The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-07-02 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes@x- - �( �� ۥ 4 � �. � � �� A ^�^ �( � �� 4 �� C ITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to order on Tuesday, July 2, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room #1 of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Irving Katz Councilman Henry Schumann Councilwoman Diane Glasser ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Carol A. Evans, City Clerk Dan Wood, Chief Building Official Alan Ruf, City Attorney Dina McDermott, Assistant City Manager Mike Vonder Meulen, Senior Planner Karen Jackson, Secretary ***************************************************************** 1. a. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6056 approving SPRING HOUSE APARTMENTS revised site plan for fifteen multiple bay garages and a Restrictive Covenant restricting the use of the garages to vehicle parking only. (located at the northeast corner of Commercial Boulevard and Rock Island Road) (tabled on 6/26/91) b. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6099 granting a waiver to the provisions of the Code governing signs to SPRING HOUSE APARTMENTS to allow 32 square feet of signage at each end of Building #3. FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION R-91-127-PASSED 1.a. TABLED awaiting applicant's response concerning covenant. 1.b. APPROVED 1.a. City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6056 by title. Mike Vonder Meulen, Senior Planner, said this is an application for a revised site plan to approve 63 garages. He said these are multiple-bay garages, five will have five bays, eight will have four and two will have three. He said the garages meet the building distance separation requirements and the 25 foot site triangle requirements that are in the City Code. He said due to a developer agreement between the City and the developer resulting from a previous law suit, the Spring House Apartment site has more than enough parking but does not meet current City Codes. Mr. Vonder Meulen said Staff is requesting a deed restriction which is an issue which has been previously discussed. He said all other terms of the site plan have been met and the site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Site Plan and Plat Review Committee and the Planning Commission recommended approval. He said the conditions of the site plan approval were the deed restrictions of no storage and strictly vehicle parking inside the garages. He said Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan subject to the acceptance of the City's version of the deed restriction. City Attorney Ruf said the City Staff is recommending that the deed restriction limit parking to vehicular parking only. He said the substitute deed restriction, substituted by the developer, allows for vehicular parking, and after there is vehicular parking, allows for other non-hazardous storage. V/M Bender asked what adequate parking that does not meet the Code means. Mr. Vonder Meulen said at the time this site plan was approved, there was a law suit between the developer and the City and at that time one and one half parking spaces were required for two bedroom apartment units. He said this was changed in the 1980's and a two bedroom apartment requires two parking spaces. He said if current City Codes were to be applied, which does not have to be, it would require 660 spaces and the applicant has supplied 661. C/M Katz said he has expressed his concerns to City Attorney Ruf, who sent a copy of the Restrictive Covenant which did not give the City enough protection in inspections and enforcement. He said he had spoken with Norton Herrick of the Herrick Company. He said his concern was regarding vehicular repairs in the garages or furniture storage. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the purpose of the garages is to keep the cars out of the weather. Mark Sinensky, Attorney for the Herrick Company, said the purpose is to provide parking for vehicles, to get them out of the weather. He said people like garages for their expensive vehicles. Mayor Abramowitz asked if a carport would achieve this and Mr. Sinensky said carports are unsightly and do not supply the security that a garage does and carports are not market desireable. Mayor Abramowitz said he does not want Code Enforcement to have to police these garages. Mr. Sinensky said he understood that the only open issue was the language describing the garage contents. He said he felt all other items were resolved regarding enforcement, what the remedies would be in the event of violation and injunctive relief. He referred to the Restrictive Covenant, Page 2, Paragraph 1, where it states that the garage may only be used for vehicular parking. He said this excludes putting a boat in there or using it as a workshop. He said it goes on to disclose the realities of life, such as when being used for vehicular parking, people will leave golf clubs, lawn chairs, old dishes and other things in there also. He said the Herrick Company is stating that provided that an automobile is in the garage, the use of the garage is for vehicular parking and these things will be placed in the garage. He said it is impossible to enforce against people leaving golf clubs next to their car. Mr. Sinensky said he feels Paragraph 1 provides the protection the City needs regarding insuring adequate parking, insuring garage use for vehicular parking, but recognizes the practicality that people may leave other things in the garage along with their car. He said the Herrick Company wants to give the people the opportunity to get their cars out of the parking lot, it enhances the City, fewer cars exposed and the people who will rent these garages will probably have higher priced automobiles which are targets for vandalism. Mayor Abramowitz asked what the recommendation of Staff is and Mr. Vonder Meulen said Staff finds that Paragraph 1 is unacceptable from the City's standpoint. Mr. Vonder Meulen said Staff feels it weakens the City's stance for Code Enforcement. He said it is recognized that there are going to be incidental storages in these garages, but Staff's concern was the Restrictive Covenant was written to make the City's Code Enforcement office the authority to make a determination whether a particular situation had gone too far which would be done by complaints or routine inspections. Mr. Vonder Meulen referred to Attachment A, which is the City's proposal. He said the three items of concern are as follows: the property shall be restricted to vehicle parking only, no storage of other materials or repairs to vehicles permitted. He referred to Attachment B, Item 1, which states that the owner shall notify the garages. City Attorney Ruf said that had been changed. He said the Legal Department is satisfied with the amended Restrictive Covenant with respect to the language in Paragraph 1 and the enforcement. He said he feels the only open issue is whether the City will allow storage in addition to vehicular storage. He said the applicant revised the Restrictive Covenant and the section stating that they would just have to advise their tenants the restriction has been removed. He said the Restrictive Covenant now has it restricted to vehicular parking. