Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1984-05-09 - City Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
ORIDp P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 FIRST CLASS MAIL CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: 9:00 A.M. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF TIME ALLOCATIONS - MOTIONS TO TABLE - The Chair at this time will announce those items which have been given a specific time to be heard, and will entertain motions from Council mem;ie.rs to table those items which require research. Council may agendize by majority consent matters of an urgent nature which have come to Council's attention after publication. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Law Enforcement - Presentation by Mayor Kravitz of a pro-- clamation designating May 15, 1984, as "Police Memorial Day" and May 13 - 19, 1984, as "National Police Week". 5/9- Pg. 1 Presented by Mayor to Police Chief. 2. Foster Care Month - Presentation by Mayor Kravitz of a proclamation designating May, 1984, as "Foster Care Month". 5/9- Pg. 1 Presented by Mayor. 3. Deaf Awareness Week - Presentation by Mayor Kravitz of a proclamation designating May 7 - 13, 1984, as "Shatter/Deaf Awareness Week". 5/9- Pg. 1 Presented by Mayor. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 5/9 - Pg. 2 4. PlanningCommission mmission - Discussion and possible action on: a) Acceptance of resignation of Morris Glicksman a) Accepted resignation. b) Announcement of an alternate position vacant on this committee. b) Announced vacancy; to be filled at next If anyone is interested in serving on this Commission, regular meeting. please contact the City Clerk's office for an application 5/9 - Pg 2 5. Beautification Committee -- Tem . Reso. #3067 - Discussion Reso. #R-84-135. and possible action to appoint five ( 5 ) regular members and Appointed five up to three ( 3 ) alternate members. 'regular members. 5/9 - Pg. 4 & 5 6. Public Information Committee - _Temp. Reso. #3118 - Dis-- cussion and possible action to appoint five (5) or more members from the general public and one ( 1 ) member from Council. Added City Photo & Asst C/Photog. Appointed 10 reg members. Tabled Cncl Member Appt: 7. Board of Social Services - Temp. Reso. #3119 - Discussion and possible action to appoint three ( 3 ) or more members. 5/9--Pg. 6 Reso. #R-84-137. Appointed 12. 8. Recreation Board - Temp. Reso. #3120 - Discussion and pos- sible action to appoint five ( 5 ) or more members. 5/9 _ Pg. 5 Rbso. #R-84-138. Added Pks & Fshg 9. Welcoming Committee - Temp. Reso. #3121 - Discussion and possible action to appoint up to twelve (12) members. Appointed 10. 5/9 - Pg. 6 Reso. #R--84-139 . 10. Burglar Alarm Review Committee - Temj2. Reso. #3122 - Dis- ARpointed 1.2. cussion and possible action to appoint five ( 5 ) members. 5/9 - Pg. 8 Reso. #R-84-140. Appointed .5. 11. Veterans Affairs Committee -- _Temp. Reso. #3126 - Dis- cussion and possible action to appoint five (5) or more members. PAGE TWO 5/9 - Pg. 8 Reso. #R-84-141. Appointed 9. 12. Fishing Commissioner - Temp. Reso. #3123 - Discussion and possible action to appoint a Fishing Commissioner and set forth duties. 13. City Photographer - Temp. Reso. #3124 - Discussion and pos- sible action to appoint a City Photographer and Assistant City Photographer and set forth duties. 14. Parks Commissioner - Temp. Reso. #3125 - Discussion and pos- sible action duties. to appoint a Parks Commissioner and set forth 5/9 - Pg. 2 Reso withdrawn. Appointed 2 and added to Recre- ation Board. 5/9 -- Pg. 3 Reso withdrawn. Appointed &added to Pub Info Cmte 5/9 - Pg. 3 Reso withdrawn. Apptd & added tc Recreation Board 15. Commissioners of Human Relations - Temp. Reso. #3127 - Dis- 5/9- Pg. 31 cussion and possible action to appoint up to two ( 2 ) Reso. R-84-1 2. Commissioners. Appointed 2. CONSENT AGENDA 16. Items listed under Item #16, Consent Agenda, are viewed to be routine and the recommendation will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. If discussion is desired, then the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. a) Minutes of 3/28/84 - Regular Meeting - Approval re- commended by City Clerk. b) Minutes of 4/18/84 - Special Meeting - Approval re- commended by City Clerk. c) Alan F. Ruf - Consultant City Attorney - 5/3/84 - $1,335.00 - Approval recommended by City Attorney. d) Richard S. Rubin - Consultant City Planner - Services for April, 1984 - $2,422.50 - Approval recommended by City Manager. e) Richard S. Rubin, P.A. - Tamarac Park Recreation Center - Invoice #4 - 4/30/84 - $3,130.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. f) Mitchell Ceasar - Grants Consultant - Retainer for April, 1984 - $1,250.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. g) Kruse, O'Connor and Ling - Actuaries for Employee Pensi Plan - Services in connection with actuarial valuation and report as of 10/1/83 - $5,666.00 - Approval re- commended by Tamarac Pension Board. h) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer Project 1724-1, Statement #3 4/11/84 --- Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation -- $1,150.00 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. i) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer Project 1710--15, Statement #5 - 4/11/84 - 201 Evaluatior $665.75 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. j) Authorization for the City Manager to go to bid for Tamarac Park Recreational Lighting (Upgrading of Ball - field #2, installation of tennis courts and basketball courts lighting and parking lot lighting upgrade. k) Authorization for the City Manager to secure appraisals on property abutting Tamarac Park on the south. 5/9 - Pg. 9 APPROVED a), c) through e), and g) through k). Removed b), ther APPROVED with corrections. Removed f), ther APPROVED. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL PAGE T REp g• Reso. #R-84-143. 17. Bid Award - Utilities West - Temp. Reso. #3117 -- Discussion APPROVED; bid to and possible action to award a bid for two ( 2 ) submersible Lauderdale Ser- sewage pumps and appurtenances. vices, Inc., for $3 128.00. 18. Tamarac Park - B_allfield #1 Lights - Discussion and possible 5/9 - pg. 17 action on Change Order #1 to Bid #84--10. APPROVED. 5/9 - Pg. 18 19. Summer Recreation Pro ram - Discussion and possible action APPROVED as to approve the fee schedule for enrollment, resented. 5/9 - Pg. 15 20. Sale o City Property Temp. Reso. #„ _ -- Discussion and _ Reso. ��R-84-144. possible action to accept and approve the the bid of Florida APPROVED FP&L Power & Light Company for a parcel of land, offered for sale bid of by the City at public auction, located on the north side of $114,000.00. Southgate Boulevard, approximately 1,200-feet east of NW 88 Avenue, and containing 2.89 acres. 5/9 - pg. 10 Added b). 21. Florida Municipal Health Trust Fund - Discussion and pos-' Nominated Mayor sible action on the nomination of Mayor Kravitz to the Board to both a)&b) . of Trustees. b) Nomination of Mayor Kravitz to Compensation Board. (Agendized by Consent) 22. Broward League of Cities Business - Discussion and possible 5/9 - Pg. 10 action. -Report by Ma or. 5/9 - Pg. 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2:00 P.M. P. H. Held. Action TABLED 23. Board and Committee Member Absenteeism - Temp. Ord_ . #1095 - for C/M Munitz Discussion and possible action to amend Section 2-11.2 of to meet with the Code pertaining to absenteeism of appointed board and City Attorney to committee members. Second Reading. Ord. -prepare 5/9 - Pg. 23 24. Armor Piercing Ammunition_- Temp. Ord. #1096 -.Discussion P. H. Held. and possible action to repeal Section 17-16 of the Code Ord. #0-84-24. entitled "Possession of "KTW Bullets", as required by State APPROVED on Statute. Second Reading. Second Reading. 5/9 -- Pg. 23 25 Sister City Committee - Temj2. Ord. #1111 - Discussion and P. H. Held. possible action to create Section 2-47 of the Code to Ord. #0-84-23. establish the Sister City Committee to promote the Sister APPROVED on City Program. Second Reading. Second Readin . 5/9 - Pg. 24 26. Land Use Amendment - Petition #4-LUA-84 - Ord. #1112 -P. 14. Held. _Temp. Discussion and possible action to change the Land Use Ord. #0-84-25. designation of a parcel of land containing approximately APPROVED on 14.814 acres and located on the north of Sunshine Plaza .'.and Second Reading. west of the Commercial Shopping Plaza on State Road 7, from Commercial to Low/Medium Residential. Second Reading. 5/9 - Pg. 25 27. Sabal Townhouse Development Corporation - Rezoning Petition P. H. Held. #11-Z-84 -- Temp. Ord. #1115 - Discussion and possible action ) ACCEPTED. to rezone lands located on the west side of NW 46 Avenue ) APPROVED on and north of NW 59 Street from R-4A (Planned Apartments) to 7irst Reading. S-1 (Recreation/Open Space). First Reading. a) Acceptance of Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Affidavit of Posting. b) Consideration of application. /9 - Pg. 26 28. Tamarac Associates - Rezoning Petition #13-Z-84 - Temp. Ord.'. H. Held. #1116 - Discussion and possible action to rezone the re- ) ACCEPTED. creation area for a proposed residential development to he ) APPROVED on known as Tamarac Point and located at the southwest corner 7irst Reading. of Parcel "A" of Mainlands of Tamarac Lakes Unit 15, approximately 200-feet east of the Vanguard Village Club- house, from RM-10 (Planned Apartments) to S-1 (Open Space/ Recreation). First Reading. a) Acceptance of Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Affidavit of Posting. b) Consideration of application. PAGE FOUR o grant - Teem 5/9 P.H. He 26 Reso. #3129 - Discussion and possible actin 29. Domino's Pizza Special Exception Petition # n to grant a P. H. Held. special exception to permit a take-out pizza restaurant in Reso. #R-84-145. Bay 14 of Three Lakes Plaza, 3130 West Commerical Boulevard, APPROVED. zoned B-2 (Planned Business). 30. Domino's Pizza - S ecial Exception Petition #12-Z-84 - Temp. 5/9 - Pg. 27 Reso. #3130 - Discussion and possible action to grant a P. H. Held. special exception to permit a take-out pizza restaurant in DENIED. Bay 2 of Swanson West Plaza, 8433 West Commerical Boulevard, zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business). LEGAL AFFAIRS 31. City Council Agenda Procedures - Temp. Reso. #3136 - Dis- cussion and possible action to amend Resolutions 84-34 and 84-122 regarding pre -agenda workshop meetings. 32. Law Advisory Committee - Tem . Ord. #1099 - Discussion and possible action to repeal Resolution 77=18 (Code Advisory Committee) and to create Section 2-46 to provide for a Law Advisory Committee. First Reading.A tabled from 4/11/84). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33. Woodmont Tracts 69/77 - Cypress at Woodmont - Discussion and possible action on: a) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the 300--foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Develop- ers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84) 34. Southgate Gardens East/Mission Lakes - Discussion and pos- sible action on: a) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Develop- ers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84) 35. _Toll Development Corporation - Land Use Plan Amendment - Petition #2-LUA-84 - Temp. Ord. #1100 - Discussion and pos- sible action to change the Land Use designation of a. parcel of land 400--feet in width by 400-feet in depth located on the north side of Westwood Drive, approximately 400-feet east of Nob Hill Road, from lnstitutional to Residential Medium (15 DU/AC). Second Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/25/84). 36. Toll Development Corporation - Rezoning Petition #8-Z-84 - Temp. Ord. #1101 -- Discussion _ ssion and possible action to rezone lands on the north side of Westwood Drive, approximately 400-feet east of Nob Hill Road, from I-1 (Institutional) to R-4A (Planned Apartment). Second Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/25/84). 37. Toll Development Corporation - Rezoning Petition #9-Z-84 - Tem Ord. #1102 - Discussion and _� possible action to rezone lands on the north side of proposed Commercial Boulevard and on the east side of proposed Nob Hill Road, from A-5 (Agricultural/Excavation) to B-3 (General Business) utilizing the 5% flexibility rule for commercial develop- ment in residential land use area not to exceed 9.09 acres. First Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/11/84) (tabled from 4/25/84). 5/9 - Pg. 10 Reso. #R-84-146. APPROVED for Mayor to change but not cancel Pre -Agenda Mtgs. 5/9 - Pg. 11 APPROVED on First Reading. 5/9 - Pg. 42&44 a) Authorized to continue Sales Office until 5/23/84. b) Auth C/Atty to call, default & proceed as necessary. 5/9 - Pg. 43&45 a) Authorized to continue Sales Office until 5/23/84. b) Auth C/Atty to call default & Proceed as necessary. 5/9 - Pg. 42 TABLED to next meeting for further info from C/Atty. 5/9 - Pg. 36 TABLED to;next meeting for further research by C/Atty. 5/9 - Pg. 32 APPROVED on First Reading, with condition. Ordinance to be sent to Planning Commission before Second Reading. PAGE FIVE 38. Canal Reservation - Temp. Reso. #3131 - Discussion and pos- 5/9 - Pg. 32 Bible action on a request from South Florida Water Manage- Reso. #R-84-147. ment District to release a canal reservation on a parcel of APPROVED. land on the north side of Westwood Drive, east of Nob Hill Road. 39. Woodmont Tract 48 -- Discussion and possible action on: a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3109 5/9 - Pg. 31 TABLED a) b) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement through e) . c) Warranty Deed for right-of-way on NW 85 Avenue - Temp. .Reso. #3110 d) Blanket Water and Sewer Utility Easement - Temp. Reso. #3111 e) Blanket Ingress and Egress Easement - Temp. Reso. #3112 (tabled from 4/25/84) (to be located on NW 85 Avenue, south of Southgate Boulevard between NW 88 Avenue and University Drive). 40. Springlake II - Revised Site Plan -- Temp. Reso. ' .#3132 - Dis- 5/9 - Pg. 13 Reso. #R-84-148. cussion and possible action on a revised site plan reflect- APPROVED revised ing an increase of 1-foot outside the envelope on certain Site Plan. lots. 5/9 - Pg. 14 41. Ashmont - Revised Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3133 - Discussion Reso, #R-84-149. and possible action on a revised site plan to reflect APPROVED. addition of meter rooms. 5/9 - Pg. 14 42. Tamarac Gardens - Administrative Home Warranty Service APPROVED renewal_ Office - Discussion and possible action to renew a permit and waived dis- for this facility and waiver of the 300--foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. tance require - ment for C/O. 43. Woodmont Tracts 74/75 - Revised Site Plan#4 - Temp. Reso. 5/9 - Pg. 14 #3134 - Discussion and possible action on revision to Site Reso. #R-84-150. Plan #4 to reflect changes to certain meter room locations and increase in building separation from 30-feet to 40-feet APPROVED, as conditioned. in the distance of Building L from Building H. 44. Exxon Service Station - Discussion and possible action to 5/9 - Pg. 21 approve a landscape plan for a station to be located at the APPROVED. southwest corner of Southgate Boulevard and NW 88 Avenue (tabled from 12/28/83). 5/9 - Pg. 21 45. Broward County Trafficwa s Plan - Discussion and possible Authorized Mayor action on two amendments to this plan: to reply to a) NW 64 Avenue, from Commercial Boulevard to NW 44 Street, County, asking .from six lanes to four lanes. for 6-month b) NW 44 Street, from Rock Island Road to NW 64 Avenue, fromdeferral. four lanes to two lanes. 5/9 - Pg. 19 46. Woodview Tract 38 - Discussion and possible action on: a) DENIED. a) Renewal of model sales permit b) Authorized b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Develop- City Attorney to ers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84 ) prepare documen- tation for default. 47. Fairways III - Discussion and possible action concerning 5/9 - Pg. 20 payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Auth C/Atty to Agreement. proceed with cancellation. 48. Lake Colony (Brookwood Gardens) - Model Sales Facility-� - _ 5/9 Pg. 20 Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit APPROVED renewal and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. and waiver of distance re mt. 5/9 - Pg. 20 49. Woodmont Tract 71 - Model Sales F_a_cility - Discussion and APPROVED subj to possible action to renew a mode]. sales permit and waiver of receipt of the 150-foot distance requirement for Certificates of $444.85 by 5/1.2. Occupancy. PAGE SIX 50. Lakes of Carriage Hills - Model Sales Facility - Discussion 5/9 -Pg. 21 and possible action to renew a model sales permit for a APPROVED. facility located at 6180 Rock Island Road. 51. Three Lakes Plaza - Sign Waiver - Temp. Reso. #3135 - Dis- 5/9 -Pg. 14 cussion and possible action to waive the provisions of the Reso. #R-84-151. sign ordinance for a permanent wall sign with additional APPROVED. non -conforming signage. 5/9 - Pg. 7 Report by C/Eng. 52. Drainage Improvements in the City - Discussion and possible No action re 'd. action. REPORTS 5/9 - Pg. 21 No Report. 53. City Council 5/9 - Pg. 21 No Report. 54. City Manager 5/9 - Pg. 21 No Report. 55. City Attorney City Council may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. CITY OF TAMARAC Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk WORKSHOP MEETING Tuesday, May 22, 1984 - Workshop Meeting - 10:00 A.M. - Council Chambers - Review of the Emergency (Burglar) Alarm Ordinance 'Following are the residential and commercial zoning districts in the City: R-1 - Single Family Residence B-2 - Planned Community Business R-lB & B-3 - General Business R-IC - One -Family Dwelling B-5 - Limited Business District R-2 - Two -Family Dwelling B-6 - Business District RD-7 - Two -Family Dwelling S-1 - Open Space/Recreational R-3U - Row House I-1 - Institutional R-3 - Low Density Multiple Dwelling M-1 - Light Industrial RM-5 - Residential Multi -Family M-2 - Medium Industrial Dwelling A-1 - Limited Agricultural RM-10 - Planned Apartment A-5 - Agricultural/Excavation R-4A - Planned Apartment T-1 - Trailer Park District R-5 - Motel/Hotel B-1 - Neighborhood Business PAGE SEVEN 56. Tamarac Wildlife Preserve. - Discussion and possible action on: 5/9 - Pg. 29 a) Deleting the following items from the State of Florida Department of ) APPROVED Natural Resources FRDAP Grant 11-62-22 description of project deletion of (1) elements: and (2). (1) Dredging and filling of land ) Authorized (2) Resloping of selective canal banks City Officials b) Authorizing the appropriate City Officials to enter into an agreement to enter into with A. D. Cacaro for excavation and canal bank sloping in exchange agreement with for fill from project. A. D. Cacaro. (Agendized by Consent) CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 9, 1984 Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to order I on Wednesday, May 9, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., in the Council Chambers; and announced that a reconvened meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 14, 1984, at 1:00 P.M., if needed. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein Councilman John J. Dunne Councilman Raymond J. Munitz Councilman Jack Stelzer ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans City Attorney, Jon M. Henning Assistant City Clerk, Carol Evans Secretary, Carol Thrasher MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for a moment of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Law Enforcement - Presentation by Mayor Kravitz of a proclama- tion designating May 15, 1984, as "Police Memorial Day" and May 13 - 19, 1984, as "National Police Week". SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Proclamation presented by Mayor Kravitz to Police Chief Joseph McIntosh. Mayor Kravitz presented a proclamation to Police Chief Joseph McIntosh, designating May 15, 1984, as "Police Memorial Day" and May 13 - 19, 1984, as "National Police Week". Mayor Kravitz expressed his and the Council's'.pride in the City's Police Department and its Chief. Chief McIntosh advised that "Police Week" is designated yearly and was started by President Kennedy in 1962. Be stated that approximately 100 police officers die in the line of duty every year; and that he appreciates the thoughtfulness of this Proclamation. 2. Foster Care Month - Presentation by Mayor. Kravitz of a proclama- tion designating May, 1984, as "Foster Care Month". SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Proclamation presented by Mayor Kravitz to Mr. Hank Breitenkam, representing Nova University. Mayor Kravitz presented a proclamation to Mr. & Mrs. Hank Breitenkam, representing Nova University's Foster Parent Project, designating the Month of May 1984, as "Foster Care Month". Mr. Breitenkam thanked the City on behalf of Foster Parents in Tamarac and the County. 3. _Deaf Awareness Week - Presentation by Mayor Kravitz of a proclama- tion designating May 7 - 1.3, 1984, as "Shatter/Deaf Awareness Week". SYNOPSIS OF ACTION by Mayor Kravitz to a Fort Lauderdale Quota Proclamation presented representative of the Club. Mayor Kravitz presented a proclamation to a representative of the Fort Lauderdale Quota Club, designating May 7 - 13, 1.984, as "Shatter/Deaf Awareness Week", and urged the meaningful observance of this week. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 4. Planning Commission — Discussion and possible action on: a) Acceptance of resignation of Morris Glicksman, b) Announcement of an alternate position vacant on this committee. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Accepted resignation; b) Announced vacancy to be filled at next regular meeting. a) In reply to C/M Dunne, Mayor of resignation has been received MOVED to accept Mr. Glicksman's SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Kravitz advised that a letter from Mr. Glicksman. C/M Dunne resignation. Vice Mayor Stein b) Mayor Kravitz announced the vacancy of an alternate position on this committee. C/M Munitz asked whether appointment could not be made at this time, rather than announce an opening since many appli- cations are already on hand. Mayor Kravitz stated that announcing the vacancy prior to appointment gives the public an opportunity to file for that vacancy. The appointment will be made at the following meeting. 