HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-19 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
March 18, 1980
CITY OF TAMARAC
.CITY COUNCIL.
NOTICE OF RECONVENED REGULAR MEETING
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the City Council will hold a
Reconvened Regular Meeting on March 19, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., in the
West Conference Roan, Second Floor, at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th
Avenue.
it.
mb/tz
The balance of the items to be discussed are:
Item #
1. Status Report - Operations - Tamarac Utilities West.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANNOUNCFM= OF A
DATE FOR LIFTING THE WATER & SEWER MORATORIUM.
2. Developers Agreements
3. Comprehensive Regulations - Water and Sewer Utilities -
Temp. Ord. #726.
16. Model/Sales Administrative Facilities - Temp. Ord. #718.
26. Sabal Palm Townhouses - Discussion and Possible Action on:
a) Revised Site Plan - for sloped banks at lake
b) Sewer Developers Agreement
27. Spring Lake I. Discussion and Possible Action on:
a) Hook-up to Westwood 5 drainage outfall
b) Sec. 23 and 23A augmentation as it relates to
Spring Lake I.
Council may consider such other business as may come before
All interested citizens are invited to attend.
r
Marilyn Bertholf�
City Clerk '"�
�► J
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 19, 1980
(Reconvened from 3/12, 3/13 and 3/18/80)
CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Mayor Massaro called the Reconvened City Council Meeting
to order on Wednesday, March 19, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., in the West Conference
Room of the City Hall.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Irving M. Disraelly
Councilwoman Marjorie Kelch
Councilman Irving Zemel
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Edward A. Gross
City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken
Ass't. City Clerk, Carol Evans
ABSENT & EXCUSED: Mayor Walter W. Falck
V/M Massaro reviewed the items to be discussed this day, and did request that
Item #27, Spring Lake I, be tabled,because it was not ready for presentation.
TAMARAC UTILITIES - WEST
1. Status ReRort -- Operations - Discussion and possible action.on announce-
ment of a date for lifting the Water & Sewer Moratorium.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Effective 3/19/80; with
daily report to be submitted by City Manager
on progress of infiltration. (See page 5)
Mr. Gross indicated that the 3/18/80 flow to the plant amounted to 4.25 mil.
gallons, with an attempt to reduce it to 4,000,000 gallons, upon comple-
tion of the work in Section 23. He also noted that approximately $10,000.00
was expended to -date, from the $52,000.00 allowed by the City. He further
felt that the moratorium could be lifted, regardless of the fact that the
connection has not been finalized with the County.
Mr. Keating noted that his last conversation with Mr.Wohlfarth resulted in
obtaining information that it would be three weeks before the lines are
tested..
Mr. Birken advised that by not flowing into the County, and the moratorium
is lifted, then the City would not pay treatment or stand-by costs, until
the inter -connection has been physically made; especially if the infiltra-
tion problems are solved.
Mr. Keating said the cost per 1,000 gallons into the County was 58�; with
the cost through the City's sewage plant involving between 45� and 60G,
which would depend on different operations and equipment. He further added
that the City's operational cost will not be reduced, once transmitted to
the County, as the only savings will involve chemicals.
Mr. Gross said they would like to go through the system prior to County
hook-up, with every effort being made to check those areas very carefully.
He felt that some definite information would be presented by him, on
Monday, March 24th.
C/M Disraelly felt that Comprehensive Regulations should be discussed
prior to approval of the lifting of the moratorium, to which the City
Attorney indicated that if there were some problems with the regulations
this day, and action is not taken, the lifting of the moratorium could
still be accomplished without the Developers' Agreements.
V/M Massaro said that Lon Rubin of Concord Village, still has a problem,
and was eager to come in with his agreement. She would like to see Council
move forward, because it was important to complete the regulations.
C/W Kelch stated that she was in accord with the lifting of the moratorium.