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City has a legal right to hold Spring House Apartments responsible for any infractions if they occur. City Attorney Ruf said the City would file against Spring House Apartments, not the tenant. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Spring House Apartments will accept the responsibility of any violations. C/M Katz said the original Restrictive Covenant stated that the Herrick Company would notify the tenants that it was against the Code and there was no one to act. He said Mr. Herrick agreed with City Attorney Ruf that they would allow themselves to be served and be responsible. He said the City can lien the property, but not the tenant. Mayor Abramowitz said he would like Spring House Apartments to stipulate to the City that they will be held responsible and will be willing to pay fines and court costs if they are assessed. Mr. Sinensky said he feels that is how this Restrictive Covenant is drafted and interpreted and the remedy is against the owner. He said he feels this gives all of the remedies to the City. He said the Herrick Company has agreed that it may be recorded in the public records of Broward County. He said this has a material impact on the ownership of the building and there concern is if when attempting to refinance or sell the building, the Restrictive Covenant needs to be complete and is properly defined. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Spring House Apartments is out of bankruptcy and Mr. Sinensky said the property was bought from Home Federal. He said the title is free and clear, except with all the easements of record and the existing mortgage. He said there is no bankruptcy. Mayor Abramowitz said he feels there is nothing wrong with the stipulation stating that the Code Enforcement Department of Tamarac has the right to make the determination of violation. He said he would like the Legal Department make a firmer stipulation that will give the City the opportunity to preclude these other situations. C/M Schumann asked if there is any storage in the apartments and Mr. Sinensky said there is storage in the apartments but not in a separate area such as a bin. C/M Schumann referred to Paragraph 1, and asked what happens if the garages are not used and Mr. Sinensky said they cannot be used for storage. C/M Schumann asked if the word, "may" could be changed to, "can" and Mr. Sinensky agreed. Mayor Abramowitz said "non-hazardous" is not good. He asked who is going to make the determination of what is non-hazardous and how many days a week Code Enforcement is going to inspect this. C/M Schumann asked if these are one or two car garages and Mr. Sinensky said they are one car garages. C/W Glasser asked if there will be enough parking spaces in the lot if all of these garages are not leased. Mr. Vonder Meulen said when and if these garages are built, there will be 550 parking spaces which includes the garages. He said they are required by court order to have 534 parking spaces. He said if all 63 garages are not rented out, they will be 47 spaces short. Mr. Sinensky said his documentation shows that they are required by Law to have 514 spaces. He said 162 one bedrooms, 1.5 each for 138 two bedrooms which is 1.75 each equalling 484.5 plus 30 for guests equalling 514 spaces. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the City shows 300 two bedroom units and Mr. Sinensky said that is incorrect. Mr. Vonder Meulen reviewed the site plan. He said the architect calculated 10% of the total number of parking spaces, which is 534. Mayor Abramowitz suggested Tabling this item for further information. C/M Katz requested this be restricted further than the Restrictive Covenant that the City apportion the square footage to the amount that may be stored or usable for storage if the vehicle is parked in the garage. Mr. Sinensky said he is willing to agree that they will insure that a sufficient number of these parking spaces are taken so the parking does not fall under the required limits. He said they are willing to agree that the minimum requirement of 1.25 plus 1.75 plus 10% is met, no matter what the number is. C/M Katz said he feels that there should be a percentage of the square footage alotted for storage space and the Fire Marshal inspects once a year. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the reason the Restrictive Covenant was set for vehicular parking only was because Staff's concern was that some of the parking garage spaces are a part of the required parking spaces. He said Staff had no problem with some being inside parking facilities as long as they were not used for storage which is the purpose of the Restrictive Covenant. He said the Court Order between the previous owner and the City states that the dimensions of these spaces are required to be 10 feet x 20 feet, which is different than the City Code. He said Staff knows that the inside of these garages are 10 feet x 20 feet; therefore, there is no space inside for storage. He said if an amount of floor space is set aside for storage, then they will not meet the dimension requirements of the Court Order. C/W Glasser asked if the renting of these garages will be limited to the residents of the apartments and Mr. Sinensky said, yes. Mayor Abramowitz asked if there are any fees, or occupational permits for the City and City Manager Kelly said he had not reviewed that. