HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-06 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutesr4
V00
u +r
Op%
MAIL REPLY TO
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
June 4, 1986
NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Special City Council Meeting on Friday,
June 6, 1986, at 9:00 A.M. in the West Conference Room, at
City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac.
The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action
on Tamarac Square West, Revised Site Plan reflecting elimin-
ation of an outparcel and additional parking - Temp. Reso.
#4148 (tabled from 5/28/86).
The City Council may consider and act upon such other
business as may come before it.
The public is invited to attend.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
It a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with re5pi,',t W any nlaiter considc:re t at such meeting or
hearing, he wiil Peed � record of into ProcG: 7667S and for such
purpose, he may need to that a varbat'im record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
/da
-0
Carol E. Sarbuto
Assistant City Clerk
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 6, 1986
Tape 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hart called the meeting to order on Friday,
June 6, 1986 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers.
ROLD_CALL: PRESENT:
Mayor Bernard Hart
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
Councilwoman Helen Massaro
Councilman Jack Stelzer
Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman
ALSO PRESENT;
Larry Perretti, City Manager
Alan Ruf, Consulting City Attorney
Pauline Walaszek, Secretary
MEDITATIONAND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Hart called for a
Moment of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Eatelli e_ Recreation Building - Approval of Payment for
Land, and _Paving - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent.
V/M Stein MOVED to Agendize this item by Consent, SECONDED by
C/W Massaro.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED ._AYE
City Manager Perretti said in order to complete the project at the
Satellite Recreation Building, they are required to have landscap-
ing which was reviewed by the City Planner and Florence Bochenek,
Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. He said their
recommendations have been reviewed and, in order to have this
completed by Sunday's opening of the Recreation Building, it is
important this be approved. He said this is not just a cost for
the surrounding of the building but also the landscaping of the
new parking area as well. He recommended approval of the payment
of $8,009.00 from Account #344-761-572-650, which has a balance of
$18,419.20 after payment of this amount.
C/W Massaro asked if the Account number given is the money that
was appropriated for the satellite building and Mr. Perretti said
yes.
C/M Stelzer MOVED APPROVAL of the payment of the $8,009.00,
SECONDED by C/W Massaro.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED -AYE
Mayor Hart noted for those present that there will be a dedication
of the new Recreation Building at Tamarac Park on Sunday, 6/8/86,
and he urged everyone to attend.
1. Tamarac Square Wes - Revised Sitg Plan - Discussion and
possible action on a revised site plan reflecting elimination
of an outparcel and additional parking - Temp. Reso. #4148
(tabled from 5/28/86)
1
6/6/86
/pm
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED
until V/M Stein meetings with
Florence Bochenek, Vice Chairman
of the Planning Commission and
Glenn Smith, Representative of
the Tamarac Square West Project
for a revised Beautification
Plan.
Alan Ruf, Consulting City Attorney, said Tract 44, which is to be
developed as Tamarac Square West, is one of those parcels in Land
Sections 4, 5 and 6 that fell under the numerous Court orders in
the suit entitled "Leadership Housing and Simon Zumamon, Trustee,
vs. The City of Tamarac".
Mr. Ruf said under a continuing number of Orders, the land owners
have succeeded until very recently in persuading the Circuit Court
of Broward County that the development of Land Sections 4, 5 and 6
should be pursuant to the Broward County Land Development and
Zoning Codes as they existed on 12/31/72.
Mr. Ruf said the City took the position that Tract 44 had a
residential zoning and in 1984 the land owner took the City to
Court and was successful in having the Court attribute Broward
County C-1 zoning, as it existed on 12/31/72, for Tract 44. He
said following the Court decision, which was appealed and favor-
ably determined for the developer, the City negotiated a site plan
and Development Agreement with the land owner in late 1984 or
early 1985.
Mr. Ruf said the Development Agreement and site plan provided for
the development standards that would be applied, indicated what
uses would not be allowed in the area, provided for landscaping,
provided for walls, provided for canal excavations, and generally
for the development of a large portion of this tract. He said
there is an undeveloped portion which is also discussed in the
Agreement which was entered into between the City and McNab
Associates, Inc., the developer.
Mr. Ruf said the important parts of that Agreement referring to
discussion today, is Paragraph 20 which sets forth the development
standards for the parcel as well as the outparcels which have not
yet been developed or site planned. He said they are basically to
be governed by the C-1 Broward County Zoning District as it
existed on 12/31/72 and by the parking standards of Tamarac's
Ordinance #71-9.
Mr. Ruf said there is a provision of the agreement, Paragraph 9B,
that says if there is any revision of the site plan that was
approved by the City, the revised site plan would not go back
through the Planning and Zoning Commission but would go directly
to the Council. He said any review by the Council is according to
those development standards which have been outlined previously by
him and in Paragraph 2 of the Agreement.
