, presented the requests. The new site plan application was contingent upon the variance application. Mr. Wuebben explained the application was for a two-story building in the General Commercial area. Traffic concurrency approval from the County was forthcoming. The traffic would access the property from the north side of the parcel and would have 18 parking spaces. Traffic would exit the property from the south side of the parcel onto Federal Highway. He showed a building elevation, designed in the Key West style, which was consistent with the Heart of Boynton area. The variance application reduced the lot depth from the required 100 feet, to 82 feet. The request resulted from the property being platted in 1950. A more recent zoning ordinance created a wider lot depth than what was established by the plat. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Staff recommended approval of the variance application and the new site plan contingent with all the conditions of approval. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public hearings and explained the board would hear comments on both the variance and new site plan. Lloyd Powell, represented the property owner at 1112 N. Federal Highway, known as Alpine Florist. He indicated property owners have lost property frontage on two occasions. He asked the board to approve the two requests and not penalize landowners for actions taken by eminent domain. Chair Tillman closed the floor to public comments. Ms. Heavilin had questions about substituting asphalt with decorative pavers. Ms. Brooks clarified the pavers would only be used at the entrance near the site wall for decorative purposes. They would match the walkway and front. Additionally, they would improve the streetscape on Federal Highway. Mr. Myott commented the language should be to substitute decorative pavers for asphalt at the ingress and egress of the property. Ms. Brooks agreed. Rev. Chaney inquired about a condition to enhance the main entrance. Ms. Brooks explained the building was plain on the Federal Highway frontage side. They added banding, decorative tile and decorative exterior lights. The building was long and linear and needed additional features. G. Raymond Berry, Architect for the project was present. He explained the tower element would house the elevator equipment and would have openings to allow ventilation. There would be Bahama shutters. Mr. Raymond would coordinate with the Arts Commission regarding the art requirement. Mr. Berry preferred the art be placed on site at the NE corner of the building where it would be most prominent. The art would likely be a water feature. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the new site plan, Item VII A.1. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the variance request, Item VII A. 2. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Chow Hut - Site Plan Time Extension Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Chow Hut (SPTE 06-14) Anthony Mauro 558 Gateway Boulevard, LLC 558 Gateway Boulevard 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Description: Request for a 12 month Site Plan Time Extension for site plan approval granted on November 1, 2005, to extend site plan approval from November 1, 2006 to November 1, 2007 Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, reviewed the requested site plan time extension and explained the extension request was received just before the original site plan expired. The applicants had spent six months working with a consultant on the kitchen and restaurant design; however, the consultant could not fulfill their obligations and the applicants had to start over again. Staff was recommending approval with of the request subject to all original conditions remaining. There were no new regulations in place to review the project against and the project was not subject to the Art in Public Places Ordinance due to the original site plan being submitted prior to the enactment of the ordinance. Tony Mauro, Agent, 2611 Lake Drive, was present. He apprised the board he would be able to complete the project within the time extension. He explained an issue with the kitchen designer caused the delay. The menu changed, philosophies changed, and the kitchen designer disagreed with the changes and with how his partner wanted to proceed. They had to find a new kitchen designer. He advised they were ready to move forward. Mr. Sims questioned the next significant action within the year for the project. Mr. Mauro responded they were utilizing value engineering and had the plan and design they wanted, as well as the menu they want. Due to the increase in cost and construction they were attempting to use the most efficient and cost effective methods of construction. Mr. Sims further questioned the service bar and 90% of sales occurring from food. Mr. Mauro explained the service bar was not a traditional bar. It would only offer the opportunity to purchase beer and wine. The bar would be more of an outdoor counter. Although the establishment was an eat-in restaurant, the sales would mainly be from take-out orders. Rev. Chaney asked if the seating arrangements would be outside. Mr. Mauro confirmed the seating capacity accommodated 32 people. There were 14 parking spaces. He showed the plans and the elevations. The approved plan showed eight spaces with one handicap space in the front and five parking spaces in the back of the project. Ms. Heavilin inquired when construction would begin. Mr. Mauro explained they planned to commence construction in April or May of next year and hoped construction would be completed within four months. They were trying to time their opening to coincide with next year's tourist season. Chair Tillman opened the floor for public hearing. Hearing none, Chair Tillman closed the floor. Ms. Horenburger asked when the City was going to adjust the Code requirements to allow for 18-month site plan extensions. Mr. Breese reported the change was heard by the City Commission on December 5, 2006 and would be adopted shortly after the first of the year. