No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-09 - City Commission Reconvened Special Meeting Minutes5811 N 0 R HVVE.S-1- 8#3'1H A\/ENUE a 'FAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 -FELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 June 5, 1981 NOTICE OF RECONVENED SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA A Reconvened Special Meeting of the City Council has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 1981, at 1:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, to discuss and take possible action on F&R Builders Stipulation #9. The Council may consider such other items as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk Pursuant to Chapter 80.105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368: if a person decides 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 the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. W CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA F & R BUILDERS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Reconvened from June 4, 1981) JUNE 9, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order on June 9, 1981, a P.M., in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice -Mayor Irving 11. Disraelly Councilwoman Helen Massaro Councilman Irving Zemel Councilman Philip B. Kravitz ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans City Attorney, Arthur 11. Birken Assistant City Clerk, Carol A. Evans Secretary, Mimi Reiter F & R Builders -- Stipulation #9 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. R- PASSED. See motion on page 7) Mr. Birken advised that his memorandum of June 8, 1981 indicates the proposed changes to Stipulation #9. Fie felt that if the open items were resolved to the satisfaction of Council, then it was his intention, as relates to legal matters, to recommend approval of the stipulation. The following changes were discussed: Page 2: after (b), a new (c) is to be added; "Stipulated Order entered December 11, 1978, which would change (c) to (d) and (d) to (e), eliminating the "and" between (d) and (e), along with the words "order entered March 5. Page 3: 4) will be changed to 4)(a), adding the following language after the word sentence,"and in Paragraph 4(b) below". The language in 4)(c) is to be renumbered to 4)(b),and deleting the words "notwithstanding the terms and provisions of paragraph 4)(a). He felt these changes were for clarity. Page 4: After roman numeral ten (x), the City Attorney felt the following language was an open item; "The parties hereto agree that Tamarac development review standards shall apply except where specifically in conflict with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation Number 9." The language after Stipulation Number 9 are to be e ete ."or where F & R s richts are modified, abrid ged or other- wise amended.,, Mr. Haber requested consideration by the City Council and the City Attorney, of the addition modified by the following language. "The parties hereto agree that Tamarac development review standards" with the following language to be considered; "to the extent said standards are not more restrictive than Broward County's develop- ment review standards", permitting the balance to remain. The City Council did not concur, and it was left as an open item. Paragraph 5) - after Section 7-4, in the next to the last line, add the following: "and Section 7-8.1(see paragraph 14 herein for regulations pertaining to phase development)." Mr. Birken said a suggestion was made that rather than limit the provisions to which F & R would be bound 7-2 through 7-10, which is essentially the site plan provisions, that F & R would agree to be bound by all of Chapter 7. Fie further stated that 7-1 adopts the South Florida Building Code,7-1.1 refers to the Certi- ficates of Occupancy; 7-1.2 refers to applications for building permits; 7-1.3 has been agreed to, on service fees; 7-1.4 and.. 7--1.5 is the HOW Insurance, and is the ordinance of the City. 7--1.6 discusses the South Florida Building Code; 7-1.7 relates to erection of utility sheds in residential districts; 7-2.10 is the site plan provisions; and 7-30 is the provision pertaining -1- 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ F71 to dumpsters; 7-31 has the provision for roofscaping, and felt that F & R appeared to be bound by that. Mr. Birken said that 7-32 through 7-39 involved safe structures, which was provided by the South Florida Building Code, and suggested that it could be applicable. He said his prime concern was on roofscapes, dumpsters and insurance, but F & R had provided a letter to him, which indicated that they would provide the same home warranty program to the unit owners of F & R, which was also known as Tamarac Gardens. It is presently de- scribed as Parcels K. L and M. C/W Massaro felt that a special exception should be made in acceptance of the letter, in order for F & R to be bound by the context, or a cash bond will be required. She further added that if an acceptable program is submitted, the City Council could consider it. Mr. Birken indicated that Stipulation #7 did not include language relating to the Homeowners Insurance with Rissmont; and did not believe there would be any