HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-05 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
March 3, 1981
WORKSHOP MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a workshop meeting of the City Council on Thursday,
March 5, 1981, at 1:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The purpose of this workshop meeting is to discuss with Lennar
Corporation (F & R Builders) proposals concerning development
of their property in Land Sections 5 & 6, Township 49S, Range 41 E.
The City Council may consider such other items as may come
before it.
The public is encouraged to attend.
Carol A. Evans, Asst. City clerk
/lc
3/3/81
7 _ 1
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
MARCH 5, 1981
PROPOSALS WITH LENNAR CORP. (F & R BUILDERS
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.,
Thursday, March 5th, 1981, in Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro
C/M Irving M. Disraell.y
C/M Irving Zemel
C/W Marjorie Kelch
ALSO PRESENT
City Attorney, Arthur Birken
City Engineer, Larry Keating
City Planner, Evan Cross
Clerk/Steno Pat Eisen
Mayor Falck read the official call and asked for Arthur Birken's observa-
tions and comments.
Mr. Birken indicated that Draft No. 3 of the Stipulation was delivered
about noon -time ..c�� March third, 1981 ;Staff realizes that this docu-
ment is of tremendous importance to the City in terms of the 5,000 units
that are proposed to be constructed and Staff has not really had an
opportunity to review the material. concerning the language and content
of the Stipulation. He mentioned the need for the City to go into the
Ordinances that F & R is proposing not to be bound by and those that it
proposes to be bound by; Staff has some input, but not near the final word.
V/M Massaro stated that even though there is a lack of input, this should
be reviewed,and further indicated that she had spent an hour with Staff
this morning and much of this is Mr. Birken's work; Council should be
going over the paragraphs and c a n then have some dialogue so they will
know what to incorporate into a draft, as this is not a final draft.
Mr. Larry Keating pointed out that Mr. Birken's comments cover their
position with regards to the draft, but believes they can provide some
input; they are not prepared to indicate comments which would lead to a
final draft at this point.
Mayor Falck said he doesn't want to spend time trying to re -write this
draft this afternoon, but he feels a discussion may be fruitful.
Mr. Julian Bryan representing F & R Builders indicated to Council that he
was sorry he presented the packet to Council so late, but explained that
it was just back-up exhibits.
Mr. Bryan said that Mr. Birken made an excellent point with regard to
recitals of various ordinances which were taken directly from the 1976
Weissing order; they felt that it was proper to restate the ordinances,
because that particular document might not be in hand at the time. They
are tying to create a development manual that would allow anyone to take
one document out of their file and review any Lennar tract that they own
in Sections 5 and 6 and judge the development of that tract by that docu-
ment. He discussed Ordinance 78-48 which is sub -division regulations;
they have some very important dialogue and exhibits that deal with site
planning requirements, building set -backs, site coverage, separation
between buildings and parking areas, etc. and they have attempted to cover
those, so when they have a meeting with Mr. Keating or Mr. Cross and Mr.
Birken, they can take this document and use it for their standard.
They have included and made reference to the previous ordinances and regu-
lations and standards and the first few pages of this document pertain to
these items. Mr. Bryan suggested that they start out on Page 1 and glance
at every paragraph.
-1- March 5, 1981
/pe
E__]
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Reifsif the documents are prepared regarding
dedications for the canals..
Mr. Martin Reifs of F & R Builders indicated they have reflected in
Exhibit G in regard to the canals they presently own with the excep-
tion of Tract 12--once they receive title to that tract, they will be
able to convey that to the City; they do show as far as instruments
and surveys relative to the other tracts.
V/M Massaro mentioned that it was stated and made very clear that the
City will not act on the final draft unless those documents in final
form are in our hands.
Mr. Reifs indicated that there are some items which they have included
in the agreement that deal with conveyances as far as the right-of-
way.
V/M Massaro asked, "In what way?" She indicated that this should be
conveyed right away and that the City wants title so that the City
can move forward with those canals before having to deal with a
tragedy and the City needs that retention; the City wants those dedi-
cations, as has been agreed upon in the original settlement in 1979.
She wanted to know what is holding the two dedications up!
Mr. Bryan apologized for not introducing his people from F & R and then
proceeded with his introduction: Mr. Charlie Jacobson, Mr. Robert Haber,
Attorney, Mr. Gene Lozano with Carnahan Engineers, Jim Field with
Carnahan Engineers, James Holland who is in-house planning director for
F & R and Mr. Martin Reefs of F & R.
Mr. Bryan referred to V/M Massaro's question about the conveyance of
the canal rights -of -way and referred Council to Page 8, paragraphs 17
and 18--paragraph 17 deals specifically with the canal dedications and
excavation thereof --paragraph 18 addresses the pending land swap
presently being negotiated between F & R and Leadership Housing. They
are presently proposing th at Tracts, 4, 12, 17 and the remaining
portion of 28 which contain 20.5 acres, thatthey be swapped for Tract
24 which contains 20.01 acres. Leadership would then end up with
title to Tract 24 and F & R would have 4, 12, 17, and 28 which he
indicated on the Land Use Plan Map; this would round off and complete
the packaging of a number of parcels in a much more sensible fashion
than from the standpoint of site -planning and land development--12,
of course, is the key parcel in the discussion of the canals. They
already had the HLR agreement with the excavation of the canal on
Tract 2 and that is under construction. The other three canals were
to have been on Tracts 12, 13A, and 13, and they have submitted an
exhibit that does two things: 1. It delineates the physical location
of those existing drainage ditches that have been dug for several years.
