HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-03 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 1980
(Reconvened from 5/28/80 and 5/29/80)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order on
Tuesday, June 3, 1980, at 9:30 A.M.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter Falck
Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Irving M. Disraelly
Councilman Irving Zemel
Councilwoman Marjorie Kelch
ALSO PRESENT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City Planner, Evan Cross
City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken
Assistant City Clerk, Carol Evans
Clerk/Steno, Mimi Reiter
36. Tamarac Jewish Center - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
d) Emergency Ordinance - Tem2. Ord. #768 -- Discussion and possible
action for the elimination of parking requirements. First and
Second Readings. AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
e) Agreement on Parking - AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Approved, d) Approved
on lst & 2nd Readings, and e) Approved
(d) and e) AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
ORDINANCE NO.O- Ln.-4. _PASSED.
d) C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, Temp. Ord. #768, an
Emergency Ordinance eliminating parking spaces for the Jewish
Center, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly indicated that discussion was held for the elimina-
tion of certain parking spaces, by an emergency ordinance. He
also stated that additional land was being purchased to permit
extra parking.
e) C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, the Agreement concerning
additional parking, and V M Massaro SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly inquired of Jack Weiner, the President of the Tamarac
Jewish Center, as to the Agreement indicating the intention of a
purchase of land for additional parking. Also, he said, this faci-
lity will be paved, under the City`s ordinances.
Sol Schulman said that he was in the process of negotiating with
the owner of the property, and felt this situation will be realized
very shortly. Mr. Schulman indicated that he was the Chairman of
the Building Committee for the Jewish Center.
V/M Massaro MOVED for approval of the Agreement, and that proper
persons be authorized to execute this, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
d) Mr. Birken indicated there will be two readings of the Ordinance,
with the second reading being a Public Hearing. Temp. Ord. #768
was read by the City Attorney. He inquired of the Jewish Center
representatives whether the Ordinance was reviewed by them, and
the findings of fact statements were correct.
Mx. Weiner indicated that the statements were correct.
-1-
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
C/M Disraelly MOVED for the adoption of Temp. Ord. #768, an
Emergency Ordinance eliminating certain parking requirements, on
first reading, and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
The City Attorney read Temp. Ord. #768, on second reading.
Mayor Falck opened the discussion to the public, and closed it
because there were no comments received.
V/M Massaro inquired whether the retention and $130.00 per acre
fees were paid, to which Mr. Darby indicated they were paid, and
the Vice -Mayor suggested that the motion include that all appro-
priate fees have been paid.
C/M Zemel MOVED that Temp. Ord. #768, be approved on second and
final reading, which Emergency Ordinance would eliminate certain
parking requirements for the proposed building addition, and,
also indicating that all appropriate fees have been paid. C/M
Disraelly SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
a) C/M Disraelly indicated that the Site Plan was reviewed previously,
and MOVED that the plan, as presented, and revised 4/24/80, be
approved, and V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
V/M Massaro said there was a recommendation that a sprinkler system
was to be installed in the school building, and was not certain
whether the site plan included this.
Mr. Weiner advised that it was for the children, and that such bids
were included to the General Contractor.
58. Lease of Tamarac Elementary School for 1980 Summer Youth Pro ram -
Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
(See page 17)
C/M Zemel MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, an Agreement with Tamarac
Elementary School for the use of their facilities for the Summer Youth
Program, and V/M Massaro SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
59. Solicitation of Architectural Quotes - Addition to the City Hall Buildin
Authorization for the City Manager to solicit quotes.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
( See page 17 )
AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
C/M Zemel MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT authorization for the City
Manager, under the Competitive Negotiation Act, to solicit Architectural
Quotes for possible plans for construction of the addition to the City
Hall building. C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
60. Architectural Plans for Communit Center - Discussion and possible
action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
See page 17)
V/M Massaro MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT the hiring of an Architect
for plans to construct the Community Center, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
Qrm
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
L
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Zemel - Aye
C/M Disraelly - Aye, and then changed to NAY
V/M Massaro -- Aye
Mayor Falck - Aye
C/M Disraelly then changed his vote, to NAY, because he felt that
input should be given prior to discussion, and said this should be
considered at a Pre -Agenda Meeting, and not during a regular meeting.
