HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-30 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
April 25, 1985
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Special. Meeting of the City Council on
Tuesday, April 30, 1985, at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall_, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac.
The purpose of the meeting is discussion and possible
action on Land Section 7, Settlement of the Sludge Farm
Condemnation Suit y em- eso.
The public is encouraged to attend.
Carol E. Rarbuto
Assistant City Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
If a, person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
L
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 30, 1985
Tape 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Kravitz called the Special Meeting to order
on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Kravitz read the Notice of Special Meeting into the record.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
it ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Councilman Sydney M. Stein
ALSO PRESENT: Elly F. Johnson, City Manager
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Alan F. Ruf, Consulting City Attorney
Carol E. Barbuto, Assistant City Clerk
Patricia Marcurio, Secretary
MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for a
Moment of Silent Meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. FP&L Eagle Substation - Covenant - Discussion and possible
action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent.
(See Page 3).
V/M Massaro MOVED to Agendize by Consent discussion and possible
action concerning the FP&L Eagle Substation, SECONDED by
C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
C/M Munitz asked if it was not resolved by Council that matters
would not be Agendized by Consent at a Special Meeting and Mayor
Kravitz said when it is an emergency then it must be put on the
agenda and discussed.
3. FP&L Phoenix Substation - Landscape Plan_ - Discussion and
possible action. _
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized b; Consent.
(See Pages
V/M Massaro MOVED to Agendize by Consent discussion and possible
action concerning Parcel A, which is owned by the City and is to
be beautified by FP&L. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
1 rlikaw
ALL VOTED AYE
4. Parcel A -- Landscape Plan - City -owned land adjacent to the
Phoenix Substation located on the corner of 88 Ave. and outh ate
Blvd. _ Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent.
See Pages Z & 3).-
rj
4/30/85
/pm
V
V/M Massaro MOVED to Agendize by Consent the approval of the
Landscape Plan for Parcel A, City -owned land adjacent to the
Phoenix Substation located on the corner of 88 Ave. and Southgate
Blvd. SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
* 4. Parcel A - Landscape Plan - City -owned land adjacent to the
Phoenix Substation located on the corner of 88 Ave. and
Southgate Boulevard - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS ---OT UTfUN: -Age-ndiCo"ent.on Page 1
_
(See Page 3).
V/M Massaro said when the substation was first negotiated there
was an agreement which FP&L had agreed to with subsequent changes
omitting important items. She said they have agreed to the
following, which concerns Parcel A, which belongs to the City of
Tamarac and is on the corner of 88 Ave. and Southgate Blvd. on
the north side:
1. They will lightly grade existing berm and remainder of
Parcel A to remove the weeds on the entire parcel, which is
1200 feet by 180 feet deep.
2. They will extend the berm along the east side of 88 Ave. to
the south edge of Central and South Florida Water Management
District right-of-way.
3. They will install 10 or more mahogany or black olive trees
on the east side of 88 Ave. north of Southgate Blvd., a
minimum of 16-feet high, 30-feet apart in two staggered rows.
4. They will place Bahia sod in Parcel A from edge of pavement
to 5-feet north and east of the existing berm after the City
Engineer approves grading of berm and swale.
5. The remaining 10 trees, a minimum of 16-feet high, black
olive or mahogany, will be used in the future City projects
using City personnel, hopefully, on the west side of 88 Ave.
6. Bahia seed to cover the 5-acres of land that will be remaining.
These items are part and parcel of the agreement arrived at
yesterday with FP&L.
John Easterling, representative of FP&L, said he does agree with
all the stipulations as read by V/M Massaro. He said they are
part of the Developers Agreement which they have provided.
V/M Massaro said these items are subject to FP&L's Landscape
Architect producing a plan together with the City Planner and
Mr. Easterling agreed. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Henning if there
is a Covenant on the land and Mr. Henning checked the files.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Easterling if, to his knowledge, there was
a Covenant or Stipulation on the Eagle Substation site which
requires FP&L to abide by all of the City's Ordinances and Mr.