2. It also shows the proposed location of 50' canal rights -of -way
that will either be directly on top of those in the case of one, or
in a slightly different location because of good planning judgement
or the location of adjacent roadways, etc.
In paragraph 17, they are saying that they would like the canal.
excavated to the standard City design criteria with side slopes, etc.
and when the excavation is completed, they would like it placed adjacent
to those canals and off of the berm and bank area. There has been some
question as to whether the excacation of these canals would entitle the
owner of the property to the 5% retention credit and the 1979 Leadership
agreement does appear to say to him that they would be entitled up to
2.2 acres of credit; the simple excavation of thesethree canals will not
come up to 2.2 acres, but there should be a credit for that and there
will be the remaining burden to complete the 5% retention as it would
relate to the site, eg., if they had 30 acres there and they had to
have 1.5 for retention, which is 5%, then if these canals did not come
up to the 1.5, then they would hay.e> to continue in their site -planning
efforts to provide that additional amount.
-2- March 5, 1981
/pe
C/M Disraelly asked
City's expense? He
57o?
if heisrequesting that these canals be dug at the
further asked if he is expecting credit for that
Mr. Bryan said, "Yes, that is the way the agreement reads now."
V/M Massaro indicated that she was not aware of this and mentioned
that she has consistently stated that there would be no credit for
the canal excavations.
Mr. Bryan stated this is what is in the agreement, the 1979 Leadership
Agreement on Page 5, Paragraph A, and he proceeded to read that para-
graph.
V/M Massaro said that regardless of that aspect, it was discussed at
the last meeting, and Council made it very clear; they wanted those
dedications --she discussed this with Mr. Reifs, but it actually has
nothing to do with giving the City dedications; the credit is a
separate thing that Council has to look into, butthey need and want
those dedications.
Mr. Bryan indicated that this has to be reduced to an agreement; they
cannot simply give the City a deed to a piece of land with no under-
standing or certainty as to what it may or may not include --there is
a question of retention credit, of whether or not they would lose the
units of density.
V/M Massaro indicated that their legal position is not going to change;
but the fact that we want the dedications, is a very simple matter.
Mr. Birken corrected Mr. Bryan's statement in reference to his being
involved in discussions on this particular point, because this is not
correct.
Mr. Bryan described what they have in the back-up package; an exhibit
sketch that shows existing drainage ways as Exhibit G, it also shows
the legal descriptions of these properties to be conveyed, a copy of
a quick -claim deed and they are prepared, and the canals had been a
major point of discussion --they know the City is anxious to get this,
as the rainy season will be upon us shortly and feel this will be
accomplished long before that; they are dealing with something that
was inherited. He feels that Paragraph 17 does specifically deal with
the question.
V/M Massaro stated that she doesn't want it to be part of this agree-
ment; she wants the dedications of those two canals --we can wait for
the third one, as they are in the process of an exchange. We must
address ourselves to the fact as to what would happen if the deal falls
through --that has to be in the agreement as regards to Tract 12 and
how long the City will have to wait for this, but 13 and 13A have to
be looked at by Mr. Birken; those documents have to be brought in.
Mayor Falck asked V/M Massaro if she is proposing that the dedications
be brought in immediately and V/M Massaro indicated that is right.
Mr. Bryan indicated that they can remove Paragraph 17 from this Stipu-
lation and make it as a separate item;they cannot convey a quit -claim
deed for those described properties, as we must all understand exactly
what this all means.
Mr. Birken indicated that both Paragraphs 17 and 18 should come out
of the Stipulation.
C/M Disraelly referred to Paragaph 18,in that Tract 24 is going to be
reduced, but the City doesn't have an agreement on Leadership's part
that it will be reduced from 15 to 11.77.
WGIN
March 5, 1981
/pe
V/M Massaro stated that the City has to protect itself so that
our rights have not been given away as they are against Leadership;
if the whole thing falls through, she wants to make sure that in this
Stipulation we are still in a position to indicate to Leadership that
they have a responsibility and the City wants those dedications.
Mr. Bryan indicated that they will draft a separate document removing
Paragraph 17, but that Paragraph 18 will have to be addressed later.
Mr. Bryan proceeded to discuss Draft No. 3 of the Stipulation as
follows:
Page 1, Paragraphs 1)and 2)simply describe the parties involved and
make reference to an Exhibit A which would be legal descriptions of
all the parcels involved in Sections 5 and 6.
Page 1, Paragraph 3)makes reference to certain representations regarding
zoning requirements as to the maximum types of limitations of no more
than four stories or five stories, one story to be utilized for park-
ing, etc. They have subsequently in another paragraph indicated that
they will restrict the height to a maximum of three stories.
Page 2, Paragraph 4)- is consistent with everything else they are doing
in the City in an R4A zoning district; the most similar examples of
that would be Lime Bay, The Greens and Rokest and developments within
the Colony West Golf Course.
V/M Massaro indicated that in the middle of the page on Page 2, "All
of the above -described Orders determine the present rights and obliga-
tions of F & R, its successors and assigns to develop the real property
described on Exhibit "A" hereto." --the word "present" should be
removed in accordance with Mr. Birken's suggestion.
Mayor Falck stated that we are not going to try and re -write this and
Mr. Bryan indicated that some of Mr. Birken's comments are obvious
and they might want to address them as they might relate to matters of
zoning, etc.