3. Comprehensive Regulations - Water and Sewer Utilities - Temp. Ord.#726 -
Relating to rates, service, new development, etc. Discussion and possible
action. Second Reading. (Public Hearing held February 27, 1980).
-1- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted as amended,
on 2nd and final reading.
ORDINANCE NO. � - 3.Sr PASSED.
D D
Mr. Birken said that Council received a marked -up copy of Temp. Ord. #726,
which included items they had questioned. He indicated a recommendation of
- � _g 51, page 23, the fol-
lowing language to be included, "Contribution charges may not be used to
pay for replacement of existing facilities, the cost of which would neces-
sarily have had to be borne by existing customers of the system whether
or not the party paying the contribution charge had become a part of the
system. The monies are not to be treated as revenue to the utility".
The City Attorney indicated a clarification addition, in Section 61,
page 27, "Specific authority is hereby granted to codify this ordinance
as Chapter 27 of the City Code". He said this involved the existing water
and sewer regulations generally for the east side.
Mr. Birken noted the following sentence was to be added to Section 63;
"Specifically repealed is Chapter 27 of the Code Code which set forth
certain water and sewer regulations".
C/W Kelch discussed 2.4 - Point of Delivery, and felt she was concerned
with the meter replacing program. She said that an attempt was being
made to make the point of delivery and reponsibility of the homeowner
from the property line to their home. C/W Kelch indicated that pipe
leaks do occur, and felt that the people could not control it for shut-
off. She also felt that she could not approve this ordinance, unless
verbiage was added, for such protection, and responsibility of repair.
Mr. Gross noted that the shut-off valve should be accessible to everyone.
V/M Massaro said that the point of responsibility remains at the property
line, and felt that the meter should be placed there, but it was determined
that there were some instances where this could not be accomplished.
Mr. Birken said there was a question of responsibility for repairs and
breaks, also the question of responsibility for the flow. He said that
in the regulations, the customers responsibility for flow begins at the
meter; which is enumerated on page 8, Section 24, in Meters.
Mr. Gross explained that at the time the meter is changed from the house
to the property line, the shut-off valve would be in the area. He felt
that C/W Kelch was concerned with a leak on the City's side of the meter,
and, in order to stop such flow of water, the main shut-off valve for the
street, has to be turned off. But, because the individual owner is re-
quired to repair the line from the street to the house, they may not be
able to obtain adequate repair quickly. Mr. Gross also stated that shutting
the water for the entire area, would cause a problem, and consideration
should be given for the City to do the repair, and then charge it to the
individual, until that period of time has elapsed, when all the meters
are put on the streets.
C/W Kelch concurred with the thoughts expressed by Mr. Gross.
C/M Zemel inquired as to what has been previously occurring when Tamarac
Utilities was a private company, and a line broke in the center of the
line.
V/M Massaro explained that Tamarac Utilities was a developer -owned utility,
from its inception, and assumed responsibilities, because they were inter-
ested in selling homes. She said that the Utility later decided it was
not their liability or responsibility, and felt that the individuals would
pay for repairs on the property side of the property line.
C/M Zemel expressed the same fears as C/W Kelch, which involved extra
expense for the citizens of Tamarac, and felt that it would be absorbed
if it were part of the utility rates.
C/W Kelch did admit that the responsibility for the pipes and the repair,
was the obligation of the homeowner, but requested additional language for
Tape the people who required assistance.
Side
#2 V/M Massaro did concur that it should be the responsibility of the utility
to shut off the water, when a break is involved. She also said that a
program would be required for the location and markings of the various
shut -offs being referenced.
-2- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
r
Mr. Birken said if
are involved, then
charged for this.
the health, safety and welfare of the residents
repairs can be made and the residents would be
C/W Kelch concurred with the program, but requested assurance as to
location of shut-off valves, when a leak is involved.