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the fees included with the revised availment order are $600.00 and there are no other impact fees that need to be paid to the City because these are considered accessory structures. City Attorney Ruf said the assessed valuation of the project would be increased presumeably. He said direction from Council is needed on whether or not this will be exclusively for vehicular parking and revisiting the issue for the level of enforcement activity available to the City. He said historically, the City does not allow any limits on the enforcement possiblities. He said a Restrictive Covenant limits the rights of enforcement; however, Council has the right to state that the City does not want any restriction on the rights to enforce the Covenant by whatever means might be available. City Attorney Ruf said the suggestion was made that these garages be rented strictly to occupants of the Spring House Apartments and that the garages be either rented or gratutiously given so that there is never a reduction of the appropriate parking necessary. Mayor Abramowitz said the current Resolution does not address the additional problems. City Attorney Ruf said if someone makes a Motion that it be restricted to vehicular parking only the City Attorney's Office and the applicant would know the Council's position in this matter. He said if there is a Motion that there should be no restriction on the options and rights of the City to enforce the Covenant and that were to pass, then the applicant and the City Attorney's Office would know what the Council wants. He said this would have to be deferred until a document is created that both parties would agree to. C/M Schumann MOVED to APPROVE that the Restrictive Covenant be restricted to vehicles only, SECONDED by C/W Glasser. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Council accepts this Motion, will it be for vehicles only and no storage and City Attorney Ruf said that is his understanding of the Motion. C/M Schumann asked what type of vehicles will be permitted and Mr. Vonder Meulen said "vehicles" is considered as all vehicles, whether they are trailers, boats, motorcycles, cars or anything that will fit into the 10 feet x 20 feet space. VOTE: C/M Katz - NAY C/M Schumann - AYE C/W Glasser - AYE V/M Bender - AYE Mayor Abramowitz - AYE Mayor Abramowitz asked if Council wants to place a restriction on any action of Code Enforcement for compliance. City Attorney Ruf said if the Restrictive Covenent is silent, then all of the remedies are available under common law, under statuatory law and under the Code. He said the Petitioner has asked that the City be specific and restrict the enforcement procedures to those that are provided by Code, which would mean Code Enforcement and injunctive relief in the courts. He said he felt this would be acceptable, but the City has not allowed restrictions on its rights historically. Mayor Abramowitz said he does not want to restrict the Code Enforcement Department. City Attorney Ruf said he would prefer that there be no language in the Restrictive Covenant about what the City might or might not do to enforce it. Mr. Sinensky said he had discussed this with City Attorney Ruf and he feels that what is in the Restrictive Covenant gives the City all of the remedies contained in the Tamarac Code. He said his concern was with leaving it completely silent and under common law, if it is silent, there is an argument that there is a reversion and if the Covenant is violated, they would lose the property to the City. V/M Bender asked if there are any restrictions on building permanent shelves in these spaces. He said there is nothing in this that restricts the building of shelves for storage. City Attorney Ruf said no shelves are permitted. TAPE 2 City Attorney Ruf said he was satisfied with the language that the City had all of the rights available under the Code plus injuctive relief. C/W Glasser MOVED to APPROVE the Restrictive Covenant, SECONDED by C/M Schumann. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/W Glasser said she wants to be certain that these garages can only be leased to the occupants of the apartments and Mr. Sinensky agreed. City Attorney Ruf said that was one of the conditions he indicated and that they would have to use the garages for parking spaces to not be in violation with the Code. He said he will document this and all will have to come back to Council for final approval. C/M Katz asked if the Petitioner can pursue a site plan to begin this project. Mr. Sinensky said he does not know if the restrictions will be acceptable to the Petitioner. City Attorney Ruf suggested this be held until the principals are willing to move forward. V/M Bender MOVED to TABLE Temp. Reso. #6056, SECONDED by C/M Schumann. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 1.b. City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6099 by title. Dan Wood, Chief Building Official, said the applicant has applied for two sign permits for existing signs located approximately 35 feet above the ground on the east and west ends of Building #3 at 5760 Rock Island Road. He said the denial of the application is based on Section 18-64, Subparagraph 2, where identification signs cannot exceed four square feet. He said these existing signs are approximately 3 square feet in area. He said the Building Official and Staff cannot recommend approval based on non-conformance with the Ordinance. Mayor Abramowitz said the Building Department must recommend denial because of the Code, but that is the purpose of Council to approve special exceptions. C/M Schumann referred to Section 18-4, Paragraph 7 of the Code, where the representatives of Spring House Apartments interpreted that a permit was not needed for the signs, which have been erected. Mr. Wood said that part of the Code requires that it cannot exceed four square feet for identification signs. Pat Rathburn, Attorney representing Spring House Apartments, said Section 81-41 in the Code lists certain signs that are exempt from permits. She said Section 81-41-7 states that identification signs or signs for advertising hours of business with letters do not exceed three square feet. She said the applicant felt that this was the portion of the Code that applied and because it was an identification and because the letters did not exceed three square