V/M Massaro referred to a paragraph in the Land Use Plan on Page 2
and Mr. Birken indicated that the Broward County Land Use Plan which
is mandated by State law and the County Charter, requires that before
a development permit may be issued, the City has to make certain find-
ings concerning adequate water, adequate sewer, adequate drainage,
police protection, fire protection, etc. and while F & R has the right
to build at some point in time, if they were to come in with a site
plan for the full 5000 units, the City would not be able to provide
the necessary services and there has to be some recognition of the
City's right to say, yes you may build, but you may not build until
services are provided and as are required by not only the City Land
Use Plan, but by the County Land Use Plan. if there is a problem in
this regard that the developer has, we may not be able to compel him
to agree to that, but Broward County will have to be advised when it
becomes time to review the plat, and they will be dealing with the
County rather than the City. There needs to be some sort of recogni-
tion on the part of the developer that the City has to apply reasonable
standards and the developer will be bound by those standards.
Mr. Bryan indicated that he agreed with everything Mr. Birken said,
but if they follow this logic, they may find themselves inserting into
the body of this document, all of the Development Review regulations
and standards of the City of Tamarac; just because they are silent in
this Stipulation, it is not a representation that they will not abide
by them.
Page 2, Paragraph 5 - They are seeking to eliminate 76-25 which requires
the posting of Letters of Credit or sub -division improvement bonds
prior to City Council approval of final site plan and was included in
the 1976 Weissing order. Under 76-44, developers are allowed to post
bonds and pay fees, etc. only prior to a development permit.
March 5, 1981
/pe
�J
1.77
Page 3, Paragraph 6) - They have made reference to Ordinance 78-48
and it will be attached as an Exhibit and has exceptions, a) through
j)•
(Tape a) C/M Disraelly indicated that on line 7, after "private streets"
#2) to put a comma, "if any" and Mr. Bryan said they had no
problem with that.
b) This refers to the fact that no permit shall be required from
the South Florida Water Management District for surface water
management permit; this is based on the fact that the City of
Tamarac presently has the operational permit for what was
formerly the Sunset Drainage District. They would recognize
and would be willing to add language that in the event that the
permit is pulled or taken away from the City or some other
jurisdiction is involved, the City could no longer represent
that; they are saying that, presently, based upon the regula-
tions that exist, there is no requirement for one and if Mr.
Birken would like to suggest some language, we can work with
his office.
V/M Massaro said that when they address the question of the 5% credit
for those canals, they have to give us the information from the com-
puter runs whether it was determined that those areas were included
in the computation determining the percentage that the City had to
have people retain --she wanted to know whether they had included that
as totally excavated?
Mr. Bryan stated that all the computer runs did was calculate the
amount of gross waterway area that was required and from that stand-
point there were some manual tabulations which calculated existing
waterways.
V/M Massaro asked if this was considered existing waterway and she
asked Mr. Bryan to contact Mr. Tony Nolan on this.
c) This speaks basically to Paragraph a) above; it was in the
agreement for Woodmont and they felt that it should be
recited again.
V/M Massaro agreed that it was in the stipulation for Woodmont; this
is not what everybody is allowed to do. All they are allowed to do
now is to clear and grub their site; this is a concession.
Mr. Bryan said an obvious benefit to the City would be to allow them
to begin excavation of the waterways to the property line, as this will
be a very time-consuming process and under the present regulations, they
couldn't do that. They would need approvals.
V/M Massaro mentioned that they will have to come in and get a permit
and pay fees before getting County approval of the plat.
C/M Disraelly clarified that they can start digging the canals with no
vested interest or rights at this time.
d) This relates to improvements that may or may not be necessary
in the existing roadway system in Sections 5 and 6. He
indicated on the Land Use Map that he is referring to N.W.
100th Ave. north and south, 77th Street east and west, 100th
Terrace, 110th Ave., etc. These are the existing roadways
that will service all of their tracts that will be developed.
Those roads are in and have been in, and been in use for quite
a number of years; they were developed by Leadership Housing.
He stated he knows for a fact that they are not on the tax
rolls as belonging to Leadership. They are suggesting that
there will be certain responsibilities of F & R Builders for
improvements within those already constructed rights -of -way.
They have further indicated as shown on Exhibit F the turn-
outs and deceleration lanes, etc. There would be curb pro-
vided at the points that are shaded. In addition to that,
-5- March 5, 1981
/pe
14
r J L
since 100th Avenue is the major thoroughfare, they will provide
continuous curbing along the entire length as it abuts their property.
In the event they find the tract where Lennar or F & R is on one
side and would therefore be required to provide curbing, but they are
not on the other side, and there is already an existing development,
then they would put curb on the other side; on both sides. They will
be required to place it on their side and would be required to put
curb on the other side where they are adjacent or opposite an existing
development which would be the Isles of Tamarac.
Mr. Birken mentioned the sketch that is Exhibit F; he believes that
this is an area covered by the proposed County ordinance.
Mr. Bryan indicated that the County requirements only exist on thorough-
fares, and this street is on a thoroughfare and they recognize this
requirement; on Tract 1, they did not require any curbing on the median.
C/M Disraelly asked how far back they will go parallel on the bull -nose?
Mr. Gene Lozano indicated that the City ordinance does show an 8' taper
beyond the PC's and PT's and that would not be any problem to comply
with; the drawing isn't a detailed one. The templet shown in the City
Ordinance does go back 8' at a 100' radius; this could be established
with the details.
