Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-21 - City Commission Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 21, 1980 (Reconvened from 5/14/80 & 5/19/80) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order on Wednesday, May 21, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro C/M Irving M. Disraelly C/M Irving Zemel C/W Marjorie Ketch ALSO PRESENT: Asst. City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken Asst. City Clerk, Carol A. Evans 70. Lewin Lot Purchase gVMnP_qTC nP ArTTnM- AaVMMT7.7n RV rnNTg7NTT C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, requesting a check for the Lewin Lot purchase, for the purpose of creating a bud- get position for this money. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 71. Cypress Creek Commons - Bid Authorization SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, the City Tanager's office be authorized to go to bid for the asphalt paving of the Parking lot in Cypress Creek Commons so it can be done be- fore the middle of June. C/M Zemel SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 16. Consent Agenda k) Bid Authorization - Parking lot lights for City facilities - Approval recommended by City Manager 1) Bid Authorization - City Hall roof repairs - Approval re- commended by City Manager m) Bid Authorization - Roadway Resurfacing -- Approval recom- mended by City Manager SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: VOTE: Item K tabled to meeting of 5/28/80. Items 1 and m approved. ALL VOTED AYE. The Assistant City Manager stated that Council was given backup concerning items 1 and m with a date of May 16th be inserted. C/M Disraelly MOVED that that 16th day of May be approved for 1 and m dates. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. LEGAL AFFAIRS 41. Broward County - McNab Road Project -- Temp. Reso. #1618 - Discussion and possible action to approve an agreement with the County for a utility relocation on McNab Road from Uni- versity Drive east to 70th Avenue. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled to meeting of 5/28/80. Mr. Birken, City Attorney stated that he hasn't received the agreement for this nor for Commercial Boulevard. However, since there seems to be an emergency concerning this, Council may wish to indicated their agreeement to go along with the County. Mrs. Stuurmans, Asst. City Manager stated that the -1- 5/21/80 by County Engineering Department indicated these documents would be available in time for the May 28th Council meeting. C/W Kelch MOVED to table the item to the May 28th meeting. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL 24. Budget Transfer - Recreation Department - Discussion and possible action to approve a transfer from the Contin- gency Account to the Recreation Department for a drink- ing fountain at the park. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Transfer approved from Contingency to Recreation Department for drinking fountain at Park in amount of $600. Mrs. Stuurmans stated that on May 19th, Council requested a description of the drinking fountain and a cost estimate. She sent Council a memo May 20th with this information from the Public Works Director, who indicated $20.00 for the cost of materials to install. C/M Disraelly said the drinking fountain would accommodate a person in a wheelchair and children. He MOVED approval of budget transfer of $600 be taken from account 1-272-581-901 and be transferred to account 1-761-572-47. C/W Kelch SEC011DED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. LEGAL AFFAIRS 43. South Florida Water Management District - Assignment of Canal Reservation to City - Report by City Attorney. Discussion and possible action concerning Council authori- zations to further research this matter. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled The City Attorney stated that he had given Council his memo- randum and letters from the South Florida Water Management District which state that it is possible that certain rights which various state agencies have concerning drainage and canal construction, could be transferred to the City if cer- tain things were done. It would appear that the only area of the City where this would be of value or could be of value would be Land Section 7. Stipulation #2, signed with Mountwood in 1979, essentially stated that drainage requirements in Section 4, 5 and 6 were satisfactory and had been met. Section 7, however, is different. The City would need to proceed with a drainage plan and to try to determine where to construct canals and then Council would have to determine whether to proceed. It would have to be determined whether the interest the State still had was a valid interest in the land. It would have to be determined there were no intervening tax deeds that would nullify the State's interest in the land owned. This would not be a simple procedure. It is very likely or possible that there are other means which may or may not be more desirable to the City to assure that there is satisfactory drainage at the time of development of property within Section 7. The City Attorney concluded by saying that this is a possible way to get a lot of property to dig canals, and that is all the land can be used for. It might be necessary to have the consulting engineers prepare a Master Plan for Section 7. This might involve legal proceedings by the owners from whom we would be taking land and which was reserved and which we took with notice of canal reservations. V/M Massaro stated that the ownership in Land Section 7 is fragmented thereby requiring costly research. The one pro- ject in Section 7 is tying into the C-14 canal, and as long as it is a temporary situation the South Florida Water 11anage- ment District may not object. Several things have to be taken --2- 5/21/CO by into consideration. Bonding may have to be required such as required of Commercial Plaza and Sambos, so that they would tie in to the Borrow Canal. In addition a study would have to be made to determine how much land surface is required to provide adequate retention - such as was done in Land Section 4, 5 and 6. V/M Massaro suggested that she discuss this with both the City Engineer and the Consulting Engineer and come back to Council with a report. Both C/M Disraelly and C/W Kel.ch agreed something affirmative will have -to be done and they prefer it be under the City's control. C/W Kelch MOVED that Item 43 concerning canal re- servations in land Section 7 be tabled to the next regular meeting. C/M Disraelly ,SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. LEGAL AFFAIRS 50. Sprin; Lake I - Discussion and possible action concerning Certificates of Occupancy for this project. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Release of remainder of CO's approved subject to Agreement approved by Council and subject to bond endorsement for culvert crossing and canal excava- tion. Before bond reduced, must furnish as-builts, fees and water and sewer deed. Discussion was held concerning charges to be made to the agreement with H.L.R., Inc.. V/M Massaro inquired as to whether the present bond will cover the canal excavation and the 60 inch aluminum pipe culvert crossing or will that bond require an endorsement. V/M Massaro stated the bond is supposed to cover the excava- tion of the canal plus the culvert crossing and the only reason the culvert crossing is separated at one point in time is if there is a reduction of that first bond, then the cul- vert crossing has to be added after the 25% is determined. That's the reason it is separated, but right now the culvert crossing as well as the canal has to be covered in the bond. She questioned whether the bond will cover both without an endorsement because most often the bonds are specific as to what they cover. If we are requiring bonds, we want to be sure that the bond covers it, and does the Spring Lake I bond cover the culvert crossing and the excavation of the canal, or will an endorement . be required in order to cover them, because this bond as it exists is supposed to cover this additional work. Mr. Rubin stated that normally an endorsement would be required, because bonds usually cover specific work. He agreed to ac- quire the required endorsement. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin if the as -built surveys for Spring Lake had been submitted to the City. Neither Mr. Rubin nor his planner Mr. Bryan could answer with certainty. Mr. Bryan added that submittal of the as-builts accompanies a request for release of the bond which request has not been made as yet. V/M Massaro confirmed this but said the City is releasing all CO's pending certain things being done. Lon Rubin stated that there is a provision in the agreement whereby he could ask for a reduction in the bond at a certain point in time. He suggested that at the time that he asks for the first reduction in the bond would be the time to comply with all the provisions for release of the bond. V/M Massaro said the fact that these things are not in the agreement they need to be part of whatever motions are made. The estimated costs have to be adjusted as well because this was based on 48 inch, and the developer is supplying a 60 inch culvert crossing and the 2 rip rap headwalls are going to re- main rip rap,the other two are going to be concrete so there is an adjustment necessary. But whatever adjustments are necessary the proper estimated cost sheet should be furnished. V/M Massaro indicated that the next thing needed is the deed for the water and sewer lines on that project which has not been furnished yet. -3- 5/21/80 I___ Julian Bryan said that normally comes with the as-builts at the time of the reduction in the bond down to the 250 warranty bond. V/M Massaro MOVED the release of the remainder of the Certi- ficates of Occupancy for Spring Lake I subject to the agree- ment which has already been approved by Council and subject to the developer providing a proper endorsement to the bond to cover the culvert crossing and the excavation of the canal. Before the bond is reduced to a maintenance fee of 250 of the cost as indicated in the agreement, as-builts for Spring Lake I will have to be furnished together with the final certified cost estimate and applicable fees for this project and deeds for the water and sewer lines to be provided and approved by the City Attorney. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 50. Spring Lake I - b) Temp. Reso. #1628 - Warranty Deed from LHI for 50' Canal Row c) Temp. Reso 1629 - Acceptance of 20' Wide Canal Maintenance Easement from LHI SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT RESOLUTION NO.R-VP-Zj PASSED B & C ADOPTED C/W Kelch MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT in connection with Item 50, Temp. Reso. #1628 and #1629. V/M Massaro SEC0;IDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1628 by title only. V/M Massaro MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1628. C/W Relch SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1629 by title only. V/M Massaro MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1629. C/W Kelch SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. LEGAL AFFAIRS 46. Site Plan Review Fees - Temp. Reso. #1619 - Establishing fees for extensions of previously approved site plans. Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved as amended. RESOLUTION PTO, R-dD/,VZPASSED The City Attorney read Temp. Reso.#1619 by title only. V/M Massaro stated that this Resolution is establishing a fee of $125 for site plan extensions or any type of reconsidera- tion. C/M Disraelly said that Section 2 line 13 should be amended to read all "Resolutions" (plural). City Attorney said it should be adopted today and clarified that this Resolution would not affect any items on the agenda of May 14th or items tabled from May 14th. C/M Disraelly MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1619 C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 53. Riverside Memorial Chapel - Discussion and possible action on: a) Site Plan b) Landscape Plan c) Plat - Temp. Reso. #1615 SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a, b, c,tabled to 5/28/80 meeting. V/M Massaro MOVED to table this item to the next regular meeting. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. -4- 5/21/80 by VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. V/M Massaro stated that, with respect to the Riverside item, the Asst. City Manager should bring to the attention of the appropriate individual, the fact that Riverside has to pay for updating of the drainage system at the rate of $130 per acre. This matter was overlooked. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 55. Summit Bank West - Discussion and possible action on request for six-month extension of the approved site plan. