HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-27 - City Commission Regular Meeting MinutesI
u n.
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320
FIRST CLASS MAIL
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27,_ 1985
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 members 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.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Broward County_Crim_estoppers - Announcement of a
proclamation to be presented by Mayor Kravitz designating
November 24 -- 30, 1985, as "Crimestoppers Week".
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
2. Planning Commission - _Temp. Reso. #3777 - Discussion and
possible action to appoint one (1) alternate member
(tabled from 10/23/85).
3. Board of Adjustment - Temp. Reso. #3778 - Discussion and
possible action to appoint one (1) alternate member
(tabled from 10/23/85) .
4. Board of Consumer Affairs - Temp. Reso. #3875 - Discussion
and possible action to appoint a member(s).
If anyone is interested in serving on any of the above
committees or boards, please contact the City Clerk's
office for an application.
CONSENT AGENDA
5. Items listed under Item #5, 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 10/23/85 - Regular Meeting - Approval
recommended by City Clerk.
b) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Eng-
ineer -- Invoice 1113-0, Statement 92 - 11/1/85 -
$500.00 - Surveys for two annexation proposals -
Approval recommended by Consultant City Planner.
PAGE 1
11/27/85
c) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. -
Invoice 53639 - 4/24/85 - $1,217.92 - Miscellaneous
engineering services - Approval recommended by City
Engineer.
d) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. -
Invoice 57134 - 10/17/85 - $283.87 - Aerated Flow
Equalization Tank Structural Inspection - Approval
recommended by City Engineer.
e) Alan F. Ruf - Consulting City Attorney - 11/19/85 -
$2,260.50 - Approval recommended by City Manager.
f) Robert B. Dunckel of Adler, Tolar & Adler - Special
Counsel for Charter Board - Services for Sepember,
1985 - $1,300.25 - Approval recommended by Charter
Board.
g) Touche Ross & Co. - Auditor - Invoice 2565 - 11/12/85-
$6,000.00 - Progress billing for Fiscal Year Ending
1984/85 - Approval recommended by Finance Director.
h) Burglar Alarms - Temp. Ord. #1166 - Approval to extend
the tabling action to a future meeting (Second Reading
and Public Hearing held 11/13/85).
i) Utilities West - Request for postage meter - Approval
to remove this item from the agenda (tabled from
11/13/85).
j) Agreement with Broward County for trafficways
illumination on State Road 7 (441) - Approval to
remove this item from the agenda (tabled from 9/26/84)
k) Public Information Committee - Report by Chairman -
Approval to remove this item from the agenda (tabled
from 11/13/85) .
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCIAL
6. Tamarac Park Satellite Buildin
- Discussion and possible
action on:
a)
Report by
Chief Building Official
on recommended
changes to
building (tabled
from 11/13/85)
b)
Payment of
Sheridan Lumber,
Inc., Invoice 47211, in
the amount
of $392.39.
c)
Payment of
$1,470.00.
Atlas Roofing Co.
Invoice in the amount of
d)
Payment of
D & E Electric Inc.,
Invoice 1089, in the
amount of
$600.00.
7. Tamarac Park - Ballfield #2 - Report by City Attorney -
Discussion and possible action on payment for services for
installation of lighting (tabled from 11/13/85).
8. Tract 27 Park - Lightinq of Syccer Fields -- Discussion and
possible action on feasibility of going to bid for
lighting both fields and possible budget amendments if
lighting is approved.
9._Confidential, ervisor and Managerial Employees -
Discussion and possible action to authorize extending the
benefit package for one month.
I-
I
PAGE 2
11/27/85
10. Intradepartmental Budget Transfers - Temp. Reso. #3840-
Discussion and possible action to establish procedures for
line item transfers within a departmental budget (tabled
from 11/13/85) .
11. Pines of Woodmont - Tract 55 - Discussion and possible
action on a request from this Association for City assist-
ance regarding drainage problems of certain unit owners.
12. Broward League of Cities Business - Discussion and
possible action on:
a) Invoice for June solid waste assessment in the amount
of $374.00 (tabled from 11/13/85)
b) Reports
13. Northwest Council of Mayors Business - Discussion and
possible action.
TAMARAC UTILITIES WEST
14. Utilities West - Wells 12 and 13 (Project 84-14) -
Discussion and possible action to approve Change Order #1
to the contract with R.J. Sullivan Corporation for addi-
tional work (tabled from 11/13/85).
15. Utilities West - Rehabilitation and -Expansion of
Wastewater Treatment Plant Project 85--19 - Discussion
and possible action on:
a) Approval of an engineering agreement, including Adden-
dum 1 and Addendum 2, with Hazen and Sawyer (tabled
from 11/13/85)
b) Authorization to proceed with certain design tasks on
this project.
16. Utilities Seminar - Discussion and possible action to
authorize certain utilities personnel to attend the
Southeast Workshop 185 concerning Composting, Recycling
and Land Application.
17. Utilities West - Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (Project
84-4) - Temp. Reso. #3876 - Discussion and possible action
to approve Change Order No. 5 to the contract with
Interstate Pipe Maintenance, Inc., increasing the contract
by $9,000.00.
18. Utilities West - Discussion and possible action to
authorize the purchase of a 1/2-ton pick-up truck under
State contract in lieu of bidding.
19. Utilities - Discussion and possible action to authorize
execution of a contract with Shelton Enterprise, Inc., to
provide underground utility location services to the City
Temp. Reso. #3883
120. Utilities West - Revenue Bonds - Discussion and possible
action to authorize staff and consultants to proceed with
the following:
a) Compile all necessary information
b) Contact and contract with bond insurors
c) Prepare the official statement
PAGE 3
11/27/85
LEGAL AFFAIRS
21. Traffic Engineering Study_ - Discussion and possible action
on:
a) Presentation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of
Future Traffic Needs and Funding Study.
b) Acceptance of this Future Traffic Needs and Funding
Study by Temp. Reso. #3901
c) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Temp. Ord. #1234 - Creating a
fund to meet future traffic requirements in the City
of Tamarac and establishing a procedure for the
computation of appropriate fees. FIRST AND SECOND
READINGS.
d) Establishing a fee schedule for future traffic
requirements - Temp. Reso. #3913
e) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Temp. Ord.41235 - Creating a
fund to meet future traffic signalization requirements
in the City of Tamarac and establishing a procedure
for the computation of appropriate fees. FIRST AND
SECOND READINGS.
f) Establishing a fee schedule for future signalization
requirements - Temp. Reso.. #3914
g) A Motion directing the City Manager to immediately see
to the readoption of EMERGENCY ORDINANCES, Temp. Ord.
41234 and #1235 according to the requirements of
Florida Statutes 166.041.
h) Payment of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. invoices
5, 6, 7 and 8 totaling $17,172.86.
This item will be considered at 10:00 A.M.
22. UTA Cable Corporation - Temp. Ord. #1227 - Discussion and
possible action to approve a transfer of a non-exclusive
franchise for a community antenna television system to
Telesat Cablevision, Inc. First Reading. (tabled from
11/13/85).
23. Trip to New York on 2 28 85 by Ellv F. Johnson former
City Manager. and Stephen Wood former Finance Director -
Report by Charter Board. Discussion and possible action.
(tabled from 9/11/85).
24. Occupational Licenses - Temp. Ord. #1218 - Discussion and
possible action to modify occupational license tax
classifications and fees. Second Reading. (Public Hearing
held 11/13/85) .
25. Investments of City Funds - Temp. Ord. #1233 - Discussion
and possible action to amend Chapter 9 of the Code
concerning allowable investments. First Reading.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2:00 P.M.
26. Beverly Hills Cafe V Inc. - Petition #26-Z-85 - Temp.
Reso. #3878 - Discussion and possible action to
grant a special exception to allow expansion of square
foot area of the existing Beverly Hills Cafe into Bay D of
Commercial Garden Mall, 7041 W. Commercial Boulevard,
which is zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
27. Wings, Etc. - Petition #28-Z-85 - Temp. Reso. #3879-
Discussion and possible action to grant a special excep-
tion to permit the proposed Wings, Etc. Restaurant in Bay
7 of 3 Lakes Plaza, 4611 lvW 31 Avenue, which is zoned B--2
(Planned Business).
i1
1
PAGE 4
11/27/85
28. Wings, Etc. - Petition #29-Z-85 - `temp. Reso. #3880-
Discussion and possible action to grant a special excep-
tion to allow on -premises consumption of alcoholic bever-
ages at the proposed Wings, Etc. Restaurant in Bay 7 of
3 Lakes Plaza, 4611 NW 31 Avenue, which is zoned B-2
(Planned Business).
29. Spiro P. Pappas - Petition #30-Z-85 - Tem . Reso.
#3881 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special
exception to permit the proposed PK Restaurant in Bay 15
of 3 Lakes Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard, which is
zoned B-2 (Planned Business),,
30. Spiro-P. Pappas - Petition #31-Z-85 - Temp. Reso.
#3882 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special
exception to permit on -premises consumption of beer and
wine at the proposed PK Restaurant in Bay 15 of 3 Lakes
Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard, which is zoned B-2
(Planned Business).
31. Midway Plaza - Petition #25-Z-85 - Temp._Reso._#3877
Discussion and possible action to grant a limited waiver
to the parking requirements of Chapter 18 of the Code to
allow a maximum of 480 ninety -degree parking spaces
adjacent to the perimeter of the proposed shopping center
to be located at the northwest corner of University Drive
and NW 57 Street, which lands are zoned B-2 (Planned
Business).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
32. Comm@rcial Garden Mall - Revised Site Plan - Temp_
Reso. #3898 -- Discussion and possible action on a revised
site plan reflecting reinstallation of curbs correcting
direction of parking and revised parking data.
33. Midway Plaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3884
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
d) Developer Agreement pertaining to development of this
land
e) Developer Agreement for design and installation of
public well system
f) Public Safety Ingress/Egress. Easement - Temp. Reso.
#3885
g) Blanket Easement for utilities and wells - Temp.
Reso,#3910
h) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalization
needs.
iL (located at the northwest corner of University Drive and
NW 57 Street)
4. 3--Lakes Plaza -- Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan reflecting two directory signs and
revised site data - Temp. Reso. #3903
b) Waiver of the provisions of the sign ordinance to
permit two permanent, illuminated, double-faced
directory signs - Temp. Reso. #3904
PAGE 5
11/27/85
35. TBC Equities Office Buildin - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp.„Reso. 13911
b) Landscape Plan
c) Amendment to Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for
backflow prevention
d) Utility Easement for fire hydrant - Tem . Reso.
#3912
e) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalization
needs.
(located on the east side of University Drive, south of
Tropical Gardens Nursery)
36. Tamarac Nursin Center - Discussion and possible action
on:
a) Plat -- Temlo. Reso. #3860
b) Development Order - Temp. Reso., 63861
c) Water Retention Agreement
d) Development Review Agreement
(Project proposed for the west side of NW 79 Avenue,
between the canal and NW 57 Street) (tabled from 9/26/85
and 11/13/85) .
37. Calico Countr Woodview Tract 38 -Discussion and
Possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan reflecting revisions of house
footprint and addition of fences - Tem Reso.
#3833 (tabled from 10/23/85)
b) Release of a cash bond posted to guarantee installa-
tion of landscaping on Lots 23 and 24 - Temp,
Reso. #3886
38. Woodmont Tract 59 - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Tem . Reso. #3834
b) Plat - TeM:), Reso #3887
c) Stipulation #24 - Temp. Reso. #3770
d) Amendment to the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
(located south of NW 80 Street at NW 84 Terrace)
39. Woodmont Trac848 - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan reflecting revisions to grass,
parking, mailboxes and light poles - Tem
#3902 p _Reso.
b) Model Sales Facility #2 and waiver of the 300-foot
distance requirement for certificates of occupancy.
40. Woodmont Tract 56 Sales enter - Discussion and possible
action on renewal of the model sales permit for Woodmont
Tracts 47, 50, 54, 57, 60, 70, 71 and 72B (tabled from
10/9/85).
41. Isles of Tamarac - Discussion and possible action on the
Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from
11/13/85).
42. Tamarac Gardens - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revision to Site Plan #1 for upgrade apartment change
in Buildings 6-C, 7-A and 7-B - Temp. Reso_13888
b) Amendment #3 to Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
for backflow prevention.
43. Belfort - Revised Site Plan - Temp- „Reso_ #3$89 -
Discussion and possible action on a revised site plan for
upgrade apartment change in Buildings F, 0, P and Q.
PAGE 6
11/27/85
49. Island Club Apartments -- Discussion and possible action
on:
a) Waiver of the provisions of the platting requirements
in Chapter 20 of the Code in order to install a
permanent ground sign on Commercial Boulevard -- Temp.
Reso. #3890
b) Revised site plan reflecting this permanent ground
sign - Temp.-Reso. #3891
50. Lake Colony (Brookwood_Gardensi - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Renewal of a model sales permit and waiver of the 300--
foot distance requirement for certificates of
occupancy (Units 33 - 36)
b) Status of traffic light bond (tabled from 11/13/85)
51. Mobil -Oil - Northeast corner of Commercial Boulevard
and State Road 7 - Temp. Reso. #3907 - Discussion and
possible action to accept a deed for a portion of right--
of-way along Commercial Boulevard and State Road 7.
52. University Community Hospital - Performance Bond -
Temp. Reso. #3908 - Discussion and possible action to call
a performance bond posted for public improvements
associated with the parking lot (sidewalks).
53. Heftler Homes - Bond Release - Temp. Reso. #3909 -
Discussion and possible action to release a homeowners
warranty bond posted against construction defects for a
home located at 7975 NW 89 Avenue, which is Lot 4 of
Block 3.
REPORTS
54. City Council
55. City Manager
56. City Attorney
City Council may consider and act upon such other business as
may come before it.
Pursuant to Chapter 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 meetings or hearing, 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
dA41_4_zer_ X��
Carol E. Barbuto
Assistant City Clerk
PAGE 8
11/27/85
44. Ashmont - Bond Releases - Temp. Reso. #3905 - Discussion
and possible action to release the following warranty
bonds:
a) Phase 2 Water
b) Phase 1 Paving and Drainage
c) Phase 1 Landscaping
d) Phase 1 Sidewalk
45. Ashmont - Warranty Bond - Temp. Reso. #3906 - Discussion
and possible action on disposition of a warranty bond
posted for the sanitary sewer system.
46. Hidden Harbour - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Stipulation #26 - Temp. Reso. #3843
b) Site Plan - Tem.-Reso, #3844
c) Landscape Plan
d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
e) Public Safety Ingress/Egress Easement - Temp.
Reso. #3845
f) Canal Maintenance Easement -- Temp._ Reso._#3846
g) Drainage Easement - Temp.__Reso_._#3847
h) Warranty Deed for 20-feet along the canal - Temp.
Reso. #3848
i) Blanket Utility Easement -- Temp. Reso._ #3849
j) Petition #6--V-85 - Vacation of a 20--foot wide drainage
easement - Temp. Ord. #1230. First Reading.
k) Refund of the following drainage retention fees:
Tract 26 - $30,234.00
Tract 31 - $36,977.00
1) Agreement for funding future traffic signalization
needs.
(Project proposed to be located on the west side of NW 88
Avenue, north of NW 77 Street) (tabled from 11/13/85)
47. National Business Center - Discussion and possible action
on:
a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3892
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
d) Water Retention Agreement
e) Right-of-way Deed for 40-feet along University Drive -
Tem . Reso. #3893
f) Public Safety Ingress/Egress Easement - Temp-.-Reso.
#3894
g) Utility Easement for fire hydrant - Temp. Reso.
#3895
h) Utility Easement at rear of property - Temp, Reso.
#3896
i) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalization
needs.
(located on the east side of University Drive, south of
Southgate Boulevard and the Exxon Service Station)
48. Tamarac Square
West
- Discussion and possible action on:
a)
Site Plan
- Temp.
Reso. #3897
b)
Landscape
Plan
c)
Water and
Sewer
Developers Agreement
d)
Water Retention
Agreement
e)
Developers
Agreement
f) Declaration of Covenants concerning access and parking
g) Grant of Easements for canal maintenance, sidewalk and
drainage purposes and Agreement to grant easements for
utilities purposes - Temp. Reso. #3899
h) Ingress/Egress Easement - Temp. Reso. #3900
(located at the northwest corner of McNab Road and NW 88
Avenue)
1
i]
�J
PAGE 7
11/27/85
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 1985
Tape CALL TO QaDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to
1 order on Wednesday, November 27, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. in the
Council Chambers.
RQLL`CALL :
P�ZESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
Councilman Sydney M. Stein
AUD PR ENT: Acting City Manager Larry Perretti
City Attorney Jon M. Henning
City Clerk Marilyn Bertholf (Afternoon)
Assistant City Clerk Carol E. Barbuto
(Morning)
Secretary, V. Diane Williams
T TI D P ED E OF A L TA E: Mayor Kravitz called for a
Moment of Silent Meditation and Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor
Kravitz announced the passing of Commissioner Irving Epstein.
P E E TATI NS
57. Tgmarac H e Care Week Proclamation - Discussion and
possible action
SYNOPSIS_ OF_ACTION
Agendized by Consent (See page 3 )
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent the proclamation for
Tamarac Home Care Week. SECONDED by C/M Stein. Mayor Kravitz
said the proclamation will be mailed to the appropriate parties.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
L AFFAIR
58. t'on o M ndamus F'1 d a'nst the it for ordinance
to Phase Out TUW Plant on NW 61 Street - Discussion and
Possible action
SY P I F ACTIO :
Agendized by consent (See page 49 )
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent a petition for Mandamus
filed against the City for an ordinance to phase out the TUW
plant located at NW 61 Street. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:
ALtVOT D AY
GENERAL ADMTNTqTPArPIVEZpINANgIAL
59. Place rde wit it iams a f'el & atoner tQ D s' n 5
Wel s - Discussion and possible action
SYNOUIS, OF ACTTOXN:
Agendized by consent
SEE MINUTES OF 12%6/85
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent to place an order with
Williams, Hatfield & Stoner to design 5 wells at the established
rate not to exceed a certain amount. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL, VOTED AYE
60. Multi -Peril Insurance Polic Extension - Discussion and
20ss10le action
SYNOkZ 5 ,QF_ACTION-
Agendized by consent (See page 49)
11/27/85 J
1 /vdw
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent extension of the City's
existing multi -peril insurance policy with Peninsular Fire from
10/1/85 to l/l/86 at a cost of $7,997.00. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
61. Commercial Plaza - Jack's For Sla-qks - Sian Waiver -
T-emnp. Reso. #3915 - Discussion and possible action
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
Agendized by consent (See pages 4 & 5)
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent a waiver for Jack's For
Slacks. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL
62. Widening of University Drive - Agreement with Williams,
Hatfield & Stoner - Discussion and possible action
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
Agendized by consent
SEE MINUTES OF 12/6/85
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent the widening of Univer-
sity Drive agreement with Williams, Hatfield & Stoner. SECONDED
by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE:
ALL UTED AYE
63. Public W rks D rt ent - Purchase of -Large QKass Mower
Discussion and possible action
SYNQPEIO OF ACTION:
Agendized by consent (See pages 49 A 50)
V/M Massaro MOVED to agendize by consent the purchase of a large
maintenance mower for Public Works at a cost of $9,333.00.
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE
LE AL AFFAIRS
ALL VOTED AYE
22. UTA Cable Corporation - Temp. Q,rd. #1227 - Discussion and
possible action to approve a transfer of a non-exclusive
franchise for a community antenna television system to
Telesat Cablevision, Inc. First Reading. (tabled from
11/13/85).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
TABLED at the request of UTA's attorney
to the meeting of 12/11/85
Mayor Kravitz informed that he had received a request for tabling
by the attorney for UTA to the 12/11/85 meeting. C/M Stein MOVED
to TABLE the item to the 12/11/85 meeting. SECONDED by C/M
Gottesman.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
PRESENTATIQNS
1. Broward County Crimestoppers - Announcement of a procla-
mation to be presented by Mayor Kravitz designating November
24 - 30, 1985, as "Crimestoppers Week".
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
Mayor Kravitz announced the proclamation
which will be mailed to the appropriate parties.
Mayor Kravitz announced a proclamation designating November 24 -
30, 1985 as "Crimestoppers Week". He said the proclamation will
be mailed to the appropriate parties.
2 11/27/85
/vdw
57. Tama c Ho a Ca e e k Pr cl m t'on - Discussion and
Possible action
SYNOPSIS OFACTION:
Mayor Kravitz announced the proclamation
which will be mailed to the appropriate parties.
Agendized by consent on page 1.
Mayor Kravitz announced the proclamation designating the week of
December 1 through December 7 as "Tamarac Home Care Week"; he
said the proclamation will be mailed to the appropriate parties.
BOARD D COMMITTEE
2. P ann'n Commiss' n -- Temp. Rego- 63777 -- Discussion and
Possible action to appoint one (1) alternate member (tabled
from 10/23/85).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTI01n:
TABLED to a future meeting
V/M Massaro MOVED to TABLE the item to a future meeting.
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
TE: ALL VOTED AYE
3. d of Ad'ust ent - imp. Reso. #3778 - Discussion and
Possible action to appoint one (1) alternate member (tabled
from 10/23/85).
SYNOPSIE,,Q ACTION:
TABLED to future meeting for
receipt of additional applications
V/M Massaro MOVED to TABLE to a future meeting for receipt of
additional applications. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
TE : AU-YQTED AYE
4. oa d o Consu er Affairs - Temp. Reso.