Mr. Bryan went to the blackboard to indicate that perhaps there could
be an additional area of 25' where it could taper out and he hasn't any
objection to that if F & R doesn't.
V/M Massaro asked about the existing medians within the tracts and
stated that they have to be curbed.
Mr. Bryan indicated that this is already required in Ordinance 78-48
if he is not mistaken.
V/M Massaro stated that the City has been requiring everyone to do
this even though it is not in the ordinance.
Mr. Keating explained that Ordinance 78-48 says that medians shall be
constructed in accordance with the standard roadway sections and shows
the medians being curbed and doesn't show them uncurbed.
V/M Massaro felt that this should be put in the stipulation, so the
City doesn't have to interpolate anything.
Mr. Bryan indicated that they will add some additional language in
Pararaph d) that covers new medians and islands that will be constructed
within a tract and the length of these, whether it is 82, or 91, or
whatever the case may be.
d) If any additional catch basins are necessary, they would be
installed and would tie in to the internal drainage system
within that given tract to provide new additional drainage.
If it can be done on a tract by tract basis, so that an
additional 200' or 300' can be run out to the public right-
of-way and pick up a new pair of catch basins, then they
can go ahead and speak to and resolve a major portion of the
problems; we really don't know if there will be a problem now,
as there isn't anybody living on a number of those streets as
previously indicated by Mr. Keating. They have done an evalua-
tion based upon the location of the existing catch basins and
the pipe sizes and the linear distance between them with the
high and low points of the street and they have determined that
there could be a necessity for catch basins in a number of
locations; they will speak to that and provide them as necessary.
-6 March 5, 1981
/pe
r
V/M Massaro indicated to Mr. Bryan that if they build at a higher
elevation, they are responsible for proper drainage.
Mr. Bryan stated that if the elevation is built up, they definitely
will add additional catch basins.
C/M Zemel discussed the area of 103rd Avenue and 80th Street and
asked if that is contemplated as a main entrance of the project.
Mr. Bryan answered that the area would be access to the island
community and would probably be access to Tracts 12, 13A, and 13;
it will be an important street, not a major thoroughfare, but it
would generate several thousand cars per day.
C/M Zemel mentioned that 103rd Avenue is the only street that goes
into Southgate Blvd and that would become a main thoroughfare.
C/W Kelch felt that the reference to the City agreeing to obtain
credits is a very vague,ambiguous matter as mentioned throughout the
stipulation.
V/M Massaro said that this language has been used in previous agree-
ments and it means that the City has gone in and assisted so that the
developers would get the least impact fees that are possible.
Mr. Birken stated that he doesn't think this belongs in the Stipulation
as this might create an impression on the County that we are in league
with the developers.
Mr. Bryan explained that all they are asking for is that when they
agree to certain improvements, that they may be able to receive credits
at the County level; they would like to expect the City to send Mr.
Larry Keating to a meeting to indicate what the developer is doing
and if there is a better way to phrase the language, they would be will-
ing to do that.
V/M Massaro indicated that because of the language that was in the
other stipulation, Mr. Epple was able to apply the money for the
developer for work on the roads and as a result it allowed the developer
to get credit for those roads that the City required them to build.
Mr. Bryan said that in absence of that agreement, the County is liable
to say that they are not aware of the things that are required by the
City and when it must be done and it is not a question of being in
league with anyone, it is a question of cooperation.
Mayor Falck indicated that there would be a recess for five minutes.
Mayor Falck called the meeting to order.
e) Mr. Bryan referred to line 8, 4B(1) and indicated this should
also include 4B(2), because in the other agreement, 4B(2) speaks
to two and three story buildings and the side slopes require-
ment is a little bit different for one story versus two and
three story buildings.
Mr. Keating suggested that (1) in 4B be deleted.
Mr. Bryan indicated that the present Ordinance requires that
there be a minimum right-of-way of 801, and the canals couldn't
be dug unless this was in the Stipulation.
V/M Massaro that the above should be given some more thought.
Mr. Birken indicated that the method of excavation is important; there
is some blasting being done on Tracts 23 and 24 that is causing problems
-7- March 5, 1981
/pe
to the residents, and if there is going to be any blasting, ground
rules will have to be set.
Mr. Bryan indicated that the City is going to dig these three canals
and the City can dig them any way they want. They are not increasing
the depth of any other waterways; they expect that additional retention
will be obtained by simply widening the waterways, and they can be
widened without having to resort to blasting. He further discussed the
problem Mr. Lozano has had with limerock on the HLR canal on Tract 2.
V/M Massaro asked if they had brought in heavier equipment?
Mr. Lozano said the contractor has tried everthing, but to his knowledge
they have not as yet pulled in a rock -digging machine.
V/M Massaro indicated that she had insisted that the canals wasn_'t,_ deep
enough and Mr. Keating suggested that heavier equipment be brought in.
Mr. Lozano said that they haven't finished the development around there
where drainage improvements need to be done so HLR wanted to wait before
the problem of the canal was addressed.
V/M Massaro stated that hopefully they can address this better so that
everybody will be satisfied.
