HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-26 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutesti of TA4,
FZOW P
7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321.2401
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
September 22, 1988
NOTICE OF
CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
There will be a workshop Meeting of the City Council on
Monday, September 26, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1
(Room 103), City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac,
Florida.
The subject of this meeting is the sale of City
property.
All meetings are open to the public.
Carol A. Evans
City Clerk
CAE/nr
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
TAPE 1
CALL TO
Monday,
Clerk's
PRESENTt
ORDER: Mayor
September 26,
Office).
ALSO PRESENT:
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
1988 at 3:00 P.M. in Conference Room #1 (City
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer
Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Henry Rohr
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Thelma Brown -Porter, City Planner
Janet Lander, Ruf & Carsky
Pauline Walaszek, Special Services
Secretary
City Manager Kelly said the purpose of the meeting was to
go over the proposed sale agreement and Janet Lander has
been working with the City Attorney in the negotiations
with Jeff Berkowitz. He said Mr. Berkowitz was not asked
to attend this meeting; however, Mr. Freedman was present
representing the Firm handling this matter for Mr.
Berkowitz,
Janet Lander said there were new Items to be considered
since the last time she spoke with the City Council. She
said after talking to Steve Goodman, Mr. Berkowitz's
representing Attorney, she was advised that since
planning was not required, the Developer wanted to treat
easements as dedications, meaning that the easements
would be subtracted from the net acreage of 10.43. She
said in order for her to inform the City Council of the
effect on the matter, she would need information from the
County regarding their roadway easement requirements.
Ms. Lander said the earliest this information could be
received was Friday, September 30, 1988. She said this
Item was on the Wednesday, September 28, 1988 City
Council meeting; however, it may have to be considered
for removal.
Ms. Lander said this matter was significant because if
the net acreage increased or decreased the purchase price
would do the same proportionately.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the easement could be used and
Ms. Lander said the Developer stated that he could not
build on a roadway easement; therefore, he did not want
to pay for it.
City Attorney Doody said the County could enter into an
Irrevocable License Agreement for parking on an easement
and, if parking was needed, the license could be revoked.
He said the County had to be contacted regarding the
outstanding easements.
i
Page 1 �/
9/26/88
C/M Hoffman asked if this matter would be an issue if
anyone other than the City was involved and V/M Stelzer
said he never heard of a developer not paying for an
easement.
C/M Hoffman said it seemed as though the developer was
taking advantage of the matter.
City Attorney Doody said this issue was unusual but an
agreement could be made to do this.
C/M Hoffman asked if this issue was highly unusual and
Ms. Lander said from a development standpoint, it was not
highly unusual; however, with a standard purchase and
sale agreement and based on the small parcel, it was
unusual.
Mayor Abramowitz said this matter was brought to the City
Council for consideration; therefore, it was not mandated
and Ms. Lander said if the City Council decided not to
subtract the estimates and other deductions from the net
acreage, she would convey this to the developer.
Mayor Abramowitz suggested the City Council review the
contract before making a decision.
Ms. Lander said this was only additional issue; however,
there were questions raised by the City Council to which
she would like to respond. She said there were two
existing surveys on the property, one survey was taken in
1987 covering Lots 8-15 and the other survey was done in
1988 covering undeveloped Lots 2-7. She said several
meetings ago, Mr. Berkowitz expressed his desire to have
one survey. She said this was the purpose of the survey
clause in the Agreement.
Mayor Abramowitz asked who was to pay for the survey and
Ms. Lander said according to the contract, the seller
would be responsible for the cost.
V/M Stelzer said the property has two different phases
and the City was selling it as such. He had concerns
with the developer deciding not the purchase Phase II.
Ms. Lander said the developer would be legally obligated
to purchase Phase II at the time the contract was signed
and V/M Stelzer said the developer could always breech on
an undeveloped lot.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the property was listed under
one legal description and Ms. Lander replied yes. Mayor
Abramowitz said unless the legal description was changed
to two the property was considered as one.
Ms. Lander said she would like the City Council's
permission to conform the legal descriptions for Phase I
and II, which actually reflects what the building was on
because it was not in the lease and the City would have
to pay real property tax on that portion. She said the
City should not pay on more lots than they have to. She
said the undeveloped Lots are 2-7 rather than 2-5 and she
would like this corrected in the contract.
Mayor Abramowitz asked why there were two surveys and how
much it would cost the City for the survey. Ms. Lander
said she did not know; however, she would get the
information for the City Council.
