Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-12 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes• 11 MAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 June 7, 1985 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Wednesday, June 12, 1985 at 8:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action on the following items: 1. Regarding recreation fees for Tract 37 (located on NW 94 Terrace) and Tract 42 (located on Westwood Drive) 2. The Concept Site Plan for Greenview Apartments (Tract 2) on Nob Hill Road The City Council may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. The public is encouraged to attend. Marilyn Bertholf, CMC� City Clerk Pursuant to5ection 286.0105, Florida Statutes ff 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 include:, the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. PC L-ICY CF N0RD15CR11M0=CN C K THE 3JSIS Or K*MjCk0P= STxmz "An Equal Opportunity Employer" CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 1985 Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Kravitz called the meeting to order 1 on Wednes ay, June 12, 1985 at 8 A.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Raymond J. Munitz Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman Councilman Sydney M. Stein ALSO PRESENT: Elly F. Johnson, City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Marilyn Bertholf, City Clerk Diane Williams, Secretary Richard Potash, Attorney Mayor Kravitz read the call to the meeting. 1. Re ardin recreation fees for Tract 37 (located on ,W, Terrace an ract ocate on estwoo rive - iscussion an possi a action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AUTHORIZED t e ity Attorney to accept Stipulation 20 (AS AMENDED) resolving that recreation fees for Tracts 37 and 42 would not be due and that the on -site drainage retention fee would be paid at the time of site approval; City will pay $3,585 for attorneys fees and court costs. Mr. Henning noted that two different circumstances prompted this special meeting: Tracts 37 and 42 and Tract 2. Tracts 37 and 42 are in the Leadership d court -ordered property place - Land Sections 4, b. He continued that Council has convened in an attempt to resolve a dispute and reach a settlement to avoid court action (Hearing scheduled for June 12, 1985 at 2 P.M. in Judge Weissing's court.). The City Attorney explained that the issue of recreation fees came before the City Council at the time of plat preparation for Tracts 37 and 42 and was deferred until site plan approval in the hopes that problems would be resolved at the platting stage. However, motions for clarification were filed in the court prior to the platting. Council accepted the plat and it is close to being recorded. Mr. Henning continued that deferment of the legal questions until site plan approval is still causing a problem. He asserted that it was time for Council to stipulate that recreation fees in dispute (in reference to Tracts 37 and 42) are not applicable and that as far as the drainage retention which is the other fee in dispute, it has been agreed that the 5% on -site drainage retention would be provided or in lieu of the on -site drainage retention, the fee pursuant rsuntrto City yl. C Code ity wouldAttorney be paid at the time of site p apP Henning said that all of this information can be found under Case No. 72-117310E which is Leadership Housing vs the City of Tamarac. He stated that the Stipulation - Agreed Order regarding Tracts 37 and 42, in essence, has two paragraphs and the language in the resolutions that approved these plats stated that they would be subject to impact fees at the time of site -plan approval and that qualifications would be removed with the understanding that the recreation fees would not be due and that the on -site drainage retention would apply at site -plan approval to be determined at that time. C/M Stein asked why Council had not had a workshop to discuss this matter prior to today; although he said he would accept the recommendation of Mr. Henning. Mr. Henning said that he was under the impression that the hearing was two or three weeks later and not a couple of days later. He said Council was faced with two problems: The fact that it is as soon as it is and the fact that it falls on a Council day and that he could only be in one place (He noted that Mr. Ruf is out of town.). He said he mentioned at the last meeting (5/22/85) that Council would need to have a special meeting. V/M Massaro pointed out that although this matter appears to be something presented to Council very late it has been before City Council for a long time as was indicated. She noted that everyone was aware and everyone should have been able to analyze the situation. She affirmed that everyone tried to do what was in the best interest of the City hoping to the last minute that something could be gained by the deferment. Mr. Henning informed that there is a provision in the settlement for $3,585 for nominal court costs and fees incurred at this point. He expressed that Council would really be cutting their losses to settle for this amount based on the merits of the case. City Attorney Henning stated that the approval and con- ditions of Resolutions 85-49, Subsection 1(d) and 85-51 Subsection 1(d) indicated that there would be a recon- sideration of site -plan approval. V/M Massaro referenced that both th original and amended pages stated that Tract 37 Corp anrTract 42 Corp are not required to pay recreational fees nor drainage --improvement fees but she pointed out that the drainage -improvement fees have already been paid in full. C/M Stein MOVED to authorize the City Attorney to enter into Stipulation 20 (as amended) affecting tracts 37 and 42. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. V/M Massaro inquired if the $3,585 attorneys' fee would cover tracts 37, 42 and tract 2. Mr. Henning asked Mr. Potash to provide the answer to Council. Mr. Richard Potash, who represents Tract 37 Corp. and Tract 42 Corp. as well as Cardinal Industries, Inc., explained to Council that the fees discussed are only in reference to Tract 37 Corp. and Tract 42 Corp. He indicated that favorable Council action on the proposed stipulation will finalized matters in terms of the plats already received by the county. Mr. Potash added that there is a very high liklihood that the corporations will not be developing their own site plans for submittal to the City and if that follows through, there will not be any further involvement with either Tract 37 Corp. or Tract 42 Corp. and the city. Mr. Potash referenced that there has been no discussion of fees in respect to Cardinal Industries, Inc. because everything is still in the very preliminary stages of development; however, he advised that there is a possibility for the generation of additional litigation on the Green - view Apartments project. He reiterated that the fees are solely with respect to Tracts 37 and 42 which are separate entities from Cardinal Industries, Inc. -2- 6/12/85 /vdw 11 L] Mr. Henning inquired of Mr. Potash if it was safe to s assume that as far as a status report is concerned that Tract 2 - Cardinal Industries, Inc./Greenview Apartments is making no claim for attorneys' fees. Mr. Potash re- sponded that no claim for attorneys' fees will be made if favorable action is given by Council, otherwise, he would go to Court and seek relief. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 2. Concept Site Plan for Greenview A artments (Tract 2) o i ,oa - iscussion and possible action - SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED ti�ation TT --preliminary site plan for Greenview Apartments (Tract 2). Council received assurance that developer would reproduce similiar landscaping as found in the Southgate pro- ject for Greenview Apartments. Mr. Henning referenced Stipulation 21 regarding the concept site plan for Greenview Apartments which is Tract 2 on Nob Hill Road. He informed Council that the general location of the property is one tract south of Southgate Boulevard on the west side of Nob Hill Road near Kings Point. V/M Massaro inquired whether it was a concept or a pre- liminary site plan as indicated in Mr. Henning's order. Mr. Henning noted that the agenda should be corrected to reflect "preliminary site plan". He noted that this item was more complicated and that it was being developed by Cardinal Industries, Inc. who brought a site plan with them. (Site plan was displayed for Council's viewing.) The City Attorney referenced that this is court -ordered property in Land Sections 4, 5 and 6 noting that they are the successors to Leadership Housing in the same lawsuit. Mr. Henning said that when the site plan was brought to staff review, Cardinal Industries, Inc. indicated that they would be following a 1976 ordinance for site -plan approval which was "grandfathered" in under the court order. He expressed that one unique point about Ordinance 76-25 is that unlike most activity of the Planning Commis- sion this preliminary site -plan approval is final with the Planning Commission and does not come to City Council for review (He informed that this was not realized until the point of where the procedure is today.). He explained that usually the Planning Commission is advisory and all decisions accepting or rejecting proposals come to City Council for review. Melanie Reynolds, resident, asked why and was informed by Mr. Henning that the Planning Commission is an advisory committee as it stands today and that as an advisory com- mittee all of its decisions are subject to review by Council. He continued that as a final review under the 76-25 ordinance the Planning Commission was placed in the posture that their decisions are reviewed by the Circuit Court instead of the City Council. Under Ordinance 76-25 rejections of the preliminary site-plansare final and is appealable only through the Circuit Court which, explained Mr. Henning, is why Council is faced with court action today. He did suggest that upon conclusion of his remarks that a very brief presentation of the preliminary site plan be made to Council so it is aware of the subject that is being reviewed. 