Easterling said he was not involved in negotiations and does not
know if a Covenant exists. Mr. Henning said in checking with
the Assistant City Clerk, she recalls that this Covenant was
executed and recorded.
C/M Munitz left the meeting at 10:00 A.M.
3. FP&L Phoenix Substation - Landscape Plan - Discussion and
possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent,on Page 1.
APPROVED with conditions.
*Editor's Note: Mayor Kravitz called for Item 2; however, discussion
was held on Item 4.
2 4/30/85
/pm
V
V/M Massaro told Mr. Easterling that it is required that there
be a 42-inch berm in the back for more height to hide as much
of the substation as possible. Mr. Easterling said the reason
the berm was eliminated was because they agreed to install 20 to
25-foot high trees in place of the 16 to 18-foot trees. V/M Massaro
said it takes the 42-inch berm plus the height of the trees to
hide the substation. Mr. Easterling asked Mr. Rubin if it was
physically possible to plant the trees on top of a 42-inch berm
and Mr. Rubin said yes.
V/M Massaro MOVED that the Landscape Plan for the Phoenix sub-
station be APPROVED subject to the construction of a series of
42-inch high berms along the north edge of the fence, as shown on
the Landscape Plan, and initialled by Mr. Easterling of FP&L,
and that the required trees are to be planted on top of the berm.
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
2. FP&L Eagle Substation - Covenant - Discussion and possible
action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent on Page 1.
The original Covenant was executed
4/11/84 and recorded on 5/29/84.
No further action was needed.
V/M Massaro said the City has a Covenant which was executed on
4/11/84 and recorded on 5/29/84. Mr. Henning said no action
is needed on this item.
4. Parcel A - Landscape Plan - City -owned land adjacent to the
Phoenix Substation located on the corner of 88 Ave. and South ate
Blvd. - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPRp'VED
plan subject to the 6 items read
into the record on Page 2.
V/M Massaro said she read a series of six items that were read
into the record previously (See Page 2) that FP&L have agreed to
do. She MOVED that they be APPROVED subject to F-P&L's Landscape
Architect producing a plan together with the City Planner.
SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
1. Land Section 7 - Settlement of the Sludge Farm Condemnation
Suit - Temp. Reso. #3512 - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED
to the 5/8/85 Council meeting.
Mr. Henning read Temp. Reso. #3512 by title.
Alan Ruf,
Consulting City Attorney,
said this subject has been
discussed
several times in the last
three years and he has tried
to find a
sufficient parcel of land
in the City to accommodate
the needs
of the wastewater disposal
system which is imposed upon
the City
by State and Federal regulatory
agencies. He said they
negotiated
with several land owners
and began intensive negotiations
with the
land owner in the south half
of Land Section 7 in November,
1984.
3
V
4/30/85
/pm
PF
Mr. Ruf said he said he has brought proposed agreements to Council
on several occasions for settling the sludge farm Eminent Domain
proceeding. He said this Council amended that sludge farm litiga-
tion to provide for the taking of 45 net acres of land in fee for
the wastewater disposal needs of this City together with whatever
other municipal functions this City might feel are appropriate to
site at that 45-acre parcel. Mr. Ruf displayed an aerial photo-
graph of the parcel of land in Land Section 7.which is bounded on
the north by the quarter section line. He said there will be a
120-foot wide drainage canal that will run from Nob Hill Rd. across
and under the Sawgrass Expressway with an outlet into the Everglades.
He said it will be bounded on the east by Nob Hill Rd., on the
south by a 106-foot wide roadway that will run from Nob Hill Rd.
to Hiatus Rd. and Hiatus Rd..will run south to Commercial Blvd.
Mr. Ruf said the parcel immediately south of the utility site and
south of the 106-foot wide roadway just mentioned, will be zoned
30 acres of commercial development for a Regional Commercial Center.