problems with F & R, as to similar coverage. V/M Disraelly said he presumed that all of Chapter 7 would be included in 7-30 and 7-31 as far as roofscapes and dumpsters, other than 7-4, which was referenced, to which C/W Massaro indicated her concern with 7-1. Jim Holland, of F & R Builders, said their intent was to substitute code sections, rather than refer to Ord. 76-44, which governed site plans. This, he said, would keep the consistency for the balance of the stipulation. He felt there would be no problem with the insurance, but involved a telephone call to Mr. Watsky. Julian Bryan said that when fees were discussed previously, they were always in the context of development regulations and requirements for plan processing, land development and construction. He further stated that an interim service fee was not discussed, and dial not relate to expenses incurred in the on -going development of property. C/W Massaro said that the interim service fee is added to the cost of the house when it is sold, and the tax was backed -up to the first of the year, instead of at the Certificate of Occupancy. She also noted that the interim service fee was refunded to the people by the City, and not paid by the developer. She further stated that the City has to provide garbage collection, fire protection, police protection and everything necessary, and did require inclusion of the interim service fee; because everything was being picked up by the City. Mr. Birken said that paragraph 5 was open, and the second sentence should read "in lieu thereof, and except as otherwise provided herein with respect to Section 7-4 and 7--8.1(see paragraph 14 herein, for regulations pertaining to phase development). F & R voluntarily agrees to comply with Section 7-1 through 7-39 inclusive, of the City Code." He further indicated that in paragraph 6 (c), in the third line, after earthwork, the word including should be deleted. Ile said that in para- graph 6(d), the sentence beginning with "In conjunction; and ending with"shall be constructed", is to be deleted. C/W Massaro read the language that was suggested, "In conjunction with the aforesaid, City acknowledges and agrees that said curbing may be installed upon exist- ing limerock base as shown on Composite Exhibit "M", hereto. F & R agrees that all curbing construction on Nob Hill Road shall be subject to approval by Broward County Department of Transportation." The City Engineer indicated that as long as different language is included, it would be necessary to have the Exhibit approved by the County, prior to approval by Council. Mr. Holland said F & R was prepared this day to give the City a check, in the amount of $681.85, on approval of the Stipulation #9, which represents the acreage difference involved in Tracts 4, 12, 17, 28 and 24. He felt that the City Engineer should be responsible for the ac- counting of the tracts that have been paid. It was noted that Tract 24 was paid by F & R, as indicated by the cancelled checks in his posses- sion, and requested that alternate language be used. -2- 6/9/81 Recon.6/4/81 mr/ Mr. Birken noted that on page 8, to the right of the word Tract, the words Additional are to be added above Retention Required and Retention Provided. Paragraph 6(i), in the sentence beginning with "Notwithstanding", after the word"wherever; the following language is to be included:'V & R's approved site plans allow excavation of canal banks in accordance with the sections of the City Code referred to in this paragraph 6(i), without violating setback requirements, the cross -sections set forth in the City Code shall control'. All language after that is to be deleted, but the following is to be inserted;; "Where shelves and slopes below the water line are not provided, F & R shall indemnify and hold harmless, the City from any claims or judgements for bodily in'ury due to the lack os said shelves or slopes below the water line." Tape Para. (j),he said, should read; "F & R agrees to excavate all existin #2 waterways, adjacent to real ropert lines as described upon Exhibit "A" hereto, to the property lines" In the following line, the word excavations and lines are to be plural; with the first word on the third from the last line becomes may, in place of shall. Para. 7(c) should read as follows; "There shall be a covenant placed upon the public records requiring future condominium associations, or homeowners associations, or both to maintain private streets for as long as they remain private streets." The following language, he said, was to be stricken, "owners of property surrounding the private streets", with the word "said" in the third line, and also "it" in the last line. 7(g), in the second line, the word "home" should be deleted; also, in the sixth line, a comma should be added after private, with the following language to be included, "through the a12propriate condo- minium associations, homeowners associations or both". Page 10, in the line beginning with"then the affected, should read"condominium associations, homeowners associations, or both;' the seventh line beginning with"made at their own expense and include the following; "if modification is made at no cost to the City". The next sentence should read "In the event the affected condominium associations, homeowners associations, or both;' etc., and the third line from the bottom of this paragraph should read; "or associations shall be and remain res onsible for payments of the street li hts, and electricity, and maintenance thereof, as herein provided above". Mr. Birken said that subparagraph (i), in the second line, after the word"provided; there should be a comma, and "the" is in small letters. Page 11, after (d), a new paragraph is inserted: "In con- junction wltH t e aforesaid, F & R agrees that off -site drainage improvements are to be completed simultaneously with the first phase of each site plan". Paragraph 9, the first line should read; "F & R represents that it has reviewed all current City ". On pane 12. paragraph 10, in the fourth line from the bottom should read; "approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. F & R agrees that it shall neither construct any berms in a;'etc. Paragraph 11 should include (a) and (b), which is on page 13. On pace 13, paragraph 12 is open, and it will be necessary to insert language that the $50,000 only applies to a maximum of two tracts; which the City Attorney indicated was to be reviewed during the lunch period by F & R. C/W Massaro said this is to the extent that two tracts can only be included in the $50,000; and should it be less than $50,000, then the fee is paid in full, but, if greater, then F & R can pay the balance at the time of the first permit. The City Attorney noted that in paragraph, the third line should read"by the City Council and the plat;' subparagraph (a), the first line should end with the words"submit individual;' (e), the percentage should be less than twenty-five percent (25%). Fie stated there was additional language to be included on page 15, paragraph 15, after the words Exhibit "L"; "All work to be performed by F & R pursuant to the terms of this Paragraph shall be completed prior to the is- suance of the first Certificate o Occupanc�� for units in Tracts 12, _ 13 and 13A as described on Exhibit "A", hereto." -3- 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ M Page 17, paragraph 20, which begins with the wards"F & R intends," the word"density"is removed from the end of the fourth line; and the following language is inserted, "96_of these dwelling units" C/W Massaro said that it might be necessary, after discussion with the City Attorney, to extend Section 28-216, to allow for an occupa- tional license, as if it were a business area, which would be wiped - out when the project is completed. She added that F & R was in- terested in having an administrative office in the area, after the project is built. Mr. Birken referred to Exhibit "D", subparagraph (a), the following words were to be deleted; "except as otherwise provided in paragraph 20", and the sentence should begin with"Permitted uses shall be; etc. He indicated that in Exhibit "ll", the asterisk will go on Tract 30, with the following language;"two-story height limitation referred to in paragraph 4(b) of Stipulation Plumber 9 does not ap2ly to this tract." Julian Bryan felt the document reflects negotiations that have oc- curred on both sides, for the past year, and was of substantial benefit to the City; which relieved F & R from developing under the old Court Order. Ile felt there has been a great deal of give and take by everybody. Mr. Bryan suggested that a short recess would be satisfactory, in order to review the items which are still un- resolved. C/W Massaro pointed out that Tract 12 is not partial, but has to be developed to two-story. Mr. Bryan said that Tracts 3, 4 and 12, which are adjacent to West- wood Community 24, have to be developed to a maximum of two -stories. Any additional strips, he said, which are shaded in black, but only a strip of 13 and 13A, and all of 3 and 4. C/W Massaro said that on Exhibit "I", wherever the dotted lines are shown, is the location for placing the sidewalks. She discussed the fact that sidewalks should be placed on both sides of Nob Hill Road, because of the multitude of families. MAYOR FALCK CALLED FOR A TWENTY-14IIJUTE RECESS, TO 3:30 P.M. Tape Mr. Haber requested additional language in the last paragraph of #3 4), on page 4; "The parties hereto agree that Tamarac development review standards as it presently exists". Mr. Birken felt that the standards may change, and further stated that water and sewer was originally not to be considered as part of this stipulation. Ile also said that new areas might have to be made part of the Development Review Analysis, and the Land Use Plan may change. He did not concur with the additional language. The City Attorney indicated that regardless of what is stated in the stipulation, if the Land Use Plan differs, which is mandated by State Law, then the City Council could not agree with the additional verbiage. . Mr. Haber felt that F & R was being asked to agree to something in the future, but said it should not be more restrictive than the Broward County standards. C/W Massaro suggested rewording in order to eliminate any involvement with the Utility, and anything that might have resulted in laws created by the State or County. V/M Disraelly indicated that if review