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Six-month.extension of site plan approval granted subject to conditions enumerated on attached copy of ver- batim transcript. V/M Massaro stated that she would be in favor of extending the. site plan approval with certain conditions, such as: 1. Show the parking lot lighting 2. Provide the two extra parking spaces 3. The dumpster walk-in door 4. Comply with all drainage retention requirements 5. Subject to re-examination of the Engineering Plans by our present City Engineer. 6. Fees be adjusted 7. Estimated cost be adjusted to today's rates on the fees 8. Check the costs, because certainly a year ago and today, there may be a difference in the estimated cost. 9. The revised site plan is to indicate the location of the street section that had to be added to help straighten out 61st Street, because of the irregular lines there. The County and the DOT are involved in that, and has to meet the approval of the City, County and the Florida DOT, and has to be indicated. 10. The applicant is to be responsible to construct this section of street within a certain period of time. 11. The time period should be that no final inspection is to be made or requested before this street is completed. 12. Developer is to enter into a current Developers Utility Agreement, primarily to determine the accuracy of the necessary ERC's. 13. The Agreement itself that exists now, in all probability, will be recognized, other than we must determine the accuracy of the ERC's. 14. Tree size, which was spoken of before, but has to be included again, that it shows on the landscaping plan that they were to be an eight (8) foot minimum, and should have been shown as a ten (10) foot minimum. 15. It may need an amendment to the plat to show the accurate lines of the street which is being changed, and should show whatever the County and the DOT require, as well as the City. I am sure that all three will agree on one thing, but the plat should indicate this change. 16. The plat should show the changes as required, or a dedication by separate instrument. (as recommended by the City Attorney) 17. The plan is also to indicate any drainage improvements required for University Drive at 61st Street, that the revised plan show this. 18. If all items are complied with, I would agree to an extension of time, and if these items are not complied with, then the extension be denied. -5w 5j 21; �0 1,7- V/M Massaro made this in form of a motion. Mr. Bryan was confident that he could have the site plan in with the revisions in a week, but he didn't anticipate being very successful on the matter of 61st Street. Mr. }Bryan also stated that the conveyance of the -extra right of way, by separate instrument, will, be submitted correctly;that it would be in the bank's best interest. V/M Massaro remembered that in the first approval they were to furnish a deed and Mr. Birken was going to hold it in escrow until such time as it was resolved. The Vice-IZayor clarified that if these conditions are not accepted then the petition is denied, because there is a provision that pro- vides for an extension of the site plan even after the site plan has lapsed. Mr. Goldberg may not be happy with the re- tention item, but the dollar amount is small and everyone has to do his share. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion and requested a verbatim of the motion. V/M Massaro said the motion is for a six (6) months extension because they do have to get the approval of the County and the approval of DOT. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 58. Emergency Ordinance - Temp. Ord. #764 - Discussion and possible action to enact an emergency ordinance amending Ordinance No. 80--35 - Comprehensive Utility Regulations - to modify the provisions pertaining to payment of contribution charges and guaranteed revenues. (Agendized by V/M Massaro) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on first reading as amended. The City Attorney said the ordinance was requested by the Vice -Mayor, the emergency is stated in Section 1 of the ordin- ance. The City Attorney pointed out certain changes being requested - page 3 on line 8. "Any work covered by this para- graph shall be guaranteed for a period of 1 year from the time a bill of sale for" remove the words "construction of" and in- sert the word "the" - for the water, or sewer or both facili- ties - remove the word "are" and insert "constructed by the developer is accepted by the City Council". The next line, after the first word "City" put a comma. Mr. Birken explained this change is in case of a project that has an impact on the system to an extent it is not necessary to put in a new pumping station but to upgrade or modify the existing pumping station, then the developer would be required to do that. V/M Massaro added sale being for the structed, they are as well. that another need is in the case of a bill of item itself, and if a new one has to be con - not just paying for the labor, but the item Mr. Birken continued with the provisions for contribution charges being modified and explained that under certain condi- tions when a residential project is built and permits are issued over a period of time, a developer would be permitted to pay interest on the contribution charge at a rate of $10.50 a month. The monthly interest payment would allow the developer a ma;;i- mum of 2 years from the date the first building permit is issued to put off payment of the contribution charge. During the 2 years, the developer would pay the contribution charges for in- dividual buildings as permits were requested. Mr. Birken exc- plained that if there was an increase in the contribution charge, the developer would have to pay the increased amount on build- ings for which permits had not been pulled. In addition per- mits would have to be pulled on at least 25% of the units dur- ing the first year. The next provision inserted is #6 on page 4 which provides that building permits shall be applied for in multiples of no less than 10 ERC's. The problem wit.