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request for a 12-month site plan time extension for Chow Hut. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-1, (Rev. Chaney dissenting). VIII. Old Business A. Approval of a Development Agreement with Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC for Parker properties on Seacrest Boulevard. Ms. Brooks explained the board had previously purchased the Parker Properties on Seacrest Boulevard, and the Property Appraiser allowed the property to be subdivided from two lots to three. The action was prompted by a change in zoning from Commercial to Single-family Residential on the west side of Seacrest. The board had entertained using the lot for Single- family affordable housing. The Purchase and Development Agreement with the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC contained the layout of the units, how the project would proceed, the price point for the project, amenities for the homes and a firm development timeline, including a reverter clause which mandated the property would return to the CRA for debt payment and completion of the unit, in the event the CDC could not complete the project. She advised the home design would be finalized by the board. Ms. Brooks also announced she attended the CDC Board meeting last night and discussed the item with them. All three homes would be completed within a 19-month timeline and the homes would be built concurrently. Rev. Chaney inquired about the overall design concept for the Heart of Boynton (HOB) neighborhood. Ms. Brooks explained there were design schematics in the adopted HOB Plan and also a separate companion design document. The concept was for Floribbean designs, which were the Florida style homes with metal roofs. Ms. Brooks explained metal roofs were very good for moderate income housing because they have a much longer life span and the owner receives a better rate on homeowner's insurance. She advised they also required impact windows to be used, further reducing homeowner insurance rates. She announced impact windows would be a major factor for all homeowners in the future. The rezoning of the west side of Seacrest was consistent with the HOB plan. They were looking to have the homes placed closer to the street to allow for parking in the back so homeowners would not have to back out onto Seacrest or use their front yard for parking. Ms. Brooks advised she would keep the board apprised of progress on the project. She explained the CDC submitted a proposal that met what the board and plan wanted for that area. She met with the builder and viewed homes they constructed. She announced the homes were very, very nice. Jerome Powell, 10078 Boynton Place Circle, representing the Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC was present and confirmed the builder was Jeff Wooster. There are other properties that were being developed by the CDC; however, Ms. Brooks reported those projects would not hinder one another over the 19-month construction deadline. Mr. Powell anticipated three homes would be completed and sold by mid-February. He further advised construction of other homes was not predicated on the sale of the current homes they were building. The three homes they were building were slotted for clients. Of the three 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 homes to be constructed on the Parker Property, one was already allocated and they were positioning two other clients for the other two. He hoped that process would be completed by January. The ground breaking would be seven months from the date of execution of the document. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the item. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Approval of an Administration Agreement with Boynton Beach Faith-Based CDC for the Homebuyers Assistance Program. Ms. Brooks presented the item, which would assist the CRA in administering its Affordable Housing Program. She explained the CRA was not in the business of pre-qualifying applicants for the program and the CDC already provided those services for SHIP funds. This item would allow them to pre-qualify applicants for the CRA down-payment assistance. She clarified in the agreement the CDC would get paid at closing as opposed to receiving ongoing funding. Ms. Heavilin inquired if the fee amount was the same amount they would receive for the SHIP funds. Ms. Brooks explained it was slightly more. The County has increased its fee, and the City was also going to increase its fees because each year the amount of work required to pre- qualify applicants increases. Ms. Brooks further clarified the CDC would only be administering the down-payment program for the CRA. Applicants may be able to receive additional funds from the City and County, but they would have to apply for those funds. The SHIP funds were almost gone for the 2006/2007 cycle. Ms. Horenburger asked about compensation in the agreement. She questioned why the CDC would be compensated at closing. She asked what would happen if the applicant was qualified but a closing never occurred. Ms. Brooks responded that was the method used by the City and County. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the item. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Approval of a DIFA with the Cornerstone Group for the Preserve project. Mr. Myott declared a conflict of interest with Items C and D. He filed a Conflict of Interest Form 8B. Ms. Brooks explained the agreement would set aside 50 workforce housing units to be sold to recipients meeting no more than 120% of the Palm Beach County median income. She explained that was a significant number of units. The other item in the DIFA was the amount of funds they were eligible to receive was commensurate with the sale of those affordable housing units. The applicant was in agreement with that provision. The board commented the units were very nice. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the DIFA. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion that passed 6-0, (Mr. Myott abstaining). D. Consideration of Agreement with Cornerstone for Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program Application. Ms. Brooks explained when the board discussed a direct incentive agreement with Cornerstone, the board was also considering layering. She announced Cornerstone was applying for a $5M State Community Workforce Housing Innovation program for the Preserve project. She announced if the developer received that money, they would provide an additional 50 workforce housing units. In order to apply, they needed a local government match. The funds the CRA was proposing to match for this agreement would be the Homebuyers Assistance Program funds for the 50 units just approved in the DIFA for the Preserve project. Ms. Heavilin asked how much of a reduction the recipients would receive. Lenny Wolfe, Cornerstone Group, 2121 Ponce DeLeon Blvd., Coral Village was present and indicated the reduction amounts were in the application. Ms. Bright explained with the layering, the units would be around $130K to $150K for a three-bedroom, three bath, one car unit. The units, however, would be on the tax rolls at the higher price. Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the item. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that passed 6-0, (Mr. Myott abstaining). E. Approval of the Purchase Agreement for The Related Group of a 7,000 square foot parcel, 70 parking spaces and gas pump assets. Robert Reardon, Assistant Director, indicated the item was to conclude the purchase of the Marina pad, parking spaces and fuel dock. The agreement was supplied and he needed a vote. Ms. Heavilin asked if the building was restricted to the dock master and CRA and whether they could do something else with the extra square footage of the building if the use was approved by the condominium. Ms. Bright said there were restrictions. She explained the City encouraged the dive shop to be located in the building. That was not a use the CRA wanted to pursue. She explained the new use would be appropriate and the CRA was responsible for maintenance. Motion Vice Chair Norem moved for approval of the agreement. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Ms. Bright spoke about The Related Group. She reported The Related Group assisted with the funds for the parcel. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 F. MLK Corridor Development Agreement Policy direction. Ms. Bright explained the MLK corridor agreement provides for the partnership working towards the massing of the 26.3 acres in a phased strategy. The Intown indicated they had 40% site control, but the CRA did not have any speCific facts to verify that. She advised there had been many questions raised about ensuring the right resources were going to move the agreement forward. She announced in addition to Attorney Spillias, the whole team was present and she was looking for direction. Attorney Spillias announced the back-up material in the agenda was important to gain clarity about what they were negotiating for. The boards direction was they wanted a Master Development Agreement that laid out would what the development would be, how it was financed, what it would look like, what the terms of the CRA and developer would be, what financial assistance would be needed and when, and any other mechanisms, such as bonds or Community Development Districts. A draft was sent in November and came back. The difficulty was the draft was very general. In the CRA's view, it was not heading toward the type of agreement they believed they were directed to develop. Rather, it was leaning towards a conceptual agreement with some issues left open to be addressed at a later time. Attorney Spillias needed to return to the board for direction. The questions in the back-up materials were the questions the CRA needed to have answered at some point and the responses the CRA received did not specify what financial assistance would be needed. This made negotiations difficult for the CRA because they would not know what would be asked of them later. Attorney Spillias was unsure what the developer was looking for. One issue raised was a concern about the request the CRA was making for conceptual site and infrastructure plans. Until there was an agreement, they did not want to put the money into developing those plans. The CRA was not looking for the specific site plan to be presented to CRA and City. Rather a bubble plan could be used. It was