Mr. Birken
this area;
Section 10:
advised that there were two alternatives to be applied in
with the following paragraph determined to be added to
Type and Maintenance, on gage 4;
"When there are leaks in water or sewer lines on private
property which, in the discretion of the City Manager or
his designated representative, necessitate emergency repairs,
the repairs may be made by the City at the cost of the property
owner. Repairs shall be limited to water and sewer lines and
the City shall not be responsible for lawns or vegetation. The
Consumer shall be billed by the City for the actual cost of
repair plus reasonable administrative costs. Failure to make
payment within thirty (30)days of the date of billing shall
entitle the City to place in the Public Records of Broward County
a lien on the property in the amount billed. Said lien may be
foreclosed by the City in the same manner as provided in the
Mechanics Lien Law of the State of Florida".
C/W Kelch felt that this language puts the responsibility on the home-
owner for his share, but it also permits an area of responsibility in
the utility, for initiating something that only they can do, as an
emergency shut-off of a valve. She additionally requested that line 7,
apge�4, should state "fixtures in repair and promptly arrange for the
stoppage of all leaks on Consumer's", etc.
C/M Disraelly recommended that page 6, line 34, should read "If the
service bill or other charge is not paid, within fourteen (14) calendar
days after the date rendered, (deleting the words as set forth above)
the City will mail a notice to the party posting the deposit."'(deleti.ng
the words to the consumer). He noted corrections on page 7, Line 7, with
the sentence reading "The City Manager or his designated representative
is authorized to meet with any, etc."
He indicated that on page 12, line 31, in Section 36, should be applicable
to the "East utility".
In response to C/M Disraelly's question of the new Section 30: Private
Fire Service Connection, the City Engineer stated that if additional flow
was required for fire protection, then a separate water line could be
put in for the purpose of fire protection. He also said that it was in
addition to the required fire plugs, with the necessity of the installa-
tion of a detector check, which is a metering device on the line, and
Tape monitors the use of the line -for water.
Side
#3 C/M Disraelly noted a grammatical addition on page 26, line 26, Section
58: Developer Agreements Required, after the words City Council, "the"
owner was to be inserted.
C/W Kelch requested a language change on _ 1• Adjustment
of Bills, in the last sentence; However there time
e limitation
with respect to undercharges which can be established by the City". Also,
in the same paragraph, lines 18 and 19, the following language was recom-
mended, "Any credit to the Consumer shall be calculated and credited for
a period not to exceed three months."
C/M Disraelly suggested that Section 33: Customers Outside of City Limits,
on page 12, should read; "Customers outside of the corporate limits of the
City receiving service shall, in addition to the rates set, pay a surcharge
of no less than twenty-five (25%) percent of the bill before the addition
of the surcharge, or such greater amount authorized by General Law and
established by Resolution of the City Council".
C/M Zemel suggested the following changes in the ordinance:
Page 2 - line 19 - the word should to be
- line 21 -- after Applications, it
- line 22 - that there "shall be",
- line 28 - Service "shall be" in
_3-
changed "to "shall",
should be 'fehall be", and not are,
in place of is,
place of is,
3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
i
Page 2 -
Page 3 -
Page 5 -
Page 8 -
Page 10-
Page 11-
Page 15-
Page 18-
Page 19-
Page 22-
22-
Page 25--
Page 26-
Page 27-
line
30 -
agreement "shall be" binding, in place of are,
line
11 -
meter and "shall" not be, in place of may,
line
6 -
Bills "shall be" due, in place of are,
line
11 --
whatsoever "shall be", in place of are to,
line
14 --
"shall not", in place of will not,
line
23
- water "shall" have a water meter, instead of must,
line
32
- charges "shall" have been paid, instead of must,
line
20
- exception "that in the event that" instead of case,
line
1
- justify the "City's disconnection of said pipe or
pipes, or stoppage of the flow of water through same"
line
27
- deletion of a duplication of verbiage "which may
constitute"
line
22
- shall be served "by return -receipt -requested" certified,
line
30
- by return -receipt -requested certified,
line
2
- Developer's Agreement which City "shall" instead of will,
line
31 --
City declares that it "shall" in place of will,
line
13
- Such test "shall be" instead of will,
line
32
- benefit of inspection "shall" instead of will,
line
26
- approval by the "City Council, the" owner, builder,
line
10 --
may apply "to the Council" for the extension
It was further noted that pace_ 22, line 2, should also include "the"
developer at the end of the sentence.