Mr. Bryan said he knows that they cannot blast without a permit and they
won't ask for a permit unless absolutely necessary and indicated that
equipment is available to do the job; the question of 80' versus 50'
canals can be explained in that the water level is elevation 7 and the
retention credit is down to elevation 6.3, so basically whatever width
waterway is created, they will get the surface area for credit and
further indicated that a 50' canal 100 ft. long would be the same as a
100' canal. 50' long. In this particular case in Tracts 12,13 and 13A,
in addition to the excavating of these three canals, they have already
computed that them will not be enough for the required .retention for
all of the parcels; they recognize that they may have to widen the canals.
C/M Disraelly asked to go back to d) in reference to constructing of
concrete curbing where there are median breaks and wanted to know about
restoring roads and medians when they are crossed by equipment?
Mr. Keating indicated that the City has been requesting road restoration
before there is a bond release; any damage that they would do would have
to be repaired.
Mr. Bryan mentioned that they know they will be required to make restora-
tion prior to the release of any bonds.
(Tape #3)
f) Mr. Bryan indicated that F & R shall provide for interior
pedestrian circulation by constructing 4' wide hard surface
walks from parking areas to each building, etc. Mr. Bryan
indicated on the Land Use Map where the walkways would be
proposed and referred to a requirement of Leadership Housing
in 1976 that they provide certain sidewalks on the east side
of 100th Avenue and on the north side of 77th Street; they
are saying that in addition to those two, they will provide
sidewalk on the south side of N.W. 80th Street, which is
adjacent to Westwood 24, running from N.W. 100th Avenue, which
is Nob Hill Road, west,ending at the canal at the west end of
Tract 12, making the assumption that will be an F&R parcel.
V/M Massaro asked if they will be concrete,. the City wants concrete
and they would have to be 5', not 4' on the main streets; the interior
walks could be 4'.
C/M Disraelly indicated that on line 6, the 4' must be 5' concrete walk-
ways.
-8- March 5, 1981
/pe
I
Mr. Bryan went on with e) - In addition to 80th Street as
provided for, on N.W. 71st Place, which is adjacent to Isles
of Tamarac on the south, they will provide the walkway running
west from 100th Avenue.to 110th Terrace from east to west; then
in addition to that, it will be provided along the east side of
100th Avenue, beginning at 71st Place, on 100th Avenue from
71st Place on the east side up to the canal on the north end of
Tract 23, subject to the swap; it will also be provided on the
north side of N.W. 77th Street from 100th Avenue at the City
park site,east to the canal he indicated on the Land Use Map which
is at the east end of Tract 30. In addition to this, where F & R
would propose internal walkways other than those necessary to pro-
vide access to buildings, recreation areas, etc., in certain
circumstances, in lieu of concrete valley gutters, that they would
provide additional sidewalks along those roadways --giving an idea
as to what pedestrian circulation is like and how interior drainage
would be handled. In the traditional single-family configuration,
valley gutters are probably in the best interest, because a sub-
stalXial. aMount of the site is covered with a single family lot,
with a driveway, with sidewalks, etc. In the case of a multi-
family development, units and buildings can be moved around so
that swales and grassed areas can be created to adequately handle
lateral type drainage without having to go to the regimentation
of a streetsystem with valley gutters.
C/W Kelch indicated that on the 4th line from the bottom of f), "in its
sole discretion" does not meet the same purpose and thinks this should
be addressed, as it does not take the place in all situations, of a
valley gutter, which has a specific purpose.
Mr. Bryan said they could add something to the 'effect that this would
be subject to the City Engineer's approval,; they would have to submit it
as a part of their sub -division improvements, and indicated that this is
a valid point--F & R may construct walkways, subject to City Engineer's
approval adjacent to internal roadways, etc.
V/M Massaro stated that walkways in front of multi -family residences
need sidewalks; it is not like single-family homes --people will be put
in a dangerous position by having to walk on the roads.
Mr. Bryan stated that they are asking for some latitude to do this in
lieu of valley gutters; they do not want to create valley gutters and
sidewalks.
V/M Massaro indicated that she would like to trade valley gutters for
sidewalks.
C/M Zemel stated that he wouldn't want to trade anything; if drainage
is not proper, there is going to be flooding.
V/M Massaro said that the City has had this experience and knomsthat
valley gutters decrease the time of concentration; this in itself could
contribute to drainage problems to some degree --of course, Mr. Keating
now is very strong on getting adequate size pipes for the drainage
system ---if these are not swaled, but all the drainage goes to the road,
the driveways going the same way, and catch basins are put in the right
places, there should be no drainage problems as a result of it. The
City may not be able to say to them that both have to be put in, because
the court order they are living under doesn't require sidewalks.
C/M Disraelly asked what is to prevent them from having both valley
gutters and sidewalks in certain areas?
Mr. Bryan replied that it is a question of economics.
V/M Massaro indicated that she would like to ask them to put sidewalks
in and only valley gutters where the engineer finds it is necessary.
Mr. Bryan referred to the first sentence in paragraph (f), and
-9- March 5, 1981
/pe
V/M Massaro indicated that instead of "either asphalt", she would rather
have it say just"concrete'.' -- also "shall," instead of "may."
Mr. Bryan wanted to know what was wrong with compacted rock or asphalt
for an internal walkway system?
V/M Massaro said that asphalt walkways allow grass to grow through them
and in very short order they are destroyed.
C/M Disraelly said that he thought V/M Massaro was referring to the walk-
waysin between the buildings.
Mr. Bryan explained that what they are suggesting is each parcel must have
an internal walkway system that will connect to the external walkway
system and they are trying to reserve the right to resolve the best way
as to how this will be accomplished at the time of site plan.
