Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-25 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes5811 N0RTi•1WES1 881-1-1 A4VEN1.1E T/=',IMAFiA(1, FL..0RIDA 3:3321 TELEPHONE (306) 722-6900 MAIL REPLYTO: May 13, 1982 P,O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMAR.AC, FLORIDA Please be advised that there will be a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Tamarac, Florida on Tuesday, May 25, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The items to be discussed are as follows: 1) Woodmont Tracts 68 and 77 - Discussion and possible action on: a Modification of t e terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot dis- tance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. 2) Mission Lakes (Southgate Gardens East) - Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. The Council may consider such other business as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368: �1C If a person decides to appeal any decision made 6y the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such Purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal 6 to be based. CITY �OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 11AY 25, 1982 WOODMONT TRACTS 68 AND 77 AND MISSION LAKES (SOUTHGATE GARDENS EAST) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Walter W. Falck called the meeting to order on Tuesday, May 25, 1982, at 9:00 P�.M, in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraelly Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans Acting City Attorney, Alan Ruf Assistant City Clerk, Carol A. Evans Secretary, Patricia Marcurio Mayor Falck read the call into the record. 1. Woodmont Tracts 68 and 77 -- Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. YNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to the acessed meeting to be scheduled V/M Massaro said this should be looked at carefully since she noticed that the monies are not in agreement with the exhibit that is attached to it. She said she would like to hear the opinions of Council on this and then TABLE action on this to give Council time to work this out to a better degree. She said she is not satisfied with allowing the two years time on the agreement as it relates to Tract 77.Montwood Corp. are agreeing to pay the CIAC fees and extending the period to two years for the guaranteed revenues. V/M Massaro said a question comes to her mind about that because she is unsure if there is one building that crosses the two properties. Mr. Toll said he does not think so and Jeffrey Mombach, representing Mr. Toll said that due to parking requirements certain phases had to be split up so that a part of one phase is on one part of Tract 68 with a balance on another part of Tract 68. Mr. Mombach said it is impossible that one phase would have gone over to a different tract because the land submitted to condominium form of ownership was only Tract 68. Mr. Toll asked what the pertinence of this is and V/M Massaro said it is the guaranteed revenues and if there is a crossing of property lines it would affect the lien rights. Richard Rubin referred to the site plan to help clarify the issue. C/M Disraelly said that the plot plans shown on Exhibit A, which is being discussed today, will represent Tract 68 and have nothing to do with the Tract that is shown on the map of the Woodmont area; what is now being called Tract 77 will be Tract 77 for the purpose of this document and is not necessarily related to Tract 77 as it appears on the map of the City. C/M Disraelly said these are the descriptions that will apply insofar as the buildings and CIACs and guaranteed revenues are concerned. Mr. Toll said when they did the land plan on this some land went into 68 & 77 so they changed the boundaries which were arbitrary Tract boundaries, not legal boundaries. - 1 - 5/25/82 /pm Mr. Toll said these boundaries were changed, they were legally described and were purchased by contract like that, and what is 68 is still 68 and what is 77 is still 77 according to these exhibits. V/P4 Massaro asked if those exhibits will coincide with the way the City's Finance Department has the various buildings set up so that they are being credited accurately? Mr. Toll said yes; this is what was approved by Council as 68 and 77 in the site plan approval and the plats. Alan Ruf said all the City needs to know for the purpose of this agreement is who has title with respect to 68 and 17. Mr. Toll said he recalls the Planning Commission and Council considering dropping Tract 77 and having Tract 68 A & B. Mr. Mombach said if Council would look at Exhibit A to this Agreement, Page 1 shows that Tract 68 legal description, which should coincide with Council's map, contains 16.37 acres. Mr. Mombach said Exhibits A & B were taken by him from the original Developers Agreement pertaining to this property which would have been Exhibit A to that original agreement. Mr. Mombach said probably the legal descriptions on Exhibit A of 68 which is 16.37 and Tract 77 which is 13.3 correspond to the City's map as being Tract 68 and 77. Mr. Mombach said for the purposes of site