#3,875 - Discussion
and possible action to appoint a member�(s).
SYNOPSIS F ACTION:
APPOINTED Abraham "Mike" Kraft to this
committee for a term to expire 4/14/86 RESO. R-85-366 PASSED
Mr. Henning read T m . Reso #3875 by title.
Mayor Kravitz reported that Chairman Cohen asked him, as liaison
to the Board of Consumer Affairs, to submit Abraham "Mike"
Kraft's name for appointment to this committee.
V/M Massaro MOVED the adoption of TempRego- #3875 ap
Abraham Mike Kraft to the Board of Consumer Affairs withtangerm
to expire 4/14/86. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE: ALL ,.VOTED AYE
6. CONSENT AGENDA_
a) Minutes of 10/23/85 - Regular Meeting - Approval recom-
mended by City Clerk.
b) Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Inc. - Consulting Engineer -
Invoice 1113-0, Statement 92 - ll/l/85 - $500.00 -
Surveys for two annexation proposals - Approval recom-
mended by Consultant City Planner.
c) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. - Invoice
53639 - 4/24/85 - $1,217.92 - Miscellaneous engineering
services - Approval recommended by City Engineer.
d) James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. - Invoice
57134 - 10/17/85 - 4283.87 - Aerated Flow Equalization
Tank Structural Inspection - Approval recommended by City
Engineer.
e) Alan F. Ruf - Consulting City Attorney - 11/19/85 -
$2,260.50 - Approval recommended by City Manager.
f) Robert B. Dunckel of Adler, Tolar & Adler - Special
Counsel for Charter Board - Services for September, 1985
$1,300.25 - Approval recommended by Charter Board.
g) Touche Ross & Co. - Auditor - Invoice 2565 - 11/12/85 - j $6,000.00 - Progress billing for Fiscal Year Ending 1984/
3 11/27/85
/vdw
85 - Approval recommended by Finance Director.
h) Burglar Alarms - T m d. #1166 - Approval
the tabling action to a future meetin(Seeto extend
g
and Public Hearing held 11/13/85), g (Second Reading
i) Utilities West - Request for postage meter - Approval
remove this item from the agenda (tabled from 11/13/85).
j) Agreement with Broward County for trafficways illumina-
tion on State Road 7 (441) - Approval to remove this item
from the agenda (tabled from 9/26/84)
k) Public Information Committee - Report by Chairman -
Approval to remove this item from the agenda (tabled from
11/13/85).
SYNOPSIS -DI -ACTION:
APPROVED items a) through f) and
h) through k);
Item g) was REMOVED and TABLED to
the next regular meeting (12/11/85)
Mayor Kravitz asked Council to move that item g) be held. He
was informed by the City Attorney that any member without a vote
could request that an item be removed for discussion and separate
vote. C/M Stein requested that item g) be REMOVED. Mayor
Kravitz stated that he would give the reasons for his request for
removal later.
V/M Massaro MOVED that items a) through k) excluding item g) be
APPROVED as noted on the agenda. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
e) Melanie Reynolds, Aide to the Charter Board, asked about the
breakdown of Alan Ruf's bill and questioned whether it should be
charged to the City Attorney's account rather than utilities.
She felt that Mr. Ruf's work for the initiative referendum would
be an expense to the City Attorney's budget. V/M Massaro
explained that many months ago she pulled many items off because
they were all charged to the City Attorney's Office when they
should have been charged to the various things that the attorneys
were working on. She said this item applied to the same
principle because it was work concerning utilities, therefore,
it should be charged to utilities. The Vice Mayor said there
would be no harm in the City Attorney reviewing the account to
determine if it was charged to the proper account.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
g) Mayor Kravitz stated that he had spoken with Touche Ross in re-
ference to item g) and reported that they had no objection in the
City's holding up the payment of their bill. He explained his
reasoning for suggesting that the payment be delayed was because
six weeks ago certain reports were sent to the City and he has
not seen them and felt that until he has seen them that a delay
in Payment would be appropriate. Mayor Kravitz said the subject
of the report was internal control, including last year's
internal control.
V/M Massaro inquired who had the reports. Mayor Kravitz said he
was informed that they were sent to the Finance Director. V/M
Massaro MOVED that Item 5, subsection g) be TABLED to the next
regular meeting (12/11/85). SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE' ALL VOTED AYE
61. Commercial Plaza - Jack's For lacks -
Tem eso #3915 - Discussion and possible action
SYNOPSIS OFACTIAN:
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-368
Agendized by consent on page 2 PASSED
Mr. Henning read Temp- Reso. 43915 by title.
V/M Massaro asked Florence Bochenek, Chairperson of the Beautifi-
cation Committee, if the petitioner conformed in every way with
the exception of the new name. Ms. Bochenek answered that the
only reason that the item came before Council by waiver was that
the original sign was approximately 1 1/2 inches too lon
g.
said she felt that it was very inconsequential but to insureShe
that it was done correctly they wanted Council to be aware of it
but that it was just a change of copy on an existing sign.
11/27/85 J
4 /vdw
V/M Massaro MOVED the adoption of Te s 3 1
by C/M Stein. SECONDED
VOTE: ALL VOTED,,AYE
GEADMTNTqrPDArPTTE FI C
6. Tamar c Park at 1 ite ui d'n - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Report by Chief Building Official on recommended changes
to building (tabled from 11/13/85)
b) Payment of Sheridan Lumber, Inc., Invoice 47211, in the
amount of $392.39.
c) Payment of Atlas Roofing Co. Invoice in the amount of
$1,470.00.
d) Payment of D & E Electric Inc., Invoice 1089, in the
amount of $600.00
,SYNOPSIS OF„ACTION:
a) APPROVED
b) APPROVED
c) APPROVED
d) APPROVED with conditions
V/M Massaro asked what was the rough wiring listed on the D & E
Electric, Inc. Invoice 1089. The Chief Building Official
explained that the $600 was for repair of the parking lot lights
and the tennis court and half of the basketball. court. The Vice
Mayor said that was not the Satellite Building, Mr. Jahn stated
that he knew there was a question as to his coding payment from
the Satellite Building Fund; however,
he damage
was done by the previous contractor digging the nseweralines. She
said the payment should not come from the Satellite Building Fund
and asked the City Attorney to determine the
proper
which payment should be made. V/M Massaro MOVED to AUTHORIZErom
payment of b), c) and also d) subject to this expense being
charged.to the proper account. The Vice Massaro directed the
Finance Director to determine the proper account to be charged
and submit a memo to Council so that their records will be com-
plete. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
�E: A L V TED AYE
a) Mr. Jahn distributed copies of his recommended changes. V/M
Massaro reported that C/M Stein was asked to review the plans,
along :with Mr. Jahn, because the location of the director's
office was an important issue in the
preservation
this building. The Chief Building Official statedothateabest of
committee, including Mr. Perretti and himself, met a couple of
days before C/M Stein's review and they were in agreement also.
The Chief Building Official noted the plan, as drawn, on the
board showing the director's office and various locations of
other offices including the two bathrooms that are required to
satisfy the Code. Mr. Jahn said originally the plans has a
storage room on the south side of the building and a tong
storage area that encompassed two --thirds of the wall and smalls
kitchenette on the southwest corner.
Mr. Jahn said he was continuing the drop ceiling line as it was
before for preservation in the event that they want to revert to
what was originally planned. The Chief Building Official said
his Proposal was to frame down on that drop ceiling line for
later installation, if Council de -sires, accordion partitions
along that same line and also across the middle to make this area
useable for crafts or small meetings so as not to utilize the
entire hall. Mr. Jahn said the conference room becomes the
director's office and the two bathrooms would remain the same as
well as the front entrance. He said the two tall, slim windows
that he had previously discussed were made more uniform in height
and extend almost to the floor to provide a view of both ball-
parks. The Chief Building Official explained that the kitchen-
ette area,.which would not have handled much food preparation of
any kind, was increased to allow room for two large refrigerators
and a range and four trays for warming, if necessary. He pro-
posed to place a pass --through window through the block wall with
a serving shelf facing the ballparks in the event that the old
11/27/85
5 /vdw
concession stand, which does not meet any of the codes, is
removed. Mr. Jahn said he would also install a pass -through
window into the main hall itself so that the kitchen could be
utilized for serving dinners and other functions that may be
deemed necessary. He said he took the large storage room and
changed it into a raised platform which is 24 inches off the
floor and erected steps along the front so that it can be used
for presentations, meetings, etc. The Chief Building Official
said the storage room on the southeast corner was converted into
a half bathroom to include a toilet and lavatory plus storage so
that it can be utilized as a dressing room.
Mayor Kravitz asked if this was the plan originated by the
committee that met with him which was initially Mr. Jahn's plan.
Mr. Jahn said it was. Mayor Kravitz inquired of Mr. Jahn
the estimated time of completion. The Chief Building Official,
answered that if he were to remove the sewer problem, he would
estimate, with a full go ahead from Council with all of the
changes, that it would probably be completed some time in
February.
V/M Massaro stated that this was not the plan approved by the
committee but the plan which was created by Mr. Perretti and
Mr. Jahn; also, C/M Stein reviewed the plan and, ultimately,
this is the plan that they came up with. She stressed that
this was not the plan that the committee wanted because the
committee wanted the director's office to be located in the
area which they wanted to preserve. She thought that the plan
they came back with was excellent; however, only her problem
was that the low windows were not desirable because that room
will be used for dancing, too, and someone may accidentally
bump against them and go through it. The Vice Mayor said a
window should not be below waist height because the people
can still see out and would be much safer.
C/M Gottesman suggested that the floor of the raised platform
be kept hollow for storage of portable chairs. The Chief
Building Official said he has provided for storage underneath
the stage and added that he has taken one corner of the stage
area and converted it into a storage room with double doors
opening into the corridor and also additional storage in the
half bath dressing room area. He informed the Vice Mayor that
the windows are not all the way to the floor but are approxi-
mately at waist height and they do meet the code. He said his
recommendations have been submitted in the form of a memo.
C/M Stein MOVED to AUTHORIZE the Chief Building Official to pro-
ceed with the Satellite Building as amended and as recommended
here forthwith. SECONDED by V/M Massaro.
Maxwell Ingram, resident, commended Mr. Jahn on the wonderful
job he has done in making these changes which will reduce the
cost of the Satellite Building. He reported that Mr. Lou
Solomon, Mr. Perretti, Mr. Jahn and himself reviewed the changes
at the Satellite Building. Mr. Ingram stated that he had
originally specified heat pumps rather than strictly air con-
ditioning for the Satellite Building; he said the heat pumps
are reverse cycle air conditioners which supply cooling as well
as heating and cited Florida as an excellent area for the use
of heat pumps. However, Mr. Ingram reported that Mr. Jahn
informed him that the cost of heat pumps are excessive, there-
fore, they will confine themselves strictly to air conditioning.
STATE: ALL VOTED AYE
V/M Massaro added that she wanted Mr. Ingram to understand that
it will be taken under further consideration because ducts will
have to be provided throughout the building so there is time to
think about it; however, it does not appear that they will have
the money for it. She said if there is money left, in the amount
that they are permitted to spend, then it will certainly be con-
sidered.
7. Tamarac Park - wield #2 - Re o t by_ -City Attorney
Discussion and possible action on payment for services for
installation of lighting (tabled from 11/13/85).
SYNOPSIS QF CTI •
TABLED to a future meeting
6
11/27/85
/vdw
NUJ
viM Massaro said she still had questions on this subject and has
been unable to obtain the backup
item be TABLED to a future meeting. she MOVED that this
g• SECONDED by C/M Stein.
Z ALL VOTED AYE
8. Tr ct 2 Pa k - Li t'n of oc a F'e ds
and possible action on feasibilit of - Discussion
lighting both fields and Possible ybudgetlamendmentsfif
lighting is approved.
Y P I F ACTIO :
APPROVED $1,250 payment to redesign the plans
and specifications according to the new standards
and consultant is required to submit a new letter
outlining same.
Maxwell Ingram reported that the engineering changes
pr
for the lighting system on Tract 27 were highlighted atoaosed
previous Council meeting. He said in view of Council's a
for lighting for Tract 27 which covered the installation of
equipment for the two soccer fields approval
illumi-
nated until further Council approval. • one field will be all
the estimated gross amount foMr. Ingram informed that
Charter's prescribed spending limitattion. ect was far below the
concept of equipping He said the technical
if both fields shouldtinadvertentlysbeyid htproblem insofar that
either by inserting a bulb and/or throwing switches ed at honstoethe
second field, it would blow out the FP&L service transformers
which has the capacity for only one field,
$5,000 liability to the City for the destroyed rtransformer causing a
said to prevent this occurrence, he has induced FP&L to replace
r. He
the present underrated power service transformer with one P ed
167 KVA, more than double the capacity,rated
of Tamarac. Mr. Ingram said this was based nUpon ause of ache City
phased service of 240-120 volts, three -phased, n Del
60 hertz where 240 volts, single -phased willenergizeYthe efield's
Delta
sports lights while the 120 volts of the other two phases will
feed the future parking lights, refreshment stand. Portab
equipment and so forth. He said the overall three le
p
drive the electric water pumps after the huge water tank ss will
installed nearby. Mr. Ingram said there will be ample electricallater
capacity to service all of these installations.
viating from the originally specified service of He v
He said by de -
volts, 3-phased Y 60 hertz used in the park on UniversittsD 277
installation costs will be reduced b
the 480-277 volts transformer b FP&L more than $10,000 because
$5,500 plus requiring a low -voltage distributionutransformer cost the City
Tape 120 volts for the smaller use equipment.
2 transformer of
Mr. Ingram said he met with Mr. Hector Castro
Engi-
neer, who originally formulated the Plan,specifications
Professional bipackage; he said Mr. Castro agreed that the P30�orcmore ndbid
engineer-
ing
changes proposed are practical and would significantly these • operating and maintenance costs. Mr. Ingram said
Provisions are not included on Mr.
informed that Mr. Castro has agreed to Castro s latest
asked Council to approve Mr. incorporate them, pHdn but
Castro's written quotation for
$1,250 which will enable him to u to the plans, specifications and bgaade and include the revisions
reported that he has, in his possessionckages. Mr. Ingram
master site plan which
they had been unable to locate.
V/M Massaro said the letter dated November 1 was to light
soccer field. Mr. Ingram answered that at that time theone
were
under the impression that it was to be one soccer field.
Massaro asked if Mr. y e
Castro had a new letter to submit because
she would not like to see this said they have checked everywhere eand etheeplans cannotrb
and there is nothingShe
do have the tracingfrom ewhich ne theyut twill work. a found
ed if
the $1250 included the specifications. MPProve it because they
were included as well as the bid r• IngramSsaidsthe specs
this expense would come from the Parksgand The Vice Mayor said
MOVED the APPROVAL of the $1,250 to redesign, according
and
new standards which Mr. Ingram has come u
that Mr. Ingram instruct Mr. Castro to send winhanothe glettered
which will give Council additional information. r letter
11/27/85
7 /vdw
C/M Gottesman commended Mr. Ingram for the work he has done and
SECONDED the MOTION.
VOTE
ALL VOTED AYE
11. Pines of Woodmont - Tract 55 - Discussion and possible
action on a request from this Association for City assist-
ance regarding drainage problems of certain unit owners.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to a future meeting
V/M Massaro reported that a request had been made by a resident
of Pines of Woodmont, Tract 55, but there has not been enough
time to research this properly to determine what ability the Cit
has to become involved in this particular issue. V/M Massaro
MOVED to TABLE the item to a future meeting.
C/M Stein said he had no objection to the Vice Mayor's statement
but called her attention to the fact that this item first
appeared on February 27, 1985. He said he would like to see a
date certain and not just to the indefinite because that would
mean another six months and suggested that it be tabled to the
next regular meeting. C/M Stein said all the other figures are
in and the consultation as to legality can be handled through
the Legal Department.
The Vice Mayor stated the reason she felt it was much too soon
was because they were being inundated with various projects which
the developers are eager to move forward on because it costs them
a lot of money and it was important to the City, too. She
explained that as far as February was concerned, she was not on
the Council at that time but stressed that she wanted to know
what rights and responsibilities the City has to insure that they
are legally correct in whatever action Council decided to take.
V/M Massaro promised, however, that she will research it as soon
as possible because of her concern for those people. SECONDED by
C/M Gottesman.
VOTE
C/M Stein
Nay
C/M Munitz
Nay
C/M Gottesman
Aye
V/M Massaro
Aye
Mayor Kravitz
Aye
Tape 21. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY - Discussion and possible
2 action on:
a) Presentation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of
Future Traffic Needs and Funding Study.
b) Acceptance of this Future Traffic Needs and Funding Study
by Temp. Reso, #3901
c) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Temp. Ord, 41234 - Creating a
fund to meet future traffic requirements in the City of
Tamarac and establishing a procedure for the computation
of appropriate fees. FIRST AND SECOND READINGS.
d) Establishing a fee schedule for future traffic require-
ments - Temp. Reso. #3913
e) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -- Temp. Ord_._ #1.235 - Creating a fund
to meet future traffic signalization requirements
in the City of Tamarac and establishing a procedure for
the computation of appropriate fees. FIRST AND SECOND
READINGS.
f) Establishing a fee schedule for future signalization
requirements -- Temp. Reso. #3914
g) A Motion directing the City Manager to immediately see
to the readoption of EMERGENCY ORDINANCES, Temp. Ord.
#1234 and #1235 according to the requirements of Florida
Statutes 166.041.
h) Payment of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. invoices 5,
6, 7 and 8 totaling $17,172.86.
This item will be considered at 10:00 A.M.
8
11/27/85
/vdw
SY
OP I QF ACTION:
a)
Presentation given
b)
ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of study and remainder of
e)
b) , c) and d) HELD to afternoon session (See pages 48 & 49 )
and f) TABLED;
g)
REMOVED from agenda;
h)
APPROVED partial payment of $10,000 with the
balance to be considered at the next regular meeting (12/11/85)
Following is a verbatim transcript of the "a" portion of this item.
RICHARD RUBIN: Mayor and Council, good morning. Richard Rubin,
Consultant Planner. Council, as
you recall about a year ago it
was determined or maybe over a year ago, that there would need to
be
a study of the future traffic needs in the City in order to
determine if the City had
appropriate funds to pay for those
improvements or if not, how to obtain the proper funds. Based
upon Council's motion, staff interviewed and Council finally
approved hiring the firm
of Kimley-Horn, a national traffic
engineering firm, to prepare this traffic engineering study.
During
this summer, the firm or specifically Mr. Mercer and his
assistant, Mike Byrd, who
are both here today, personally got
involved with the City, reviewed all of our existing,
proposed
improvements and determined what our future needs are and have
submitted this study to the
City which you have probably in your
backup today. I don't think I'm
going to go much into the detail, of it because that's the purpose of Mr. Mercer's being here to
explain the way he made the study. I've asked Mr. Mercer to
highlight two specific items
in his presentation at the request
of the City Attorney. One is methodology that he used to
come up
with this fee and the second item is several questions have come
to us from the developers
and their attorneys related to the
items included in the proposed ordinance and I've
asked
Mr. Mercer if he would answer some of those questions so that
Council can feel comfortable that
they can proceed on good, legal
grounds and that the eventual adoption of this ordinance
will
provide you the funds that you need to provide future roadway
improvements. If I
may, I'd like to introduce Mr. Dick Mercer
from Kimley--Horn & Associates.
MR. RICHARD MERCER: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Mayor,
members of Council. For the
record, my name is Richard Mercer.
I'm with the firm of Kimley-Horn & Associates and Dick
as has
mentioned I'd like to take just a few minutes to summarize for
You the methodology that we
used in undertaking the study which
we were requested to do and then to summarize the
results and our
recommendations to the City as a result of that study. I will
not get into
a lot of technical details involved in how we went
through the process unless you have specific
questions about some
of the things and I'll be certainly happy to respond to any of
those
at any time during my presentation or at the end.
Initially, in undertaking this study we did two things. We
looked at existing traffic
operating conditions throughout the
City in order to identify any existing system capacity
defi-
ciencies or safety deficiencies in order to identify the improve-
ments that are needed today to restore the system or to bring the
system up to
acceptable levels of operating. The reason we took
that initial step was that it has been found
in the development
of previous impact fee ordinances in other jurisdictions and in
court challenges to
those ordinances that you cannot assess
impact fees to solve problems that
are currently existing on the
system. So we felt it was important as a first step to identify
current
operating problems so that solutions for those can be
developed and then
we could look at future development and the
traffic needs that would be associated with future development
and to identify the roadway improvements that would be needed to
support that development and
separately determine the fees that
might be needed in order to accomplish those improvements.
So that's the basic framework within which we conducted this
study. We looked at existing
conditions. We identified several
4
11/27/85
/vdw
intersection -related improvements, relatively minor type of im-
provements - the addition of turn lanes and that sort of thing,
in order to resolve existing capacity deficiencies. Then, we
proceeded to look at all of the potential development that will
occur between now and completion of the development of the
current land use plan in the City in order to identify future
traffic volumes that would be created by that development. We
identified roadway improvements needed in order to accommodate
those future traffic volumes.