The City Attorney also added that some operational problems were not
for eseen,at the time the regulations were prepared for calculation of
ERC's for commercial operations. He said there was essentially a mathe-
matical problem in determining standards of ERC's that a commercial enter-
prise required. He felt there was apparently more than one standard
promulgated, and at the time that the City Engineer presents the formula
suitable to him, then an amendment to the ordinance would be accomplished,
with insertion of new language in Section 51.
EDITOR'S NOTE: CHANGES, DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS WERE NOTED ABOVE, AS
RETYPED ON THE 3/19/80 REVISED ORDINANCE.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that Temp. Ord. #726, an ordinance establishing
Comprehensive Regulations, regarding all water and sewer utilities owned
and operated by the City, as amended this date, plus changes inserted by
the City Attorney, be adopted on second and final reading, and C/W Kelch
SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
Tape Mr. Birken thanked the Council for their input, and felt that all the
Side water and sewer regulations were established for proper usage.
#4
Temp. Reso. #1550 - Establishing Rates and Charges for customers west
of State Road 7 - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted, as amended. RESOLUTION NO.R- gQ -e ! PASSED.
Vice -Mayor Massaro read Temp.Reso. #1550.
V/M Massaro advised that changes commence with Para."J", as to the
deposit on the 5/8" meter being altered to $55.00, with the old one
being in the amount of $40.00. She said the other three would remain
the same, but there was a difference in the formula for multi -family,
with the 2.203 having been left out. The Vice -Mayor said this formula
is now accurate and has been checked in every direction, which mathematical
figures will prove itself. It was recommended that the area under Deposit
for multi -family, should read "No. of Units x service availability x
3.x2.203.
She additionally stated that Item (2) Commercial was a new item, which
was not previously considered, and is based on actual consumption, and
did require an increase in the deposits. The Vice -Mayor said that the
meter size charge would remain the same.
C/M Disraelly said that paragraph "N" was new, and encompassed everything
that was included in the ordinance, which is being established by resolu-
tion.
Mr. Birken indicated that a change could be made in Para. "N", with the
following language; "Customers outside of the corporate limits of the
--4- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
City receiving service shall, in addition to the rates set, pay a sur-
charge of 250."
C/M Disraelly said that a request was received from the Presidents' Counci
that at the time the rates are established, that they be permitted to sub-
mit input in this area.
V/M Massaro felt this involved the irrigation meters that were unfinished,
but said the Presidents' Council were presently pleased that the rates
have been established by resolution.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that Temp. Reso. #1550 establishing the rates for
Utility West be adopted, and C/M Zemel SECONDED, noting that the title mus
have an "H" inserted in the word ESTABLISHING.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
Temp. Reso. #1551 - Establishing Rates and Charges for customers East
of State Road 7 - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted, as amended.
V/M Massaro read Temp. Reso. #1551.
RESOLUTION NO.R- 00'Q- OQ� PASSED
Mr. Birken indicated that this resolution was essentially the same,
except that it was to be considered for the customers east of State Road
7, with the deposit fees and rates being different.
C/M Zemel indicated that Para. "N", on the second page, should read;
"Customers outside of the corporate limits of the City receiving service
shall, in addition to the rates set, pay a surcharge of 25%".
Mr. Birken noted that there were no figures for Para. "I", and felt they
should be the same as Temp. Reso. #1550, with $350.00/Unit for Water,
and $550.00/Unit for Wastewater.