Page 2
9/26/88
V/M Stelzer had concerns with the developer receiving a
survey for both parcels as one and then deciding not to
buy the undeveloped parcels. He said there were surveys
available at this time for Phase I and II.
Ms. Lander said what the developer did ultimately could
not be determined; however, technically the developer
would legally be obligated to purchase Phase II at the
signing of the contract.
V/M Stelzer said if the developer defected in the
purchase of Phase II, the contract did not provide
penalties. He said the developer was not obligated to
pay anything for Phase II during the signing of the
contract.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if there was a Title Policy and
Ms. Lander said there was an existing Title Policy with
Lawyers Title Guarantee that would be carried over and
updated.
Mayor Abramowitz said since there was a Title Policy, Mr.
Berkowitz should pay for his own survey if he wanted one.
Ms. Lander said she would propose this if the City
Council wished and C/M Bender said the City should not be
spending unnecessary funds to satisfy the purchaser.
City Attorney Doody said he was informed that certified
copies of the surveys were not available and Thelma
Brown --Porter, City Planner, said her office had the
certified copies.
The City Council agreed that Mr. Berkowitz be informed
that the City would submit the present surveys; however,
the City would not spend the additional funds to combine
the' surveys.
C/M Rohr had concerns with the developer taking advantage
of the City because the developer knew that the City did
not have another person interested in buying the
property. He suggested the entire contract be reviewed
so that Mr. Berkowitz could be informed of the City's
concerns.
City Attorney Doody said the status of the easements was
not known. He said it may be that all of the easements
were taken when Commercial Boulevard was widened.
C/M Bender said this matter did not pertain to the money
factor; however, it was a matter of precedence. He said
he has never heard of a developer buying property without
purchasing the easements.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Ms. Lander and the City Attorney
if they heard of this and Ms. Lander replied, no.
City Attorney Doody said he was not trying to agree with
the developer's position; however, he has not heard of
this. He said this matter may be moot; however, this
would be determined when the County information was
available.
C/M Hoffman said the City Council had to decide how
anxious they were to sell the property and if the
developer decided not to go along with the City Council
and cancelled the agreement would the City be hurt.
Page 3 `�
9/26/88
City Manager Kelly said if Mr. Berkowitz was not
satisfied with the terms of the City there were other
people who expressed interest in purchasing the property.
Mayor Abramowitz suggested the City Council review the
contract and inform Ms. Lander of their concerns so she
could inform Mr. Berkowitz.
C/M Hoffman said he was being asked to Vote on this
matter at the September 28, 1988 City Council meeting and
he has not had sufficient time to review the contract
appropriately. He said he did not want to be rushed on
his decision without knowing the contents of the contract
and the ramifications of Mr. Berkowitz cancelling the
agreement.
C/M Hoffman said he heard that Mr. Berkowitz stated that
if this matter was not resolved by September 28, 1988, he
would not continue the agreement. He said this could not
be resolved by then because of the information needed
from the County.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would not Vote on the matter if
he did not understand or agree with the contract.
C/M Hoffman said the information from Broward County
would not be received until September 30, 1988;
therefore, the City Council could not Vote on this matter
at the September 28, 1988 City Council meeting. He said
it would be useless for the City Council to review the
contract at this time if Mr. Berkowitz was going to
cancel. the agreement.
City Manager Kelly said the Attorneys have worked very
hard to close this matter out before the end of the
Fiscal Year and begin the new Fiscal Year on a positive
note. He recommended that this matter be heard and Voted
on at the October 12, 1988 City Council meeting;
therefore, the contract should be reviewed so the
appropriate negotiations could take place before that
meeting.
Mayor Abramowitz said if Mr. Berkowitz was going to
cancel the agreement because the City Council could not
Vote on the matter at the September 28, 1988 City Council
meeting, it was unnecessary for the City Council to
review the contract.
V/M Stelzer said the City Council had the contract over
the weekend and they should have reviewed it so that this
matter could be expedited. He said the new issues
submitted after the contract was submitted to the City
did not have to be considered.
City Attorney Doody suggested that the City Council
recess the meeting and he would contact Mr. Berkowitz
regarding the approval of the contract by September 28,
1988.
At 3:35 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and
RECONVENED at 3:50 P.M. with ALL PRESENT.