5. Beautification Committee - Temp._Reso. #3067 -- Discussion and possible action to appoint five (5) regular members and up to three (3) alternate members. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Appointed five (5) RESOLUTION NO. R-84- 13.E PASSED regular members - Florence Bochenek, Morris Landman, Nick Camerano, William Sutter, & Seymour Stein; and three (3) alternates - Howard Kusnick, Lynn Redfield, & Brewster Hoffman. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3067, by title. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to nominate as regular members: Florence Bochenek,Morris Landman, Nick Camerano, William Sutter, and Seymour Stein. He advised that these names have been recommended by the current Chairperson. For alternate positions, Vice Mayor Stein nominated Brewster Hoffman, Lynn Redfield, and Howard Kusnick. C/M Dunne SECONDED the nominations. Hearing no other nomina- tions, Mayor Kravitz stated that the vote would be for the entire slate. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3067, inserting the five names as regular members and the three names as alternate members as has been approved in the prior motion. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. City Attorney Henning requested that Items 12, 13, and 14 be addressed before Item 6 because he will be suggesting that some of these appoint- ments be assigned to Committees. 12. Fishing Commissioner - Temp. Reso. #3123 - Discussion and possible action to appoint a Fishing Commissioner and set forth duties. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Resolution withdrawn. Appointed two (2) Fishing Commissioners, to be added as members to the Recreation Board. (see page 5) City Attorney Henning referred to his memo to Council which suggested that in order to be more closely aligned to the Charter, the Fishing Commissioner, City Photographer, Assistant City Photographer, and Parks Commissioner should be included in committees. He stated that the Charter provides for the creation of committees and not individual positions and in discussion with the Mayor and various Council members, -2- 5/9/84 /cmt it was suggested that the Fishing Commissioner and Parks Commissioner be included in the Recreation Board and that the City Photographer and Assistant City Photographer be included in the Public Information Committee. The City Attorney recommended that the resolution should be withdrawn from the agenda. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED that Temp. Reso. #3123 be withdrawn from the agenda. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Florence Bochenek, Beautification Committee Chairman, asked if adding these positions to the resbective committees would increase the number of members appointed. Mayor Kravitz advised that the resolutions for the various committees list only the minimum number of appointees, not maximum. Mayor Kravitz asked for nominations for Fishing Commissioner. C/M Stelzer asked what the Fishing Commissioner has done in the past year. Mayor Kravitz stated that he knows of no reports from the Fishing Commissioner this past year, but he was not asked to do anything. However, under the present administration, he will be asked to do specific jobs. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to nominate Irving Epstein and Murray Greenberg. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz confirmed with City Attorney Henning that these two appointments would now be added to the Recreation Board. 13. City Photographer - Temp. Reso._#3124 - Discussion and possible action to appoint a City Photographer and Assistant City Photographer and set forth duties. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Resolution withdrawn. Appointed Sam Tepper as. City Photographer and -Norman Karr as Assistant. These appointees are to be included in the Public Information Committee. (see pages 4 & 5) Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to withdraw Temp. Reso. #3124. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz asked for nominations for the City -Photographer and stated that this appointee will be a member of the Public Information Committee. Vice Mayor Stein nominated Sam Tepper as the City Photographer and Norman Karr as his Assistant. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 14. Parks Commissioner - Temp. Reso. #3125 - Discussion and possible action to appoint a Parks Commissioner and set forth duties. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Resolution withdrawn. Appointed Norman Karr as Parks Commissioner. Mr. Karr will be included in the Recreation Board. (see page 5) C/M Munitz. MOVED to withdraw Temp. Reso. #3125. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Munitz nominated Norman Karr for Parks Commissioner. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -3- 5/9/84 /cmt 6. Public Information Committee - Temp. '.eso. #3118 - Discussion and possible action to appoint five (5) or more members from the general public and one (1) member from Council. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Added City Photographer RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED and Assistant as members, and appointed 10 additional members. Appointment of Council member TABLED. (Cr?a Page 5) City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3118, by title. Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if the member to be appointed by Council would be a regular member or a liaison, since this was ruled illegal in a previous meeting. City Attorney Henning suggested that this appointee be an ex-officio member. When questioned by Mayor Kravitz whether the appointment could be liaison, the City Attorney replied that unless provided by law, Council Members could not hold dual office. He believes that a Council Member should be appointed to this Committee and that it is Council's prerogative to designate that member as ex--officio, with no voting rights. He said this would not be in conflict with the State Law. When questioned from the public regarding an appointment from the Charter Board, Mayor Kravitz advised that the resolution does not involve such Board appointments. The Charter Board has the privilege of appointing to the committee. Mayor Kravitz confirmed that Council could legally appoint an ex-officio member to this Committee and called for nominations. Vice Mayor Stein stated that he feels Council should go on record to request that this member be ex-officio. It is not required by Charter, and according to the Charter, Council could have a member with full voting rights; and the Charter Board appointee is not so restricted. Mayor Kravitz questioned City Attorney Henning as to the proper procedure based on the GAO ruling on Council Members' appointments. City Attorney Henning suggested that this be indicated on the first line "Councilman , ex-officio" with "non -voting" in parenthesis and follow with the appointment of the City Photographer and the Assistant City Photographer, and the regular members. As a point of information, C/M Stelzer asked if the Pension Board were any different from any of these boards or committees being appointed by Council. City Attorney Henning stated that he is not sure because it is a separate organization and he is still not convinced that Council should have an ex-officio member to the Public Information Committee; but that is their prerogative at this time. He clarified with C/M Stelzer that the legal question is whether or not Council members or Charter Board members could serve as an officer of the Pension Board and stated that he does not think this should be changed until it is amended. To C/M Stelzer's question if the Council has any control over the :Pension Board, the City Attorney replied yes and used payment of actuaries on today's consent agenda as an example. He advised that Council must approve any changes to the Pension Plan, because it is an Ordinance. C/M Stelzer asked if Council has this control, then how could Council appoint a member to the Board. Mayor Kravitz pointed out that C/M Stelzer could be referring to legislation pending in Tallahassee which states that no elected official can be a member of the Pension Board, which is expected to pass by October Ist. C/M Stelzer stated that he is concerned about the Mayor being the Chairman of the Pension Board, which is contrary to what is being done with all other boards and committees. Mayor Kravitz stated that he objected to this himself but that it had been the procedure for years and it was not up to Council as to who is appointed to the Pension Board. Vice Mayor Stein clarified that the point now was whether or not Council decided to appoint a full member to the Public Information Committee or if they, in all good conscience, did not want a voting member. The law would not be restricting this member, it would be Council's choice. Mayor Kravitz asked for nominations to the Public Information Committee at this time. -4- 5/9/84 /cmt Vice Mayor Stein nominated Cecilia Ehrlich, Irving Fenichel, Claire Mitchel, Philip Gorin, John Allfeld, Louis Silverman, Dr. Alfred Wald, Herman Weiss, Morris -Haber, Samuel Tepper as Photographer, and Norman Karr as Assistant Photographer. C/M Munitz nominated Hy Hochman. Mayor Kravitz advised that the vote could be taken for all, or vote to eliminate any because this resolution requires a minimum of five. City Attorney Henning suggested that Council decide how many members were wanted prior to the vote. Mayor Kravitz advised that 10 have been nominated and with the City Photographer and Assistant City Photographer, that would be 12 members. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to elect the entire 12. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: C/M Dunne - Aye C/M Munitz - Aye C/M Stelzer Nay Vice Mayor Stein - Aye Mayor Kravitz - Aye. Vickie Beech, resident, asked why there was.such a.large membership when it has not been done in the past. Mayor Kravitz advised that the Committee has more plans now than in the past and needs more input. Mayor Kravitz opened nominations for the Council ex-officio member, or for Council's choice for deferral to another meeting. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to TABLE the appointment of the Council member; C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Moni Avidon, Chairman of the Charter Board, questioned whether Section 4-10 of the Charter should be changed if it is against the law for the Council to appoint a voting member to the Public Information Committee. He related that last year the Council member was a liaison member and it created conflict. He believes that Council should appoint a voting member, the same as the Charter Board has done. C/M Munitz stated that it is the opinion of the Council to object strenuously to any member of Council taking an active voting part within any Board or Committee. Council has tried to avoid this and today's action has confirmed this choice. He asked that City Attorney Henning consider amending the Charter in all indications where it permits the appointment of a member of the Council to actually sit on these committees. He would like to see every reference in the Charter regarding the appointment of Council members be removed. Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney to research the possibility of amending this and report to Council. Tape 8. Recreation Board - Temp. Reso. #3120 - Discussion and possible 2 action to appoint five (5) or more members. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Added Parks Commissioner and Commissioners to and appointed 10 two (2) Fishing Recreation Board, additional members. RESOLUTION NO. R-84--�IPASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3120, by title. C/M Munitz confirmed that the Parks Commissioner and the two Fishing Commissioners were on this Board and nominated Bob Kearn, Irving Vitrofsky, Morty Wander, Mollie Goldstein, Doug Christy, Lee Kamerling, Kevin Duffy, Phyllis Stein, Dr. Monroe Berg, and Irving Kintisch. Mayor Kravitz closed nominations. C/M Munitz MOVED that the people nominated are hereby elected. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3120, inserting the names of the appointees. C/M Munitz SECONDED. 6. Public Information Committee - Tem Reso. #3118 - Discussion and possible action to appoint five (5) or more members from the general public and one (1) member from Council. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Added City Photographer and Assistant as members, and appointed 10 additional members. Appointment of Council member TABLED. (see page 4) -5- 5/9/84 /cmt Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3118, inserting the names of the appointees for the Public Information Committee. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE i. Eoard of Social Services - Temp. Keso. #3119 - Discussion and possible action to appoint three (3) or more memoers. c"'vOPSIS OF ACTTOY: Appointed 12 ]RESOLUTION PTO. 1?--84-PASSED members to the Board of Social Services. City Attorney IienninR read TemD. Reso. #3119, by title. Vice Mayor Stein nominated Helen Sobel, Dr. Martin Green, Louis Kaplan, Milton Kern, Sea Lindenman, Max Meisler, Lillian Silverman, Abe Gerchick, Norman Marshak, and Ileen Wachs. C/M Stelzer nominated Herman Lacoff. Mayor Kravitz asked for any further nominations. When questioned by C/M Munitz if 10 is the limit, the City Attorney said he would make a determination on the matter. Bernie Hart, resident, read the description for the Board of Social Services from the Charter, which included no number for members to that Board. Herman Lacoff, resident, stated that he has been a member of this Board far the past four years and objected that he was not considered in the nomination of the original 10. City Attorney Henning reported that the Code indicates a minimum of three members to this Board but no maximum. C/M Munitz MOVED to reopen the nominations for members to this Board, by adding the name of Philip Gorin. C/M Dunne suggested that Social Service drivers be included on this Committee if there is no limit to membership. Mayor Kravitz advised that drivers are not part of this Committee. He asked for a vote on the 12 nominees. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Munitz MOVED -to adopt Temp. Reso. #3119, inserting the names of the 12 appointees. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 9. Welcoming Committee - Tem . Reso. #3121 - Discussion and possible action to appoint up to twelve (12) members. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Appointed 12 RESOLUTION NO. R-84- Z PASSED members to the Welcoming Committee. Mayor Kravitz stated that the Resolution indicated only up to 12 and the Committee has recommended up to 15 members. At this time, Council. can only appoint up to 12 although the Committee has recommended this be changed to 15 at a later time. Vice Mayor Stein nominated Mollie Goldstein, Ed Solomon, Maury Kramer, Morton Student, Grace Platz, Sam Pizzarello, Yetta Robbins, Mary Jane Redfield, Louis Silverman, Harold Kamerling, Lawrence Kimler, and. Lillian Silverman. C/M Stelzer nominated Morris Landman. Mayor Kravitz advised that there are 13 nominations; the vote must be for 12. VOTE: C/M Dunne - All but Landman C/M Munitz All but Landman C/M Stelzer - All but Redfield Vice Mayor Stein.- All but Landman Mayor Kravitz - All but Landman -6-- 5/9/84 /cmt City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3121, by title. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3121, inserting the names of the 12 appointees. C/M Munitz SECONDED. C/M Stelzer questioned the appointment of members to more than one committee and referred to the Board of Adjustment appointment. He has no objection to members serving on more than one Committee, but questioned why Council was not consistent with appointments. C/M Munitz confirmed with the City Attorney that this matter had been settled at a previous meeting when it was found that the section originally referred to had been repealed. C/M Stelzer stated that he feels the second vote on that appointment should be rescinded and the first appointment be made. Vice Mayor Stein reminded Council that he asked for reconsideration on that appointment; and since he voted affirmatively, he had a right to do that. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL 17. Bid Award - Utilities West - Temp. Reso. #3117 - Discussion and possibleaction to award a bid for two (2) submersible sewage pumps and appurtenances. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Temp. Reso. #3117 RESOLUTION NO. R-84- % �'3 PASSED approved; Bid awarded to Lauderdale Services, Inc., in the amount of $3,128.00. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3117, by title. City Engineer Larry Keating reported that this is for the replacement of pumps at the sewage lift station at Courtyards Condominium. The bids are straight forward and the low bidder meets all of the City's specifications. Staff recommended awarding bid to Lauderdale Services, Inc., in the amount of $3,128.00. C/M Dunne asked why the buyer on this was listed as Larry Keating and not the Purchasing Department. Mr. Keating stated that this normally goes through the Purchasing Department and they review the bid specifications before they are sent out. However, the buyer is normally identified as a point of contact. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED for approval of Temp. Reso. #3117. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 52. Draina e Improvements in the City - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Report and action given by City Engineer; no action necessary. City Engineer Larry Keating reported that two projects addressed at the last Council Meeting have since been completed: a. Flooding problem at entrance at Golf Pointe - they discovered an erroneous location of an old culvert and Engineering and Public Works have corrected that situation. b. NE corner of Boulevard Section - Engineering and Public Works are trying to determine what work can be done in-house and what must be contracted out. -7- 5/9/84 /cmt Vice Mayor Stein reminded the City Engineer that the City also had an opportunity to use the new vacuum on 75th and 80th Avenue and he is waiting for today's downpour to see the results. Mr. Keating stated that it had been determined that those structures were full of sand and debris from the construction site. C/M Munitz reminded Mr. Keating of the problem at the SW corner of 84th Terrace and 57th Street and Mr. Keating reported that originally there was no culvert there. Swanson West was requested to put a catch basin in his corner and tie it into his system and when the developer or property owner comes in for the other corner, there will be a similar requirement. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 10. Burglar Alarm Review Committee - Temp. Reso. #3122 - Discussion and possible action to appoint five (5) members. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Appointed five RESOLUTION NO. R-84-�'© PASSED (5) members to the Burglar Alarm Committee. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3122, by title. Vice Mayor Stein nominated Allan Bernstein, Lewis Breslin, Alfred Robbins, Abe Hahamovitch, and Steven Popick. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3122, inserting the names of the appointees. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 11. Veterans Affairs Committee - Temp. Reso. #3126 - Discussion and possible action to appoint five (5) or more members. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Appointed nine RESOLUTION NO. R-84- / Y/PASSED (9) members to the Veterans Affairs Committee. Mayor Kravitz said the Veterans Alliance have met and made recommendations for this Committee. They asked that this Committee be started as soon as possible in order to work with Parks and Recreation on Memorial Day preparations. C/M Munitz asked if there was any limita- tion on the number of members and Mayor Kravitz advised that it states five or more; there is no limitation to maximum and the City Attorney confirmed. Mayor Kravitz advised that the Veterans Alliance asked that it be limited to nine. Vice Mayor Stein nominated Al Mallor, Irving Schneider, Jack Slutsky, Solomon Kucharsky, Lamson Peter Smith, Kenneth J. Drown, Ben Cherkis, Hildegard Goldman and Sam Schulman, and advised that these were recommended by the Veterans Alliance. Mayor Kravitz announced that these nominations include each of the four veterans groups. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3126, inserting the names of the appointees. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3126 by title. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 16. CONSENT AGENDA a) Minutes of 3/28/84 - Regular Meeting - Approval recommended by City Clerk. -8- 5/9/84 /cmt b) Minutes of 4/18/84 - Special Meeting - Approval recommended by City Clerk. c) Alan F. Ruf - Consultant City Attorney - 5/3/84 - $1,335.00 - Approval recommended by City Attorney. d) Richard S. Rubin - Consultant City Planner - Services for April, 1984 - $2,422.50 - Approval recommended by City Manager. e) Richard S. Rubin, P.A. - Tamarac Park Recreation Center - Invoice #4 - 4/30/84 - $3,130.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. f) Mitchell Ceasar - Grants Consultant - Retainer for April, 1984 - $1,250.00 - Approval recommended by City Manager. g) Kruse, O'Connor and Ling - Actuaries for Employee Pension Plan - Services in connection with actuarial valuation and report as of 10/1/83 - $5,666.00 - Approval recommended by Tamarac Pension Board. h) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer - Project 1724-1, Statement #3 - 4/11/84 - Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - $1,150.00 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. i) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer - Project 1710-15, Statement #5 - 4/11/84 - 201 Evaluation $665.75 - Approval recommended by City Engineer. j) Authorization for the City Manager to go to bid for Tamarac Park Recreational Lighting (Upgrading of Ballfield #2, Installation of tennis courts and basketball courts lighting and parking lot lighting upgrade. k) Authorization for the City Manager to secure appraisals on property abutting Tamarac Park on the south. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Items a), c) through e), and g) through k). Item b) removed and then approved with corrections. Item f) removed and then approved. C/M Munitz requested that Item 16f be removed for discussion. At the City Attorney's request, C/M Dunne asked that Item 16b be removed for discussion and corrections. C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt items a), c) through e) and g) through k). Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE b) City Attorney stated that since this was the first meeting in which the Redistricting Committee was established, it should be clear in the second to last paragraph on the second line, on page 1, "City Attorney Henning stated that the Charter Amendment provides for 4 appointees, one from each District, by the Council" instead of "by the Charter." C/M Munitz MOVED to approve the minutes, as corrected. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE f) C/M Munitz stated that he is not opposed to the payment under con- tractual arrangement, but because he has asked previously what has been done in rewriting this agreement. City Attorney Henning replied that fie has been researching the contingent fees and his first question to Council is whether or not they want to change the fee schedule. C/M Munitz stated that his questions have nothing to do with contingent fees; his concern is that the existing contract is not a clear agree- ment. He is not comfortable with the agreement and was under the impres- sion that the City Attorney was going to redraft that agreement. City Attorney Henning replied that he was under the .impression that he was to research contingent fees and discuss billing procedures with Mr. Ceasar. The City Attorney suggested that C/M Munitz meet with him to discuss the agreement, paragraph by paragraph. -9- 5/9/84 /cmt Vice Mayor Stein agreed with the City Attorney's suggestion and stated that he does not know what is in doubt with the existing contract. Vice Mayor Stein had suggested that the City Attorney work on the contingency fees and whether or not it was legal for the City to hire on this basis. In regard to C/M Munitz's inter- pretation of the existing contract, Vice Mayor Stein stated that he feels that the Councilman should meet with the City Attorney, and the City Attorney will report the results to Council. C/M Munitz agreed. C/M Stelzer stated that the item on the agenda only concerned the payment of the fees and he MOVED to approve this payment. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL 21. Florida Munici al Health Trust Fund - a) Discussion and possible action on the nomination of Mayor Kravitz to the Board of Trustees. b) Nomination of Mayor Kravitz to Florida Municipal Compensation Board. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Mayor Kravitz nominated to Board of Trustees. b) Agendized by Consent. Mayor Kravitz nominated to Compensation Board. City Manager Laura Stuurmans advised that this item deals with two proposed nominations, one to the Florida Municipal Health Trust, as listed in the Agenda; and the other to the Florida Municipal Compensa- tion Board, which is the umbrella organization of Florida League of Cities with the [corkers Compensation Plan. She stated that these nominations were proposed to fill vacancies on those respective Boards, created by the change in Mayoral position within the City of Tamarac. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED that the Compensation Board nomination of Mayor Kravitz be agendized by consent, as Item 21b. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to nominate Mayor Kravitz to both Boards. C/M Dunne SECONDED. The City Manager was authorized to notify the League of Cities by letter advising them of today's action nominating :Mayor Yravitz to these two boards. VOTE: ALL ZVOTF. n AYE 22. Broward League of Cities Business - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Mayor Kravitz announced next meeting for May 17th. Mayor Kravitz announced that the next meeting for the Broward League of Cities will be May 17th, at the Rolling Hills Golf Resort in Davie. The items to be considered will be the legislative report, Board of Rules and Appeals, the Government Deficiency Study Committee, Resource Recovery, and other business. He invited Council to attend, and stated that Council Tape should receive reports from this organization, and advised that anyone who 3 has an interest on these items should be there to pursue such at this meeting. LEGAL AFFAIRS 31. City Council enda Procedures - Temp. Reso. ��3136 Discussion and possible action to amend Resolutions 84-34 and 84-122 regarding pre -agenda workshop meetings. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Temp. RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED Reso. #3136 as amended to read that the Mayor may change the date or time of the Pre -Agenda Meeting, but not cancel the meeting. -10- 5/9/84 /cmt City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3.136, by title, and explained that the second page of the attachment was Temp. Reso. #3116, which was numbered Resolution #84-122, and was passed at a recent meeting. When the Pre -Agenda meeting was changed from Thursday to Wednesday, the last sentence, on line 16, which is the language whereby the Mayor may change the date or time of the pre -agenda meeting or cancel the meeting resulted in discussion that if the pre -agenda meeting were cancelled, the actual Council meeting would probably be cancelled. Consequently, he said he amended the front page, which reaffirms the amendment that is attached and strikes the language, "or cancel the meeting" so that the last sentence reads "that the Mayor may change the date or time of this meeting, if he deems it necessary." C/M Munitz confirmed that the City Attorney had actually created a new temporary ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the only other alternative was to consider Temp. Reso. #3116 and have a new revision, which could be too complicated for this amendment. C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3136. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 32. Law Advisory Committee - Temp. Ord. #1099 - Discussion and possible action to repeal Resolution 77-18 (Code Advisory Committee) and to create Section 2-46 to provide for a Law Advisory Committee. First Reading. (tabled from 4/11/84). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Temp. Ord. #1099 on First Reading, as amended. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1099, by title. Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if anything further had been received from Alan Ruf. on this subject. City Attorney Henning reported that he had received the back up from the Bar and Council has four alternatives: (1) Pass the Ordinance as it is; (2) Include only members of the Florida Bar; (3) Change the duties; or (4) Deny the Ordinance. C/M Munitz asked how the powers and duties of this Ordinance compare with those of the current Advisory Code Commission and the City Attorney replied that they are much broader and would encompass all of the duties of the last board and have a new name. The Board would answer to the City Attorney's office as well as the City Council. He said the Ordinance is a much more general provision and duties would allow the Board to get involved in advising and researching any legal matter that affects the City, whether it is writing ordinances, proof-reading, authoring, recommending strategy on law suits, almost any legal aspect with which City Attorney may be involved. C/M Stelzer stated that the Code Advisory Committee reviewed code provisions after they were written and was to report recommended changes and that Committee had nothing to do with telling the City Attorney what to do. This Ordinance is creating assistance to the City Attorney. Vice Mayor Stein advised 'that this Ordinance is not creating assistance, this is an Advisory Committee and advice is to be given only at the request of the City Attorney. He agreed that the prior committee was created backwards; they reviewed the codes after they were passed, which served no purpose. The point of this Ordinance is to review items before they are passed, with recommended comments. The only addition is that the City Attorney will be provided with a pool of professional advice or help, if he desires. Vice Mayor Stein advised that he feels that if such people are willing to offer these services, there is no reason to deny it. It is not a Committee to run the City's legal department; it is to advise the City Attorney, which has been discussed between Vice Mayor Stein and the City Attorney. The Vice Mayor said that there are many people in the City with tremendous background and could be of assistance to the City; these are professionals who will give legal assistance, with the prestige of being appointed to a legal committee. C/M Stelzer objected to the wording in paragraph b where the committee "shall" advise the City Attorney He feels that a person who is not a member of the Florida Bar cannot give advice and this would be unauthorized practice of law. Vice Mayor Stein disagreed with this and stated that he accepted changing the word "shall" to "may". 5/9/84 /cmt City Attorney Henning reported that Alan Ruf's letter confirmed telephone conversations between himself and the Florida Bar. C/M Stelzer suggested that the Ordinance be changed to include the wording that the Committee is open to attor- neys who are licensed to practice law in Florida, and the word "shall" should be changed to "may". Mayor Kravitz advised that this amend- ment can be suggested at the time of motions Alice Norian, resident, discussed the duties of the previous Code Advisory Committee and stated that she served on that Board and it did serve a purpose, which was to review the codes for updating pur- poses. She feels that a properly functioning Code Advisory Committee can be of service to this City. She agreed with C/M Stelzer on the wording of the Ordinance and suggested that members should be resi- dents of the City of Tamarac and a member of the Bar in at least one State in the United States and the District of Columbia. She also referred to the word "permanent" in line 2 of Part A, and Vice Mayor Stein's comment that the Committee could be terminated after the first year. Vickie Beech, resident of Section 20, stated that the purpose of this Advisory Committee has merit and she feels that legal expenditures of the City are very exorbitant and has escalated over the years. She asked if these members are going to be licensed attorneys passed by the Florida Bar, whether the Bar would look upon them to work without compensation or would they be paid. Florence Bochenek, resident, stated that she feels that this type of committee would be excellent but agrees to the change of wording. John Lachmann,resident of Mainlands 1 & 2, concurred with Vice Mayor Stein regarding the ineffectiveness of the previous Code Advisory Committee and stated that he is in favor of a Legal Advisory Committee. Morton Student, resident, stated that he agrees with having a Legal Advisory Committee but believes that members should be former judges or lawyers from this state or any other, and that this be for research. Moni Avidon, resident, stated that he is heartily in favor of this Committee and agrees with C/M Stelzer's change in the language. C/M Munitz clarified that the word Advisory means that there is no compulsion for the City Attorney to follow the recommendations of the Committee. He agrees with changing the word "shall" to "may and also suggested that the word "residents" be changed to "regis- tered voters", and that the words "or reimbursement of expenses" be added following "compensation," on Line 5. He stated that the Code Advisory Board acted after the.fact and this new Board will act before the fact, and asked for the City Attorney's feelings on this Ordinance. City Attorney Henning stated that he is not in favor of this Ordinance; however,he will cooperate and work wholeheartedly with the Committee as much as he ethically and legally can, if that is what Council decides upon. He is concerned that even though this Committee is a good intention, this will actually detract from the time he is able to spend with Council, the Charter Board, and the other Committees that need his attention. He stated that there have been many demands on his time and he prefers to spend more time answering Council's needs and an additional committee will take some of that time. He stated that if Council insists upon having this Committee, he suggests that the provisions include that members be in good standing with the Florida Bar. C/M Munitz asked whether this was the City Attorney's opinion or if it was a legal requirement, and the City Attorney replied that if it is not done this way, he would try to guide and direct the Committee to make sure that it does not come in conflict with any of the professional codes and responsibilities. -12- 5/9/84 /cmt Vice Mayor Stein advised that he is very concerned about Mr. Ruf's and Mr. Henning's reports and stated that this Committee is nothing more than a pares -legal committee and under the law, it is a perfectly legal job. There are retired professionals working thoughout the State as para-legal advisors to attorneys admitted to the Florida Bar. He reminded Council that Committee member's recommendations must go back to the City Attorney, as a member of the Bar. He also advised that in Florida Law Schools, 50% of the professors are not members of the Florida Bar. There is nothing illegal about divesting knowledge to people; the only thing that is illegal is acting as an attorney and receiving compensation for your services. He disagreed. that this Committee will take away from Mr. Henning's time but it should help Mr. Henning and save some of the extra legal fees that the City has been paying, which is the purpose for the Committee. He asked that Council give the Committee a fair trial and stated that his reason for opposing that the Committee include only members of the Florida Bar is because the pool in this City primarily are not members of the Florida Bar, and those who are would not be willing to offer their services. C/M Dunne advised that some of the people associated with this are members of the Florida Bar and they are more qualified to help than the college students now helping the City. C/M Stelzer MOVED to approve Temp. Ord. #1099, with amendments as follows: Section A - remove "as a permanent agency of the City" and have it read "that the Law Advisory Committee is hereby created, and shall consist of"..."and without compensation or reimbursement of expenses"...."Members must be registered voters and be admitted to the Bar of the State of Florida." Section B - By Powers and duties, "the committee shall assist and may advise the City Attorney on legal matters." Mayor Kravitz asked for a SECOND. C/M Munitz asked whether this second must be for all of the changes, and Mayor Kravitz affirmed. The motion died for lack of a SECOND. C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1099 with all of the amendments listed by C/M Stelzer except restricting that members must be admitted to the Bar of the State of Florida. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT 40. Springlake II - Revised Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3132 - Dis- cussion and possible action on a revised site plan reflecting an increase of 1-foot outside the envelope on certain lots. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved revised RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED site plan for increase of I -foot outside envelope on Lots 16 and 17 of Block 2, Lot 1 of Block 7, .and Lot 9 of Block 8. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3132, by title. Chief Building Official Sam Stevens reported that Springlake II had previously asked for a revised site plan to increase the envelope on certain lots by one (1) foot, which was approved at that time. However, Springlake II had overlooked four lots and are now before Council to request that four additional lots be increased by 1-foot - Lots 6 of Block 2, Lot 17 of Block 2, Lot 1 of Block 7, and Lot 9 of Block 8. Mr. Stevens advised that Staff has reviewed this and recommend approval be granted as the increase will not conflict with the required setbacks on these specific lots. C/M Dunne MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3132; C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -13- 5/9/84 /cmt 41. Ashmont - Revised Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3133 - Discussion and possible action on a revised site plan to reflect addition of meter rooms. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Revised RESOLUTION NO. R-84-PASSED Site Plan for addition of meter rooms, City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3133, by title. Mr. Stevens reported that during the review of the original site plan, the meter rooms were omitted. Staff has reviewed this and it includes Buildings A, B, H, Il and 12 and they will not encroach on any setback and Staff recommends approval for these meter rooms. At the request of the City Planner, Vice Mayor Stein stated that there are no provisions in this sub -division for storage rooms of any kind for the maintenance of these condominium and suggested that Staff consider a requirement to have such storage rooms in the future. C/M Dunne MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3133. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 42. Tamarac Gardens - Administrative Home Warranty Service Office - Discussion and possible action to renew a permit for this facility and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for certificates of occu- pancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved renewal of permit and waived the 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. Assistant City Clerk Carol Evans advised that this is a renewal of the current office, and renewals are handled through the City Clerks Office; the fees have been paid. C/M Stelzer MOVED to approve the renewal of the permit and waiver of the distance requirement. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 43. Woodmont Tracts 74/75 -- Revised Site Plan #4 - Temp. Reso. #3134 - Discussion and possible action on revision to Site Plan #4 to reflect changes to certain meter room locations and increase in building separa- tion from 30-feet to 40;-feet in the distance of Building L from Building H. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved, as conditioned to reflect proper loca- tion of Building H and for Building L sidewalk to be continuous. RESOLUTION NO. R-84--/,50PASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3134, by title. Mr. Stevens reported that this was necessitated by the original site plan not showing meter rooms and revision will show those meter rooms and the proper separa- tion as the buildings exist. Staff has reviewed and recommended approval subject to: (1) revised drawing to reflect the proper location of Building H; and (2) show Building L sidewalk to be continuous. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3134, with conditions,as stated by staff. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 51. Three Lakes Plaza - Sipn Waiver - Temp_. Reso. #3135 - Discussion and possible action to waive the provisions of the sign ordinance for a permanent wall sign with additional non -conforming signage. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved waiver of sign ordinance for a permanent wall sign. RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3135, by title and advised that on line 7, the resolution should read "Chapter 21" instead of "Section 21." Mr. Paul Wilson of Ocean Signs, representing the applicant, reported that the shopping center requires individual illuminated letters on signs and if a shop -owner has a registered logo, this can be included. The problem is thatno one knows who S.B.S. is; this is a copier company and they have re- quested that this wordage be added to their. sign. Mr.. Filson 4ta.ted that the -14- 5/9/84 /rmt space provided for a sign on the wall is too small for shoppers to read. As a result, the only alternative is to go to a logo box, and showed Council a proposed sketch of this sign. Florence Bochenek, of the Beautification Committee, reported that they had reviewed this proposal and recommend approval of this waiver. C/M Stelzer asked whether the Chief Building Official recommended this approval and Mr. Stevens affirmed his approval. C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3135. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 20. Sale of City Property - Temp. Reso. #3128 - Discussion and possible action to accept and approve the bid -of^Florida Power & Light Company for a parcel of land, offered for sale by the City at public auction, located on the north side of Southgate Boulevard, approximately 1,200- feet east of NW 88 Avenue, and containing 2.89 acres. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved bid RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED of Florida Power & Light in the amount of $114,000.00. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3128, by title, and explained that, as required by City Code in Section 2-9.1,'before public lands can be sold, it must be offered to the public as well as the prospective buyer by public auction, which was held on May lst in the West Conference Room. All requirements pursuant to the City Code were complied with, Florida Power & Light Company representatives were present and renewed their bid for $114,000.00, which is Parcel B identified as Exhibit A in diagram, and there no other bids. The registered auctioneer conducting the auction, declared that the highest and only bid was tll4,n0o.00 and the check was presented to the City Clerk. He said Councils agenda includes this item for approval of the tendered bid and pursuant to the Code, Council must accept this bid. Mayor Kravitz stated that representatives of the City of Coral Springs requested to be heard on this item. Ms. Audrey Passin, Assistant. City Attorney of Coral Springs, thanked Council for hearing their presentation on this sale. She stated that the City of Coral Springs has already brought to Council's attention its concerns over the site now proposed for the Phoenix sub -station, which is the subject of Item 20 to be approved for this sale. She said their concern is for the health and safety of the residents of both Coral Springs and Tamarac; for the people who actually live, play, and walk through the area that will be affected by electric and magnetic fields that the Phoenix substation will produce along with the existing transmission wires and the proposed distribution wires that will carry that voltage to the Community. She stated that the City of Coral Springs is concerned about the City of Tamarac's reliance on the suggestions of Mr. Larry Bender, who was asked to participate in this project at the request of Woodmont Homeowners' Association. Their concern was that this sub -station would be built based on the position of Mr. Bender, who they feel, is not qualified to advise regarding the biological effects and the exact physicalparameters at which this sub -station should be built. She said his oualifications as an electrical engineer do not make him an expert in determining the health and safety effects in the area of magnetic and electrical field for bio- logical effects. She stated that the City of Coral Springs requests Council Table action in approving the bid by FP&L to purchase this property. She referred to an item in today's West Section of the Fort Lauderdale News & Sun Sentinel which attributes comments by Mayor Kravitz' which underscore the reliance of the Tamarac Council on Mr. Bender as an expert and advised that the City of Coral Springs considers this reliance misplaced. She advised that Coral Springs urged the Council. of Tamarac to table this matter and to join with the City of Coral Springs in obtaining an expert who is qualified to answer questions concerning electro-magnetic field effects on biological processes and provide both Cities with a point of view as to the health and safety of all citizens. -15- 5/9/84 /cmt C/M Munitz assured the Assistant City Attorney of Coral Springs, that Tamarac is equally concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Tamarac,as is Coral Springs of their residents, as everyone should be. He stated that Mr. Bender's .qualifications have been challenged and he does not see the basis of this challenge. The City of Coral Springs has not come forward with any "expert" who is qualified and are recommending that the City of Tamarac join the City of Coral Springs in getting an expert mutually agreeable to both. C/M Munitz advised that this City has also consulted Dr. Oppenheimer and Dr. Miller of FP&L, who have done extensive tests together., and have all agreed that this location is suitable. C/M Munitz stated that he does not under- stand, nor can he agree, with the challenge of Mr. Bender's qualifica- tions and he does not think that the research and action on the part of Coral Springs has shown any different opinion. if Coral Springs was not in agreement with the position of Mr. Bender's, they should have brought the opinion of another expert Mayor Kravitz reminded Ms. Passin that at the last meeting he suggested that representatives of Coral Springs come in to discuss this item and at no time did any representative make an appoint- ment to discuss these concerns until today. Vice Mayor Stein stated that this discussion is probably out of order; however Council is bound to follow through after the public action to pass this resolution based upon the sale that was authorized. He commented that the present Phoenix sub -station is going to be closer to Tamarac than to Coral Springs and if there were danger, Tamarac should be more concerned. He also stated that during the entire hearing of a year or year and a half, Coral Springs never succeeded in getting an expert or giving Tamarac any input as to the dangers. The original location would have been just as dangerous, yet nobody in Coral Springs ever discussed this or sent an expert opinion. Vice Mayor Stein stated that Tamarac must go through with the sale; if Coral Springs has expert opinion which supersedes Dr. Oppenheimer's and Larry Bender, they can still stop the erection of that sub -station. Ms. Passin responded that Coral Springs has been deeply immersed in the process of speaking to many experts in the field of electrical. and magnetic effect, but have not engaged such an expert for this project. She stated that she understands that Council may not appreciate the distinction in Mr. Bender's credentials with those of the would-be experts she is alluding to. She advised that she has been in close dis- cussion with three individuals and Coral Springs is working on negotia- tions for retaining them to report to the Coral Springs Council on the hazards that are faced. She stated that this is a very complicated area and one which she could not explain in such a brief period of time; however, if they have been remiss in failing to discuss the subject, she apologizes but feels that regardless of this, that Council should table the acceptance of this bid so that both Cities can go forward together to engage the expert to get these questions answered. Mayor Kravitz asked City Attorney Henning for a legal opinion on whether Council had to accept this bid at this time, or if it could be tabled. The City Attorney affirmed that it could be tabled and advised that this is not the last step in the approval of the sub- station because the Land Use Plan must be approved by Public Hearing by Broward County, which would be no earlier than June, possibly not -16- 5/9/84 until July or August. He stated that he has contacted Paul McDonough, City Attorney for Coral Springs, and is meeting with him a week from today. There was previous discussion of considering the possibility of joint workshop meetings to have a presentation by experts if they are available, possibly in early June, and City Attorney Henning said this will probably be discussed in their meeting next week. The City Attorney advised Council that whether the item be tabled or the bid is accepted, it will not have a bearing on future actions because if more evidence is presented to County Planning Council, that would be final action. He suggested that a joint meeting of the two City Councils could satisfy both cities to move forward comfortably and confidently and he would investigate such a meeting and report to Council. C/M Munitz stated that a joint meeting between the two cities does not appear to be the problem; it is the determination of an expert who is acceptable to both parties. City Attorney Henning said that he cannot imagine Council's being non -adversary in the sense that PP&L will take one stand and it is up to the Cities to agree or dis- agree; if there is a disagreement it may be necessary to get such expert opinions. He further stated that all three parties could not agree on the same experts; but the two attorneys can agree on the qualifications of the experts, which would provide a public forum. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3128. C/M Dunne SECONDED. C/M Stelzer asked the City Attorney if this approval would lock the City in, and the City Attorney replied that the contract reads that there must be necessary approvals of all commissions and councils and one of these is the Land Use Plan Amendment to be approved by Broward County Planning Council. Until. that Land Use Plan:. Amendment is approved, which would allow the substation to be built there, it is not a final situation. C/M Stelzer confirmed with the City Attorney that the City would then be locked in to the sale. C/M Munitz stated that there are still opportunities for both Cities to stop the sub -station. C/M Stelzer asked if FP&L would have the right to build the sub- station if the Land Use Plan were approved by the County and City Attorney Henning confirmed that, unless there is a law suit by Coral Springs or Tamarac to set aside the contract or enjoin the construction of the sub -station. Mayor Kravitz asked for a vote on this bid. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 18. Tamarac Park - Ballfield Ll Lights - Discussion and possible action on Change Order #1 to Bid #84-10. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved for adoption, with funding to come from Parks & Recreation Funds. Sharon Ellis, Parks and Recreation Director, introduced Cecil Nall,the Consultant on this project, who explained that this Change Order was required because after starting work on the project, engineers specifi- cations for the transformer and wiring for the park was a single phase system and Florida Power & Light would require six months for power to this system. The Change Order from JP Electric was for additional wiring and work to change to a three-phase system for the difference required. Ms. Ellis pointed out that even with this change order for $8,000.00 more, it is still lower than the second bid and Staff recommends approval. The lights should be installed by the end of July. C/,M Dunne questioned Sharon regarding the reference throughout the Change Order on Sales Tax and stated that it was his understanding that the City had a Sales Tax exemption. Mayor Kravitz confirmed that the City does have an Exemption Number. Mr. Nall replied that when the bill is paid, the Sales Tax will be removed and C/M Dunne stated that he would like to see it removed first. -17- 5/9/84 /cmt City Manager Stuurmans asked the City Attorney if there were legisla- tion that stated when the City contracts out and the contractor pays for goods and materials that the contractor is responsible under Florida law to pay the Sales Tax. City Attorney Henning was not sure of the exemption in this case but stated that if the City is exempt, the Sales Tax would be removed. The City Manager pointed out that as a purchaser, the City is exempt but there is still a possiblity that the contractor will be responsible. Mayor Kravitz advised that if the Sales Tax is deductible, it will be taken off and if it is not, the City will be responsible for it. When questioned by C/M Stelzer whether this funding will come from Parks and Recreation, the City Manager asked that Council authorize this money to come from that fund with the approval of this Change Order. C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt Change Order #1 to Bid 84-10, with funding to come from Parks and Recreation. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE City Manager Stuurmans advised the Parks and Recreation Director that any additional Change Orders to the existing contract will require subsequent approval from the City Manager's Office if it is below $2,000.00 and from Council if it exceeds $2,000.00. 19. Summer Recreation Program - Discussion and possible action to approve the fee schedule for enrollment. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Summer fees at $65.00 for residents and $85.00 for non- residents. Sharon Ellis reported that the Parks and Recreation Department has established a fee of $65.00 per person with a cap of 200 registrants for City Residents and visitors of residents; and $85.00 per person for Non-residents. The Department is offering a 7-week program, beginning June 18th and ending August 3rd. When asked by Mayor Kravitz if there were any change from last year, Sharon replied that the Resident fee last year was $50.00 for one child, $70.00 for 2 children, and $85.00 for 3 cr more; Non-resident fee was $65.00 for one, $85.00 for two, and $100.00 for 3 or more for the 7-week program. When the fees are broken down, it averages $5.00 per day and the City subsidizes for sports equipment, outside activities and events, custodial costs, and for arts and crafts material. City Attorney Henning pointed out that last year there were 300 openings and this year Sharon is requesting only 200 openings, which will provide for greater supervision. Ms. Ellis advised that the summer program also offers three positions for students to work with the City. She reported that their problem is with lack of facilities because summer school will also be held in the school and in order not to clash, the Summer Program ratio .of 11 Staff plus volunteers would he sufficient, and in line with the ratio set by National Association of Parks & Recreation of 10 children for each adult. Many other Cities close their program during outside activities but Tamarac will provide supervision for those children who do not attend these activites and will also allow children to bring lunches. C/M Munitz asked if Resident registrations will be taken first and Sharon responded that Resident registration is set for May 28 to June 11, and Non-resident registration for June 11 thru 15th. C/M Munitz MOVED to approve the summer program fee schedule as submitted. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz recessed the meeting until 1:30 P.M., for lunch. -18- 5/9/84 /cmt Tape Mayor Kravitz called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. and all 5 were present. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 46. Woodview Tract 38 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Renewal of model sales permit b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Denied. b) Authorized City Attorney to prepare documentation to default. City Attorney Henning reported that Mr. Grossman was notified of this meeting, but is out of town at this time. He said he has had ongoing conversations with Mr. Grossman, and an obligation to keep in touch with Council regarding this item; and Mr. Grossman is aware that charges are overdue and is disputing the increase. When Mr. Grossman purchased the original connections, it was on the day that the $1,000.00 increase went into effect and he was one of the first developers required to pay that increase. Now the charges have increased to $1530.00 and Mr. Grossman is disputing this increase. City Attorney Henning stated that it is not a question whether Mr. Grossman has the money because apparently he has the financing but does not want to pay it, because of his disagreement with the rate. The City Attorney stated that it is time to default the agreement and if a letter of default has not been sent, it should be sent out immediately. If Mr. Grossman does not respond within 7 days, or whatever the term is, then the City should default the agreement. Vice Mayor Stein agreed. C/M Munitz asked where that leaves the City insofar as the money that is due, and the City Attorney replied that Mr. Grossman would have to come back to the City and re -execute the agreements, which could place his project in jeopardy, and he would have to resubmit a site plan. Mayor Kravitz asked City Attorney Henning if a) and b) should be taken separately, or if they could be taken together. City Attorney Henning advised that this has been going on for several months now and Mr. Grossman says that he has already closed down his model because he thought it was not renewed. City Attorney Henning had advised Mr. Grossman that the item was being Tabled from meeting to meeting and there was no need for the model to be closed. Mr. Henning advised that it is appropriate for Council to deny the renewal of the permit. C/M Munitz stated that this item is making the City look foolish and he resents it. The City has rights and those rights should be fulfilled, rather than to go on and on with this item. He asked the City Attorney for his suggestion on this item. City Attorney Henning asked if the check had been submitted for the renewal and the Assistant City Clerk responded that it had not and the permit expired on January llth. The City Attorney suggested that item b) be addressed and if authorized by Council to default the agreement, he would proceed on that. C/M Stelzer asked what the ramifications would be on default as far as the City and Mr. Grossman are concerned, and the City Attorney replied that Mr. Grossman could not pull any more building permits because he would not have the connection charges unless he has some left that he had already purchased. C/M Munitz asked if he had purchased any and the City Attorney responded that he had purchased the original 25% at the $1,000.00 rate. Now Mr. Grossman will need to come back to the City and re -execute a Water and Sewer Agreement at the prevailing rate and resubmit a site plan. C/M Munitz asked if the City has a Performance Bond or Tax Default Plan and the City Attorney stated that the new Water & Sewer Agreements that he wrote last year, includes liens on the property, the right to deny building permits, and others that were not included in the older agreements. b) Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to authorize the City Attorney to proceed to cancel the sewer and water agreement for nonpayment of the foes. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -19- 5/9/84 /cmt a) Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if any additional action were required on item a), and he replied that considering the outstanding fees and the order to default the water and sewer agreement, Council has a right to deny the renewal, and authorize the City Clerk's Office to send that check back. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to DENY the renewal of model sales permit, refunding the permit fee paid. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 47. Fairways III - Discussion and possible action concerning payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Authorized City Attorney to proceed with cancellation. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to authorize the City Attorney to cancel and call a default on the water and sewer developers agreement in this matter. C/M Munitz SECONDED and commented that developers must realize that they have an obligation and they must fulfill that obligation; if they do not then the consequence will be theirs to suffer. City Attorney Henning advised that a default letter has not yet been sent out by the Finance Department, so Council should authorize that a default letter be sent out and if payment is not made within 7 days as indicated in the contract, that the cancellation will be finalized. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 48. Lake Colon Brookwood Gardens) - Model Sales Facility - Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit and waiver of the 300- foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the distance requirement. The Assistant City Clerk advised that fees have been paid and everything is in order. C/M Stelzer MOVED to authorize renewal of the model sales permit and waiver of the 300--foot distance requirement. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 49. Woodmont Tract 71 - Model_ Sales Facility - Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit and waiver of the 150-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF model sales to receipt ACTION: Approved permit subject of $444.85 by May renewal of 12th. Vice Mayor Stein advised that there is $444.85 due and MOVED to Table the matter until that is paid. When asked by the Vice Mayor when the permit expires, the Assistant City Clerk advised May 12th. City Attorney Henning asked if Council desired to approve renewal subject to payment and the Clerk could notify them of that requirement. Vice Mayor Stein amended his MOTION to approve the renewal, providing that the Clerk receives the check in the amount of $444.85 by May 12th. C/M Munitz SECONDED. John Lachman, resident, asked why the distance requirement on item 48 was 300 feet and or.. iter.. /,Q it was 150 feet, and the City Attorney replied that Lake Colony is multi -family homes and Tract 71 is single family, and the requirement for distance from the model sales facility and homes is different. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -20- 5/9/84 /cmt 50. Lakes of Carriage Hills - Model Sales Facility - Discussion and possible action to renew a model sales permit for a facility located at 6180 hock Island Road. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved renewal of model sales permit. Vice Mayor Stein advised all fees are paid and MOVED to approve the renewal of the model sales permit. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 53. City Council Reports C/M Stelzer - No Report Vice Mayor Stein - No report C/M Dunne - No Report C/M Munitz - No Report Mayor Kravitz - No Report 54. Cif Manager_Reports - No Report 55. City Attorney_Reports - No Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 44. Exxon Service Station - Discussion and possible action to approve a landscape plan for a station to be located at the southwest corner of Southgate Boulevard and NW 88 Avenue (tabled from 12/28/83). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved landscape plan. In the absence of the. City Planner and at the request of the Chief Building Official, Florence Bochenek, of the Beautification Committee, reported that all recommendations have been met; plans have been approved and are more than adequate; and recommends approval. C/M Munitz MOVED to approve the landscape plan; C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 45. Broward County Trafficways Plan -- Discussion and possible action on two amendments to this plan: a) NW 64 Avenue, from Commercial Boulevard to NW 44 Street, from six Lanes to four lanes. b) NW 44 Street, from Rock Island Road to NW 64 Avenue, from four lanes to two lanes. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Authorized the Mayor to reply to the Broward County Planning Council asking for a 6-month deferral. City Attorney Henning reported that a request had been received from the Broward County Planning Council requesting a status report of two. amendments to the Broward County Trafficways Plan for streets either in the City or adjacent to the City of Tamarac - 64th Avenue between Commercial, Boulevard and 44th Street, and NW 44th Street between Rock Island Road and 64th Avenue. The question is if these streets should be widened and by whom. He advised that the City Planner has reviewed this letter- The City Attorney suggested that Council authorize the Mayor to reply to these letters, and the City Planner suggested that such a reply indicate the City's request for a 6-month deferral. -21- 5/9/84 /cmt The City Attorney pointed out that this is also tied into the traffic impact fee study forwhich the City is considering an Ordinance. Mayor Kravitz added that he had met with the Mayor of Lauderhill and they are asking for the 6-month deferral. C/M Munitz asked if the City would be losing any of its rights by asking for this delaying action and the City Attorney stated that the worse thing Council could do is ignore it and then the County would take it off their agenda, but he feels that asking for the deferral is proper. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to authorize the Mayor to respond to the corres- pondence asking for a 6-month extension in this matter until further investigation can be made on both items a) and b); C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: .PUBLIC HEARINGS ALI, VOTED AYE 23. Board and Committee Member Absenteeism - Temp. Ord. #1095 - Discussion and possible action to amend Section 2-11.2 of the Code pertaining to absenteeism of appointed board and committee members. Second Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Public Hearing held. Action TABLED City Attorney to present to for C/M Munitz to meet with to prepare revised Ordinance Council. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1095, by title. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED that, after the public hearing, this item be tabled until the next Council meeting. Several Boards have asked that the time limit for absentee- ism be studied since some Boards meet monthly and if a member misses two meetings, he is automatically off the board. C/M Munitz added that there are several amendments that should be made which he will recommend since he was the sponsor of this Ordinance, the Vice Mayor's objection being one of those. He said he feels that the basic idea of the Ordinance is a good one but some details will have to be worked out. Mayor Kravitz opened the Public Hearing. Bernie Hart, President of the President's Council, stated that by procedure, the public should be heard before Council Members say what they are going to do after the public talks. As far as the Ordinance is concerned, he believes it is important because there must be a way to remove non-functioning members from Committees. He does not agree with a 75-day time period for elected officials and only 60 days for a volunteer; volunteers appointed by Council should have the same 75- days. He further stated that there are certain Committees where the function is more important than the meetings, for example Consumer Affairs which require members to hear consumer complaints for days at a time, and Social Services where members are available daily. He suggests wording be changed accordingly. He also mentioned the term "Snow Birds" and feels this should not be confused with residents and registered voters of the City of Tamarac who go away for the summer months who are functioning members of City committees for nine months of the year; and the 75-day time period would be within reason to cover these volunteers. C/M Munitz clarified that the Ordinance refers only to members appointed by Council,and does not include volunteers. Florence Bochenek, resident, stated that more important than missing time at a specific length is missing time throughout the year. She asked that Council consider Committee Members who attend monthly meetings throughout the year and miss during the summer months, who are more effective than those who attend throughout the year but are less effective in their functioning. John Lachmann, resident, agreed with Bernie Hart and questioned whether the 75-day period fd.r Council recess was included, and asked that Council be consistent with the amendment that was passed in March. -22- 5/9/84 /cmt Arthur Gottesman, resident, questioned whether there was a difference between appointed members and volunteers. Mayor Kravitz replied that a driver for Social Services would be a volunteer. Vickie Beech, resident, said that there have been so many changes in this Ordinance that most of the public here are not aware of what the Ordinance consists. She suggested that the Ordinance be read in total, with all of the suggested changes, and then a discussion could be held. Mayor Kravitz stated that there was a motion to table this for the many changes, but explained that the Ordinance is very simple to under- stand. It is in connection with Council appointed members to serve on. Committees and if they miss 60 consecutive days from attending meetings, they will be dropped from those Committees. Whether this is changed to 75 days, or which Committees are concerned, will be taken up at a later time. With no further response from the public, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. C/M Munitz SECONDED the MOTION. Life 85 ALL VOTED AYE C/M Munitz asked for Council input for this Ordinance and he will meet with the City Attorney to prepare a revised Ordinance to present to Council. City Attorney Henning cautioned Council Members in providing this input to C/M Munitz to avoid any violation to the Sunshine Law. 24. Armor Piercing Ammunition - Temp. Ord. #1096 - Discussion and possible action to repeal Section 17-16 of the Code entitled "Possession of "KTW Bullets", as required by State Statute. Second Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved ORDINANCE NO. 0-84- PASSED Temp. Ord. #1096 on Second Reading. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1096, by title, and explained that there has been a teflon-coated bullet which pierces the protective vests of police officers. The City took the position to outlaw these bullets. This subject came before the State Legislature last year, and they (1) were in favor of outlawing the bullets and passed a State Law which prohibited the use of these bullets; and (2) incorporated a Home Rule Law that Cities could not pass any legislation regarding this type of ammunition. City Attorney Henning stated that this Ordinance is to comply with the State Law and the County is taking similar action by Ordinance. Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing. There was no response and he closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1096. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 25. Sister City Committee - Temp. Ord. #1111 - Discussion and possible action to create Section 2-47 of the Code to establish the Sister City Committee to promote the Sister City Program. Second Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED on Second Reading, as amended. ORDINANCE. NO. 0-84-X 3 PASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1111, by title, and stated that this is a second reading of this Ordinance and it has been revised as Council had requested at the last Council meeting. Mr. Henning said as discussed with Council members this morning, pursuant to the Charter, these committees should be established by Ordinance. -23- 5/9/84 /cmt M& rei,lsed �rU'LlanCe provides for two Human Relations Commissioners to make up the committee. He said there was a suggestion that the Mayor be a member, or that the City Manager or Recreation Director or some other people be a member. This was taken out at Council's suggestion on first reading. Mr. Henning said there was a question about the budget on the second page in Section C and as the Council wanted, there can be an expenditure of up to $100.00 with the approval of the City Manager or the Mayor. There is no provision for a particular budget. The terms would be one year at the pleasure of Council. C/M Munitz recommended that line 24 of page 1 be changed to "registered voters" instead of "residents"; that Part C be deleted; and that line 33 be amended to include "or any expense account whatsoever" following the Tape words "without pay". Vice Mayor Stein stated that he appreciated C/M 6 Munitz's apprehension and there is much discussion ahead on this; however he does not believe the Ordinance should disallow any expense allowance. If a Commissioner uses his own car to pick up a visitor at the airport, it would be valid for that Commissioner to put in a voucher for this expense and should not be limited. C/M Munitz stated that unless the Ordinance specifically identifies the type of expense authorized, it should not include expenses at all. Mayor Kravitz clarified that the Ordinance states expenses up to $100 before coming to Council so if it came before Council, the expense would have to be specified. C/M Stelzer recommended that line 34 of page 1 be changed to substitute the word "annually" to "quarterly". With annual reports, Council has no way of knowing what has been done until the end of the year and he feels that quarterly reports would be more appropriate, to report progress. Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing. Vickie Beech, resident, asked how expenses were handled by this Committee last year and Mayor Kravitz stated that an allotment of $1,000.00 was authorized by Council for the entire year as requested by the Mayor. Alice Norian, resident, asked the City Attorney whether this should have been a Resolution instead of an Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that there should be a Resolution appointing the Committee but the Ordinance provides for the Sister City Committee to create such positions. Bernie Hart, resident, stated that he agrees with the Ordinance as it is written in regards to expense allowances. With no further response, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing, C/M Munitz offered the following amendments to Temp. Ord. #1111: 1. On line 24, substitute "registered voters" for the word "residents". 2. On last line, substitute "quarterly" for "annually". C/M Munitz MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1111 with these amendments. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 26. Land Use Amendment - Petition #4-LUA-84 - Temp. Ord. #1112 - Discussion and possible action to change the Land Use designation of a parcel of land containing approximately 14.814 acres and located on the north of Sunshine Plaza and west of the Commercial Shopping Plaza on State Road 7, from Commercial to Low/Medium Residential. Second Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved adoption of Temp. Ord. #1112, on Second Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 0-84-oZs PASSED -24- 5/9/84 /cmt City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. 1i1112, by title. Mr. Rubin reported that this land was placed into a Commercial category at the applicant's request about a year ago. The applicant then met with adjacent land- owners who felt that this would reduce the property values in the vicinity of Commercial Boulevard and State Road 7. The applicant agreed to place the land back into the Residential category, without requesting any additional units. Mr. Rubin advised Council that the Planning Commission has heard this item and is in favor of approving this change. Mayor Kravitz opened the Public Hearing. Alice Norian, resident, asked how many units per acre this involved; and Mr. Rubin replied the land use plan shows 15 per acre. Morton Student, resident, asked what is meant by Low/Medium Residential; and Vice Mayor Stein replied 15 units to the acre. With no further public response, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1112; C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 27. Sabal_ Townhouse Development Corporation - RezoningPetition #11-Z-84 - Temp. Ord. #1115 -- Discussion and possible action to rezone lands located on the west side of NW 46 Avenue and north of NW 59 Street from R-4A (Planned Apartments) to S-1 (Recreation/Open Space). First Reading. a) Acceptance of Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Affidavit of Posting. b) Consideration of application. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Accepted Affidavits; b) Approved Temp. Ord. #1115 on First Reading. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1115, by title. Mr. Rubin reported that the applicant is processing a new development plan for this residen- tial project and part of the City's requirement is that if there is any open space or if a Club House is on that property, it must be zoned S-1. In anticipation of this requirement, the applicant has submitted this request to rezone their clubhouse to S-1 for First Reading. It is contemplated that the Second Reading of this Ordinance will be at the same time as the Site Plan Review. Mayor Kravitz opened the Public Hearing and announced there will be a Second Reading. After no response, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. C/M Stelzer MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1115; C/M Dunne SECONDED. Mayor Kravitz asked the Clerk if Affidavits of Publication, Mailing and Posting have been received, and the Assistant City Clerk affirmed. Mayor Kravitz asked for a motion to accept these applications in Item a). C/M Munitz MOVED to accept Affidavits; C/M Dunne SECONDED. a) VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE b) VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -25- 5/9/84 /cmt 28. Tamarac. Associates - Rezoning Petition #13-7.-84 - Temp. Ord. #1116 - Discussion and possible action to rezone the recreation area for a pro- posed residential development to be known as Tamarac Point and located at the southwest corner of. Parcel "A" of Mainlands of Tamarac Lakes Unit 15, approximately 200-feet east of the Vanguard Village Clubhouse, from RM-10 (Planned .Apartments) to S-1 (Open Space/Recreation). First Reading. a) Acceptance of Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Affidavit of Posting. b) Consideration of application. SYNOPSIS OF Affidavits; Ord. #1116 ACTION: a) Accepted b) Approved Temp. on First Reading. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1116, by title. Mr. Rubin stated that applicant is finalizing his Site Plan which should be before Council at the next meeting. He said that this is an excellent example of how the Community, the applicant, and the City have worked together in that the property that is being rezoned is identical. to the original agree- ment signed by a different property owner and the City over three years ago. This rezoning is the final step for the applicant to place a club- house on the property. Mayor Kravitz opened the Public Fearing. Saul Mesinger, resident and member of the Planning Commission, said there was one item that does not appear on the record, and that is the relinquishment of the right to have night tennis and lighting. Mr. Mesinger advised that the developer has agreed to stipulate that there will be no lighting at the clubhouse for night tennis. fir. Rubin confirmed that the applicant had agreed to this request from the Planning Commission, but the proper time to discuss this is at the Site Plan Review and Second Reading. C/M Stelzer stated, as a resident of Vanguard Village which is directly opposite this new development, that he has presented this clubhouse to the residents of Vanguard Village and they have no objection to this being placed across the Canal. With no further response, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. b) Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1116; C/M Dunne SECONDED. a) Mayor Kravitz asked the Clerk'if Affidavits of Publication, Mailing and Posting have been received and the Assistant City Clerk affirmed. The Mayor asked for a motion for item a). C/M Munitz MOVED to accept the affidavits; C/M Dunne SECONDED. a) VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE b) VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 29. Domino's Pizza - Special Exce tion Petition #14-7..-84 - Temp. Reso. #3129 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special exception to permit a take-out pizza restaurant in Bay14 of Three Lakes Plaza, 3130 West Commercial Boulevard, zoned B-2 (Planned Business).. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Temp. Reso. #3129. Approved RESOLUTION NO. R-84-f � PASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3129, by title, and commented that this Special Exception Petition is a form of a zoning hearing and Council is to consider (1) whether or not this type of business is appro- priate for the zoning where it is requested and (2) under Restaurant -26- 5/9/84 /cmt Special Exceptions, there are three primary concerns: Traffic, Garbage Collection, and Cooking Odors. This particular petition is at Three Lakes Plaza, at NW 31st Avenue and Commercial Boulevard. The City Attorney asked Council and the Public to keep their comments specifically to the particular petition on the floor, since Item #30 is also for a Special Exception Petition from Domino's Pizza. Chief Building Official Samuel Stevens confirmed the City Attorney's identification of the location for this take --out restaurant, and reported that the necessary requirements for a B-2 restaurant are 100-feet from a residential property, an approved means of waste collection, and an approved control of odors. All of these requirements have been met. This is going to be a take-out restaurant, B-2 is suitable for this and the Planning Commission has approved this exception and Staff recommends approval. Mayor Kravitz opened the Public Hearing. Alice Norian, resident, stated that a take-out and -delivery pizza restaurant in this area would be an asset to the community and she heartily recommends it. Arthur Gottesman, Planning Commission, reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed this Petition, the restaurant is in a commercial mall and easily accessible, has sufficient parking spaces, six -days a week dumpster removal, and would not be detrimental. The Commission recommends approval. Sam Pizzarello, resident of Tamaracs Lake South, said he recommends approval. With no further response, Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. C/M Stelzer asked if any of the residents who were notified of this pro- posed restaurant, had objected and C/M Dunne replied no. C/M Stelzer MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3129. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 30. Domino's Pizza - 5 ecial Exception Petition #12-2-84 - Temp. Reso. #3130 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special exception to permit a take-out pizza restaurant in Bay 2 of Swanson West Plaza, 8433 West Commercial Boulevard, zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: DENIED Temp. Reso. #3130. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3130, by title, and advised that this is for special exception and is a zoning type of hearing, for consideration for the appropriate zoning classification, the traffic, the garbage removal, and the cooking odors. Mr. Stevens reported that this is located in B-1 and is 100 feet from residential property, they have approved means of waste collection, and an approved control of odor. He said the restaurant would be in a more intensive zoning area than'the previous one and could have a conflict and impact upon the neighborhood. He reported that the Planning Commission did not approve this exception and Staff has no recommendation. The City Attorney asked that Mr. Stevens explain the difference in the two zoning areas, for the record, and his comment regard- ing intensive zoning area. Mr. Stevens stated that B-2 is not as intensive and allows for more different classification of shops and business and for more regional type of shopping. B-1 is for neighborhood orientated shops which will serve the immediate neighborhood. C/M Stelzer advised that Council has petitions with several hundred signa- tures and there is the possibility that many will make the same negative approach. He suggested that a representative speak for all of the public. Mayor Kravitz advised that this is a Public Hearing and all of the public can be heard and he opened the Public Hearing. -27- 5/9/84 Bernie Hart, resident, reported that this item was discussed by the Board of Directors at the Presidents' Council. He stated that the conceptof this restaurant is not the same as the one in Item 29; it is to be a distribution center. Ingredients will. come from Tampa, be gathered together at this site, and then delivered by 8 vehicles to sites within a 5-mile area. When these vehicles are not being used, they will be parked in the lot at this site. He said that in that 5-mile radius to the East would include the restaurant that was just approved; to the West would not involve any deliveries because the Sunrise Musical Theater is there; to the South would include Lauderhill and Sunrise and the. President's Council do not desire to be a distribution center there; and to the North would be. Sections 11 and 12, and the residents there do not want the res- taurant. In addition, the traffic would be going out onto 57th Street which is a very narrow street and a dangerous corner. Mr. Hart recommended that Council disapprove this request, and that the Presi- dents' Council is opposed to granting this exception. Morton Student, resident, recommended this be denied in the B-1 area. Mary DiCandia, President of Section 11, stated that in addition to City Attorney Henning and Bernie Hart's comments, she emphasized the traffic problem. In. Section 11, there are families who live on 57th Court and the backs of their homes face 57th Street and Swanson West Plaza, even though the Plaza lists their address as West Commercial Boulevard, with access to either avenue. The drivers may use 57th on busy evenings for Commercial Boulevard, and the residents do not want to be faced with that traffic. Harold Goldstein, President of Section 12, emphasized that the increased traffic to an already dangerous intersection would be a hazard to the residents in those areas. He stated that the petitioner was originally aware of the B-1 zoning and suggested that Council order the developer to abide by that. Dave Blane, Vice President of Section 12, stated that he is concerned Tape about the anxiety and the unnecessary stress that this will have on the 7 residents of this area. He mentioned the animals from Lauderhill that will be attracted to the rubbish before it is picked up. He said he is also concerned over the lack of lighting on 57th and the possibility of thievery and burglary in the protection of darkness and escape by 57th Street. He advised that there is a pizza place in Plaza DeSol, and a Mama's, a Luv-N Oven in Marshall's, and there is no need for another one in the area. He asked that this exception not be approved. Ben Lieber, Section 12, stated that this property was originally zoned residential and he is concerned about parking problems in an area that was originally planned for retirees, and they feel very strongly about this business coming in there. Within 500 feet of that 5-mile radius discussed before, are 4 pizza places and he does not think it is advisable to have another; it is not acceptable to the Community; and he recommended denial. Saul Mesinger, Planning Commission, reported that the Commission voted unanimously for denial because it does not conform to the zoning. He stated that a special exception cannot be granted when it is in violation of the zoning. The planned operation does not encompass servicing to a 5 square mile area; if the radius of the restaurant extends for 5 miles in each direction, it is a hundred square miles. The Petition fails of itself because it cannot possibly conform to a B-1 zoning and it was so decided by the Planning Commission. With no further response , Mayor Kravitz closed the Public Hearing. C/M Munitz stated that all m,.,st ha corce.rnPq, reaa.rdlRss of the area ^cver�d. or there will be development in the City that will be chaotic and destructive to the lifestyle desired.. He recapped many of the reasons already mentioned for denying this request and stated that the petitioner is required to show the need for the business and by actual count within a radius of five miles, there are 50 places that actually serve Dizza. He said he iG al.