HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-03 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesL .-j
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
January 29, 1981
NOTICE OF RECONVENED MEETINGS
CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
Please be advised the Reconvened Meetings of the City
Council. Regular Meeting of January 28, 1981, will be
held on Friday, January 30, 1980 at 9:00 A.M. and on
Tuesday, February 3,11981 at 9:30 A.M. in Council
Chambers.
Council may consider such other business as may come before
it.
The Public is invited to attend.
Pursuant to Chapter 80-150 of Florida Law, Senate Bill
No. 368: IT a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Council with respect to any matter considered
at such meeting, he will need a record of the proceedings,
and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
ari y Bert w
City Clerk
/lc
1/29/81
J
No Text
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 3, 1981
(Reconvened from 1/28 & 1/30/81)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order
on Tuesday, February 3, 1981 at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
V/M Helen Massaro
C/W Marjorie Kelch
C/M Irving M. Disraelly
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: C/M Irving Zemel
ALSO PRESENT: Asst. City Mgr., Laura Stuurmans
City Engineer, L. Keating
Asst. City Clerk, Carol Evans
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Attorney, Arthur Birken
30. Fairways 4 - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water and Sewer Agreement
(located on Lagos de Campo Boulevard, east of 84th Terrace)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a)Approved faith
conditions.b)Approved.c)Apprvd. with
signatures of proper city officials.
Mr. Thom Lira, representing Tamway Graystone indicated that this project
has been in the works for over a year, an out -parcel of Rokest called
Fairways 4. He said it will be a separate condominium association
under separate ownership; he said Council can go over the fees with
him and he can present a check. He mentioned the new ordinance for
recreation fees and under that ordinance, the fees are $10,935.00.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Cross what the required recreation acreage was, and
he replied that it is 9% of 1.62 acres.
Mr. Lira read off the following fees as follows:
Purchase Retention $2,835.00
First Month's Interest
on 24 ERC's 280.00
2-1/2 ERC's for Pool 2,500.00
Plan Review 500.00
Drainage Impact 210.60
Recreation Fees 10,935.00
TOTAL $ 17,260.60
Mr. Lira explained that they are financing the units, but are paying
for the pool up front.
V/M Massaro asked if this is going to be all one property?
Mr. Lira answered, "No, people in Rokest didn't want it. They didn't
want this building to be joined with them; it will be a separate
condominium association."
V/M Massaro asked if they have sufficient parking for this project
including guest parking? Mr. Lira showed on the plan where parking
was to be.
C/M Disraelly questioned the entry and if it was also to be used by
Rokest and wanted to know who owns the entry?
Mr. Lira indicated that Tamway Graystone owns it and that it couldn't
be blocked off; it is an existing easement that has been worked out with
the Rokest people.
-I-
February 3, 1981
/pe
I
V/M Massaro said this will have to be subject to an appropriate
easement being submitted to the City Attorney. She then mentioned
that on the site plan a sidewalk is shown which will affect the
catch basins and the manhole cover that is out there and she
wanted to know if that had been addressed by engineering because
certain portions of the sidewalk cannot go over those catchbasins.
Mr. Lira said there is about 5' or 6' between the edge of the side-
walk and the edge of the pavement, so the catchbasins will fit.
V/M Massaro indicated that this is another thing that will have to
go into the motion, and asked Mr. Lira to show the changes on the
site plan in red and ititial them.
V/M Massaro discussed the parking lot where there is going to be a
swale area at the golf course and wanted to know if the property was
going to be affected as to drainage. She said it is her understanding
that they have a 5' ditch in back and that they are going to be
required to put another one in there to take the drainage for the
property itself; that drainage is spilling into your parking lot and
that parking lot has to have another catch basin at the golf course
area so that it will drain under the parking lot instead of over it.
There is a catch basin in the middle of the driveway; at the other
end this is all draining from the golf course area and coming through
the parking lot.
Mr. Lira indicated that the water cannot come up and over as the
end of the parking lot is going to be higher and will take it to the
existing catch basin.
V/M Massaro said that we haven't addressed the Lagos de Campo curbing;
we would require some kind of curbing.
C/M Disraelly said he feels the whole thing should be curbed with a
bullnose at both ends.
Mr. Cross indicated that they are going to require them to extend that
concrete curb.
C/M Disraelly suggested that if a sign is going to be put up, they
should show the location of that sign right now to avoid coming back
to Council with a revised site plan.
Mr. Lira stated that the sign will be going at the main entrance.
Mr. Keating reported that it was agreed that a catch basin would be
put in and proceeded to show on the plan where this catch basin
would be located.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Keating about where they are going to narrow
the road from 35' to 25' at the main entrance in the area where the
road is being cut out, if he was aware of the fact that there was
a catch basin there?
Mr. Keating replied that there are two catch basins which he is
requiring them to remove and replace with curbing.
V/M Massaro asked if they are going to maintain the existing paving?
Mr. Lira replied that it would be under the condominium association
maintenance of all common areas.
V/M Massaro asked if there is going to be any problem due to the
fact that the entrance will be under two separate owners.
Mr. Keating indicated that the only possible problem would be an
internal one between two condominium associations.