Mr. Charles Jacobson said there is a problem as to what the City is asking
for --there will be a series of internal walkways and it can't be continuous
walkways.
V/M Massaro said the City isn't concerned about internal walkways, but
wanted a continuous external walkway and Mr. Jacobson stated that people
do not use external walkways. V/M Massaro indicated that people definitely
do use these external walkways just as people do at the Bermuda Club.
Mr. Jacobson repeated that there will be internal circulation, but it is
a matter of how it is laid out.
V/M Massaro stated that there has to be a sidewalk to the building, and
the City is indicating a need for a sidwalk on the external road. She
further indicated that a sidwalk is needed to follow the road; she is
not concerned about internal circulation.
Mr. Bryan felt that they were all talking about the same thing and asked
if they could come back at the next meeting with a larger exhibition
and he went to the blackboard to indicate where walkways would be.
g) Mr. Bryan indicated that this is the same as in the Woodmont
agreement.
h) Mr. Bryan said that these canals are presently excavated not
to the property line in most cases and were dug as near to
vertical as possible --when they widen these canals, and dig
them back to the natural slope as required by the City, they
may not be able to dig far enough back to create a slope as
required by the City Code.
C/M Disraelly referred to the last minutes whereby "slopes may be dug"
was changed to "if slopes are dug." If it is already dug and it is
square, the City is not going to ask them to put any fill back in.
V/M Massaro referred to a previous project where the slopes were so bad
that the City required them to back up into their lot and get a decent
slope, because children need the protection, and asked if Mr. Keating
found any problem with this.
Mr. Keating indicated that they are requesting to delete the 4' shelf
that currently exists in the City standard.
C/M Disraelly mentioned that this was true only if the canal has been
previously dug and Mr. Keating indicated that he's not so sure if that
is the way he understands it.
-10- March 5, 1981
/pe
Mr. Bryan went to the blackboard and drew a diagram showing elevations
in relation to the water; they can't theoretically comply and extend
the banks to cause the shelf.
C/M Disraelly indicated that it was his understanding that there was
going to be a 10:1 slope and 32:1 slope, but then if there aren't 4'
to go out and it is already dug 2' out---
V/M Massaro said it could be backed up and Mr. Bryan showed at the
blackboard that since some of these tracts are already so narrow,
that they don't have the luxury of backing up; there won't be any room.
Mr. Keating indicated that he is only talking about a 4' differential.
Mr. Bryan said that there are some cases where the only thing they may
be able to do is not to create the ledge.
C/M Disraelly said if there is the room, they must do it the other way;
where it has been done, then they can do it.
Mr. Bryan stated that in situations where they simply excavate to the
property line, it is obviously not going to be possible to create the
shelf. He suggested that any time they excavate beyond the property
line onto the tract --the only thing they have to refer to is the Keith
and Schnars surveys.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Bryan how deep the canals were, and he replied
that they are all deep.
V/M Massaro said without that shelf and without proper grades as
required, a child could get hurt; it has to be backed up to the yard.
Mr. Bryan said that the depth of the canals didn't matter, and V/M
Massaro stated that there is a better chance of saving an individual
if the water isn't deep.
Mr. Keating went to the blackboard and showed what the problem is and
he recommended that they must analyze to see how wide -spread the
problem exists and where it does exist, over -excavate and use that
area of over --excavation as a credit for complying with the 57o retention;
the shelves are very important.
C/M Disraelly asked if Mr. Bryan knew how many there were involved and
Mr. Bryan indicated that it occurs all along the shoreline and further
mentioned that they have done a complete analysis.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Bryan to show Council on paper where the canals
have to be dug and maybe they can all work together.
Bottom of Page 4 and top of Page 5 - Discussed whether or
not they could have a 50' radius in the turn of a street
rather than 1001, and indicated what he meant on the black-
board.
V/M Massaro asked about the problem of fire engines and Mr. Bryan
replied that fire engines can negotiate that turn.
Mr. Keating indicated that he will look into this.
ii) - Asked with rights--of-way of 80' that they be allowed to
have 4-lanes with a median as present regulatioms require
at least 106' right-of-way; he mentioned that 80th Street
is an 80' right-of-way all along the south side of Westwood
24 and it has 4 lanes and a 50' median; he is only asking
to have this kind of configuration in the larger tracts, so
they can have a landscape feature, a guardhouse, etc.
-11- March 5, 1981
/pe
L- .. ._.. _.. __.
Mr. Birken mentioned that guardhouses are not allowed in the median
in the current regulations; we have not passed the ordinance to change
the density.
Mr. Bryan asked if they should assume private streets are not allowed
in Sections 4, 5 and 6? Mr. Birken indicated that under the existing
court order they are not allowed in Sections 4, 5 and 6; in Tracts
74 and 75 there is a stipulation to allowthis.
Mr. Bryan said that guardhouses on Tracts 74 and 75 were in the median;
and indicated that if they had guardhouses, they would have to be on
the side at least 13' off the pavement.
Mr. Birken suggested that reference to a guardhouse in the median belongs
in a separate paragraph and Mr. Bryan agreed to do that.
(iii.)- The best example of this was in La Foret and the
entry to Woodmont where Bomanite was proposed.
C/M Disraelly said there would have to be a stipulation that they maintain
this surface and Mr. Bryan said there would have to be an agreement from
maintenance that would be part of the Association documents.