61.. Temp. Reso. #1683 - Construction of Commercial Boulevard & Rock Island
Road near Burkhard Plaza. Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT -
See page 12)
V/M Massaro MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, a resolution pertaining to
the construction of Commercial Boulevard and Rock Island Road, as
it refers to Burkhard Plaza, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL
21. Tamarac Park Facilities Fees - Temp. Reso. #1447 - Discussion and
possible action to establish fees for use of park facilities.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Motion to reconsider Died
for lack of a Second.
C/M Zemel MOVED to reconsider Temp. Reso. #1447, a resolution estab-
lishing certain fees for use of recreation facilities at the Tamarac
Park.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
V/M Massaro felt that C/M Zemel did not have particular information,
which was pertinent, and was also illegible.
Mayor Falck said this item would be agendized at the next regular
meeting.
Mr. Birken distributed Exhibit D for Concord Village II -- Water and Sewer
Developers Agreement, which input he just received from the City Engineer.
He felt that Council could determine the action, but will have the backup
information, which could be tabled,to permit review by Council.
The Councilmembers felt that items or backup information should not be
submitted prior to consideration of a particular subject, especially since
the May 28th agenda has been reconvened twice, and has become extremely
lengthy.
V/M Massaro said everything was being assembled into one Developers Agree-
ment, and the variables being encountered, were massive. She felt that it
was a monumental task to put this into one ordinance, and was the reason
for submission of thoughts of staff, in an attempt to coordinate and cover
every avenue. The Vice -Mayor said that patience at this time, was quite
important, in order to avoid mistakes.
C/M Disraelly concurred with the Vice -Mayor, as to the amount of work in-
volved, and felt that until everything has been properly reviewed and es-
tablished, it could not be passed.
The City Attorney said that the items relating to Concord I,and,also Concord
II, could be tabled.
48. Concord Villa e I - Discussion and possible action to approve an ad-
dendum to the water and sewer developers agreement.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled until ready.
V/M Massaro MOVED that Concord Village I be tabled until problems
are corrected, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
-3-
6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
V/M Massaro said the problem related to the developers water and
sewer agreement, which was created between the developer and the
parent company; and dial not involve the City. Mr. Birken indicated
that he would submit a memorandum to Council on this area.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
49. Concord Village II -.Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
c) Agreement on Park and Recreation Dedications
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled to 6/11/80 meeting.
14r. Birken indicated that his distribution to Council related to
this item, and Council did not have the opportunity to review
Exhibit D. This, he said, involved a provision which the City
Engineer was to prepare, and entailed the extra work to be per-
formed for Concord I or II, to increase the total dynamic head;
Also, for reimbursement, as other projects are put into the system
for use of lift station 18.
V/M Massaro clarified that lift station 18 involves a very serious
problem, and has been operating 24 hours a day. She stated that
it has eased -up because of the corrective work that was done on
infiltration, but was still in a serious condition. She added that
although it is under Concord Village II, they are agreeing to do
it before further permits are issued to Concord I, because of the
condition of the lift station and pumping station. The Vice -Mayor
said this station services the Lagos De Campo area.
C/M Disraelly MOVED to table this item to the 6/11/80 meeting,
and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly recommended that scrap paper be packaged for pickup on Wed-
nesday, June 18th, at all the residential areas of the City.
PUBLIC HEARING
45. y _ u ns - Temp. Ord. #764A - Discussion and
possible
Re__.,._—,_,_.,_�
g atio
p to amend Ordinance No. 0--80-35 by modifying the pro-
vision pertaining to contribution charges and guaranteed revenue.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted on 2nd Reading, ORDINANCE NO.O- PASSED.
as amended.
The City Attorney read Temp. Ord. #764A. He said this agreement was
revised 5/21/80, and approved on first reading. He also noted that
two proposed amendments were distributed to Council, by memo, which
addressed minor verbiage items. The title, he said,pg.l,line ll,should
indicate amending "Section 58", instead of Section 50.
Mayor Falck opened the discussion to the public, and closed it because
there were no comments received.