-2-
February 3, 1981
/pe
V/M Massaro said that since this is for both of the parcels, she
wants to be absolutely sure that there will be adequate drainage.
Mr. Keating indicated that it has a separate drainage system.
C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Lira whether he was going to have one sign
or two signs at the entrance? Mr. Lira replied that he will have
one sign on the south side.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Keating if he had addressed the sidewalk
situation where the catch basins and manhole are located? Mr.
Keating replied that the structures that are there will be removed
and curb inlets will be installed which sit in the sidewalk themselves.
C/M Disraelly discussed the nine parking spaces and whether there
is going to be curbing. Mr. Lira replied, "No, but it will look like
one development; they will probably assign parking spaces like the
other one. We are right on the requirement for parking spaces--45."
The Mayor and Arthur Birken left the dais at this time and V/M
Massaro accepted the gavel.
a) Site Plan
C/M Disraelly MOVED the acceptance of the site plan for Fairways 4
with the addition of a catch basin in the parking lot, that the
City Attorney be provided with proof that an easement exists for
the use of the entrance so that Rokest can use it, if easement does
not exist, that they will provide it, that the curbing on Lagos de
Campo on their side of the road be extended for the full length of
their property with bullnoses on both sides of the entrance way,
that the catch basins that are in the sidewalk be removed so that
they are in the Swale area and the corrections as red -lined on the
plan and Development Review requirements appear to have been met
and the new site plan will be submitted showing the changes and the
fees in the amount of $17,260.60 have been paid.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye (Mayor Falck absent for this
V/M Massaro - Aye vote)
C/M Disraelly MOVED that the Development Agreement between Tamway
Graystone and the City be Agendized by Consent.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye (Mayor Falck absent for this
V/M Massaro - Aye vote)
C/M Disraelly MOVED acceptance of the Development Agreement for
Fairways 4 showing the recreation payment of $10,935.00, the
retention of $2,835.00 and the appropriate city officials be auth-
orized to execute.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye
b) Landscape Plan
(Mayor Falck absent for this
vote)
C/M Disraelly MOVED acceptance of the Landscape Plan which has been
approved by the Beautification Committe on July 21st, 1980.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye
-3-
(Mayor Falck absent for this
vote )
February 3, 1981
/pe
I
c) Water and Sewer Agreement
C/M Disraelly indicated that the fees for the recreation area have
been paid in full and the first month's interest on the 24 units
has been paid and MOVED its approval to be signed by the proper
city officials.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye (Mayor Falck absent
V/M Massaro - Aye for this vote)
C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Lira where the dumpsters would be and if
there would be provision made for paper collection?
Mr. Lira replied that the dumpsters will be located inside the lobby
and there should be enough room in that area to store papers.
31. Woodmont - Tract 50 - Discussion and possible action on:'
a) Stipulation No. 8 - Temp. Reso. #1830
b) Site Plan
c) Plat - Temp. Reso. #1831
d) Water and Sewer Agreement
(located along Southgate Boulevard, west of University Dr.)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Approved as amended. RESOLUTION NO.R.� V� �� PASSED
b) Approved with conditions.
c) Approved. RESOLUTION NO. R•-V /? PASSED
d) Approved.
b) Site Plan
C/M Disraelly indicated that there is an obtuse angle off the golf
course and he doesn't think a vehicle can turn that corner.
Mr. Tom Schnars said he could remedy that with a sub -base on the
north side of the curb base.
C/M Disraelly asked if he will then have to change the definition of
his metes and bounds of the description?
Mr. Schnars answered that they would have to change it; they will put
a little 25' radius on the interior corner and V/M Massaro asked him
to indicate that in red on the plan. Mr. Schnars said it will be
on the N.E. Corner.
C/M Disraelly suggested that he give us a new exhibit called "B".
V/M Massaro indicated that she wanted the canal crossing detail
crossed out on the plan and Mr. Schnars said this was already built.
V/M Massaro said on the plan they show that there will be guard rails
eventually when the other area is developed; there is a dead end at
the canal and you would have to indicate that something has to be
installed there to protect anybody from going into that water --the
plan doesn't show it.
Mr. Schnars marked it on the plan.
V/M Massaro discussed the problem the City had with the crossing on
50th Ave. and that is why it is being looked into. She also mentioned
that in the motion they will be requiring more drainage around the
perimeter of the tract; it is all surrounded by a golf course and
it is going to be re -graded as well as three additional catch basins
being installed to protect any of the property owners against any
problem as a result of improper drainage.
5A0
February 3, 1981
/pe
F
V/M Massaro asked what the purpose was of the contours and Mr.
Schnars indicated that they are virtually meaningless, as the land
(Tapeside is so flat and then there was a discussion on road elevations.
#2)
C/M Disraelly MOVED the approval of site plan for Woodmont Tract
50 showing that the canal crossing detail is not an acceptable
part of the plan, that guardrails will be installed over the
existing canal crossing per the City ordinances, that the grading
from the building elevations will flow toward the golf course and
if not, corrections will be made, and the Development Review Plans
appear to have been met.
The Mayor returned to the dais with Mr. Birken.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
V/M Massaro asked for the check in the amount of $15,360.00 for
the recreation parcel and Mr. Schnars presented the check.