-i this is in single family homes, the developer has to pull 10 permits and he may not knov7 which -6- 5/21/80 by 10 buildings he is going to be putting up next it would not be economically feasible to require the developer to wait until he has 10 sales to come in and pull permits because he wants to be building on a continuing basis. Mr. Birken suggested the requirement for the 25% of ERC's within the first year and the 2 year outset requirement from the time the first building permit is pulled. The provisions for con- tribution charges that have been written did not contemplate large projects which may require further refinement to accomo- date very large projects. One concept was that the developer would forego the right to a certain number of units. He would enter into a developer's agreement but when it came time for him to have the ERC's,if we were, at capacity whereby we couldn't furnish it to him there would be provisions so that we would not be obligated to furnish the capacity at that time, even though there was an approved site plan. V/M Massaro included that it might be prudent for Council to exclude extremely large projects such as 800 units, because they would notbecompleted in 2 years. The large projects per- haps should be done by separate negotiation. If Council feels that they do not wish to make such exception, the developers of the large projects who will be coming in soon will want to talk on this matter. Mr. Birken cautioned Council that if they approve a site plan with 900 units at one time with the multi -unit build --out and the regulations change concerning drainage or parking, etc., there may be some problems if the developers are compelled to comply with the new regulations. V/M Massaro pointed out that the benefit to the developer is that he has an approved site plan with no changes being allowed. They may not want to phase it, but would prefer to pay the in- terest. In response to a question from C/W Kelch, V/M Massaro said that the considerations on the very large projects are too complicated to be able to address them within the ordinance. They would have to be by separate agreement. V/M Massaro asked for an expression from Council as to whether they would have any objection in considering another ordinance for de- velopers with projects of a very large size. C/W Kelch in- dicated that she felt this was necessary. However, she did state that there should be some reference to both situations in the first ordinance. C/M Disraelly said that normally when an ordinance is written it applies to everybody involved with the City. It appeared to him that this ordinance was prepared to cover all situa- tions. He suggested that in order to avoid making changes depending on the developer, that a minimun number of units be used. If one comes in that is above that number, Council can handle that as a separate entity. But, then Council would not be writing separate ordinances for specific individuals. V/M Massaro suggested using 500 units as a figure for the ordin- ance. Mr. Birken stated that Council can consider this as a regular ordinance with a Public Hearing on second reading, rather than as an emergency. Or, if Council wishes a special meeting for second reading it could Le held so that it could be considered at the earliest possible date. He would alter the language between first and second readingto accomodate large projects. The title is sufficiently broad so that there is no problem in modifying the title other than taking out the word "emergency" to allow insertion at second reading if Council wished. Mr. Birken pointed out that these modifications had been dis- cussed with certain developers and it was generally acceptable to them. If the concept that the City would not be reserving units for developers of large projects and they would be pro- ceeding at their own risk is considered reasonable by Council, then he would prepare language for the second reading. We want to be consistent in the application of our regulations, so we shouldn't write in the maximum number of units that would be considered under this ordinance. -7- 5/21/80 by C/M Disraelly felt that the regulations for large projects such as 800 or 900 units could be included in this ordinance, so a new one wouldn't have to be written every time a large project was proposed. Lon Rubin, President of HLR said that there is only a pro- blem with the 2 year period, in cases of a large project. All the other provisions in the developer's agreement would be applicable to a large scale development or a small scale development. He suggested an amendment that would provide some discretion on the extension of the maximum 2 year period and it doesn't have to be with great specificity in the agree- ment itself. It can state that it is for the maximum 2 year period. However, Council may use its discretion so that it is not a mandatory 2 year period. The City Attorney stated that the City should try to achieve consistency in its regulations. A new developer would want to know what is expected of him. You would need to set standards in order to provide for a waiver. Lon Rubin said it will apply to 25% standards and for a devel- oper of 501 units it would have to apply to a lesser standard, that is being treated unfairly. The only thing that relates to the term of fairness in large scale transactions is the length of time that it would take for completion before other things happen:you will in effect be paying twice for the same thing. Mr. Rubin said whatever is done, it should be applied on a uniform basis in terms of the standards that are set for stretching out the time. He reiterated that providing for a waiver without stating a specific number of units shouldn't be difficult and would take care of the extraordinary situa- tions, without departing from the set standards. Mr. Rissman, of Rissman Development Corporation introduced himself as the developer of Woodmont Tracts 74 and 75 con- taining 867 units. He said that he anticipates that the sales and build out period for the project will be about 6 or 7 years and that the time factor, as stated previously, would be a burden as well as the interest carrying charge on units that wouldn't be built for 5 or 6 years. Mr. Rissman stated that he is not trying to negotiate each term but would like to continue working out the overall scheme with the City,Attor- ney that would be applicable. In response to inquiry of C/W Kelch concerning the ordinance being considered as an emergency, Lon Rubin responded that the necessity for this ordinance being passed now is important to certain developers. There are site plans and plans which are and have been pending since Council approval because they are unable to proceed