Loading...
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/