possible they could use the original drawings from the original RFP; however, they needed to know that. Attorney Spillias reported it appeared there was a conceptual difference that needed to be resolved. Staff had provided back-up to the board which included a letter written from Ms. Bright to Ms. Simon about the land purchase issue and a timeline of key dates, beginning from selection of Intown to the present. Lee Worsham, Attorney with Ruden McCloskey, agreed with Attorney Spillias' comments. Their concern was the professional fees to draw the infrastructure and site plans and costings for the project in its entirety for 26.3 acres. They wanted to have the opportunity to acquire all the land rather than do a portion of one phase now and another phase later. He indicated development should be an integrated design and announced the proposal made was a fair representation of what they wanted to do. Attorney Worsham indicated they were not looking for a conceptual agreement. They requested 4-12 months after the agreement was entered 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 into, to acquire the property. He did not think the schedule could run by task and be date specific. The agreement could have a schedule that started when they acquired a sufficient amount of properties. He thought after that they could perfect the schedule and other plans. Attorney Worsham explained the agreement hinged on the land acquisition. He reviewed other development agreements and reported in every one of them the land was acquired first and there needed to be cooperation. This agreement was unique. He indicated there were some instances where it may be better for a purchaser to deal with the CRA. He announced they were not seeking any money from the CRA for land acquisition. He explained with a little bit of direction, there could be movement. They did not want to provide a 26.3 acre detailed site plan, detailed schedule and detailed infrastructure plans or conceptual detailed infrastructure plans that required professional fees. It was sufficient to have an agreement to get their feet in the door and they needed a signed agreement. He announced they would like to work to complete that process by the end of the year and thought they were close to it. He agreed they needed input to finish it. Chair Tillman asked what the legal costs to the CRA were for this matter. Ms. Bright responded the general bill was about $60K. Attorney Spillias observed that based on Attorney Worsham's comments, it appeared the concept was for more of a preliminary land acquisition agreement that would contain how and what process would be set up to purchase the land and what threshold would be used to then enter into negotiations for a final master development agreement. That was not the direction staff received but he advised it could be an approach. A discussion ensued. A conceptual agreement would not be valuable to either party and a land acquisition agreement was a hard agreement. Attorney Spillias was unsure what those ramifications would be. Intown had previously approached the board and requested the CRA and City transfer the properties to Intown for $1, to be paid for later which did not seem to fit into the concept for land acquisition. Attorney Spillias advised that provision was required in the draft and would be a contribution of sorts from the CRA. This was an example of the types of issues the board needed to address. Ms. Bright indicated essential business terms were sent to Ms. Simons and they agreed there was no project without land acquisition. Staff, due to board policy direction and out of respect to the developer, stopped acquiring properties in the target area. There were landowners calling the CRA, which the CRA referred to Intown. Regardless what decision the board made, it made sense to Ms. Bright, since all the property would eventually be conveyed, the CRA could be acquiring property in the target area. Mr. Myott was not opposed to an interim land acquisition agreement occurring but did not see why the substantive issues to be resolved could not be worked on concurrently. There were less issues than he thought. He encouraged Attorney Spillias and Attorney Worsham to work out the terms in question. He indicated the CRA went full circle with the land acquisitions and a plan for the acquisition that would move the project forward was needed. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Mr. Sims agreed with the first point Mr. Myott made. He did not hear an unwillingness for Intown to provide answers but knowing the status of the land acquisition was needed and commonly asked for. Mr. Sims noted a land acquisition agreement was different than the master agreement, and he asked what the consequences to the board were if they entered into an agreement for land acquisition and at the end of the 12-months, all did not go well or a master developer agreement was not reached. Attorney Spillias advised those were questions that needed to be negotiated. He explained the situation would be different if there was eminent domain. He pointed out, however, the power to purchase property has not been removed. An agreement would contemplate a process and procedure for the developer and CRA to use. The CRA would not purchase property to turn over to the master developer. It would be just for the development of the MLK Corridor. Once enough property was acquired, then the agreement could discuss how swaps or sales would occur. Chair llllman commented in August, staff was given instructions