It was those future improvements, then, that were used as the
basis for determining the impact fee structure which we have
recommended in our report to you. Very briefly, the future
improvements included a total of approximately $10,000,000 worth
of improvements including several major improvements in addition
to a lot of relatively minor things, again, intersection -type
improvements that consist, principally, of turn lanes. Briefly,
to summarize those for you, the $10,000,000 total included two
major widening efforts: (1) to widen University Drive from
Commercial Boulevard north to Southgate to an eight -lane faci-
lity and (2) to widen a section of Commercial Boulevard in the
eastern part of the City between 21st Avenue and 31st Avenue to
an eight -lane facility. Secondly, to develop a future grade
separation at the intersection of University Drive and Commer-
cial Boulevard because of the traffic loadings that are projected
to exist at that intersection. Now, we recognize the fact that
those are major improvements; they're improvements to the
regional network to regional roadways that ought not to be solely
the responsibility of the City of Tamarac or the developers in
the City of Tamarac. For that reason, we reduced the total
dollar amount attributable to development within the City of
Tamarac for those improvements by a significant amount and we did
it as follows.
For the eight laving of University Drive from Commercial
Boulevard northward, we deducted entirely the cost for that im-
provement from the recommended impact fee structure because we
feel that since that is a project which is consistent with the
County's Year 2000 Plan that it has reasonably high probability
of being incorporated in the County improvements. Now that is
not to say that it is now incorporated into the County's Year
2000 Improvement Program because it is not.
MR. HENNING: Excuse me. You lost me there along the line. You
say you deducted something regarding the eight -lane widening.
Are you deducting the entire cost from the $10,000,000. would
you repeat that again, please.
MR. MERCER: Okay. I will. We did not include in the deter-
mination of the total money that needs to be raised by the City
of Tamarac to undertake these improvements that the City needed
to raise funds to do'the widening of University Drive.
V/M MASSARO: No funds?
MR. MERCER: No funds.
V/M MASSARO: So that none of that is included in your rate study?
MR. MERCER: That's correct.
V/M MASSARO: Thank you.
MR. MERCER: And the reason it's not is the County's Year 2000
Plan shows University Drive as being developed as either a six -
lane divided facility with frontage roads or as an eight -lane
facility. So that's an improvement that is consistent with the
County.Plan and, therefore, has a higher probability than the
other types of improvements that we were looking at...at being
incorporated into the Plan. We need to work toward that end
because it's not in the Plan now but there's a reasonable pro-
bability that that can be incorporated into the County Plan. In
addition to that, one of the other serious capacity deficiencies
10
11/27/85
/vdw
that were identified was the section I mentioned of Commercial
Boulevard between 21st Avenue and 31st Avenue. That, however, is
currently a six --lane divided facility, as you know, and it's
developed within... it's fully developed within the confines of
the available right--of-way for that section and so, something
needs to be done beyond what is currently in the County's Year
2000 Plan which only calls for a six -lane facility there in or-
der to be able to resolve that capacity deficiency. Again,
though, recognizing that that's a major arterial in the County
and it certainly serves traffic other than the City of Tamarac
traffic and it's part of the regional system, we incorporated
only 25% of the cost of that improvement into the impact fee
structure that is included in our report.
Additionally, I mentioned that one of the other major projects
that we identified was the need to do something at the intersec-
tion of University Drive and Commercial Boulevard. That inter-
section is already a fully expanded intersection, as you know.
University Drive is a six -lane facility to the south and through
that intersection and Commercial Boulevard is already a six -lane
facility through there. The intersection has been expanded;
there's dual left -turn lanes on all the approaches, and right -
turn lanes. It's reached its practical limit for expansion
within the availability of existing right-of-way so the next
practical thing that could be done to increase intersection
capacity beyond that type of configuration is to think of a grade
separation or an interchange, if you want to call it that. And by
that, we're talking about not an I-95 type interchange which is
relatively expansive but a more urban type of design for an
interchange more similar to what exists down at Sunrise and State
Road 7, for example. Not necessarily that that's exactly what
we're talking about because I don't know that that's an ideal
configuration either but it's the kind of thing we're talking
about where we physically separate the major flows of traffic
from the two intersecting streets so that they don't have
to cross each other.
Again, under the philosophy that that's not an improvement that
ought to be borne solely by Tamarac or by the developers within
the City of Tamarac, we applied a similar logic and incorporated
only 25% of the cost of that improvement into the program that
we're recommending. The additional improvements had to do more
with localized intersection improvements in order to maintain
acceptable levels of service at all the intersections and along
the major streets within the City in the future. It had to do
with the addition of left -turn lanes and right -turn lanes and
that sort of thing.
The total improvement costs that we identified for all of these
improvements and the City's share of all of these improvements
amounted to approximately $2.9 million. In looking at the
financing available to support that level of improvement, we
consulted with City staff to determine what level of funding may
be available from sources that the City already has or already
obtains money from for transportation purposes. Based on the
advice we got from City staff, we concluded that money that the
City is currently getting for transportation -related purposes
will not be available for these improvements; that that money is
committed for maintaining the existing system and for resurfacing
programs, maintenance and the operations the City currently has
going on. So, as a result of that, the $2.9 million that we
identified for future improvements is all money that we're now
looking at trying to create a system to allow you to collect that
money.
The impact fee recommendations do several things. The basis
formula that we used for determining how we could allocate the
costs among future developments is one where we take the total
amount of money necessary to do the improvements, we determine
the total amount of additional traffic that will be generated by
future improvements, and we did that simply by utilizing the
accepted traffic generation rates that are used in Broward County
and elsewhere for various types of land uses, and we went through
11
11/27/85
/vdw
a calculation that simply divided the total amount of money
necessary by the total future trips associated with future
development and came up with a cost per trip. The cost per trip
was in the range of, I'm speaking from memory and I probably
should open the report, it was in the range of around $49.00 per
trip. There are several things that need to be cranked into the
formula from that point on in order to come up with a final fee.
For example, each trip associated with a land use, whether it be
a residential land use or commercial land use, has got two ends.
In theory and simplifying a little bit, if you have a residen-
tial development on one hand and a non --residential or commercial
development on another, the trip produced by the residential
originates at that point and goes some place else, whether it's
shopping trip or a work trip, it goes to some other land use
that's a non-residential land use and so it becomes the other en
of the trip as associated with an office or shopping center or
whatever the other land use is. So when you are looking at the
total trips that are being made, and this is something that
Broward County has done over the years in the development of
their impact fee system, too, is that the cost for that trip has
been split up between the two land uses. So you assess half the
cost for the trip at the production end, the residential end, and
you assess the other half of the cost of the trip at the
contractual end, or the non-residential end. In recognition of
that, you don't want to be in the position of having somebody be
able to come back later on and say, "Hey, you're double assessing
us" and "You're hitting us at both ends of the trip". So, there
is a 50 percent reduction factor applied to that basic cost per
trip that we calculated to recognize the fact that you're
potentially going to be assessing fees for both ends of the trip.
In addition to that in other impact ... in our work and our
experience in the development of other impact fee ordinances,
there had been legal advice rendered in the development of those
ordinances that there ought to be an additional adjustment to
represent an elimination of overcharge - the possibility of
overcharging, charging more money than you really need to do wha
you're doing and to eliminate, again, the possibility of somebod
coming back later on and saying, "Hey, you're assessing us for a
lot of administrative costs and things that don't really go into
producing the road improvements that are needed to satisfy our
impacts and we ought not to be paying for that". So there was an
additional adjustment factor or reduction factor of 15 percent
that we recommended in our formula to account for that factor.
And that's the basic formula that we have developed and are
recommending for the City's consideration in this system.
Finally, in our report we went through and developed for you in
Table 14, which follows page 36 in the report if you have it in
front of you, a summary of what the typical fees might be for a
variety of different land uses. Again, using the formula that we
developed, you can see what those are. The impact ... the nature
of the fees is such that we're in a fee range that is kind of
middle-of-the-road. It's a conservative approach and we've
deliberately taken a conservative approach because we feel that's
important to enhance the defendability of the ordinance that you
ultimately adopt. There is certainly some room for discussion
and policymaking decisions that need to be considered by the
Council in terms of the specifics of what these recommendations
are but we think that it is a good, conservative approach and the
resulting fees are not excessive in terms of being greater than
are being assessed by other agencies that are also in the
business of assessing impact fees nor are they way lower than
anyone else's. We're in the range; we're in the ballpark with
the fees that we've come up with. Mr. Mayor, that's probably
enough for me to say on it and I'd be happy to respond to any
questions that you might have.
MR. RUBIN: Very briefly, I'd like to summarize three points that
Mr. Mercer made today to Council. I had an opportunity to meet
with Mr. Mercer before the meeting, also, so I understand this
clearly to be able to respond to Council's concerns.
12
11/27/85
/vdw !r
Number 1, if you turn to Table 13 in the report that shows the
total amount of dollars needed for future improvements based on
future population.
V/M MASSARO: What page are you on?
MR. RUBIN: Twenty-nine.
V/M MASSARO: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: You'll
see that the total amount of improvements re-
quired for future improvements...Okay,
this is not the ones that
we need today but to
satisfy the future residents and development
for the City equals
about $10,000,000. There needs to be a new
column on the right
side of that that I've asked Mr. Mercer to
provide to us and that
would be the amount of money that our
engineers recommend
we provide in order to make sure these im-
provements could be
constructed equals $2,900,000 of that
$10,000,000 so we're
recognizing that there will be County and
State funding also
included. Vice Mayor, I noticed you wrote
that down... if you
could turn in your book to page #36. The Vice
Mayor was asking me
yesterday the formula that they had used.
You'll see that is
the number included in the top of the
formula, $2,900,000
of the $10,000,000.
V/M MASSARO: What I didn't understand though when I looked this
over last night was how you arrived at the two million. You
must have, Mr. Mercer, you must have taken some sort of percent-
age or something here. How did you arrive at the two million
versus ten million?
MR. RUBIN: That is what I've asked Mr. Mercer to provide us with
this new column that would answer our question. For instance, as
he said, of the first item which is Commercial Boulevard widening
which shows two million here ... he's saying that the City's fair
share of that would be 25% or that would be $500,000 and then he
went through each one of those numbers.
V/M MASSARO: I want to ask another question about that. In
arriving at that 25%, you know, it doesn't seem to me to be a
reasonable thing to assume that we are responsible for 25% of
that because of the fact that this is utilized mostly by Fort
Lauderdale. You've got Executive Airport there; you've got all
of these tremendous office buildings that they're putting in
there, and you've got all of Fort Lauderdale that comes up
through there. Where in God's world does little Tamarac got a
responsibility for 25% of this?
MR. MERCER: What we looked at when we came up with that number
was the ... all of the additional traffic which is projected to be
using Commercial Boulevard in the future. Remember, there is a
lot of commercial development still to come along Commercial
Boulevard; there's a lot of vacant property along there now.
That, plus other development....
V/M MASSARO: There isn't so much in Tamarac. You've got to re-
member...
MR.
MERCER:
Along the north side...
V/M
MASSARO:
The north side is not Tamarac.
MR.
traffic
MERCER:
Okay. What we looked at..we looked at
the total
... We
looked at traffic volumes now and the
total volumes
that
will be
there after all the future development
occurs.
V/M
MASSARO:
I think that this column needs to be
looked at
again.
I really think that you haven't given us a
fair share
and,
please,
don't misunderstand my words.
MR.
MERCER:
Yeah, I understand.
13
11/27/85 _\.l
/vdw
V/M MASSARO: But I don't think that 25% of that is our responsi-
bility or could ever be our responsibility. I think we'd fight
like tigers if it came to where they said, "Hey, we'll do it
tomorrow but you pay 25%". No way would they ever get it. So
why should we, you know, why should we feel now... But I need
that other column on every one of these to determine how you
arrived at the $2,910,000 so that we can see ... we can make a
judgment what we consider fair and right and what we consider is
an overplay.
MR. RUBIN: Okay. Let me finish my last two points and then,
Council, I'm sure you have questions. And that same formula was
on page...I believe you're looking at page 36, you'll see that
another question that people have asked us is: How come the
overall trips fee that the City is requesting is almost identica
to the County's number. Well, that is purely by coincidence
because, Mr. Mercer, the top number placed $2,900,000 of
improvements and the bottom number, the 58,000 trips, that's the
total amount of trips that the City's vacant land would generate.
So you remember you wanted to have everybody pay their fair share
and that's a total of 58,000 trips ... future trips includ-
ing Land Sections 4, 5 and 6.
V/M MASSARO: That's only vacant land?
MR. RUBIN: Vacant land throughout the City.
V/M MASSARO: Vacant land based on the present zoning or what is
it based on?
MR. RUBIN: Based on our Land Use Plan.
V/M MASSARO: On the present Land Use Plan?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
V/M MASSARO: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: And then you divide the 58,000 trips into the
$2,900,000 of fees and that equals $49.00 per trip.
V/M MASSARO: Alright. There's another question that comes to
my mind, then, Mr. Mercer, it's based on today's Land Use Plan.
Now I know that there... right now there is one question of some-
thing is being considered as ... an amendment to the Land Use Plan
which would generate.... which it would .... this particular
development could, by request or if we don't write it up care-
fully, they could sneak in additional usage of their new land
use amendment. Would we then take a percentage of what they're
doing and add it to the figures that you've already generated
because it isn't already in this study.
MR. MERCER: What we've done is we've used the current Land Use
Plan to come up with a cost per trip and that projects for us
the total number of future trips. Now, as amendments occur or
if somebody comes in with a use that is more intense that you
permit, that more intense use will generate more traffic and
so ... but you've already got a fee per trip established now and so
their higher number of trips means they're going to have to pay a
higher fee.
V/M MASSARO: That's what I'm getting at. All right.
MR. RUBIN: I want to answer that one also. You're speaking of
probably Land Section 7, I believe. If there's an amendment
there, it would be a development of regional impact and you'll be
able to, through the DRI process, also, assess fees that they
would have to pay to the roadways. Under new State Law 163,
whatever you assess then during the DRI is the only impact fee
you can assess; that was one of the compromises the legislators
passed this year up in Tallahassee. They made the DRI process
more restrictive but the developers cried saying, "Well, once
this is approved, we don't want cities to go add additional fees
14
11/27/85 /
/vdw
on top of it" so they removed that out of there.
V/M MASSARO: Alright, let me ask a question about that. you
say it may be more restrictive, what do you mean by that "may
be more restrictive"? Are they talking about lowering the rate
of the cost per trip or are they going to require more be aid
for the rate per trip? p
MR. RUBIN: During the DRI process, the traffic engineers for
the South Florida Regional Planning Council in your City will
look at the development and determine the impact on the roads
and come up with an agreed figure that the developer will have
to pay and they'll use this study, now, since we have it to
determine it and make that part of the approval process so
You'll be able to get that even before they break ground ... that
fee.
V/M MASSARO: Okay.
MR. MERCER: Let me add a comment to that. Normally, the DRI
process is more thorough in terms of the area of impact that's
analyzed and they will include in the DRI analysis a lot of
facilities and a lot of improvements that aren't in here. I
would expect, based on our experience working with developers,
doing DRI's as well as other things, that you'd probably find
that a development significant enough to have to go through the
DRI process will wind up paying more in fees than would be cal-
culated if you just look at this.
V/M MASSARO: Okay, then, in other words, that we shouldn't be
giving any kind of figures to any one in Land Section 7 at the
present time so that they would have vested rights as to those
figures?
MR. MERCER: Maybe that's more a legal question than a technical
one.
V/M MASSARO: Okay, I'll let it go. Forget it.
C/M GOTTESMAN: I have a simple question. If we ride down Com-
mercial Boulevard right now,
going west to east from Sawgrass
Parkway or whatever, it's a relatively easy
ride to get through
two miles there. There's very little heavy commercial
I
traffic,
mean, trucks and things like that, and I wonder where does the
City
that'sfgoingrac come in to to have to be put for the the extra roadway
especially the intersection of Commercial nand ce tUniversity. rass opens
Your figures
you put some percentage in there that Tamarac has
to pick up. Right now, if that
Sawgrass didn't exist, we
wouldn't have to do anything there ... Widen the
road which the
County is already providing and the money that's been assessed
right now to
redesign... to come up with a design. Have you
included the tremendous
cost and where does Tamarac wind up? It
seems to me behind the eight ball.
MR. HENNING: Mayor, if I could start the response to that and
maybe Mr. Mercer can finish up when I get as far as I can. I
think the Council should remember that in the discussions with
the Sawgrass Expressway Authority that part of the negotiations
in granting certain right-of-way was that it ... they had promised
that by the time the first phase of the Sawgrass is opened,
which includes the intersection..or the interchange at Commer-
cial Boulevard and the Sawgrass Expressway, that they would see
that Commercial Boulevard is six-laned from Pine Island West to
the Sawgrass. Well, it already is to about 94...
C/M GOTTESMAN: Well, it is six lanes...
MR. HENNING: Well, parts of it doesn't exist at all. go west to the Sunrise Musical Theatre and, certainl When you
that is only four-laned but they have agreed that itwillmbeo
ysix
laned all the way to Pine Island when they have the ribbon
cutting. It'll be interesting to see but that's what they've
15
11/27/85
vdw f`
said. There is no cost to the City for the initial six laning
to the Sawgrass Expressway. The whole issue and maybe it's
semantics, when you say cost to the City, the issue of impact
fees is to protect the people, the property owners, whether they
be commercial or residential property owners, that are here
today. It's to protect them from the costs of the needed
improvements due to the impact of, let's call them, "newcomers".
When there is growth and there's new development, there is an
impact on the existing infrastructures it's called or the road-
ways and this is the whole basis of an impact fee so that the
ten-year resident doesn't pay for this overpass through ad
valorem taxes but that the developers and eventually the home-
owners who move into town will pay that saving the present
residents and property owners from that expense. That's what an
impact fee is.
C/M GOTTESMAN: That's where the big questions come up. Many
people have asked if the County wants to put the Sawgrass in and
they want to put it along Commercial Boulevard, why should
Tamarac be responsible for any costs for it because it's only
going to affect the commercial trucking that's going to come
down along there and come across Commercial Boulevard. You say
people moving in are residential? There's very little resi-
dential left at that point and most of the commercial is on the
Lauderhill side.
MR. HENNING: Well, maybe I didn't make myself clear but that's
not at a cost to the City per se because that's part of the
Sawgrass budget. The Sawgrass Expressway budget which will be a
toll road and the users will include the....
C/M GOTTESMAN: Yeah, but that toll will stop the minute it
comes to Commerical Boulevard.
MR. MERCER: I have a couple of comments to add to that, and I
agree with just about everything that the City Attorney has
said.
C/M GOTTESMAN: Well, maybe I didn't get all of this straight
but it seems to me if there's money involved and somehow or
other the City of Tamarac's going to get involved in paying a
good portion of this.
MR. MERCER: A couple of things to keep in mind and a couple of
things we had in mind when we came up with the 25% portion for
some of these improvements. Remember...you recall, I said ... we
agree it's not reasonable to say that Tamarac or the develop-
ments within Tamarac ought to be responsible for solving
regional problems. As a practical matter, however, if there are
operating problems or capacity deficiencies in the future
because of overloading conditions, those conditions are going to
affect everybody. It's not only going to be difficult or incon-
venient for newcomers or for people who come off the Sawgrass,
it's going to be inconvenient and difficult for everybody. And,
so, the problem needs to be solved. Because there is not a
solution yet identified in anybody's improvement program, we
need to set in motion some sort of a process.
C/M GOTTESMAN: So this is what you're going to do in effect is
study this.
MR. MERCER: Right. We need to set in motion some sort of a
process to get these improvements into somebody's program.
C/M GOTTESMAN: Fine, that was what was on my mind.
MR. MERCER: And you all have a stronger bargaining position,
perhaps, if you want to call it that to go to the County and
say, "Hey, here's an improvement that we know is going to be
needed and here's what we've set in motion to help do it. Now
how about you guys doing your fair share, and let's see if we
can get something started".
16
11/27/85
vdw
C/M STEIN: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I have been listening
here and this is the first time I ever heard ourselves argue
against ourselves. We're talking about a proposed impact fee to
protect us. Nobody says we're ever going to pay a nickel of the
estimated amounts. These people are saying that it's possible
that you might have to pay 25% but they didn't say we have to.
There's been no authorization that says the City of Tamarac has
to pay for any of these proposed improvements. But how else can
you get a proposed impact fee unless you protect yourself; this
is what this is all about. We want to make sure if we have to
pay this out that's what we'll have but I don't think that any-
thing we pass here today or when we do pass it obligates us to
pay the County or anybody one nickel. It has absolutely nothing
to do with it. We're saying to the people who want to come into
Tamarac there is a possibility that we're going to have to pay
because you're here and, therefore, we want to have the funds
available just in case we can do it. I think that's what this
whole report alleges; it does not allege that we are obligated
for one nickel to any of these improvements because we don't
know whether the County will pay for it or anybody else will
pay for it.
V/M MASSARO: Well, in response to what you're saying, I agree
partially with you. But, remember that when we start collecting
this money after it's all passed and we start collecting the
money and we have this study by which we are doing it... it,
somehow, proportionately, that money belongs to these various
funds. And, there's going to have to be a very careful
ordinance written for this. Remember that the County has a
study and they take that money from one place and apply it any
place they want. Even though they're collecting money on
University Drive, University Drive wasn't getting credit for
that money. When they needed it, they just dipped in that till
and used it somewhere else, State Road 84, I'm only using dumb
numbers, but they had an ordinance which permitted them to use
it and if we are going to be held down like that, that money is
going to be trouble to us. A very, very careful ordinance has
to be written to accommodate this study. It has nothing to do
with your study but I'm saying that unless we are careful here
about the ordinance we could be in big trouble some day.