beyond the stage they are in and require tabling at every meeting of Council because the approval of the site plan requires the approval of the developers' agreement, the approval of the developers' agreement requires the approval of the ordinances which govern the developers' agreement, so the developers are sitting here with site plans waiting for an ordinance to be passed to facilitate the City executing new developers' agreements on all future projects. He then encour- aged Council to adopt the ordinance, based on emergency as stated. Mr. Rubin proceeded to discuss the contents of the ordinance referring to page 3 where the Citly requires the developer to modify and rehabilitate existing water and sewer sy.ster,ls is part of a paragraph that refers to Section 50, its extension policy where a developer may be required to construct oversize offsite facilities. However, it is not clear and seems con- tradictory at one point - where it says that the City may re- quire developers at developers' sole cost and expense to modify. He recommended that if a developer is required to modify an existing facility and that existing facility serves other areas in the City, which are undeveloped, it's the same principle as a developer constructing oversized or on site facilities, and therefore if he is required to do that, he should be able to avail himself of the same cost -sharing and recoupment from other tracts to come in at a later time. -8- 5/21/80 by F Larry Keating, City Engineer, suggested that the wording say that the developer will ,front the cost rather than bear the sole cost for those improvements, and that a funding agreement could be entered into. That probably is the type of wording that Mr. Rubin wants. If we want to consider having him get a fee reimbursed, we want him to pay for the initial improvements. Lon Rubin suggested that the procedure for modification of existing systems be the same as the procedure for construc- tion of oversized facilities. The City Engineer referenced language concerning a time limit for completion of improvements before Certificates of Occu- pancy can be issued. It was suggested that such language be included in the developers agreement. Mr. Birken, in returning to the content of the ordinance, pointed out that there wouldn't be any net loss to the City under the contribution charge modifications -)lie City would get at least the same net amount of money and with interest rates going down, we may end up with. mArein the lang run with the 10-15 months than if they paid this amount up front. V/M T'Iassaro added that is because previously they would pay contribution charges at site plan approval but their interest begins at site plan approval. Mr. Birken continued with the next item on page 5 - Guaranteed Revenues. At the present time guaranteed revenues commence 6 months after execution of the developer's agreement.. The proposed ordinance would allow the guaranteed revenues to begin on each building 6 months after the building permit is issued but no later than 18 months from the date of the execu- tion of developer's agreement for all the units. He commented that TUT required 2 years from the time of the execution of the developer's agreement, which may have contributed to the fin- ancial problems Tamarac Utilities had; and the City wouldn't want to be more flexible than TUI was. Mr. Birken presented several points of view for Council con- sideration. 1) If there is no development, and the regula- tions are so onerous that there is no development then the rates are going to go up. 2) If it is deferred, then the amount deferred is that period of time when you don't get cer- tain revenues. 3) The project can be phased and then the City wouldn't get it that way. It was a growth factor considered by the Consulting Engineer, when they made great projections, and if our regulations are so onerous that development cannot take place, the only people who know the answer to that are the developers. There is a possibility that there will be a shortfall that will have to be made up by the existing customers. If development takes place along the lines it was projected, guaranteed revenue payments according to Mr. Nolan were not factored in to the rate projections and there should not be any real significant impact if we modify the guaranteed revenue payment regulations. Mr. Birken then addressed the phasing concept. One method is that used by Gardens of Sabal Palm - where only one por- tion of the site plan was approved with the risk that the City may not have the capacity available when they come in for the rest of the project. The other method phasing, is to get the entire site plan approved, but build in stages rather than phases without getting subsequent approval by the City Council. In the first method there is no guaranteed revenues for what hasn't been approved. In another type of situation, under the regulations as they exist today, there is one site plan that's been approved and they have to pay on the entire site plan regardless of what their plans are. C/W Kelch suggested that the following language be added on line 24, page 5, "Rate Schedule of the City as the same may be amended from time to time". She also suggested on page 5, line 31 and 32 add "Upon failure to pay, the City..." Mr. Birken continued on page 6, Section 58, with the last change which deals with setting the fee by resolution of the City Council for projects with ten or more ERC's. Per. Nolan Q'Z 5/21/80 by L.... _1 would review the project to see if any necessary improvements or modifications would be needed. Mr. Nolan has provided the City with a letter stating he felt $500 would be suffi- cient which would be set by separate resolution. Council was also given a blank developer's agreement which will also need discussion and modification. Mr. Birken suggested that Council might want to take action on the ordinance now and hold off discussion on the developer's agreement. Lon Rubin wished to suggest a change to Section 50 on page 2 concerning extension policy definition, that the extension policy recognizes in which a developer may be required to (a) construct or (b) to modify and rehabilitate existing water or sewer facilities to accomodate the impact that the demand created by the project is projected to have upon the system. During discussion of whether the ordinance should be treated as an emergency, the City