6/12/85 /vdw C/M Stein inquired if the Council can actually override a ruling by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henning clarified that the stipulation is an override by the Court and that this is not a final action because the petitioner can con- tinue their site -plan development; then, they go back to the Planning Commission with any corrections or changes discussed, and then they come back to City Council for final site plan approval. Mr. Henning noted that one of the problems that resulted in the Planning Commission's denial of the site plan was the canal discussion in which there is a developer's agree- ment with the adjacent landowner behind Tract 2 to do cer- tain improvements to the canal. He said the Planning Commission was attempting to have Cardinal Industries, Inc. do those canal improvements and the record seems to indi- cate that one of the main reasons for rejection of the site plan is Cardinal Industries' refusal to do the canal improvements. Mr. Henning said that frankly he questioned whether they (CII) were responsible to do this work because they were actually being asked to continue another developer's improvements. C/M Stein expressed concern that if any developer did not like the ruling of the Planning Commission they could appear before Council and have Council stipulate away their decision. Mr. Henning informed him that since 1976 the ordinance has been amended giving Council the final ruling. He elaborated that Council could go to Circuit Court, could have an appeal and could incur additional costs (attorneys' fees) as well as disruptions and dis- tractions but when it comes down to the merits of the case, discretion may be the better part of valor to minimize Council's delays and losses. V/M Massaro also pointed out that this stipulation enables Council to break the deadlock under Ordinance 76-25. C/M Gottesman inquired if the Planning Commission had rejected the site plan within the last year or so and was informed that the Planning Commission's recent rejection was May 1, 1985. Florence Bochenek, resident, asked if both tracts would be heard in Court today; Mr. Henning responded that if there is no settlement there will be a 2 o' clock hearing. Mrs. Bochenek explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting (which was a public hearing) Westwood Drive was to be discussed but was not because of receipt of a letter from Mr. Potash requesting that it be tabled. Mr. Henning informed that that was a site plan for Tract *2 which is not being overlooked but the site -planning stage for Tract 42 has not been reached but it will be going to the Planning Commission. V/M Massaro asserted that this issue only concerns recreation fees. Mr. Henning said that Tracts 42 and 37 are being considered for court action because of the recreation fees and on -site drainage retention and that they are still in the site -planning stage. Tract 42 has been tabled and Tract 37 has not got- ten that far. Tract 2 has a preliminary site plan which was considered and rejected by the Planning Commission and we are discussing getting that site plan back to the Planning Commission and progressing further. *Editor's Note - Review of Planning Commission minutes of 6/5/85 reflect this tabling was for Tract 41 (Hidden Hollow). Tract 2 - Greenview Apartments was denied by Planning Commission on 5/1/85. -4- 6/12/85 /vdw Max Blumberg, resident of Westwood VI, stated that he lives in the section that borders Tract 2. He complained that there was a poor turnout because no one had received notice of the meeting so that the residents would have a chance to voice their opposition to the proposed development. He remembered at a previous Planning Commission meeting denial of apartment buildings for low-income families. Mr. Blumberg expressed opposition to the apartments on the basis that it would reduce their property values, permit children and other complications which he felt would infringe on the retirees' lifestyle. He also said that at the last meeting he presented documentary proof that not only Tract 2 but Tracts 1, 2, 3, 4 were to abide by a covenant filed for 50 years that there shall not be apartments in an adult community with residents under 16 years of age. Mr. Henning acknowledged that Mr. Blumberg was well informed about the area and pointed out that as far as a lack of notice about the meeting that everyone who is on the Council mailing list to receive agendas also received notices of meetings. He explained that as far as the adult community is concerned there was an overture to the City requesting that the deed re- strictions for "adults only" be lifted for Tract 2 and this was abandoned. The City Attorney said that it was his understanding that those deed restrictions still exist and advised that he did not want to make any representation but he felt that Cardinal Industries would not be asking that the deed restriction be lifted. He continued that there has been no proposed Council action to lift the adults -only deed restriction on Tract 2. He asked Mr. Potash if this assumption was correct. Mr. Potash replied that as of today the deed restriction is there; it's valid, and it will be complied with: No one under the age of 16 can live in Tract 2. Mr. Blumberg urged Council to specifically stated that the developer must abide by a 50-year covenant restriction do not let anyone remove it. Melanie Reynolds, resident, said that she understood there was a hearing on June 3 for issuance of bonds in the amount of $6 million for Greenview Apartments and inquired if the developer received those bonds would children then be allowed. Mr. Henning advised that these properties are under deed restriction and if the agencies are willing to grant bonds to deed -restricted properties, then that's their prerogative. He noted that the hearing for bond issuance is scheduled for July 1, 1985 at 11 A.M. in Room 101 of the Howard Building/ Kroger Executive Center, Tallahassee. Mr. Potash clarified that the type of bonds sought is just an alternative mechanism of financing; it is not government - subsidized bonding but a means of financing development of the property. Mr.Henning asked if this does not have a 10-year deed restriction regarding maintaining rental pro- perty vs. condominium property and does not have a