Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL I I I MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 16, 2000 Vice Mayor Weiland thought it went back to Commissioner Black's statement that the system is "broken" and perhaps in a lot of these cases more documentation needed to be done. The City has spoken to the applicant, they signed a letter and returned a receipt for the mail, so they cannot state they did not know what was happening. This seems to happen over and over again. We realize that in nine cases out of ten the people are financially strapped They can't afford to fix the house #1 and #2, they can't pay the $10,000 fine that may be owed Ms. Albert said she did believe that Ms. Ousley took steps in good faith to fix her property up and she got "scammed" She wants to help her go after the Contractor as well but that will take time. Meanwhile he took off with a good chunk of her money, which meant a lot to her Mayor Pro Tern Sherman asked if she had taken out a home equity loan and Ms. Albert replied yes. Mayor Pro Tern Sherman asked if there were documentation to that effect pertaining to the home equity loan. Ms. Albert said she had some in her briefcase. She had checks showing amounts that were given to her in increments to help her payoff bills and one that was given to the contractor Ms. Albert said she had presented a copy of the check to the Code Board previously and that it was a cashed check. Commissioner Rsher asked Mr Blasie if he recalled seeing the check. Mr Blasie did not recall it. Ms. Albert said she had a copy in her car in her briefcase. Mayor Pro Tern Sherman said he would take her word for it. Commissioner Rsher said he totally agreed that the Code Department needed to be given more teeth in enforcing the policies but he wasn't too sure that this was the case they should start with, considering the circumstances presented and the background Mayor Broening agreed except in those cases where there have been chronic violators. The Code Department, the Code Compliance Board and the Commission have been very tough on them and there was a $30,000 fine passed out fairly recently and it blew the speculator's plans away Mayor Broening did not feel it was a matter of being soft but a consideration of the intent. If the intent is compliance and they come into compliance and stay in compliance and are not repeat offenders, they are inclined for first-timers to do the administrative thing He was NOT in favor of the chronic violators who affect the quality of life for their neighbors and flaunt the City's codes. Motion Vice Mayor Weiland made a motion to approve the Code Compliance Board's recommendation to rescind the fine in Code Compliance Case #98-3158 Commissioner Black seconded the motion The motion carried 5-0 XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: / A. Consideration of DevelOper's ~posal regarding Manatee Bay 25 I I I MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 16, 2000 Attorney Cherof directed the Commissioner's attention to a letter from David Norris, attorney for the Manatee Bay developer, that contained a counter-offer to what the Commission had proposed earlier to resolve the dispute over thf' recreation fee. They included in the memorandum the motion that was made by Vice Mayor Weiland, which was approved. Vice Mayor Weiland said that in reading the backup the agreement was still a good agreement to reach with Manatee Bay regardless of the recommendation he gave at a prior meeting This puts money in our coffers right off the bat and the natural area around Manatee Bay is improved and still leaves an amount of money we could possibly receive after that. Motion /Vice Mayor Weiland made a motion to accept this agreement with the Manatee Bay V Developer Commissioner Black seconded the motion that carried 5-0 AT THIS POINT MAYOR BROENING RETURNED TO ITEM IOC, WHICH HAD BEEN DELAYED EARUER IN THE MEETING UNDER NEW BUSINESS. C. Appointment of eRA Members (Two members to be Appointed) Mr Bressner said he had prepared two sheets that the Commissioners needed to mark.. The white sheet would be number 1 and the pink sheet would be number 2. Mr Bressner directed the Commissioners to mark on the top of sheet #1 their name and their first choice. Their name and their second choice would go on sheet #2. He said that one decision they may want to make early on would be who gets the four-year term and who gets the two-year term Commissioner Rsher suggested they choose the one with the longer term as their first choice. This was agreed to by the Commissioners. Upon completion of selection, the ballots were passed to Attorney Cheraf and City Manager Bressner Attorney Cherof stated that in the first round, Mr AI DeMarco and Mr Jose Aguila each received two votes. Mr Rnkelstein received one vote. Attorney Cherof recommended that the Commissioners go back to their round one choice and try one more time, limiting it to the two who received the two top votes. Whoever voted for Mr Rnkelstein would be the tiebreaker in theory On the next ballot, labeled #lA by Mr Bressner, Attorney Cherof stated that there were two votes for Mr DeMarco and three votes for Mr Aguila 26 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 21, 2000 - Motion Commissioner Black moved to approve Case #97-4349 (515 NE 20th Avenue) to the administrative costs of $634 12. Vice Mayor Weiland seconded the motion that carried 4-0 2. Recreation impact fee for the Manatee Bay development in the amount of $229,865 a. Appeal of administrative decision b. Establishment of fee John Wildner. Parks Director. reported that the Planning & Zoning Division determined