V/M Massaro returned the gavel to Mayor Falck.
a) Stipulation No. 8
Mr. Birken said Council has a copy of the Stipulation which provides
drainage for all lots included within Woodmont Tract 50 shall be
towards the golf course and no drainage shall be permitted to flow
from the golf course onto any of the lots of Tract 50.
C/M Disraelly said as part of this Stipulation, Exhibit B should be
revised to show a radius of 25' in the northeast corner of the
entry between lots 20 and 21.
Mr. Birken said there will be a separate easement submitted for the
emergency vehicle access under Exhibit B.
Mr. Birken read Temporary Resolution #1830 by title.
C/M Disraelly MOVED approval of Temporary Resolution #1830 regarding
Stipulation No. 8 provided that Exhibit B be changed to indicate the
25' radius at the northeast area between Lots 20 and 21 and that
the approriate verbiage given by the City Attorney regarding drainage
be inserted prior to the signing of the Stipulation by the proper
city officials.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
c) Plat
Mr. Birken read Temporary Resolution #1831 by title.
V/M Massaro MOVED approval of Plat for Woodmont Tract 50 as submitted,
Temporary Resolution #1831.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
d) Water and Sewer Agreement
A check was presented.
C/M Disraelly requested that Ms. Sheila Woken update him on the Marmon
Agreement.
--5- February 3, 1981
/pe
I
r
r
V/M Massaro MOVED approval of the Water and Sewer Agreement as
presented, and C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
32. Century Bank - Discusssion and possible action on a revised
site plan for parking lot lighting.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved.
Mr. Evan Cross mentioned that the Building Department conducted a
letter -writing campaign to make sure all parking lots in shopping
centers and residential areas meet the required lighting ordinance
and they have come in with a revised site plan. Mr. Cross indicated
that Staff's comment was that there was no indication on the plan
that it met with the requirements of the code as far as illumination
was concerned. He had spoken with Mr. Roepnack, who indicated to him
that the gentleman who signed it, Mr. Long, who is an electrical con-
tractor, designed it according to our code and he will certify to
that.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that the revised site plan on Century Bank be
approved.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
V/M Massaro wanted to know why we are taking for granted what is
correct and indicated that a statement should be put on the plan
that this will meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Cross agreed with V/M Massaro and felt a note should be added
to the plan that this will meet the requirements.
Mr. Jack Bernath representing Roepnack Corp. signed the plan with
change requested.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
33. Continental Plaza - Discussion and possible action on request
Tor a waiver of a requirement for a revised site plan for
installation of a sign.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Waiver request
denied.
A representative of Budget Signs, Inc. indicated that they did sub-
mit a survey of the property where the sign was going to be and it
would cost the owner $500.00 to provide a revised site plan.
Mr. Birken stated that there was no provision in the City's regula-
tions to waive site plans for something like this and he suggested
to Council that there is no alternative but to deny the request and
require that there be an amended site plan submitted; this is a
ground sign and accordingly there is no provision for a waiver.
C/M Disraelly mentioned that a proposed request for a sign was
approved by the Beautification Committee; however they were not
aware that there was no site plan. There was just a little sketch
presented showing that they were going to move the sign and they
were advised that they may not even have 10' from the property line
for the installation of the sign and they indicated they would take
care of this problem and at that time attention was called to the
fact that there was no site plan.
V/M Massaro said when this sign was
before Council; this is a change of
She indicated that they had no right
presenting a site plan.
Q:fl
placed on this property, it came
what Council had formerly approved.
to move that sign without
February 3, 1981
/pe
L� J
V/M Massaro MOVED the denial for request for a waiver and C/W Kelch
SECONDED the motion.
The representative of Budget Signs, Inc. indicated that he came to
Council three months ago and Council approved the sign.
Mr. Birken stated that the regulations exist and there is no provision
for a waiver.
The representative of Budget Signs, Inc. stated that they provided a
survey with the sign.
Mr. Birken indicated that it was not an amended site plan and that is
what the regulations require.
V/M Massaro asked who had the tracing of the original site plan that
is on record?
The representative of Budget Signs, Inc. stated that the owner gave
him that; it is an old building.
V/M Massaro stated that all they have to do is to locate the man who
has the original site plan.
The representative of Budget Signs, Inc. said it will also cost him
$200.00 for the filing fee, and Mr. Cross indicated that it will cost
$175.00.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
34. Tamarac Gardens - Discussion and possible action on request for
permit for a temporary model sales facility located on west
McNab Road and N.W. 100th Avenue.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved with
conditions.
V/M Massaro referred to a memorandum that came from Mr. Cross regard-
ing Tamarac Gardens and mentioned that this is a temporary model and
sales facility and it is called a permanent model and sales facility
on the memorandum, but it should be called temporary.
The title was changed in accordance with discussion between Mr. Cross
and V/M Massaro.
Mr. Julian Bryan representing F & R Builders presented the site plan
and indicated that they are taking the approved parking area and
extending a temporary parking area to the south which would give them
a total of approximately 20 spaces, which incidentally, would meet the
current interpretation on parking for a model sales center that was
rendered by Mr. Birken. He further indicated that these are permanent
portions of buildings that will be developed, but it is for temporary
use.