C/M GOTTESMAN: Mr. Mayor, this is precisely what I had in mind
when I said we had to look into and investigate where do we fit
in. I didn't say that we were going to get a freebie or we were
going to have to pay. I don't know what the answer is but I
think we ought to look into it so we are conversant with what
the problem is when it comes up. That's all that I had in my
mind with my question.
V/M MASSARO: I think at the present time we've had a good
presentation and I would ask only that the City Clerk give us a
verbatim of what Mr. Mercer and Richard had said here.
END OF VERBATIM
b) V/M Massaro said that Temp. eso 3 01 is not available. The
City Attorney said, in all candor, this was probably the most
important item on the agenda. He asked Mr. Mercer if he was
involved with government traffic studying before he entered the
private sector and, if so, would he share that information with
them a little more specifically.
Mr. Mercer answered that briefly, prior to getting into private
practice, he headed up the Broward County Traffic Engineering
Division from 1976 to 1981 and prior to that was Assistant Di-
rector and Transportation Director for the City of Fort
Lauderdale from 1968 to 1976. He said prior to that employment
he worked in the Chicago area for a couple of years for the State
of Illinois. The City Attorney said that Mr. Mercer had talked
to Council about the proposed 25% funding and asked, in his
expert opinion, if this was an adequate and appropriate percen-
tage so that if they were to negotiate or meet with the County
17
11/27/85
/vdw
or the State in the future, that that would be an appropriate
matching fund for the City to have accumulated. Mr. Mercer said
it was predicated on the additional traffic that will be added to
the facility from the developments within the City of Tamarac
that he looked at. He said the number may vary slightly one way
or the other but it is within the right ballpark in terms of the
City being able to go to the County and say, "This is an improve-
ment that we have identified as being necessary, and we have
started the mechanism to cover our portion of the costs of this
improvement that can be attributable to our traffic".
Mr. Henning stated one of the most significant trafficway con-
cerns of the City has been the widening of University Drive; he
said presently it is four lanes for the City. The City Attorney
said they have heard from Mitch Ceasar on occasion concerning hi
efforts to get this planned on the City's behalf and widened to
six lanes. He questioned if Mr. Mercer's final conclusion was
that he has not included in the impact fee anything regarding the
5th, 6th, 7th or 8th lanes. Mr. Mercer said that he had not in-
cluded those lanes in the study.
Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if there was a Temp. Reso.
3901. Mr. Henning replied that it was being typed and
suggested that it be held to the afternoon session.
b) V/M Massaro acknowledged receipt of Kimley-Horn & Associates'
Future Traffic Needs and Funding Study. Mr. Henning asked in the
present form of the study, as presented today, if the issue of
traffic signalization was addressed. Mr. Mercer answered that
traffic signalization was omitted because typically that, along
with other access improvements that are directly related to
specific developments, are things that are generally taken care
of at site plan approval. He said those are additional improve-
ments that can be obtained from the development at the time the
development is approved. The City Attorney asked Mr. Mercer if
it was his professional recommendation, that in spite of this
overall impact fee for these trips, that the City continue to
direct its concern at the adjacent property owners at site plan
review, and if there is a direct impact for signalization. Mr.
Mercer said the City needed to do that because it is only at tha
time when the specifics of the development are known that the
site -related needs are established. He said their study was a
general one which looked at the overall City and overall network
and that it was not possible to be finite, at this stage of the
study process, in terms of the site access needs for the specific
developments; therefore, the City will need to continue to look
at that. Mr. Henning asked if the trips were estimated trips per
day; Mr. Mercer replied that they were.
V/M Massaro suggested that all of the other items be tabled
except item h). The City Attorney suggested, if Council did not
want to take final action, that e) and f) could be tabled and
suggested that Council address b) and c). The Vice Mayor said
under b) Council had acknowledged receipt of the study and all
they needed now was the supporting resolution. The City Attorney
suggested that c) and d) be discussed later in the day as a non
emergency item and e) and f) could be tabled because they will
not be ready. V/M Massaro asked that item g) be removed. V/M
Massaro MOVED that Item 21's subsections e), and f) be TABLED and
that g) be REMOVED from consideration. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
h) V/M Massaro noted that Richard Rubin, Consultant Planner, had an
asterisk to denote that the fee did not include general meeting
time in special items so that the total fee of $32,000 is not a
total fee. Mr. Rubin said that was what the contract stated but
if she was questioning the time that the gentlemen have spent at
the meeting this morning, he has verified with them that it was
included in the $32,000. He said the only additional funds that
they could request must be authorized in writing by the City
Manager and to date, not one professional item has been requested
in writing. The Vice Mayor said Council was in receipt of the
18
11/27/85
/vdw
study for only a day or so and MOVED that Council approve a pay-
ment today of $10,000 and the balance to be considered at the
next regular meeting (12/11/85). Mr. Mercer asked if there was
a reason for payment of only $10,000. V/M Massaro answered only
because Council had just received it and needed additional time
to study it. Mr. Mercer said he wanted her to understand that
they have almost completed the study and have expended the
efforts and the money. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE:
25. In est ents of City Funds - Temp. Or 123 -
Discussion and possible action to amend Chapter 9 of the
Code concerning allowable investments. First Reading.
SYNQPSIS_ OF ACTIQN:
TABLED for receipt of recommendations from
Council and the Investment Advisory Committee
Mr. Henning read Temp. Ord_ #1233 by title.
The City Attorney said the ordinance had been revised on
11/26/85. Mayor Kravitz asked him to inform Council of the re-
visions. Mr. Henning said the change, due to a typographical
error, was insignificant; however, the substance of the ordinance
was significant. The City Attorney referenced Chapter 9-1 of
the Code which presently, and for the past several years, has
delegated, by the Council to the City Manager, the authorization
for making investments for the City. This ordinance would remove
that brief delegation of power and implement committee procedures
and specific guidelines and significant protocol for investments,
which is the outcome of recent developments, to have a greater
involvement of Council in the investment procedure. He said it
was also based on recommendations from the Investment Advisory
Committee and would be for First Reading.
Ed Solomon, Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee,
reported that there were some basic changes his committee would
like to see made and asked that Council approve the First Reading
with their proposed recommendations. He said his committee felt
there should be an explanation under Section 9-1 b) at the very
bottom which reads, "City surplus funds may be invested in a
local government's surplus funds trust fund" because he did not
know what it meant. V/M Massaro said she did not understand it
either. The City Attorney explained that it was a State Invest-
ments Portfolio provided by law; he said it was an alternative to
the City's own portfolio. The City Attorney said it could read,
"As provided in Florida Statute, Section...".
The Chairman referenced page 2 under f and requested an
additional line which would become g) which would state that the
maximum time on investments would be one to five years. The City
Attorney asked if he was saying that the maximum investments
should be a five-year term. Mr. Solomon said that he was because
if they stayed with what was necessary five years would be most
proper.
Mr. Solomon suggested under h) that the words "negotiable paper"
be deleted and replaced with "securities". He said he contacted
his committee and each of them expressed a desire to recommend
changes in addition to the ones he has proposed. V/M Massaro
suggested that the Investment Advisory Committee submit a memo
of their proposed changes and indicated that she had changes
that she would like to recommend. Mayor Kravitz suggested that
Mr. Solomon obtain all the suggestions of his committee and
forward them to him, as liaison, and he will pass it on to
Council for further action.
Mr. Etheredge, Finance Director, cautioned that under Section G
if the City took possession of any of the bonds or notes, they
are negotiable and can be cashed and the City would have no con-
trol of them. V/M Massaro agreed citing Section G as a very
dangerous paragraph. C/M Stein MOVED to TABLE the item for re-
19
11/27/85 d
/vdw �)
ceipt of recommendations from Council and the Investment Advisory
Committee. SECONDED by V/M Massaro.
VOTE.: ALL -VOTED -AYE
C/M Gottesman was excused from the meeting at 11 A.M.,
TAMARAC UTILITIES WE6T
14. Utilities West - W 11s 12 and 13 (Project 84- 4 -
Discussion and possible action to approve Change Order #1
to the contract with R. J. Sullivan Corporation for addi-
tional work (tabled from 11/13/85).
_�YNQPSIS._,QF ACTION:
APPROVED Change Order #1 increasing
contract by $1,000.00
V/M Massaro stated that it only involved a change in the contract
which is to add $1,000 for substitution of previously approved
Square D electric switch gear with Westinghouse and was requested
by Tamarac Engineering Department to standardize with wells and
pump station electrical equipment which they now have. She MOVED
that Change Order #1 with R. J. Sullivan Corporation be APPROVED.
SECONDED by C/M Stein.
Y_OTF :
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
15. Utilities West -w Rehabilitation and ExDansion gf
Wastewater Treatment Plant Pro' ct 8 -19 - Discussion
and possible action on:
a) Approval of an engineering agreement, including Adden-
dum 1 and Addendum 2, with Hazen and Sawyer (tabled fro
11/13/85) ml
b) Authorization to proceed with certain design tasks on
this project.
SYNOPaIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED Task Order 1.1 in the amount of $4500
for design for the installation of four (4) transfer
pumps and the balance of a) and b) TABLED
V/M Massaro stated that the Utilities Director was on vacation
and this item was for a significant amount. She said she would
like to discuss this item further with him and MOVED that this
item be TABLED until the next regular meeting. SECONDED by
C/M Stein. V/M Massaro asked the SECONDER to WITHDRAW as she
WITHDREW her MOTION in order to hear Mr. Foy's comments.
Mr. Bob Foy requested authorization to take care of the engineer-
ing required for the transfer pumps. V/M Massaro said the four
transfer pumps were of an emergency nature and MOVED that the
design compensation of $5500 be approved for Hazen & Sawyer.
Mr. Foy injected if the approval was only for the transfer pumps
it could be reduced to $4500 because the $5500 total included
other controls within the overall project. The Vice Mayor stated
that the MOTION should include "for an upset price of $450011
SECONDED by C/M Stein. She said the balance would be TABLED.
The City Attorney stated that the City does not have an umbrella
agreement with Hazen & Sawyer. V/M Massaro said Council has
approved them as engineers on this project. Mr. Foy said the
City has no agreement with Hazen and Sawyer at this point;
however, staff has recommended that Hazen and Sawyer be the engi-
neer for this project. Mr. Henning said the approval would be
this particular task, along with an agreement. Mr. Foy said that
was not necessary because they had a similar requisition asking
20
11/27/85
/vdw
specifically for design of a small portion of this project and
the transfer pumps.
Mayor Kravitz asked the City Attorney if the authorization of
payment of the $4500 and tabling of a) and b) could be handled in
one MOTION. The City Attorney said, if there was no objection,
it could be done.
V/M Massaro reiterated, for clarity, that the MOTION included
payment of $4500 for Task 1.1 and the balance of a) and b) would
be TABLED.
VOTE•
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
16. Ut 1 ties emir - Discussion and possible action to
authorize certain utilities personnel to attend the
Southeast Workshop 185 concerning Composting, Recycling,
and Land Application.
SYNOF IS QE ACTION:
APPROVAL for two people to attend seminar
and ADOPTION of John Taribo's memo of 11/22/85
at a cost not to exceed $675.00.
Mr. Henning referenced a memo revised 11/22/85 from the
Superintendent of Operations, John Taribo, to Acting City
Manager Perretti. C/M Stein MOVED that the personnel requested
be AUTHORIZED to attend the seminar and the ADOPTION of the memo
Of 11/22/85 signed by John Taribo, Superintendent of Operations,
which was approved by William E. Greenwood, Director of Utili-
ties. C/M Munitz stated that it would be a total cost of $675
for two people for two days. The Acting City Manager recommended
approval. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
17. Utilities West - Sanitary ewer Febabilitation P o'
Tem Reso 3876 - Discussion and possible action
to approve Change Order No. 5 to the contract with
Interstate Pipe Maintenance, Inc., increasing the contract
by $9,000.00.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED Change Order 5 RESOLUTION NO. R-85-367
PASSED increasing the contract
by $9,000.00 for the addition
of lateral risers.
Mr. Henning read emp—Pego43876 by title.
Acting City Manager Perretti recommended that it be approved.
C/M Stein MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp,
C/M Munitz. eso.$L• SECONDED by
YDTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
21
11/27/85
/vdw �_/
18. Utilities West - Discussion and possible action to
authorize the purchase of a 1/2-ton pickup truck under
State contract in lieu of bidding.
SYNOPSI,h_OF ACTION:
APPROVED purchase of 1/2-ton pickup
truck for $9,554.75 on State contract
C/M Stein asked the City Attorney if this item had been pulled
by the Vice Mayor to determine if it could be purchased cheaper
through the State. Mr. Henning recalled that there was a
question about using the State bid list versus the City's effort
but did not know how it was resolved.
Mr. Bob Foy reported that they had solicited verbal quotations
for a similar vehicle outside of the State contract and, in'every
instance, they were higher than the priced quoted if purchased
under State contract. He said he believed that they had satis-
fied the Vice Mayor's requirements for that purchase. The Vice
Mayor concurred that the State contract was the cheapest.
C/M Stein MOVED the purchase of the 1/2 ton pickup truck.
SECONDED by C/M Munitz. V/M Massaro added that the purchase
price was $9,554.75 for the utility pickup.
VOTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
Bob Foy provided an explanation of the options for the 1/2-ton
Pickup truck.
19. Utilities - Discussion and possible action to authorize
execution of a contract with Shelton Enterprise, Inc., to
provide underground utility location services to the City
Temp. R so. #3883
SYNOPSIS -OF ACTION:
TABLED.
Acting City Manager was DIRECTED
to research this item further.
Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso-,#3883 by title.
The City Attorney explained that this contract was to provide
underground utility location services to developers who are
digging in a certain area. He said the developers would call
Shelton Enterprise, Inc. and would be provided with the location
of the utility lines. Mr. Henning said this service would be
provided at a cost of approximately $85.00 per month plus $.20
per call because the City does not have the necessary teletype
equipment that would save the $.20 per call. The City Attorney
said it has been recommended by the Utilities Director to avoid
developers digging into the City's pipelines and causing damage.
He added that it was a three-year contract.
The Vice Mayor questioned what would happen if the as -built
drawings were not correct and the City had a contract with
Shelton Enterprise, Inc. Mr. Foy said utilities does the actual
location and the service that these people would provide is that
whenever a contractor wants to do work within the City of Tamarac
or within the City's franchised area, he calls UNCLE, and with
one call to UNCLE, all of the utilities in the given area are
notified by UNCLE and they go out and make the locations.
Mr. Foy said, primarily, UNCLE does two things: forwards the
call to Utilities, and records that the contractor has made the
call within the required time because by law they are required to
call in for locations at least 48 hours before they start exca-
vating. He said UNCLE also maintained a list of contractors who
22
11/27/85
/vdw
have caused excessive damage not only in the City of Tamarac but
other cities. V/M Massaro said she would like to test this
service on a trial basis. The City Attorney explained that the
contract has not been executed, and it could be sent back to them
for a one-year contract. The Vice Mayor said she would like that
because it would allow Council a chance to determine if it works.
The Vice Mayor clarified that if a developer started a new pro-
ject, they would call the City and ask for a location of utility
lines and then the City would refer them to UNCLE. Mr. Foy said
if a developer were to call the City now, they would be referred
to UNCLE because there are probably other utilities in that area
beside the City's. He said, however, right now if they called
UNCLE and did not call the City, the developer would not know
whether or not the City has utilities at the location; Mr. Foy
said UNCLE would probably tell them that they do not cover the
Tape City's utilities. V/M Massaro inquired that if a developer is
4 working in the City that it was required that they must contact
Utilities before they start digging. Mr. Foy said they must
notify the Utilities Department, and they do. V/M Massaro asked
if the developers must call UNCLE. Mr. Foy said the developers
know that they are required to call UNCLE and explained that any
time they are issued a construction permit, the developers are
informed that they must contact UNCLE 48 hours before digging
commences. He noted that this service had been in effect for a
few months through Public Works. V/M Massaro asked how the City
became involved with UNCLE and who approved it. Mr. Foy said
he did not know the answers but that somehow or other, the City
is working with UNCLE now.
C/M Stein suggested that this item be tabled. V/M Massaro agreed
and MOVED to TABLE this item for the first meeting in December.
SECONDED by C/M Stein.
`jOTE
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
The Vice Mayor directed the Acting City Manager to investigate
origin of the City's relationship with UNCLE.
GENE MI I RATI F A CI
9. Co f'd nt' allrv'so d n
Discussion and possible action to authorize extending the
benefit package for one month.
Y NOP I OF ACTION:
AUTHORIZED extension of benefits
package for one month
V/M Massaro asked that it be extended to the first meeting in
January. The Acting City Manager said the City has to pay for
the month of December. Mr. Henning said the premiums are paid
monthly. The Vice Mayor MOVED the extension of the benefits
package for one month. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:
C/M Stein
C/M Munitz
Aye
Aye
C/M Gottesman
Absent
V/M Massaro
Aye
Mayor Kravitz
Aye
10. Intr e a nt ud t ansf - hemp:,_ an
Discussion and possible action to establish procedures for
line item transfers within a departmental budget (tabled
from 11/13/85)
23
11/27/85
/vdw
SYMPpI OF,,,ACTION:
HELD to afternoon session
(See page 49 )
V/M Massaro said there should be a memo to Council before any
transfers are made and a minimum of five days before the trans-
fer of any line item with a reason identified for the transfer.
She added that a Council, member who opposed a transfer should do
so by memo whereby it would have to go on the agenda.
The City Attorney said he presented this resolution before
Council approximately one month ago and it was denied and at that
time he had proposed to give Council notice of any line item
transfers. He said since then he has met with C/M Munitz and
they discussed the provisions of the denied resolution and added
language similar to what has been indicated by the Vice Mayor
which would include not only the dollars involved but the reason
for the line item transfer and a statement explaining that the
source of the funds would have adequate funding for the remainder
of the fiscal year. Mr. Henning said the original resolution
contained a 10-day notice and the only other question was whether
Council wanted to be aware of every dollar or if there was to be
a ceiling. The City Attorney said any Council member who wished
to approach the City Manager, who has the final say, about a line
item transfer could do so or it could be agendized by consent at
the next regular meeting.
V/M Massaro said she realized the City Manager has the final say
but a Council member should have the right to ask that it be
agendized for consideration. She said she wanted to know when-
ever a transfer is made. C/M Munitz stated that the discussion
he had with the City Attorney was basically a question of not
interfering with the administration on Council's part but
strictly on a need -to -know basis so that Council could evaluate
what was being done. V/M Massaro said Section I allowing 10
working days was acceptable to her. C/M Munitz said the amount
in excess of $100 was adequate for this particular resolution
because Council has to be very careful that they do not interfer
el
with the responsibilities of the Finance Director or City Manager
or any member of the administration. V/M Massaro said she dis-
agreed with the $100 amount and reiterated that she wanted to
know about any transfers regardless of the amount. She said they
should not make any changes without advising Council via a memo.
C/M Munitz added with the condition that if no member of Council
opposesr the transfer would automatically be approved. The Vice
Mayor agreed.
Mr. Henning read Tgpes 3840 by title. The City Attorney
referenced Section I of the resolution with the addition of "e)
The reason for the transfer. f) The adequacy of the line items
being credited for the remainder of the fiscal year".
Acting City Manager Perretti commented that to show the impor-
tance of this to the department heads, he proposed to make the
resolution even more rigid by the addition of language to the
effect that once a department head takes a line item and dimin-
ishes its number to transfer it to another line item, that during
the course of the fiscal year, they cannot put money back into
that line item again. V/M Massaro agreed with Mr. Perretti's
comment.
C/M Munitz asked if it would help if the transfers were restrict-
ed to no more than one each fiscal year. Frank Etheredge,
Finance Directorr said it may not prove to be practical under
certain circumstances. C/M Stein said he did not endorse the
Acting City Manager's proposal because Council will receive
notice of the transfer and the zero amount meant every transfer
and Council would have 10 days to object. V/M Massaro felt that
Council had good guidelines now. V/M Massaro asked the City
Attorney to omit the monetary limitation and suggested, since
copies of the resolution were not available for distribution to
Council, that this item be HELD.
12. Brow d s Business - Discussion and pos-
sible action on:
a) Invoice for June solid waste assessment in the amount
of $374.00 (tabled from 11/13/85)
b) Reports
11/27/85
24 /vdw
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION•
a) APPROVED
b) Mayor Kravitz acknowledged receipt of reports.
a) V/M Massaro MOVED the approval of the payment to the Broward
County League of Cities in the amount of $374.00 as the City's
fair share of consultant's costs for the Solid Waste Resource
Recovery Center. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
YOTE
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
b) Mayor Kravitz acknowledged receipt of reports from the Broward
League. V/M Massaro cautioned Council members to read the
reports as it contained very important information.
13• o sCoupi us' ss - Discussion and
Possible action
SY OP T F ACTION •
Mayor Kravitz gave•a report.
Mayor Kravitz announced the next meeting for the second Monday of
December at which time there will be discussion of all question-
naires filed by the ten cities concerning Parks and Recreation.
He said if there were recommendations that all the cities would
receive them. Mayor Kravitz reported that at the last meeting
held in Coral Springs there was discussion concerning insurance
and, again, no decision was reached; therefore, it will be rein-
troduced at the next meeting. He noted that Acting City Manager
Perretti and Judy Deutsch represented the City at the last
meeting.