V/M Massaro recommended that Para. "J" minimum deposit be changed to
$55.00 on the 5/8 inch meter, with the item Over 2 inches, being By
Agreement, for Commercial charges and deposit. Also, Items 1, Residential
and 2, Commercial, being identical to Temp. Reso. #1550.
C/M Disraelly MOVED for the adoption of Temp. Reso. #1551, as amended,
and corrected, and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
1. Status Report - Operations -- Discussion and possible action on announce -
of a date for lifting the Water & Sewer Moratorium - Tamarac Utilities
West.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Moratorium to be lifted, effective
immediately, with submission of daily reports on infiltra-
tion corrections, by the City Manager. (See page 1)
C/M Disraelly inquired whether the lifting of the moratorium could be
based on the Developers' Agreements that have been proposed to -date, to
which Mr.Bi.rken.responded that with the monies received from HLR and Sabal
Palm Townhouses,plus other monies received, the City could handle the fore-
seeable construction needed in the system; and the moratorium could be
opened to everyone.
Mr. Birken said that a memo was sent to Council, approximately one week
previous, which listed the projects that have submitted site plans; and
added that he was pleased with the figures.
C/M Disraelly said that based on establishment of regulations, he MOVED
for the lifting of the moratorium, to be effective immediately; which
moratorium had been imposed upon the developers, because of the presumed
inability to provide sufficient water and sewer service; being in the
capacity of the Tamarac Utilities West operation to presently perform
both services. C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Zemel - Aye, but felt that he did not have adequate
information.
C/M Disraelly -- Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye 3/19/80
-5- Recon. 3/18/80
Mr. Gross indicated that the. City is ready for connection with the
County, which lines have to be inspected by them, and until that
approval has been given, there wi'll be no cost to the City.
V/M Massaro requested that a report be given to the Mayor, but did expect
that a report of daily activities on the infiltration work be submitted
by the City Manager.
C/M Disraelly requested to be excused, because of a prior commitment.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
26.Sabal Palm Townhouses - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revised Site Plan - for sloped banks at lake.
b) Sewer Developers' Agreement.
';YNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Approved with conditions,
and b) Approved as amended.
a) V/M Massaro said that the retention area should be supplied with
Phase 1.
Leo Schwartzberg of Robert H. Miller & Associates, Consulting Engi-
neers, advised that the City Engineer was given amended engineering
drawings approximately two weeks previous. These drawings, he said,
indicated the construction of the retention area in Phase 1. He
also noted that the Phase 1 drawings were handled by MichaelShiff.
Mr. Keating, the City Engineer, said the original approval was for
an overall site plan change, with engineering for the first phase
coming in, and noting all the changes that are included. He also
added that engineering for the entire project has been approved, with
changes being submitted for Phase 1 only, as part of the retention
area.
V/M Massaro also recalled that the boat deck was to be removed, and
the retention area to be constructed, together with the recreation
area, which was all of the S-1 parcel. This, she said, was to be
built with Phase 1. She further added that as relates to the dumpster,
Ordinance 79-67 required a walk-in door, and compliance would be neces-
sary.
The Vice -Mayor inquired whether the $130.00 per acre, for the entire
parcel, has been paid, based on all phases being approved, and re-
lating to the drainage improvements. It was indicated, she said, that
10.66 acres were involved, which totalled $1,385.80. She requested
submission of the estimated costs by the City Engineer, in order to
determine what the $5,040.00 was paid for.
V/M Massaro discussed an estimated figure for recreation, which would
be rezoned in the future; with a refund of $12,750.00. She additional-
ly stated that Council consider the fact that permission was being
granted for removal of the sea-walls, with slopes to be substituted;
with removal of the clause from the record. The Vice -Mayor also
said that additional cost will be involved, because of weed -killers,
fertilizers, and the cleaning of the canal, due to slopes. The Vice -
Mayor recommended that the particular portion of the old motion be
eliminated.