planning and of this agreement, Tract 68 has,in essence,been decreased by a number of acres and a corre- sponding increase has gone to Tract 77. He said there are several more buildings in Tract 77. Mr. Mombach said the Agreement itself encompasses all of 68 and 77. Exhibit A could have been the two legal descriptions added together as set forth on Exhibit B, which is known as the Tract 68 property and Exhibit C which is the Tract 77 property. He said they were so small that, for the purposes of this Agreement, he just copied the Exhibit A that was attached to the regular Agreement which he thought Council would want to show that this Agreement does, in fact, encompass that whole Tract of land,no matter how it is described. V/M Massaro said that Mr. Ruf said 68 and 77 may need to be two separate agreements because there are two separate owners. V/P4 Massaro said there was also a question about Mr. Toll's ownership of 68. Mr. Toll was to come to Council and give the information as to when he became the sole owner of it. She said the City has been told by Mr. Eppel that they have title to 77 and he said he was not responsible for certain things because he did not sign the agreement. V/M Massaro said she mentioned before that the amounts vary and this is to Mr. Toll's credit. There is a $1,000 discrepancy. The Agreement indicates that Mr. Toll owes $23,763 and the figure is $22,000 on the Exhibit and the Exhibit is apparently right. She said this must be checked out further. Mr. Mombach said they had a meeting two weeks ago and the figure in the document itself is the figure that they had discussed at their meeting. He said Mr. Ruf got the latest invoice from the City and attached it after he had prepared the agreement and sent it over; therefore, they do not correspond. Mr. Mombach said he could make two separate agreements. Fie and Mr. Ruf had discussed this before and he thought it would be easier from the standpoint of both the Council and title on the public records if they tried to keep it in one agreement,having the two property owners sign it, and indicate who owns what specific property. V/M Massaro said these things should be discussed further at another meeting with Mr. Eppel present as well. She said she would have no objection to the guaranteed revenues being extended to two years where Mr. Eppel said his firm is willing to prepay the contribution charges. She said as far as Tract 68 is concerned, either the contribution charges should be paid up front or the extension of the guaranteed revenues should only be for one year. Mr. Toll said they did not ask for an extension but they did ask for an extension to pay the ERC connections. C/M Disraelly said he would personally rather see two separate agreements. Mr. Ruf said this should be done and it would avoid making a precedent with which the City might not be happy. - 2 - 5/25/82 /pm Mr. Mombach agreed to rewrite the agreement into two separate ones and C/M Disraelly said that the recreation parcel should be put into Exhibit D. C/M Disraelly asked why in subparagraph 4a everything is at 125% factor and everything else at 150o and Mr. Toll said this is because of the cash flow right now. C/M Disraelly said he would like to add that no permit for the final building will be issued until all accrued interest for CiAC and for guaranteed revenues have been paid in full. V/M Massaro MOVED that this item be TABLED so that they can review the contract and separate them and incorporate the various suggestions that have been made this morning; she will work with the City Attorney and as soon as something has been worked out they will meet with Mr. Toll and Mr. Mombach and a recessed meeting will be scheduled. SECONDED by C/M Disraelly. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 2. Mission Lakes (South ate Gardens East) - Discussion and possible action on: a) Modification of the terms of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement. b) Renewal of model sales permit and waiver of 300-foot distance requirement for Certificates of Occupancy. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to the recessed meeting to be scheduled. V/M Massaro questioned the payment of the Parks and Recreation fee and Mr. Toll said it was paid in cash with the site plan approval. Mr. Toll said he felt that it did not have to be paid since it was a platted piece of ground and then the City Attorney asked him to sign a special document stating that he voluntarily paid this. V/M Massaro said this will certainly be checked out but she said she has an agreement signed by Mr. Toll stating that there was $21,000 due and that it would be paid in equal payments of $154.50 per unit and 20 units were paid for with the site plan approval, a total of $3,090. She said the balance was to be paid within one year and within that year period they would ask for an extension of one year on the balance and at that time $5,000 was paid as a good will gesture She said the city accepted the $5,000 and extended it for a period of one year to September 9, 1982 with the priviso that they were to pay $154.50 per unit as they