TAMARAC_UTILITIES WEST
20. Util ies_,West - R v nuBonds - Discussion and possible
action to authorize staff and consultants to
Proceed with the following:
a) Compile all necessary information
b) Contact and contract with bond insurors
c) Prepare the official statement
SYNOPSIS nF,ACTION:
a) AUTHORIZED City Attorney, staff and bond
counsel to compile all information
b) AUTHORIZED the appropriate parties to contact
and contract with the bond insurors and report
to Council so a special meeting can be called
c) AUTHORIZED bond counsel to prepare Official Statement
a) Mr. Henning distributed a letter, dated 11/20/85, from the City's
underwriters. He said the deadline is approaching to get every-
thing lined up for the revenue bonds. The City Attorney said the
City is doing a refunding issue and recapped that Council has
hired Smith Barney as the senior underwriter and William R. Hough
& Co. as the co -underwriters to move forward on the revenue bonds
for Tamarac Utilities West. Mr. Henning said the refunding is
for $13,000,000.00 to be done this year. Next year, there will
be a new issue of the $15,000,000.00 that was authorized by
referendum. The City Attorney said there were various things
needed by the underwriters so that they can move towards the
December 31st closing in Palm Beach. Mr. Henning said there are
certain costs such as printing which is a one-shot cost but noted
other costs which are ongoing. He said one of the ongoing costs
involved the negotiation with a registrar paying agent, Barnett
Bank, and an escrow agent, Rutland Bank. The City Attorney said
the underwriters asked for Council's approval to move forward and
to get everything lined up as soon as possible. He said Council
had already authorized the services of Touche Ross & Co. to pro-
vide a comfort letter to the underwriters at the time of closing.
Mr. Henning indicated that most of the services by the under-
writers are closing services but the two banks mentioned will
have ongoing relationships with the City during the lifetime of
11/27/85
25 /vdw
the bonds. The City Attorney said he did not know how closely
Council wanted to marshall this as to whether Council wanted the
underwriters to verify the actual banks selected or if Council
wanted them to have a free rein to obtain the lowest bank.
C/M Stein said it was his understanding that the underwriters
have already selected one bank and was not giving Council an
option. He inquired if the length of the bonds was approximately
20 years. The City Attorney said 20 years would be a fair
assumption and the Vice Mayor concurred. C/M Stein stated that
it would not be enough to tell the underwriters to hire these
banks but under which contract they will be hired. The City
Attorney said Council could tell the underwriters the lowest,
present value under a 20-year contract and they could figure out
what it would amount to. C/M Stein said that since they only
have one of each and time is of the essence, Council should
authorize Smith Barney and the City Attorney to proceed with the
printing, authorize the registrar paying agents, the auditors,
and the escrow agent not to exceed the amount as specified in
their :fetter of 11/20/85.
V/M Massaro asked what did they mean by compile and who would
compile it. The City Attorney said the underwriters would do
this with the assistance of City staff and bond counsel but asked
for their "blessing" to move ahead and to do everything necessary
to go forward. Mr. Henning advised Council that they would need
a special meeting around the 9th or 10th of December for the
final wrap up. C/M Stein MOVED to authorize City staff,
attorney and bond counsel to compile all the necessary informa-
tion for the Utility West revenue bonds. SECONDED by V/M
Massaro.
VOTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
V/M Massaro clarified that they were only discussing the refund-
ing.
b) V/M Massaro MOVED that the appropriate persons be AUTHORIZED to
contact and contract with the bond insurors. SECONDED by
C/M Stein. The Vice Mayor said the parties should contact them
and bring the information back to Council so that a special
meeting can be scheduled.
VOTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
c) Mr. Henning said the bond counsel would prepare the Official
Statement. C/M Stein MOVED to AUTHORIZE the bond counsel to
prepare the Official Statement. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
Y-QTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
LEGAL AFFAIRS
23.
v MVL
Report by Charter Board -- Discussion and possible action
(tabled from 9/11/85) .
SYNQPSII OF ACTION;
REMOVED from the agenda
Mr. Henning said he has discussed in the past the fact that under
the Charter Council has a thirty -day period to respond or take
11/27/85
26 /vdw
action based on a written report of the Charter Board, after a
public hearing has been held, and stated that he was not familiar
with whether that has been satisfied.
Mr. Morris Haber, Chairman of the Charter Board, stated that the
report had been sent to Council and the gist of it was that the
Charter Board felt they have gone as far as they want to go and
offered no recommendation to Council as to what they should do
in this matter.
The City Attorney recapped that there were three people who went
to New York: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood and Mr. Stan Ross, from Dean
Witter. He said Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wood have been fired, and
Mr. Ross recently resigned. He informed Council that they could
either keep this item active or remove it from the agenda.
Mr. Haber said the Charter Board felt that these men took a
certain amount of money that should not have been taken but it
would cost.the City so much money to recover the money taken that
it would not be prudent to pursue it further. C/M Stein MOVED to
REMOVE, tem 23 from the agenda. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
C/M Stein Aye
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Absent
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
24.'Occupational-Licenses - Temp. Ord._#1218 - Discussion
and possible action to modify occupational license tax
classifications and fees. Second Reading. (Public
Hearing held 11/13/85).
SYNOPSISFATIO
HELD to reconvened meeting
on December 6, 1985
Mr. Henning read the October 10, 1985 revision of Temp._Oxd�
#1218 by title.
The City Attorney explained that there was a lengthy list of
business categories for occupational licenses, some of which have
been consolidated primarily through the efforts of the Clerk's
Office, and some of the fees have been readdressed slightly. He
said he did not recall any substantial changes but noted that
appro*imately three years had passed since its revisions. The
City Attorney said the Clerk's Office has thoroughly reviewed the
occupational license fees and he has reviewed the final product
with the City Clerk and prepared the ordinance as presented.
C/M Stein said, at the request of the Vice Mayor, he reviewed
the item with the City Clerk to investigate whether any occupa-
tions or professions had been overlooked in the fee schedule,
and to determine whether any of the ones that appeared to be
inequitable could be increased. C/M Stein said there were a
couple which they felt should be increased but were prohibited
from doing so until allowed by the State. He said the fees,
compared with other cities', indicated that the City of Tamarac
was in the upper five percentile counting from one to ten.
C/M Stein agreed with the recommendations of the City Clerk that
the fees were fair and appropriate and where they are not, they
would have to wait until the State allowed the changes.
Mr. Henning clarified that C/M Stein was not proposing any amend-
ments to the October loth revision. C/M Stein said he was not.
V/M Massaro asked him if he had found any significant changes.
C/M Stein referenced a letter in which the City Clerk explained
the changes, most of which are housekeeping changes such as cor-
recting verbiage, and typographical errors, etc.. The Vice Mayor
assumed that $1500 was spent for advertising costs and wondered
why this expense was necessary if all it involved were house-
keeping changes. She declined to act on this item citing that
there was nothing of significance so far and felt it warranted
further research. The Vice Mayor said if the City Clerk felt
there was an urgency for Council to act on this matter today,
that she come down and inform Council after lunch. She asked
that this item be held for the afternoon session.
27
11/27/85
/vdw
Mayor Kravitz recessed for lunch at 12:00 P.M.
Tape ROLL CALL:
5
PRESENT:
Mayor Kravitz
V/M Massaro
C/M Gottesman (arrived 1:40 p.m.)
C/M Munitz
C/M Stein
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
46. Hidden arb u - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Stipulation #26 - Temp. Res 43
b) Site Plan - T 4
c) Landscape Plan
V d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
e) Public Safety Ingress/Egress Easement - Temp.
Reno, #3845
f) Canal Maintenance Easement -- a eso #384
g) Drainage Easement -- TeMR, Reso. #3847
h) Warranty Deed for 20-feet along the canal - Temp.
eso. 43848
i) Blanket Utility Easement - em eso 3849
11
J) Petition 16-V-85 - Vacation of a 20-foot wide drainage
easement - Temp, Ord, # 230. First Reading.
k) Refund of the following drainage retention fees:
Tract 26 - $30,234.00
Tract 31 - $36,977.00
1) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalization
needs.
(Project proposed to be located on the west side of NW 88
Avenue, north of NW 77 Street) (tabled from 11/13/85)
Y P I F ACTION;
a) APPROVED subject to
attachment of letter
dated 11/19/85;
b) APPROVED AS AMENDED
c) APPROVED subject to review
d) APPROVED AS AMENDED
e) APPROVED 11/25/85 revision
f) APPROVED as submitted
g) APPROVED with condition
h) APPROVED AS AMENDED
i) APPROVED
j) APPROVED Temp. Ord.#1230
on First Reading
k) APPROVED with conditions
1) APPROVED with conditions
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-384
PASSE
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-385
PASSED
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-386
PASSED
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-387
PASSED
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-388
PASSED
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-389
PASSED
RESOLUTION
NO.
R-85-390
PASSED
a) Mr. Henning read TqMR, Ress-o.#3 43 by title.
V/M Massaro asked if the fees due were available to be given to
the City Clerk. The Vice Mayor acknowledged receipt of $396,962
for the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement and $750 for the ERC
Review Fee. She asked if the last letter offered concerning re-
strictions would be incorporated as an exhibit.
Mr. Ed Stacker, attorney on behalf of Oxford Development Enter-
prises, Inc., said the Vice Mayor was referring to a letter whic
had,no,t been included in the executed stipulation. He said thei
commitment to the City, and if the City Attorney deemed it ad-
visable to incorporate it within that stipulation, related to the
fact that the one -bedroom units in this development, of which
there are 230 of the 368 units, will not be leased to families
with children. They were also willing to include in that stipu-
lation the fact that the minimum rental period for all of the
units is a seven -month minimum rental period with the proviso
that at least 50% of the units, however, will be subject to a
minimum one-year lease.
C/M Stein asked about the financing. The Vice Mayor read the
letter of November 19, 1985 from Oxford Development Enterprises,
Inc. to Norman Abramowitz, President of Woodmont Homeowners
Association (see attached letter). V/M Massaro requested a
28 11/27/85
/vdw
1
1
supporting document addressed to the City outlining the same pro-
posals as presented in the 11/19/85 letter. Mr. Stacker said
his rationale was that the two former provisions relating to the
children and terms of the leases would be something which the
City would want included in the stipulation. He said, however,
he had no problem in including the financing in the stipulation
but that their verbal commitment to Council today was if their
site plan was approved, the developer would shift to conventional
financing on this site. C/M Stein said he would like to see it
incorporated as part of the stipulation; Mr. Stacker said he
would insert the provisions and execute a new document.
Morris Haber, resident, said there was a tax of five percent plus
sales tax on six-month leases and inquired what was the impor-
tance of a seven -month lease. C/M Stein answered that the people
who lived in Woodmont thought it was important. V/M Massaro
MOVED the APPROVAL of Stipulation #26 subject to an attachment of
the letter which was issued to Norman Abramowitz, President of
Woodmont Homeowners Association and is to become an exhibit of
Stipulation #26 which is approved by eso 43.
by CZM,.Stein. SECONDED
C/M Gottesman arrived at 1:40 p.m.
WTE
ALL VOTED AYE
Mr. Haber asked what was Woodmont's interest in this development
as it had no proximity to Woodmont. C/M Stein answered that the
development was directly across the street from Woodmont.
b) Mr. Henning read T es 844 by title.
Bob Jahn, Chief Building Official, said staff recommended
approval subject to Council's approval and acceptance of the con-
ditions outlined in the Developers' Review Sheet. V/M Massaro
commented that it was a beautiful project but stated that she
would lake to see the series of parking spaces on the south side
of the site plan adjacent to NW 77th Street eliminated because it
has a: tendency to break up a beautiful portion of the area and
it also backs into the main road which goes through the project.
Mr. Stacker said those parking spaces were excess in number with
respect to the required spaces and stated that Oxford would have
absolutely no objection whatsoever in eliminating those and pro-
viding the additional landscaping in lieu thereof. Bob Jahn
marked the site plan to reflect the elimination of the parking
spaces requested and the developer initialed the plan indicating
approval. She reiterated that the developer would eliminate the
ten p4xk�ng spaces and provide for the beautification of the area
and the plans are to return to the Beautification Committee for
approval.
Walter Rekuc, resident, asked the percentage of land coverage and
if the calculations have been checked. The Vice Mayor answered
that they have certification by an engineer of everything: the
ground floor area is 8.3%, roads and parking is 24.5, the lake
area is 14.9 and the landscape area is 52.3.
Mr. Henning referenced a Code requirement which stated that when
there are multiple buildings of a residential nature on a single
site, as this project has, traffic hazards must be substantially
reduced due to the backing up of parking directly on the princi-
pal driveway that is used to connect the buildings and their
clustered parking lots. The City Attorney said this has been
reviewed several times by the City Planner and he is of the
opinion that this site plan complies with that particular
ordinance because the project does have a predominant driveway.
He said, with the minor adjustment of the elimination of the ten
parking spaces adjacent to the driveway, it was staff's position
that there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the
ordinance the way the parking is designed. The Vice Mayor asked
Mr. Henning if it was his opinion that this does comply with the
City's code and Council should not be reluctant to approve it as
far as the parking areas are concerned; the City. Attorney agreed.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION and APPROVAL of Temp, ftso. Ug"
as presented other than the ten parking spaces as marked on the
plan to be eliminated and replaced with beautification for
that area and the replaced beautification is to go before the
Beautification Committee. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
11/27/85
29 /vdw
Harold H. Newman, resident, said he was concerned with the land-
scaping and lighting of the buildings facing his home. He
indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Flanagan, Vice President of
Oxford, and he assured him that he would work with the residents
concerning these items to their satisfaction. Mr. Newman
suggested that this information be included in the stipulation.
The Vice Mayor informed Mr. Newman that Council did not know what
he wanted. Mr. Newman stated that, although he had not seen the
landscaping, he wanted it improved and also the lighting. She
suggested that he not include information about the lighting into
the-itipulation because he may regret it; the Vice Mayor said the
residents would be happy to see the reflection of the lights as
cast upon the water and would enjoy the protection the lights
afford them. V/M Massaro said to include it in the Stipulation
may result in irreversible effects. Mr. Newman said he respecte
her opinion and would accept her comments.
Dr. Bernard Newman, resident, asked Mr. Greenwood's opinion as to
the effect of the rentals on the City's already overloaded sewage
treatia�nt plant. V/M Massaro said it had been discussed with
Mr. Greenwood and he has assured Council that there is no prob-
lem. She said Council had also received assurance from Tony
Nolan of Williams, Hatfield & Stoner.
C/M Munitz said Bob Jahn recommended approval subject to Coun-
cil's approval of certain exceptions. Therefore, he felt that by
Council's approval of the site plan, they would be locking them-
selves into approving the other items and suggested that the best
procedure would be to discuss and approve the other items first.
V/M Massaro said all they were trying to do in the Development
Review Sheet was to remind Council that those things have to be
done and they are all listed on the agenda.
VOTE: ALL VOTED
c) Florence Bochenek, Chairperson of the Beautification Committee,
reported that the plan was a very good one and was recently in-
formed' -that any extra embellishment which the developers feel are
necessary, they would be very happy to include. V/M Massaro
reserved the right to examine the landscape again in view of the
fact that it is going back to the Beautification Committee. She
said, however, that.the plan will be accepted with the under-
standing that the developer will cooperate in whatever is
requested. Mr. Stacker said he understood, based on the elimi-
nation of the parking spaces, that the landscape plan will go
back to the Beautification Committee and had no problem with the
site �Azan being approved subject to that. He said he had told
Mr. Newman that he would be happy to receive input from them to
the extent that they can embellish the landscaping within reason.
V/M Massaro said she agreed with the words "within reason".
Mr. Stacker clarified that the elimination of the ten parking
spaces that he alluded to earlier as being in excess were in ex-
cess with the exception of the following: they have 817 parking
spaces provided and with the elimination of those ten, it would
reduce the number of parking spaces to 807. He said the required
number is 810 and suggested when they return for approval of the
landscaping provided in lieu of the elimination of those ten
parking spaces, that they can place them, with staff's concur-
rence, in the appropriate areas which will bring them up to the
810 required. The Vice Mayor concurred as long as they did not
use the main road. Mr. Stacker said he would work with staff in
the placement of the three parking spaces. V/M Massaro MOVED the
APPROVAL of the landscaping subject to further review. SECONDED
by C/M-`St'e in .
Y-QTE: ALL „ VOTED AYE
d) Mr. Henning recommended the adoption of the water and sewer
agreement with the following provisions: substitution of the
1 1/2 pages condensed version of the backflow prevention. The
City Attorney said there was clarification on ownership and
mortgage lenders and asked Mr. Stacker if he would be able to
have h � lender execute this document when it is determined.
Mr. Stacker said he would. Mr. Henning stated that they do not
own it fee simple now. Mr. Stacker said they do not but the
exact date of closing is not known but explained that the under-
standing reached with the City Attorney's Office was that they
would remit their payment to cover the appropriate contribution
30
11/27/85
zees and then after closing, before this document is
hsically
recorded, they will have obtained the appropriate executions.
said in the event they do not close cil asking for a refund. Mr. Stacker said �hewill wouldereviewotheun-
modifications, although he had not seen them, but had no reason
to believe there would be a problem. The City Attorney recom-
mended the approval.
V/M Massaro asked about the funding for the Traffi
Signalization Needs because those monies should have abeenndut
front• Mr. Stacker responded that those monies had already been
deposited with the City by the Y en
parcels were platted, Tracts 26pandent owner at the time these
the amount was $40,000.00. 31• .The City Attorney. said
Mr. amountThe Vice Mayor added that,.although
condensed Henning had indicated that the backflow equipment had been
,_there is a $50.00 fee required for inspection after
it has`been installed and $50.00 for each reinspection if
done properly and is not
d Mr. Stacker to is part
the new amendment which she caution -
that that would make them reluctant Stackertoadevid elo in the
not imagine
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the water and sewer developers'
agreement with the amendments indicated which include the elimi-
nation of the backflow pages to be substituted with the condens
version. C/M Gottesman SECONDED. ed
Y= :
ALL VO F Ay
e) Mr. Henning read Te
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the ingress/egresslease en
Presented. She noted that there was an error in the resolutions
number. SECONDED BY C/M Stein.
3IQ�E
T y
f) Mr. He'raining read e
so 84 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of
SECONDED by C/M Stein. eso 846 as submitted.
Yam:
ALL VO �'D AYE
9) Mr. Henning read
eso by title.
V/M Massaro inquired if excavation was to the
The developer's engineer answered that it had notpbut yexrpla�
that the deed purchased before for the lakes and canals, when
they do excavate it, will bring it back to where the water line
will be contiguous with the
Property.
V/M Massaro asked if it would be done according to the sketch
required by the City's Code. etch as
engineer, agreed. The CityMr' Wohlfarth, the developer's
en a eerslope. Attorney asked if she was referring
the proprty BobBineJand �hetsketchthat
ofthe
thclan shows excavation to
tyls
is attached. V/M Massaro stated that the�develoode er requirements
that any areas which are not to the P has indicated
voted to the property line. Mr. Property line will be exca-
Vice Mayor's comment. Wohlfarth concurred with the
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of ZUP-
es 3847 accepting the 20-foot drainage easement offered by
Pine Island -Oxford Limited. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE:
VOTED Avg
h) Mr. Henning read T es 38 y
b title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of and submitted. Mr. Stacker clarified that the exhibit indicated
the warranty deed should include the entire water body
which it does y area,
not onl do '!•.and wanted the City to know that they are getting
y 20-foot easement but also the lakes to be excavated b
the warranty deed. V/M Massaro asked if he was dedicating
waterways to the City;y
Mr. Stacker concurred. Mr. Stacker said
31
11/27/$5
/vdw
Tape
6
i)
j)
k)
a mistake had been made in that document and had not been cor-
rected in the actual, legal and deed that have been submitted to
the City. Mr. Stacker said City staff has requested two docu-
ments relating to the canals which will be constructed on the
Property and the actual water body, itself, will be conveyed to
the City and that was the reason for the Warranty Deed. He said
item f) was the 20-foot easement around the bank of the water
body on the developer's property for the City to maintain that
canal. Mr. Stacker said he and the City Attorney would work to-
gether if the documents needed modification but wanted Council
tolbe'-aware of what they were approving. Bob Jahn verified that
Mr. Stacker had stated the information correctly. The City
Attorney said the exhibit was correct and it was for the dedi-
cation of a to -be excavated canal right -of --way; therefore, it
should read, "A resolution approving and accepting a warranty
deed for an excavated canal right-of-way in Parcel A... .
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of e "
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. eso 48 AS AMENDED.
L V E yE
Mr. Henning read Temp_.Reso _.13 49 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. so 49 by title.
TE:
A L TED yE
Mr. Henning read a rd 230 by title.
Mr. Stacker said item g), acceptance of a drainage easement, was
supplied in lieu of the one the City has been asked to vacate on
this item. He said when the property was platted a drainage
easement was required from Pine Island Road and they moved that
same easement by virtue of the vacation and supplied the previous
one which was accepted. V/M Massaro asked if the drainage ease-
ment they are supplying really replace the drainage easement in
property where it could be utilized for drainage. She said what
would happen was if the City were to ever use this drainage ease-
ment, it would require a culvert system. Mr. Richard Wohlfarth,
CCL Consultants, explained that there is an existing basin or set
of basins at the entranceway that, since there is no lake pre-
sently on the site, is being drained back to the lake in the
rear. He said the easement they are providing would utilize the
two basins working throughout their underground systems back to
the lake. The Vice Mayor asked the Chief Building Official if he
was satikkled with the easement Council is accepting whereby if
the City needed to provide, because of drainage
p
may be found in the future, proper drainage that thisesystemch
could be easily hooked into.