He said the parcel of land that will then be left in the south
half of Land Section 7 will be zoned for offices or storage. He
said the agreement submitted to Council was reviewed by Council and
he asked for Council's expressions of concern. He said he has had
three comments and referred to a letter dated 4/29/85 from
Mr. Stacker, Attorney for the land owner. He said the first item
concerns the second paragraph in 10A. He said he was asked to
explain why the $115,000 is a credit rather than the entire
$150,000 that the City already paid for the easement to use the
sludge farm.
Mr. Ruf said he indicated to the Council member who questioned
this that in the negotiations for the purchase price, which was
finalized at $20,937.50 per acre, the land owner indicated that
since he was only netting $115,000 from that initial deposit, he
was only willing to give the City that amount of credit. He said
the reason that the land owner is only netting $115,000 is that
his attorney took a $35,000 fee. He said the language that is
being suggested for the change in that paragraph is attached to
the letter from Mr. Stacker as an Exhibit and he indicated that
the $115,000 amount is $150,000 less attorney's fees. He said
the way the City's negotiating committee rationalized this concession
was that, in effect, they are not charging the City any rent at
all for the two year period that the City used the sludge farm
o date. He said by the time the City purchases this property, two of
the years granted will have passed and there will be one year
left, during which the City will be the land_ owner. Mr. Ruf said
_. _ _ _.
the City's land experts said that the lease should be worth
approximately $50,000 per year, therefore, the City would have
paid $35,000 for two years. The City of Lauderhill has paid 42%
of that cost since they are using 42% of the premises. He said
in order for.everyo.ne to__under standi-..-wh.en this agreement is
reviewed several years from now, it is the $150,000 less the
land owner's attorney's fees.
Mr. Ruf said the next concern has to do with the deed to the
.property. whi ch the..Ci ty wi l..l_ r.ece.i_ve_____ e said the. ā¯‘perati ve para-
graph is at the bottom of Page 4 which indicates that the closing
will be held on or about 7/l/85 and that the seller will give to
the City a warranty deed. He said staff recommends that that
warranty deed come to the City clear of any restrictive Covenants
....because the City is receiving 45 acres of land and should be able
to use it for municipal purposes over the life of this City and
any restrictive Covenant that restricts the use of this property
in any manner will bind future City Councils.
4 4/30/85
/pm
V
E
Mr. Ruf said he is advised by Council that their constituents do
not want a treatment facility but are not opposed to a disposal
facility or a facility for the treatment of sludge. Mr. Henning
said he would like to indicate for that record that he agrees
with Mr. Ruf concerning his recommendations for a free and clear
title. He said when referring to the treatment facility, they
are talking about the raw sewage treatment tanks but not any
type of deep well operation or composting treatment.
Mr. Ruf said the proposal before
Council from
the land owner
states as follows: "The parties
agree that the
Deed of Conveyance
shall contain a Covenant running
with the land
which shall preclude
the use of the property for a wastewater
the written consent of Diversified
treatment
Capital."
facility without
Mr. Ruf explained
that "Diversified Capital" is a
partnership which
currently has
title to the land. He continued
to read, "The
Restrictive Covenant
shall be solely for the benefit
of Diversified
Capital, a partner-
ship, and no adjoining property
owner shall be
entitled to rely
upon the restrictions set forth
in such deed."
Mr. Ruf said the last concern is one expressed by a Council member
that in Paragraph 101_ at the top of Page 8, the fees charged for
the rezonings should be the responsibility of the land owner and
not the City. He said he is told by the City Planner that there
are 3 possible rezonings, separate petitions, and, in the letter
dated 4/29/85, Mr. Stacker has indicated that the application fees
and advertising costs for the rezoning petitions will be paid for
by the property owner. He said the City Engineering Department has
prepared a cost analysis of the siting of the deep well at this
location in Land Section 7 and that a memo was sent to the City
Manager dated 4/16/85. He said the City Engineer has requested a
Workshop Meeting, and Mr. Ruf suggested a Special Meeting rather
than a Workshop, to review the contents of his letter of 4/16/85.
Mr. Ruf suggested Council vote on this Agreement subject to with-
drawing the offer if somehow the Special Meeting ends in a way that
would make this Agreement not in the best interests of the City.
