HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Tamarac Resolution R-86-257� r
1
2
3
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
If
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
29
30
31
32
33
34
i
Introduced by C141Temp. Reso. #4211
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. R-86-Z57
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT
ORDER FOR JASMINE PROJECT. REVISED DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER NO.' 155-2 AND PROVIDING AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the instructions of the City
Council of the City of Tamarac, Florida, a public meeting has
been advertised in accordance with applicable law -of the
date, time and place of the meeting regarding the review of
the application for a development order by the applicant for
development approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined and investigated
the application, staff and Planning Commission recommen-
dations, and the attached Development Review Status Sheet
dated July 3, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Development Order
and accompanying documents at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the
application is in compliance with all elements of its Compre-
hensive Plan, or will be in compliance prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit on the development
that is the subject of the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TAMARAC, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1: That the development described on the
attached Development Review Status Sheet dated July 3,1986 is
granted a Development Order to proceed subject to the
following conditions:
A. Construction is to be in complete compliance with
the plans and specifications submitted by the developer to
the City -of Tamarac as described in Section II of the
Development Review Status Sheet and approved engineering
drawings.
-1-
TEMP. RESO. #4211
B. Commencement of construction shall be no longer
than one year from the date of this approval. If the
development does not commence construction within one year,
this approval is null and void unless an extension has been
granted in accordance with applicable regulations.
C. The Development Order is assignable, but an assign
ment does not discharge any assignee from strict compliance
with the Order unless the City Council consents to modify any
of the original requirements.
.D. Additional conditions established in order to issue
the development order are set forth as follows:
NONE
SECTIQN _ 2: Should any section or provision of this
Development Order be declared by a court of competent juris-
diction to be invalid, the City Council shall determine if
the other portions of the Order remain valid or whether the
approval shall be null and void.
5=1ON 3: This Development Order as conditioned shall
become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
1986.
ATTEST:
CITY CLEVE Ir
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have
approved the form and correct-
ness of this RESOLUTION.
CITY A� RN
150557>3 /p
RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE
MAYOR: HART
DIST. 1: C/W MASSARO
DIST. 2: C/M STELZER
DIST. 3: C/M GOTTESMAN
DIST. 4: V/M STEIN
-2- -
5811 NORTHWEST BBTH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722.5g00
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STATUS SHEET
MEMO W
JASMINE REVISED SITE PLAN TO UPGRADE LANDSCAPING, ADD DATE 7/3/86
SECURITY GATES AND INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE Orig. Dev. Order
OF UNITS 15 �evised Dev. Order
Project Master File # 3-85
Location. NW rnrner of NW_7CI__�t_&Dd_NW RA Ave,,,
(Developer
Owner
Zoning 84A Acres ___18_472 Recommended Date for Council Action 7/9/R6
Future Land Use Designation Proposed Use 2nR townhouse units
DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR:
Final Site Plan Final Plat Revised Site Plan X
I. STAFF APPROVAL DATES: Final Site Plan Final Plat Revised Site Plan
City Planner
City Engineer
Chief Building Official
Fire Chief
Comments
III. PLANNING COMMISSION _-REM: r4ENDATIONS:
APPROVAL or APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS/Date
Final Site Plan dated Rev
Final Plat dated Rev
Revised Site Plan dated Rev
Planning Commission finding of compliance with Certified Plan:
