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