HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-11 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesIv3()F..I.I.i'JVE`31" 88 Fi-i AVENUE IAMAFi^fir:;, FV..C`Ai1)A 33321
-FELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
MAIL REPLY TO:
P.O. sox 26010 June 10, 1982
TAMARAC, E I_OR I DA 33320
N 0 T T rF'
RECONVENED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
Please be advised that there will be a Reconvened Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Tamarac, Florida, an Friday, June 11, 1982
at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue
Tamarac, Florida.
The Meeting is for the purpose of consideration of the following two items
which were tabled from the Regular Council Meeting of June 9, 1982:
3h. Ashmont/ Kings Point - F & R Builders - Discussion and possible
action on:
(1) Revised Site Plan pertaining to vehicular circulation and
reduction of parking pursuant to Stipulation #12 - Ten..
Reso. #2303.
(2) Approval of Stipulation #13 by Tem. Reso. #2286 (Agendized
by consent 6/9/82).
The Council may consider such other business as may come before it.
The Public is invited to attend.
Carol A. Evans
Assistant City Clerk
�., nt to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368:
i person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
—icil with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
e��fing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 11, 1982
(from June 9, 1982)
CALL TO ORDER: V/M Massaro called the recovened meeting to order on
Friday, June 11, 1982 at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT:
ABSENT AND EXCUSED:
ALSO PRESENT:
V/M Helen Massaro
C/M David Krantz
C/M Philip Kravitz
C/M Irving Disraelly
Mayor Walter W. Falck
City Manager, Laura,Stuurmans
City Attorney, Jon Henning
Asst. City Clerk, Carol Evans
Secretary, Norma R. Rayman
3h) ASHMONT/KINGS POINT - F & R Builders - Discussion and possible
action on:
1. Revised Site Plan pertaining to vehicular circulation and
reduction of parking pursuant to Stipulation #12 - Temp.
Reso. #2303.
2. Approval of Stipulation #13 by Temp. Reso. #2286 (Agendized
by Consent 6/8/82).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: 1) Revised RESO. NO.&-160PASSED.
Site Plan APPROVED subject to
changes. 2) APPROVED as amended. RESO. PASSED
V/M Massaro suggested that the best way to handle this item was to
go through the site plan and then the Stipulation and then go through
approvals on both.
Mr. Jim Holland of F & R Builders, said that they had been through the
site plan once before, and the most notable difference between this
site plan and the approved site plan, pursuant to Stipulation #12, is
that the concrete parking has been reduced to 1.5 parking spaces per
dwelling unit, plus one handicapped space per building and an additional
10% of the spaces have been set aside for reserved parking and provisions
have been made for their conversion to paved parking spaces, if and when
they are needed. He said there was some discussion at the last meeting
relevant to the location of the sidewalks and their crossing of canals.
C/M Disraelly pointed out that the site plan has red lines on it, he
suggested that Mr. Holland should continue with the parking discussion
before going on with the sidewalks. Mr. Holland said that the modifica-
tions that are reflected in red on the drawing are the relocation of
eight of the set --aside spaces adjacent to each building. He commented
that one group of four spaces was adjacent to Building E, and one group
of four spaces is adjacent to Building B; correspondingly, two groups
of four spaces at the extreme south end of the project were eliminated
to provide the same number of set -aside spaces. C/M Disraelly asked
about the fire hydrant at Building E. Mr. Holland replied that the
fire hydrant at Building E had been moved (on the engineering drawings)
to a point adjacent to the parking bay at the south side of Building E
to reflect seven spaces ten feet to the south and ten feet to the east.
He added that the changes will appear on the Mylar.
Mr. Holland said that the discussion at the last meeting, related to
relocating the sidewalk and its relationship to the guardrail and
the canals., The solution at which he had arrived would have the
sidewalk continuing in a straight line within the public right-of-way,
the full width of the canal, rather than to the center line of the canal.
6/11/82
-1- /nrr
A four foot chain -link fence would be erected adjacent to the sidewalk
to prevent pedestrians from experiencing some calamity, on the canal
side. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Holland to show the Council the two areas
where these would be located, one at the far top and one at the far
left bottom of the site plan. Mr. Holland pointed out that one would
be at the northeast corner of the project along Nob Hill Road and the
other at the southwest corner of the project, along N.W. 71st Place.