They are requesting the approval of the facility plus, based on the
interpretation of waiver for parking --they are only discussing the
possibility of waiving one or two spaces, depending upon how the
square footage of the total building area is multiplied out. They
have provided for 20 spaces and will actually have only two models
there, the one bedroom and two bedroom units; one of the 23 spaces
will need to be designated as handicapped parking.
Mr. Bryan further said they are at the same time requesting a waiver
of the requirement that there be no Certificates of Occupancy applied
for or received within 300' of the structures and that would include
a number of buildings on the west side of the canal as well as some
in Parcel K; they would not be interfering with vehicular activity
or anyone's lifestyle with any of the other buildings since it is
adjacent to the canal and other traffic would come in and follow the
normal route pattern into the other two buildings in Parcel K--in
Parcels L and M they are completely separated with the entry westerly
on McNab Road.
V/M Massaro asked if the plans were revised in any manner?
-7- February 3, 1981
/pe
L.
Mr. Bryan replied that this was just for informational purposes;
there are no changes from the original plans.
C/M Disraelly asked which buildings will be the sales office and Mr.
Bryan replied that it will not be in the first pod --he showed C/M
Disraelly on the plan which ones he was going to use; he also
indicated which ones will be the model and which area will be parking
lot area.
C/M Disraelly then asked if he will build the other three pods?
Mr. Bryan said they will be built after this ceases to be used; the
waiver that they are requesting for the 300' rule would not apply to
additional structures because there will be no reasonable way to con-
struct the balance of that building. He further indicated that they
are asking for a waiver on the buildings as Mr. Bryan designated on
the plan.
C/M Disraelly MOVED approval of the temporary sales office for parking
and models for Tamarac Gardens providing for two models and a sales
office in Building C to be the central pods and that if any other pods
are built, they cannot be used for sales or residences, that no C.O.'s
for these units will be granted other than for sales but no other
restrictions on the sales of the condominiums within 300' shall be
placed on the other buildings and that the beautification of this area
shall be in accordance with the site plan presented to us for both
illumination and for beautification and illumination will meet the
city code for parking lot lights, that these models and the sales
office are strictly for this project and are restricted to models in
Tracts K, L, and M, and that the trailer will be removed upon the
completion of this facility and its opening. Approval effective
for six months from today.
V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion.
Mr. Bryan said, as a point on the Motion, they recognize that the
temporary approval that includes the model sales trailer that is
presently on the site, will in all probability have to be extended
because that occurred 60 days ago and he doesn't believe it would be
possible to complete the construction of these facilities within the
remaining four months; they will probably have to come back and ask
for an extension of that temporary use while it is still under con-
struction.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE,
Mayor Falck mentioned that at the pre -agenda conference, Council
indicated that they would listen to the presentation and then the matter
would e discussed further at a future workshop meeting.
V/M Massaro indicated that she was happy that the Mayor made this
statement, as these negotiations are not completed on this project
and further negotiations will have to be scheduled so that when the
Mayor calls a workshop meeting, everything can be presented to Council
as has been discussed.
35. F & R Builders - Presentation of the project concept designed for
the site located in Land Sections 5 and 6 between N.W. 94th Avenue
west to 110th Terrace, and discussion of revised Stipulation #4.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Presentation by Mr.
Bryan; to be considered by Council
at future workshop meeting.
V/M Massaro inquired about the easements that the City is waiting for
on the canals and ex ressed her concern that there didn't seem to be
anyone aware that the City was waiting for these easements.
-8- February 3, 1981
/pe
L I
Mr. Bryan indicated that for some of its storm drainage augmentation
(Pape- to be placed across Track 13 and either across 13A or between 13A and
side Tract 12, the problem with those tracts is Tract 12 is owned by
#3) Leadership Housing and 13A is Lenrnar...sproperty. They have a location
that basically cooincides with one of the exit streets from Westwood
6, which means in essence, that it doesn't really line up with the
property line. What happened a number of years ago was that the City,
in trying to relieve some of the drainage problems from Westwood 6,
simply cut an open drainage ditch across these two pieces of property.
In their discussions in the past few months with Mr. Keating's office,
Mr. Keating broached the subject with F & R in the first place; they
indicated that they had a substantial problem with granting a permanent
easement at this time because they hadn't site -planned either parcel,
and to arbitrarily just cut diagonally across the middle of a piece of
property with a 50' canal or a 25' canal easement even if it was
underground pipe, would probably not be in the city's best interests
from the site -planned point of view.
It.was.agreed to with Mr. Keating and with Mr. Fernando Alonzo at
F &R, who is their in-house engineering coordinator, to grant a
temporary easement in exactly the location where the two open ditches
now exist and allow the City to continue that open ditch until such
time as the parcels were site -planned. At that time they would give
the City a permanent easement in perhaps a different location, but
if it were in a different location, then it would be F & R's respon-
sibility to excavate and create that new canal and it would be in a
properly dedicated right-of-way.
