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