Mr. Ruf said a revised site plan is before Council today; however,
in his opinion, the City is bound by that Agreement that the City
entered into with McNab Associates, Inc. approximately one year
ago. He said the City has an amended site plan and Agreement
before Council this morning.
C/W Massaro said the site plan was approved in December, 1985.
C/M Gottesman noted that he does not have a copy of this Agree-
ment. Mr. Ruf said this Agreement is in the hands of the City
Clerk and Council should have copies. C/M Gottesman questioned
why the site plan is being considered today if it has been
approved.
J
Mayor Hart said the site plan was reviewed was discussed at the
Council meeting on 5/28/86 and there were certain things that did
not meet Council's approval such as landscaping, etc.; therefore,
it was referred to the Planning Commission for further considera-
tion. He said he agreed to call a Special Council meeting as soon
as possible to discuss this.
C/M Stelzer said he Moved to Table this item at the 5/28/86
Council meeting because he wanted approval from the City Attorney
that any objection he had was legal. He said the plan was
approved subject to the City Attorney approving everything that
Council felt was not in compliance.
V/M Stein said the Agreement has been in the City's possession
since December, 1985, and the Agreement states that the site plan
shall go directly to the Council. He said C/M Stelzer requested
Tabling this item on 5/28/86 because staff had some objections and
the staff does not have the right to stipulate on any site plan.
He said C/M Stelzer did not want anything waived until the City
Attorney determined whether the City was forced to waive these
items under the Stipulation.
V/M Stein said there were approximately five objections that were
raised, namely, the fire lanes, the canals, the landscaping, the
sidewalks and the foundation for the wall. He said Council is
awaiting the City Attorney's opinion based upon the Stipulations
with which the City entered in December, 1985. He said the only
question is whether or not this revision violates the Agreement or
is within the Agreement.
C/W Massaro said the existing Agreement was faulty in many ways
and discussion today concerns amending that Agreement. She said
in no way is an Amendment to a faulty Agreement going to be
amended until Council is sure everything is perfect.
Mayor Hart said he noticed this parcel is under C-1 zoning, which
is the County designation of 1972, and, under the Development
Agreement allowing C-1 District zoning compliance, Section 37,
Paragraph 2, "Sales of building supplies in building is
permitted..." and Section 37.3, Paragraph 2, allows for outside
sales or storage as accessory to a permitted use. He asked the
City Attorney to explain this to Council.
Mr. Ruf said the provision Mayor Hart is discussing is the Broward
County C-1 zoning district as it existed on 12/31/72, which is the
development standard agreed to between the City and the developer
in agreement that was accepted in December, 1985. He said those
development standards are attached as an Exhibit to the Agreement,
Exhibit E. He said the concern is for a revised site plan for a
Scotty's Hardware and Homeowner's Supply Store. He said in
reading the provisions of Article 37 it would appear that the
proposed use is compatible with the C-1 District as it existed in
1972.
Thelma Brown, City Planner, said the staff comments from the
previous meeting concerned clarification of the 90 degree cross
parking easement that needed to be amended. She noted that this
has been taken care of. She said the out parcel #5, which was
originally to allow a building there, was eliminated to increase
additional parking. She said that will also be 90 degrees.
Ms. Brown said the Fire Department had issued an observation that
the in line buildings do not meet the City's present Fire Code.
She said the City Attorney was to determine whether the hardware
store was allowed under Judge Weissing's Order and he has just
done so. She said the landscape plantings that were to encroach
the utility easement will still be encroaching by two feet and do
need the Council's approval and the wall that was discussed
previously will be built with a footer so that it is more secure.
6/6/86
/pm
Ms. Brown said staff issued a memo to Council relative to those
items and it is now staff's recommendation that this be approved
subject to the new amended Agreement which details all of the wall
and easement requirements for the 20-foot maintenance easement.
She said it will indicate on Parcel B that there will be a 20-foot
utility easement plus 3 additional feet for planting. She said
the new Parcel B will not be encroached by any planting.
Ms. Brown said they had required that there be two removable
sections of the wall so that the Engineering Department could come
into that easement for maintenance. She said those removable
sections have now been changed to two 6-foot openings which will
slide across for easy maintenance. She said the developer or
owner of the property is responsible for continual maintenance and
repair should there be any damage to those openings.
Ms. Brown said they have agreed to placing 30-feet on center trees
rather than 40-feet on center so that there will be more of a
buffer to the rear on the canal for the residents living across
the canal. She said the outside storage area where the fence is
shown is not an outside storage area but is for loading and
unloading only. She said they will have fork lifts, will come out
and unload the trucks that come in with supplies but there will be
no supplies stored in that area.