Mr. Jahn said his understanding at the staff discussion
dressed b M
y Is Foy, was that it would be an en a$au-
lem
but that he was happier to gineering Problem
sub-
mitted. V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTIONmoftTem
that had been First Reading. SECONDED by C/M Stein. P_`_ Ord' #1?30 on
T E :
C/M Stein Absent from dais
C/M Munitz Aye
C/M Gottesman Aye
V/M Massaro Aye
Mayor Kravitz Aye
The Vice Mayor acknowledged that the fees were submitted and saw
no reason why the City would not refund them because adequate
drainage is being provided with the excavations that will be made
for the lakes. She asked the City, however, not to refund until
the work has been completed and approved. Mrs
ker s
had no problem with Council authorizing the refund csubjectdtohey
completion of the improvements as required by the site plan.
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the refunding of the drainage
32
11/27/85
/vdw
retention fees, which were for Tracts 26 and 31, totaling $30,234
on Tract 26 and $36,977 on Tract 31, and that these refunds are
to be made after the full excavation and approval by City Engi-
neers. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
Walter Rekuc, resident, asked Council to look at the parties who
are really applying because he had heard the names Oxford
Development and Pine Island/Oxford Limited Partnership.
Mr. Stacker said the property was under contract, at the present
time, and the contract purchaser of the property was Oxford De-
velopment Enterprises, Inc. He said the submitted documents
have been executed by the general partner of the limited partner-
ship who will actually take title to the property upon the
closing. Mr. Stacker said this was a very common occurrence and
that the documents have been executed by the entity who will have
title to the property at the time these documents are recorded
in the public records. He said the general partner of the limit-
ed partnership happens to be a principal with Oxford Development
Enterprises, Inc. which is simply a limited partnership created
for this development by Oxford Development Enterprises, Inc..
Mr. Rekuc asked Council to set this item aside so they know who
will be held accountable for the information submitted. He also
asked Council to obtain a copy of the limited partnership.
VOTE: ALL V BD_AYE
Mayor Kravitz recessed for five minutes at 2:37 p.m.
Mayor Kravitz reconvened the meeting at 2:49 p.m.
1) The Vice Mayor corrected the ordinance in Item 46, 1), to read
"Agreement for Funding Future Traffic and Signalization Needs".
She said only signalization needs were addressed by the devel-
oper. The City Attorney recapped the discussion that took place
during the recess whereby they explained to the Oxford represen-
tatives that the City is urgently attempting to implement a
Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. He said based on the formula of
the ordinance, if passed, the per unit fee would total $26,440.98
which Oxford has agreed to pay within ten working days from today
(11/27/85) and that the City would continue its pursuit to adopt
the ordinance. The City Attorney said, if the ordinance was not
passed within six months, Council would refund the payment.
Mr. Henning said if the formula changed to a lesser fee, the City
would refund the overage and stipulated that the fee, regardless
of the ordinance, would not be higher than stated. V/M Massaro
acknowledged that the signalization fee had already been met by
the previous owners of this land in the amount of $40,000.00.
She said an agreement is necessary and the applicant and the City
Attorney will create that agreement. The City Attorney felt that
the minutes would eliminate the need for an agreement.
Mr. Stacker agreed to pay the $26,440.98 within ten working days
from today, and if the ordinance has not been enacted within six
months, the money will be refunded. He said an agreement was
not necessary. V/M Massaro MOVED to ACCEPT the agreement as
indicated that the applicant will pay the $26,440.98 within ten
working days and the City will continue to implement the ordi-
nance and if not completed within six months, the money will be
refunded. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. The City Attorney stipu-
lated that Oxford Development would pay.
VOTE: ALL V
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2:00 P.M.
26. B-evgrly Hills Cafg yg I c - Petition 26- -85 -
so 3878 - Discussion and possible action to
grant a special exception to allow expansion of square
foot area of the existing Beverly Hills Cafe into Bay D
of Commercial Garden Mall, 7041 W. Commercial Boulevard,
33
11/27/85
/vdw
which is zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
Y F A IO ON:
APPROVED
Public Hearing Held
RESOLUTION NO. R-85-370
PASSED
Mr. Henning read T es
8 by title.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearin
from the public, Mano yor Kravitz closed the publicghearingponse
V/M_'Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of Petition #26-Z-85,
�. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. es .
L V TED AYE
27. t' ion _g_�-85 _ so
Discussion and possible action to 8 9
exception to permit the p an a special
in Bay 7 of 3 Lakes Plaza, o4611dNW�31 Avenue,Rwhich rist
zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
Y I AC I
HELD until discussion of
Item 34
(See page 40 )
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
Mr. Henning read gip. �p
=s_by title.
Mr. Henning stated that this area was zoned B-2 and restaurants
are permitted by special exception which is the request of the
petitioner to be allowed to operate his restaurant at 3 Lakes
Plaza.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing.
Mayor Kravitz reported that the Planning Commission had accepted
the Affidavits of Posting, Publication and Mailing but the appli-
cation was denied. He asked Mr.
Planning Commission, the reason for rtheBdeniaj.Chaxrman of the
Mr. Bender said the 3 Lakes Plaza project came before the Plan-
ning Commission for approval and when the Planning Commission
examined three sets of drawings submitted on this
found them to be inaccurate. Mr. Project, they
count of the area to check out the Bnumber sOfd parking
made a physical
available and arrived at a total of 482. Mr. Bender
spaces
the last drawing submitted to him on which he found several er-
rors, if the errors were subtracted from the original count sub-
mitted with the drawing, it totaled 486. He said not
to complete his review because certain lackingable
all three drawings which was, mainly, the total square foot area
available in this shopping center; however, he went back to an
182 drawing to obtain the square footage. Mr. Bender said he was
given a new drawing for this project about ten minutes ago which
he had not,had time to review but found, when using the informa-
tion which was available to him and after examination of all the
statistics, that the shopping center will be 16 spaces short.
Based on the shortage that was found to exist, Mr. Bender said he
requested a reevaluation of all previous drawings and validation,
by the City, of specific statistics on the drawings. He said
there has been innumerable changes and felt that until such time
as the Planning Commission and the City validate the information on the drawinshand as hto knowad an 0pexactlytwhat
they have, he did not see how any conclusions could be drawn.
Michael Ambrose, engineer, acknowledged that Mr. Bender has
several site plans in his possession but acknowledged that during
the months that have elapsed since their appearance before
Council with the site plan, there have been several changes. He
said on one site plan they had proposed a kiosk but removed it
which affected the traffic count. Mr. Ambrose said they had also
1
11
34
11/27/85
/vdw
reflected several parking stalls which the owner was to construct
along with other site modifications because there was site work
there in the process of being completed which had been in ques-
tion for some time. The engineer said, at this moment, the
reflected parking spaces for the shopping center totaled 491
marked stalls on the ground. He said, to eliminate any question,
he took the architectural plans given to him by the owner and
took the net area of each of the 36 stores plus the large stores
such as Winn -Dixie, Gray Drug and the bank, and completely redid
the site data. Mr. Ambrose said it was added up by category of
space, as required by the City Cone, and it was reflected that
there was a requirement for 487 and there are 491 shown on the
ground which shows a surplus of parking spaces. Mr. Ambrose con-
cluded that there was not a parking deficiency.
Mayor Kravitz asked if he had any objections to resubmitting the
plans to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ambrose said he was not
the owner but if there were any numbers which stood to be cor-
rected today that it was simply an error in mathematics. The
engineer said there has been no contrivance and asked that the
plans not be resubmitted to the Planning Commission.
Richard Rubin, Consultant Planner, said the plan discussed today
had not been reviewed by staff but at the request of Council, he
did look at the drawings and said he was relatively sure that
there was sufficient parking, give or take one space out of 486
spaces. He recommended first: there is still several thousand
square foot of area that is unleased, therefore, the owner could
be required not to lease the last bay until such time as the
parking situation has been resolved with the condition that the
applicant's engineer work with the Planning Commission to verify
the specific number. His other recommendation was related to the
defects in the dumpsters and that Mr. Sartori, owner, was noti-
fied of those defects and was in the process of correcting it.
Mr. Rubin recommended that if Council approved the special ex-
ception for the restaurant that approval be conditioned upon
satisfying and completing those dumpsters, which should have
been done two years ago, and that by the second meeting in
January if this work has not been completed, Council has the
right to take the cash bond of $18,600 posted for guaranteed
completion of these facilities and have the work completed.
V/M Massaro stated that Council's final decision should wait un-
til Item 34 has been heard because at that time, more information
will be brought to their attention with additional conditions and
requirements.
Mr. Haber stated Council was not giving enough weight to the ex-
planation given by Mr. Bender, Planning Commission Chairman, and
urged Council to consider Mr. Bender's suggestion.
Mr. Bender remarked, in reiteration, that all the items mentioned
by the petitioner were taken into consideration; however, he
added that the three sets of plans given to him, dated 9/10,
11/14, and 11/20, had been certified and stamped to be accurate
and each set had errors. Mr. Bender questioned if the City was
to believe that the fourth plan was perfect and asked for the
opportunity to review it before Council made a final decision.
Mr. Ernesto Sartori, developer of 3 Lakes Plaza, conceded that
it was true that there had been a lot of different plans with
different numbers and different mistakes but what bothered him
Tape was that the integrity of Mr. Ambrose was in question. He stated
7 categorically, that there were 491 parking spaces. Mr. Sartori
said Mr. Bender's count was 486 and the issue was no longer
whether they had enough but whether one parking space would
determine the validity of denying the two restaurants. He said
the point was that they are honest people who are not trying to
mislead nor play games with the City. Mr. Sartori agreed with
the Vice Mayor to postpone this item until the site plan has been
discussed.
35
11/27/85
/vdw '
Mr. Ed Paucek, original petitioner, concurred that action should
be forestalled on this item until discussion of the site plan
with the reservation that he have the opportunity to speak at
that time.
Mr. Emil Beutner, Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission, said
he did not doubt Mr. Ambrose's word but questioned why he could
not find the same number of parking spaces when he visited the
site. Several merchants within the area stated there has never
been a problem with adequate parking spaces. Mr. Henning said
the subject of the hearing was for a special exception and asked
the Mayor to direct the audience and the Planning Commission to
any issues other than parking.
Retha Auturio, merchant, stated that the merchants had a meeting
whereby they agreed to park in the outskirts of the parking lot
and it has worked fine. She said she would like to see the
restaurant open.
Fred Cohen, Cafe Continental/3 Lakes Plaza, said there were six
food outlets in 3 Lakes Plaza and two more are proposed. He said
six food outlets should be enough and stated that there was a
parking problem acknowledged by the merchants which resulted in
the meeting with the landlord. Mr. Cohen said they agreed upon a
tentative resolution whereby the merchants would park in the
perimeter and acknowledged that a week has past and very few mer-
chants have complied. He asked the City to monitor the size of
the parking spaces at 3 Lakes Plaza. Mr. Cohen said he checked
Chapter 18-3 of the City Code which directed that 90-degree
parking should be 10' by 20' including a 2' overhang, and the 45
degree parking should be 9' by 181. He said, at random, he
measured a couple of parking spaces and found the 90-degree
parking 7' by 15' and 8' by 16'. The 45-degree parking was 8' by
15' and suggested the City send someone to 3 Lakes Plaza to re-
check the sizes. Mr. Cohen noted that several lanes had been
erased and retraced.
John Hawkins, owner of ice cream parlor, said he has encountered
no problem with parking.
Mr. Paucek, petitioner, reiterated that if their petition was
heard after review of the site plan, it would probably be more
beneficial and would enable the meeting to move along. Shelby
Gibbon said an area the size of 3 Lakes Plaza warrants a variety
of eating places.
Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing.
C/M Gottesman said as former Chairman of the Planning Commission
he had seen the drawing a couple of times and suggested that the
Planning Commission be allowed the opportunity to review the
fourth set of drawings. He said he did not want to base the suc-
cess of a mall such as this on one parking space. C/M Gottesman
suggested that the item be tabled for further review by Council.
Therefore, he MOVED to TABLE the item for an opportunity to look
at the drawing. MOTION died for lack of a SECOND.
The Vice Mayor said consideration must be given to the owner of
the mall, although she respected the Planning Commission and
their input. V/M Massaro said millions of dollars were involved
in this complex which was a beautiful place as well as being
beautifully maintained. She said Council could suspend the
renting of one or two bays as opposed to possibly causing them
to lose tenants because of the question of one or two parking
spaces. The Vice Mayor said the City has inspectors who can be
sent to the shopping area for inspection and if the spaces are
short, the developer will not be allowed to rent a couple of
bays. She said mistakes are to be expected for a project of this
size and reiterated her request to Council not to make a final
decision until they have heard the public hearings, which will
affect this particular plaza. C/M Gottesman concurred with her
statement. C/M Stein MOVED that Council accept Richard Rubin's
recommendation to approve the petition subject to withholding the
36
11/27/85
/vdw
renting of one bay until the parking question has been resolved.
V/M Massaro SECONDED the MOTION. Sbe respectfully asked that the
MOTION be HELD until Item 34 whereby she will make certain
demands of Mr. Sartori. C/M Stein agreed to HOLD his MOTION
until Item 34 is heard.
28. Wings, Etc-, - Petition #29-Z-25 - Temp.
Discussion and possible action to grant a special excep-
tion to allow on -premises consumption of alcoholic
beverages at the proposed Wings, Etc. Restaurant in Bay
7 of 3 Lakes Plaza, 4611 NW 31 Avenue, which is zoned B--2
(Planned Business).
gYNQPSIS OF :
HELD until discussion of
Item 34
PUBLIC HEAPING HELD (See pages 40 & 41)
Mr. Henning read so 0 by title.
V/M Massaro asked for clarification as to whether they wanted a
liquor license rather than just beer and wine. The City Attorney
agreed that it needed clarification because of the way it is
written now; he said depending on State approval it would permit
a liquor license.
Mr. Paucek said they won a liquor license in the lottery;
however, they did not intend to sell it as a main item. He said
the license itself was a liquor license and if Council preferred
to hold off any action on that and limit the sale of alcoholic
beverages to beer and wine, he would be agreeable. The City
Attorney asked him if the State had placed restrictions on the
license regarding square footage or revenue acquired from alco-
holic beverages versus food. Mr. Paucek replied that the State
had not placed restrictions on that particular license.
Mr. Henning asked, theoretically, if it could be a bar or a
lounge; Mr. Paucek said it could as far as the State was con-
cerned. Mr. Paucek said the license was more expensive versus
the one purchased strictly for the sale of beer and wine and
their intent was to serve two purposes because they wanted to use
the license, if possible.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing. Hearing no response
from the public, Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing.
The Vice Mayor commented that since this item affected 3 Lakes
Plaza that Council's decision be made after all necessary infor-
mation has been received; however, she stipulated that the sale
of alcoholic beverages be restricted to beer and wine.
29. aRiroPaRpas -- Petition 130--Z-85 - TemA. Reso,
13881 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special
exception to permit the proposed PK Restaurant in
Bay 15 of 3 Lakes Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard,
which is zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION]:
HELD until discussion of Item 34
p 41
PUBLIC HEARING HELD )
Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso,by title.
Spiro Pappas, petitioner, said his restaurant would mainly serve
breakfast and lunch. He said the parking was adequate.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ernesto Sartori, developer of 3 Lakes Plaza, referenced a
letter, dated November 12, from Mr. Fred Cohen in which he cited
Winn -Dixie, and Domino's Pizza as restaurants. Mr. Sartori
stated that Domino's Pizza does not have sit --in facilities and
their business was 90% delivery and 10% takeout. He said Oasis
Bar and Lounge has only sandwiches for their patrons and has no
cooking facilities. Mr. Sartori said the Ice Cream Churn was
for the sale of ice cream although the owner was planning to sell
37
11/27/85
/vdw
coffee and doughnuts and there are no sit-in facilities.
Mr. Sartori said the only restaurant with sit --in facilities was
Subway Sandwich Shop with a seating capacity of 16 and no cooking
facilities. He said the only cooking facilities, at this time,
in the 3 Lakes Plaza was Cafe Continental. Mr. Sartori said
Mr. Cohen was the only tenant who had objected to the opening of
these restaurants because they involved competition.
The City Attorney explained that a special exception was similar
to any other zoning hearing but that, ironically, this was one of
the most pertinent issues which Mr. Sartori wished to address be-
cause rather than whether there is one or two parking spaces, one
of the things Council needed to look at in granting a special ex-
ception was the number of special exceptions in the area. He
said a competitor has raised the issue of the number of restau-
rants already granted special exceptions. Mr. Henning said ther
was also the issue of the number of beer and wine licenses for
on -premises consumption. The City Attorney said Mr. Sartori's
address to these issues, in his opinion, was pertinent. The
Vice Mayor said Council had already seen the referenced letter
and if there were any questions, they would address them to
Mr. Sartori.
Mr. Sartori concluded his comments by asking Council to favorably
consider the application of PK Restaurant in view of the fact
that the shopping center does need an alternative.
Mr. Cohen said he questioned the possibility of having eight food
dispensing outlets, not restaurants, at 3 Lakes Plaza and asked
if this was saturation of the area.
Merchants voiced their support for the opening of the PK Restau-
rant.
Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing and stated that the
voting on this item will be delayed until item 34 has been heard.
30. Spiro P.„Pappas - Petition 131-Z-85 - Jemp. .Reso.
43882 - Discussion and possible action to grant a
special exception to permit on -premises consumption of
beer and wine at the proposed PK Restaurant in Bay 15 of
3 Lakes Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard, which is
zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
Y Ia OF ACTION:
HELD until discussion of item 34 (See page 4D
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso. #3882 by title.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing.
Murray Weiner, resident, asked if PK Restaurant was the type of
restaurant that would require the serving of beer and wine.
Tape Mr. Pappas answered that his restaurant was not a bagel shop but
8 a coffee & sandwich shop. Mr. Weiner said beer and wine shops
should not be so close to each other.
C/M Gottesman said this was for on --premises consumption only and
asked the hours of operation. Mr. Pappas said it would be open
until 3:00 P.M. to serve breakfast and lunch.
Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing and stated that no
decision will be made until there has been discussion on item 34
31. Midway PlAgg - Petition_#25-Z-85 - Temp. Reso.
13877 - Discussion and possible action to grant a
limited waiver to the parking requirements of Chapter 18
of the Code to allow a maximum of 400 ninety -degree
parking spaces adjacent to the perimeter of the proposed
shopping center to be located at the northwest corner of
University Drveand NW 57 Street, which lands are zoned
B-2 (Planned Business).
38
11/27/85
/vdw
SYNOPSIS .OF ACTION:
ACTION HELD until discussion of item 33
(See pageg,,:42 - 46 )
PUBLIC HEARING HELD
Mr. Henning read Temp._Reso.___#3877 by title.
The City Attorney reported that in a discussion with Mr. Jim
Brady, attorney for the petitioner, he indicated that he would
request a waiver of 90 parking spaces; he informed Mr. Brady that
he would need to amend his petition and suggested that he address
both subjects at once and, legally, Council could consider them,
if they wished.
Mr. Brady directed Council's attention to the final product,
graphically demonstrated, of what they hoped to achieve. He
said the question before them started out with a request for a
waiver of 480 angle parking spaces to be converted to 90-degree
parking spaces and it has been through staff and the Planning
Commission several times and they have come down to a net 343.
Mr. Brady said he was orally amending their petition to include,
as an additional request, a ninety parking space waiver to the
total count. Mr. Brady asked the Mayor if it would be more bene-
ficial to Council if item 32 was heard first and then come back
to items 31 and 33. Mayor Kravitz agreed to the change.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing.
Emil Beutner, Planning Commission, said one of the reasons the
Planning Commission denied the 480 spaces was because the number
was never settled. He said the entrance was dangerous because
you go into a dead end line. V/M Massaro asked for a point of
order stating that Mr. Beutner's discussion should come when
there is discussion on the site plan. Mr. Beutner concurred but
stated that also determined the number of parking spaces request-
ed for 90-degree parking. He said the entrance on 57th Street
to this project was an unsafe entrance.
Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing.
34. Lakes Plaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan reflecting two directory signs and
revised site data - Temp._ Reso.__#3943
b) Waiver of the provisions of the sign ordinance to
permit two permanent, illuminated, double-faced
directory signs - Temp. Rego. 13904
SYN P,SI,,i__OF ACTION:
a) APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-380 PASSED
b) APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-381 PASSED
a) Mr. Henning read Te►mR. geso. #3203 by title.
The Vice Mayor corrected the resolution to read on line 7, "of
the application for a revised development order"; Section I, line
24, after the word "reflect" remove "a kiosk and" to read,
"reflect two directory signs" because there was no kiosk as it
had been removed. She corrected Section C, the first line to
read, "the revised development order"; in Section D, line 5
should read, "the revised development order" and on line 6,
delete the entire three sentences which refer to kiosk. The
Vice Mayor corrected Section III, line 14 should read, "revised
development order".