Attorney stated that the findings of fact are set forth very clearly would give the basis for the City Council to find that there is emergency and in most instances are accepted by a court. C/M Disraelly pointed out those questions which have not been resolved - namely, the maximum number of units to be addressed in the ordinance and the question of whether it's 18 months or 2 years have not been resolved. Mr. Rissman asked for a point of clarification concerning his project as to whether the $10.50 per month is based on 14° of $900. They're purchasing part of that from Woodmont ($542.00) which is another instance where this ordinance wouldn't be applicable. Mr. Birken responded negatively that the City set the fees. Out of the $900, $542 would be paid to Tamarac Utili- ties, Inc. and the balance would be paid to Tamarac. rIr. Riss- man pointed out that he already paying interest on that. V/11 Massaro said the 14% doesn't apply to that, it only applies to the balance of the money. The City could not charge the in- terest on money it does not collect. Julian Bryan said it appears we have a situation where we have the Montwood agreement for 3500 connections and the Leadership agreement for 2400 connections that provides for $358 to be paid directly to the City with the balance to go to the parent company for the utility as partial payment under the City's acquisition. The language in the agreements states that the money is theirs, so it would seem improper that the $10.50 interest would apply on any one's property who was purchasing. This appears to have been an oversight by everyone. It would not seem proper that it would be 14% interest on $900 for those people, but 14% on $352 because they have an attached exhibit in the back of the purchase agreements with a sliding scale that increases either monthly or quarterly. V/M Massaro stated that the question of the payment is address- ed and they would only be subject to the payment of $358, that's what they would be paying interest on. However, the City fail- ed to make a separate paragraph in the ordinance to address that. C/M Disraelly felt that there should be a statement in the ordinance to the effect that if theERC's are purchased directly from the City, the charge should be $10.50 a month. If the ERC's are purchased by an agreement previously executed the fee to the City will be X dollars per month. The percentage figure has to be handled in that manner, 2 sets of numbers so there's only one agreement for the total City, and have sepa- rate agreements with the developers. Mr. Birken indicated that this is a very important ordinance and Council should pass it on first reading on this day giving the time between first and second reading to address the questions raised this day. Mr. Rissman suggested that a language change be made to correct the $10.50 or 14%. If this ordinance is passed for the smaller projects, a new ordinance could be presented to cover the larger projects, and it would be a very simple thing for the Council to approve. -10 5/21/80 by C/M Disraelly responded by saying there are others who are also paying that lesser amount. He is suggesting that the ordinance has to be all encompassing and so all that has to be done is add a phrase to provide for an agreement with Tamarac Utilities for payment in whatever amount is decided. C/W Kelch suggested the inclusion of a waiver provision to provide for the larger projects. Following discussion on C/M Disraelly suggestion, V/M Massaro MOVED that Temp. Ord. 764, be approved on first reading as amended. Mr. Birken read the corrections into the motion - as being Page 3, line 8, the line would read "of one year from the time of bill of sale for the water or sewer then or" Page 3 line 9 "both facilities constructed by the developer is ac- cepted by the City Council and shall be performed." Line 10 a comma after the first "City"; Page 4 delete paragraph 6 and renumber former paragraph 7 to paragraph 6, etc., Page 5 line 24, after the word "City" add "as the same may be amended from time to time." Line 31, should read "upon failure" and line 33 after the word "due" there would be a comma. Mr. Birken indicated that he would review the other changes during lunch and present them in the afternoon. V/M Massaro reworded her MOTION to adopt on first reading the emergency Ordinance Temp. 764 as amended with the amendments as were indicated by the City Attorney. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. 06,20a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALL VOTED AYE. 59. Woodview- Tract 33- Discussion and possible action to approve a water and sewer developers agreement. (Agendized by V/M Massaro) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled ( See Page 14) Due to doubt as to wheter or not Mr. Birken has an agreement drawn up, this item was tabled. Mayor Falck requested a report from C/M Disraelly, toward the end of the meeting with regard to Item ��51, Tamarac Directory Sign. The Mayor requested the Council proceed with Item ��71. 71. Bid Authorization -Cypress Creek Commons-3,000 Sq. Yds. Asphalt for Parking Lot. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved Councilman Disraelly indicated the Assistant City Manager requested this item be placed on the agenda because the work that is being done, under the Water Management Grant has been completed. He further said that the estimated.cott is $6,000 and the bid is for 3030 yards of asphalt for the parking lot. They are requesting the City give out the bid and agendize by consent in order to save time. Mrs. Stuurmans indicated that she had sent a memo explaining this is a portion of several projects that will need to be done. This is the only project that must be done on the outside. The other work will be completed by Public Works Department and that includes seeding, fertilizing, the installation of pumps for sprinkler system to the grassed area and the purchasing of picnic tables. She said these items will be discussed in full at the next regular Council Meeting, when the City asks for the appropriations from the Park and Recreation Funds. C/M Disraelly said irrigation has been put in and the trees have been nurtured. The fishing pier is being used and people are parking on the gravel. -11- 5/21/80 by C/M Disraelly then Moved the request for putting out the bid be approved, and V/M Massaro SECON DEDthe motion. Vice Mayor Massaro auestioned if the money comes thru for Caporella Park, does that, in its entirety, have to be used there or can any part of it be used anywhere else. Mayor Falck felt it could not. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 70. STANLFY L71,7IN, TRUSTEE-,�54,672.65- Acct. 1-876-581-912 SYNOPSIS OF ACTION : Check request approved. C/M Disraelly said this item was discussed at budget meetings and Council's decision was to approve this purchase and buy it. He further said the funding was not taken care of and Council directed Alan Ruf to proceed with the closing. In order to close, the City will need a check in the amount of �)54,672.65. V/M Massaro nuestioned whether or not a budget adjustment would have to be made. The City Attorney said it was budgeted. C/M Disraelly indicated the money will be taken out of the Capital Reserve Fund but there will be no change in the total budget of the City. He further noted there is a balance of �427,000 in the Capital Reserve Fund. The City Attorney said the fact that it was in last year's Capital Improvement Program would indicate that that's where the money should be coming from. C/M Disraelly MOVED that a check be drawn �54,672.65 from the Capital Reserve Account which currently is in excess of fi427,000,( Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. in the amount of #1-876-581-912, Stanley Lewin, Trustee). 68. Financial Federal Plaza Discussion and possible action on a) Site Plan b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement SyNoPSIS nF ACTION - a) Site Plan Approved- C/M Disraelly to adjust -�� beautification plan with Financial Plaza representative with report at next meeting. b) Approved. Mr. Birken indicated Financial Federal has everything approved by Council. It was subject to their getting the developer to be within a certain time. Mr. Birken explained the developers agreement was not received on time because the City Engineer wanted some changes to be made. He further said now the money is in and everthing is in order, therefore, Mr Birken requested the developers agreement be approved and action taken on the Site Plan. Councilman Disraelly said there was an error in the landscape plan and felt that action may have to bemeacinded and reviewed. lie said there was no chart on the side of the plan indicating what types of plantings and how many plants were going to be used. The City's Ordinance readsthat no more than 257, of trees in any landscape can be Sabal Palms. They are up to 31P!. Vice Mayor Massaro advised that one additional tree has to be planted between each 10 parking spaces and that is part of their approval. She requested C/M Disraelly meet with tke representatives from Financial Federal and bring a report back to Council with specific landscaping data at the next regular Council meeting. Vice Mayor reaffirmed the approval of the site plan excluding -12- 5/21/80 F __J the beautification plan and moved that C/M Disraelly be authorized to meet with the representatives of Financial Federal and have them correct the site plan to conform to the City's ordinance and bring back a report on the site plan at the next regular meeting. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement Vice Mayor Massaro explained the developers agreement has to do with business project, and commercial project. Due to the fact it was no fault of the developer that it was not received on time; the Vice Mayor MOVED the approval of the developers agreement on the date Council executes it. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the Motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE The City Attorney reiterated on previous discussions at meetings, items in the developers agreement. He then added on line 7, page 3 at the end of the sentence, after the words sewer system "when City determines that no other undeveloped property will benefit significantly from the modification and rehabilitation." Section 51, page 3 an addition to #1 on line 34 to read: "those projects which are subject to a developer's agreement with Tamarac Utilities Inc. executed on July 31,1979 and which make a portion of their contribution charge payments to Tamarac Utilities Inc. shall be required to pay interest to the City in the amount of 14% per month of that portion of the charge directly payable to the City per year in monthly payments" Councilman Disraelly suggested that since the City uses a dollar amount to do so in the agreement so there will be no question as to what the dollar amount is. The City Attorney continued, line 7, page 4, after line 21 will read; " A written agreement wherein developer agrees that (1) at least blank ERC's are paid for at the time of execution of the developer's agreement. (The number is left blank.) (2) No ERC's in excess of the numbers actually paid for in advance or for which interest charges are regularly paid shall be reserved by the City for the project. In the event the City cannot furnish service for ERC's not paid for in advance or for which monthly interest payments are not paid when requested, the City shall have no obligation to provide same and City shall have no liability for consequences of its failure to provide ERC's. C/M Disraelly MOVED that Council not handle this as an emergency but attempt to have this in proper perspective at a meeting one week from this date, at which time all of the developer's agreements and site plans that are before Council now will be handled. The City Attorney can have this properly typed no later than tommorrow. Council will then have the opportunity to review it and everyone will understand the explanation. The Vice Mayor stated it is an important factor to get this emergency ordinance passed. This can apply to anything up to and including 600 units. She said the City should have a special developer's agreement. Councilwoman Kelch said for the record she would prefer a statement to the effect it would not necessarily apply in the case of developers coming in with 600 or more units. She wished to see this enacted and felt this is important. She would prefer to have it enacted as an emergency on second reading with the items added. -13- 5/21/80 Councilman Zemel SECONDED the motion. After further discussion among the Council as to whether this should be handled as an emergency motion or as a regular motion C/M Disraelly withdrew his motion and MOVED the adoption on first reading of an ordinance amending all of those sections as were in Temporary Ordinance #764. The City Attorney read Temporary Ordinance #764 by title. Mr. Birken then said Section 1 would have the words "declaration of emergency" on line 14 deleted, and other than that there would be no other changes. Councilman Zemel SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Councilman Kelch- Nay Councilman Zemel- Aye Councilman Disraelly- Aye Vice Mayor Massaro- Nay Mayor Falck- Aye In response to a question raised by Julian Bryan, Mayor Falck replied that there cannot be an emergency second reading, but this could conceivably be heard the Tuesday following the meeting on next Wednesday. 