C/W Massaro asked if there is an additional 3-feet for landscaping
on the 20-foot easement for maintenance of the canals and Ms.
Brown said only on Parcel B. She said on Parcel B, which is
undeveloped, they will not be enjoying the 2 foot encroachment of
the trees and this was noted on the site plan. She said the new
Agreement indicates that they will have a continuous 20-foot
maintenance easement across the entire section, which is required
by Code. She said on Parcel B, staff has recommending 3 addi-
tional feet.
C/W Massaro asked what the Code requires for a planting dimension
for any beautification and Ms. Brown said the Code gives the on -
center requirement, the height of the tree, the distance back from
a property line, etc. She said shrubs usually take about 12
inches back. She said the Code reads that it can be a continuous
buffer adjacent to a wall. She said this is consistent with what
was originally approved.
C/W Massaro asked why there were two measurements of square
footage there and Ms. Brown said this indicates that the first
section is a retail sales area and the total area to the rear of
that, which is 20,800 square feet, is the warehouse area where
they will be stocking and storing their building supplies.
C/W Massaro asked if this requires 3 loading zones and Ms. Brown
said that was correct.
C/W Massaro noted that the one loading zone goes into the driveway
and Ms. Brown said there are three loading zones for this building
and one will be immediately adjacent to the ingress/egress into
that area. She said this is adjacent to the driveway and is 12
feet by 60 feet. She said this was designed to give a 47 foot
turning radius, which they have complied with.
C/W Massaro asked if the detail on the final drawing is accurate
regarding the canal slope, the wall, the footing, etc., and Ms.
Brown said in the new Agreement this is shown.
C/M Gottesman said he reviewed the site plan yesterday and feels
it is in horrible condition. Ms. Brown said the site plan Council
received indicates many clouded areas which were always on the
site plan revised showing what they wanted changed. She said the
parking lot shows 90 degree parking, which is not permitted under
present City Code, therefore, the additional areas that were 90
degrees, they had the architect indicate in a clouded area so that
everyone could read this.
4
6/6/86
/pm V
Ms. Brown said there were problems with the 47-foot turning radius
since the Code indicates that 41-feet are required. She said the
staff requested the additional footage in this area to maintain
something more suitable to what is needed.
V/M Stein said he received a Notice from the City Clerk dated
12/13/85 showing the site plan that is being amended. He said the
Report of Council Action reads, "The Developers Agreement was
approved with the understanding that it was adequate to be record-
ed without resubmittal for approval." He said at that time
approval was given for the Declaration of Covenants, Easements,
Parking, Ingress and Egress and the developer paid approximately
$300,000.00 at that time. He said the developer also agreed to
pay approximately $10,000.00 for the Trafficways Improvement Fund.
C/M Stelzer asked if the 47-foot turning radius would affect the
people in Lime Bay in any way and Ms. Brown said the area adjacent
to this Scotty's, which will be considered the walled area, will
be within 200 feet of their property lines.
Florence Bochenek, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, said
originally, when these plans came before the Beautification
Committee, it was with a notation that they had to conform with
what was being presented because it had been approved in the
Courts. She said in reviewing this recently; however, she was
disturbed because even the elimination of 2 feet of beautification
is upsetting. She said the community across the canal is not
being sufficiently buffered since putting additional trees is not
the answer.
Mrs. Bochenek said she feels they need additional landscaping in
the rear on the canal side and she objected to the large fence
which will not be sufficiently hidden. Bob Jahn, Chief Building
Official, said when the first site plan was brought in, they were
informed they must conform to the County's C-1 designation and the
standards established by the Court. He said they began to negoti-
ate with staff and the developer to get anything better than the
C-1 zoning. He said it took approximately 6 to 8 months of site
plan meetings to bring this site plan to this point.
Tape 2
Mr. Jahn said they worked on revisions until 5:30 p.m. last night
which were better than the original revision requested. He
recommended Council consider this revised site plan as good as can
be gotten by staff in view of the conditions set by the Court.
C/W Massaro said the fact that there is a Court Order and that the
City must abide by certain requirements that were in the County
Ordinance as it existed in 1972 does not take away all the City's
options.
Glenn Smith, representative of the applicant, displayed a copy of
the site plan for Council and the residents review. He said the
date of the revision is 6/2/86. He said under the C-1 zoning the
parking requirements that applied on the Court Order, 90 degree
angle parking was allowed. He said the City said they would
prefer that in the main area of the center, angle parking be
utilized. He said that was one of the compromises at that time.
Mr. Smith said after negotiations in December, 1985, a site plan
was approved along with a major agreement setting forth the
conditions of site plan approval. He said the original site plan
called for a landscaped area of the canal slope, a wall in the
western area next to the canal and sprinklering and sodding the
sloped area.