V/M Massaro directed Council's attention to the plans of 3 Lakes
Plaza. She informed that on October 16, Mr. Keegan, who was the
Acting Chief Building Official, issued a memo to the code
enforcement aide listing various items which will become part of
her discussion. The Vice Mayor said every item on the list was a
violation which must be corrected and Mr. Sartori would be
required to comply with that list. Furthermore, she added there
were dumpsters on the site, possibly placed there by tenants; the
Vice Mayor said there were to be no dumpsters on the site of 3
39
11/27/85
/vdw
Lakes Plaza without legal enclosures. V/M Massaro stated,
secondly, there were a minimum of five dumpsters, at the present
time, without enclosures, and also a minimum of six dumpsters
with enclosures which have defects and they must be corrected.
Thirdly, the Vice Mayor said there was an $18,600 cash landscape
bond in existence which cannot be reduced nor released until all
dumpsters are built in place or repaired if defective and then
inspected by the Building Department's inspectors. She said at
the second meeting in January the item regarding the dumpsters
shall be considered, and if work has not been completed, the
$18,600 cash bond should be called and staff be authorized to
have the enclosures and landscaping defects completed as per
violations noted in the memo of October 12, 1985.
The Vice Mayor said the applicant has to revise the site plan
to indicate only 486 parking spaces provided instead of 490 as
certified by Mr. Ambrose. She said by assigning four more spaces
for Oasis Lounge, the 3 Lakes Plaza actually require 486 spaces
with the two new restaurants; therefore, all future uses must
require on a ratio of one to two hundred or greater and
Mr. Sartori is not to rent the last two bays until all parking
requirements or questions related to parking have been resolved.
V/M Massaro said all directory signs must be a minimum of 10 feet
from the property line. The Vice Mayor addressed the lighting
at the rear of the stores and suggested that it was possible that
the lights could be adjusted but at the presemt time, the lights
do not extend to the front of the car. She said the lights
either have to be adjusted so they illuminate the full parking
area to include the rear of the stores or consideration given to
additional lighting or lighting in a different manner. The
Vice Mayor concluded that those were the requirements that she
would personally set in order to enable Mr. Sartori to continue
renting. She recognized that a considerable number of these
places would not be utilized at night but asked the employees to
park in the outer perimeter and noted that there should be ade-
quate lighting for their protection. V/M Massaro MOVED that
revised site plan reflecting the two directory signs and that
the revised site data be APPROVED in accordance with Temp,
$es-_. #3903. SECONDED by C/M Stein. .
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
b) Mr. Henning read T s 3 04 by title.
The Vice Mayor said the only problem she was aware of was that
one definitely has the ten -foot setback as required and she
could only get a measurement of seven feet on the other one.
V/M Massaro said it was necessary that the sign be 10 feet from
the property line for the protection of the public and stated
that Council could not grant a waiver to that. The Vice Mayor
MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp eso._#3204. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
27. Wincts, Etc,- Petition #28-g-85 -
Discussion and possible action to grant a special excep-
tion to permit the proposed Wings, Etc. Restaurant in Bay
7 of 3 Lakes Plaza, 4611 NW 31 Avenue, which is zoned B-2
(Planned Business).
S-YNOPEIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-371 PASSED
Public Hearing held (See pages 34-37 )
V/M Massa,ro MOVED the APPROVAL of Temp. Res—o,_43-879. SECONDED by
C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTED_AYE
28. Wings, Etc. - ECtitign - 5 -- lemp. Reso,13880
Discussion and possible action to grant a special excep-
40
11/27/85
/vdw
tion to allow on -premises consumption of alcoholic
beverages at the proposed Wings, Etc. Restaurant in Bay 7
of 3 Lakes Plaza, 4611 NW 31 Avenue, which is zoned B-2
(Planned Business)
SYNQPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-372 PASSED
Public Hearing held (See page. 37 )
V/M Massaro MOVED the
ADOPTION of Temp. Rego,#1880
AS AMENDED to
read to allow on -premises
consumption of beer and wine only in
conjunction with the restaurant.
She said only if
there is a
restaurant, otherwise,
ness. The Vice Mayor
beer and wine cannot be sold
said the MOTION also included
as a busi-
that the
hours of operation be
according to the present Code
which is
8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
and that this was a non -transferable
license. SECONDED by
C/M Munitz.
Mr. Paucek inquired if the license won in the State lottery could
be parked there with the prohibition. The City Attorney said the
State would probably contact the City to determine if the zoning
was appropriate. The City Clerk responded that if the applicant
has the State application to sell alcoholic beverages, then it
cannot be signed off for approval if Council only approved beer
and wine. Mr. Paucek said it would be signed off for only beer
and wine and asked, if the State chose to allow them to place the
license there with Council's prohibitation, would it.be accept-
able with Council. The City Attorney informed him that he could
not with this arrangement because the special exception allowed
only the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant
and if that was a problem, he should come back to Council and
address it again. Mr. Henning said the non --transferability was
subject to Council's approval.
VOTE: ALL VOTES .AYE
29. SR_iro P._.FURas - Petition #30-3-85 - Temp.
Reso. 13881 - Discussion and possible action to grant a
special exception to permit the proposed PK Restaurant in
Bay 15 of 3 Lakes Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard,
which is zoned B-2 (Planned Business)
SYNOPSIS_ OF -ACTION:
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-373 PASSED
Public Hearing held (See pages 37 & 38 )
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of PK Restaurant,.TemP. Rgso..
#3881, Petition #30-Z-85. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED_AYE
30. SOME, Flppi,s - pgtition #31-Z--85 - Temp. Ecso.
43882 - Discussion and possible action to grant a special
exception to permit on -premises consumption of beer and
wine at the proposed PK Restaurant in Baky 15 of
3 Lakes Plaza, 3134 W. Commercial Boulevard, which is
zoned B-2 (Planned Business).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R--85-374 PASSED
Public Hearing Held (See page, 38 )
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of Temp-, Reso._i-H82, Petition
#31-Z-85, for a beer and wine license AS AMENDED to read for on -
premises consumption of beer and wine only in conjunction with a
restaurant and the hours of operation are to be in accordance
with the Code and the license is non -transferable unless approved
by Council. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED
41
11/27/85
/vdw r
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33. Midway Elaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Te_mp,_RPs4. #3884
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
d) Developer Agreement pertaining to development of this
land
e) Developer Agreement for design and installation of
public well system
f) Public Safety Ingress/Egress Easement -- Temp_,_Reso.
#3885
g) Blanket Easement for utilities and wells - Temp.
Resg. #3910
h) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalizatio
needs.
(located at the northwest corner of University Drive and
NW 57 Street)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
a) APPROVED
b) APPROVED
c) APPROVED
d) REMOVED
e) APPROVED
f) APPROVED
g) APPROVED
h) APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. R-85-377
RESOLUTION NO. R-85-378
RESOLUTION NO. R-85-379
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
Mr. Brady presented the following checks:
Traffic Signalization Fund $ 40,000.00
Traffic Ways Improvement Fund 75,000.00
ERC's together with the $750 109,810.10
examination fee
Mr. Brady said he had paid the $473.50 for publication to Irene
Adams.
a) Mr. Henning read e s 84 by title.
Mr. Rubin reported that the application was for final site plan
approval which consisted of 22.847 acres zoned Commercial B-2.
He said the plat was approved approximately a year ago and it
has been filed with the County for recording. The Consultant
Planner said the net square footage of the building was 217,000.
He referenced the graphic presentation of the site plan as it
appeared on the easel and noted that it abutted University Drive
and NW 57th Street. He said staff had reviewed the project on
numerous occasions and have received the easements needed for
utilities, and public ingress/egress. Mr. Rubin said the waiver
of the seawall has to be granted because they are sloping the
canal banks according to the drawing on page 1 which was consis-
tent with the City's engineering standards and staff recommended
approval of the waiver to slope the seawall.
The Consultant City Planner said the applicant should be advised
that no permits will be issued until the plat has been recorded.
He said the Beautification Committee has approved the landscape
drawing and acknowledged that there was an out parcel for a pro-
posed restaurant called Zachalee's, and staff recommended that
the Beautification Committee review the restaurant to determine
compliance with the overall design of the center. He said there
was another out parcel which had already been designed to be con-
sistent with the center. Mr. Rubin asked Council to also approve
the easement for the water wells. V/M Massaro said if the site
plan met with Council's approval, then they would act on the
waiver to the parking, and asked Mr. Rubin to assume that the
perimeter parking would be waived. Mr. Rubin said, if that were
the Case, the site plan does comply with City standards and
recommended approval of the site plan.
Mr. Rubin said the Planning Commission denied the waiver to the
parking and the final site plan stating that it was concerned
about the amount of parking behind the buildings which was
generally not used by customers. He said the Commission was also
concerned about the amount of 90-degree parking requested by the
42
11/27/85
/vdw
applicant. The Consultant City Planner said the Commission tied
the site plan in with the waiver and because they denied the
waiver, they had no choice but to deny the site plan. The Vice
Mayor said just about everyone of these large projects used the
outer perimeters for 90-degree parking, otherwise, they would
never be able to, economically, build a project. She said most
of the parking was not used except for special occasions such as
holidays. V/M Massaro said she was a stickler for having proper
lighting in the rear but to deny some one the privilege of 90-
degree parking at the perimeter was really creating a hardship
for the developers. Mr. Beutner countered that the developer
was not denied 90=degree parking.
Mr. Rubin stated that when the applicant came in initially for a
waiver of parking for the proposed 1,000-plus spaces, 480 were
proposed to be 90-degree parking. He said after working with
the members of the Planning Commission, the applicant revised
the figure and reduced the amount of waiver spaces from 480 to
343 and 140 more would be in angle parking. The Consultant
Planner asked the City Clerk to correct Item 31 to read, "to
allow a maximum of 343 angle spaces". V/M Massaro said some
parking spaces have been eliminated and replaced with bays be-
cause they found that it was economically sound. Mr. Brady said
the 343 would be consistent as far as the 90-degree parking was
concerned.
Mr. Beutner stated there was 35 feet from the 57th Street
entrance to the road and the end of the parking area. He said
there should be a direct inlet to the area and not against the
building. Mr. Rubin said Mr. Beutner's primary concern had to
do with the entrance on the south side along NW 57th Street. He
said if one were to view that as a primary entrance, his concern
would be true which was that as soon as someone came in off the
road, they were forced to make a decision to go either right or
left similar to Commercial Garden Mall's entrance off Commercial
Boulevard. Mr. Rubin said the difference was that this was not
a primary entrance. He said Mr. Beutner was concerned that the
people traveling to this site from the west might use that
entrance. The Consultant Planner said his answer was that maybe
the first time they may encounter a problem but every time after
that, they will know which direction to turn. He said the second
Tape thing was that the traffic was so diminished by the median across
9 University Drive and that recently, Public Works had reduced the
four lanes to two lanes and added a bike lane; Mr. Rubin said the
road was still not heavily traveled. The Consultant City
Planner said they had suggested to the applicant that the drive-
way be moved further over to allow direct entrance but upon
review of that idea, the traffic engineers address the other
problem of a car on University Drive making a right turn would
have more of a chance to hit another car. The Vice Mayor said
it was too close. He said they have all suggested that the
driveway be located in the center. V/M Massaro said they could
not move closer to University Drive because the danger was too
great.
Mr. Rubin said Mr. Beutner's other alternative was instead of
making the center entrance the main entrance off NW 57th Street
to make the western entrance the main entrance whereby the car
would go straight and then cut between the two buildings to go
into the main parking lot without going all the way around. He
said the applicant had been asked to make that chance and his
answer was very clear that if there were a break made, as sug-
gested, it would be analogous to the design of the Searstown and
they were afraid of the liability of the increased potential of
pedestrian accidents. The Consultant Planner said the answer to
Mr. Beutner's main concern of how the access came from the west
was twofold: either they go down 79th Avenue and circulate into
center or they go down 57th Street and circulate to center. He
said both of those alternatives were not straight because turns
would have to be made. The Vice Mayor asked if the plans were
reviewed by a traffic engineer; Mr. Rubin answered that the plans
were reviewed by two engineers including Mr. Mercer, the City's
Engineer. She asked for Mr. Mercer's comments concerning the
43
11/27/85
/vdw
plans. Mr. Rubin said Mr. Mercer's main concern was to keep this
driveway away from University Drive. The Vice Mayor said that
was her concern, too. Mr. Beutner said he wanted the record to
reflect that he had stated that there was a dangerous corner at
the end of the parking lot. V/M Massaro said after review of the
plans by three engineers, including Mr. Mercer who was a former
director of the DOT for Broward County, that she would be very
reluctant to say that they were incorrect because if these certi-
fied engineers have made a mistake, they will have to correct it.
The Vice Mayor asked if fire lanes were included on the plan.
Mr. Rubin acknowledged that this was the first commercial
development that has a continuous fire lane around the entire
center back and front without one car separating the fire lane
from the building. V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the site
plan as submitted. SECONDED by C/M Stein. Mr. Brady clarified
that the MOTION included the request for the waiver of the 90
parking spaces, the 343 angle parking spaces and the site plan
as presented. The Vice Mayor said the other items would require
a separate motion because it was a public hearing. Mr. Rubin
stated that the site plan had been revised many times and re-
quested that the Vice Mayor include in her MOTION the approval
of the site plan as revised 11/26/85. V/M Massaro said Item D-3
(line 9, page 2) which read "Submission of $40,000 traffic light
bond" should be deleted.
Mr. Walter Rekuc, resident, asked how Council could approve a
site plan without considering the parking problems. The City
Attorney said it was clear that the Planning Commission recom-
mended denial but something had to be voted on first and Council
had reconciled their differences and concerns which were raised
by the Planning Commission. He said, however, if the parking
issue was insurmountable, before this item was concluded, Coun-
cil could reconsider their vote.
VOTE:
ALL VQTED AYE
b) The Vice Mayor reported that the Chairman of the Beautification
Committee has indicated that they were not privvy to certain
information at the time they considered this plan.
Florence Bochenek, Beautification Committee Chairman, said the
memo she received did not contain all the recommendations made by
the City Planner; therefore, unaware of some of the things her
committee should have reviewed, they approved it. After hearing
that there were other things that should have been included, she
said they allowed the item to come to Council with the recommen-
dation that it come back to Beautification so they could address
those items that were not reviewed. V/M Massaro MOVED that this
item return to the Beautification Committee for reconsideration
and then have it come back to Council. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
Mr. Brady said he understood that it would be a review of
Zachlee's Restaurant and that under the City's rules, if the
landscape plan is not approved, they cannot move forward; he said
their primary goal was to move forward with the project. The
Vice Mayor said that was not the way she interpreted it. The
Consultant Planner said if her motion was to table he would not
suggest it because the beautification plan complies with the
Code. He said the landscape plan was acceptable and asked
Council to move to approve the landscape plan subject to the re-
view by the Beautification Committee of Zachlee's Restaurant.
V/M Massaro asked Florence Bochenek if Mr. Rubin's recommendatio
met with her approval. Mrs. Bochenek answered that so far she
has found the developers very cooperative and was certain that
the portion which was eliminated can be taken care of and she
would certainly go along with the recommendation. The Vice Mayor
asked Mr. Brady if he had any problem with returning to Beautifi-
cation for review of this restaurant. Mr. Brady said he was in
agreement. V/M Massaro MOVED that the landscape plan be APPROVED
and that the applicant return to Beautification for review of
Zachlee's Restaurant. V/M Massaro WITHDREW the MOTION made
earlier. C/M Munitz WITHDREW his SECOND. The City Attorney said
44
ll/27/$5
/vdw
the developer has agreed to resubmit the landscape plan in
spite of the fact that Council was considering approval; he said
with that understanding Council might want to move to approve the
landscape plan. The Vice Mayor disagreed because she MOVED to
APPROVE the landscape plan and asked the applicant to go back to
Beautification to try to resolve the problem with Zachlee's
Restaurant; she said they have agreed to do it. Allen Goldberg,
developer, agreed to the approval of the landscape plan subject
to the review of Zachlee's Restaurant by the. Beautification
Committee. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTN: ALL VOTED AYE
c) Mr. Henning said the guaranteed revenues would begin six months
from today. He said he would substitute the condensed version of
the backflow prevention information. The Vice Mayor advised
Mr. Goldberg that there would be a $50.00 fee for inspection
after the backflow prevention has been completed, and if any ad-
ditional inspections are necessary, there would be a $50.00
charge for each reinspection. V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of
the water and sewer agreement as submitted. SECONDED by
C/M Munitz.
yQTE : AL VOTED AYE
d) Mr. Brady recalled that when the agenda was being prepared they
may not have had a complete title to a developer's agreement
which they had anticipated making. He said since that time, in
consultation with the City Attorney, they drafted a traffic sig-
nalization and trafficways improvement fund developers agreement
and he believed the item on the agenda was duplicative of what
would be found in h). The City Attorney suggested that Council
pass over d) and go to e).
e) The City Attorney said they have a contract regarding the wells
and explained that this particular development was located on the
City's wellfield. He said the developer has been very agreeable
to working with the City in order to have the wells sunk. The
City Attorney said four of the wells were located inside the
shopping center as depicted on the site plan; and a fifth one was
located on the top left-hand corner of the plan which may not be
developed at this time. Mr. Henning said the developer's concern
was that they do not complete their shopping center and then
maybe a year later the City decides to drill a well so they will
cooperate by having this bid and built at the same time as the
development of the shopping center. The City Attorney said the
wells would then be capped and the pumps can be installed at the
direction of the City. Mr. Henning said an agreement has been
resolved with the developer whereby they will be integrally in-
volved in the bid procedure and the costing and at the same time,
the developers will receive the advantages related to the economy
of scale because possibly the same contractor could do more site
work than just the wells. The City Attorney stated that the plan
was to have four wells drilled at the time the center was built
and the fifth one drilled at a future time. V/M Massaro said the
locations of the wells were indicated on the site plan and
the fifth one, which was located in their easement, would never
pose a problem other than possible correction of landscaping.
Mr. Henning said, ultimately, the funding for.these wells would
come from the CIAC Fund. The Vice Mayor MOVED the APPROVAL of
the developer's agreement for installation of five potable water
wells for public use. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AXE
f) Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso._#3885 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the ingress/egress easement,
Temp. RPsg. 13885. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
g) Mr. Henning read Temper Reso. #3110 by title.
45
11/27/85
/vdw
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso,. #3919 for the
blanket easement for utilities and wells. SECONDED by C/M
Munitz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
h) Mr. Henning said this covers two contributions made by the
developers one of which is $40,000 for traffic signalization.
He said the developers indicated that if a traffic light was
placed adjacent to the shopping center and the cost was not
covered by the $40,000 that they will pay the difference if
necessary. The City Attorney acknowledged a contribution to-
wards the general trafficways improvement fund for $75,000.
The Vice Mayor said it was understood that the developer would
like a traffic light because a project of this type usually re-
quires one, and they will pay the costs over $40,000 if there is
an additional cost. V/M Massaro said if it does not cost
$40,000, the developer was cognizant that the money was deposited
into a traffic signalization fund and no rebate was involved.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of the agreement for funding
future traffic and signalization needs. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
YQTE: ALL VOTED AYE
d) The City Attorney suggested the removal of d). C/M Munitz MOVED
the REMOVAL of d). SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
31. KidWay P - Petition 25- -85 - Temp. Reso_._ #8877 -
Discussion and possible action to grant a limited waiver
to the parking requirements of Chapter
18 of the Code to allow a maximum of 400 ninety --degree
parking spaces adjacent to the perimeter of the proposed
shopping center to be located at the northwest corner of
University Drive and NW 57 Street, which lands are zoned
B-2 (Planned Business).
PUBLIC AEA I
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-375
PASSED
The Vice Mayor said Council was waiving the requirement for 343
angle parking spaces and permitting 90-degree parking. She said
the developer was also permitted 90 additional parking spaces for
the future dependent upon the occupancy of the various buildings.
The City Attorney acknowledged that there were 1,087 parking
spaces provided on the site plan. Mr. Brady said, presently, the
site plan reflects a ratio of 1 to 200 as required by the City
Code; he said they anticipated future uses which would contem-
plate a different ratio so they were creating a bank of 90
parking spaces by asking for Council's advance waiver of the
requirements for 90 spaces. He said the 343 angle parking space
waiver remained the same. V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of
Te Reso 3877 AS AMENDED. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
TE: ALL_VOTEDAXE
COMMUNITY DEYELQPMENT
32. Commercial Garden Mall - Revised Site, Plan -
s 898 - Discussion and possible action on a
revised site plan reflecting reinstallation of curbs car
recting direction of parking and revised parking data.
SYNQPSIS QF ACTT :
APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R--85-376 PASSED
Mr. Henning read TeMR. Reso,8 by title.
Mr. Henning stated that the revised site plan coincides with the
46
11/27/85
/vdw
special exception for the expanded Beverly Hills Cafe.
C�
1
Mr. Rubin said the revision was strictly "housekeeping" brought
about due to the Beverly Hills Cafe's expansion. He said staff
wanted to verify that there was adequate parking due to the ex-
pansion. The Consultant. City Planner recommended approval of the
revised site plan but that no building permits be issued until
the owner corrected the drainage system in front of the Beverly
Hills Cafe to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. V/M Massaro
SO MOVED. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
Y91T: ALL VOTEP AYE
35. T t' u' -- Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp, R2so.1
b) Landscape Plan
c) Amendment to Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for
backflow prevention
d) Utility Eamment for fire hydrant - TeMp. Reso. #3912
e) Agreement for funding future traffic and signalization
needs.
(located on the east side of University Drive, south of
Tropical Gardens Nursery)
SYNOPSIS Ok C IO :
a) APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-382 PASSED
b) APPROVED AS AMENDED
c) APPROVED AS AMENDED
d) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-383 PASSED
e) APPROVED
a) Mr. Henning read Temp,_Reso, #3911 by title.