The only thing Mr. Bryan felt could be a potential problem there is
presently under Ordinance #7848; it requires that a canal be a minimum
of 80' in width and they have discussed this with V/M Massaro and with
Mr. Keating, and Mr. Bryan thinks there are certainly situations that
would warrant a canal only being 50' in width; a good case in point is
the agreement with Leadership on Tract 2, the one that HLR constructed
that is only 50'. They know that a 50' canal would carry substanially
a higher volume of water than any size pipe they could ever purchase.
They are going to suggest to Council in the Developer's Agreement that
Ordinance #7848 be amended to allow 50' canals under certain circum-
stances and they would continue to request that this be a consideration
of the Vice -Mayor's request on these two easements. It is his under-
standing that where they, are today is that they are in agreement that
these will be temporary easements. He is not sure if Mr. Birken's
office has prepared any kind of document to that effect or not. He
does know that Mr. Daniel Carnahan's office prepared legal descript-
tions which were as-builts of those existing ditches; this work was
done at F & R's expense.
V/M Massaro indicated that the City has temporary easements and she
wanted to know if Leadership is still the owner of the other parcel
and also if we should be looking to them for the right-of-way? She
didn't think we should be talking in terms of a line or a canal,
because Council has made it very clear in the past that the City wants
canals to get all the holding capacity possible; we do not want pipes.
Mr. Bryan mentioned that in Stipulation #2 with Leadership Housing in
1979, they were going to provide another canal and it would have had
to be across Tract 12 because that was the only other tract they owned
adjacent to Westwood 6; it was going to be the canal across Tract 2
which HLR had Gasumed responsibility for.
V/M Massaro asked how long it will take to provide a site plan that
will enable him to locate where the canal will be?
Mr. Bryan explained how development will take place, but that this would
not take place in the immediate future.
V/M Massaro said that this could be a long way off and the City is
spending a great deal of money to further augument these systems; we
must have these canals.
Mr. Bryan said that the canal could be made wider, because the City has
easements.
-9- February 3, 1981
/pe
W
V/M Massaro stated that the City is not going to build a canal that
may not stay there and she would like to know the permanent locations
of the canals.
Mr. Bryan said they could not know at this time where the canals would
be and asked Mr. Birken his opinion.
Mr. Birken said if the canals had already been put in there, then they
would have to build around them. You knew the canals would be in there
when you bought the property, as indicated in the City's agreements in
1979 with Leadership.
V/M Massaro said when they talk about something indefinite, she feels
that this is not acceptable and a very serious situation that will affect
the sale of their homes. She indicated that the City is doing every-
thing in their power to keep this land from flooding; if there is a
heavy rainfall and people can't get through, she doesn't think they are
going to sell their product very quickly --the City is trying to keep this
product saleable for them.
Mayor Falck indicated that he and Mr. Birken would have to leave in
approximately 10 minutes, but that there would still be a quorum and
this discussion can be continued.
Mr. Bryan said they have addressed the items in Ordinance #7848 and have
tried to be more specific about interpretations of the ordinance, as
there have been some problems within the code book. They recognize and
agree to the drainage requirements and the 5% on site retention for all
of the parcels. They have spoken to the question of requirements for
local parks and open space and have some suggested solutions, which would
be a combination of some credit for the property previously dedicated that
Woodmont received credit for. They have also provided for preparation of
major park and recreation facilities by F & R that would be developed
within their tracts and within Tract 34 which would be a major facility.
He indicated with regard to phase development, the Woodmont agreement
is vague and nothing has been done to specifically indicate what the
developer will be required to do and what rights he might accrue by
virtue of the phase site plan approval. He mentioned that in Ordinance
7844 they get into bulkheads, pavement widths and off -side roadways,
which primarily would be N.W. 100th Avenue and N.W. 77th St.
Mr. Bryan indicated that the only thing he can think of that was not
resolved, was the question of off-sit,e improvements on major roadways;
the County did not require storm drainage, but they did ask for an extra
line of pavement.
Mayor Falck asked if any consideration was given to City service build-
ings and Mr. Bryan answered, "No, there are still tracts that are zoned
institutional, but they do not know about the Sawgrass Expressway."
Mayor Falck then asked if any consideration was being given to water -
saving devices or conservation to supply potable water to residents?
Mr. Bryan stated that he has not been involved in any discussions, but
that they are very energy conscious and are working on internal transit
and this subject will be addressed in the near future and if developers
want to sell property, they will have to be more energy conscious.
Mayor Falck turned the meeting and gavel over to V/M Massaro and
indicated to Mr. Bryan that further discussions will be conducted at
the workshop meeting. The Mayor and Mr. Birken left the meeting.
Mr. Bryan proceeded to make his presentation and explained the various
color portions of the map and said he would highlight certain items;
Page 2, Paragraph 4) - This is a minor variation from the 1976 order
that would have allowed 4 stories if you had ground level parking.
One parcel is zoned R--4 and they have gone a step beyond the R-4A
requirements.
Page 3, Paragraph 5) - They are substituting Ordinance 7644 for 7625,
because it allows the posting of sub -division improvement bonds or
Letters of Credit prior to building permit, rather than prior to site
plan approval.
-10- February 3, 1981
/Pe
Page 3, Para ra h �nts
They will abide by 78-48 and these amendments
and other stipulations with other parties.