ask for building permits. She said if any other monies have been paid it would be a total of $3,090 that would have to be paid. Mr. Toll said there was a $19,000 payment made and he felt that legally he did not have to pay it because the Ordinance was written for plat approval. V/M Massaro said the document before her does not say what Mr. Toll thinks it says. She said the document was dated September 28 and it states"The City Council voted to extend the agreement concerning the recreation fees for one year from September 9, 1981. You are to pay as you draw down the permits; however, the full amount of fees is due no later than September 9, 1982". V/M Massaro said when this extension was granted Mr. Toll paid $5,000 as a good will gesture. Mr. Toll said if this is due he will pay it. V/M Tape Massaro MOVED that this item be TABLED to a recessed meeting and the date 2 will be determined after they have completed all the research that needs to be done and the new documents are written. SECONDED by C/M Disraelly. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 3. 201 Program - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. Mayor Falck alerted Council to the urgency acting on this as soon as possible. 514 - 3 ` 5/25/82 /pm Mayor Falck said he would like the 201 item to be Agendized by Consent. V/M Massaro MOVED that the 201 item be Agendized by Consent so that the Mayor could update Council, SECONDED by C/M Disraelly. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Falck said as soon as the update from the County's consultants is available, he would suggest this be reviewed by the City's staff and the Consulting Engineer and some determination made as to whether or not the changes being recommended do not include the City of Tamarac. Fie said the County is moving ahead with a public hearing within the next 30 days on this matter and at this time they will hear comments and objections from the various municipalities that are involved. Mayor Falck said he believes the City should have their official position known as it:relates to the 201 Program. Fie said the County's feeling is that the City needs to take exception to the tact that the consultants have not included any specific changes or recommendations for the City of Tamarac. He said as it now stands, the position would not be very good in relation to the City of Tamarac and he has indicated his feelings as far as the residents are concerned. Mayor Falck said he feels the City should hire a consulting economist to organize the City's facts and figures to be presented to the County at this public hearing. He said he further suggested that the City Attorney assist in retaining the services of Mr. Osterman and other Consulting Attorneys to prepare any legal documents necessary in the event the County ignores the City's plea. He said the City's plea in essence is that the proposal developed by the County's Consultants is not the proposal that is in the best interests of Tamarac. V/M Massaro asked Mayor Falck if anything has been discussed during his discussions with the County about how much those who are opting out of this because they are going deep -well injection will be paying because it was her understanding that they are going to have to pay a fee regardless of the fact that they are not going to be using it. Mayor Falck said the various Mayors in the northwest Broward area specifically asked for facts and figures as they relate to what the charges will be for the various municipalities and they have not been supplied with any rates. He said the information that they have received indicates that those who already have the deep well will not be required to provide the facility since they already have it. V/M Massaro said concerning the Coral Springs Improvement District, would this take all of Coral Springs? Mayor Falck said no and V/M Massaro asked if they intend to hook into the 201 system and Mayor Falck said they have not stated. V/M Massaro said this is a big subject to be considered. Mayor Falck said they had meetings with Coral Springs but nothing has been determined and V/M Massaro said it would be helpful to know what is happening there. C/M Disraelly asked what cities would be feeding into Copans Road and Mayor Falck said North Lauderdale, Lauderhill, Tamarac, Lauderdale Lakes and maybe Coral Springs, Plantation may tie in with Sunrise. C/M Disraelly asked if these others have signed any agreement such as Tamarac signed and Mayor Falck said Lauderhill signed a large user agreement but it is not exactly the same as Tamarac's agreement; there are two agreements and he feels that until this is set up and on line,Tamarac should be operating under the interim agreement rather than the large user agreement. C/M Krantz asked if there were enough time to prepare for this public hearing and Mayor Falck said yes. Mayor Falck recessed the meeting at 10:30 A.M. subject to call at the request of V/M Massaro. ,. v MAYOR ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of,&?,-3. (> or 3� -, 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. - 4 - 5/25/82 /pin APFi;Qti'rq, my