Mx. Birken discussed the amendments which were included in his memo
of 6/2/80; a proposal that the ordinance be modified to add a new
paragraph 7, which would be page 5, line 14. This language was included
for large projects, without a minimum number being indicated, but
was intended to take a project, essentially more than 300 units, and
allow phasing -in with no reserved water and sewer connections. At
the end of two years, he said, the project would have paid for the same
number of units as,a 300 units project, with benefits being allowed
for units to be reserved over many years, and gradually paid over a
period of time.
An example, he said, would be included in the ordinance,for clarity
purposes, by taking an 800 unit project, and spelling out the amount
of units to be paid for in --full, and the units to be paid for through
interest charges, over the six -year period. The rationale, he said,
-4-
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
behind the amendment is that it is only realistic to expect a certain
number of units to be built and sold each year. Most projects, he
indicated, would not have 800 units actually constructed over a two--
year period. This proposed amendment, he said, was attempting to be
realistic, as to what could or could not be developed, which would
include time frames for large projects.
C/M Disraelly inquired whether someone who was building 100 units,
could pay for 150 in full, and reserve the other 50, and start paying
the interest charges.
Mr. Birken said that it would not be economically prudent for someone
building a project of that size, to avail themselves of this option.
C/M Disraelly further suggested changes on line 4 of paragraph 3, by
keeping everything in denominations of 50,100 and 150, it would permit
multiples of 150 throughout. He felt that 25 units could then be
picked -up six months earlier. Indication, he said, is made to 75 and
175, and line 4, paragraph 3 should be 100, and the 175 should be
150; with reserve ERC's become 450, and would involve one set of numbers.
V/M Massaro felt there was no problem with this by keeping, 50, 125
and 175, because the 150 was going into another year.
C/M Disraelly again stated that in the next to the last paragraph, the
125 would be changed to 150, and the 425 to 450, which would permit
the use of one component figure; of 150 in 50 units throughout, instead
of 75 and 175. He felt that it was easier for mathematical computation
by the Finance Department.
V/M Massaro said that either method would not cause a problem, and it
Tape was established with the developers in mind, in order for them to move
Side forward, which was involved with changes by the banks for construction
#2 loans. She further added that the agreement had to be compatible for
the developers, as well as the City.
C/W Kelch felt it was presently in acceptable form, and did not want
confusion or delays, because of changes in figures.
C/M Disraelly indicated that memos and ordinances are not being dis-
tributed for adequate perusal, prior to discussions and consideration
by Council, to which Mr. Birken stated that Council received this in-
formation before the 5/28/80 meeting.
C/M Disraelly said the discussion related to changing numbers on the
proposed Amendment #1; also, stating that the City Attorney noted a
misspelling in paragraph 5, of the word "paragraph"; also, the letters
in paragraphs b), c) and e), should be changed to 2), 3) and 5).
Mayor Falck felt that Item #3 should be considered, as suggested by
C/M Disraelly, to change 75 to 100, and 175 to be changed to 150;
which would still permit the total of 300. The other change, he said,
would be from 125 to 150, in the second paragraph from the bottom,
by making a total of 450, as compared to 425 ERC's at the present time,
in the proposed Amendment #1.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that in paragraph 3, where 75 ERC's is referenced,
that it be changed to 100; and the next line, where it indicates 175,
that it be changed to 150; and, the next to the last paragraph, the
125 becomes 150, and the 425 would be 450.
MAYOR FALCK INDICATED THAT THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor Falck stated that Item #5 did not require a motion, but should
be noted as follows; correction of misspelling for the word "paragraph",
and changes in paragraphs b), c) and e) to 2), 3) and 5), as suggested
by the City Attorney, to be incorporated in the Agreement. He further
stated that Proposed Amendment #1, remains as corrected, which are
located on page 5, line 14.
Mr. Birken said that Proposed Amendment #2 pertains to Guaranteed
Revenues, and extends the period of time for large projects, which
ties into Amendment #1.
Mayor Falck indicated that Amendment #2 will remain, with a change
r'lfl
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
to page 6, line 30, instead of page 5, line 29.
Mayor Falck discussed Modifications, as per the 6/2/80 communication
from the City Attorney.
C/M Disraelly said that page 2, line 11 1/2 indicates that the devel-
oper may be required, and would request that a colon be placed in this
point, and delete the comma, after the word to. "That the developer
may be required: 1) to construct or 2) to modify".
The following modification were recommended by the City Attorney;
1. On page 4, line 17, after the word "per" insert the words
"number
of"
and
make ERC plural.