and had a scope to operate in. Some of the things that should have occurred had not. He announced they asked staff to bring this back in August and the board needed to deliberate on what was in front of them. As a board, they needed to make a decision on what they need to do. Chair llllman asked where the board was right now and what could be done legally. Attorney Spillias advised given the paraj3eftmeters by the board on August 17, 2006, there was a long way to go. A great deal of information was requested and not received including financial information to confirm the ability of Intown to do the project. It had been suggested the CRA asked for more information than was necessary. However, they received no information. Vice Chair Norem asked how many parcels were acquired. Samantha Simon, representing Intown, announced they were ahead of the RFP schedule for land acquisition and they had under negotiated control almost half the site, with the CRA and City property included. She advised nothing had changed in the scope of what the Intown RFP proposed. Vice Chair Norem explained he did not see Intown closing on the properties and thought CRA staff should be directed to acquire properties. He thought the CRA had indicated the first issue should be the development agreement. Intown was indicating it was the land acquisition. He explained the CRA does give property or money to use for equity for a loan to close on the properties. Attorney Worsham clarified they were not asking for a land acquisition agreement separate from a development agreement. He explained they needed to be the developer and they agreed with that. Attorney Worsham explained they would supply the degree of specificity the CRA needed, but he asked them to keep in mind if they draw a site plan with three phases having 26.3 acres and they cannot acquire a few properties on the outskirts, they may need to amend the site plan. 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 and they cannot acquire a few properties on the outskirts, they may need to amend the site plan. Ms. Bright advised there was a meeting set with Intown to verify control of the site. The CRA, however, was not privileged to that information, and they did not receive it, nor did they receive the partnership agreements with Torti Gallas and McCormick Baron. Those issues were the fundamentals, at the staff level, of a joint public/private partnership to support the $28M TIF agreement and were the types of issues that should be part of the development agreement. Ms. Bright announced she did not know the percentage of Intown's acquisitions were as a portion of the total site control with CRA land. She pointed out somewhere down the line, she needs to know what they are. Vice Chair Norem asked whether it was unreasonable to ask for copies of the contracts under their control. Ms. Simon pointed out they have confidentiality clauses on the contracts which prevented prices from being disclosed. Vice Chair Norem asked whether attorneys could share contracts and keep confidentiality. Attorney Spillias responded they could through a confidentiality agreement that was for lawyers only and because the documents were only being inspected, not copied. Attorney Worsham agreed with the request and the CRA would have the information by the next meeting. Ms. Horenburger asked whether Intown was a not-for-profit corporation. Ms. Simon responded Intown was for profit, however they have a not-for-profit arm. Ms. Horenburger asked how difficult it was to produce a conceptual master plan without having to spend a large amount of money. She clarified initially, a cost was provided at the presentation in August. Attorney Worsham explained the presentation contained the level of specifity the CRA wanted and the infrastructure costs were in the pro forma. Ms. Horenburger wanted some assurances the partners were on board and those partners were contained in the agreements. She thought the agreement should have some flexibility and commented there were a lot of policy decisions that needed to be made. She explained the board should have a comfort level. Attorney Spillias recognized land acquisition as the key. He clarified it was not the CRA's approach to say before we know the land is there, they had to have full site and infrastructure plans. Rather, the agreement could set benchmarks as to when things would be required. Attorney Spillias established there could be certain exhibits to the agreement, such as conceptual site plans. The agreement itself could be phasedst~gcd and did not have to come at one time. The requirement of developing site plans could be pegged to when the land acquisition had reached a stage where they knew there would be a project. The land acquisition could be one provision in the agreement. Ms. Horenburger asked what percentage of land Intown had under control now. Ms. Simon estimated that to be 29%. She thought an incentive was appropriate, but did not think the developer should develop the project on the back of the public money. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Rev. Chaney thought Intown presented an adversarial impression and it gave the impression the City was not cooperating with them. He noted several requests for basic information had been made and a mysterious cloud existed. He explained they wanted a confidence level and they have many inquiries on the project but there had always been an excuse. He acknowledged negotiations could be tense but they did not have to be adversarial. He announced the CRA wanted the project to happen. Rev. Chaney agreed the partners of Intown were phenomenal but there has been no other contact or information about them. Initially Intown advised they did not need CRA dollars. Then they came back to the CRA for assistance. As a result, he assumed there were partner problems. He also recognized land acquisition was critical. In the absence of proof, there was a credibility issue. He indicated until those issues were dealt with, he did not think the CRA needed to move forward with anything. Ms. Simon advised Torti Gallas was 100% on board and it was not a problem providing a letter to that effect. She explained most questions were answered by the RFP and financials were only viewable by staff. She explained Intown has to confer with legal to determine what was legal for them to share with the board and what becomes public record. Ms. Simon apologized for coming to the board on the Jefferson Estate issue, but advised the board when they came forward, the only reason they asked for assistance to purchase the properties was because the properties were outside the project area. The partners were still in place and she clarified they were not asking for money for land at all. McCormick Baron was noted as one of the finest affordable builders. They were part of the team. They wanted to do the project and wanted to work with the CRA. Ms. Horenburger wanted to see the partner as part of the team in agreement. Ms. Heavilin asked for clarification. She indicated in August Intown announced they did not need CRA money. In October, Intown requested the CRA purchase properties for them. Now they were indicating they did not need money but wanted the CRA to turn over lands to them at a certain point for one dollar, upfront to be paid later on. Ms. Simon explained the agreement states Intown would pay for land up to $1,561,039. That has not changed. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council study indicated the land should be purchased for between $650K and $1.1M, and Intown was offering to pay approximately $800K an acre. Intown would purchase and pay for all the land. Attorney Spillias explained the present draft agreement requires the CRA and City lands to be turned over now, for $1 and paid for later when funds were available. Ms. Simon indicated they could strike that language from the contract. Ms. Heavilin would like to see the CRA purchase what land they could concurrently, and without competing with Intown. Ms. Bright explained the letter of essential business terms, by Ms. Bright's calculations showed 15.78 acres needed to be acquired. She indicated that figure may be less now, but her figures showed around $l1M was needed for the remaining land. The pro forma could not support or 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 deny the $3.6M for infrastructure and she commented CRAs typically partner with developers on that. She was unsure of the CDD bond or Special District, how or when it would be put in the project timeline and if it would be for maintenance of the project, or infrastructure. Attorney Spillias indicated the CDD concept was an issue the CRA raised as a funding mechanism. It was unknown at the present time, if it would be available. That mechanism was included in the agreement as a placeholder. Ms. Bright explained the developer may not be asking for funds for land acquisition, but if a CDD moved forward, it could be a substantial bonding the CRA would have to do. She needed to know if the developer was asking the CRA to pay for debt service on it. Ms. Bright clarified three critical components of the development agreement for the board to be aware of were land acquisition, infrastructure, and how to maintain the infrastructure. The only thing the proposal stated was the CRA agreed to a $28M TIF agreement on the backside. Ms. Horenburger asked whether the CDD would be operated by the developer. Attorney Spillias responded it would. He noted the commercial portion of CityPlace occurred through a CDD. Ms. Bright explained on the Marina Village Association, those fees were close to $53K which they were not passing onto the businesses at this time. She explained there have been many statements made about keeping the neighborhood feel and neighborhood retail, but it would take a lot of money for those commercial tenants to fund and support that particular type of district. Ms. Bright emphasized there has been a big push in the neighborhood for the CRA to maintain the small business that exist in the project area and support them. She assured the board, the current tenants in the marina could not afford to share, pro rata, what the CRA was funding as part of the Marina Village Association. She thought it was reasonable for the board to be aware that the businesses they anticipated moving over to the MLK Corridor, may not be able to share those costs. Ms. Bright advised that issue may be a future policy decision for the board. Rev. Chaney asked how that would impact overall, purchasing land in that area. Ms. Bright responded staff was supportive of the proposal; however, the direction of the board in August was to use the $8M for the other HOB initiatives they had. She explained comments had been made why the CRA was focusing on other projects. She pointed out the bond was totally devoted to HOB issues and she was beholden to the will of the board and the direction she was previously given. If the board wanted the CRA to enter into partnerships with Intown for projects such as the Jefferson properties or others, the money needed to be shifted. She announced the CRA wanted to cooperate. Chair Tillman thought since policies were put in place for the bond monies, the funds should remain for those purposes. He thought if there were opportunities to work outside where funding was available, to do so, but what was put in place should remain. Ms. Bright confirmed she would support that direction but would bring any other opportunities back before the board. Attorney Spillias advised the thought initially was to have CDDs in the agreement and take them out later. Ms. Horenburger noted it sounded better to take CDDs out now. 