C/W Kelch confirmed the fact that the formula and computation for
the slopes have been approved by the City Attorney and the City
Engineer, to which V/M Massaro replied in the affirmative.
C/M Zemel referred to a memo dated 3/18/80, from the City Attorney,
indicating that a sentence should be added; "final engineering plans
must be approved for each phase of construction", to which Mr. Birken
said this would be added.
"ape Mr. Keating advised that the $5,040.00 was to make up the deficiency
;ide in the retention area requirements of Ordinance 79-47, and does not
5
-6- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
� � r
include $130.00 per acre.
V/M Massaro indicated that the amount of $1,385.80 for 10.66 acres must
be paid.
Michael Brinkley, the Attorney for the petitioner, said if this
amount has not been paid, it would be taken care of, for the desig-
nated $1,385.80. He also noted that at the time the original site
plan was approved, it was subject to delivery of a check.
Mr. Al Capella, the Project Manager - V.P., said that the fees to -date
exceeded $150,000, and felt that because they cannot downgrade particu-
lar areas,they. were very upset. But, he said they would like to leave
the meeting with everything having been resolved, and could give his
personal check.
Mr. Brinkley said that the $63,000.00 recreation contribution was
made on the basis of there being no recreational amenities in this
project. He felt that the possibility of recovering a portion of
these monies, was as a result of a fairly thorough negotiation during
a City Council meeting. Mr. Brinkley further added that Council did
recognize the expense for recreational amenities, without any credit,
and they were given the opportunity to down --zone this. Such require-
ment, he said, involved payment of $63,000.00, rather than $51,000.00,
and was a technicality.
He said that it was safer to have a slope bank,for filtering and clean-
ing the water,rather than a flat seawall, especially in a community
where there were young children. From an aesthetic standpoint, he
said, the appearance would be improved. Mr. Brinkley felt that it
was unfair for Council to increase the cost of the project for an
unrelated matter.
V/M Massaro indicated that she originally made the motion, because
it was understood that the rezoning would be accomplished, and the
credit would be given. But, she felt that the seawall was to be
installed, and would avoid polluting the water, and causing the City
additional expense, in the maintenance of the canals. She further
stated that when a project is being phased, only one phase should
be approved at this time, and not the entire plan.
The Vice --Mayor said that this was the first request that she made
from Mike Shiff; that the rezoning would not be considered.
C/W Kelch asked that the language be provided by the City Attorney,
as to all the phases discussed.
Mr. Birken said that the motion would be to approve the revised site
plan, stamped "Received by the City of Tamarac",on March 6, 1980,
subject to the following:
1. Elimination of the boat dock shown on the revised site plan.
2. Removal of the seawall, which is shown as being removed on
the site plan.
3. That the dumpster, as shown on the site plan, be in compliance
with Ordinance #79-67.
4. That each phase of construction is to have the engineering ap-
proved by the City Engineer, before a permit is granted for
additional phases.
5. That the entire retention is to be constructed at the time of
construction of Phase 1.
6. That the provision of the motion of the City Council, dated
12/26/79, pertaining to the approval of the initial site plan,
or the revitalization of the initial site plan, which provided
for a maximum of $12,750.00 refund, if the entire project is
rezoned within one year to R-3U, except the S-1 zoned areas;
be eliminated.
7. That there be additional payment of $1,385.80, which is required
for drainage purposes, under City regulations, and has been in
effect at all times in question. If any portion of this action
is stricken, the entire approval is deemed null and void, as
of this days motion.
C/W Kelch SO MOVED.
-7--
3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
I
V/M Massaro relinquished the gavel to C/M Zemel, and SECONDED THE
MOTION.
V/M Massaro inquired as to whether the motion was acceptable to
the developer, to which Mr. Brinkley and Mr. Capella both replied
in the affirmative.
V/M Massaro requested the City Attorney to investigate whether two
out of three votes was adequate, prior to the vote. At that time,
C/W Kelch WITHDREW HER MOTION, and V/M Massaro WITHDREW HER SECOND.
