Loading...
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/