feet in height, they did not need a permit. She said the signs were erected and it was found that the provisions in Section 18-64, which limits to residential area building identification signs to 4 square feet, were signs that required a permit. She said the sign company applied for the permit after the signage was completed to comply. Ms. Rathburn said the signs are on Building #3 at Commercial Boulevard. She said the entrance is on Rock Island Road and the only identification on Commercial Boulevard are the signs on Building #3 which allows the driver enough time to get into the correct turn lane. She said the Code recognizes that there are unique circumstances and times when the exact interpretation of the Code will not meet every case. She said the City has provided the opportunity to waive certain requirements of the sign Code when the situation warrants. Ms. Rathburn said this project is setback 135 feet north of Commercial Boulevard and shielded from Commercial Boulevard with the lush landscaping which makes it difficult for people to see the project. She said the entrance is 400 feet east of Rock Island Road and the adjacent property is the Sabal Palm Golf Club. She said the buildings are shielded from view on Commercial Boulevard and Rock Island Road by these situations. She said the project had been in bankruptcy and taken over by a bank in foreclosure. She said the need to identify the project is important for a safety issue as well as for people to locate the project. Ms. Rathburn said there are several provisions in the Code for waiver requirements of which one is if special conditions exist. She said the Code specifically provides exception to cases where it is warranted. She said identification signs are permitted and the request is so people can see the identification signs. C/M Schumann said the City Code allows a 4 square foot identification sign which can be either 2 foot by 2 foot or 1 foot by 4 foot which would not be able to be seen from the street. Mayor Abramowitz said the City has put a lot of effort and time into the Sign Ordinance. He said he feels the Task Force was instituted with Staff and businessmen who revised the sign ordinance. He said he feels there are esthetically pleasing signs available which should be used. He said he does not feel there is anything wrong with using esthetically pleasing signs in certain areas. V/M Bender MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #6099, SECONDED by C/M Schumann. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 2. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6098 granting a waiver to the provisions of the Code governing signs to BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (formerly COMMONWEALTH BANK) to allow a secondary sign which would exceed 12 square feet or 25% of the sign area of the primary sign. FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION R-91-128-PASSED APPROVED City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6098 by title. C/M Katz MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #6098, SECONDED by C/W Glasser. Mayor Abramowitz said he does his banking at NCNB, which is located on Pine Island Road and faces a big public parking lot in the back. He said they have an "NCNB" sign on the front and on the side of the building. He said they have been trying for a year to place a small sign in the back of their building identifying the parking as NCNB. He said he disagrees with this. Dan Wood, Chief Building Official, said this is an application for a sign waiver for an allowance of a second sign that exceeds the 12 square feet allowance for a secondary sign as per Section 18-65, Subparagraph 2B of the Sign Ordinance. He said the Building Department must deny the sign due to noncompliance to the Ordinance. George Hine, Vice President and Representative of Bank of North America, said the bank has acquired the Ambassador Savings facility at 82 Street and University Drive, which will be brought before Council. He said this case refers to the acquired Commonwealth Federal Savings facility in Tamarac. He said the facility was acquired through Resolution Trust. He said Resolution Trust wants the name of the new bank prominently displayed in order to safeguard the depositors and to delay any concerns of where their money may be going. Mr. Hine said when Bank of North America evaluated the assets of Commonwealth Federal Savings, it was anticipated that they would be allowed as much signage as needed, which was a mistake because there is a limit as to the amount of square footage and the number of signs. He said Bank of North America has the disadvantage of having chosen a very long name and limiting them to 12 square feet provides a severe problem. He said the building comes to a point and there is nowhere one sign can be placed that can be seen from even two directions of travel. He said the one sign has been approved to be placed on the north elevation, but a sign is needed on the south to be recognized by northbound traffic. He displayed a picture of the proposed signage. He said the letters would be blue during the day and white at night. C/M Katz asked if there is a color restriction. Mayor Abramowitz said he does not feel there is anything wrong with it. V/M Bender MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #6098, SECONDED by C/M Schumann. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 3. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6097 approving a one-foot encroachment into the southern five-foot utility easement requested by Michael and Ida Grippo, 6012 NW 67 Way. FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION R-91-129-PASSED APPROVED as amended not to exceed an encroachment of .5 feet. City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6097 by title. Mr. Vonder Meulen said this house was built six inches to the wrong place which was supposed to be 5 feet back from the property line and either previous measurements were done wrong or current measurements were done more accurately. He said this is an item to clear the title and Staff recommends approval. Mayor Abramowitz said Mr. and Mrs. Grippo have gone to all of the utilities and received permission to clear the title on their home.