He recommended the Meeting be held as soon as possible
because of the grants involved. Mr. Henning asked if that could
be accomplished by post-dating the effective date of the Resolution
that approves this? Mr. Ruf said once a vote is taken, if it is
to approve, that it take effect 7 days from now, which would give
an opportunity for the Special Meeting.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Ruf to explain what this Special Meeting would
be for and Mr. Ruf said the City has been told by the State Reg-
ulatory Commission, the Department of Environmental Regulation,
that they would allow the siting of the deep well at the present
location with a Variance. He said that would put all the facilities
Tape 2 in one place. He said D.E.R. is only one of three licensing organ-
izations, the City is also monitored by the Federal Government and
Broward County. He said all of the wells for the drinking water
are at the treatment site and there is some concern that Broward
County, in their overall review of drinking water standards, might
very well refuse to permit the deep well at the location where the
treatment facility is today. He said this Special Meeting being
considered is not to decide whether a treatment facility would go
in Land Section 7, but rather, whether a deep well facility would
go at the present location of the treatment plant.
Mr. Ruf said the Engineering Department has indicated that that is
the least expensive way to go from the standpoint of initial capital
construction. City Manager Johnson said the last part of that
particular site is the composting and deep well operation. He said
one of the D.E.R. officials in West Palm has suggested a concept of
hauling the City's sludge to West Palm Beach County and disposing of
it in orange groves.
5 4/30/85
/pm
V/M Massaro questioned what the reference to "Diversified Capital"
meant and Mr. Ruf suggested Mr. Stacker answer. Ed Stacker,
Attorney with the law firm of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster
and Russell, said yesterday afternoon, when Mr. Ruf contacted him
to discuss the proposal that a Restrictive Covenant be placed in
the Warranty Deed being conveyed from his client to the City, they
felt there were certain nuances that relate to the legal ramifica-
tions in the future with respect to Restrictive Covenant language.
He said the parties agree that the Deed of Conveyance shall contain
a Covenant running with the land which shall preclude the use of
the property for a wastewater treatment facility without the written
consent effectively of the grantor. He said the City will be holding
Fee Simple Title to the property subject to that express restric-
tion prohibiting the development of the property with a wastewater
treatment facility.
Mr. Stacker said it would take both the City and the grantor to
agree in the future to broach that contract. Mr. Henning said
the land will be the City's and the developer can not force the
City to put any type of treatment plant or anything else on this
piece of property. He said the developer has offered to keep the
treatment facility off the property even if the Council wanted it
on in the future. V/M Massaro said she wants a simple statement
in there which stipulates that there will be no wastewater treat-
ment plant there. Mr. Stacker said they agree.
Ted Slade, resident of the Isles of Tamarac, said the City should
police their own property. Moni Avidon, resident of Lime Bay, said
the seller should have no control over the property once it is sold
to the City. Mr. Ruf said a Restrictive Covenant in a Deed can only
be extinguished by the grantor and the grantee. He said the language
could always be amended by the grantor and grantee and Mayor
Kravitz asked if it would not be easier to put that language in
from the start. He said he feels the Council wants language that
states "Even if the City Council and even if the land owner agree
to extinguish it (because they need a sewage treatment plant on
Land Section 7), any land owner in the City of Tamarac can go into
court and enforce that Restrictive Covenant."
Mr. Ruf said the language would have to state that that use would
not be put on there. He said the only way the_Council could do
that would be to give other third party beneficiaries, the right
to block the combined action of the City Council and the former
land owner. He said the language can be prepared for that and he
questioned whether the seller would give that to the City. He
said this concept was just announced to the seller yesterday
afternoon and the principal of the seller is not in Florida. He
said he would suggest this be approved on that basis subject to the
approval of the seller.