5
6/6/86 �
/pm
Mr. Smith said after the original site plan approval they found
that their engineer and surveyors had made an error in the dimen-
sions of the water line of the canal on the west side. He said
there was not as much land there as was originally anticipated and
they had a tenant named Scotty's who wanted the buildings changed
somewhat. He said the basic front has not changed but they have
added the fenced area that calls for a partial wall of CBS con-
struction with shadowbox fencing.
Mr. Smith said the purpose of this area is not for storage but is
for loading and unloading purposes. He said they have moved the
wall east so that there is now at least a 20-foot canal mainten-
ance easement with the landscaping involved. He said the original
agreement negotiated with the City calls for trees every 40 feet
on the west side of the wall with bushes in between. He said the
new agreement provides trees every 30 feet with bushes in between.
He said the wall will be improved by installation of a CBS wall
which will keep its appearance longer.
Florence Bochenek, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, said
asked if it was the developers engineer that made the mistakes
that required correction and Mr. Smith said that was right.
Mrs. Bochenek said one of the substitute ways of hiding an area
that could have been used would be berms. She said she feels
additional protection is needed bordering the canals.
Mr. Smith said the mistake made by the surveyor only concerned the
width of land there and had nothing to do with the landscaping.
He said they are supplying more than what was in the first agree-
ment and he questioned why there was any problem with the land-
scaping.
David Silvergleid, resident, said the main concern of the resi-
dents is that a Scotty's Hardware Store is going in that location.
He said people are concerned their home values will drop and that
there will be excessive traffic caused by this store.
Michael D'Angelico, President of the Greens Condominium Associa-
tion, said they are located directly across from the proposed
construction site. He said this is a community of approximately
210 adult families and they object to Scotty's being put at this
location.
Irving Lopatey, resident, said when Judge Weissing made his
decision in 1972, this was a desolate area. He said the least
they can do is landscape this area properly.
Vickie Beech, resident, asked Mr. Ruf if Judge Weissing's decision
will exist forever and Mr. Ruf said the development of this parcel
is not controlled exclusively by Judge Weissing's Orders but,
rather, by an Agreement made by the City and the developer on
12/13/85. He said Judge Weissing recently made a decision to
reverse the positions taken earlier; therefore, the City will have
some relief on undeveloped parcels in Land Sections 4, 5 and 6.
Milton Meyer, resident, said he felt it was wrong that Council did
not have amended copies of this Development Order to review at
this meeting. He objected to Scotty's at this location.
Herb Cauder, resident, expressed concern regarding accidents and
increased traffic this project can bring to the area.
Larry Kimler, resident, said the residents could boycott this
store if necessary.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Smith if the problem with this project will
be resolved with additional landscaping or whether it is necessary
at this location at all. He asked the possibilities of eliminat-
ing Scotty's from the development altogether. Mr. Smith said
there is no possibility of that since they already have a signed
lease with them.
6
6/6/86
/pm
1
VIM Stein said no one on Council welcomes a Scotty's in this area
and he has discussed the possibilities of not having this with the
developer. He said; however, Mr. Smith has informed him that
presently Scotty's is the only tenant he has a lease with. He
said the City has a signed agreement between the City and this
developer which calls for a specific type of landscaping and he
has negotiated with Mr. Smith to agree to more landscaping. He
said there is no question that Scotty's has a right to come into
that location.
VIM Stein said under the zoning designation Scotty's could use
that fenced space for sales, he negotiated with them and they
agreed to only use it for loading or unloading. He said if the
City did not have the agreement he would be glad to go back to
Court in light of Judge Weissing's new decision. He suggested he
be authorized to negotiate further with Mr. Smith on the lands-
caping and beautification of this property.
VIM Stein MOVED to TABLE this matter to allow him to negotiate
further with Mr. Smith and Florence Bochenek regarding the
beautification of this project.
C/M Stelzer said when this agreement was originally approved on
12/13/85 C/W Massaro was Vice Mayor and she had 3 votes at that
time. He SECONDED VIM Stein's MOTION to TABLE.
Mrs. Bochenek asked if the City Council has the ability to decide
what type of tenant goes into a shopping center and Council
members said no.
Mr. Solomon asked how the traffic will be alleviated.
C/W Massaro asked the City Attorney if this agreement is being
approved or can be discussed further at another time and Mayor
Hart said after the Vice Mayor, Mrs. Bochenek and Mr. Smith come
back to another Council meeting with a revised beautification plan
before the final approval.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
Mayor Hart adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $48.60
or $1.35 per copy to inform the general public and public
officers and employees about recent opinions and consider-
ations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac.
7
6/6/86
/pm
L/