No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-09 - City Commission Regular Meeting Minutes.. e4g P. C.Y. 0OX 250 1El CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 A.M. FIRST CLASS MA ANNOUNCEMENT OF TIME ALLOCATIONS - MOTIONS TO TABLE - The Chair at this time will announce those items which have been given a spe- cific time to be heard, and will entertain motions from Council members to table those items which require additional research. Council may agendize by majority consent matters of an urgent nature which have come to Council's attention after publication. PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS 1. Parks and Recreation Month - Presentation of a proclamation by Vice Mayor Massaro designating June as "Parks and Recreation Month". 2. Parks and Recreation Program - Presentation of awards to vol- unteers who have contributed to this program. CONSENT AGENDA 3. Items listed under Item #3, Consent Agenda, are viewed to be routine and the recommendation will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate dis- cussion of these items. If discussion is desired, then the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. a) Minutes of 4/28/82 - Regular Meeting - Approval recommended by City Clerk. b) Alan F. Ruf - Consulting City Attorney - 6/3/82 - $2,150.00 - Approval recommended by the City Attorney. c) Richard S. Rubin - Consulting City Planner - May, 1982, - $2,100.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. d) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer - 5/10/82 - $15,674.04 - Account 428-368-535-310 - Approval re- commended by City Engineer. e) Del Ricco Brothers Construction, Inc. - 1982 Storm Drainage Improvements - N.W. 82 Street - 6/2/82 - $31,104.00 - Pay Estimate #1 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. f) Josias & Goren - Special Counsel - Borrow Pit - 5/28/82 - $250.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. g) Dryclean USA at Family Mart Shopping Center - Approval for con- tinued use of a temporary trailer for claims settlement and as a drop store until the Council meeting of 7/14/82. 6/9-Pg.2, V/M Massaro presented proclamation 6/9-Pg.2,Awards presented by S. Ellis to members. 6/9-Pg.2 & 3, 3a) deferred to future meeting, 3h-1, 3h--2 AGEND. BY CONS. Pg. 22, TABLED TO 6/11/83. 6/11, Pgs. 1-5, PAGE TWO h) Ashmont (Kings Point) Revised Site Plan - Approval to extend the l tabling action to a future Council meeting. i) Approval to extend the tabling action of the following items to the Council meeting of 6/23/82 at the request of the developer: (1) Sabal Palm Country Club Condominiums (2) Sabal Palm Golf Course (3) Sabal Palm Golf Course Clubhouse GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL 4. Emergency Medical Services - Temp. Reso. #2307 - Discussion and possible action to renew an EMS Agreement with Broward County for one year. 5. Alexander Grant & Co. - Discussion and possible action on re- commendations in 1980/81 Audit Report. LEGAL AFFAIRS 6. Burglar Alarm - Temp. Reso. #2305 - Discussion and possible action to establish a late fee for an initial permit or renewal permit for a burglar alarm. 7. Burglar Alarm - Temp. Ord. #986 - Discussion and possible actio to amend Section 11 of Ordinance 82-34 to provide for a filing fee for the processing of appeals to Notices of False Alarms. First Reading. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2:00 P.M. 8. Saul Strachman - Petition #7-Z-82 - Temp. Reso. #2308 - Dis- cussion and possible action to grant a limited waiver to parkinc requirements of Section 18 of the City Code for Sunflower Shop- ping Center located at the southeast corner of N.W. 82 Street and University Drive. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Woodmont Tracts 68 and 77 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot dis- tance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. (tabled from 5/25/82) This item is scheduled to be heard approximately 1:30 p.m. 6/9-Pg.3, APPROVED for 1 Year. 6/9--Pg. 3, TABLED waiting report CAI Kravitz. 6/9-Pg.3,APPROVEI 6/9-Pgs.4 & 5, APPROVED on first reading. 6/9-Pgs.16 & 17, APPROVED as conditioned. 6/9-Pgs. 13 thru 6, a)ADOPTED amendment to W & S Agmt.,b)APPROVE 6 mos. from 5/13 to 11/13-300' distance waived. 6/9-Pgs. 15 & 16, 10. Mission Lakes (Southgate Gardens East) - Discussion and possibl ea) APPROVED, b) action on: APPROVED 6 mos. a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers from 5/13 to Agreement. 11/13 b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot dis- tance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. (tabled from 5/25/82) This item is scheduled to be heard approximately 1:45 p.m. 11. Financial Federal Savings & Loan Association - Bond Release - Temp. Reso. #2301 - Discussion and possible action to release a performance bond subject to receipt of a one-year warranty bond (tabled from 5/26/82). 12. University Hospital - Bond Release - Temp. Reso. #2296 - Dis- cussion and possible action to release a cash performance bond for parking lot improvements. (tabled from 5/26/82). 6/9-Pg. 5, TABLED to next regular meeting.C/Clerk to advise Bldg. Dept -to have 6/9-Pg.�5APPROVE releasing cash perf.bond. PAGE T REE 13. Fairways Buildings A & B - Bond Release - Temp. Reso. #1813 - Discussion and possible action to release a cash warranty bond posted for drainage improvements (tabled from 2/10/82) . 6/9-Pg- 5, APPROVED as conditioned. 14. Sunniland Bank - Bond Release - Discussion and possible action. 6/9-Pg.18,19,20 15. Woodmont Tracts 74 and 75 - Model Sales Facility - Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit for this project.. TABLED to next meeting_ 6/9-pg. 6, APPROVED 6 mos. 16. DuffPlaza - Revised Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #2309 - Dis- from 7/12/82s 6/9-Pgs. 10,11 cussion and possible action on a revised site plan to delete APPROVED drive-in tellers at the Dania Bank, 6501 W. Commercial Boule- vard. 6/9-Pgs. 6 17. Drainage Improvements in the City - Discussion and possible action. Reports REPORTS 18. City Council 6/9-Pgs.10 & 21 19. City Manager 6/9-pg. 10, 20. City Attorney City Council may consider such other business as may come before it.I6/9-Pg. 10 Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368; If a person de- cides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF TAMARAC Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk For informational purposes, following are the residential and commercial zoning districts in the City: R-1 -Single Family Residence S-1 -Open Space/Recreational R-lB & R-lC -One-Family Dwelling I-1 -Institutional R-2 -Two-Family Dwelling M-1 -Light Industrial RD-7 -Two-Family Dwelling M 2 -Medium Industrial R-3U -Row House A-1 -.Limited Agricultural R-3 -Low Density Multiple A-5 -Agricultural/Excavation Dwelling T-1 -Trailer Park District RM-10 -Planned Apartment R-4A -Planned Apartment R-5 -Motel/Hotel B-1 -Neighborhood Business B-2 -Planned COmmLmity Business B-3 -General Business B-5 -Limited Business District B-6 -Business District PAGE FOUR 21. Requesting Scare Considerations for the City of Lauderhill Regarding 6/9-Pgs.1 & 6, the Parcel of Land that is up for Special Exception for a Gas Station APPROVED as and/or Convenience Store - Temp. Reso. #2312 amended. 22. Burglar Alarm ID card fees - Temp. Reso. #2311 23. Request from Woodmont Country Club for the Display of Signs for their Junior Championship Golf Tournament taking place on 6/29,30 & July 1 24. Urging a Plan for a Hospital Detention Facility in Broward County 25. NW 64th Ave. & NW 57th St. - Left Turn Lanes 26. 201 Program - Consulting Attorney Linton Lovett 6/9-Pgs. 1, 7 & 9, APPROVED. 6/9-Pgs.1 & 7, APPROVED w/ changes 6/9-Pgs. 2, 7 & 8, APPROVED w/changes 6/9-Pgs. 6, 7, 9 & 18,APPROVED C/Mgr. to authorize Pub. Wks. to proceed with 3 turn lani and look to County for cooperation in labor & materia: for project. 6/9-Pg. 22, Legal Dept of City be author ized to engage services of Linton Lovett, Utility Law Specialist in Miamito assist City's prep. of position w/ respect to an amended County 201 Facilities Plan w/maximum fee up to $5,000 at preset time. CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 9, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro called the meeting to order on Wednesday, June 9, 1982, at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraelly Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mayor Walter W. Falck ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans City Attorney, Jon Henning Assistant City Clerk, Carol A. Evans Secretary, Patricia Marcurio,a.m. Secretary, Norma R. Rayman,p.m. 'ape MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: V/M Massaro called for a Moment of 1 Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. V/M Massaro greeted those present and introduced the new City Attorney, Jon Henning. She reviewed the time allocations on this day's agenda. 21. Requesting Some Consideration. From the City of Lauderhill Re ardin the Parcel of Land that is up for_512ecial Exception for a Gas E-tation and/or Convenience Store - Tem . Reso. #2312- Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized - - by Consent. (See Page 6). V/M Massaro said she would like to have Agendized by Consent Tem�._Reso. #2312 which is requesting some consideration from the City of Lauderhill regarding the parcel of land that is up for special exception for a gas station and/or convenience store. C/M Kravitz so MOVED, SECONDED by C/M Disraelly. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 22. Burglar Alarm - Tem Reso. #2311 - Discussion and possible action on initial and renewal identification cards for burglar alarm installers and servicemen. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (See Page 7 & 9). C/M Disraelly MOVED that Temp. Reso. #2311 repealing Section l of Reso. 82-111 with new language for Burglar A arm installation be Agendized by Consent, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 23. Request from Woodmont Country Club for the display of signs for their Junior Championship Golf Tournament taking place on June 29, 30 and July 1. Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (See page 7). C/M Disraelly said he would like to Agendize by Consent a request he received from Woodmont Country Club for the display of signs for their Junior Championship Golf Tournament taking place June 29, 30 and July 1. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE ` 1 - 6/9/82 /pm 24. Urging a Plan for a Hospital Dentention Facility in Broward County - Temp. Reso. #2310 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (See Page 7 & 8). C/M Disraelly asked to Agendize by Consent a plan for a hospital detention facility in Broward County, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 1. Parks and Recreation Month - Presentation of a proclamation by V/M Massaro designating June as "Parks and Recreation Month". SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: V/M Massaro presented a proclamation to the members of the Parks and Recreation Committee. V/M Massaro read the Proclamation into the record and presented this to the members of the Parks and Recreation Committee: Chairperson James Lew, Parks Commissioner Norman Karr, member Irving Vitrofsky, member Muriel Davis, liaison C/M Philip Kravitz, member James Shiles, Parks Director Sharon Ellis and commended each of them for their many services to the City. 2. Parks and Recreation Program - Presentation of awards to volunteers who have contributed to this program. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Sharon Ellis presented awards to volunteers. Sharon Ellis presented official summer recreation teeshirts to V/M Massaro and Council members and awards were presented to the following volunteers who were present: Norman Karr Jim Lew Rocky Morretti, Ft.Lauderdale News Bob Kearns Irving Vitrofsky Mack Ingram Tom Tomlin., representing Versailles Gardens Awards will be presented to volunteers not present: Al DeMarko Kevin Duffy Nick Canora Monroe Berg Tom Romano Joe Amato Ricci Romano 3. Consent Agenda a) Minutes of 4/28/82 - Regular Meeting - Approval recommended by City Clerk. b) Alan F. Ruf - Consulting City Attorney - 6/3/82 - $2,150.00 - Approval recommended by the City Attorney. c) Richard S. Rubin - Consulting City Planner - May, 1982 - $2,100.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. d) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer - 5/10/82 - $15,674.04 - Account 428-368-535-310 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. e) Del Ricco Brothers Construction, Inc. - 1982 Storm Drainage Improvements N.W. 82 Street - 6/2/82 - $31,104.00 - Pay Estimate #1 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. f) Josias & Goren - Special Counsel - Borrow Pit - 5/28/82 - $250.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. g) Dryclean USA at Family Mart Shopping Center - Approval for continued use of a temporary trailer for claims settlement and as a drop store until the Council meeting of 7/14/82. - 2 - 6/9/82 /pm h) Ashmont (Kings Point) Revised Site Plan - Approval to extend the tabling action to a future Council meeting. i) Approval to extend the tabling action of the following items to the Council meeting of 6/23/82 at the request of the developer: (1) Sabal Palm Country Club Condominiums (2) Sabal Palm Golf Course (3) Sabal Palm Golf Course Clubhouse SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: 3 a) TABLED to future meeting, 3 h) deferred to afternoon meeting Items b) through g) and i) were APPROVED. C/M Disraelly MOVED that Item 3a) be deferred to a future meeting and he further MOVED that Item h) Kings Point Revised Site Plan be deferred until this afternoon and that Items b) through g) and Item i) be APPROVED. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. 043460 ALL VOTED AYE 4. Emergency Medical Services - Temp. Reso. #2307 - Discussion and pos- sible action to renew an EMS Agreement with Broward County for one year. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2307. RESOLUTION NO. R--,? ,g- /Z*/ PASSED. Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. C/M Disraelly said since the City has an agreement with the County which requires renewal, he MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2307, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 5. Alexander Grant & Co. -- Discussion and possible action on recommend- ations in 1980 81 Audit Report. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED awaiting report from C/M Kravitz. V/M Massaro asked C/M Kravitz if he had completed his work on the recommend- ations of the Auditor and C/M Kravitz said he submitted only this morning an update report but a further report will be forthcoming when he completes the entire review. C/M Kravitz MOVED to TABLE this for a future report, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 6. Burglar Alarm - Temp. Reso. #2305 - Discussion and possible action to establish a late fee for an initial permit or renewal permit for a burglar alarm. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2305. RESOLUTION NO. R -,Po?, /S.P PASSED. Mr. Henning read the Resolution by title. V/M Massaro said the Ordinance itself established the requirement for a fee and permitting the fee to be established by Resolution. There are two fees here, one for the initial permit and the other is a renewal permit. She said they are each $25.00. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Tem . Reso. #2305, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 3 - 6/9/82 /pm 7. Burglar Alarm - Temp. Ord. 4986 - Discussion and possible action to amend Section 11 of Ordinance 82-3.4 to provide for a filing fee for the processing of appeals to Notices of False Alarms. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED 'Temp. Ord. #986 on first reading. Mr. Henning read the Ordinance by title. C/M Disraelly said whenever there is a false alarm reported there is a fine connected with it after the second occurrence and many people, because of their own errors have had false alarms, want to appeal those fees. He said the purpose of this Ordinance is to permit a fee to be established for the filing of an appeal. He MOVED the ADOPTION of Tem.Ord. #986 establishing a non-refundable filing fee, on first reading. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. C/M Kravitz said when someone receives a fine they should have the right of appeal without paying a penalty fee to do so. Ile said he would ask Council to reconsider and hold this open until all fees are established in reference to other parts of the Burglar Alarm system. C/M Krantz asked if there is not a hearing in connection with this procedure when they come up before the committee? C/M Kravitz said according to this they would have to pay a fee for this hearing. V/M Massaro said these questions are established at the time the police officer goes there in consideration of the conditions found at that time. - Sometimes it is Just human error and carelessness but the administration of this Burglar Alarm Ordinance declares that they be called false alarms. She said in these cases they have ruled that they do not have to have inspection as long as they admit that they were careless and created the false alarm. She said those that have malfunctions are required to have those systems inspected. V/M Massaro said if someone in the City wants a refund of monies they have to pay a $10.00 fee and if they do not pay then the taxpayer has to pay; they are getting the service and should, therefore, be paying for it. She said if this Ordinance is passed on second reading, the Resolution establishing the fee would be considered as to whether the $10.00 fee is sufficient. C/M Disraelly said these would just be sufficient fees so that the committee does not get the frivolous complaints. C/M Kravitz said he feels there are many occasions when false alarms are not the fault of the residents but are due to storms, airplanes, etc. He said he feels the rate of $10.00 may go up to $25.00 in the future and he asked if the entire committee was in accord with establishing a fee for appeals. V/M Massaro said no, this has not been brought to committee, this is something that she as Chairman of this committee and Vice Mayor of the City has proposed to Council for their consideration. C/M Kravitz suggested that this be taken back to committee to get their opinions. V/M Massaro said she does not feel this is what the committee should be concerned with but it should have Council consideration. She said the things C/M Kravitz mentioned as causing false alarms are not factual if the service is put in properly; they are malfunctions. She asked the City Attorney to speak on this and he said they are dealing with a Burglar Alarm Ordinance that provides a penalty and under due process of the laws, not just City but State and national, the people are entitled to an appeal. He said if the City does not provide them with an appeal here in the City they will go to the County or circuit courts for their appeal so the City has to provide a local remedy for them. Concerning the question as to whether or not the City is entitled to assess a fee for the deferring of administrative costs of this appeal, he said he does not say that this will deter frivolous appeals because the fee is rather low and filing fees for appeal are typical in all levels of court systems and $10.00 is extremely low. - 4 - 6/9/82 /pm C/M Disraelly requested that the item be called on first reading and there will be a public hearing for second reading and at that time if Council decides to deny this ordinance then this will be denied. VOTE: C/M Krantz Aye C/M Kravitz Nay C/M Disraelly Aye V/M Massaro Aye 11. Financial Federal Savings & Loan Association -- Bond Release - Temp. Reso. 42301 - Discussion and possible action to release a performance bond subject to receipt of a one-year warranty bond (tabled from 5/26/82). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to the next regular meeting and the City Clerk is to advise the Building Department to have the certification figures prepared for Council. Mr. Henning read the Resolution by title. V/M Massaro said on this item everything is in order except the fees for the landscaping and C/M Disraelly MOVED to TABLE this item to the next regular meeting, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. C/M Disraelly requested that the City Clerk advise the Building Department to have the certification figures prepared for Council. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 12. University Hospital - Bond Release - Temj2. Reso. #2296 - Discussion and possible action to release a cash performance bond for parking lot improvements. (tabled from 5/26/82). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2296. RESOLUTION NO. R" / ,� -6*�( PASSED. Mr. Henning read the Resolution by title. C/M Disraelly said Council has a letter from the hospital indicating that the grassed area in front of the hospital has been closed off for parking and there will be planting in that area. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Tem Reso. #2296 returning the bond, SECONDED by C/14 Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 13. Fairways Buildings A & B - Bond Release - Temp. Reso. #1813 - Dis- cussion and possible action to release a cash warranty bond posted for drainage improvements (tabled from 2/10/82). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-F,2 /PASSED. Temj2. Reso. #1813 authorizing the release of a cash warranty bond Dosted by J.G. Taylor & Son be made payable to Gerald Wessenger in the amount of $2,500. Mr. Henning read the Resolution by title. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Henning if he were satisfied as to who should get this money and he said there was an assignment in which J.G. Taylor & Son released the assignment to Gerald Wessenger and he is satisfied with this. C/M Disraelly MOVED that Temp. Reso. #1813 authorizing release of the cash warranty bond posted by J.G. Taylor & Son be made payable to Gerald Wessenger in the amount of $2,500, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 5 - 6/9/82 /pm 15. Woodmont Tracts 74 and 75 - Model Sales Facility - Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit for this project. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:APPROVED for 6 months from 7/12/82 if date of CO is 1/12/82. City Clerk will check this further. C/M Disraelly MOVED that an additional 6 months be granted to them from the date that was granted on the last permit. The City Clerk will check Tape the date, it appears the date is from 7/12/82 if the date of CO is 1/12/82. 2 SECONDED by C/M Krantz. 10116W ALL VOTED AYE 17. Drainage Improvements in the City - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: The City Engineer estimated bids on Section 7 improvements should be ready for the next meeting. V/M Massaro said she asked the City Engineer how he is coming along with the plans so that they can go to bid on Section 7 improvements and he said it is very close and should be ready for the next meeting. She said she is very pleased and proud of the progress the City has made in their over- all drainage improvements. C/M Disraelly said on 93 Ave. between a couple of homes there was some dirt fallen in and he called this to the attention of the City Engineer and he is trying to contact the engineer of record to correct this. 0aw Objecting to Special Exception requesting the City of Lauderhill (R-82-68 & 82-69) for _gas station and convenience store at Commercial Blvd. and 64th Ave. - Temp. Reso. #2312 - Discussion and possible actin SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent (See Paae 1) .APPROVED as amended. RESOLUTION NO. R-g2-/$'7 PASSED. Mr. Henning read the Resolution into the record in its entirety. C/M Disraelly said in Section 5, Line 12 he wanted to add "directs the Tamarac City Clerk to mail a copy of this Resolution to the Mayor and to each member of the City Council of the City of Lauderhill". C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp Reso. #2312 as amended, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. C/M Krantz asked if there is any indication who the gas company or the convenience store would be and Mr. Henning said it is National Convenience Stores, Inc. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 25. NW 64th Ave. & NW 57th St. - Left Turn Lanes - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (See Page 9). V/M Massaro said that there is an item to be Agendized by Consent concerning the authorization for the City Manager to move forward on the turn lanes for 57th St. and 64th Ave. so that a traffic light can be placed there. The County has agreed to furnish the equipment for this and the City is goin( to be going to bid for the installation. She said in checking further for these turn lanes to be put in before the light is installed, the City has found that the County is backed up with 5 different projects which would not allow this to be done until October. - 6 - 6/9/82 /pm V/M Massaro said the County gave the City a price of $10,500 for the material and they would supply the labor; however, in view of the fact that they cannot schedule this until October, she said Public Works is willing and able to do this. She said she is only asking that this item be Agendized by Consent so that it can be addressed today. C/M Disraelly MOVED to Agendize this item by Consent, SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 22. Burglar Alarm - Tem . Reso. #2311 - Discussion and possible action on initial and renewal identification cards for burglar alarm installers and servicemen. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent.(See Page 1). He or later in the day. (See Page 9). C/M Disraelly asked what Section 1 of this Resolution originally said and Mr. Henning said originally there was a $20.00 fee which is the same now for the initial ID card. V/M Massaro further explained that at the present time it is very difficult to get information from the FBI on these people and the City's ordinance requires that they be checked out to be sure that they do not have a criminal record. V/M Massaro said they had to increase the initial fee because this infor- mation is not available through the normal teletype and the Government has designated a fee of $12.00 just to get this information. Mr. Henning said this Resolution establishes a renewal fee of $5.00 per year., but does not increase the initial fee. V/M Massaro said there was a previous Ordinance which increased the initial fee to $20.00. C/M Disraelly requested that this item be heard in the afternoon. 23. Request from Woodmont Country Club for the display of signs for their Junior Championship Golf Tournament taking place on June 29, 30 and July 1. Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (Page 1) APPROVED with conditions and fees waived. C/M Disraelly said he received a phone call from John Fleming telling him that the South Florida P.G.A. Junior Championship Tournament will be held on the Woodmont course June 29, 30 and July 1. Mr. Fleming asked that temporary signs be placed over the wall signs at the entrance to Woodmont at 75th St. and also a sign on the eighth hole of the Cypress Golf Course. C/M Disraelly said last year they removed the signs immediately after the tournament was over and the fees were waived in conjunction with this because it is for the Junior Championship. V/M Massaro asked if they were going to put the sign across the overpass this year and C/M Disraelly said Mr. Fleming did not discuss that and since the overpass is now in use, if Mr. Fleming does put up a sign this will be brought to his attention. C/M Disraelly MOVED that they be granted per- mission to put signs on the Woodmont property effective immediately, that they be removed by July 4th and that the fees for the signs be waived. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 24. Urging a Plan for a Hospital Detention Facili.ty. in Broward Count - Temp. Reso. #2310 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by RESOLUTION NO. R�_PASSED. Consent (Page 2). APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2309 as amended. - 7 - 6/9/82 /pm Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. C/M Disraelly said Council received a copy of a Resolution that was prepared by the Broward County Police Chiefs Association requesting that cities ask the County Commission to create a detention center for hospitalized prisoners in the new jail facility being prepared in Fort Lauderdale. C/M Disraelly said he dis- cussed this with the City Attorney and he indicated that there is a serious problem with the detention of'regular prisoners and that this new facility will probably be unable to accommodate everyone; therefore, rather than use the prepared Resolution that was given by the Broward County Police Chiefs Association, the City has written a Resolution indicating to the County Commissioners that we do need a detention facility for hospitalized prisoners and that this not be -put into the new jail facility. C/M Disraelly said Mr.. Henning pointed out that it might be easier to create a detention center in one of the hospitals rather than take part of the jail; therefore, they are not using the Resolution the County pre- pared but are asking that a copy of the City's Resolution be sent to the Chairman and all members of the Broward County Commission and also to the Broward County Police. Chiefs Association. V/M Massaro said she is in complete accord with what he has said; however, she said she is unsure whether or not it is clear enough that the City does not want the facility in the new prison and there should be another paragraph stating that. C/M Disraelly said that the City does not want to tell them where it should be placed but just wanted to indicate that there should be one. V/M Massaro said they should be specific that they do not approve of it being placed in the prison and this should be made known. C/M Disraelly said they did not want to be going against the Police Chief Association. Mr. Henning said the facility will be overcrowded and the Detention Director is in favor of the City's line of thinking since there will be infirmary facilities in the jail but it would not be feasible to have any type of hospitalization there. Mr. Henning said what is asked for would be in Section 1 to urge the County Commissioners to establish a detention facility in a local hospital for all Broward law enforcement agencies to use. V/M P4assaro said this would probably take care of it. C/M Kravitz said since the County has a Health Facility Committee would it not be better to let them do something for that in the hospitals themselves since this is their responsibility? V/M Massaro said they can express their own opinions and this is what the City is doing. C/M Disraelly said this is going to be addressed to the County Commissioners since they do not want to send a Resolution to an Advisory Board. C/M Krantz asked if hospitals throughout Broward County are not being used now for the detention of hospitalized prisoners? In reply, C/M Disraelly read the Resolution in full which states that there are no facilities for this purpose at the present time. V/M Massaro said if a detention facility is established within a hospital a certain area will be set aside properly equipped so that one police officer could take care of several prisoners. Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp.Reso. #2310, SECONDED by C/M Kranz _ City Commissioner Carl 2eytoonian of Coral Springs, Chairman of the Board of University Community Hospital,said he was curious in the presentation of this Resolution whether or not a distinction should be made as to whether the recommendation is for a private hospital, a public hospital or either. He said it would seem to him that under the Health and Rehabilitative Services Division the most logical recommendation to be considered may. --be the recommendation of the public hospital facility. C/M Disraelly said it is a well -taken thought and V/M Massaro said what should be considered most important is where there is room rather than what hospital and they should take that into consideration if they consider the City's proposal. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 8 - 5/9/82 /pm 25. NW 64th St. & NW 57th St. Left Turn Lanes - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent.(See Pages 6 & 7). APPROVED. City Manager to authorize Public Works Dept. to proceed with the 3 turn lanes and look to County for labor and materials purchased under the County co-op bid. V/M Massaro said in the event she was unsuccessful in her negotiations that the City Manager had been authorized to solicit the bids to install the three left turn lanes. She said the $10,500 was a low figure which only involved the cost of the materials. She said the City will be permitted to purchase the materials from the County which are purchased through state bid; however, time is of essence and if the City does not get this project moving she is not sure that the equipment that the County has offered to give without cost will still be there. V/M Massaro said she doubts if they will give the City credit for the labor that they would have done, the City would have to use their own personnel. C/M Disraelly said there would be a cost to the City even using their own personnel and if the City does this they should be entitled to compensation from the County for this cost. V/M Massaro said the County has told her before that they would put in the light but the City will have to wait until such time as they are able to. She said they are not able to put the turn lanes in until some time in October so the light would be even later. She said there are many budget problems concerning the County and it is doubtful that they would reimburse the City in any way. C/M Disraelly said he is not questioning that Public Works is capable of doing the work but it is another expenditure of $10,000 or more for labor and V/M Massaro said she does not agree with this theory. C/M Disraelly urged V/M Massaro to try to negotiate this further with the County and V/M Massaro said she would do this this morning and this will be discussed later in the afternoon. Melanie Reynolds said V/M Massaro said she was going to get in touch with them because of the serious accidents that have happened at 57th St. and 88th Ave. V/M Massaro answered that she said at "various areas"including this area. Melanie Reynolds said the Vice Mayor said she would use this as a lever to get the light there; Ms. Reynolds asked if the Vice Mayor spoke to them about this.. V/M Massaro said she did and they are going to give the City the light and the City must install it and the three turn lanes. Ms. Reynolds said the Vice Mayor is talking about 57th and 64th and Ms. Reynolds is talking about 88th and 57th. V/M Massaro said this is not on the Agenda now. 22. Burglar Alarm ID Card Fees - Temp. Reso. #2311 - Discussion and pos- sible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent (Page 1) APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2311. RESOLUTION NO. R /�� PASSED. (See Page 7) V/M Massaro said the title has been read previously and C/M Disraelly said he has a copy of Resolution 82-111 and Section 1 said "The City Council of the City of Tamarac hereby sets the reimbursement fee in the amount of $20.00. This fee shall'be non refundable". C/M Disraelly said a renewal fee of $5.00 has now been established and he MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2311 establishing these fees, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 9 - 6/9/82 /pm 18. City Council Reports - C/M Kravitz - No Report. C/M Krantz said he asked the City Attorney to draw up Resolutions on Fire inspection fees and for a proposed ambulance service; hopefully this will be agendized in the near future. C/M Disraelly said Council received a memo from the City Manager regarding a political function of Carl, Zeytoonian who is running for State Representative from District 89,regarding a flea market to be held at his office location at University Shops at the corner of 64th St. and University Dr. on Sunday, July 11 for the purpose of fund raising. C/M Disraelly said provided it were held on private property and signs were prohibited from other than being on that private property and if the hours were restricted to 10 a.m, to 3 p.m. he would see no problem with this. He asked the City Clerk to bring this up for the next Council Agenda. C/M Disraelly asked the City Attorney to check into whether or not con- struction trailers should be permitted for an indefinite stay on a piece of property. He said that the Police Department has been very active in that the crimes in the past few months have been reduced in relation to the prior year. He said he sent twomemos to Council members concerning the street lights study from the meetings he attended in Fort Lauderdale. lie referred to his meeting with Richard Rubin, City Planner and Mitch Ceasar, and Fred Schiller of the Water Management District and he said Mr. Schiller was very impressed with the presentation made; Mr. Rubin will submit a memo regarding this meeting. pe 19. City Manage er_ Report - Laura Stuurmans said she sent members of Council a report regarding a barricade at Southgate Blvd. and NW 103rd Ave. and she is directing the Public Works Department to remove the barricade at the residents request. 18. City Council Re orts - C/M Disraelly said he has been getting reports from the Police Depart- ment about the mud runners. He also mentioned hurricane awareness and the Tamarac Amateur Radio Association and their ability to keep the lines of communication open in the case of emergency. He said they have members of that Association living in every area of the City except Woodmont and the Woodlands. 20. Cites Attorney Report - Jon Henning said he is happy to be here and is grateful to the Council for the trust they placed in him. He said he is very impressed with the City's staff and hopes to soon present the Resolutions and Ordinances that were requested from him by Council. 