V/M Massaro said the City can be responsible to give Mr. Stacker's
client the assurance that he will have all the treatment he requires
for his projects in Land Section 7. She said the City's utility
system consists of 4 separate utility plants and the City Engineers
have indicated that by removing that one half million gallon treat-
ment plant and putting in the necessary capacity in place of it,
that will take care of the City's needs at full build -out. She
said if there were an error of some kind, there is nothing to stop
the Council from taking one of the other smaller treatment plants
and replacing that. Mr. Stacker said the language proposed today
is the language he has been authorized to agree to, however, he does
not have the authorization today to bind the client beyond that
language.
6 4/30/85
/pm
r
LIJ
Mr. Stacker said he is not sure the language proposed by Mr. Ruf
is in the best interests of the City because it does open the
flood gates to litigation which might ensue years from now. He
said when the entire citizenry is given that authority, it would
take only one person to frustrate subsequent intention of the
City. Mr. Henning said this could be approved subject to the
approval of the land owner but the language desire should be
discussed.
Dave Silvergleid, President of the Isles of Tamarac Homeowners
Association, said he believes there must be a Covenant in that
Deed which runs with the land which completely eliminates any
possibility of a wastewater facility being put on Land Section 7.
C/M Gottesman asked why the land owner wants a stipulation in
the Covenant and Mr. Stacker said Mr. Ruf contacted him yesterday
to advise him there were three matters that needed to be modified
in the agreement. He said the agreement, in the form distributed
to Council last week, has been agreed to by his client. He said
when the three items were raised yesterday, which were, an explan-
ation of the credit from the monies deposited in the Court, the
obligation on their part to pay the rezoning permits and a dis-
cussion about a Restrictive Covenant in the Deed to prohibit
a wastewater facility being placed on that property. He said
they then proposed the language before Council this morning.
Mr. Henning read the alternatives to the language in the pro-
posal before Council today: Council can accept that language
or a restriction can be placed on there which allows any resident
of the City to be a party and enforce it along with the Council
and the Grantor. He said the third alternative is a compromise
of the two which would be that for a certain period of time as
determined by Council, at which a resident could enforce the
Deed Restriction but, at the end of the Deed Restriction, it can
go back to the other language. He said the fourth alternative,
which was addressed originally and is still acceptable to Mr.
Stacker, is that the land and deed be accepted with no restric-
tions and then the City Council, along with the City Attorneys,
will tailor the Deed Restriction that Council wants to place on
it at a future date after the closing.
Mayor Kravitz questioned why it cannot be stated that the parties
agree that the Deed of Conveyance shall contain a Covenant running
with the land which shall preclude the use of the property for a
wastewater treatment facility. Mr. Henning asked Mr. Ruf if that
restriction was placed on the Deed could it be lifted by mutual
consent of both parties and Mr. Ruf said yes. Mr. Ruf said neither
he nor Mr. Stacker are experts on Restrictive Covenants but they
can get an expert land use attorney's opinion and, if that language
running with the land gives the City the protection they are seeking,
they will make sure this is carried out. He said whether or not
the seller agrees is out of the City's hands.
Mayor Kravitz said Council can direct the attorneys to put the
language in there that they want. Mr. Stacker suggested this
agreement be brought back at the Special Meeting that Council
is considering calling.
C/M Munitz returned to the meeting at 10:50 A.M.
After discussion among Council members, it was decided to have
this item discussed further at the next Regular Council Meeting
on 5/8/85. Beatrice Levin, resident of Westwood 3, said she heard
the construction of the deep well injection system takes two years
of 24-hour per day noise. V/M Massaro said that is not true, it
will take six to eight months.
7 4/30/85
/pm
Vickie Beech, resident, said she did not agree with putting the
onus on the residents of the City. V/M Massaro said Mr. Ruf
has indicated that the onus must be put on someone and she agreed
it is not a good situation to do that.
V/M Massaro MOVED to TABLE this item to the 5/8/85 Regular
Council Meeting, SECONDED by C/M Gottesman.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 11:00 A.M.
A&:
r
AY0R
ATTEST:
A SISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 71,90 or
$.2-,07 per copy to inform the general public and public officers
and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the
Council of the City of Tamarac.
cff y OF TAI
Al"OVED AT MEETIN OF
4/30/85
/pm
t