V/M Massaro stated that this must be subject to Council and then go to
the City Engineer.
Mr. Birken suggested that the covenant about this on La Forety which set
forth the conditions,could be pulled out for reference.
Mr. Bryan indicated that the question is whether it was to be recited
in the Stipulation or would it just be subject to Council approval?
The Mayor and C/M Disraelly said they would prefer it in the stipulation,
so it is not handled separately. Mr. Bryan said they would add language
regarding maintenance and responsibility.
(Tape #4) (j)- Mr. Bryan speaks very simply to the question of the street
signs as alternate signs to those which occur in City
Standards, which are green metal with white letters.
C/M Disraelly asked if they are talking about Tract by Tract or the
entire project?
Mr. Bryan said they are suggesting in the Stipulation, Tract by Tract,
but in all likelihood as an overall project identification; any given
site plan or tract that came in might have a theme, so they could vary
somewhat.
V/M Massaro indicated that this should be subject to County approval;
the sign question is turned over to them, and this should be subject
to County approval where necessary.
Page 5, Paragraph 7) - Mr. Birken wants language in that F & R
has reviewed the City fees and acknowledges that they are
reasonable.
Page 5, Paragraph 8) - They would like to have the opportunity
to do some perimeter screening and berming along the major
thoroughfare, primarily 100th Avenue recognizing that the
County has caused them a little bit of a problem in the past
with walls. They would not want to affect the ability of
the swales with berming.
Mr. Keating indicated that there can be no berming in the right-of-
way; it must be on private property.
Page 5, Paragraph 9) - Mr. Bryan read part of this paragraph
and indicated they will seek to consolidate the rights with
-12- March 5, 1981
/pe
J
Exhibit D, which is a compilation of the various development
standards that exist in R4A. They have property that is zoned
in all three districts and they know that they are allowed to
develop all of those except for the several that are being
involved in the Leadership swap; we can develop those to 15 units
per acre and can develop them as multi --family condominiums with
more than one building on a tract of land. A point of confusion
is the existing language in the R4A district as it relates to the
requirement for a special exception when more than one structure
is on a plot or parcel of land. In the City's R4A district, there
are two different sets of regulations that deal with street set-
backs and separation between parking areas and streets rights -of -
way, etc.
They have tried to put it all down in one place --a strict inter-
pretation, and covered for all of this property.
C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Cross if under one of these zonings, 30' was
required and in another zoning 40' was required, will. 40' be used for
both zonings?
Mr. Cross indicated that he had gone over Exhibit D with Mr. Bryan and
he re -reviewed it again and he is not happy with it all and he has
some comments that will be taken up later; they are trying to put the
most strict and most reasonable zoning possible and are using R4A where -
ever possible.
Mr. Birken indicated that he has re -written the R4A regulations and they
will be distributed in the very near future; Council may want to adopt
those regulations and perhaps Mr. Bryan could agree to be bound by
that new ordinance.
Mr. Bryan indicated that this would only solve the problem for any tract
that was zoned R4A and none of these are. The R4A regulation is what
they have to develop under by virtue of other language that allows more
than one building on a site; it allows 15 units per acre and it allows
three story and as a practical matter it is R4A, but the zoning is
R3 and R3U and there has always been some question about what we use --
is it a 25' set --back, or is it a 10'? Mr. Bryan would like this reviewed
very promptly.
Page 6, Paragraph 10) - They have deleted all of the reference to
prior dedications by Leadership and prior orders and agreements
and have simply said in the first 5 or 6 lines that F & R agrees
to pay $95.00 per dwelling unit as follows: The amount of $47.50
per dwelling unit shall be paid at the time of site plan approval.
The balance of $47.50 per dwelling unit shall be paid upon the
issuance of building permits on a per dwelling unit basis. At
the last workshop, there was discussion that they desired at the
time to pay at the time of Certificate of Occupancy and the people
would be using the facilities. In the interest of a compromise,
they could come in and half would be paid when they receive site
plan approval by Council and the other half would be paid with
building permits. They would not pay for a whole tract at a time;
it would only be as they came in for a permit.
C/M Disraelly asked if it would have anything to do with phasing and
Mr. Bryan replied, "No, sir, it would not." He further indicated that
it would have to speak to whatever the overall site plan was and if
they chose to phase a site plan other than that, then it would actually
be a site plan on only a portion of a parcel.
C/M Disraelly asked if this addressed open space? Mr. Bryan indicated
that they took that out because they were not being given any considera-
tion or credit for that since it was private recreation.
-13- March 5, 1981
/pe
� r r
C/M Disraelly asked if they will be providing 3 acres per 1000 for
the County?
Mr. Bryan cam)entedthattheyWllbe required at the time of plat approval to
enter into an agreement with the County.
V/M Massaro said she felt the word "County" should come out and Mr.
Bryan stated that it cannot come out of the Stipulation, because this
is what has been discussed for many months.
V/M Massaro indicated that the City can't certify what they are doing
with the County.
Mr. Bryan said that the City can --for local parks --
Mr. Birken indicated that if their local. park dedication requirements
change during the development period, the City can certify that on
this date their local park requirements have been satisfied; the City
cannot certify that future requirements have been satisfied. The City
cannot impose any requirements legally.
Mr. Bryan mentioned that the City has a certified land use plan and
under the language regarding local parks at the County level, the City
can certify their local parks from now on, so they do not have to be
subject to any subsequent amendments to local parks at the County level.