City Attorney Doody said Mr. Berkowitz said he would be
happy to wait until the October 12, 1988 City Council
meeting for the contract. He said Mr. Berkowitz wanted
the City Council to know that he would be flexible and
work with the City on this matter.
1
1
1
Page 4 ,/
9/26/88
Mayor Abramowitz asked if City Attorney Doody mentioned
the matters regarding the easements and surveys and City
Attorney Doody said he informed Mr. Berkowitz of the
easements and the matter would be discussed further after
the information was received; however, Mr. Berkowitz
stated that he would be concerned about buying the
easements if the County was ready to take them. He said
if the City Council did not approve of the easements
being eliminated from the contract, Mr. Berkowitz did not
feel it would be a factor to cause the agreement to be
broken.
Ms. Lander asked Mrs. Brown -Porter to report on the
status of the inclusion map changes.
Mrs. Brown -Porter said in 1987, this property was rezoned
along with the City Hall. She said a request was filed
with the County to amend the future Land Use Map and a
Resolution was approved by the City Council rezoning the
property from Community Facilities to Commercial
Properties. She said the County's Planning Council had
the map from February, 1988, and did not indicate a
problem with the map until September 22, 1988.
Mrs. Brown -Porter said the County asked the County
Commission to approve the map for future and further
study. She said on September 24, 1988, she spent several
hours with the County's Planning Council questioning why
this matter was not recommended for approval until
September 22, 1988. She said the County's Planning
Commission stated that they were concerned with a strip
center being constructed on the property; therefore, she
submitted a copy of the proposed site plan which did not
indicate a strip but a change in the Lot sizes only.
Mrs. Brown -Porter said after debating the matter, the
County's Planning Council indicated that they did not
review the site plan and they were willing to send the
site plan to the State recommending approval; however,
the approval would not come back until December, 1988,
and finalized until February, 1989. She said the
County's Planning Council asked that the two City
Consulting Planners submit support documentation with the
site plan.
Mrs. Brown -Porter said she discussed this matter with the
County's Department of Community Affairs who stated that
they reviewed the City's Land Use change and Map and
found no concerns; however, they were not in the position
to recommend approval until the Planning Council reviewed
it again.
Mrs. Brown -Porter said the County's Planning Council
agreed to study this matter immediately rather than wait
the normal 30 to 45 days. She said the Planning Council
would submit the documents to the State in approximately
7 working days.
V/M Stelzer asked if the City would receive approval from
the County before October 12, 1988 and Mrs. Brown -Porter
said the City should receive the approval by October 12,
1988.
Ms. Lander said Mr. Berkowitz could not do anything on
the property until the Public Works building was
demolished; however, if the City entered into an
agreement, the property would be warranted B-w2 with the
Page 5
9/26/88
implication that Mr. Berkowitz could pull a permit for
commercial development when he was ready to develop. She
said if everything worked out as planned there would be
no problems.
Mayor Abramowitz said a presentation was made that could
not be backed up and Ms. Lander replied, potentially.
City Attorney Doody said the State could refuse the site
plan and Broward County may not include it in their Plans
which would cause the City to process a Land Use Plan
Amendment, which would take several months.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if a contingency clause could be
placed in the contract regarding the regulatory agencies
approval so the City could avoid litigation in the future
and Ms. Lander said a specific condition precedent to
closing would have to be added making the entire contract
contingent upon the approval of the State and County.
At 4:05 P.M., Thelma Brown -Porter WITHDREW from the
meeting.
At this time, the City Council began to review the
contract.
PAGE 1
V/M Stelzer said this page indicated all of the property
being sold with all of the improvements located thereon;
however, another page stated that the improvements were
to be leveled by the seller.
Ms. Lander said until the property was leveled, Mr.
Berkowitz would be owning what the City would be leasing.
V/M Stelzer had concerns with the City needing permission
from Mr. Berkowitz for leveling and Ms. Lander said the
contract indicated that leveling would be required.
V/M Stelzer asked if the City would be able to salvage
the improvements and City Attorney Doody said the
contract did not prohibit the City from recouping the
salvage.
Ms. Lander said the City would be selling the
improvements to Mr. Berkowitz and V/M Stelzer said Page 1
indicated that Mr. Berkowitz would own the improvements;
however, further in the contract it stated that the City
would clear and demolish the improvements. Ms. Lander
said she was aware that this was in the contract.
City Manager Kelly said during the discussions with Mr.