(a) It should just say, "performance bonds or Letters of Credit." A
permit fee has to be paid for clearing and grading and they would like
to be able to continue to do that. (b) Acknowledges the fact that they
are operating under the master permit in the hands of the City.
(d) They are suggesting that N.W. 100th Ave. and Nob Hill Road &
77th Street running east and west will require certain improvements
necessary to provide access to abutting properties. The County will
be particular as to how many median cuts they will grant; they will
probably try to stick with 660' on centers as a minimum. If the
County asks for something in addition, they will have to provide it.
They would expect the City's assistance to support the fact that the
County had required certain things being done, so that they could
document it with a letter from the City Engineer saying that the
Developer and the City have asked for an extra lane, etc. so County
would give them credit toward the road impact fees; it would only be
on 100th Avenue.
C/W Kelch asked how far west the abutting properties would go and how
is he dealing with access?
Mr. Bryan showed on the map where they will have to make certain improve-
ments on the road. This will also be a water and sewer access.
Tape- Page 4, Top twoparagraphs- They would like 50' wide canals under
side certain circumstances rather than 80' wide canals.
#4)
C/W Kelch stated that she would like it much more clearly delineated
than that. Mr. Bryan suggested that perhaps Mr. Keating could insert
some language that would be more appropriate.
C/M Disraelly stated that retention is lost with the use of a 50' canal
versus an 80' canal, and Mr. Bryan said he would explain this at a future
time.
Page 4, (f) - We know that in the 1976 Leadership agreement, sidewalks
were required on the east side of 100th Ave. and on the north side of
77th Street, which would mean that Tracts, 23, 24, a portion of 27, 29,
and 30 would have to have sidewalks. They discussed with the City the
possibility of increasing that and including the west side of 100th Ave.
which would then include Tract 16, 3, and 18 which would provide approxi-
mately 3000' linear feet of sidewalk. This would be done in lieu of
concrete valley gutter, because all of these tracts are going to be
developed as multi -family and therefore, they would not have strict
grid layouts of streets like in the Westwood communities, so they may be
able to provide alternate solutions of internal drainage that would not
need valley gutters; a trade-off as discussed with Mr. Keating, would be
the additional sidewalks.
V/M Massaro indicated that we need to have solutions of problems in the
past in the various tracts dealing with swales; the City is concerned
with saving water and with retaining water, but the City hasn't closed
its mind.
There was a discussion on guardhouses and guard service and Mr. Bryan
indicated there would be free access for anyone to come and go on the
private street.
Page 4, (h) - This deals with the cross sections of the canals and Mr.
Bryan showed a diagram on the blackboard regarding a shelf or platform
that is required by the City, but there are situations that strict
adherence to this requirement could not be arrived at; it couldn't
physically be created. If we went back far enough when retention is
provided, it would be best to widen the canals and it would create a
more interesting shore-line,mmking the lakes larger. There might be
some situations where if we went back 50' on one section of a canal
and created a slope, then it could be created because enough land could
be dug away. In some cases, below the water level, a platform cannot
be built.
C/M Disraelly suggested in (h) to change "slopes may be" to "if slopes
are dug".
-11-
February 3, 1981
/pe
Page 4, (i) - Mr. Bryan drew a picture on the blackboard to show
center line radius should be 100' and that is substantially more than
it needs to be; the City wants 30' and they feel the center should be
50' or 55', because if 100' is used, it encourages people to drive
faster.
C/W Kelch mentioned that there would be visual danger if there are
cross roads and Mr. Bryan replied that if it was a T intersection,
or a cross road as he indicated on the diagram, the City only requires
25'; they would not anticipate changing that at all.
Page 4, (ii) - They can see in many cases, leading into these various
Parcels where in an 80' right-of-way they have created a landscape
median that can be for signs, a small guardhouse or something that
looks like a guardhouse with a vertical arm --they want to re -site and
put this in; it has been allowed in the past, but it is silent in the
code book and it should be written down.
Page 4, (j) - Mr. Bryan indicated that in Woodmont they used Beaumanite
concrete paving.
C/M Disraelly stated that they would have to give the City a guaranteed
maintenance clause and Mx. Bryan indicated that this was correct. Mr.
Bryan said, in this particular case, with the F & R tracts, he doesn't
think the City would have the problems they had in the early days of
Woodmont because those were public streets that they were putting
surfaces in and they had to give the City a private maintenance agree-
ment on public right-of-way. He said, in these cases, the internal
streets that they would propose this on will be private and they will
have maintenance responsibility to begin with.
C/M Disraelly indicated that if they have alternate uses on public
streets, then there has to be a guarantee of maintenance.
Mr. Bryan said it would logically be a responsibility assumed by the
Home Owners Association.
V/M Massaro mentioned that very often they come back looking for the
City to accept as a public street and it should be stressed that,
alternative surface uses; will never be acceptable as a City street.
C/M Disraelly said this should be added in there; "If it returns to
a street, it must conform to the City ordinances prior even to the
approval of our accepting it." Mr. Bryan agreed to this.
Mr. Bryan pointed out that the language should be taken out of the
private street ordinance and put in his presentation.
V/M Massaro said the City should go one step further --that alternate
surfaces may have to be replaced; it is going to have to be very clear.