He explained those corrections have been made in red on the official
site plan and initialed '�vthem,reflecting their acceptance of these
changes. Further, Mr. Holland said the changes will be on the mylar
that is submitted for the Mayor's signature. Councilman Disraelly
questioned if the chain -link fence will go some feet beyond the canal
bank, Mr. Holland replied that the extent of the chain -link fence is
the extent of the guardrail. Mr. Holland said the solution offers
maximum protection to the pedestrians and doesn't hinder flow at all.
Councilman Disraelly noted that the guardrail at that point crosses
part of the sidewalk, and further it says on the sketch that the City
is required to relocate the guardrail. Mr. Holland replied that is
correct, and one of the requirements of Stipulation #9. V/M Massaro
said that only the end of the guardrail will have to be moved. C/M Dis-
raelly said that can be done in a straight line coming down into the
ground instead of .the turn. V/M Massaro said the guardrails should not
be tapered down, C/M Disraelly said they would not be done according to
the sketch. V/M Massaro said the guardrail would have to be moved before
the sidewalk was put in if it interfered with the line of the sidewalk.
C/M Disraelly questioned whether the two exhibits would become part of
the site plan. Mr. Holland replied that they would make the corrections
on the mylar and also on the engineering drawing, they become part of
the site plan.
C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Holland if he had made a decision on the acacia
trees. Mr. Holland said that the landscape plans have been submitted,
and they would like to keep the acacia trees, if at all possible. He
said they feel the problem of dirtiness is overcome- by the fact they
will have maintenance personnel on the site three times a month. C/M
Disraelly asked if that tree was in the approved list at the time it
was signed, Mr. Holland said that it was. He said it was a question
of availability rather than cost, and at the inception of the contract
they had; not been able to come up with a flowering tree as
acceptable as the acacia. C/M Disraelly suggested the Tabebuia Tree,
and pointed out that the Golden Tabebuia is the official City tree.
2) Approval of Stri ulation #13 by Temp. Reso. #2286 - (Agendized by
consent
V/M Massaro questioned words that were left out of Stipulation #12,
"Gross Service Revenues" she said those words have to be put back by
adding them into Stipulation #13, or they have to remove the percentage
of the franchise if they wish to leave it open,
Mr. Bob Haber, F & R Builders, said he did not think it was a problem.
He said their purpose is to change Stipulation #13 to include whatever
enigma is presented by the language. V/M Massaro explained the wording
was somehow left out of Stipulation #12 in the typing. Jon Henning
explained the misunderstanding was on the definition of"Gross Service
Revenues",it was"5% of the Gross Service Revenues" in the prior draft,
the final draft only said "not to exceed 5V on page 4 of Stipulation
#12. Mr. Henning explained that Council is now asking for clarification
of what the 5% fee is 5% of and whether or not there is a distinction
or a significance in the fact that "Gross Service Revenues" was changed.
Mr. Haber stated that his recollection is that Alan Ruf, Council and
himself and F & R all realized that Stipulation #12 does not constitute
a franchise, but that the cable TV franchise should be a separate agree-
ment. Further, Mr. Haber said that Alan Ruf and he, in trying to do the
best job they could, started to define what "Gross Service Revenues"
were, and then they realized they were trying to incorporate into the
Stipulation, the Franchise Agreement. Mr. Haber stated that thev I)oth
agreed to delete "Gross Service Revenues" so that it should intentionally
be 5% of what - "of what" would be considered and defined, and agreed
upon by Council and F & R. He said it is just another item, or
provision, to be discussed and submitted to Council for agreement.
-2- 6/11/82
/nrr
V/M Massaro commented that she thought it could easily be defined
by stating that it is 5% of the Gross Revenues that are attributable
to TV service and any other service that might be on that line that
would be subject to negotiation at the time of the franchise. She said
she thought that would clarify it. V/M Massaro said F & R would probably
use those lines for other things, such as medical calls.