� C/W Glasser said she feels the responsibility lies with the City and they should receive relief. Mayor Abramowitz said there are many cases like this where people cannot sell their property. C/M Katz asked if all of the parcels that are encroached were done by the same surveyor and Mayor Abramowitz said there are three different problems. He said there are people who have indiscrimatorily built structures without permits and went to sell their house and could not. He said there are mistakes made and it is not done by an individual. He said there is an entire section of over 100 houses which are incorrect due to the City. V/M Bender said the Resolution discusses a one-fifth encroachment and in a letter dated June 26, 1991, it discusses an encroachment of from .2 feet to .5 feet. He asked where the one foot derives from. Mr. Vonder Meulen said one foot is the minimum Staff is requesting that anything be encroached. V/M Bender asked why Staff would ask for one foot when there is only at the most .5 feet. Mr. Vonder Meulen said it was a Staff determination that they should not bring anything to Council as small as six inches. V/M Bender said he feels if an exception is being granted, it should be on what the mistake is, which is .2 feet to .5 feet. Mayor Abramowitz asked what would happen if the next surveyor comes in and there is a differential. V/M Bender said Council is addressing this case, not other cases. He said he feels Council should vote on giving this relief. He said there is a violation and Council should vote to correct the violation. C/M Schumann said the letters from the various utilities are granting privileges from .2 feet to .5 feet and they are not granting for one foot. City Attorney Ruf suggested amending the Resolution to say that Council approves the encroachment not to exceed one foot and the other possibility would be that Council approves the encroachment from .2 feet to .5 feet. V/M Bender MOVED to AMEND Temp. Reso. #6097 that the permitted encroachment be limited to .5 feet, SECONDED by C/M Schumann. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 4. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #5954 approving a delegation request by FLH Homes to remove the voluntary deed restrictions from PARCEL R OF WOODLAND LAKES located at the southeast corner of McNab Road and NW 88 Avenue (tabled on 1/23/91). FINAL ACTION: TABLED Mayor Abramowitz said there are fees owed on this item. City Manager Kelly said prior to every Council meeting, Council checks whether there are fees owed and if fees are due the City, the item is not heard. Stuart Feiner, Attorney for FLH Homes, said this company has paid their fees for the past 16 years and he assured Council that payment will be made by Friday, July 5, 1991. Mayor Abramowitz said the rule has always been if fees are due the City, Council does not hear the request. City Attorney Ruf said he has not been asked to determine if it is an operating rule by Council or if it is a Code condition. Mayor Abramowitz said Council has never heard a request if fees are due the City. City Attorney Ruf said if it is the consideration of a site plan or plat there is a requirement for the payment of impact fees which have not been paid. Mr. Feiner said this fee is for a Water and Sewer Agreement which has been in place for many years for guaranteed revenues for a vacant piece of property. He said anything Council decides to do can be made subject to the fees being paid by Friday, July 5, 1991. V/M Bender suggested Council proceed with these conditions. City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #5954 by title. Mr. Vonder Meulen said this is a request for a removal of a deed restriction by the applicant. He said when the rezoning petition was considered in 1986, the surrounding commercial zoning designations were already in place except for the 1.3 acre parcel directly to the east currently B-6. He said they are rezoning the property back to residential. He said the Planning Commission gives no justification for the rezoning. He said the applicant is requesting that the voluntary deed restriction be removed from the property. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the applicant has set forth justification of the request to remove the deed restriction. He said Staff does not find that the process for rezoning was elongated. He said the application was made in late 1985 and approved by Council in February, 1986. He said an amendment was sought by the petitioner in 1988 only to modify the 12,000 square foot requirement and not the other use limitations. He said the only change in the surrounding properties is that after being commercial, adjacent to the east was rezoned B-6 from residential in 1987. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the City rezoned the Public Works site from community facilities to commercial in 1989. He said Staff does not feel that an agreement from the community facilities, the Public Works site, represents a justification for the removal of the deed restrictions for this case. He said the population of the City was estimated at 41,000 in 1987 and in 1990, estimated at 44,160. He said the applicant offers to return half of the property to residential zoning that the property was initially zoned. He said the applicant has made no application at present to apply for the rezoning on reserved units needed nor the Land Use amendment in order to accomplish his intentions of rezoning this. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the Findings of Fact are as follows: the Parcel zoned B-2 with voluntary deed restrictions basically limit it to B-1 zoning. He said the surrounding zonings are primarily B-1, B-2, B-5 and B- 6 and the only condition which has changed since the rezoning in 1986 is that the applicant no longer desires to voluntarily deed restrict the property. He said the applicant has withdrawn an application for a special exception for a gas station. He said Planning Commission recommended denial of this application on December 5, 1990 and Staff recommends to keep the deed restriction due to lack of reason for the removal of them. Mr. Feiner said FLH Homes would like to keep the request for the gas station, but it must be kept in its priority according to what the City Officials have stated. He said consistent comments have been made to the City that FLH Homes would be glad that upon receipt of delegation and approval of the delegation of the deed restrictions, they would