V/M Massaro indicated that by being silent, this does not mean that
she agrees to the $47.50 per dwelling unit, but this can be addressed
later and the park certification has to be looked at.
Page 6, Paragraph 11) - Where it is underlined, this gets back
to the earlier question about the canal excavation; some tracts
are so narrow that if 5% additional retention is provided by
shaving off the edge of those tracts along the waterway, they
may be rendered useless. They would like to have the right to
go onto an opposite or adjacent tract toproviae the additional
retention and he indicated what he meant on the Land Use Plan
Map.
V/M Massaro stated that there must be different language; the City
will allow this where it is reasonable and where it is beneficial to
everyone, but the City must retain the privilege of whether the City
allows them to do this or not. She is afraid of an open paragraph.
She said this is supposed to be an even distribution of 5%.
Mr. Bryan said that is why they said opposite or adjacent tract.
V/M Massaro suggested that they show Council an exhibit of what is
required and Mr. Bryan said he doesn't see how this is possible.
Mr. Bryan indicated that they can change the language, but there are
some cases where strict adherence to the 5% rule would be very detri-
mental to some of these tracts.
C/W Kelch said she doesn't see what hold the City would have over them
if this was not developed; where they are proposing to use an adjacent
tract for water retention, then the City should at least require a
platting of that so the City will have definite indication of the area
being changed.
Mr. Bryan mentioned that he has some thoughts on that and he would like
to discuss it with F & R and bring it back to Council.
Page 7, Paragaph 12) - is self-explanatory.
Page 7, Paragaph 13) - Pertains to phasing, a developer could
take a large tract of land, site plan the entire tract based upon
--1- March 5, 1981
/pe
all applicable regulations and then come in and develop that
tract in increments, so that they would not have to put out
all of the sub -division improvement bonds and Letters of
Credit and all of the permit inspection fees and all of the
water and sewer hook --up fees in advance, but they would still
have some reasonable expectation that if it was developed in
that orderly format in accordance with that approved plan,
that the developer could go from Phase 1 to Phase 2, to Phase
3 to Phase 4 and that is the reason for Paragraphs a), b); c)
and d). He also referred to the last paragraph on Page 7 in
which they were trying to track the City's site plan Ordinance,
so that nobody would think they were trying to circumvent the
site plan Ordinance --there could be no more than one year
between the completion of the given phase and the beginning of
another one.
Mr. Birken mentioned that all the contribution charges must be paid
under our present regulations for water and sewer for phase development;
when the plan is approved, there is a schedule for take -in for the
whole plan.
Mr. Bryan indicated that in the case of a phase development, you might
have a 3-phase development that would propose a major recreation
facility in the second phase and it would not be built with the first
phase; they have prepared a whole recreation scheme for all of the
tracts ---with Phase 1., the recreation area may not be constructed, but
people would know about this when they come in.
V/M Massaro mentioned that they are not even required to build a recrea-
tion area.
Mayor Falck asked if the recreation area would be built in the first
phase before they started the second phase.
Mr. Bryan stated that as a practical matter, this recreation area would
be built first and it is also a question of the physical layout of the
tract; there should not be a completed recreation area and have con-
struction going on all around and the recreation area will be built as
soon as is practical.
Page 8; _ 1.4) , 15 ) and 16)--are self-explanatory.
Page 8,- 17) - had been discussed previously which relates to
canals,
Page $; }8) - was put in there to r epresent that there were
negotiations underway for the swap of tracts.
Page 8, 19), 20) -- Speak for themselves.
C/W Kelch asked Mr. Birken if the City was getting into the same kind
of difficulties with regard to the swap and Mr. Birken indicated that
there could be a lot of problems.
Mr. Bryan mentioned Tracts 1 and 36 with HLR, and thatwas a question of
whether or not the units were really there in the first place; there
isn't any doubt that they are here and they are hoping that Judge
Weissing would ratify this change.
C/M Disraelly asked in R3 zoning if it is going to be built at 15 units,
not 11.7 and Mr. Bryan indicated that this was correct; the only parcels
that are at 11.77 are the four Leadership tracts, 4, 12, 17 and 28 and
they are suggesting that those be changed.
V/M Massaro asked how F & R felt about the dedication of land for a
fire station?
Mr. Jacobson replied that they will consider what V/M Massaro has
suggested.
-15- March 5, 1981
/pe
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Jacobson if he would be willing to provide
smoke detectors or sprinklers and she discussed the Sabal Palm fire
and Colony Club fire. Mr., Jacobson replied that he doesn't know
at this time.
Mr. Bryan asked where they should proceed from here?
Mr. Birken said there are two things that should be considered: 1)
There was a good deal of input and perhaps they should rewrite as
much of this as they can, 2) As far as Ordinances they are seeking
relief from, they probably will not change as far as the discussions
today, so Staff has direction to proceed with an analysis of the plus
and minus factors.
Mr. Bryan indicated that they are prepared to come back at the earliest
date a meeting can be set.
Mayor Falck said that as soon as Staff tells us their part is
completed, Council can schedule a time assuming that F & R's part is
completed.
Mr. Bryan stated that they would be prepared to meet again early next
week.
Mr. Jacobson asked if it would be possible for Mr. Haber, their attorney,
to meet with the City Attorney and Mr. Birken agreed.
MAYOR FALCK ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 5:00 P.M.
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of1��S or
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.
-16- March 5, 1981
/pe