Page 5, Paragraph 8) - All they have asked for here is that in the
perimeter area they be allowed to have some latitude with regard to
berming, etc. They are proposing that parking and building set -backs
be greater along the major roads than they would necessarily be within
the parcels.
C/W Kelch indicated that there should be a maintenance agreement on any-
thing they do along these lines and Mr. Bryan agreed.
Page 5, Paragraph 9) - They have attached an exhibit that goes into great
detail to discuss separations; they might consider having some little
drawing exhibits to show how the set -backs are computed.
C/M Disraelly indicated that they are picking up the extra 10'; R3U says
30' and they are now indicating 401.
V/M Massaro stated that the City will have to take a good hard look at
the set -backs.
Mr. Bryan stated that this is the zoning that we all inherited from the
County in 1972 and it allows multiple structures and the 1976 order allows
multiple structures --they are all going to be treated as multiple family
R4A.
-12-- February 3, 1981
/pe
Mr. Cross stated that they will have to develop under the R4A code.
C/M Disraelly said that Mr. Bryan indicated earlier that where it is
zoned R3U, they are going to build under 11.75.
Mr. Bryan stated that they will build the same multi -family product
and that he will diagram this at a later date.
Page 5, Paragraph 10) - In negotiations and discussions with Wood-
mont, they only took 35% of the land area of Cypress Commons. They
prepared a formula that determined how much credit based upon the
dedications each person would receive--.002 acres per person. They
came up with $95.00 per unit that they would pay for local parks on
each and every unit that was approved; regional parks were not
addressed. Mr. Bryan is suggesting to Council,on the same mathematical
basis, receive credit, and in addition to that they would provide at
the rate of three acres per 1000, local parks that would be privately
owned that would occur on each and every tract, so each one of the
beige color tracts that appear on the map, would have an on -site
recreational facility, known as either a Type 1 or Type 2, one being
larger than the other and will be called pocket parks. In addition to
that, tract 34 will be devoted to park and recreation.
C/M Disraelly asked if he expected to receive credit for the pocket
parks? Mr. Bryan said, "No, other than is in this document and they
would proceed with future site plans based upon this. This would be
a requirement as part of the fulfillment of the local park requirement.
Woodmont had a private club that they requested certain credits for --
here with the purchase of the dwelling unit, the individual would be
entitled to those facilities."
C/M Disraelly asked if he would get credit on these pocket parks?
Mr. Bryan said that is what they are proposing.
V/M Massaro indicated that the City doesn't give credit for any
recreational facilities at this time.
Mr. Bryan said basically so far two things have been covered that
are applicable to local park considerations for credit---#1 is the
previous land dedications, #2 is the provision of on -site private
facilities that will be within the tract plus the major 15.7 acre
site which will be for the use of all of the residents, and #3 would
be a payment of some per unit dollar fee that would be paid with each
parcel to be approved and the time of payment of that is the other
item to be discussed today in the context of local parks. They are
suggesting that it would be paid at the time of Certificate of Occupancy.
C/M Disraelly asked if that was why he left a blank where site approval
was written in by C/M Disraelly?
Mr. Bryan replied., "Yes, site plan approval just doesn't work -no
demand is crewed."
(Tape C/M Disraelly asked if he was
side Occupancy, as he is not going
#5) time.
talking about the first Certificate of
to complete all ten buildings at one
Mr. Bryan said it would be done on a Certificate of Occupancy to Certi-
ficate of Occupancy basis.
C/M Disraelly stated that the first occupant would still need a full
pool, not part of one.
V/M Massaro asked why his project was different than any other project
in the City?
-13- February 3, 1981
/pe
Mr. Bryan indicated that they are different from Woodmont because
they are providing on -site recreational facilities on each and every
tract and they are not charging for a clubhouse; after each tract
is completed, that particular recreational facility would have been
constructed. At the time they receive Certificate of Occupancy for
50% of the units, that particular recreation facility would have
been constructed. Beyond that, they are talking about some cash
payment that completes the package of local park requirements. They
are only suggesting that the additional payment be made at the time
of Certificate of Occupancy.
C/M Disraelly said, if we agree, then it's the first CO for that
tract that you pay all the fees, as the bookkeeping problem would
be avoided.
C/M Disraelly said on line 5, and/or should be eliminated, and Mr.
Bryan asked if just "and" should be eliminated in two instances.
V/M Massaro said she would not accept any part of that last line.
Mr. Bryan went on to say that there will be three considerations for
local parks ---there will be certain credits given for parks that have
been previously dedicated that these people will have access to.
There are three things that enter into the final solution of local
parks; there is a local park requirement that this City has on the
books, there is a court order, and there is a County Regulation --they
are trying to blend all of these things together:
1. Some credit will be given for lands previously dedicated
to which these people will be entitled --they will be able
to use these facilities.
2. F & R will develop at the rate of 3 acres per 1000 private
on -site facilities.
3. Payment of a per unit fee at a given point of time during
the process of developing each and every tract.
Page 6, Paragraph 11) - Mr. Bryan said that Lennar simply agrees to
5% retention. C M Disraelly suggested on line 1 that it should read
"shall" instead of "may". Mr. Bryan agreed.