Mr. Haber said their concern is service; medical calls, medical security
medical alert, or services. Mr. Haber asked if they could have the
wording "5% of Gross Service Revenues, Gross Service Revenues to be
defined in: the Franchise Agreement." Mr. Haber said if they define
gross service revenues, there will be other things to define.
Mr. Henning asked if these words, "Gross Service Revenues" had a specific
definition to Mr. Haber,in the industry. Mr. Haber replied that the
emphasis is on service, and Gross Revenues are receipts or revenues
that subscribers pay for the services they receive, as distinguished
from revenues that UTA Cable Corporation might receive from the instal-
lation of its wiring and equipment, based upon a contract they would
make with F & R Builders. Separate and apart from any service being
introduced to the Community, UTA will derive revenues, he said.
Mr. Henning inquired if there would be an initial installation cost
to the homeowner, included in the Gross Service Revenues. Mr. Haber
said that is a relevant point, and would be more appropriately provided
for in the Franchise Agreement. Mr. Haber suggested for Council's
consideration,they add the words:"5% of Gross Service Revenues" "to be
defined in the Franchise Agreement", that way they do not have 5% of 'W'.
V/M Massaro said she was not sure she liked the word "service", she
suggested "Gross Revenues to be defined at time of application for the
Franchise". Mr. Holland explained they were trying to explain what
they are trying to avoid paying 5% of. He used his jeans as an example,
he said they represented Lennar Corporation. One pocket was F & R
Builders and one pocket was UTA Cable Corp. UTA enters into a contract
with F & R Builders to install the lines, etc. Lennar takes the money
out of one pocket and puts it into the other pocket'. They do not want
to pay 5% of something that they are paying to themselves, Mr. Holland
added.
V/M Massaro asked how that affected bringing the service into the apart-
ment, if a fee is charged to go from the line to the apartment. Mr.
Haber said it is revenues from subscribers, and subscribers shall not
include F & R.
Mr. Henning clarified the matter, he said if they said "5% of the Gross
Revenues derived from Subscribers" that should clear it up. He said
the word "service" can be left out if it is not clear and just say
"gross revenues derived from subscribers". V/Mayor Massaro said this
would be the fourth segment of Stipulation #13, and it would be a new
paragraph.
C/M Disraelly said that it had been presented to the Council in the
same manner as they have with the other non-exclusive franchises in
the City. C/M Disraelly continued that they do not charge the
installation of the cable from the line into the house. The City charges
for the services that the subscriber pays for. He pays for the monthly
fee, he pays for the turn -on turn-off box, and he pays for everything
the customer gets from it. The line that runs down the street is not
paid for by the individual. The same applies as with the telephone, and
it should be worked out in the same manner.
Vice Mayor Massaro stated that this has nothing to do with American
Cable, it is separate and apart. American Cable has nothing but TV.
C/M Disraelly said that any service performed, such as health related
or disaster services are services for which the consumer pays.
City Attorney Henning interjected that the aspect is more significant
than the one-time installation charge. He added that they are all
concerned about the non -TV services, such as burglar alarms, and
emergency health service. C/M Disraelly said he used the word service
-3- 6/11/82
/nrr
for anything for which the subscriber makes a payment, anything that
is included in the monthly or annual fee that is paid for. He added
that the subscriber does not pay for the installation of the lines.
C/M Disraelly questioned if they were to install lines, would they have
to pay engineering fees for the installation of those lines? He
said they could not install underground lines without paying fees for
inspection and so forth. Mr. Holland said he did not know if it was
in the City Code. V/M Massaro said American Cable doesn't pay anything.
Mr. Haber pointed out that was the ability of having a franchise and
paying the 5% of the revenue in terms of using the streets to lay the
cable. C/M Disraelly reiterated that if the cables were underground,
there should be an inspection fee which would be separate and apart.
Mr. Henning stated that if this was what Council desired to do, he was
proposing that in Stipulation #13, after Paragraph 5, they have a new
paragraph 6 and then the subsequent paragraphs will be numbered
consecutively. New Paragraph 6, there will be some introductory
language referring to Sub Paragraph 4-a) of Stipulation #12, the
language: "the 5% referred to in Sub Paragraph 4-a) of Stipulation #12
is further defined to be 5% of the Gross Revenues derived from subscribers,
for service."