that the recreation impact fee for the Manatee Bay project should be $229,865 Olen Residential Corporation originally proposed that the fee should be $148,950 The difference between the two amounts is based on the interpretation of developable land as discussed in an Engineering Division letter dated March 8, 1999 e The value of six acres of submerged land becomes pivotal The developer was originaUv. requested to provide a separate appraisal for only the submerged lands. They decided not to submit that appraisal. Instead, they submitted an appraisal for the entire site of property including the submerged lands. They revised their estimate of what the impact fee should be to $159,621 The difference between the recommended fee by staff and the developer's proposal is $70,244 To date, this dilemma has resulted in non-collection of the fee. Olen Residential Corporation requested that this item be brought before the Commission for discussion. David Norris. Attornev for Olen Residential Realty eOrDOration. congratulated the two new Commissioners and wished them luck. Mr Norris agreed that this dispute is over the park fee and it involves the method of calculation and how the submerged land is treated in the calculation. Olen Residential bought the entire property for a certain price. That price included submerged land and the upland The value that was placed on it was for the total land. Olen's position is that the submerged land has considerable value because it has development rights attributed to it. For that reason, the value is the same for the submerged land and uplands. With regard to the calculation of the park. fee, Mr Norris said the easiest way to look at it is to look at the two parts that it is comprised of One part is the calculation of the per acre price or value. That figure depends on the number of acres that are used in the calculation. The second part involves the maximum number of developable units on the property In dealing with this issue, the City has treated the submerged lands differently on each side of the calculation with regard to the per acre price. The City eliminated the submerged property from the calculation saying it is valueless. That results in a higher per-acre value. However, when you go to the other side of the calculation to arrive at the number of developable units, they include the submerged units. Therefore, on one- side they ignore the submerged and on the other side, they use the submerged. Mr Norris feels this is an unreasonable and indefensible e position There must be conSistency in the application of the formula. 23 .,. MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 21, 200~ It is the applicant's position that the submerged land has real value, but even if it didn't, the City must be consistent dealing with it on both sides of the calculation The applicant feels this land should be included throughout the calculation. Therefore, it was included as part of the acreage in determining the per-acre value and it is included in determining the number of developable units. That is how the applicant determined the park. fee. - Mr Norris felt that if the Commission agreed with staff to eliminate the submerged land from the calculation, then the applicant recommended that it be eliminated on both sides of the calculation The resulting figure would benefit the applicant. In response to Vice Mayor Weiland, Mr Wildner said he would defer to the Department of Development regarding zoning issues and the number of units that could be placed on the land It is his understanding that the zoning allowed the applicant additional units based on the submerged land. However, building was done on only the developable land and resulted in the amount of profit that could be realized from each unit. Mr Rumpf said there aren't a lot of guidelines to follow in this case. Therefore, logic was applied. The applicant was not penalized for the submerged land in calculating their density; The collected fees go back into the resource system to service the area. It could be used for land acquisition and the fee is based upon the value of that property because the law requires those resources to be reinvested back into the area to serve that area. If we were to use a dollar amount to acquire land for recreation purposes, we would not acquire submerged lands. Steve Shaw. Real Estate ADDraiser. explained that if the submerged lands were not given any density requirements, then there would be no value. Because they were given an additional 60 units, there is additional value attributable to that land since it increased density to the entire site. The park requirement equates to 1.35 acres of land that would need to be purchased The amount calculated would be sufficient to purchase an equivalent piece of property at 1.35 acres at the density of 10.8 units per acre. What staff has done is attribute a density of over 16 units per acre to that 1.35 acres. Generally, a parcel with a higher density would sell for more per acre. The park. fee has been assessed at 16 units per acre versus the actual figure of 10.8 units per acre. That inflated the park. fee beyond its value. e Mr Norris said there is real value to the submerged lands that can't be ignored. Furthermore, in dealing with submerged land, the Oty must be consistent on both sides of the calculation. Mayor Broening asked if the applicant had any plan to use the submerged lands for recreation purposes. He explained that such a plan would mitigate some of the requirements. Mark Hansen. Olen Residential ComDanv. said that prior to the purchase of this property, discussion took place with Carrie Park.er When the density was assigned to the submerged land, it included a higher number of units. Therefore, the property was purchased on a per-unit basis. The City assigned a value to the land by establishing that density can't be put on submerged lands. With respect to recreational lands, Olen worked closely with Via Lago on the things that they a have planned for the area. The water is very clear in this area and it is used for water skiing .. 