-n -28- 5/9/84 concerned over the lack of parking for this facility, where the delivery trucks would be parked when they are not in use, and the City Planner has indicated that only one parking space is needed for the facility. For all of the reasons already heard, C/M Munitz stated that this establishment is certainly not fit to the character of the surrounding community and is not compatible to its location. The people do not want it, for good and definable reasons, and he MOVED to deny this request. C/M Dunne SECONDED. Mr. Bob Webster, Domino's Pizza clarified that the establishment will not be delivering to a 100 square mile area, it would be 22 miles in each direction from the store. He said he found it hard to believe that Domino's would impact the traffic situation since there would be a bank and a beauty salon in that Plaza and Domino's basic working hours are when there is no heavy traffic on the road. There will be one or two delivery people in the daytime hours and three or four on week -end nights. The business is strictly delivery and employees are required to wear uniforms and drive Domino vehl,cles. He stated that from the comments he has heard he finds it hard to believe that this is America where we have free enterprise; if Domino's wants to put a store there, they should be allowed to do so. City Attorney Henning asked what the hours of operation would be and Mr. Webster advised lunch business would begin at 11:00 A.M. and the store would remain open until 10:00 P.M. or 1:00 A.M., as business warrants. Mayor Kravitz called for a vote on the motion to deny. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz called a two -minute recess. rollowing the recess, City Attorney Henning advised tna't ene petitioner on the last item has requested a verbatim transcript and asked if anyone on Council is prepared to request or authorize the Clerk to prepare a verbatim transcript on the last hearing. Mayor Kravitz suggested that this be handled through the City Attorney with whatever the normal procedure is as to cost from the City Clerk's Office. 56. Tamarac Wildlife Preserve - Discussion and possible action on: a) Deleting the following items from the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources FRDAP Grant 11-62-22 description of project elements: (1) Dredging and filling of land (2) Resloping of selective canal banks b) Authorizing the appropriate City Officials to enter into an agreement with A. D. Cacaro for excavation and canal bank sloping in exchange for fill from project. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) APPROVED deletion of (1) & (2). b) Authorized appropriate City Officials to enter into agreement with A. D. Cacaro. C/M Dunne MOVED to Agendize by Consent, discussion concerning the Tamarac Wildlife Preserve due to a special offer for the dredging and removal of the earth at a nominal cost to the City. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. C/M Stelzer asked for a clarification of the emergency reasons for Agendizing by Consent, as he understood such being related to the health, welfare and safety of the people of Tamarac. -29- 5/9/84 /cmt C/M Dunne stated that the City had a $50,000.00 proposal to do this work and with this offer, the City can get this work done for nothing and he feels that time is of the essence. C/M Stelzer stated that there was the same type of emergency when the Sunshine Plaza drainage was addressed and tie wanted this on the record. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE a).The Qity Manager discussed a memo from the Assistant City Clerk on 5/8/84 which relayed information from the City Planner. Part 1 of this item would be a Council authorization to delete from the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources FRDAP Grant 11-62-22 description of the project element, being (1) dredging and filling of land and (2) resloping of selective canal banks, because those work projects will no longer be covered by the Grant funds since the City has the efforts of an individual to do that work for free for the City. She recommended that Part 1 of that memorandum be approved by motion of the Council. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to approve Part 1 of the 5/8/84 memo. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AXE b) City Manager Stuurmans advised that the second part of this action involves the offer by A. D. Cacaro who is doing work at the Tamarac Marketplace, to do the excavation work and canal bank. sloping at the Tamarac Wildlife Preserve in exchange for the fill from that project. She said the Memo is asking that the appropriate City Officials be authorized to enter into an agreement which will protect the City's rights and allow the individual to take the fill for the work at the Preserve. Because this is an item where time is of the essence, she asked that this very informal document be drawn by the City Attorney for the signature of Mr. Cacaro and the appropriate City Officials. C/M Dunne MOVED to authorize this agreement. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE The City Manager advised the public that as a part of the work this contractor is doing for the city, there will be a pathway between Lakes 1 & 2 to replace the one taken by the DOT when they widened Prospect Road. Charles Kern from Tamarac Lakes 1 & 2 stated that the City was granted $31,466 to help transfer this area to a Wildlife Preserve by Governor Graham, and asked if there are any deed restrictions with regard to this land. fie was particularly concerned if the Preserve is going to be opened to the public or only for the residents of Tamarac 1 & 2. Mr. Rubin advised that the dedication was for the City of Tamarac as a. Park, so theoretically it is open to the public. However, the uses that are being proposed and the Grant that was received are passive in nature that will not draw outsiders to that area. It would be for development as a natural area to provide more ventilation, more air and light to the community and allow a nursery to be built there. He said no uses are being created to attract outsiders to the Park. Mr. Kern stated that his concern was that it would be used for fishing and Mr. Rubin advised that the City was aware of that. Mr. Kern asked if work has been started and when it will be done. -30- 5/9/84 /cmt The City Manager advised that the first step is the excavation work, and that it took from August of last year until early February of this year to do soil test borings and geological surveys that were needed in order to develop the bid package. The City went to bid the first part of this year and the Bid results came in at a cost of $50,000.00 for phe work which exceeded the money received from the State, so the bid was rejected, and City Officials have been trying to revamp the plans since March. Now the City has received an offer to do that work for free, and they want to get the work started within the week, Mr. Kern asked if this will cost the City and if it will be over and above the $31,000.00 granted. City Manager Stuurmans advised that this gentleman is not charging the City anything but the privilege of taking the fill out of the land. Mr. Kern asked if that fill would come from the pond which is being used for the sprinkler system and City Manager Stuurmans replied that fill will be pulled from that pond and enlarging the area. Mayor Kravitz announced that if any residents had more questions, they could take these up with their respective Councilman following this meeting, in order to meet the deadlines remaining within the time scheduled. BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 15. Commissioners of Human Relations -- Temp. Reso. #3127 - Discussion and possible action to appoint up to two (2) Commissioners. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Appointed RESOLUTION NO. R-84-J_��PASSED Shirley Blumfield and Jack Weiner. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3127, by title. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED the adoption of Temp. Reso. #3127 inserting the names of Jack Weiner and Shirley Blumfield as Commissioners. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 39. Woodmont Tract 48 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3109 b) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement c) Warranty Deed for right-of-way on NW 85 Avenue - Temp. Reso. #3110 d) Blanket Water & Sewer Utility Easement - Temp. Reso. #3111 e) Blanket Ingress and Egress Easement - Temp. Reso. #3112 (tabled from 4/25/84) �-_- (to be located on NW 85 Avenue, south of Southgate Boulevard, between NW 88 Avenue and University Drive). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled a) through e). Mayor Kravitz asked that Item 39 be TABLED to the next regular Council Meeting for items a) through e). Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to Table Item 39a) through e) to the next regular Council Meeting. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein advised that he has been informed by Fort Lauderdale officials that the City has in excess of $8,000.00 and all the City has to do is ask for it, and tell them what will be done with it. He stated that the expiration of this Grant is almost here so something should be done with this amount of money. Florence Bochenek advised that this was discussed and since new appointments to the Beautification Committee were being made today, it would be determined at the next meeting in what manner this money would be used, but she assured that it would be used and the Committee might even ask for more. Vice Mayor Stein asked that back up be provided to the Council from the Beautification Committee prior to the next regular meeting. Mayor Kravitz stated that it was announced by the past Vice Mayor that this $8,000.00 was discovered to be used for beautification, and Ms. Bochenek advised that the Committee was only made aware of this quite recently and a report would be given to Council following the next Committee Meeting. -31- 5/9/84 /cmt COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 38. Canal Reservation - Temp. Reso. #3131 - Discussion and possible action o release Westwood n a request from South Florida Water Management District to a canal reservation on a parcel of land on the north side of Drive, east of Nob Hill Road. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-84- PASSED City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3131, by title. City Planner Rubin reported that all the land in the western part of Tamarac had easements placed on it by the South Florida Water Management District many years ago, and each time property transfer occurs, there is a requirement for the City to release that easement. Mr. Rubin reported that the City Engineer has no objections to the release, any drainage requirement can be obtained at the time of site plan and platting. Mr. Rubin recommended releasing this reservation. When asked by the City Attorney if there were canal reservations on the. entire Tract 41, Mr. Rubin affirmed that it was a blanket easement. Vice. Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #3131. C/M Dunne SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 37. Corporation - Rezoning Petition #9-Z-84 -� Temp. To Development. Cor_ oraton Re .� � m Ord. #1102 - Discussion and possible action to rezone lands on the north side of proposed Commercial Boulevard and on the east side of proposed Nob Hill Road, from A-5 (Agricultural/Excavation) to B-3 (General Business) utilizing the 5% flexibility rule for commercial development in residential land use area not to exceed 9.09 acres. First Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/11/84) (tabled from 4/25/84). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED on First Reading with condition for submitting new surveys and Ordinance be sent to Planning Commission prior to Second Reading. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1102, by title. Mr. Rubin reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the property be zoned B-2. The applicant has requested that a filling station be built on that corner and that site remain B-3 but agrees to the rest of the site being B-2. Council previously requested the applicant to meet with the City Attorney and City Planner to find a common ground to permit the applicant to keep this corner as B-3. Mr. Rubin referred to his memo to Council dated 5/2/84 wherein he recommended six items as a minimum to place on this property and the applicant has informed Mr. Rubin that items have been agreed to. Mayor Kravitz asked if these recommendations had gone to the Planning Commission and Mr. Rubin confirmed that this list had not gone to that Commission, Mayor Kravitz stated that it is not then known crow the Planning Commission will react to those six items and Mr. Rubin affirmed that he had not yet conferred with them on these items. Mr. Rubin explained that this is at the northeast corner of what will be Nab Bill Road and Commercial Boulevard, neither of which are built at this point. The property is 300 feet deep, extends 300 feet north, runs along Commercial Boulevard, and the frontage is 1,328 feet. The gas station site will be the western portion, which will be 300-feet square. Mr. Rubin described from a drawing on the board, the site shows 262 deep by 250 in width. Mr. Myles Tralins, Attorney for the applicant, stated that Mr. Toll requested that he be allowed to amend his application so that a gas station site under the B-3 zoning could be placed on that corner. The balance of the site will be zoned B-2, as recommended by Mr. Rubin. The perimeter of the site will be 250 X 262 X 215 X 227, as shown on the plot plan. He said the items specifically set forth in Mr. Rubins 5/2/84 memo are all acceptable and he read them into the record, as follows: - only one drive with a maximum,,width of 35-feet. - on each roadway place adjacent to north and east property lines of the perimeter. -32- 5/9/84 / cm t - berm to be a minimum of 36" to 42" high, 25' wide setbacks measured from future right-of-way lines. - the voluntary 60' setback on future Nob Hill Rd. 10' greater than Code. - a 3-foot wall on the north and east property lines. development consisting of Tamarac's planning and site plan requirements. Mr. Tralins said these are all acceptable to Mr. Toll. City Attorney Henning asked Mr. Tralins if part of this land was under water at this time and if there were any plans to either fill it in or excavate it. Mr. Tralins replied that they had measured back to the dry land. Mr. Toll used the drawing on the board to show that the land would be wet down on the easterly end of the 9-acre plot. City Attorney Henning stated that his question referred to the entire parcel, not just the so- called gas station site. Mr. Toll stated that the entire rectangled area is wet. When asked if they planned to leave it that way, Mr. Toll stated that if they did, they would not get 9 acres and if it is filled, it will Tape not exceed 9 acres. Mr. Toll stated that it cannot be excavated more, 8 but it will be filled in, if anything. He added that there is now a proposal in his office for a quarry operation there in conjunction with the expressway which will not be taking any more land but will be digging the rock pit deeper. This proposal is through State paving and the Expressway authorities, and he is not sure what is going to happen. City Attorney Henning asked if the petitioner agreed with having the gas station site B-3 and the remainer of the site B-2. Mr. Tralins clarified that their request, as amended orally before Council, is to provide for a B-3 gas station site with the balance of the property B-2 instead of totally B-3 as previously requested. Mr. Rubin concluded that if the entire property is represented by the drawing, Mr. Toll is agreeing that the eastern part can be B-2, the western part is still B-2, and the City Attorney pointed out that the B-3 rezoning stopped short of the north line. If Council agrees to the rezoning to B-3, Mr. Rubin suggested that before Second Reading, two surveys should come in to clearly show the B-3 area by the metes and bounds description as required and to show the eastern portion to B-2, and the small strip 30-foot wide north of the B-3 proposal, should be removed from the rezoning. Mr. Toll explained that those dimensions came from Mr. Rubin's plan from the Shell station plan. C/M Munitz asked what could be done with that remaining footage and Mr. Toll advised that there is a strip that goes all the way up and that will be Residential. Mr. Rubin stated that the Land Use Plan shows it as Resi- dential and he expects that a rezoning request will come in to rezone the northern strip to a Residential category and he recommended that this specific strap be included at that time. Mr. Toll agreed. Vice Mayor Stein confirmed with Mr. Rubin that whatever is on the plan before them is B-3, the remainder going east would be B-2. Mr. Rubin stated that Council would have to request new surveys be submitted prior to the Second Reading. City Attorney Henning asked for clarification on the distance of the B-3 site, and the street front of Commercial Boulevard. Mr. Rubin reported that the width is 250 feet along Commercial Boulevard, which is about 50 feet more than other filling stations; the overall depth is 250 feet, with a right turn lane required by the County. He added that the property on Commercial Boulevard is only appropriate .for commercial property due to the industrial park in Sunrise on the south side. The Planning Commission has recommended the overall. parcel B-2 and Mr. Rubin concurs; however, if the applicant agrees to deed restrict the western 250 feet with the items mentioned before, Mr. Rubin feels that a filling station could be effectively placed on the property. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord. #1102 subject to new surveys being submitted showing the B-3 parcel and the B-2 parcels and the remainder left out of the rezoning petition and also recommended that this Ordinance plus the stipulation as proposed by the City Planner be sent back to the Planning Commission for comments. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -33- 5/9/84 /cmt 36. Toll Development Corporation -_Rezoning Petition �i8-Z 84 - Temp. Ord. #1101 - Discussion and possible action to rezone lands on the north side of Westwood Drive, approximately 400-feet east of Nob Hill Road, from 1-1 (Institutional) to R-4A (Planned Apartment). Second Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/25/84). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to next meeting for further research by City Attorney. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1101, by title. Following discussion whether to address this item before Item #3.5, the City Attorney advised that this item could be discussed and then take the vote. Mr. Tralins advised that as far as the petitioner is concerned, they have no problem with the order of the items in this manner. City Attorney Ienn.in.g stated that at the First Reading, the Ordinance was amended from R.