18. City Council Reports - V/M Massaro said there will be a Public Hearing at the Broward County Commission regarding a proposed cross-town bus service that will run the length of Commercial Boulevard and the veterans are very concerned. This Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, June 17 and she is awaiting in- formation as to the exact time. She urged members of Council and the public to attend this meeting to show concern. 16. Duff's Plaza - Revised Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #2309 - Discussion and possible action on a revised site plan to delete drive-in tellers - at the Dania Bank, 6501 W. Commercial Boulevard. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-Ja- �j'�p PASSED. Temp. Reso. #2309. - 10 - 6/9/82 /pm Mr. Henning read the Resolution by title. C/M Disraelly said he reviewed the original site plan and this is with the same number of parking places, curbs, trees and everything has been relocated. He said the comments of the Planning Commission were in the area where the revision should be delineated on the drawing, other than the fact that one of the driving lanes it says, "Proposed driveway and drive-in tellers omitted this area -- 5/10/82") C/M Disraelly said this site plan is just as the original; therefore, he MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp Reso #2309, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE V/M Massaro recessed the meeting to 1:30 p.m. for lunch. 11 - 6/9/82 /pm B L A N K P A G E ` 12 - 6/9/82 /Pm TAPE# 3 MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 1:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraell Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mayor Walter W. Falck 9. WOODMONT TRACTS 68 and 77 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of Model Sales Permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) ADOPTED amendment to Developers Agreement for Tract 68. ADOPTED Amendment to Developers Agreement for Tract 77. (See Page 16) b) APPROVED Renewal of Model Sales Permit for 6 months from 5/13/82 with the 300-foot distance being waived. a) Alan Ruf stated that at the time he served as Acting City Attorney, several items regarding the various developments with Mr. Toll came up for discussion and it was determined that there were certain arrears and defaults in the developers agreements with respect to Southgate as well as Tracts 68 and 77. Mr. Ruf continued that there had been many negotiations between Mr. Toll, Mr.'Mombach his attorney, and representatives of the City including V/M Massaro and himself. Mr. Ruf added that what had happened on Tract 68 and 77 was that the developer made a proposal that the development would be split. Tract 68 would be handled in one way and Tract 77 in another. Basically what was happening was that Toll Development will continue to be responsible for the arrears that have been built up on the agreement and make certain proposals for the payment of those arrears and with respect to Tract 77, the Montwood Corporation has agreed to purchase 218.5 ERCs outright for the sum of $78,223.00 and in consideration for that, has asked that the City defer the payment of guaranteed revenues to June 15th, 1984 or 6 months from the issuance of an engineering permit. C/M Disraelly questioned the arrears that Toll Development will pay on Tract 68, will be for the combined 68 and 77. Alan Ruf answered that was correct. He added that all arrears would be assumed by Toll Development with respect to 68fand 77 will be clear of all arrears. C/M Disraelly added that if Toll Development paid the $78,000.00+ and Paragraph 4 is in effect, and Paragraph 4 a),then Tract 77 will be free and clear of any encuubrances, until guaranteed revenues commence. V/M Massaro stated that in view of the fact that they had just given Mr. Toll a copy of the guaranteed revenues, she thought they were obliged to find out if he found that acceptable. Mr. Ruf said that they could agree to pass a resolution authorizing the execution of this agreement subject to full execution by Toll and Montwood and an agreement to add Schedule "C" with respect to guaranteed revenues as a part of the agreement. It could be approved contingent upon those changes. C/M Disraelly pointed out that Exhibit "C" was in Paragraph 4. Mr. Ruf said he had spoken with Jeff Mcmbach attornev for Toll.ivelr�nt, and he saw no problem with Exhibit "C" so long as the city understands that the time limits set are the time limits set in Paragraph 4 and not in the introductory paragraph in Exhibit "C". They may not be in conflict, but if the city is going to have a controlling time period it will be the time period set forth in Paragraph 4. It gives them another week if they go with Paragraph 4. Exhibit "C" says, 6 months from the issuance of building permit but not less than 24 months from the date of the execution and 24 months from now will be June 9th, 1984 and the agreement says June 15, 1984 or 6 months after the issuance by the city of an engineering permit. -- 13 - 6/9/82 /nrr Alan Ruf felt that they should agree that the time period for payment of guaranteed revenues should be that which is included in Paragraph 4 but that the other terms and conditions of Exhibit "C" would be effective. There was some discussion of the triggering of the guaranteed revenues. Either permit might trigger it, the building permit or the engineering permit, or June 15, 1984. Mr. Ruf pointed out that the developer wanted to tie all of these agreements to the issuance of a building permit on Tract 68;, So that it is tied to that and the city has indicated that unless this is accomplished by the 1st of July, these agreements are no good. Mr. Toll added that there was a reason for this, in order for the lender to loan him money, he has to have a permit by July 1st. H� felt it was confusing because of the three different agreements But that was correct, the permit has to be issued and the monies have to be paid before July 1st a,:, -pa`rt 'of =hiscbrruni`U,,Lent with the lender. VIM Massaro had also insisted a date be set so the city would know when these monies were coming in and what kind of agreement the city had here. C/M Disraelly commented about the word building permit on Exhibit "C". Mr. Ruf answered that with respect to the agreement on Tract 77, the city will change Exhibit "C", the first paragraph to track. the language in Paragraph 4. That will make Exhibit "C" the same as Paragraph 4. Mr. Ruf added that Jeff M-ombacriwas a little surprised at the July 1st date. That had been added to the agreement which the city will ask the developer to execute which had been agreed to by Mr. Toll. Mr. Mombach stated that he did not like it because they have all worked so hard on this and for some reason they got a loan closed the last week in June, funding may go over into July and he would hate to be locked in. Mr. Ruf asked PZr:,*fo:'�ach to read the language ,.n(9. nni_nte19: aut that it 14ave the City the option. C/M Disraelly MOVED the acceptance of the Developers Agreement for Tract 77 with the signatures of the proper city officials and the developers and the owners signatures to be executed by the proper signatories as outlined in the Developers Agreement date 6/1/82 and that Exhibit "C" Paragraph 1 be changed to the same as Paragraph 4 of the amended Developers Agreement. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE TRACT 68 C/M Disraelly pointed out that in Paragraph 6 ther_e was a repeat of a sentence. He suggested that Mr. Ruf strike the words "which sum will be applied to reduce the interest indebtedness" because it was redundant. Alan Ruf had indicated with respect to Tract 68 Toll Development Corp., which is now the fee title holder to Tract 68,has assumed all of the outstanding obligations with respect to the original 68/77 agreement. They have offered a formula for a mechanism by which the outstanding interest obligation would be paid and also sets forth certain agreement such as the fact that they will begin to pay guaranteed revenues when they are due. The City's obligation then under this agreement is to allow Mr. Toll to ao forward and to receive a building permit on this basis. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the City accept the amendment to the Developers Agreement pertaining to Tract 68, with the words struck out in Paragraph A. Council did not wish to discuss Guaranteed Revenues on this agree- ment at this point. They felt it could be done nroceduraa.lv and admini- stratively at a later date. Alan Ruf recommended that since the developer has agreed in this amend- ment to be obligated for guaranteed revenues as in its original agree- ment, the city not consider attaching Exhibit "C" to this agreement. 6/9/82 - 14 -- /nrr C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Developers Agreement dated June 1 1982, striking the redundancy in Paragraph 4 a) and that the City will accept upon the completion of the proper signatories by the developer, and by the City. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE b) C/M Disraelly MOVED that the Model Sales Permit be granted for a six month extension from the date it is expiring and ;that a waiver for the 300 foot distance, with the proper fees being paid. C/M Krantz SECONDED. Mr. Toll questioned if it were proper to extend it more than six months. C/M Disraelly answered that the usual was a six month extension. Council agreed that since this extension would bring him into November that would be.fine. C/M Disraelly pointed out that the ordinance stated a verin(9 of siv months. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 10. MISSION LAKES (SOUTHGATE GARDENS EAST) -- Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot distance requirement fro Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED a) Second amendment to Developers Agreement kPPROVED b) Model Sales Permit for 6 months from 5/13/82-11/13/82. a) Alan Ruf pointed out that with respect to this item, negotiations were held between City representatives and representatives of Toll Development Corp. and a proposed second amendment to the Developers Agreement has been referred to the Council for their consideration and action today. He continued that the agreement is similar in concept to the Tract 68 agreement that they had just approved, in which the city is granting the extension of the developers obligation to pay accrued and due interest. He added that the developer was asking the City to issue a building permit. The City will be collecting funds with respect to the formula set forth in Paragraph 3 which includes a partial reduction of accrued interest based on the formula that runs throughout these agreements; the partial payment of due recreation fees, all appropriate permit fees, and ties the efficacy of the agreement to the payment of all such outstanding obligations by July 1, 1982. Mrs Ruf added that it indicated that guaranteed revenues will be payable as due, pursuant to the original developer agreement. Guaranteed revenues in this case, he believed, would be due on October 15th, 1982. Mr. Ruf pointed out that the developer took down pursuant to the original developers agreement, the 25% of the ERCs earlier and the developer was asking the City to give them credit for that $20,000.00, which they had already paid. They had paid it in March of-1981. He added that these permits were never taken down and they are being taken down at this time for the building. C/M Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL of the Second Amendment to the Developers Agreement for Toll Development (Southgate) dated June 1, 1982, upon the proper signatures of the City and the Developer having been executed upon the agreement. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: - 15 - ALL VOTED AYE 6/9/82 /nrr TAPE #4 b) C/M Disraelly informed the Council that they had received a letter dated April 27, 1982 with a check in the amount of $300.00 requesting the Model Sales Facility Extension for six months from 5/13-11/13/82 and he MOVED that it be granted for a six month extension from 5/13/82 and a waiver of the 300-foot occupancy from the model sales facility. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Jeff Mombach said he wished to clear up one question. The similarity of all three documents, Exhibit "C" discussion was only with respect to the first one, Tract 77. He felt it should be left off of all 3. He thought that in order to avoid confusion since these documents were being recorded, there was no need to add that new Exhibit "C" to the original agreement or to the amendment. Mr. Plombach suggested that they go back and remove it from the agreement on Tract 77. Alan Ruff thought they did not have the problem with Tract 77 that they had with the other two. All the City should know was if they were to rescind their action or partially rescind their action, with respect to the Tract 77 agreement, they are in fact going back to the original Exhibit "C" with respect to guaranteed revenues. He felt there would be opportunities to revist this in the two years between now and when they might be required to be paid. Mr. Ruff said he was not completely satisfied with the language that existed in Exhibit "C" but he had not had an opportunity to understand it completely. V/M Massaro reiterated that on Tract 77 they had corrected the language so that it comes due within 6 months of the time that they take a permit. They had been very sticky about the fact that it would be any permit. That was what Council wanted. V/M Massaro said to her that had been the most important thing. She questioned whether the change in the other Exhibit "C" really would not affect these because they were not single family homes. She had no problem in taking out Exhibit "C". Mr. Toll mentioned that Mr. Steve Epple had never seen this or discussed it and that was a problem. V/M Massaro agreed that she did not like to put anything in that Mr. Epple had not seen. She thought it was better for the developer. She would not be adverse to their reopening the first item, Tract 77 and taking that out and stay with the agreement itself. 9. WOODMONT TRACTS 68 and 77 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of Model Sales Permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: New Exhibit "C" removed from Amendment to Developers Agreement for Tract 77 (Also see Pages 13 & 14) C/M Disraelly MOVED that they reconsider Item 9 a) WOODMONT TRACT 68/77. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Disraelly MOVED that the MOTION be changed so that the amendment to the Developers Agreement dated June lst, 1982, reference Tract 77 be accepted when the proper signatures of the City and of the Owner and Developer have been executed. C/M Krantz SECONDED. Jeff Mombach pointed out that he had seen the agreement and read it. V/M Massaro wanted to make sure they were aware of the contents and in full agreement. Ci 42M ALL VOTED AYE 8. SAUL STRACHMAN - PETITION #7-Z-82 - Temp. Reso. #2308 - Discussion and possible action to grant a limited waiver to parking require- ments of Section 18 of the City Code for Sunflower Shopping Center located at the southeast corner of NW 82nd Street and University Drive. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2308 RESO. NO. R-82--/�o PASSED. -16- 6/9/82 /nrr Jon Henning read the resolution by title only. Mr. Strachman said he believed that the Council had before them a finalization of a recommendation that was made concerning the waiver of required parking spaces, which was made by the Planning Commission. He had made the request that they be granted a waiver of the parking require- ments, giving them in effect 15 spaces. They had made the request because they needed 3 handicapped parking spaces and Dr. Shapiro would require 6 spaces in order to allow an associate to work out of his office for a total of 9. He said he had requested the higher number of spaces in order to have a little leeway so as to avoid the possibility or probability of having to come before Council again. The Planning Commission determined that he should be granted three spaces for the handicapped parking and granted, on a temporary basis, the six spaces for Dr. Shapiro's associate. He continued that if and when his associate or any Doctor left the center, then those six spaces would be nullified. Richard Rubin, City Planner, pointed out that Mr. Strachman has been working,with the City for the last six months in trying to resolve the shopping center problem. Mr. Rubin continued that several years ago when Mr. Strachman was revising his site plan, he had asked Mr. Strachman to remove four spaces to make a safer entrance to the shopping. center... Mr. Strachman agreed and landscaped it and it is an attractive entrance but he did lose four spaces. Mr. Rubin felt he was a little responsible for the reduction of the parking spaces initially. Mr. Rubin continued that our ordinances are silent when there are two doctors sharing the same space on alternate days. The ordinance states that we must require twice as many spaces than they practically need because they did not know if the doctors would end up in the same space on the same day. Mr. Rubin pointed out that Mr. Strachman has a dilemma, he has gone through the Planning Commission and he thought the Commission had made a fair suggestion in recommending that the three handicapped spaces be waived. Mr. Strachman has provided handicapped spaces on the plan, but the requirement for three additional is waived, and that this one doctor be allowed to stay there, but try to prevent this from happening again. V/M Massaro questioned if he was being told now that one doctor can't stay there because of the shortage of parking spaces? Mr. Rubin answered that the City would not issue an occupational license for the one doctor until they submitted an application for a waiver, which was submitted. Mr. Strachman informed Council that he had no lease with Dr. Pritchard. Dr. Pritchard was an associate of Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Shapiro was his tenant and he wished to accommo_ date him. V/M Massaro said that according to her record a Dr. Schwartz had not been issued an occupational license. Mr. Strachman pointed out that that was his new tenant and he had hoped that in the last few days he had been issued a license. Richard Rubin thought they might have held back the license pending the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Strachman believed that the count that he needs in order to satisfy the tenant, not including Dr. Pritchard, who is not his tenant, including Dr. Schwartz, was 158 spaces. They have 158 spaces, however, of the 158, 3 are the handicapped spaces. Mr. Strachman continued that the problem was that with Dr. Pritchard and the other 3 handicapped spaces, they were short, today, 9 spaces. C/M Disraelly MOVED to grant a waiver of 9 spaces for Sunflower Center, of which 3 would be marked for handicapped parking spaces and would be so marked and that 6 would be the additional limited waiver for 6 extra spaces and he would not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation that if the doctor leaves the 6 extra spaces be terminated. He was sure that once a doctor was in there and leaves, another doctor could very easily move in. V/M Massaro thought that he should extend this a bit, unless a problem results in parking in that particular shopping center. C/M Disraelly said he could then come back. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -17- 6/9/82 /nrr 25. N.W. 64TH AVENUE & N.W. 57TH STREET - LEFT TURN LANES - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent (See Pages 6 &7) APPROVED. City Manager to authorize Public Works Dept. to proceed with the 3 turn lanes and look to the county for assistance in labor and materials purchased under the County Co-op bid. V/M Massaro informed the Council that this concerned the turn lanes on 64th Avenue and 57th Street. The City Manager had an opportunity during the lunch recess to call the County and spoke with them about the cost and the installation of the three lanes. The County has agreed to work with the city towards the labor and the material that will be necessary for that installation. The City Manager said that the Council should authorize Pullic Works to do it. C/M Disraelly added that every member of Council was is favor of put- ting the light in as soon as possible. He had raised the question of price but, as the City Manager indicated, the County will work with the City and help the City with the funding, he MOVED that the City Manager may be authorized to have the Public Works Department proceed post haste, with the three turn lanes that are involved and to look to the county for assistance in labor and cooperation and that the material for that project be purchased under the County Co-op bid, which would be as low as the City could possibly get. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 14. SUNNILAND BANK - BOND RELEASE - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to meeting of 6/23 providing viable site plan prior to meeting. C/M Disraelly mentioned that he had put this item on the agenda as he had a phone call from Mr. Leonard on June 3rd, asking that a bond be released because on October 24, 1979 a $65,430.63 Bond had been posted by Last Chance, Inc. which was to be released subject to a one year warranty bond in the amount of $6,375.86. He added that he had been told that instead of giving us a one year warranty bond, Mr. Leonard left the $65,430.63 with the City. Mr. Leonard had called him the other day requesting the release of this bond. He continued that all the members of Council were concerned about the parking that has been taking place to the east of that bank, and this has been under discussion since October, 1979, when this resolution was adopted and the Council discussed that parking lot to the east. The Council was told that a site plan would come in the spring of 1980. The next time he said he became involved in this was in February of 1981, which was 15 months after the original discussions. C/M Disraelly continued that there was parking taking place on unpaved property. People were riding over the curb to get to the property and so forth. He said this was going on for a year and a half now since February 1981. He said he had asked this to be agendized hoping and knowing that Mr. Leonard would come in with Mr. Fortnash so that the City can attempt to clarify the situation as far as that parking is concerned. C/M Disraelly continued that there had been a couple of site plans brought into the City and the site review committee has gone over them and nothing has been done with them, but several months have gone by and the last review of a site plan came in on May 5th and a report was given to the bank and again nothing has happened. He thought that Council should discuss with Mr. Leonard or Mr. Fortnash the item of the parking, so that the City does have a determination as to when this property will be taken care of and he thought the City had to tie that in with the bond release, although he did not like to do it that way. He did not want to go on forever with this problem, nor did he want to go to the bank and say the City is going to post that area and tag: every car that parks there every day. -18- 6/9/82 /nrr Richard Rubin, City Planner explained that he knew C/M Disraelly had been familiar with this project since last November. The point he was confused with was the last site plan he saw was on May 5th,and generally conformed with code with some minor changes and he was not used to such a long period of time from when the city had asked for the change to take place and receiving a revised drawing. Mr. Rubin expressed disappointment that the project has not been moving faster through the city. CIDI Disraelly added that there was also a lengthy time interval between the site plan prior to this and this one coming back, several months, which is not normal and that was why he was asking the city to take cognizance of this. He added that March 9th there was also a site plan submitted and it took two months from then for a revised plan to be submitted in May. Mr. Leonard said that they: -had applied only for the release of the $10,000.00 bond. He said there was some kind of misunderstanding, when he was put on the agenda, the CDuricil did not speak of the $10, 000.00 bond, but only of the big bond,for which at that time, .they had not requested release. He added that he had been ill prepared at that time regarding the parking. He pointed out that there was some lengthy litigation with the contractor on the job which went to trial and was settled just two months ago. Mr. Leonard mentioned that there was a communication gap between the city and himself. He had placed numerous phone calls and they were never returned. The City was returning his phone calls to Mr. Fortnash instead of to him. Mr. Leonard said he had a site plan which was completely unacceptable from an operational standpoint, but to show good faith he still brought it in. He had worked with the architect and then brought it in to Mr. Rubin and they had made some changes, and it was to be brought back to Mr. Rubin on the 15th of June. Mr. Rubin said that was the 5th of May, but Mr. Leonard said he thought it had been June, and that was the deadline he had given the architect. He continued that he did give it back to the architect and it is not ready to submit, however he has promised this by the llth. He asked if that would pose a problem? TAPE C/M Disraelly pointed out that two and one half years had gone by #5 since October, 1979 and if the site plan were brought in this Friday it would be reviewed on the 14th, but it would not get on the Planning Commission agenda until July 7th. Mr. Rubin added that it was not only the July Planniiss.iora meeting, but he would not get on the City Council agenda until, September as there was no meeting in August. C/M Disraelly said he did not understand why Mr. Leonard could not get a revised site plan back to the Planning Commission after he was told what had to be corrected. It was already two months. He added that other developers, when told of changes necessary, bring back a revised plan in two weeks. Mr. Leonard told the Council that he had several - meetings with his architect since the plans he had previously sub- mitted were impractical. V/M Massaro said that Mr. Leonard would have to pay a new fee as this was a new site plan. C/M Disraelly pointed out how many phone balls had been made by Mr. Rubin and himself to Mr. Leonard. There had been contact and each time Mr. Leonard had told C/M Disraelly that the plans were coming in. Mr. Rubin said that the meeting on the 28th of site plan on the llth, agenda for June 28th. Planning Commission was going to hold a special June and if Mr. Leonard would bring in a revised he would try and qet Mr. Leonard's plan on the He could promise that the dates were okay, but if all was not complete, it could not go before committee. questioned if that would require beautification. Mr. would. C/M Disraelly said that if everything came in was reviewed on the 14th, they would do everything in get this on the agenda for the Planning Commission on Rubin said the only way he could promise that would b the information C/M Disraelly Rubin said it by the llth and their power to the 28th. Mr. e if everything 6/9/82 /nrr was ready and redrawn properly. He had looked at the site plan in front of them now and he could see that it did not comply with code. He said that if he did not make some changes, he could not move forward. C/M Disraelly said if it did not comply with code they could not accept it. Mr. Leonard pointed out that was why he was not submitting it now, he knew it did not comply with code. C/M Disraelly added that if it were submitted on the llth and did not comply with code, they were back to square one. He said he had to go by what Mr. Rubin said as he was quite familiar with the code. He thought perhaps Mr. Rubin and Mr. Leonard should get together for a few minutes this afternoon and Mt. Rubin could point out some of the inadequacies of his site plan were right now. He would then request that it would come before council on the 14th at which time they could establish some ground rules for the completion of this project. V/M Massaro added that she felt that it should come back to Council this month so they could take some action when they see what progress has been made. C/M Disraelly pointed out that a site plan was good for 12 months, in this case he did not think they should permit to drag on for 12 months for completion, because it has been 2 1/2 years already. C/M Disraelly read from the minutes of October, 1979, "W.D. Leonard