59. WOODVIEW TRACT 38 Discussion and possible action to approve a Water & Sewer Developers Agreement. ( Agendized by Vice Mayor Massaro) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled The City Attorney said he intends to propose revisions to the ordinance, to modify the developer's agreement to be in conformance with those revisions so that the developers will have those as quickly as possible unless Council tells him otherwise. Mayor Falck said the Chair will entertain a motion for tabling Item #59. Councilman Zemel MOVED to table. In response to C/M Disraelly the City Attorney replied if Council feels that there's an emergency, they can take action on another ordinance on an emergency basis. It can still be advertised and enacted as an emergency prior to the advertised date. Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE-: Councilwoman Kelch-Aye Councilman Zemel -Aye Councilman Disraelly-Aye Vice Mayor Massaro -Nay Mayor -Aye 60. CONCORD VILLAGE I - Discussion and possible action to approve an addendum to the water & sewer developers agreement (Agendized by Vice Mayor Massaro.) SYNOSIS OF ACTION: Tabled Councilman Zemel MOVED to table ITEM #60 Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 61. SOUTHGATE GARDENS - East Discussion and possible action on a) Site Plan b) Landscape Plan c) Vacation of Drainage Easement -Temp. Reso #1582 d) Grant of Utility Easement -Temp. Reso # 1583 e) Grant of Canal Maintenance Easement- Temp. Reso #1584 f) Agreement to COnstruct N.W. 71st Avenue g) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement ( Agendized by V/M Massaro) -14- 5/21/80 L 61. SOUTHGATE GARDENS -CONTINUED SYNOPSIS OF ACTION. Councilman Zemel Moved to table. Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: C/W Kelch --Aye C/M Zemel - Aye C/M Disraelly-Aye V/M Massaro -Nay Mayor -- Aye 62. TAMARAC GARDENS- Discussion and possible action on: a) Site Plan b) Plat- Temp. Reso #1595 c) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement ( Agendized by V/M) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled. Councilman Zemel moved to table Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: C/W Kelch--Aye C/M Zemel Aye C/M Disraelly-Aye V/M Massaro Nay Mayor-- Aye 63. CONCORD VILLAGE II- Discussion and possible action on: a) Site Plan b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreemnent c) Agreement on Park and Recreation Dedications ( Agendized by V/M Massaro) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled Councilman Zemel MOVED to table Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion VOTE: COUNCILWOMAN KELCH - AYE Councilman Zemel - Aye Councilman Disraelly-Aye V/M Massaro --Nay Mayor - Aye 67. WATER & SEWER PLAN REVIEW FEE-- Discussion and possible action to adopt Plan Review Fees- Temp Reso # 1627 SYNOPSIS OF ACTION Tabled __ Councilwoman Kelch said since this is an augmentation that the regulations which Council has now tabled, she then MOVED to table Temp. Resolution #1627. Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE except Vice Mayor Massaro. 51. COMMERCIAL PLAZA - Sign WaiverTemp. Reso # 1594 -Discussion and possible action on request to install one additional sign for this shopping center. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION- RESOLUTION NO. R-- Q — ,2,PASSED Approved with conditions -15- 5/21/80 51: Commercial Plaza Continued Councilman Disraelly requested for the record, a review should be granted. The existing ground sign is approximately identical in size to the present directory sign at the south end of the proprty and they can use that same sign duplicating it at the north end but permitting the words "Commercial Plaza" which are at the top of that sign to remain so that it would be both a ground and a directory sign. He said he spoke with Mr. Klein and he has basically agreed that if Council would permit it, he would agree that both directory signs be identical in color, size of panels, size and style of letters and conform to the criteria. The only difference is that the south sign is an illuminated sign at night with neon tubes in back of the plexiglass. The north sign would be a painted sign with lights directed down on it from above in order to give some illumination. C/M Disraelly further indicated to Mr. Klein that the south directory sign should have a curb around it in order to protect it from the vehicles that park in that area. Mr. Klein said he verbally agrees with these conditions. Councilman Disraelly then MOVED to recommend the waiver be granted to Commercial Plaza for the installation of a second directory sign which would be part of the present ground sign locaied at that center. Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion. Councilman Disraelly MOVED to adopt Temp. with the condition that the present ground have Commercial Plaza at the top and that this sign be identical and conform with th present directory sign at the south end of and that it conforms with the criteria of south sign have a curbing constructed arou against vehicles. Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Resolution #1594 sign is permitted to the lettering of e Lettering of the her than its illumination, the center and that the nd it as a precaution Councilwoman Kelch respectfully requested that consideration be given to the emergency ordinance which was passed on first remain q, and that another meeting be established. The Mayor requested all necessary data and said he would have n quorum for a meeting. MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. ATTEST: CITY CLERK = This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ /-°, 3 0 , or $ 6,DO per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON a2 16 - mac."` �r • c 5/21/80