Berkowitz it was agreed that the property would be sold;
however, the City would be responsible for demolishing
and clearing the improvements unless Mr. Berkowitz wanted
to buy them.
PAGE 2
C/M Hoffman said he understood that the City would be
selling the Title property; however, the contract
indicated that the property would be sold in two phases.
He said the money received from the sale of the property
was to go for the construction of the new Public Works
Building; therefore, Capital Improvements would not be
covered.
�1
Page 6
9/26/88
Referring to Page 4, C/M Hoffman said Mr. Berkowitz had a
year to consider the purchase of Phase II after
purchasing Phase I and could decide not to purchase Phase
II without consequences. He said the money for Capital
Improvements would come from the sale of Phase II;
therefore, the City was at least 2 years away from
enjoying the money for Capital Improvements.
TAPE 2
C/M Hoffman said the public was informed that the new
Public Works Complex money would come from the sale of
the old property; therefore, the money had to be used for
that purpose only. He said the City did not have
assurance that the Phase II property would be purchased.
Mayor Abramowitz said 1.9 million dollars from the sale
of the old property would be used for the new Complex and
C/M Hoffman said the City would have to wait for two
years before purchasing Capital Equipment.
C/M Hoffman suggested Mr. Berkowitz purchase the entire
property or place a deposit for the purchase of Phase II
during the purchase of Phase I.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City was obligated to use
the money on the new Public Works Complex and City
Manager Kelly said the City was not obligated; however,
it was presented to the public that way.
Mayor Abramowitz said if the City was not benefiting from
selling the property, it should not be sold.
C/M Hoffman said he objected to the property being sold
by pieces with the option that Mr. Berkowitz could decide
not to purchase Phase II. He said he would like Mr.
Berkowitz to place a deposit on Phase II during the
purchase of Phase I.
V/M Stelzer asked if the money from the sale of Phase I
would be sufficient for the construction of the new
Public Works Building and City Manager Kelly replied,
yes.
C/M Hoffman said the Referendum stated that the money
from the sale of this property would be used for the new
Building.
City Manager Kelly said the new Complex consisted of two
projects because it involved the Utilities Department as
well as the Public Works Department. He said the
Utilities Department had their money in place but the
project could not begin without the money needed for the
Public Works Department.
Ms. Lander suggested that she be directed to ask Mr.
Berkowitz to place a deposit of $150,000.00 for Phase II
at the closing of Phase I. She said the contract was
drafted as Phase I and II, not because the developer was
having second thoughts in purchasing the entire property,
but because the developer did not want to pay the
property taxes on the entire property for the two years
that he was waiting for the City to vacate the property.
Ms. Lander said the deposit for Phase II would have to
stay in escrow until the closing of Phase II. She said
she would ask Mr. Berkowitz to place a provision in the
contract stating that a deposit for Phase II would be
required at the time of the closing for Phase I; however,
this may not take place for 6 months.
Page 7 �
9/26/88
The City Council agreed to this provision.
PAGE 3 and 4
The City Council agreed to these Pages.
PAGE 5
Ms. Lander said paragraph D "If available" should be
eliminated from the contract because the Phase II
property would be available and the City Council agreed.
C/M Hoffman asked Ms. Lander to explain what paragraph B
meant and Ms. Lander said, "All of the conditions
setforth under the Title conditions proceeding", meant
that if they did not occur or exist at the time of
closing, the developer did not have to close unless the
developer waived the failed conditions.
PAGE 6
Ms. Lander said the middle of the Page "Obtain
affirmative insurance" would be changed to indicate,
"Obtain Title Insurance".
Mayor Abramowitz said he would like a recognized carrier
of the City's choice inserted in the contract and Ms.
Lander said this would be done.
PAGE 7
V/M Stelzer asked if the survey indicated everything
listed in Section 7 and Ms. Lander said an Engineer would
have to inform her of these matters.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the survey indicated Meets and
Bounds or Lots and Blocks and Ms. Lander replied, Lots
and Blocks.
PAGE 8
V/M Stelzer asked if the zoning classification would be
changed and Ms. Lander replied, no. Ms. Lander said this
Section indicated that if the City should impose a
moratorium or restriction or, if another Government
Agency affected the intended development, the developer
had the right to back out of the closing. She said the
condition precedent would not service closing.
Ms. Lander said the Director of Public Works informed her
that an Environmental Audit for Phase I was completed and
a written report would be available next week.