representing the Sunniland Bank, and said that the bond was confusina because the area under discussion was completed. He further stated an'additional bond was placed on 70th Street at a later date. Mayor Falck said a communication was sent to;.the bank from the City Manager as related to the use of the parking lot east of the present bank. He added that if it is owned by the bank it would be necessary to have it platted with submission of a site plan and improvements made before parking is permitted. Mr. Leonard felt that their growth had been rapid and acknowledged the ownership of the land to the east which was not part of the first construction. He said they would make a parking space in this area but had not had the opportunity to determine the best use of this site which was Lot 2 and was not part of the bond under discussion. Leonard did state that the land was platted. C/M Disraelly inquired whether the median was wide enough to accomodate this second lot of curbing a bullnose would be installed to prevent people from crossing the grass. Mr. Leonard said he would check the adequacy of the median, submit a site plan for the adjacent property in the Spring of 1980 which would give them the opportunity to determine the required building construction. He additionally stated that the storm drainage and other facilities were in to the property line". C/M Disraelly stated he was trying to show Mr. Leonard that he had been at the meeting and did know what was expected of him. He added that at that same meeting they had released the bond in the amount of $65,430.63, subject to the receipt of the approval of a one-year warranty bond in the amount of $6,375.86; and Mr. Leonard had not coven them the $6,000.00 bond in order to replace the $65,000.00 bond. Mr. Leonard said they were talking about two different bonds for two different reasons. One of them was a site plan completion bond and that was completed in 1977. That was the $10,000.00 cash bond. C/M Disraelly pointed out that they had never had a request for the $10,000.00 bond release in their records. He suggested that he request that the City Clerk agendize his request for the $10,000.00 bond. C/M Disraelly MOVED that this item be TABLED to the next regular meeting Of Council, June 23rd and that if we do not have a report from the City Planner that a viable site plan has been presented for staff review prior to that meeting, ready for presentation to the Planning Commission that at that point the City Council will take action requesting the City Manager to take such steps as to prohibit parking on the unpaved area. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mt. Leonard said that this was forcing him to put the bond up for another year because it expires in June. C/M Disraelly said that if he gave the city $6,000.00 he could get the $65,000.00 bond released. He could have gotten it back two years ago. The Resolution had been passed tuao years ago to release that bond. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Leonard to get with one of the Council members after the meeting and they would be happy to help him. - 20 - 6/9/82 /nrr 18. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS- V/M Massaro said she would like to get procedural approval from Council on False Alarms. She continued that our ordinance states that after a false alarm, the user has to have a certification from the service company that they have examined the installation and that it is now in working order and should not create another false alarm . V/M Massaro continued that the person who had made her aware of the fact that there was something that the Council could procedurally correct, was told by the police department that he had to have a certification that his alarm had been checked; however, there was nothing wrong with the alarm but it cost him $35.00 to have it checked. V/M Massaro said she would like Council to agree that if the user acknowledges that the alarm was accidentally set off, throuqh human error of some sort, they would not be required to have a certification from the alarm company, a certificate would be required only when the alarm malfunctions and the city knows when it is a malfunction when the police send in the report. V/M Massaro did not feel it necessary for people to spend $35.00 if they were aware that it was their fault that the alarm had gone off. She added that the police were checking this very carefully since the new ordinance and they said that procedurally as long as Council tells them that they do not have to advise them that they have to have that certified, they can accept that. It will still be charged as a false alarm. Jon Henning, City Attorney,said that basically he saw no problem in concept. First of all what V/M Massaro was suggesting was an amend- ment to the ordinance which would state that there would either be a certification from a service company that the equipment has been checked out and corrected, or he would suggest something under notary, an affidavit which the homeowner or person states that it was due to their error and possibly an explanation of what the error was. He continued that what they want to do was avoid writing it in such a way that people will be inclined to perjure themselves and admit fault in order not to pay the $35.00 fee. He suggested that they do not mention the police in the amendment, because they don't want to leave it up to the police to excuse the people and give them the council's authority. He added that it should be written with an either/or way where they should either have an affidavit or certifi- cation. V/M Massaro suggest that Mr. Henning write the amendment to the ordi- nance, but she would also like from Council the authority to allow the particular person in question, not to have to have certification. She decided they would hold this in abeyance until the ordinance was written. C/M Kravitz mentioned that this should go through the Burglar Alarm Committee as council never made decisions of this nature. V/11 Massaro said it would in fact go through the Burglar Alarm Committee and they would take care of it. V/M Massaro wished to discuss the meeting of May 26.at which 'she Council authorized Mr. Ruf to search for a firm of legal specialists so that council would have the information at the proper time if they have to engage an attorney regarding the 201 Program. She continued that Mr. Ruf has found the person that he would like to use and she would now have him able to use his services if he sees fit to use them and she thought Council needed to agendize this item to discuss it more fully. - 21 - 6/9/82 /nrr C/M Disraelly MOVED to agendize a discussion or possible action regarding the hiring of a consulting attorney for 201 Program. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: " ALL VOTED AYE 26. 201 PROGRAM - Discussion and possible action re hiring of SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Consulting Attorney. Linton Lovett, Special Consulting Attorney for 201 Program at a maximum fee of $5,000.00 at present time. V/M Massaro said the Mr. Ruf had chosen a gentlemen named Linton Lovett. She wanted Mr. Ruf to have the authority to use Mr. Lovett should he have the need She continued that hopefully there would never be a lawsuit, but in the event, Mr. Ruf would have the authority without calling a meeting. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the Legal Department of the City be authorized to engage the services of Mr. Linton Lovett, who is a utility law specialist in the City of Miami., as a special counsel in the preparation of the City's position with respect to an amended Broward County 201 Facilities Plan, with a maximum fee of $5,000.00 at the present time. C/14 Krantz SECONDED. C/M Kravitz felt from a professional point of view, this was the wrong way to go, however, if Colificil feels that they can set a cap of $5,000.0 on this, he would go along. V/P4 Massaro pointed out that they had done this with the other two, they had put a $5,000.00 cap on it, and if,the� needed more, they could bring it to council again. Mr. Ruf would have the discretion, this might be just a retainer or $1,000.00 of it might be a retainer. 3 h) ASHMONT/KINGS POINT- Revised Site Plan - Approval to extend the tabling action to a future Council meeting. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Stipulation #13 AGENDIZED BY CONSENT. Both items TABLED to Friday, June 11, 1982 - 9:30 a.m. V/M Massaro wished a council member to MOVE to agendize by consent to add to this item the approval of Stipulation #13 and Table both items to a recessed meeting. Jon Henning, City Attorney questioned if she wished to agendize discussion on Stipulation #13 and approval and table that particular discussion until 3h) will be taken up at a recessed meeting. V/M Massaro said that was correct, that was how she wished this to be taken up. C/M Disraelly MOVED to agendize Stipulation #13 as sub section 1 under 3h) Discussion and possible action on the approval of Stipulation #13. C/M Krantz SECONDED. TAPE VOTE: #6 ALL VOTED AYE C/M Kravitz MOVED to TABLE both items for 9:30 A.M. Friday, June llth. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 3:5.5 P.M. TO BE RECONVENED AT'9:30 A.M. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1982. ATTEST: VICE MAYOR ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $3o2,3,30 or $ per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions an d considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. - 22 - 6/9/82 APPROVED Y /nrr Cly COUNCIL Cry ��