C/M Disraelly said that this was still subject to the Franchise where
it states in Section 4 that the application for the TV Franchise shall
be subject to rules, regulations, terms and conditions as may recently
be promulgated. Mr. Henning agreed. C/M Disraelly added that when the
Franchise Agreement is drawn, there will be a great deal of language
in the agreement which is yet open to negotiation.
Vice Mayor Massaro asked the City Manager if the rezonings had been
filed. The City Manager replied that they have been filed. Councilman
Disraelly questioned if this was subject to the rezoning, the City Attor-
ney replied that it is. Vice Mayor Massaro explained that there are
requirements for rezoning in Stipulation #12, which is at the Court
waiting to be approved. Mr. Henning said that the unilateral restric-
tions that are in the Covenant are offered from the property owner,
and the City obviously accepts them. It is not in the form of any zoning.
The rezoning is not mentioned in the Covenant, but it is further clarified)
Vice Mayor Massaro commented that in Stipulation #12 she did not feel
the positive rights, title and ownership of those additional units had
been given to the City. They have now done that on page 2 of the
Covenant. Paragraph 3 clarifies the rezoning areas and Vice Mayor
Massaro stated that they have an exhibit which shows the area that is
covered by the restrictive covenant and also shows the areas to be
rezoned. She said the one sketch shows a not -included parcel, but
there is another exhibit which does show that parcel. The Vice Mayor
added that F & R Builders have now filed for the various rezonings,
and paid their fees.
City Attorney Jon Henning pointed out that exhibit A refers to the
larger portion. Exhibit B refers to the smaller, not included portion
(exhibit A, second sheet). Councilman Disraelly questioned what went
into the non -included area, Vice Mayor Massaro replied that will become
B-5 and is covered by the Covenant. Mr. Henning pointed out that it
is presently the model section, which will be converted to the office.
V/M Massaro added that B-5 does provide many uses. She pointed out
that they are trying to give F & R some leverage in the B--5. V/M Massaro
noted that it does provide for living quarters on the second floor,
however she wished to make it clear that F & R understood that they
could not have living quarters there, in spite of the fact that they
have B-5 zoning. Marty Riefs said it was not their intention to have
living quarters on the property that is to be zoned B-5. C/M Disraelly
said they were calling this to their attention because Paragraph 1
states there shall be no living quarters, that is on page 1 Exhibit A
of the declaration.
Jon Henning explained that Covenant A covers the larger portion which
will be S-1. The larger portion is referred to on Page 2 of Exhibit A
in Stipulation 13. Exhibit A is the first Covenant and the second page
i41
6/11/82
/nrr
of that Covenant has a diagram. This Covenant refers to the S-1, the
larger portion consisting of 15.772 acres. Mr. Henning said in
Paragraph 1 of that Covenant it has been agreed that no living units
shall be constructed in that S-1 property. City Attorney Henning then
discussed Covenant B, referring to what is on the diagram indicated as
"not included", which will be the B-5. The not included portion
on that diagram is covered by Covenant B, Mr. Henning said. Covenant B
does not have the same paragraph as A, which says no living units will
be constructed on that property.
The City Attorney added that Covenant B, he thought Council was suggesting
that the sentence that is in A should be added to Exhibit B, since it
is their intention not to have living units on the B-5 section anyway.
It would be an additional provision on Exhibit so that there will be no
living units on any of the property that is covered by the diagram. Mr.
Henning added that even though it was a last minute change, it was no
different than Council's intent. Mr. Haber indicated they have no
problem, the Site Plans themselves have been submitted for single -story
buildings. Mr. Henning suggested that the same language as sub -paragraph
1-b) of the first Covenant be added, and it will become paragraph 4.
Also, it could be added on to the lst paragraph, he said. C/M Disraelly
suggested that 1 would become 1-a) and that 1-b) states the declarent
covenants and also agrees that no living units shall be constructed on
the property.