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Vice Chair Norem thought the CRA needed to have funds available for when opportunities arise. Ms. Bright announced she had her direction from the board, and there are initiatives in place. However, she was subject to public scrutiny and she needed clarification from the developer whether they wanted staff working with them and negotiating in that area. At the present time, all calls were referred to the master developer. Ms. Horenburger thought the board should take the position with the developer to have them negotiate with them. She did not want the negotiations to take place in the public arena. If there were issues and problems, they would be addressed by the board and responded to individually. Ms. Heavilin asked if Intown provided Attorney Spillias with the information, how quickly could the CRA move ahead with the project. Attorney Spillias responded the information would certainly go a long way because many issues in the agreement would be satisfied. The CRA was looking for confidence, and once given, the other issues would move forward. Attorney Spillias also indicated land acquisition could be done two ways. They could have contracts contingent on closing within six months or so and be assigned to Intown, or the CRA could buy lands that were difficult and if a development agreement were signed, Intown would have to buy the land from them. The issue was if there were difficulties with negotiations with different property owners, whether the CRA could do a better job of negotiation than Intown. The decision needed to be made and Intown advised of that. Ms. Heavi'in thought there might be individual cases the landowner may prefer to deal with one agency as opposed to the other. The other issue was what funds were earmarked from the bond funding for the HOB and what might be left over. Mr. Reardon would need to advise the board of that. Ms. Bright explained since Intown was already paying for all the land, she thought Ms. Simon would want to negotiate the largest portion, and if she could not obtain property to give it to the CRA for negotiation. Mr. Myott announced he would be looking in January to having the substantive issues resolved. He agreed with the land purchases and thought if there were parcels the CRA might be more effective in negotiating for, to advise Ms. Bright. He noted this was a large project and the CRA needed to keep working on smaller projects along the way. Vice Chair Norem asked if answers were received by the next meeting, if there could be another draft agreement. Attorney Spillias advised based on the discussion, his expectation was to take their draft and send it back to them before the next meeting. IX. New Business A. Consideration of an RFP for the Downtown Visioning Workshop and the creation of a Downtown Master Plan Implementation Program 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Ms. Bright announced the CRA Board attended the Boynton Beach Assembly but it did not provide specific direction to staff in terms of developing the downtown. The RFP authorizes staff to secure an entity for that purpose, and would return to the board for final selection. The process would probably be a three-day charette process and the board would determine the priorities. This item would ensure the projects they already had would be supported and it could assist the CRA to focus on the bonding issues for the coming year. Ms. Bright indicated the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), Cooper Carey, and others were interested in the item. She indicated the CRA was looking for out of the box thinking for the downtown area. Ms. Horenburger requested the applicants be cautioned the CRA would not pay a fortune to fly in across the country. Motion Ms. Heavilin moved to approve the request. Rev. Chaney seconded the motion that unanimously passed. X. Comments by Staff Ms. Brooks announced months ago, the CRA and City passed Comprehensive Plan amendments that stated if there was a request for a Land Use Classification with an increase in density from the highest density (10.8 dwelling units per acre) and a special high density district which would increase to 20 dwelling units per acre, or a mixed land use change, the increase would require a provision of workforce housing to be contained within the project. The City had not passed the actual zoning text. Developers wanting to use the special high density or the mixed use zoning, would not know the rules because they have not been adopted yet. Ms. Brooks advised she had been meeting weekly with City staff on an ordinance to enact those provisions. The ordinance was loosely modeled after the County's ordinance, which addresses inclusionary zoning at 7%, which was a County requirement. If density was increased, the workforce housing needs to be 30%. Ms. Brooks clarified the ordinance they promulgated