maximum income per household for the tenants that are renting apart- ments. Mr. Potash verified that Mr. Henning was correct but stipulated that it was not in his clients' interests to convert them into condominiums and that they would be very happy to live by those restrictions. Mr. Henning noted that these are the same restrictions that have been proposed by other developers in the past. Mr. Potash agreed but noted that he just wanted to differentiate this from what a lot of people consider to be government -subsidized bonding for low income project which this is not. -5- 6/12/85 /vdw Mr. Henning stated that at this point he felt Council should determine whether they want to briefly review the site or whether they want to take action on the stipulation. He acknowledged that there was one area of the site plan regarding a question about the cul de sac and that will be discussed again by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henning assured Council that Mr. Potash is working with them in an attempt to satisfy any of the City's concerns regarding the cul de sac. He summarized that all Council is doing is asking the Court to send us back to the Planning Com- mission to continue the process; the only action needed by Council is on the stipulation. V/M Massaro addressed Mr. Potash referencing a discussion they had in which he agreed to stipulate that the landscaping provided would be in excess of the minimum required and not less than what has already been planted at the existing Cardinal Project (Southgate Boulevard). Mr. Potash recalled that at the end of the discussion V/M Massaro indicated that she wanted to view the landscaping at Southgate and then report back to him if what she saw there was satisfactory if terms of aesthetics. He said he would stipulate for the record that the developer would be willing to reproduce landscaping implemented at Southgate noting that there is a different land configuration. V/M Massaro assured Mr. Potash that that would be good enough and that when the review comes in it will be con- sidered. Mr. Potash emphasized that the only reason it is not in the stipulation is because of the misunderstanding. Mr. Potash added that he would like to clarify the whole purpose of entering into the stipulation from the City's standpoint based on his understanding of discussions he has had with the City representatives. He continued that Ordinance 76-25 basically is required for the site plan and to have the mechanics of site development approval work and provide that you start with the staff review and comments. Then you go to the Planning Commission with your preliminary site plan (which is before Council today); under Ordinance 76-25, if the Planning Commission approves the preliminary site plan, the approved plan is then re- turned to the developer. He said that the developer then submits the final site plan and that with the approved preliminary plan noting any changes or deviations on the final from the approved preliminary and at that time sub- mits the engineering plan and the landscaping plan for the first time; those have never been submitted for this project (Tract 2). It then goes back to staff for review, back to the Planning Commission; then, ultimately to Council for the only review that Council has. He explained that what shortcircuited matters in this case was under the old ordinance (76-25) if the Planning Commission denies the preliminary site that's the end of it. Mr. Potash declared that you would then have to start all over again or you go to Circuit Court which is where they chose to go. He asserted that the City's favorable consideration of the stipulation today just means that the preliminary plan is deemed approved and that will be resubmitted with the final site plan, the engineering plan and the landscaping plan and will go back to staff and back to the Planning Com- mission (at which point their vote is advisory only) and then back to Council. Mr. Potash said that he understood from the City's standpoint that their only reason for enter- taining the stipulation is to get the matter back on the table; it's never been reviewed by Council. And he added that the Planning Commission has never had the benefit of an engineering plan nor a landscaping plan. 6/12/85 /vdw r �J a He continued to give an overview of what the project will logy.'_: like but noted that there will be changes between the preliminary site plan and the final site plan. He exampled the cul de sac and the discussion in reference to its proximity to the adjacent residential development. He pointed out that the cul de sac pictured is 20% larger than the City Code requires, and without any code deviation or without any material change to the integrity of the plan, they have instructed their workers to constrict the cul de sac reducing it in size approximately 20% and pull it back from the property which will give an additional 15 to 20 feet leeway from the property line so a masonry wall can be constructed along the periphery of the cul de sac to - serve as an additional buffer from the single-family com- munity. V/M Massaro MOVED the approval of Stipulation 21 for Tract 2 on Nob Hill Road as presented by the City Attorney. SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 8:45 A.M. ATTEST: ASSISTANT TCLERK r. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $50.55 or $1.40 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. -7- CITY OF TAMARAC APPROVED AT MEETING OF City Clerk 6/12/85 /vdw