go forth and request a special exception and simultaneously request that one- half of their residential property, according to the site plan, go forth on that recommendation. Mr. Feiner said this is an opportunity that the City will rarely get whereby a developer has taken commercial property and has requested half of the property to be residential property to build villas. He said he was responsible for the site planning of the Colony Cove project located on Pine Island Road which is an asset to the City. He said FLH Homes would like to continue with that same site plan on the east side of this 4.5 acre property. He said the delegation of the deed restrictions should stand by itself because when the deed restrictions were placed on the property, they became onorous in its present marketing conditions to the owner. He said there is no way that property can be built and an asset can be developed within the City boundaries. Mr. Feiner said at the time the deed restrictions were placed, there was a 20 year lease signed with a local restaurant. He said both of those leases became null and void when the process could not be finalized; therefore, the deed restrictions remained on the property and the property could not be built. Mr. Feiner said the zoning classification they were to use would mostly be R-3U and C/M Katz said the size of the unit is smaller. C/M Katz asked if they would be applying for a special exception for a gas station for the other 4.5 acres and Mr. Feiner said, yes. Mr. Feiner said he feels comfortable in making the statement that the removal of the deed restriction is something that Council should do because it is presently onorous to the property since marketing and building of the property cannot go forth as it currently exists. C/M Katz asked if there would be a problem if the 4.5 acres were zoned to a less dense residential zoning and Mr. Feiner said the R-3U zoning, which they have utilized in the past, is only 5 or 6 units to the acre and is the site plan that has been presented. Mr. Feiner said the units were approximately 1,400 square feet and are two bedrooms and two full baths. He said they would agree to building a product similar to the Colony Cove project on Pine Island Road. He said these two bedroom, two bath villas with garages will definitely be built. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the fees that are missing are $5,342.46 which is $2,507.00 in interest and $2,800.00 in guaranteed revenue. Mr. Feiner said these fees have been outstanding from March, 1991; however, the City has been associated with these property owners for over 17 years and he affirmatively states that whatever Council moves to do will be subject to the fee payment by Friday, July 5, 1991. TAPE 3 Mayor Abramowitz said he feels the Colony Cove project is lovely. He said he has no objection to 4.5 acres being commercial, but when the deed restriction was made, that was it. He said times have changed for everyone. He said he feels that the fact the deed restrictions are onorous is not a reason to lift it. He asked what would happen if the Council agreed to remove the deed restriction and an application was made for the gas station and it was denied. Mr. Feiner said the Council would be doing something that was advantageous and commendable to the City. He said the deed restrictions are onorous on its own. He said the City is not making any money and store owners cannot come into an empty lot. He said a B-2 zoning, which is completely surrounded by B-2 property, may be an avenue to explore, which the City agreed to with restrictions. He said the property would be a B-2 property if the restrictions are removed, surrounded by other B-2 property. He said if the subsequent plan is not successful, Council would be commendable in its action to remove those onorous deed restrictions to permit another asset to the City. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Mr. Feiner would be as eager to state that they would definitely build with the removal of the deed restriction as he was to promise the payment of the fees and Mr. Feiner said he would be emphatic to state they would if FLH Homes is successful in their subsequent site plan review, including the special exception. Mayor Abramowitz asked about the exclusion of the special exception and Mr. Feiner said with the conditions as they currently exist, everybody would like to see an increase in tax base. He said FLH Homes would have the ability to go forth that does not exist under the current conditions that encumber the property. C/M Katz said if the 4.5 acres are to be delegated to residential and will conform to the concept of the Colony Cove project and Council approves changing this to B-2, this gives a broader use of the property. Mr. Feiner said the property is currently zoned B-2 with restrictions. C/M Katz said if they do not get the special exception for whatever reasons, they will look for other uses for the property and Mr. Feiner said FLH Homes will look for the uses under the zoning of B-2, which would make it more marketable than it is currently. C/M Schumann asked what can be done in B-2 zoning that cannot be done in B-1 zoning and Mr. Feiner said the primary restrictions are all of the zoning classifications of B-2 with the exception of a dry goods store, a special exception for a 12,000 square foot restaurant and those conditions as they currently exist are not marketable. Mayor Abramowitz read from the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, "The properties shall be subject to the following Covenants and Restrictions: the subject property shall be limited to the uses permitted on the City of Tamarac Zoning District B-1, with the inclusion of the following B-2 uses". He said FLH Homes has a B-1 classification. City Attorney Ruf said FLH Homes has a B-2 zoning classification restricted to B-1 uses with a couple of exceptions. He said Ordinance 86-10 rezones the property from RM-10 to B-2, not to exceed 10 acres. Mayor Abramowitz said the property is zoned B-2 with a Restrictive Covenant which only permits B-1 with limitations. Mr. Feiner said FLH Homes is requesting that Council lift the deed restrictions to allow the property to function as a B-2 property. C/M Schumann said he reads that FLH Homes feels the 12,000 square foot restaurant is not big enough and Mr. Feiner said there