2.
On page
4,
line
27, add at the end of
the line,
after the
word "due",
"no
later than".
3.
One page
6,
line
26, remove the word
"the first",
and sub-
stitute
the
word
"each".
4.
On page
6,
line
27, after the word "Agreement",
add the fol-
lowing:
"for
the
units for which the
building permit was
issued".
5.
On page
6,
line
31, remove the word "must",
and
substitute
the word
"shall".
Mr. Birken recommended minor typographical errors, on page 7, line
11, the word "precedent" has an extra "n"; and on page 7, line 30,
the last word is "guaranteed", with a "d" at the end.
V/M Massaro noted that on page 3, Section 6, "no refund will exceed
developers actual cost for off -site or over -sized facilities", and
felt that the following language should be added; "and in no case
shall it exceed the percentage of the developers responsibility for
his volumetric load capacity".
She inquired as to other projects coming in, when density will affect
additional work to be accomplished, to which Mr. Birken said that
more work would be the responsibility of the developer.
Mr. Birken indicated that if Concord Village I does work, that would
benefit Concord Village II and III, hypothetically; and Concord Village
II comes in to develop, and requires work which benefit other projects,
then a payment would be made to Concord I, for their portion of volu-
metric capacity, and would be doing the work. Also, when Concord III
comes in, they would be required to make payments back to I and II.
Lon Rubin, President of HLR, Inc., disagreed philosophically that work
to be done to the sewer system is evaluated at the time the developer
comes in, and is then charged -off to the developer, with the Developer's
Agreement. He felt the City was aware of the total impact on the sys-
tem, the number of units not built in the area served by those facili-
ties, plus the maximum zoning which is permissible. He also noted that
developers generally develop to a lesser density than their maximum,
and do not always use all available units.
V/M Massaro said the Engineer was working against time, and unexpected
items will be covered, as far as the City is concerned, but Mr.Keating
has not had the opportunity to thoroughly research everything that was
submitted. She felt it would take weeks to make a determination, but
the City would require protection for unexpected occurrences.
V/M Massaro suggested that 7) be added, as to its legality; "any
controversary between the developer and subsequent users, shall not
impose any liability upon the City or require the City's participation
in such controversary".
Mr. Birken felt that language could not be put into the ordinance, in
order to take the City out of litigation, to which the Vice -Mayor said
she would not recommend such inclusion.
V/M Massaro felt that at the end of paragraph 7, line 30 1/2, the fol-
lowing language should be added; "the City may enter into contracts
with developers upon such terms and conditions which the City Council
deems to be in the best interest of the City".
Mr. Birken felt there was adequate flexibility in Section 58 of the
Q:�
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
W
of the Ordinance -� Developer Agreements Required:, and read that por-
tion, which related to the Vice -Mayor's recommendation. He felt the
language was redundant, because it was already covered in this provi-
sion.
Mr. Birken said that Section 50 references Developer's Agreement, and
the .language pertaining to this was covered, and said that Section 58
does relate to Developer's Agreement, and covers the additional work.
The City Attorney said if Council does want to add something, it could
be incorporated into Section 58 of the ordinance, on page 7. His recom-
mendation was for additional verbiage on line 32, after the words
Developer Agreements, "and other matters which the Council determines
to be in the best interests of the City". He felt this would not be
ultimately helpful, and might possibly be stricken at some time in
the future.
Lon Rubin was opposed to the Large Users Agreement, because it sets a
double standard for policy, and does not help the developer or the City.
He felt the addition of the language was unnecessary, and requested
deletion of the entire paragraph, because it was over -complicating.
Mr. Birken suggested to leave Section 58, as --is, because he was legally
doubtful whether it would be effective in Court.
V/M Massaro said that she was aware that tracts would be combined,
rather than submitting each tract separately; also, the combination
would be for several reasons, and was attempting to preserve latitude.
for the City.
Tape Sanford Rissman said that he was building 870 units on Woodmont -
Side Tract 70, with the recreation center being 4 1/2 acres, with three
#3 satellites and one large recreation center, which cost would be ap-
proximately $1,000,000.00. He felt that the Agreement and Ordinance
was fair, and would avoid future problems.