Mayor Abramowitz asked how the report was and Ms. Lander
said it looked clean preliminarily.
PAGE 9
V/M Stelzer asked if $100,000.00 was agreed upon and Ms.
Lander said the limitation on the City's obligation to
finance corrective action was $100.00 and the developer
had the right to pay any excess; however, if the
developer did not agree to pay the excess, the deposit
would be returned to the developer.
Page 8/,.
1
J
9/26/88
V/M Stelzer asked if the curb cuts were being eliminated
on 57th Street and Ms. Lander said the curb cuts and
medians were set forth in the Conceptual Site Plan. Ms.
Lander said these matters were being reviewed by Broward
County.
V/M Stelzer asked if the City could restrict the curb
cuts on 57th Street and Ms. Lander said the matter would
be within the County's jurisdiction.
V/M Stelzer suggested Ms. Lander inform Mr. Berkowitz
that the City was not in favor of curb cuts on 57th
Street.
PAGE 10
Referring to the Drainage Section, Mayor Abramowitz asked
if the language "reasonably acceptable to the
purchaser.", indicated what was reasonably acceptable
would be determined by the developer.
Ms. Lander said this language did not matter because the
following sentence stated that if the developer was
obligated to pay fees and if the developer did not pay
the fees, the seller could apply them to the price of
closing.
C/M Hoffman asked if this type of procedure was used
often and Ms. Lander said this procedure was unique to
the City because only the City could impose Drainage
Retention Fees.
C/M Hoffman asked why Mr. Berkowitz should be any
different than any other developer in the City. He said
he was opposed to this clause.
The City Council asked Ms. Lander to address this matter
with Mr. Berkowitz.
V/M Stelzer said the second line of the Tenant Signage
indicated a sign could be placed for each tenant. He
said he did not want signs placed on Phase II if it was
not owned by the developer.
Ms. Lander said this was a good point. She said this
language was in the contract before the Phase I and II
plan. She said she would bring this matter to the
developer's attention.
V/M Stelzer said the fourth line from the bottom
"Mortgagees" should be eliminated and Ms. Lander said she
would insert "Leasee" in that sentence.
Referring to Section L, second line from the bottom, "No
additional Governmental restrictions or requirements
shall be contemplated or imposed which would adversely
affect purchases....", C/M Bender asked if the City
would know what constituted "adversely affect".
Ms. Lander said the developer modified this pursuant to
the Conceptual Plan and he was limited to the Plan.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would like to see "Governmental"
changed to "Municipal" and Ms. Lander said this matter
was addressed in Item K.
Page 9 �_.._
9/26/88
V/M Stelzer said Item K indicated that the City could not
change the plans and Mayor Abramowitz asked Ms. Lander to
discuss this with Mr. Berkowitz because he would like to
see it changed.
V/M Stelzer asked if the access could be restricted to
Phase I only and Ms. Lander replied, yes. Ms. Lander
said this could be restricted because the language
proceeded the switch over of the Phases.
Ms. Lander said this clause may not be needed in the
contract because Phase I contained the Public Works site
and the City may not agree to direct uninterrupted and
continuous ingress/egress of public and vehicular traffic
for the reality to Commercial Boulevard and Pine Island
Road. She said she would discuss this matter with Mr.
Berkowitz.
PAGE 13
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the correct fee was indicated
by the City Planner for the story and height on the
property.
Ms. Lander said she discussed this matter with the
Attorney and he agreed to soften the language to read,
"It is the understanding of the parties that the impact
fees should not exceed $49,000.00". She said it would
not be guaranteed to the developer that the impact fees
would be frozen.
C/M Hoffman had concerns with the developer being able to
mandate the City's new sign ordinance and he asked if
this matter could be implicated in the contract.
City Attorney Doody said each department would be asked
to review the contract and comment on those sections
which pertain to them; therefore, the Building Department
would review the sign language.
Ms. Lander said a clause should be placed in the contract
such as, "which seller represents currently does not
prohibit such signage". She said language would require
compliance to any changes.
City Attorney Doody said this matter would be discussed
with the developer.
PAGE 14
V/M Stelzer said the City should not concern themselves
with the interest. He distributed a chart of rates for
rentals. He said he would like, "The seller shall pay
the purchase of monthly rent in advance of..." and "said
sum shall be due on the first day of each month"
eliminated. He said the City may not be permitted to be
involved in the interest.