are other restrictions which cause the property to be unmarketable. Mr. Feiner said the surrounding property is B-2. City Attorney Ruf said there is residential property to the west, south and east and recreational property to the east. Mr. Feiner said there is B-2 property across the street where the Tamarac Library is located. City Attorney Ruf said the north side is commercial and the south side is residential. He said if Council removes the deed restrictions, the list of things permitted in B-2 will be allowed. Mr. Feiner said he had stated that the action of Council would be commendable by just the removal of the deed restrictions because of the conditions that preceeded the conversation and FLH Homes would like to go forward with the site plan stated which would be another matter. C/W Glasser suggested this be Tabled to review and compare the B-1 and B-2 zoning categories. Mayor Abramowitz said he feels the request that has been uppermost in his mind was the gas station special exception, which is not the case in this meeting. He asked if Council would agree to grant this removal of the deed restriction, would Council have the right to request a voluntary deed restriction for particular items that would not be good for the City and City Attorney Ruf said, yes, it has been done on several occasions. Mayor Abramowitz asked what the City's position is when the petition requests a special exception and City Attorney Ruf said the City would not be in as good a position as it currently is with the deed restriction in place. C/W Glasser MOVED to TABLE Temp. Reso. #5954, SECONDED by C/M Katz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Katz requested this be reheard prior to Council vacation on July 11, 1991 and all agreed. 5. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6094 declaring a tower and antenna equipment on top of old City Hall as surplus property and authorizing the appropriate City officials to proceed with disposition (tabled on 6/26/91). FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION R-91-130-PASSED APPROVED City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6094 by title. City Manager Kelly said before equipment can be sold it must be declared as surplus. He said a quote came from a Contractor for removal for $625.00. He said the City has received several other calls from people who are interested in the tower and antenna equipment. C/M Schumann said the documentation has two different sizes, one of which shows 40 feet and the other shows 80 feet. He asked what is the proper height of the tower. He said the Wantuck report shows 80 feet and offers the City $100.00 for the tower including taking it down. City Manager Kelly said Council is not setting a price at the present. He said this is a request for Council to declare the tower and antenna equipment as surplus. C/M Katz MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #6094, SECONDED by C/W Glasser. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 6. MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Reso. #6059 appointing 2 regular members and 1 alternate member to the Planning Commission (tabled on 6/28/91). FINAL ACTION: TABLED City Attorney Ruf read Temp. Reso. #6059 by title. Mayor Abramowitz said there was some confusion at a previous meeting regarding terms of office and how to handle the appointments. He said the appointments that were previously made were for two year and one year terms. He asked how Council wants to proceed with appointing the three year terms. C/W Glasser asked if Council is currently going to appoint someone to a three year term and City Attorney Ruf said when Council chose members for the existing Planning Commission, it was done based on an Ordinance which has been superceded. City Attorney Ruf said the City currently has an Ordinance that provides for two people to be appointed for three years, two for two years, and three for one year which is so they can have staggered terms. He said under the old Ordinance, Council did what was in place and the new Ordinance extends the term to three years and provides a method by which selections can be made of seven members so that each year three new appointments can be made. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Council has appointed anyone for a three year term at present and City Attorney Ruf said, no. City Attorney Ruf said Council can reappoint all seven members by the new Ordinance. V/M Bender said the previous appointments were made on May 8, 1991 and some were for one year. He said he feels Council needs to review the amount of time the members have served and re-evaluate the previous appointments with alternates. C/M Schumann asked if the old Ordinance was valid at the time of appointments and City Attorney Ruf said, yes. C/M Schumann said the members have no right of action against Council if they were appointed under a pre-existing valid Ordinance and City Attorney Ruf agreed. V/M Bender said he would like to re-evaluate the appointments. He said he does not want to change anyone but maybe just the terms. V/M Bender MOVED to TABLE Temp. Reso. #6059, SECONDED by C/W Glasser. VOTE: C/M Katz - AYE C/M Schumann - NAY C/W Glasser - AYE V/M Bender - AYE Mayor Abramowitz - AYE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Any member of the public may speak to any issue which is not agendized for public hearing at this meeting. Speakers will be limited to three minutes during this item and at public hearings. There will be a thirty (30) minute aggregate time limit for this item, and speakers are encouraged to sign up in advance with the City Clerk prior to their participation. Melanie Reynolds, resident, asked how a municipality reforms a legislative act. City Attorney Ruf said Ms. Reynolds is referring to whether the people have to vote for a change in the makeup of the Charter Board or whether it can be done by Ordinance. Ms. Reynolds asked how a municipality can change a legislative act and City Attorney Ruf asked if she is referring to a legislative act by the municipality. Ms. Reynolds said she is referring to a legislative act by the State Legislators. City Attorney Ruf said the only way the person can change a legislative act by the State Legislator is to contact the Legislator and request the change and Ms. Reynolds agreed. C/M Katz said the Code Enforcement Board is trying