Mr. Birken reviewed the Code, as to whether the vote would be con-
sidered adequate, and related to City Council meetings, but felt
that he would have to pull the Statute, and refer to the resolution.
The gavel was returned to V/M Massaro at this time.
C/W Kelch REINSTATED THE MOTION, and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
V/M Massaro again inquired as to whether Mr. Brinkley and Mr.Capella
were accepting the motion, to which they concurred.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
b) Mr. Birken indicated that a memo was distributed to Council on
3/18/80, because the changes were not typed, and the documents were
not executed until this morning.
He said the following language was to be inserted in Para. III -A 3),
on page 5; which provides that the City further covenants and
agrees with the developer, as follows:
"City shall furnish sewage collection services, as, and when available,
within the City system, upon approval from the regulatory agencies.
If such services are not furnished, the City will refund a pro-rata
portion of the contribution charges, provided for in Para. I-K above,
for the units, that such sewage collection services are not made
available, and the guaranteed revenues provided for in Exhibit "C",
shall abate as to any unit for which such sewage collection services
are not made available".
He interpreted this verbiage to mean that if there is a contract for
100 units, but only 50 can be accommodated, then there would be a
refund for the difference. Mr. Birken requested that Exhibit "B"
be changed subsequent to execution, and the number of units be listed.
He also said there was an executed agreement, and a check in the
amount of $54,450.00, plus $1,385.80.
C/W Kelch MOVED that the Developers' Agreement entered into between
Sabal Palm Townhouses, and the City of Tamarac, as augmented by
language put into the record by the City Attorney, be approved, and
C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Zemel - Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye
MEETING WAS RECESSED FOR LUNCH TO 2:00 P.M.
MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER, ROLL CALL TAKEN.
PRESENT: V/M Helen Massaro
Councilwoman Marjorie Kelch
Councilman Irving Zemel
LEGAL AFFAIRS
15. Business Uses -- Special Excejtions - Temp. Ord. #710 - Amending Code
Chapter 28 by requiring all restaurants, etc. in-B-1 Zoning Districts
to obtain special exceptions. Discussion and possible action. First
Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: No action taken- Item
previously tabled to 3/26/80.
no
3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
I
L _J
V/M Massaro indicated that action would not be taken on this item today.
She said that the Planning Commission recommended that due to the many
requests for fast foods in shopping centers, that not only B-1 be required
by special exception, but consideration be given to B-2 and B-3. The
Vice -Mayor also stated that this item will be included in the next
agenda, and requested that Council consider this recommendation.
C/W Kelch MOVED to table to the next regular meeting, and C/M Zemel
SECONDED, with a request that the City Clerk furnish him with all the
back --up material concerning this item.
It was noted by the Secretary that this item was previously tabled at
the March 12th meeting, to March 26, 1980.
C/W Kelch then WITHDREW HER MOTION, and C/M Zemel WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
27. Spring Lake I - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Hook-up to Westwood 5 drainage outfall.
b) Section 23 and 23A augmentation as it relates to Spring Lake I.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled to the
next regular meeting of 3/26/80.
V/M Massaro requested that this item be tabled to the next regular
meeting.
C/M Zemel MOVED to table the item to 3/26/80, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
16. Model/Sales/Administrative Facilities -- Temp. Ord. #718 - Amending Code
Section 28-216 by permitting these facilities for one residential
project to be located at the site of another project. Discussion and
possible action. First Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on 1st Reading,
as amended
V/M Massaro said that the request made by the developer, Mr. Toll, was
valid, and should be included in the ordinance. She also stated that
with site plan approval, the developers could commence selling, which
is a requirement prior to a mortgage commitment and construction.
Mr. Birken responded to a question by C/M Zemel, by stating that the
City will be protected, and there was no detriment involved to the City,
if Council were to permit such usage..