V/M Massaro pointed out that F & R Builders acknowledge the fact that
they agree not to have any living units. She wanted some words in the
contract, referencing the fact the B-5 allows living units, but they
are waiving their right to it.
Mr. Haber said they could use the words "notwithstanding the provisions
contained in Exhibit B, declarent covenants and agrees that no living
unit shall be constructed on the property".
City Attorney Jon Henning repeated the language that would be stated in
the contract: "Notwithstanding the uses and restrictions provided in
B-5 Zoning District as indicated on pages 1 - 19 of Exhibit "B" to
this Covenant, declarent covenants and agrees that there shall be no
living units constructed on this property." Mr. Henning explained
that the Covenant would not be filed with the Stipulation in the County
Records, the Covenant would be filed by itself, with the exhibits.
The City Attorney said that the Covenant has to stand alone, and the
exhibits will be referred to, pages 1 - 19 of Exhibit B to the Covenant.
C/M Disraelly added that the new paragraph states, "Declarent covenants
and agrees that there shall be no living units constructed on this
property." He asked the definition of the word "constructed". Mr.
Henning said he would Like "there shall be no living units on the
property". The Council agreed to strike the word "constructed."
Mr. Haber noted that they would have to change the language in Stipula-
tion #9, Paragraph 20 as that was where the language was obtained. He
said that paragraph was copied into the Covenant. Further, he suggested
that the first Covenant in respective paragraph 20 be modified to
delete the word "constructed". The Council decided to leave the word
"constructed" in the first Covenant, the word "constructed" would be
stricken in the second Covenant.
V/M Massaro pointed out that the B-5 was not in Stipulation #9. She
added that there would be rooms on the property, whether they be offices
or whatever, and Council just wanted to make sure that no one would
be Living there, and they would not be constructing them, since they
were constructed already.
C/M Disraelly stated that he wished it to go into the record that the
developer had voluntarily put into the agreement the statement that
there would be no living quarters in the B-5 District and that City
Attorney Jon Henning has written this to their satisfaction. C/M
Disraelly also said that he wanted it stated that although they could
have had living quarters, the developer has waived that right.
-5- 6/11/82
/nrr
C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2303 whereby two grass
parking areas adjacent to 74th Place are eliminated, one of which will
be located approximately between Buildings B and D and the second one to
be located approximately between Buildings E and G, changes to be shown
on the Mylar; and that the hydrant presently located in that approximate
area will be moved westward in compliance with the City Engineer.
Furthermore, exhibits prepared by Dan Carnahan, dated June 4, 1982,
concerning the chain link fence, four feet high, to be erected on the
water side of the sidewalk at the canal on 100th Avenue and the north
end of this property and at the canal on the west side of 71st Place,
shall become part of the site plan and the Mylar will be changed. The
Site Plan is therefore approved. C/M Krantz SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
Jon Henning read RESOLUTION #2286 by title only.
C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2286 with the changes
on Stipulation #13, on Page 2. A new paragraph 6 has been inserted
as has been indicated and that subsequent paragraphs 6 and 7 be renumbered
consecutively. That the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
attached thereto become part of the record and that the Declaration
of Covenants and Restrictions which become Exhibit "B" of the
Stipulation shall have a new paragraph, paragraph 1 will become 1--a)
and a new paragraph 1--b) shall be inserted which has been agreed to
by Mr. Haber and the City Attorney, including all Exhibits attached
thereto. C/M Krantz SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
20. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
Jon Henning said that he had a conference call with the attorneys for
the City's insurance carrier on the Kaveney Case. The two carriers
are suggesting for the Council's consideration, whether or not the
City would join in with 1/3 participation. Each carrier would cover
1/3 and the City would pick up 1/3 of either the settlement or the
cost of defense if the case could not be settled. He was not asking
for action at this time, but he wanted the Council to be aware in
considering it in the future. If any member of Council has any
questions or wished further discussion, they could call on him at
anytime.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:30 A.M.
ATTEST:
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ �% or
$ ,`, —per copy, to inform the general public and public
officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations
the City Council of the City of Tamarac.
6/11/82
APPROVED 8Y /nrr
C COUNCIL ON