to determine what is legal and not legal which is not the function of the Code Enforcement Board. He said he has the minutes of their last meeting where there was a citation issued by a Code Enforcement Inspector on a particular violation of the Code. He said Morris Glicksman, Vice Chairman, decided that it was not a violation. He said Mr. Glicksman had no right to decide that it was not a violation, but only to decide whether or not these people would be excused. C/M Katz said the City has an option with the Broward Sheriff's Office who will cite if there is a violation of the existing Code and will be sent downtown instead of to the Code Enforcement Board. He requested Council give direction to City Manager Kelly to have the BSO send a Deputy out for a citation. City Attorney Ruf requested he be permitted to have City Attorney Chris Carsky formulate a proposal for Council. Mayor Abramowitz said the Council should be able to control the City's Advisory Boards. City Attorney Ruf said the Code Enforcement Board is a Legislative Board and the City cannot control their actions. He suggested a proposal be formulated and brought back to Council for approval. Melanie Reynolds, resident, said she would like her question answered by C/M Schumann regarding the proper process with which a municipality can change a legislative act. C/M Schumann said he is not licensed to practice law in the State of Florida and this is a legal question. Ms. Reynolds referred to the allowance of encroachment which was approved in this meeting. She said this is the second encroachment Council has allowed. She asked if Council is doing the Board of Adjustment's job and prohibiting the City receiving $300.00 which the applicant is to pay prior to appearing before the Board of Adjustment. Mayor Abramowitz said Council has the legal right to override a decision of the Board of Adjustment and C/M Katz said the Board of Adjustment's decisions are final as per Article 24 of the Code. V/M Bender said he read that if a person wants relief he has the right to either go to the Board of Adjustment or go before Council. He said if the person elects to go before the Board of Adjustment and loses, there is no recourse; however, by appearing before Council and losing, there is recourse. Mayor Abramowitz asked if Ms. Reynolds feels that Council should have some compassion which is a duty of an elected official. Ms. Reynolds said she feels Council has no compassion for the residents of Tamarac. Irving Lopatey expressed his opinion referring to a remark made by Mr. Sinensky, Attorney for the Herrick Company, regarding the unsightly parking of cars. With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 4:15 p.m. NORMAN ABRAMOWITZ MAYOR CAROL A. EVANS CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $187.09 or $4.16 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac." City Council Special Meeting 7/2/91/KJ Page page \* arabic1 City Council Special Meeting 7/2/91/KJ Page page \* arabic1 ~� ��/��N��p�� Y Z \ d v � � � � ) I h � � � � ^ ` h �� , o q } �� & ( e g � � � � > @ ` b �� D F � � 9 ; R T �� c e � � �� ! ! \ � � { !} !z #| # �$ �$ �%� %} && j 'l ' -(/ (� (� () ) * * � *� *^ +` + �+� +. ,0 , - -< .> . �. �.2 2 �2 �23 3 �3 �3? 6A 6I 7K 7� 7 �7 �9 �9 �9 �9 �9 �9: :/ :1 : �: �: �; �; �; �;< ( <B <D <� <� <� >� >� >� >� ? �?A A �A �AB B B �B �B �B �B �B �B �B �B �B �B C C� C� �� a �C� C� D� D� D� DP ER E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� E� EF F F / F@ FL FN Fl Hn H I I� I� ID JF Jc Me M~ O� O� Q� Q9 S; S� S� S{ U} U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U VS V �V �V �VW W ) W+ WB WS W_ Wa Wj Wo Ws W� W� W� W� W" Y$ Yn Zp Z �\� \� _� _� _� _= `? `J `O `S `Z ` �� ! _ Z`[ `v `| ` �` �` �` �` �` �`' a= aP aR a^ a| a �a �a �a �a �a �a( c* c� c� cd d w dy d0 f2 f �f� f` gb g �g �g; h= h � h �h" i$ i �i� i� j� je kg kr kw k{ k �k �k �k �k �k �k �k �k �kl # lG lP l� l� l� l� lm m m m mH mJ m� m� m� n �no o � o� o� o� ot pv p} qq �q �q �q �q �q �� ! _ �q �qt t <v> vy y �{� {� }� }� �� Ɂ ˁ O �Q �ׂ � +� (� �� ق � �� Î � �� : �< �� h �j �� h �j �- �/ �a �c � � � �� ?�= ܖ ޖw �y �, �. �� " �& �G �V �X �k �m �o �Μ М Ӝ � � J �� ! _ �� & �( �= �? �� ! �/ �1 �F �H �K �l �� ԡ � ֡ � � � � � � # �% �N �P �C �E �� ٦ ۦʧ= �? �� f �h �s �x �| �� ˩ �� # �& �: �� Q �S �\ �^ �� ` �b �' �) �ճ ׳C�E �� ] �_ �� ! _ �� a �c �� - �6 �R �S �U �W �Y �[ �h �{ �� o o ú Ѻ Һ Ӻ Ժ ֺ ܺ ܺ �� غ � � � � � � �� )� &� �� 1 !Y \ v � � � � ) I h � � � � ^ ` �� o q � � � � & ( e g � � � � > @ ` b ��˱˱˱��{{{{{{{{{{{{0 �� P�0 �� P �0 �� P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�0 �h# ��p@ ��P�0 b �� D F � � 9 ; R T �� c e � � { !} !z #| # �$ �$ �%� %} && j 'l ' - (/ (� (� () ) * * � *� *^ +` + �+� +. ,0 , - - < .> . �. �.2 2 �2 �23 3 �3 �3? 6A 6I 7K 7� 7 �7 �9 �9/ :1 : �: �: �; �; �; �;< ( <B <D <� <� <� >� >� �� 0 �� P �^ �>� >� >� ? �?A A �A �AB B �B �B �B �B C C� C� C� D� D� D� DP ER E� E� E� E� E� EF F L FN Fl Hn H I I� I� ID JF Jc Me M~ O� O� Q� Q9 S; S� S� S{ U} U� U� U� U� U� U� V �� ˼��0 �# ��p@ ��P� 0 � � P�0 �� P�0 �0�� P�0 �� P �; �V �VW ) W+ W_ Wa W� W� W� W" Y$ Yn Zp Z �\� \� _� _� _� _= `? `| ` �` �` �` �`P aR a| a �a �a �a �a (c* c� c� cd d w dy d0 f2 f �f� f` gb g �g �g; h= h �h �h" i$ i �i� i� j� je kg k �k �k �k �k �� 混�� Ū� 0 � P � 0 � P �0 �� P�0 �� P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�A �k �l� lm m mH mJ m� m� m� n �no o � o� o� o� ot pv p }qq �q �q �q �qt t <v> vy y �{� {� }� }� �� Ɂ ˁ O �Q �ׂ � ق �� +� (� �� ͼ�� 0 �0�� P �0 �� P�0 �� P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�< �� Î � �� : �< �� h �j �� h �j �- �/ �a �c � � � �� ?�= ܖ ޖw �y �, �. �� V �X �m �o �Μ М � �� & �( �= �? �� ! �/ �1 �F �H �ԡ � ֡ � � # �% �� ɸ��0 �� P�0 �# ��p@ ��P� 0 � P �0 �� P�C %�N �P �C �E �� ٦ ۦʧ= �? �� f �h �� ˩ �� # �& �� Q �S �\ �^ �� ` �b �' �) �ճ ׳C�E �� ] � _�� a �c �� R �U �W �Y �[ �{ �� ֺ �� غ �� 0P�0 �# ��p@ ��P�P ܺ �� )� &� $� "� ܺ � �� غ ں � +F ooterHeaderFont: Courier,12 Pitch,�"� @ @ � � �!� �! � � �( �H � � � � � CZ ` �q �� ( �^ _ ` a b c d �b �>� V �k ��% ��) غe f g h i j k l A T imes New Roman Symbol& A rial "A vantGarde B ookman 1C ourier R�Fences 1F ixedsys "H elvetica 2�Modern "M S Dialog" M S Sans Serif M S Serif R�MT Extra RMT SymbolN ewCenturySchlbk P alatino� Roman B�Script "S mall Fonts "S ystem 1�Terminal WingdingsB Z apfChanceryR ZapfDingbats. = ? v �� ! ��!��# � �