Mr. Rubin said the property was zoned B-6 located on the east
side of University Drive and had already been approved for site
plan approval. He said the applicant had requested minor revi-
sions to augment the plans which resulted in a revised site plan.
The Consultant City Planner said normally he would recommend ap-
proval of the project but he had requested that one item be re-
vised by the applicant and it has not been revised; therefore, he
recommended that the applicant come forward and change the dump-
ster location, pursuant to staff's request, and upon that change
on the drawing, he would recommend approval of the TBC Equities
Site Plan. Mr. Rubin said the dumpster was located at the inter-
section of the parking circulation aisle and any one backing out
of the last parking space, #21, would not have the opportunity to
see a car going around the bay. He said he asked that the dump-
ster be relocated closer so that it abuts parking space 21. The
applicant initialed the site plan and Mr. Rubin suggested that
Council's motion include the relocation of the dumpster to abut
parking space 21. The Vice Mayor MOVED the APPROVAL of the site
plan AS AMENDED with the relocation of the dumpster at parking
bay 21. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
V/M Massaro said the payment of the Traffic Signalization Fund
fee of $4,236.64 would be payable upon passage of the appropriate
ordinance. John Casmarick, representative for the developers,
asked if the fee would be more or less than stated; V/M Massaro
said the $4,236.64 amount was attributed to this particular pro-
ject.
Tape The Vice
10 landscap
b) in front
jection t
front of
the shade
required
landscape
building
e
Mayor said the Beautification Committee had approved the
plan with the recommendation that Royal Palms be placed
of the building. Mr. Steve Blecker said he had no ob-
o the Committee's request that Royal Palms be placed in
the building and asked if they were required in lieu of
trees. Mr. Rubin said the shade trees would still be
in the corners. V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the
plan AS AMENDED with Royal Palms placed in front of the
and the shade trees would remain in the corners.
47
11/27/85
/vdw
C/M Stein SECONDED.
(C/M Munitz left the meeting at 5:33 p.m.)
VOTE: ALL YQTED AYE
c) The City Attorney said the proposal was to have an amendment in-
cluding the backflow language but advised the developer of a con-
densed version of this agreement which the City would substitute
upon his approval. Mr. Henning recommended approval of an amend-
ed water and sewer agreement with a backflow provision. The Vice
Mayor Massaro said she had objection to the present backflow
agreement because it did not provide for the $50.00 payment of an
inspection fee and a $50.00 charge for every reinspection that
may be required due to improper installation. V/M Massaro MOVED
the APPROVAL of the agreement AS AMENDED to include the new
version of the backflow prevention. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL .VOTED AYE
d) Mr. Henning read TgMy,. _Rgso. #3912 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp.Reso, #„3912 for the
utility easement for the fire hydrant. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL YOTED AY
e) Mr. Henning referenced a one -page letter dated November 20, 1985
which was a notarized statement from the developer that they
would comply with the proposed Trafficways Ordinance. He said
the estimated fee would be $4236.64 as indicated in the letter.
The City Attorney said, subject to final approval of the ordi-
nance, the developer would be required to comply upon notifica-
tion. Mr. Henning recommended acceptance of the notarized letter
as an agreement which conforms with item e) and that Council
proceed with the impact ordinance as planned. The Vice Mayor
MOVED the APPROVAL of the letter; however, she said the agenda
was incorrect because it read "...funding traffic and signali-
zation needs" and the fee involved was only applicable for
traffic. She explained that it would not be for signalization
because the development was located in the middle of the block
and she felt that they should not be assessed signalization.
Mr. Henning said it was a Trafficways Improvement Fee proposed
by Temp_ Ord.-41234; the Vice Mayor stated that this infor-
mation was necessary for the Finance Department. SECONDED by
C/M Stein.
YOTE: ALL VOTED -AXE
LECA , AFFAIRS
21, ff'c 'neeri ud - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Presentation by Rimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of
Future Traffic Needs and Funding Study.
b) Acceptance of this Future Traffic Needs and Funding
Study by res 1
c) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - TeMR, Ord. #1234 - Creating a
fund to meet future traffic requirements in the City
of Tamarac and establishing a procedure for the com-
putation of appropriate fees. FIRST AND SECOND
READINGS.
d) Establishing a fee schedule for future traffic re-
quirements - Teigp,__Reso. #3913
e) EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Teml?.Qrd. #1235 - Creating a
fund to meet future traffic signalization requirement
in the City of Tamarac and establishing a procedure
for the computation of appropriate fees. FIRST AND
SECOND READINGS.
f) Establishing a fee schedule for future signalization
requirements - Zenp-__Reso,,.13914
g) A Motion directing the City Manager to immediately see
to the readoption of EMERGENCY ORDINANCES, Temp,
48
11/27/85
/vdw
1
Ord. #1234 and.11235 according to the
Florida Statutes 166.041.
h) Payment of Kimley--Horn and Associates,
51 61 7 and 8 totaling $17,172.86.
.SYNOPSISF ACTION:
a) Presentation given by City Planner and
Richard Mercer, Kimley-Horn & Associates
e) TABLED
f) TABLED
g) REMOVED from agenda
h) APPROVED partial payment of $10,000
b), c) and d) TABLED
(See pages 8 - 19)
requirements of
Inc. invoices
The City Attorney recommended the tabling of b), c) and d). The
Vice Mayor SO MOVED. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:ALL-VOTED AYE
GENEEM-APMINISTELTIVEZFINANCIAL
10. IntradepartmentgI budqgt s - Temp., Rego.
#3840 -- Discussion and possible action to establish
procedures for line item transfers within a depart-
mental budget (tabled from 11/13/85).
SYNOPSIS QE AQTIQN:
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R--85-369 PASSED
(See pages 23 & 24 )
The City Attorney said the resolution indicated the six condi-
tions which Council wanted imposed; it has no minimum amount so
that any transfers would apply. Mr. Henning said it also in-
cluded a ten-day waiting period. V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION
of T_emp,. Re Q. #3840. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
YQTE*
ALL VOTED AYE
58. Petition For mandamus F'1 d Against -The 't. For
d se Out TLJW Plant-. 1 b5trejet-
SYNOPSIS QF ACTION:
HELD to reconvened
meeting on 12/6/85
Agendized by consent on page 1
The City Attorney suggested that the item be held for discussion
at the reconvened meeting because two Council members were out.
60. Multi-Peril—InsuranggPolicy Extension - Discussion and
possible action
SYNQRSIS OF ACTIQN:
APPROVED extension of policy
with Peninsular Fire for a total
cost of $23,991 from 10/l/85 to
1/1/85.
Agendized by Consent on page 1
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of the recommendation of Judith
Deutsch to extend the Peninsular Fire policy at a cost of
$7,997 per month for a total of $23,991 from 10/1/85 to l/l/86.
SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTED -AYE
63. public Works PeRartMent - Purchase of,Laige_Grass Mow!r -
Discussion and possible action
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED purchase of large mower on State
49
11/27/85
/vdw
Contract #515-63-85-1 in the amount of
$9,333.
Agendized by consent on page 2
V/M Massaro MOVED the AUTHORIZATION for Public Works to purchase,
on State Contract #515-63-85-1, the mower in the amount of
$9,333.00. She said the price expired January 6 and stated that
it was needed desperately. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL YQTED AYE
C MMU ITY DE E OPME T
41. files o£ T Ma"ac -- Discussion and possible action on the
Water and Sewer Developers Agreement (tabled from
11/13/85)
SYNO n F A TIO.:
APPROVED the Water and Sewer
Developers Agreement AS AMENDED
Mr. Leslie Evans, representative for OREO, Inc., submitted a
check in the amount of $53,513.10.
The City Attorney recapped that the Isles of Tamarac's water and
sewer agreement has been in arrears for many months and Council
had considered a default on the item. Mr. Henning informed that
they have negotiated a compromise settlement on the outstanding
amounts due and he requested authorization from Council to con-
clude the water and sewer agreement with Mr. Evans for the 63
lots involved in the Isles of Tamarac with the cost of $53,513.10
being the contribution charges for the water and sewer agreement
The City Attorney said the amount was in excess of the outstand-
ing revenues in lieu of a default. He clarified that Mr. Evans
was proposing an immediate sale. Mr. Evans said they would be
transferring it to a developer. The Vice Mayor stated from that
point on it would be a guaranteed revenue situation which would
be required monthly. Mr. Evans said the check could be deposited
but it was subject to a mutual agreement as far as the develop-
ment agreement itself. V/M Massaro said there was no connection
charge of $245.00 if that was what he was referring to. The City
Attorney answered that they would work it out. V/M Massaro MOVED
for AUTHORIZATION to accept the amount of $53,513.10 in full
payment of the ERC and guaranteed revenue outstanding account for
the 63 lots at the Isles of Tamarac through OREO, Inc., a Florida
corporation which is currently the owner. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL, VOTED AYE
40. t c 5als enter - Discussion and possible
action on renewal of the model sales permit for
Woodmont Tracts 47, 50, 54, 57, 60, 70, 71 and 72B
(tabled from 10/9/85)
9YNOPSIBLOT, ACTION:
DENIED renewal of model sales
permit and parties were REQUIRED
to come in to negotiate new
agreement.
V/M Massaro said the authority to have the model sales permit for
that particular area was under Stipulation 11 and the termination
date for this particular part of Stipulation 11 was March 15,
1985. She said under that contract they had tracts 50, 57, 60
and 72B; 62 and 63 are now eliminated and 64 and 68 are gone.
The Vice Mayor said the developer has added some to that where
they were individual agreements before; she said they cannot do
that. The Vice Mayor reiterated that their stipulation period
has expired; therefore, they must come in to negotiate a new con-
tract. V/M Massaro said consideration must be given to what they
had before, what was under agreement, what is to be charged, etc.
because the City was not getting everything it was entitled to
the way it is written now. The Vice Mayor MOVED to DENY and that
50
11/27/85
/vdw
they be REQUIRED to come in and negotiate a new agreement.
SECONDED by C/M Stein.
11
Ll
VIM: ALL VOTED AYE.
49. Island -Club Apartments - Discussion and possible action
on:
a) Waiver of the provisions of the platting requirements
in Chapter 20 of the Code in order to install a perma--
ment ground sign on Commercial Boulevard - Temper
Reso. #3890
b) Revised site plan reflecting this permanent ground
sign - JeMR. Reso, 13891
gYNOPSIS OF ACTIQN:
a) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-391 PASSED
b) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-392 PASSED
a) Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso._#890 by title.
Sid Workman, representative for the developer, stated that it was
an off -site sign and commented that the language for the request
was for the word "sign" or "signs". He said it may be two signs
in a V shape because of its configuration. V/M Massaro said the
resolution indicated two signs. Mr. Workman said the fee of $175
has been paid making it a permanent sign. He said they have not
started the platting on the parcel in the front. V/M Massaro
MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. --Res SECONDED by C/M Stein.
Y9T$
ALL --VOTED AYE
b) Mr. Henning read TeMR, Reso.__#3891 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of Temp, Reso. #3891 indicating
that it would definitely have to be a minimum of 10' from the
property line. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE: ALL VOTEP
50. Lakg Colo -(Brookwood ens - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Renewal of a model sales permit and waiver of the 300--
foot distance requirement for certificates of occu-
pancy (Units 33 - 36)
b) Status of traffic light bond (tabled from 11/13/85)
SYNOPSI5 OF AC I O :
a) APPROVED
b) APPROVED Return of Traffic Light Bond
Mr. Henning acknowledged receipt of payment due.
a) V/M Massaro MOVED the APPROVAL of the renewal of the model sales
permit and the waiver of the 300--foot distance requirement for
Certificates of Occupancy for Units 33 to 36. SECONDED by
C/M Stein.
yQTE : ALL VOTED AYE
b) The Vice Mayor asked the petitioner how near was the project to
completion. Mr. Huebner answered that it was about 50% complete.
She indicated that there was a problem which was created when
someone allowed that bond to be used for something else so that
the City actually does not have a traffic light bond there right
now. The City Attorney responded, in fairness to both sides,
the developer has not built out his project as fast as he would
have hoped, and two or three years ago, the City entered into an
agreement with the developer to post a $20,000 signal bond for
some time in the future. He said it passed a few months ago
and the developer had assumed that they would have been finished
and the light would have been installed; the City Attorney said
it did not happen and the agreement has expired. The Vice Mayor
51
11/27/85 (�
/vdw
said, in view of what has happened and the fact that there has
not been any significant problems, she felt the development was
a little too close to the other traffic light to warrant place-
ment of a traffic light at that intersection. She MOVED that the
bond money for that traffic light BE RETURNED. SECONDED by
C/M Stein.
ALL VOTED_ &YE
37. Calicg CountryTract 38 -- Discussion and
Possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan reflecting revisions of house
footprint and addition of fences - Temp._ Reso.#3,833
(tabled from 10/23/85)
b) Release of a cash bond posted to guarantee instal-
lation of landscaping on Lots 23 and 24 - TM, Rgso.
#_3886
Y I F CTI :
a) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-401 PASSED
b) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-402 PASSED
a) Mr. Henning read Tgmp. Reso.13833 by title.
Mr. Rubin, Consultant City Planner, reported that the purpose of
the revised site plan was for a clear definition or footprint of
each unit and how it was being located on the site plan. He said
they are no longer going to have open carports but enclosed, two -
car garages and based upon that, the applicant had to widen the
driveways to a minimum of 20 foot in width. Mr. Rubin said the
drawing indicated the driveway so if the garage was ever closed
and made interior space, there would still be enough parking for
two cars on the outside pavement. Secondly, the Consultant City
Planner said there was a possibility of homeowners wishing to
erect fences and the developer wanted one site plan to show all
the fences so it would be coordinated and would not require a re-
vised site plan for each fence erected. Mr. Rubin said, third,
the applicant was asked to provide a note on the site plan which
reads, "All improvements will require site plan approval other
than fences and buildings".
Mr. Rubin said once the site plan was approved, if anybody wanted
to build an exterior patio or enclosure, it would require a re-
vised site plan so Council would have total control of the
eventual development of this site throughout buildout. He said
staff has reviewed it and determined that it was a clear drawing
with all the setbacks requested and the building permits could be
issued; he asked approval subject to the backup page of the
development review sheet. The Consultant Planner indicated that
most of the items had already been included. Mr. Rubin said the
development review sheet should add that any existing catch
basins in driveways must be relocated and the applicant has
agreed. He said the applicant was aware that if the City has to
do any clearing or dredging of the water lines it was the home-
owners responsibility to remove and replace the fences; there-
fore, he recommended approval of the revised site plan and
suggested that Council include the revision date of 11/14/85 with
the conditions outlined above.
The City Attorney said the proposal under Section I-D, on page 2,
was to delete items 1, 2 and 3 which have already been satisfied.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Rubin to clarify the responsibility of
moving the fences. Mr. Rubin said the fences would be in the 20
foot canal maintenance easement; he said the site plan was marke
to read, "If the City of Tamarac has to remove the fence for
access, the reinstallation or removal shall be the responsibility
of the homeowners association". The Vice Mayor asked what would
happen if they did not remove the fence when the City needed them
to do it. The City Attorney said there was a backcharging provi-
sion in the Code and if the association has a recreation area,
the charge would be added to the recreation bill; he said it
would be the association's responsibility to charge the home-
owners. V/M Massaro did not feel that the ordinance was written
52
11/27/85
/vdw
to that effect. Mr. Henning said the ordinances written today
provide for backcharging for private property such as this.
The City Attorney suggested removal of #5 from the resolution
because the note on the site plan was more in keeping with
staff's request. V/M Massaro said it belonged in the resolution
because the site plan may be misplaced. The City Attorney sug-
gested that condition #4 would become #1 on the resolution
because 1, 2 and 3 will be deleted. He said #5 will become #2
but should be reworded to be verbatim from the note on the site
plan. Mr. Rubin reiterated his request to Council to include
the revision date of 11/14/85. V/M Massaro said the information
pertaining to the removal of the fences should read "the removal
and reinstallation shall be the responsibility of the homeowners
association". The City Attorney suggested that it read, "If the
City of Tamarac needs access, the removal of the fence and rein-
stallation shall be the responsibility of the homeowners associ-
ation"; V/M Massaro agreed and stated that she would also like to
see the language included on the site plan. V/M Massaro asked
Mr. Rubin what would happen if they wanted to build patios.
Mr. Rubin explained that this was not a single-family subdivision
per se but a homeowners association with common ground; he said
if someone wanted to build a patio, it was a limited common area
which would require the homeowners association's approval as well
as Councils. She asked what conditions governed what they could
do; Mr. Rubin answered the setbacks and ordinances as applicable
in a single-family subdivision. He said the difference was,
since they were not platted lots, they must come back to Council
for approval every time. The Vice Mayor asked if this would be
done through a revised site plan; Mr. Rubin answered that a re-
vised site plan would be required every time except the fences.
The Consultant City Planner said if the applicant wanted to indi-
cate the size of the patios on the site plan, and Council
approved it, then they would not have to come in. The developer
indicated that he would prefer that each homeowner come in with
a revised site plan for patios. V/M Massaro MOVED that Temp.
Reso. 43833 be APPROVED AS AMENDED. SECONDED by C/M Stein.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
b) Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso, 13$$6 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of TemR, Reso,#3$$ . SECONDED
by C/M Stein.
YQTE:
• '-
Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
MAYOR -
C Y CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $478.10or $
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.
CITY OF TAMAR C
AP 0 Ep AT MEETING OF Flo
City Clerk
53
�J
11/27/85
/vdw
SIMON RUDEN (1915.1967)
ELLIOTT B. BARNETT
RICHARD E. BERMAN
PATRICIA E. COWART
13ENNETT FALK
JOHN L. FAROUHAR
GILL S. FREEMAN
SCOTT J. FUERST
BRUCE D. GOORLAND
MARK F. GRANT
SETH P. JOSEPH
ROBERT A. KRAMER
MICHAEL H. KRUL
WILLIAM H. LEFKOWITZ
BARRY A. MANOELKORN
STEPHEN D. MCCANN
DONALD C. MCCLOSKY
WOODROW "MAC" MELVIN, JR,
TERRENCE RUSSELL
CARL SCHUSTER
T'c(-`L11,�T' Co-c-1cil T�eo',:1`1C of 11/77 ;-
ATTACHMENT ON HIDDEN HARBOUR (See Pg. 28)
RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P, A.
ATTORNEYS Al LAW
ONE CORPORATE PLAZA . PENTHOUSE B
110 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
POST OFFICE BOX ,200
FORT LAUDEBDA„L8, FLORID,& 333O9
(305) 764. 6660
BOCA RATON 392-9771 • MIAMI 944.3283
TELECOPI[R 764-4996 -,TELEX 701487 ,
PETER D. 51LAVIS
GLENN N. SMITH
BARRY E. SOMERSTEIN
JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
CLAUDE U. ARRINGTON
SCOTT R. AUSTIN
JEFFREY H. BECK
THOMAS P. BOLF
O'SANNON M. COOK
JAMES R. GEORGE
MELINDA S. GENTILE
W. WYNDHAM GEYER, JR.
ROSERT T, GOLDMAN
GLENN E. GOLDSTEIN
STEVEN M. GREENBAUM
THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON
THOMAS O. KATZ
G. MICHAEL KEENAN
CHRISTINE C. LEE
LEONARDO J. MAIMAN
CHRISTINE M. MORENO
SUSAN P. MOTLEY
CINDY NIAD-HANNAH
KEVIN J. O'GRADY
KEITH OLIN
JODY H. OLIVER
DAVID M. ORSHEFSKY
JOHN H. PELZER
ROBERT A. PLAFSKY
BELINDA PLUTZKY
BONNIE S. SATTERFIELD
JOHN L. SHIEKMAN
MARK K. SOMEPSTEIN
LOUIS S. SROKA
EDWIN J. STACKER
VICTOR L. TIBALDEO, OR.
LOUISE E. TUDZAROV
PETER L. TUNIS
DAVID A. WEINTRAUB
November 19, 1985
Norman Abramowitz, President
WOODMONT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
ONE BISCAYNE TOWER • SUITE 2020..
2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
MI.&XI, FLORID,& 30131
(305) 371-6262
TELECOPIER 371 • 2187
BROWARD 763-2311 • TELECOPIER 371.2187
211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET
QUINCY, FLORIAA 38351
(904) 627-9589
MONROE -PARK TOWER . SUITE goo
101 NORTH MONROE STREET
TALLAiL&SSE6, FLORID,& 32301
(904) 661.9027
PLEASE REPLY TO:
Fort Lauderdale
Re: Oxford Development Enterprises, Inc. -- Hidden Harbour
Final Site Plan
Dear Mr. Abramowitz:
This letter is being sent to you to provide written confir-
mation of the understandings and undertakings that Oxford has
agreed to relative to the above -referenced rern,al development.
Based upon our understanding that the Woodmont Homeowners'
Association will support the approval of the Hidden Harbour
Final Site Plan at the City Council meeting on November 27,
1985, we have agreed that we will, upon such approval, provide
for the following:
1. Limit the financing of this development to
conventional financing, NO BOND FINANCING;
2. Not less than 50% of the leases will be for a one year
period, and no leases will be for less than a seven month
period; and
3. The one bedroom apartments will not be leased for
occupancy to families with children.
Very truly yours,
RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY,
SCH TER & RUSSELL, P.A.
dwin J. St cker
EJS:sp