Gene Toll felt the Developer's Agreement was very complicated, be-
cause he was presenting a large complex, and was over 300 units. He
said the Agreement did not offer him any assistance, and would prefer
to sign the 136 unit Agreement, than the one being discussed at this
time. Mr. Toll also felt that the break of 300 units on a large tract
was a mistake, and would divide it into phases.
V/M Massaro said that due to interest rates dropping, real estate sales
will be rising.
Julian Bryan, represented three out of four developers, and said that
the problem is with Stipulation #3, and the language involved with
phase development. He said it was discussed many times with the City
Planner, the City Engineer and the Vice -Mayor, and felt that the lan-
guage was very general and vague, and has tried to interpret it.
Mr. Bryan felt that everyone was concerned about a large project, such
as Mr. Rissman's, for approximately 800 units, would be subject to
change at a later date, if only 250 connections were sought, and then
250 additional ones, once those sales were completed. He said that
the language in Stipulation #3 would not assure overall site plan ap-
proval being meaningful.
Mr. Rubin indicated that he has experience in large condominium develop-
ments, and was presently building a 543 unit project at this time, and
was aware of requirements for recreational facilities, the financing
and marketing requirements. He could not see the need for.Amendment
#7, and the creation of a distinction between a 302 unit probject, and
303 units, or wherever the break -off occurs.
C/M Disraelly said there is a developer coming into the City with
several thousand units, and inquired of the City Attorney, whether
it could be handled under the multiplicity of units, in paragraph 7.
Mr. Birken said the project could be structured in such a manner to
bring it under that paragraph, but felt it would be unlikely.
V/M Massaro said that F & R Corp. or Lennar will be phasing their
projects, and could utilize this, because some of the tracts will be
combined, to which Mr. Bryan said the plan would be on a tract -by -
tract and site-plan--by-site-plan basis. He felt the larger tracts
-7- 6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
will be cut in half.
Mr. Birken said that projects were handled by separate stipulation in
Land Section 4, 5 and 6, which was approved by the Circuit Court, and
felt there was tremendous limitations as to what the City could do.
He said that Council has the ability to have a document prepared, which
could be taken to the Circuit Court; and, if it is illegal, then the
Judge will not sign it. The amendment, he said, could be considered,
if only the one large project was involved, which option has not been
explored in depth.
Mr. Rubin indicated that the various developers determined there was
no need for Stipulation #7, and felt at this time, it was a matter of
principle, and requested reconsideration by Council of this issue.
C/M Disraelly indicated additional verbiage to be added on page 4, .
line 24, following "shall be required to pay interest to the City in
the amount of $4.19 per month, (adding) per number of ERC's".
C/M Disraelly said there were a number of changes. recommended in the
memorandum of June 2nd, 1980; also, a few corrections were suggested
in the verbiage. It has also been indicated, he said, that on the
.Large User item, staging could occur upon the presentation of,the site
plan, which does not presently require the use of Proposed Amendments
#1 and #2. He then MOVED that Proposed Amendments #1 and #2 not be
included in the Ordinance, and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
C/W Kelch confirmed the fact that should it be necessary, that an
amendment could be added, in order to clarify a problem, to which
Mr. Birken concurred.
V/M Massaro said that it is definitely understood, if these amendments
are taken out, then large projects have to conform, without special
consideration, or separate agreements. She said that it is clearly
understood that the developer's and Council's interpretation of the
stipulation, may differ.
Mr. Birken said that whatever is approved, and permits are pulled,
would require payment. He further added that if the amendment is taken
out, that the City has the option of exploring with any developers in
Sections 4, 5 and 6, the possibility of a separate agreement, which
will be approved by the Court. And, if this is not effective, then
it can come back to Council for their consideration of other amendments.
Julian Bryan concurred with Mr. Birken, and indicated that Mr. Rissman
stated that the amendment should not be added at this time.
V/M Massaro said if the Ordinance is adopted, and it is agreed that
separate agreements can be made, as the various projects come in, then
it would not involve any problems. She further stated that large pro-
jects could be handled by stipulation or ordinance at a later date.