-3 to R-4A and he. read Section 1 of the Ordinance, as amended. i2r. RuHn referred to PTr. Toll's letter of April_ 2.; , 1 011 ;zI 2Mr Tnl l_ had two concerns on this tract of land that were not resolved at the last. meeting. One was that the site plan showed .individual access to the units and it was requested by the City Planner that a Covenant be placed to show individual access. Mr. Rubin stated that had Mr. Toll submitted another plan with the same density but with a common hallway, the City Planner would have included that in his recommendation. He advised Council that if they wished. to remove that item as a requirement to be included in the Covenant, he has no objections. The second item was the item on the City's list that Mr. Toll shall agree to comply with the City's current requirements as may be amended from time to time. Mr. Rubin stated that Mr. Toll has pointed out several obstacles in that sentence. Mr. Rubin suggested that Mr. Toll list his concerns and they will be addressed individually. Mr. Rubin feels that this was not an unreasonable request to make, Staff spent a lot of time trying to interpret the stipulations and trying to assure Council that every development is conforming to the City's Laws. Florence Bochenek requested that Council consider this item very carefully as it affects the community of Section 21 with regard to narrow roads, traffic, and all items mentioned for other communities in previous problems. She stated that there was no reason for the residents to appear in force because they .feel just as they did at the previous meeting and Council is aware that they desperately want this property rezoned to residential. City Attorney Henning stated that there was a concern that this be resi- dential but there are all kinds of residential and all kinds of standards. Staff is trying to avoid misunderstanding in the future and that is the reason for laboring so much over molding what exactly is meant by residen- tial. The second concern is that there was some discussion, both pro and. con, as to whether or not if this was Institutional there could be a Temple, or Church, or other type of institutional building on this land. It was brought out earlier that even if the land was rezoned to Residential, that zoning allows churches, temples, and other types of buildings. The City Attorney concluded that the message is loud and clear that the residents want Residential as opposed to Institutional, but there are some legal questions to be resolved so that everyone knows exactly what is being discussed. Mr. Tralins stated that a Court Order was entered that provided that certain parcels within Tamarac could be developed in accordance with the zoning standards and the development standards that were in effect as of December 31, 1972. He referred to the City of Tamarac vs. Leadership Housing litiga- tion that Judge Weissing decided upon back in 1972, and it was sgair. decided just a few months ago, and the Appellate Court confirmed his decision. Mr. Tralins advised that historically the citizens of Tamarac had decided that they wanted to annex certain properties that were adjacent to the City and the owner of the property at that time, which was Leadership Housing, objected because Leadership wanted to make certain that it could develop in accordance with existing development standards. Mr. Tralins continued that the City wanted to annex the property because it would make the City bigger, increase its tax base, etc. -34- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins stated the Court granted the City's request for annexation and also granted the owner's request to freeze that land to make sure they could develop in accordance with the development standards in effect at that point in time, which was December 31, 1972. From that point forward, there were some stipulations that were intered into as parcels needed to be developed that modified that Court Order; and also some modifications to the Court Order entered into in 1976. He said essentially, then, there is a Court Order as it affects this parcel of land that states that the development standards in effect as of December 31, 1972, are applicable to the development of this property. Mr. Tralins advised that secondly, in 1979 there was a rather significant dispute between Leadership Housing and the City of Tamarac which concerned all sorts of things, from bonds that were up to who was going to pay for the jet -vac system that the City wanted put in. On July 31, 1979,.all of the issues between Leadership and Tamarac were resolved with an agreement to compromise, settle, release and discharge all terms and obligations. He said that also dealt with the development of property in Land Sections 4, 5, 6, and to some extent Section 7. He said, as an example, all of Leadership Property was listed in this Agreement and the parties agreed insofar as retention was concerned, that 5% of the total acreage of all, that parcel would have to be set aside for retention. If the retention would consist of 5% of 300 acres, using a round number, or 15 acres of land, Leadership could have taken that 15 acres and dug a 15-acre lake; or they could have spread it over 2 or 20 parcels. Mr. Tralins said it also provided for prepayment of the $130.00 per acre off -site drainage fee. Of the monies that were paid to the City of Tamarac at the time of the settlement, which was about $470,000.00, in the agreement $36,400.00 was allocated for prepayment of the off -site retention calculated for 280 acres at $130.00 per acre. He said there are other elements of this Agreement that also affect the properties, such as the granting to the City a 50-foot canal easement on Tracts 2, 12, 13 and 13A and temporary access easements. He said this Agreement also governs the development of properties within the City of Tamarac to some extent. Mr. Tralins said that thirdly, to compound this, there is the present Code of. Ordinances which also affects the development of property in Tamarac since it may address items not covered by the Settlement Agree- ment or by the Court Order. For example, Tamarac utilities was privately owned at that point in time in 1972 and in 1979 because the sale had not gone through to the City. Tamarac utilities was not a party to the liti- gation between the City and Leadership Housing. He said that all of the Ordinances pertaining to the operation of the utilities --the connection fees, requirements for capital improvements, and whatever else concerned the utilities --are applicable,.under the City's current Ordinances, to this property and to any of Leadership properties because it was not a part of either of these two things. Mr. Tralins continued that some of the development standards that have been adopted since then are outside or impose more requirements on a developer than the Court Order provided. For example, if the Court Order of 1972 were applied under development standards, there is no requirement for a developer who owns one of these parcels of land which is affected, to pay a Recreational Fee, because it was not in effect at that point of time. Mr. Tralins said one of the things that the Petitioner did agree to pay as part of the give and take that Councilman Munitz talked about, was the Recreational Fee for 56 units at $95.00 per unit, or $5,320.00. He said another portion of the City Ordinances that were not in effect as of December 31, 1972, were the beautification requirements, which were adopted later on. So, again, by applying the Court Order to the parcels that are involved, there would not be a requirement for compliance with that. Mr.. Tralins stated that in order to really know what is being discussed with respect to what applies, whether it is a Court Order, the Settlement Agreement, or the Code of Ordinances, the only way is that when the developer figures what he's going to build on the parcel, in the form of a plan, one would have to read the Court Order and all the Ordinances referred to in the Court Order, read the Court Order as modified twice and all the Ordinances in there. All the stipulations entered into would have to be read; the Compromise. and Settlement Agreement; and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tamarac. He said it cannot be done except on a case -by -case basis, and the only proper way to do it then, is when the developer knows what he wants to build and puts together a site plan. -35- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins said that the burden of demonstrating what applies, should be initially placed on the Applicant, whether it be Mr. Toll or anyone else. The Applicant should come before Council with a Site Plan, and state this is how he wants to develop and advise what standards apply to that development. If the City Attorney, the City Planner, Staff or Council of the City of Tamarac disagrees, it is a matter to be discussed at that point in time and hopefully within the purview that the documents will resolve. Mr. Tralins stated that this would be the clear and logical. way to go forward and when he drafted the proposed Covenant or Declaration of Restrictions, he expressly stated that: (1) all items agreed to --the density, the set backs, the building heights, the parking spaces, which were greater than the present Code requires, the payment of Parks and Recreational fees --are all things that run with the land that are binding with the developer; and (2) everything else that pertains to the develop- ment of the property shall be considered in accordance with the Court Order and the Stipulations, the Compromise and Settlement Agreement, and the City of Tamarac's Code of Ordinances. He said that nobody can develop this land without the City of Tamarac issuing a permit; so if the developer comes in at some point in time and advises what he feels is applicable and the City disagrees, the developer cannot do anything with that property. C/M Munitz asked Mr. Tralins if he felt that consideration should be given to the purchase agreement between TUI and the City of Tamarac. Mr. Tralins stated that he does not know what that has to do with this issue, and C/M Munitz clarified that his question was if part of the agreement between the City of Tamarac and Tamarac Utilities, Inc., should be considered in the other six or seven items that Mr. Tralins mentioned previously. Mr. Tralins said he was not certain; that it was a very lengthy agreement and most of it dealt with the transfer of the utility. C/M Munitz added that it also dealt with 8600 ERCs. Mr. Tralins stated that the ERCs were a separate matter and C/M Munitz asked if that was not part of the TUI agreement on the purchase of the utilities. Mr. Tralins advised that he brought a copy of the developer's agreement and that was part of the method of payment. He referred to this Agreement and stated that part of the method of compensation to the owners of the utility was the unconditional assignment of 8600 Equivalent Residential Connections, or ERCs, so that the City's Bond Issue could be less and so that the seller of the utility would have the source to get money, to be paid the balance of the purchase price. C/M Munitz asked if the location of these units were specifically identified and Mr. Tralins confirmed, stating that these were connections to be provided by the Utility in Land Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. Accordingly, Developers Agreements were entered into between Tamarac Utilities and Montwood, Inc., and Woodmont, and Toll Development and Leadership Housing which provided for the direct assignment of the 8600 ERCs. He said the reason for this was that Montwood needed 6,000 connections and they wanted to buy them in 1979 so they would know they had the right to hook up in the future; and back at that point in time, there was a moratorium on connections at the Utility prior to the sale to the City. Mr. Tralins said Montwood was going to have massive development in the City of Tamarac and they wanted to make sure they had those 6,000 connections. He added that the other 2600 connections were assigned, in most part, to Leadership Housing basically because Leadership owned a lot of land, was getting out of the development business and liquidating its assets; and wanted to make certain that when someone purchased this property, Leadership could deliver not only the land, but the ability to connect. Mr. Tralins stated that the real concept of where guaranteed revenues came from is if an individual comes in and buys a piece of land, he wants to make sure, a year from now when it is ready to hook up and have occu- pants move in, he can connect. So a developer can buy connections today and pay for them at the minimum rates being charged, and down the road the developer knows he has those connections no matter what happens. Insofar as the Leadership properties are concerned, Mr. Tralins stated that Leadership has already bought and paid for by assignment, which was acknowledged by the City in writing, and accepted by the City as part of the closing of the sale of the utility, to be a sale of these connections in these areas. To the extent that Leadership Properties are involved, those connections have been sold and are guaranteed to hook up. He added that as far as anybody else in the City is concerned, they have to come in and pay for the connection. -36- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins stated that when looking at the City's guaranteed revenue ordinances, in order to insure hook-up, an individual makes a minimum payment. But it also says that if a developer does not make the payment, or misses a payment, the only thing that happens is that he loses that right to hook up,.or to be guaranteed the right to hook up. He added that it does not say anything about permits being pulled, CO's being taken away, or anything else. He said the remedy is that he does not get his guarantee anymore that when he is ready to start selling the units and moving people in that they will. be able to turn the water on and flush the toilets. C/M Munitz referred to a memorandum dated May 1 from the Deputy Finance Director, Linda Baker, and Mr. Tralins stated that there is no question on the 8600 units. C/M Munitz said that the Finance Department questioned where these 8600 connections are to be used --if it is a matter of first in, first out or an identity by area. Mr. Tralins advised that when the contract was originally drawn, in negotiations conducted between the Council's liaison, Mr. Gluth on behalf of the Utility, and Mr. Tralins, the 8600 units were allocated. The contract addresses the fact concerning the first 8600 connections in Land Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 that a fixed portion of the proceeds would go to paying for the additional compensation for the purchase of the assets. Mr. Tralins said about the time that the agreement was negotiated, his client wanted to make sure he got his money; and likewise Montwood was worried that they might not have connections. They met with the City because it also insured City revenues. He stated that the City agreed to sell. 6,000 units today if the City is guaranteed that they will be taken down over the next five years, with a built-in interest factor and also being guaranteed that they will be paid for. He said Montwood and the City agreed and all three parties signed it and 6,000 of the 8600 units were presold. Of the remaining 2600 units, some were assigned to Leadership Housing, and to a much lesser extent to Toll Develop- ment and one other developer, but all 8600 units have been presold. Mr. Tralins continued that the City benefited because the City knew that within a period of five years or so, at least 6,000 of those units, if not all,, would be purchased, paid for, the connections would go in, and were projecting the revenues for the utility. He said that as far as the Finance Department is concerned, every time there is a take down or they get a letter or report of how many are left, they get a release so that the City can collect its portion. He said that they buy from the developer, the developer sends in its money and a release to the City, the City collects its money and issues the connection. If a developer who is not a party to any of these agreements wants to get a connection, he can come to Leadership and purchase some connections if they have them to sell; if not, the whole fee will be paid to the City. The City Attorney stated that he is still concerned over two points that were raised regarding the Settlement Agreement and drainage retention agreement of July 31, 1979. He asked Mr. Tralins to explain where the agreement provides that this particular parcel in Section 5 is not subject to drainage retention, not because the Ordinance came after the Settlement or the Court Order, but because the money was paid by Leadership Housing in its settlement. Mr.. Tralins advised that there were two points. Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement listed all of the Leadership of Tamarac properties and one of the parcels is Tract 41, 4 acres. Mr. Tralins said that he drafted that document, the Sale Agreements, the Developer Agree- ments, etc. He said that on page 4, the monies paid to the City are addressed and the requirement for on -site retainers; and the payment, on page 5, prepayment for off -site draingage improvement. He added that on pages 4 and 5 there is a requirement that of all the properties listed on Exhibit A, adding up all the acreage, that Leadership would be required to provide 5% on -site retention. -37- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins said he does not know whether the City's on -site retention requirements today are greater than that or not. If they are not, there is no conflict; but there has to be 5% retention provided. Mr. Tralins said if this list of parcels were reviewed to find out how much retention is already provided, if excess retention was provided, and there is about 8 acres of excess retention, then the retention requirement of 5% of all of these parcels is already fulfilled. City Attorney Henning referred to Public Record Book 8409 and asked Mr. Tralins the page numbers of this exhibit. Mr. Tralins advised that the document runs from page 145 through 216 and the Exhibit is on pages 214 and 215. Mr. Tralins stated that this Exhibit also states that the City shall require the payment of $130.00 per acre of each acre of undeveloped non -site plan approved approved within the City which sum shall be used for the City's off -site drainage improvement. The payment of said $36,400.00 by Leadership shall constitute Leadership's pre -payment of 280 acres of Leadership's properties described in Exhibit A calculated at $130.00 per acre for drainage improvement. He said this was affirma- tively acknowledged by the City in consideration of Leadership's pre- payment that Leadership shall have no further responsibility with respect to payment for drainage improvement for the property described in Exhibit A; however, the charge of $130.00 per acre provided for herein or in the contemplated Ordinance, because there was no Ordinance at that point in time, shall not be considered as being applied against any other fees or charges required at the time of site plan approval for on -site improve- ments or other development improvements. City Attorney Henning asked if the City is entitled to require $130.00 per acre and Mr. Tralins advised that the City was paid the $130.00, it was prepaid $36,400.00 as a final settlement. City Attorney Henning asked if Mr. Tralins was saying according to this 1979 settlement, that regardless of the. Court Order and since the 5% drainage retention and the $130.00 per acre fee is what presently exists, it is not the question whether it is applicable or not but that it is prepaid. Mr. Tralins affirmed, and also pointed out that page 9, the City had transferred to it the Water Management District that Leadership had operated and Leadership, in accordance with that, provided for excavation of some drainage canals that are described elsewhere in the Agreement; and Leadership got a 2.2 acre credit against the 5% on -site drainage retention as compensation for digging the canals. City Attorney Henning concluded that the point is that apparently drainage retention and improvement fees would not be assessed again because they were prepaid and this document verifies that, and informed Mayor Kravitz that this answered the question on drainage retention. However, the City Attorney advised that he is not in the position to agree with Mr. Tralins as to the 8600 ERCs because his under- standing was that this was a payment schedule in the way of deferring approximately $4,000,000.00 of the purchase of the utility and that it did not necessarily commit the capacity as it was committing the City to repaying Leadership, who was the owner of the Utility when Tamarac purchased it. Tt was a way of deferring the payment with the interest over the five years, which comes to approximately $4,666,000.00 and that this was more a guarantee of payment, not a guarantee for capacity. He stated that this is something that will not be resolved until the site plan is approved, unless there is a concession on one side or the other, because the City does not require the water and sewer agreement at the rezoning; however, it has been the procedure in the past to require this agreement at the time of site plan approval. He said that from Mr. Tralins' statements, there is a lot of land out there that is owned by developers other than Leadership Housing that apparently was purchased from Leadership Housing that may have the right, according to Mr. Tralins' argument, to this commitment but they have all entered into Water & Sewer agreements; in fact, Mr. Toll. has entered into a Water & Sewer Agreements with the City. The City Attorney stated that all of these descendents of Leadership have entered into such Agreements with the City, and he is not prepared to suggest to Council that when it comes time for site plan approval on Tract 41 that the City would not insist that there be a Water & Sewer Agreement for the site plan on Tract 41, whether Mr. Toll owns it or sells it to someone else. Mr. Tralins answered on behalf of Mr. Toll that, at this point, that does not make any difference; it is really the same as what law is Tape applicable. 