standards were made, then it would be City wide, and might be required to be done for everyone. Canal standards, he said, would be for the cleanliness of the canals; especially with the South Florida Water Management District requesting such cleaning, and curtailing the use of fertilizer run-offs into the canals. Mr. Haber stated that the position being articulated for F & R, clearly recognizes that the stipulation does not pre-empt or negate the appli- cation of any State, Federal or County laws. Qw 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ The City Engineer said that from a technical standpoint, and as he interprets the City Attorney's concern, he finds it doubtful that the City would be establishing standards to solar energy or air quality. Most of the problems not identified today, he said, will be regional rather than local, and offered his opinion for Council's consideration. Mayor Falck concurred with the City Attorney, and felt that the City should not be exposed to standards, modifications or changes that must be developed here, in order to protect all the people in the area. Ile said there is an opportunity to do this State or County wide, and felt the City should not be excluding themselves. Mr. Bryan said the question of propriety of a change has to be addressed, because it is determined to be necessary in the City of Tamarac, and throughout Broward and Dade County, or a reasonable geographic situation. He felt that a question of health, safety and welfare was concerned in this matter. It was determined that paragraph 4) would be discussed later in the day. Mr. Haber indicated they were not able to contact Mr. Watsky, the House Counsel, in order to dispose of the issue; but read a letter into the record, dated June 8th/to the City of Tamarac, as follows: "Gentlemen: This letter constitutes the ,representation of F & R to provide the same home warranty program to unit owners of F & R,in the community, as well as will be provided to the unit owners of F & R, in a community known as Tamarac Gardens". Ile felt that Mr. Watsky was able to answer this point, with agreement by Mr.Birken and himself. Mr. Birken felt that F & R did not have a problem in compliance with the terms of the existing ordinance, but could very easily be addressed. V/M Disraelly inquired whether HOW or its equivalent, as relates to the City's regulations,on K, L and M, was satisfied,to which P7r.Birken responded they did; with backup being provided to Council, but would consent to a phone call being made for final determination. The Vice Mayor said that if this is covered, and all of Section 7, from 7-1 to 7-39, outside of 7-4, is approved, then the problem would be resolved. C/W Massaro said when Rissmont was required to submit a stipulation that they agreed to become a I1011 builder, which meant they would furnish all buyers of units constructed, the Homeowners Warranty Protection. It was further indicated that HOW protection shall be provided for each unit, and if Rissmont has not received HOW certification, at the time that the model building is ready to receive the Certificate of Occupancy, then they are to pay to the City a cash bond of $1500 per unit, to be held until HOW certification has been obtained. She further stated that if F & R can satisfy the City Attorney, then the Council, that another method is available to them, that would be satisfactory. But, she said, if they are not able to supply that, by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is requested, then a cash bond must be provided. Mr. Birken reiterated that according to the context of the letter, and by putting language in the stipulation, they agree to bound by the City's regulations. Mr. Bryan offered one suggestion on Section 7-1.3, which involves the interim service fee. Ile said that the services begin when the person moves into the dwelling unit, and between the C.O. and the closing, there is no service required. Ile suggested that it would be appropriate to change it in that manner, and they do not have any problems with the balance of the provisions. V/M Disraelly confirmed that the following was resolved, Section 7-1 to 7-39, except for 7-4 and 7-8.1, as set forth in the document, other than K, L and M, to which Mr. Bryan concurred. Mr. Bryan referred to page 6, regarding median curbing, he noted that road -rock is underneath, and would concur with the language that was Q.� 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ suggested, and read by C/W Massaro. He said that on page 7, F & R would for Tract 24; by not requesting that new tracts, be made, or at a rate of verified. not seek a credit from the City a payment of $3187.60, for the $130 per acre, which will be It was noted that on page 7, paragraph 6(g), the first line would read,"F & R hereb a Tees to comply with Section 24-28.1 of the City Codd', and deleting the balance of (g). C/W Massaro advised that a letter can be obtained at any time indi- cating that Tract 24 has been paid. Mr. Bryan referred to page 13, paragraph 12, relating to the 2 tracts, changing plat to tract, with no additional change being required. Mr. Holland said there will be a massive accounting problem, and they will eliminate the