Mr. Bryan mentioned that it might be due to a shape of a parcel, it
might be more appropriate to take retention on one tract than another.
V/M Massaro stated that the City is not going to allow this; we want
holding areas around all tracts,
Mr. Bryan explained that Lennar has spent $25,000.00 having a drainage
analysis done. They have determined that the first thing to do is
analyze how many linear feet of shore line Lennar has for their
parcels because those, fortunately, with the exception of two tracts,
everything abuts an existing waterway; in most cases the property has
not been excavated to property line for which they will receive no
credits. He said ..p elittle tract only has 150' of shore line --if he
took his standard 25' off of that tract, that would not be 5%, but if
took his 25' from another tract with a tremendous amount of shoreline,
then it would be a lot more than 5%. They are suggesting further that
it may not always be 25', it may be 10' in one place and 50' in another
area, to create a more interesting shoreline. He indicated that this
was a pretty uninteresting, unimaginative piece of property as it
existed.
V/M Massaro said the City didn't want to destroy his ability to improve
their property; the City will try to cooperate and we are flexible
provided retention is spread over an area that serves everybody.
Page 7, Paragraph 13) - The site plan ordinance never anticipated these
large developments. He pointed out on the map that building would take
-14- February 3, 1981
/pe
place in a logical sequence with each subsequent tract. The site plan
and the plat and the engineering would be for everything, but they
would be drawn in such a manner as to show the various phases so that
you wouldn't want to have ten million dollars in bonds.
V/M Massaro indicated that in the past the City has refused to approve
a site plan for more than a phase; everything within that phase has to
be independent and self --contained and then you can hook onto it.
Mr. Bryan stated that this is contrary to what was approved for Tract
74 and 75 and that is exactly why he wanted it in the document. He
feels that phasing should be explained thoroughly.
Mr. Charles Jacobson mentioned that as you get into selling and market-
ing a large tract, you almost have to know where you are going to be
at the very end. They can't be built all in one week; it must come in
stages. The people must be told what they can expect.
V/M Massaro said, where we might see a possibility of some kind of
changes to our ordinances or to our fees, would be the fact that building
might take place over a period of 4 to 5 years to complete the project.
Mr. Bryan stated that if the developer knew the master plan would be
approved, there would be no problem.
C/M Disraelly asked if Mr. Bryan was addressing tract by tract and not
the whole thing? Mr. Bryan, indicated that this was correct.
V/M Massaro indicated that they have to make recommendations to Council
before the workshop and all of this will be reviewed.
51. Motorcycle Lease Agreement with Earl John Tefft - Temp. Reso. #1838 -
Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by
consent. Adopted from 2/3/81 to
2/3/82.
RESOLUTION NO. R -- o(-a& PASSED
C/M Disraelly MOVED agendizing the motorcycle lease with Earl Tefft,
Temp. Reso. #1838.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly MOVED adoption of temporary motorcycle lease with Earl
John Tefft for a period of one year to be determined by the City Attorney.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
29. Woodmont Plaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Landscape Plan
c) Plat - Temp Reso. #1787
d) Water and Sewer Agreement
(located on Northease corner of McNab Road and N.W. 80th Avenue)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a)Approved subject to
conditions.b)Approved with Stipulation.
c)Approved.d) Approved for 2.5 ERC's. RESOLUTION NO.R PASSED
C/M Disraelly MOVED to re--agendize and remove from table, Item 29 Wood -
Mont Plaza for discussion and possible action on Site Plan, Landscape
Plan, Plat and Water and Sewer Agreement.
-15-
February 3, 1981
/pe
J
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
Ms. Laura Stuurmans stated that she has verified in the Engineering
Department that the City has received the money under the Water and
Sewer Developers Agreement, the drainage improvement money and the
on -site drainage money.
a) C/M Disraelly MOVED the acceptance of the Site Plan for Woodmont Plaza,
File No. 80-0149 providing that the bullnoses on 80th Avenue be extended
at least 6' on the west side of the median, curbing on McNab Road beyond
the bullnose extend eastward to approximately the entry on McNab Road,
parking lot lights on the north of the Plaza have shields on them on the
north side to prevent the lights from shining into Academy Hill and that
all drainage on 80th Avenue & McNab Road adjacent to the property will
have positive drainage connected to the entire system on the property.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
b) C/M Disraelly said the Landscape Plan has been approved and reviewed by
the Beautification Committee on November 3, 1980 with the stipulation
that the live oak tree adjacent to McNab Road on the southeast corner
should be 10' instead of 8' in height, since it is adjacent to the
right-of-way and he MOVED with that change that the Landscape Plan be
approved.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly read Temp. Reso. #1787 by title.
c) C/M Disraelly MOVED the approval of Temporary Resolution #1787 approving
that plat.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
d) C/M Disraelly said the fees for the Water and Sewer Agreement for the
2.5 ERC's required for the project having been paid, he MOVED the
approval of Water and Sewer Developers Agreement and that the develop-
ment review requirements have been met.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOUPNED BY VICE -MAYOR MASSARO AT :15 A.M.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ J , or $L3.qi�'-_
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.
-16- February 3, 1981
/pe
APPROVEP JBY
CITY COUNCIL ON /9 8/