DENIAL/Date
III. FINAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS:
APPROVAL/Date APPROVAL AS REDLINED/pate DENIAL/Date
Comments
cont'd
Page 2
IV. LANDSCAPE PLAN:
Staff Action
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STATUS SHEET
APPROVAL APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
Date
V. BROWARD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT:
If app ica e
Comments
DENIAL
VI. DEVELOPERS AGREEMENTS/FEES (Where applicable): SUMMARY
A. Water Ind Sewe�e-veloper Agreement
City Engineer Approval/Date
City Attorney Approval/Date
B. Other Development Agreements (Covenants, Stipulations, etc.)
C. Drainage Retention Fee Amount $
5% Required/Acres Provided
Deficiency/Acres X $35,000/Acre
D. Drainage Im rovement Fee Amount $
Project Acreage X $130/Acre
E. Water & Sewer Contribution Charges
Number of ERCs X $1000
F. ERC Review Fee, if more than 10 ERCs
Fee Amount $
Fee Amount $
G. Local Parks/Recreation Fee Amount $
Acres Required Provided
$/Acre X Deficiency/Acres
H. Engineering Fees Fee Amount $
I. Bonds Bond Amount $
Date: Approved by City Engineer_—_. City Attorney
J. On Site Beautification
(Fees to be paid at time of building permit issuance)
r-ry
i
1
nt'
Page 3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STATUS SHEET
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REgUIREMENTS:
A. Potable Water Service
Certification of City Engineer or Consulting
Availability of Service:
AVAILABLE,
WILL BE AVAILABLE
Date Comments
City Engineer of
NOT AVAILABLE
B. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Service
Certification of City Engineer or Consulting City Engineer of
Availability of Service:
AVAILABLE L/ WILL BE AVAILABLE -- . NOT AVAILABLE
Date Comments
C. Solid Waste Disposal Service
Determination of Availability of Service:
AVAILABLE WILL BE AVAILABLE,. NOT AVAILABLE
Date Comments
Memo
D.
Drainage Adequacy
Certification of City Engineer or Consulting
City Engineer of
Adequacy of Drai ge:
ADEQUATE _..�,._._. WILL BE ADEQUATE
NOT ADEQAATE
Date Comments
E.
Regional Transportation Network
Compliance wit Minimum Standards:
COMPLIES WILL COMPLY
DOES NOT COMPLY
Date Comments
F.
Local Streets an Roads
Compliance with 4inimum Standards:
COMPLIES ____ WILL COMPLY _,,r
DOES NOT COMPLY
bate Comments
G.
Fire Protection Service
Compliance with M' mum Standards:
COMPLIES _ WILL COMPLY
DOES NOT COMPLY _
Date Comments
H.
Police Protection Service
Compliance with Mj nimum Standards:
COMPLIES i WILL COMPLY
DOES NOT COMPLY
Date Comments
Parks Recreation Facilities)
I.
Local (Parks and
rand Dedication Required/Acres
Provided
Cash in Lieu of Land Gross Acres Max. X $_.__-._ /AC = $ w..
J.
50001 Sits
Compliance with the Standards of the Broward County School Board: n
SCHOOL SITES NEEDED FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
�.,�,_ NOT NEEDED
MIDDLE SCHOOL
NOT NEEDED
" HIGH SCHOOL
NOT NEEDED
Letter from School Board.Dated _
_ -
Page 4
DEVELOPMFNT RrvtrW CTAT11C r11rrY
•T •• +. ... � v.+ JI ILL 1
VIII. PROCESSING FEES (PAID):
Site Plan Review: $
Revised Site Plan: $ 150.00
Plat Review: $
Schematic Eng.: $
Other: $
STAFF C014MENTS:
Proposed development is/il*wmftr�in general conformance with Tamarac's Land
Use Plan Element and recommends:
Adoption of Development Order # 15� Master File # 3-85
For:
Project subject to the requirements included in the Report and the following
g
PLAN ADJUSTMENT COMMITTEE
MAY 27, 1986 (/
MINUTES
On May 27, 1986, the Plan Adjustment Committee held its regular meeting in
the City Council chambers at 9:00 a.m.
The following members were present:
1. Vice Mayor Sydney Stein
2. Rober,UaTln;`q,Officlal�
3. Robert Foy, Deputy City Engineer
4. Thelma Brown, City Planner
Also present, Ruth Russo, Recording Secretary
The following items were reviewed:
1. Transcapital Development Corporation for consideration and
possible action to allow a modification to Jasmine at Woodmont located at
Pine Island Road and N.W. 70th Street for 7.33' increase to each building,
for upgrading the landscaping, an& to add security gates to the development.
The Committee voted that the landscaping and the security gates were items
they could approve but the Committee felt that to allow an increase in the
building square footage was more than minor and voted to deny that request.
The Committee noted that the petitioner had the right to appeal the denial
decision to the City Council.
The check for $175.00 paid by the petitioner was returned to him at the
meeting for incorrect submittal amount.
0