C/M Disraelly RESTATED HIS MOTION, to deny Proposed Amendments #1 and
#2, and to adopt Temp. Ord. #764A, as amended by the memorandum of
6/2/80, and this day. C/M Zemel repeated his SECOND to the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
24. Emergep2z Ordinance - Temp. Ord. #764 - Discussion and possible action
to enact an emergency ordinance amending Ordinance No.80-35 - Compre-
hensive Utility Regulations - to modify the provisions pertaining to
payment of contribution charges and guaranteed revenues. Second Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: DENIED
The City Attorney advised that Temp. Ord. #764 was previously read, by
title, and the Public. Hearing was held.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that Temp. Ord. #764 be denied on Second Reading,
and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
--8- 6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
46. Water and Sewer Plan Review Fees - Temp. Reso. #1627 - Discussion and
possible action to adopt these fees.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted RESOLUTION NO.R- FO-IV,5 PASSED.
V/M Massaro said this item involved the review fees for the Consulting
Engineers.
The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1627, and V/M Massaro MOVED for
its adoption, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
C/W Kelch advised that on page 2, Section 1, the revised resolution
should indicate "shall be $500.00 for any project containing ten or
more ERC's", instead of twenty-five.
V/M Massaro AMENDED HER MOTION to indicate adoption of Temp. Reso.
#1627, as revised 5/19/80, which C/M Disraelly, concurred, as the
SECOND.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
MEETING WAS RECESSED TO 1:30 P.M., FOR LUNCH. MAYOR FALCK INDICATED THAT
IT WAS NECESSARY THAT HE LEAVE AT 4:00 P.M., AND ITEMS NOT CONCLUDED,
WOULD BE HELD FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT COUNCILMAN PEARL WAS IN ATTENDANCE, AND WAS FROM
THE CITY OF SUNRISE.
Tape
Side . . . . . . . . . . . . .
#4
MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER, ROLL CALL TAKEN, AND V/M MASSARO WAS
TEMPORARILY ABSENT.
47. Woodview Tract 38 - Discussion and possible action to approve a water
and sewer developers agreement.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled
Mr. Cross said that lie was requested to obtain this information, and on
October 24, 1979 the site plan approval was extended, with conditions;
and then, on January 25, the model sales and temporary sign waiver
was approved.
C/M Disraelly MOVED to table the item, and C/M Zemel SECONDED.
VOTE: C/W Kelch
- Absent
C/M Zemel
- Aye
C/M Disraelly
- Aye
V/M Massaro
- Absent
Mayor Falck
- Aye
50. Southgate Gardens - East - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Landscape Plan
c) Vacation of Drainage Easement - Tem . Reso. #1582
d) Grant of Utility Easement - Temp. Reso. #1583
e) Grant of Canal Maintenance Easement Temp. Reso. #1584
f) Agreement to Construct N.W. 71st Avenue
g) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
h) Recreation Agreement - AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:a)Approved with conditions,
b) Approved, c), d) & e) Approved, subject to
acquisition of title to property by Mr. Toll.
within 1 year, f)Approved with conditions, C:)
Approved, and h)AGENDIZED BY CONSENT, and,
Approved.'
RESOLUTION NO.R- QOf/f�(o PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO.R- YO./.V�E PASSED.
RESOLUTION NO.R- gp -/rl% PASSED.
Mr. Birken advised that Mr. Toll submitted three checks this day,
a check in the amount of $1,1495.00 for drainage, which involves the
$130.00 per acre; $3,090.00 for Recreation fees; and $1,454.25 relating
to the Developers Agreement,,- one month interest payments.
He further stated that Mr. Toll does not own the property, and felt
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
VOTE:
VOTE:
VOTE:
VOTE:
VOTE:
this should be considered by Council, as to the resolutions pertaining
to vacation and acceptance of easements, which would be subject to
acquisition of title to the property by Mr. Toll. He additionally
stated that Item f) involved an agreement which relates to construc-
tion of the road, which Mr. Toll has agreed to install. The document,
he said, was executed, but there was a suggestion made by the City
Engineer, that additionally, a median cut be included in the construc-
tion on Southgate Boulevard, and an appropriate turn -lane for south -
bound traffic, exiting from Southgate Boulevard.
Mr. Birken said that Mr. Toll indicated this be included in the work
to be performed.Also,the City Attorney stated that the motion should
include those items being added to the agreement, and being re -executed
after the addition has been made.