provisions, and pay 100% of what is due, with the filing of each plat, instead of paying the $50,000 up -front. V M Disraelly confirmed the language that payment in full is due at _ _ the time of lat approval b the City;' with deletion of the next paragraph, consisting of 9 lines. Mr. Bryan indicated that F & R has agreed to paragraph 14, with the twenty-five (25a) percent. Tape Reference was made to page 18, paragraph 24, as to "Adjacent"; with #4 a statement made by Julian Bryan, indicating it would read as follows: "Adjacent as used in this Stipulation Number 9 shall mean adjoining; such that any one tract (parcel) and any existing improved public road right-of-way share a common line and are actually touching and in contact with each other." Mr. Bryan discussed Exhibit "I", Sidewalk Locations, and the purpose these sidewalks would serve. lie said the major consideration for this community was to provide access to the major recreation facility, to be located on Tract 34. The need, he said, would be for some people to cross the street in order to get to the recreation area in Tract 34. fie felt that the sidewalk did not require duplication on the west side of the right-of-way, and suggested that proper signs and graphics be placed, indicating "pedestrian crosswalks", in proper distances prior to reaching the location. Internal walkways, he noted, would be put in on all tracts, and referenced paragraph 6, on page 7(f), as to such installation. C/W Massaro felt that internal streets would eliminate valley gutters, but said the sidewalks should be installed. Mr. Bryan indicated that the one sidewalk on the west side of the development, along 110th Terrace, would be involved in a major road- way in the future. Ile said they are not able to get plat approval in that area. MEETING WAS RECESSED FOR FIVE MINUTES. Mr. Birken advised that the HOW Warranty language does not involve any problems, on the City's existing ordinance, and can agree to be bound by Section 7--1 through 7-39 of the City Code. Exhibit "A", he stated, would be all of Chapter 7. Fie additionally noted that the Development Review Standards, as proposed, could be accepted, because the language was in the best interest of the City, and would not be detrimental to F & R. C/W Massaro felt that she was prepared to make a motion, but indicated there were two more items that required approval; namely, a sidewalk where it abuts their property only, on the other side of 100th Avenue, and an easement for all three canals, with two being completed, with the third one to be put in escrow, until closing. if, she said, F & R would concur with this, she would propose that Council adopt this today. C/W Massaro said that proper retention and outfalls would assist in the function of the system. Mr. Haber said the canal rights -of -way agreement tion, in order to delete reference to Leadership, -6_ would require modifica- but addresses Tract 12, 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ L� as though F & R owns it, to which Council concurred. Mayor Falck said this approval would be subject to retyping of the entire stipulation, and in accordance with the discussions held this day. Mr. Bryan indicated that F & R will abide by the language proposed by the City Attorney, on page 4, regarding the Development Review Standards. He clarified for Council that the map is a graphic delinea- tion of the roadways, which will occur within the public right-of-way, for use by the public, throughout the entire network. Mr. Bryan further stated that anything else recited as internal sidewalks, either adjacent to private streets, or as necessary to serve parking lots and rec areas, will be additional. Ile noted this involved approximately 21,500 linear feet of sidewalks, and felt it would be appropriate for Council to make their motion subject to the additional sidewalk on 100th Avenue. C/W Massaro confirmed the fact that F & R would agree to put the side- walks in on both sides; with the east side being delineated on the Exhibit, amending it to show the sidewalk on all the Exhibit "A" property that abuts the west right--of-way line on 100th Avenue. The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1931. C/W Massaro MOVED that Stipulation 9 be approved, as amended today; which amendments are reflected in the record, and subject to the three deeds for the dedication of land for the canals that the City is obliged to excavate, which are in Tract 12, 13 and 13A. These deeds will be held in escrow, she said, until such time as Tract 12 has been closed, and authorization has been made for recording of the documents. She further stated that the completed documents be distributed to the Tape Council members, for proof-reading and review, then the Mayor is autho- #5 rized to execute this document within one week, if there are no adverse comments. She said that F & R are to pay costs of recordation of the stipulation, as other developers have been required to do. C/M Kravitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:30 P.M. MAYZIR ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ /'7� SL3 , or $ 9 &13 per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -7-- APPROVED By COUNCIL. ON 6/9/81 Recon. 6/4/81 mr/ 6