Ms. Lander said the developer was actually taking out a
mortgage for Phase I which was considered a Land Loan.
She said the purpose of the recalculation of every month
was because it would vary from month to month and the
City's interest rate would fluctuate.
V/M Stelzer said he did not want this in the contract
because the City may be accused of lending money.
Page 10
9/26/88
TAPE 3
At 4:55 P.M., City Manager Kelly WITHDREW from the
meeting.
C/M Bender said he did not agree with the variable rate.
He said the rate should be boxed in at 1% above the prime
rate.
Ms. Lander said the City would pay whatever the interest
rate was. She said this would allow the City to pay 1%
over prime even though the developer would be paying the
prime.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council was concerned with
what the prime rate would be and Ms. Lander said she
would discuss this matter with the developer.
V/M Stelzer asked if the mention of the rates being tied
into the interest rates would present a problems and City
Attorney Doody replied, no.
V/M Stelzer suggested that a clause be added stating that
the matter would be determined at the time of the signing
of the lease.
Ms. Lander said this matter may be determined at the
signing of the lease and V/M Stelzer said the rental had
to be set at the signing of the lease. C/M Bender felt
that the rules should be set at this time.
Ms. Lander said the lease would be negotiated 30 days
after the agreement was signed and City Attorney Doody
said if an agreement could not be reached at the signing
of the lease, the City had the option to walk away.
Ms. Lander asked if the City Council wanted all of this
deleted and the City Council replied, yes.
At 5:05 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz WITHDREW from the meeting
and relinquished the chair to V/M Stelzer.
PAGE 15
V/M Stelzer asked who the insurance would be payable to
and Ms. Lander said the owner of the property would buy
and insurance premium and charge the City payable to the
developer.
V/M Stelzer said the improvements would not belong to the
developer and City Attorney Doody said this matter would
have to be addressed with the developer.
Ms. Lander said the liability would be insured and the
developer was addressing comprehensive general liability.
V/M Stelzer said this would be the City's concern and Ms.
Lander said the concern would be the City's and the
developer's because the City would be using the property;
however, the owner would be the responsible party.
C/M Bender said the paragraph was not clear regarding who
would be the recipient of the proceeds from the insurance
based upon who would be paying it. He asked that this
matter be reviewed by the Attorneys.
Page 11 `/
9/26/88
PAGE 16
Ms. Lander said she would be proposing that item "ii" be
deleted. She said she wanted the developer to clarify
what "obtainable" meant.
C/M Bender had concerns with the City being tied down at
the mercy of the purchaser and Ms. Lander said the City
would not accept this type of purchase.
C/M Rohr asked if this matter could be set up to
determine if a gas station would be placed on the
property before the signing of the contract.
Ms. Lander said once the developer owned the property, he
could apply for a special exception.
C/M Hoffman said if the City denied the matter, the City
may never be able to get out of the lease.
Ms. Lander suggested this matter be made a condition of
the precedent and City Attorney Doody said the existing
contract referred to the zoning and the developer was
contemplating that a special exception be given before
the closing.
C/M Hoffman asked how this could be given before closing
when the developer did not own the land and Ms. Lander
said the City would be signing with the developer as
owner and the developer would be the contract lender.
C/M Hoffman said he did not want the City being held as a
renter because the developer was not receiving what he
wanted. He said he would go along with the developer
getting a special exception before closing; however, he
did not want the City held responsible for the matter.
Ms. Lander said she would be asking the developer to move
the obtaining of a special exception as a condition
precedent. She said the matter regarding the gas station
building permit would not be addressed because the permit
could not be pulled until the developer was ready to
build. She said this matter could be deleted.
Ms. Lander said it looked like the lots that the building
was on were Lots 8--15 and the undeveloped lots were Lots
2-17. She said she would ask the developer to have Phase
I as exhibit "A" to conform with what was developed and
undeveloped. She said Phase I would convey Lots 8--15 as
opposed to Lots 6-15 and the undeveloped Lots would be
2-7.
The City Council agreed that the undeveloped Lots be
bought on a contingent basis starting at Lot 7.
PAGES 18 and 19
Ms. Lander said Paragraph 15, "Gas Station Building
Permit" would be deleted.
With no further business, V/M Stelzer ADJOURNED this
meeting at 5:10 P.M.
Page 12
1
1
1
9/26/88
1
1
u
CAROL A. EVANS, CITY CLERK
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $153.90 or $4.28 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.
Page 13 —