was voluntary and did not need to be included in the base density. If the developer wants to use increased density, then the number of workforce housing units would be increased also. Ms. Brooks thought due to the complexity of the issue, the City would like a workshop to be held with the City Commission, the CRA and Planning and Development Board. She proposed January 30th for an evening workshop and anticipated the workshop would last a few hours. The ordinance would ultimately return to the CRA. XI. Comments by Executive Director Robert Reardon, Assistant Director, announced he had a message from Community Relations Board Chairman, Brian Miller reporting on Saturday, January 27, 2006 there would be a Heart of Boynton, Pride in Boynton Beautification Clean-up Day. To date, the CRA was funding a lot of the supplies and debris removal. Many local organizations and churches were participating. Bud's Chicken and Seafood would supply food for the initiative. 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Ms. Bright introduced new staff member, Kathy Biscuti, new Special Events Manager for the CRA. She commented the holiday activities and concert were great. Ms. Bright advised she was working with Gulfstream Lumber. She had received many complaints regarding how bad the site looked. Banners would be put up, the site would be mowed and cleaned up. She further announced the City Commission moved their meeting to February 13, 2007 which was when the CRA usually met. She asked if the CRA wanted to meet on a different day or just change the location. There was consensus to change the day. Ms. Bright wished the board a happy holiday. Ms. Bright updated the board. The review appraisal on the Ocean Breeze project came back for $6.4M. There were questions over the impact fees. Ms. Bright announced land to land, the appraisal was exactly $6.4M. If the land were developed, there was a credit for a developer to draw down the money. When Boynton Terrace was torn down, the County impact fees received a credit of around a half million dollars, but it was not associated with the actual value of the land. The owner was concerned that was not taken into consideration. The CRA would approach Mr. Finkelstein if he wanted to consider a purchase agreement. Ms. Bright indicated Mr. Finkelstein was not initially interested in the $6.4M purchase. She would approach him again with the second appraisal. The property was in foreclosure, and many individuals preferred to wait until the property goes to foreclosure. Obtaining that property would have a huge presence along Seacrest and the Heart of Boynton. Ms. Bright explained staff has some degree of flexibility in negotiations, and any transactions come back to the board. XII. Comments by CRA Board Attorney Attorney Spillias wished the board a happy holiday and thanked the board. He announced it has been a pleasure for him to serve the board. XIII. Comments by CRA Board Mr. Sims wished the board a happy holiday and thanked the board for moving the Heart of Boynton Project forward. Ms. Heavilin thought it would be a great show of support for the CRA board and staff to participate with the Heart of Boynton Beautification. She indicated the board used to have a 9:30 p.m. time certain for meetings to close. She requested when there were really long meetings and agendas, they return to that policy. She thought the board may not be making good decisions on important matters at 10:30 p.m. At 9: 15 p.m. the board would note the time and determine whether they would proceed with the agenda or continue the item at another date. She wished all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Mr. Myott announced he was proud to be a Boynton Beach resident and CRA member. He enjoyed participating in Saturday's holiday parade and concert. He thought it was super and was looking forward continuing on in January. 17 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida December 12, 2006 Ms. Horenburger asked about the new Ethics Ordinance passed by the City Commission. Attorney Spillias would give a briefing on the ordinance and recusals. Ms. Horenburger wished all a happy holiday. Rev. Chaney congratulated Mayor Taylor who was present and noted Commissioner Rodriguez was also present. Rev. Chaney thought the last few months were great and he thanked staff for a job well done. He expressed his prayers for a wonderful holiday season. He invited the board to a Christmas Cantata, at St. John Missionary Baptist Church on Saturday, which was a historical review of traditional, urban and jazz Christmas music. He further advised each year at midnight, there was a service asking God's blessing for the next year. Vice Chair Norem agreed with Rev. Chaney's comments and wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah. Chair Tillman wished all happy holidays. He acknowledged there was a major turn around and commented the results were visible. He complimented staff and an organization with high credibility and maintained a high level of integrity. He was happy to be a part of the CRA and the team. He expressed his fondness to his fellow board members and indicated he enjoyed working with them. He thought, as they continued moving forward, they would meet with success. He asked God's blessings and many returns to the board. XIV. Adjournment Motion Ms. Horenburger moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Norem seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, iJ'J.. .1AJYn1,1,( Catherine erry-Guberman Recording Secretary 121306 18