24 , ~ ..~ ~ c:;) / MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 21, 2000 I I and snorkeling Olen spent $250,000 for rehabilitation of the existing dock that is shared by Via Lago. Mr Hawkins asked Mr Hansen if the submerged lands could have been filled in and built on Mr Hansen responded affirmatively and explained that the bulkhead line is 300' out into the water However, this is a natural amenity Mr Rumpf referred to previous discussion wherein it was stated that submerged lands are assumed to have value. He said staff recognized that value by not penalizing the project in the density calculation Mr Rumpf restated the following points that were contained in a letter dated September 29, 1999 to Mr Hansen ~ "The number of units has increased the impact to the City because the 180 units are being built on the uplands creating a density of 16.36 units per acre rather than the allowable 10.8 units per acre for this zoning. ~ The submerged land is of relative little value except for the dock out into the Intracoastal Waterway and cannot be valued at the same acre price as the buildable .. uplands. ~ Upon reviewing the first phase of the abutting Via Lago development, there was no credit given for additional units for the 3.6 acres of submerged lands. <>> ~ Theoretically, the impact fee is to be used to increase recreation resources within the vicinity from which the fees are collected, which could include land acquisition. A fee collected, based in part on submerged lands, may be insufficient to acquire equivalent land on which a park could be developed." Mr Hansen said the City established a density for the submerged land and resulted in the establishment of value. If that density had not been established, the purchase price of the land would have been less. The purchase price was based on the number of units that would be achieved. Mr Hansen said Hypoluxo does not put a density value on submerged lands. Mayor Broening said it is difficult for him to not see developable value in submerged lands and he has trouble not assigning a value to waterfront property He pointed out that this discrepancy is over $70,000 for a piece of land that has value. The City considers the submerged acreage as part of the value of the land. ~ Mr Norris shared Mayor Broening's confusion about this issue. He pointed out that the applicant agrees that there is substantial value in submerged property It is usable property if it could be filled in The applicant has no intention of doing that and believes it is a benefit not to do that. However, the applicant is being penalized .by not filling it in and there is no justification in the Code. There is value to this land and it should be treated the same way throughout the calculation Staff is not treating it the same way and there is no justification or rationale for those actions. Mr Norris requested that this property be treated the same way throughout the calculation and that would satisfy the applicant. 2S - ~ -~- '$. ~ MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 21, 2000 - Mr Rumpf said that if there was equivalent value, this property would have been appraised in that way The appraiser indicated that it is not appraised in an equivalent manner Mr Hansen said he paid more than $600,000 more for the land because of the extra density and for that reason, the park. fee is higher If the 60 units were removed, he would have paid $600,000 less for the land. Vice Mayor Weiland said he looks forward to work.ing with Olen in Quantum Park and he proposed that we look at the figure as being $40,000 in an effort to put an end to this argument. He recommended that the applicant pay one-half of the amount in question. The applicant was willing to bring this proposal back to Olen for consideration as a compromise Motion Vice Mayor Weiland moved to approve an agreement between the Oty and Olen to compromise on a figure of 50% between $229,865 and $148,950. Commissioner Slack seconded the motion that carried 4-0. 3. Ordinances - 3rd and Final Reading: a Proposed Ordinance No. 000-02 Re: Providing for determination whether changes to the comprehensive development of regional impact constitutes a substantial deviation under 380.06 F.S. and whether further development of regional impact review is necessary, amending the development order for Quantum Park. e! Item XI-D.3.a was addressed earlier in the meeting under Public Hearing. b. Proposed Ordinance No 000-03 Re: Amending land development regulations, uses permitted to allow recreational and attractions as defined for the industrial land use classification, multi-family residential and mixed use residential/commercial uses in PIDs. totaling a minimum of 500 acres, by amending Uses Prohibited to exclude multi-family from prohibited uses. Item XI-D.3.b was addressed earlier in the meeting under Public Hearing. 4. Request and Announce a elosed Door Session regarding Pending Litigation Attorney Cherof reported that the Commission had previously met in a closed-door session with _ respect to the Graham lawsuits. Negotiations for settlement have been conducted. At the next W Commission meeting, a Resolution to authorize the settlement will come before the 26