9 -38- 5/9/84 Vice Mayor Stein disagreed with the City Attorney's point and City Attorney Henning clarified that there were two different issues; one is drainage and is satisfied because the fees have been prepaid; the other is the ERCs of $1530.00 per connection charge. Mr. Tralins commented that if what Mr. Henning says is correct, there was not a guarantee of connection then what he is also saying is that the City could have imposed a moratorium and advised the Utility that they would not get any more money because there are no more.,connections. If that is the case, the City at that point through the doctrine of impossibility of performance that they created themselves, would become obligated to -pay the entire $4.6 Million right then and there. But, he stated,that is not the issue that should be a part of this discussion. Vice Mayor Stein advised that in discussion with Mr. Toll, it was the Vice Mayor's understanding that Mr. Toll would be satisfied to comply with the present City Code, because the City is under no compulsion to rezone this tract of land. If the City does not rezone the land, it will stay under the Weissing decision and the developer does what he wants; therefore, Council has the right to rezone the land under certain conditions. Mr. Toll has agreed to all the conditions except the walkways, which will not be belabored now; so it is down to the FRCS. Vice Mayor Stein advised that he had stated to Mr. Henning, because of the pressure of the residents in that area, if Mr. Toll would stipulate that if the time came and there was. no available water that he had no guarantee at all and only if he paid for a guarantee, would he get a guarantee. V/M Stein advised that this is a compromise suggested for this tract only, because of the people's feelings; however, Mr. Henning has advised the Vice Mayor that this cannot be done legally. City Attorney Henning agreed and stated that he is concerned about the precedent and reminded Council that earlier today another developer's fees were overdue and Council decided to void that agreement and void the site plan. He believes that there are many developers who would be very willing to take that same risk and he does not feel that the City can run the Utilities in this way. Mr. Tralins advised that Toll's position is different than both of those subjects because the guaranteed revenues have already been paid and do not need to be paid twice. The City Attorney asked Mr. Tralins what he was calling guaranteed revenues and Mr. Tralins responded that the City gave them 8600 connec- tions; the City signed off on those connections and they are already guaranteed to be in existence with Leadership properties; they do not need to pay twice for something they already have. He said that insofar as the Water & Sewer Agreement is concerned, there are other elements in that agreement that have to be entered into at the time that they come in with the connections. City Attorney Henning asked why Leadership does not pay the minimum service availability charge on all 8600 connect- tions since that was almost five years ago and all of those connections have not yet been metered. Mr. Tralins stated that there was nothing yet to meter;it is empty land and the City Attorney replied that there are many people paying guaranteed revenues on vacant lots and asked why Leadership is not. Mr. Tralins stated that then they should give the City back the $4.1 Million that the City owes them for the purchase of the utilities that the City could not afford to pay, which is why the City gave them those connections in 1980, at the closing. C/M Munitz asked Mr. Tralins who he meant when he referred to "us", and Mr. Tralins advised that"us" is Marmon; Leadership; Montwood. C/M Munitz asked if this included Toll at this point and Mr. Tralins responded that Toll is a successor to Leadership insofar as Tract 41 is concerned. Vice Mayor Stein asked since when does Toll Development not have to send the City the portion of the connection fee; and when Mr. Tralins stated that they do have to cover that fee, the Vice Mayor concluded that they are not Toll's without payment. Mr. Toll stated that he agreed to pay the City's. portion of the ERCs; but he does not agree to pay again the Marmon portion of the ERCs to the City. He does not agree to pay for connections for the City to hold that are already being held for that land. City Attorney Henning stated that this is the area where he is not yet convinced; he is not saying that they are wrong, but he does not agree. Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if he recommended addressing Item #35 before voting on Item #36. Mr. Tralins advised Council that they had no objection to Council's proceeding either way. -39- 5/9/84 /cmt A 5 minute recess was called. On resuming, City Attorney Henning renilested that one additional point be on record for clarification. There was a recent case where the Weissing order went to the District Court of Appeals and the developers prevailed on Tract 44; however, Tract 44 was a situation where the landowners wanted. CommP.rcial anal the Citv in.it,.ated a rezoning to Residential. He said this was in 1973 and was the most recent ruling on the Court Orders and in this instance, the landowner is petitioning the rezoning and there is a difference. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to TABLE Temp. Ord. #1101 until the Petitioner submits a site plan of his intentions. C/M Munitz SECONDED. Mr. Tralins said, for the record, that as.a matter of law, considering site plans simultaneously with zoning is not something that procedurally either Tamarac's laws or the laws of the State of Florida provide for. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Tralins stated they wanted this decided one way or the other but tabling it and leaving it in limbo is not something that they are agreeable to, because they want the matter resolved. Mr. Tralins advised that there is also a time limitation for determining these matters under City Code of -Ordinances that they insist be complied with. City Attorney Henning stated that that time limitation is 60 days from the Planning Commission or from the First Reading, he was not sure. Mr. Tralins advised 60 plus 10, and Mr. Henning confirmed that is 70 days from the time the Planning Commission resolves it. Mr. Tralins added that if there is a requirement for a developers agree- ment, or site plan compliance, or anything else, it happens at that point in time; the property cannot be developed until there is some form of an agreement reached with the City, irrespective of zoning. Mr. Toll stated that this was the first time that he has ever been asked to do a developers agreement at the same time as zoning. He said zoning has always been the first step, then the plan is developed and a developers agreement is developed to go along with the plan. C/M Munitz suggested that the motion be withdrawn as this discussion is important; he withdrew his Second. Vice Mayor Stein stated that this should be self-evident and advised Mr. Toll that he does not want to grant rezoning and then have to fight the Weissing decision as to what the rezoning is because the City is not compelled to rezone. He stated that he would be thrilled to rezone if Mr. Toll would agree to build under the present City Ordinances and Code. Mayor Kravitz asked for a Second to the original motion, and there was none. The MOTION died for lack of a SECOND. C/M Munitz stated that if Mr. Toll could answer the Vice Mayor's question, Council might be in a position to try to unravel a very confusing situation. Mr. Toll recounted that the first time this came up, Mr. Rubin gave them a sheet with seven or eight items and Mr. Toll agreed to all of those items except the front elevations because if he sold the property,he did not want to bind another person with an architectural elevation. Mr. Toll added that at the next meeting, Mr. Rubin brought in six or seven more items. C/M Munitz said he was concerned about Mr. Toll's answer to Vice Mayor Stein's question.. Vice Mayor Stein reminded Mr. Toll that he did not have any rights until he gets a rezoning; at this moment, this piece of property is zoned Institutional, and that he was coming before Council asking the City to rezone. V/M Stein said it is perfectly valid for Council to agree pro- viding that they comply with the present Codes of the City. Some exceptions have been made as to the fees and are now concerned over the ERCs. -40- 5/9/84 / r+m t- Mr. Tralins stated that (1) the ERCs have nothing to do with rezoning; (2)there is nothing in the record whatsoever, at any of these meetings, to,indicate that rezoning this property to Residential is not in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tamarac; (3) as discussed with Mr. Henning, under the Order, the Petitioner is entitled to apply for rezoning without giving up any of the development criteria provided in there instead of agreeing to all that which has been agreed to. He stated that if Council did not want to rezone it, then do not rezone i.t. City Attorney Henning concluded that what everyone has been struggling with is for whatever reasons there have been some agreements to make some changes to what is strictly under the Court Order; there have been some very simple suggestions, such as setbacks; and then there is the last item which is etcetera, or the catchall. That catchall has been thati'under all other circumstances, the Court Orders apply. Mr. Henning believes that the struggle has concerned the definition of that etcetera portions He stated that if Council wishes to consider that Court Orders apply to everything, that would be one alternative; another would be that Court Orders do not apply at all. A third alternative is that sometimes they apply and sometimes they do not and this has been fairly well. solved. The hang-up over the past few weeks is what the rights are that the Petitioner states that he has. Mr. Henning asked Mr. Tralins to help Council understand what these rights are, since he wrote these documents, so that Council can make a determination to have a Residential development under the terms suggested at this location. Mr. Tralins stated when the application was originally filed, it was the Petitioner's position that what applied was the development standards in effect as of December 31, 1972. Mr. Rubin reviewed it and at that time, came up with a list of all those areas that this proposed develop- ment provides for, and the Petitioner agreed. All of these things exceed current standards and they agreed to everything on there. He stated that that was something that they gave up that is in excess of what they were otherwise entitled to develop under the Court Order. Mr. Tralins advised that guaranteed revenues had nothing to do with rezoning and is not a function of development. If the City advised that they are not going to allow the Developer to pull a permit or process a site plan unless they agreed to pay guaranteed revenues, irrespective of the zoning placed on the property, without an agreement the Developer cannot proceed. Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney for his recommendations for action on this item and Mr. Henning recommended that no action be taken based on guaranteed revenues because this is not the time to resolve the matter with this particular development. He said if Council wishes to TABLE the item for further input, the City Attorney will research the matter some pore. Mr. Toll asked if the developer does not have the right to say that he wants guaranteed revenues or not, when he signs the developers agreement under today's Ordinances and Codes. City Attorney Henning replied no and stated that it was his understanding that before the site plan is approved that there be an engineering description of the water and sewer service needed and there is a Water & Sewer Agreement for that capacity before that plan is approved and the developer does not have the right to waive that. Mr. Toll agreed but that is what the developer signs for and there is a separate portion of that developers agreement which he asked if he has the right to take or not take, which is to guarantee that when he is ready to build and take those connections down, can he have them. If he paid for them and sign for guaranteed revenues, then the City is guaranteeing him that when he is ready the connections will be available. However, if he so chooses not to ask for guaranteed revenues he questioned whether the City would still sign a developers agreement but not guarantee that connections will be available when he is ready. City Attorney Henning replied that the City will not do that because the Agreement is a two-way street and the City has the right to expand its plant and after expansion if the City expects the developer to hook up and pay the revenue, if the developer is not there for one reason or another, the City has lost that revenue. -41- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins suggested that the City has no obligation to e.xnand the plant unless it gets paid for it. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to TABLE Temp. Ord. #1101, so that the City Attorney can research the item. Vice Mayor Stein stated that there have been some dramatic charges made as to City Ordinances, interpretation of Ordinances, and what the City's obligation is under the Ordinances. SECONDED by C/M Munitz. 04110E ALL VOTED AYE 35. Toll Development Corporation - Land Use Plan Amendment - Petition #2- LUA-84 - Temp. Ord. #1100 - Discussion and possible action to change the Land Use designation of a parcel of land 400-feet in width by 400-feet in depth located on the north side of Westwood Drive, approximately 400- feet east of Nob Hill Road, from Institutional to Residential Medium (15 DU/AC). Second Reading. (Public Hearing held 4/25/84). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to next meeting for further information from City Attorney. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to TABLE Temp. Ord. #1100 for further information from the City Attorney. C/M Dunne SECONDED. ffollex ALL VOTED AYE 33. Woodmont Tracts 68/77 - Cypress_at Woodmont - Discussion and possible action on: a) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Authorized developer to continue with Sales Office until 5/23/84. b) Authorized City Attorney to call this item in default and proceed as necessary to protect the interests of the City. City Attorney Henning suggested that paragraph b) be addressed first, and referred to a Memo from the Finance Department dated May 4th, which out- lined various payments that have been made, however, the project is in arrears at this point in time for guaranteed revenue payments of $8,593.20 for one year until 6/l/84. He said he assumed that the 7-day notice default letter was sent out and reported that Mr. Toll has asked for a continua- tion of this payment in months past. Vice Mayor Stein reported that it was the recommendation of the Finance t Departmen,that a written agreement be entered into extending the payment to June, 1985, upon the payment of all the past due amounts. The City Attorney advised that there is a take -down of 75% of the connection charges which will be due on June 18th and the Finance Department indicated that the City might be willing to extend the Water & Sewer connection charge deadline. from June 18, 1984, to June 18, 1985, if the guaranteed revenues was brought up to date and paid along the way. Mr. Myles Tralins, representing Toll Development, stated that his client's position is that at the time any requirement was made to pay guaranteed revenues again, that it was done under duress. He added that the 'City said it would not allow development of the property unless the agree- ment were entered into and that at each time the payment was made, such payment was made under protest and duress and was with the full reserva- tion of rights by his client. The remedies that are applicable to the City with respect to the collection of guaranteed revenues are set forth specifically and with absolute clarity in the City's Ordinances and the only thing the City can do if payment is not made, is not guarantee the right to hook up. -42- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins stated that Toll Development has not waived any of their rights with respect to the repayment of monies that they feel they were not obligated to pay and request that those sums be repaid and, for the record, they are not going to pay any more. He said Tract 68 is covered by the agreements pertaining to the allocation of ERCs in Land Sections 4, 5, and 6; the connections are already guaranteed and there is no reason for his client to pay twice for something that he already has. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to direct the City Attorney to call this item in default and proceed with whatever actions are necessary to protect the interests of the. City in this matter. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 34. Southgate Gardens East/Mission Lakes - Discussion and possible action on: a) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agree- ment (tabled from 4/12/84) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:a)Authorized developer to continue Sales Office until 5/23/84. b) Authorized City Attorney to call item in default and proceed as necessary to collect monies due the City. b) Mr. Tralins reitered the same position with regard to Southgate and added that the property was platted and that there is no requirement to pay for guaranteed revenues. He stated that payments were made under duress and requested that Council limit action to the rights and remedies under the City Ordinance. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to instruct the City Attorney to call the Water & Sewer Developers Agreement in default and proceed to try to collect the sums due the City. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE a) Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to DENY the renewal of the model site permit. C/M Munitz SECONDED. City Attorney Henning asked the Clerk when the permit expires and the Assistant City Clerk said 5/13/84. Mr. Henning advised Council that there were three alternatives: to deny it; approve it if payments have been made; if denied, refunds should be made; or approve it subject to payments of the outstanding fees. Vice Mayor Stein changed his motion to DENY the model sales permit and return the fees paid. C/M Munitz as the SECOND approved the amendment to the MOTION. Mr. Tralins asked if the denial is based on their position with respect to the payment of guaranteed revenues and Vice Mayor Stein replied that if the plat is in default is no reason to renew the model site. City Attorney Henning asked if there were any connection charges purchased for units that have not been sold. Mr. Tralins clarified the question to be if there are units under contract to be sold at this point in time and the City Attorney restated the question to be if there have been any CZAC connection charges paid for units that have not been sold and Mr. Toll replied yes. The City Attorney stated that if there are no valid units for sale then there can be no model and asked for clarification again if there have been any connection charges for any units that have not been built or metered, and if so, which ones are available. Mayor Kravitz asked for action on the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -43- 5/9/84 /cmt Mr. Tralins stated that he has no idea what Council just did or why. Mayor Kravitz advised that Council denied 34a, which is the renewal on the sales permit and authorized a refund of the $400.00 application fee. Mr. Tralins stated that he does not understand the question �: oA this and City Attorney Henning explained that under the Water & Sewer Agreement there is a 25% take -down, and 75% was financed; then some buildings were built but the Developer has not built out yet. Mr. Henning advised that the Vice Mayor's indication was that under the default of the Water & Sewer Agreement, that would void any new permits where there have not been payments for connection charges and Mr. Henning's question was whether or not, under the original 25% taken down if all of those units have been metered or sold. Mr. Toll replied that he did not think that they have all been taken down or sold, for either tract 68 or Southgate. However, he stated that he is not saying that he will not pay the going City rate for the water and sewer connection charges and the take downs. He signed for those and he will pay those charges. City Attorney Henning clarified that what Council asked was whether Mr. Toll had units legitimately for sale in light of the defaulted agreement that would allow a model sales office. Mr. Toll replied that he does and he is also using that office for rentals, because in today's market what they cannot sell they are renting, and using the same sales office for that purpose. He added that that office is also being used for rentals of existing units that have their water and sewer connections. City Attorney Henning advised that it is his understanding that if this is a rental office, all they need is an Occupational License which does.not need Council action. 33. Woodmont Tracts 68/77 - Cypress at Woodmont - Discussion and possible action on: ~ a) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84) a) Mr. Tralins stated that so the record is clear as to the developer's noRltion the developer's only objection is being forced to pay the tee which is permissive and voluntary under the City's Ordinance. If Council's action in revoking the development permits is such as to prevent any future sales from going forward and units that are contracted to be built from being completed, or if it is intended to stop the development of these sites, there are two points: (1) his client will suffer severe economic damages and,(2) the remedy Council is attempting to effectuate goes far beyond the scope of the Ordinance which specifically limits and addresses what can be done. If Council is pulling his develop- ment permits and his ability to go forward with the construction of two major developments in this City because he has'--not-paid voluntary guaranteed revenues under the City's Ordinances, severe economic damages will be created for which they will seek redress. City Attorney Henning advised Council that There is a question of what the remedy is here and the City Attorney suggested that Council continue this matter until the next regular meeting and that he be allowed to continue to have his model sales office until that date, and then Council can better understand which units were taken down and which units will be forfeited under the action to be taken. Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to allow continuance of the model sales office until the next regular meeting, with no fur,th ev action until then. C/M Dunne SECONDED. --44- 5/9/84 /cmt 34. Southgate Gardens East/Mission Lakes -- Discussion and possible action on: a) Renewal of model. sales permit and waiver of the 300-foot .distance requirement for certificates of occupancy. b) Payments in connection with the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from 4/12/84) Vice Mayor Stein asked that item 34a) be reconsidered. C/M Munitz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to allow Mr. Toll to continue the use of his Tape model sales facility until the next regular meeting. C/M Dunne 10 SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz closed the meeting at 5:30 P.M., and advised that there would be no reconvened meeting. ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This document was promulgated at a cost of $ 160TI.70 or /'j.z 1 per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council of the City of Tamarac. CITY OF TAMARA+C APPR VED AT MEETING OF City Cleric -45-- 5/9/84 /cmt