C/W Kelch said that when she originally proposed this ordinance, which
was followed -up by C/M Disraelly, she questioned whether language could
be included as to models not being located close to residences, with
access, which would not cause inconvenience. She also requested that
a rescinding provision be included, if an inconvenience or trespass
occurred.
Mr. Birken indicated that a provision for termination of cessation, on
page 3, does not relate to this, but felt it could be added.
Tape C/W Kelch repeated her recommended language, at the request of the City
Side Attorney; "that the models be so located and access provided, so as to
#6 prevent inconvenience to residents of the existing development, or the
first phase, and to provide a rescinding provision, should such incon-
venience or trespass occur".
The City Attorney felt that two changes in the ordinance would be re-
quired; page 1, subsection a), a comma should be inserted at the end of
the paragraph, inserting the following language, "and the models are
located at a place where there will be minimal disruption or inconvenience
to the residents of the community, as determined by the Council in its
sole and absolute discretion".
-9- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
Mr. Birken also said that on SECTION 1, page 4_add subsection 4), as
follows; "The Council has determined that there is more than minimal
disruption or inconvenience to the existing community when models are
used at one project for another project as permitted in subsection a)
above."
The City Attorney also stated that as relates to the suggestion made
by Mr. Gene Toll, that page 2, subsection d), should be as follows;
"That the builder or developer has valid and unexpired site plan approval."
Mr. Birken also recommended that on page 3, subsection d-l)should include
the following language; "The Council has determined that there has been
a cessation of continuous construction of the project, or failure to
commence construction of the models within six months of the date of
Council approval."
C/M Disraelly was in attendance at this time.
V/M Massaro reviewed the increased fees that she recommended at a pre-
vious meeting, to be included on page 2 of the ordinance; $150.00, $300.00,
$460.00, $635.00, $875.00 and $1,150.00.
Mr. Birken suggested that the fees be instituted by resolution, to which
Council concurred. He said that page 2, subsection 3), would read as
follows; "Each application for either the original term or a renewable
term shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee based upon the size of
the proposed project in an amount determined by Resolution of the City
Council." He further indicated that the resolution would be drafted
and presented for approval, at the time of second reading of the ordinance.
C/M Disraelly advised the following language was to be added on page 2,
subsection e);"or as stated in Sec.28-216.1(a)", to which the City Attorney
stated that he would determine propriety of using 216.1(a).
Mr. Birken indicated additional recommended changes, on page 2, subsec-
tion 4), would read as follows; "Upon expiration of such permit for
temporary use,the models,sales and administrative uses shall be forth-
with terminated and the structures or buildings shall be promptly vacated
and converted to a use normally permitted in the district in which the
property is located".
The City Attorney also noted that on page 3, line 24, the word "renewal"
was to be corrected. He also stated that page 4, Line l,add "or as
specified in Section 28-216.1(a)."
Mr. Birken recommended that the additional clauses be inserted in the
title, on page 1, line 8, after the word RESIDENCES, "PROVIDING THAT
APPLICATION FEES ARE DETERMINED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL;
PROVIDING METHODS OF TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY USES;"
C/W Kelch MOVED that Temp. Ord. #718, with
pertaining to model sales, be approved on
and additions, with authorization for the
the propriety of using Section 28-216.1(a)
SECONDED the motion, as amended.
VOTE: C/W Kelch -
Aye
C/M Zemel -
Aye
C/M Disraelly -
Aye
V/M Massaro -
Aye
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:00 P.M.
reference to the City Code,
first reading, with corrections
City Attorney to determine
in the ordinance. C/M Zemel
nFIA 9% W'SNI I W 5 W
-10- 3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/
M
M
ATTEST;
' r:►�11
�.1CTTY CLERK
Thijs public document was promulgated at a cost of $l-5�„Z, or
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.
=am
Ap !! R�ft'v
a COUNCIL. t1M
3/19/80
Recon. 3/18/80
mr/