Mr. Toll felt that easements should not be released on properties he
does not own, which should be subject to acquisition of title.
Mr. Birken advised that Leadership Housing presently owns the property,
and were not willing to sign anything at this time.
a) C/M Disraelly discussed the water retention on the landscape plan,
which was not identical, in shape, to the site plan, and felt there
was a considerable variance. Ile further noted that some of the
trees would have to be adjusted, to which Mr. Toll said the land-
scape plan was made prior to the preparation of the final site plan.
C/M Disraelly also indicated that parking for a one (1) bedroom
should show 1.5 spaces, which was computed correctly, but an incor-
rect figure was inserted.
V/M Massaro MOVED to adopt the site plan, as submitted, and subject
to his acquiring title within one year; also, reducing the number
of handicapped spaces; with a correction on the site plan, showing
the required parking for one (1) bedroom, to be 1.5 spaces, and
was a scrivener's error. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
ALL VOTED AYE.
b) C/M Disraelly said the ordinance notes "no Ficus Trees within 100
feet of the right-of-way", because of damage from roots.lt was
indicated by C/M Disraelly that Ficus Benjamina and Australian
Pines were not approved, but other than that, any amount can be
put in, as long as the minimum requirements were met.
V/M Massaro said that he cannot exceed more than 25% of the palm
trees, and 75% of other type trees, and once met, than any amount,
including palms, could be installed.
C/M Disraelly MOVED to adopt the Landscape Plan, and C/W Kelch
SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
c) The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1582, and recommended that it
be subject to Mr. Toll's acquiring title to the property.
V/M Massaro MOVED for the approval of the vacation of the drainage
easement, Temp. Reso. #1582, subject to Mr. Toll obtaining title
to this property within one year, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
d) The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1583, and V/M Massaro MOVED
for approval of acceptance of the Utility Easement, subject to
Mr. Toll obtaining title to this property within one year, and
C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
e) The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1584, and V/M Massaro MOVED
for acceptance of the Canal Maintenance Easement for South-
gate Gardens East, subject to Mr. Toll obtaining title to this
property within one year, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
-10-
6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
I
VOTE:
v[•100xa
VOTE:
VOTE:
f) Mr. Birken said this would be subject to a modification as it
currently exists, to provide that Toll Development Corp. will
construct a median cut on Southgate Boulevard, and appropriate
turn -Lanes for south -bound traffic exiting Southgate Boulevard.
VIM Massaro felt that the median cut and stacking lane be construc-
ted, which would be inserted as part of the agreement. She then
MOVED to accept the agreement, authorizing the appropriate persons
to execute this agreement.
Mr. Toll confirmed the fact that the same terms would be considered,
but adding the median cut, for collecting one-half from the other
people, when they develop.
C/M Disraelly said when a median cut is put in Southgate Boulevard,
the north half of the property is FP & L easement, and would not
be developed.
VIM Massaro said if there is benefit to another development, then
one-half will be collected.
C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
ALL VOTED AYE.
C/M Disraelly said that based on the memorandum, it is suggested
that inclusion be made part of the site plan.
a) VIM Massaro MOVED to RESCIND ACTION taken on the site plan, and-
C/M Disraelly SECONDED, because it should include recreation areas
being rezoned to S-1.
ALL VOTED AYE.
h) Recreattion Agreement -- AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
VIM Massaro MOVED that the Recreation Agreement, regarding South-
gate Gardens East project, be AGENDIZED BY CONSENT, and C/W Kelch
SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
VIM Massaro said this project was platted previously, during the
period of time the land was in the County. She said that it was
realized the City has an obligation to collect fees required by
the City Ordinances, and Mr. Toll established a method of paying
these fees, in the amount of $21,000.00. She said he would like
to make payment at $154.50 per unit, which included 20 units in
the first building, totaling $3,090.00. She additionally stated
that when permits are taken, the same rate will be paid until the
entire sum of $21,000.00 has been paid. It was also noted that
such payment will be for no longer than 12 months from the first
building permit.
Mr. Birken indicated that the first check has been submitted,
and was legally correct, because it related to platted property.
VIM Massaro MOVED for approval of the Recreation Agreement fees,
also, noting that the first fee has been paid, and C/M Disraelly
SECONDED.
VIM Massaro moved for approval of the Agreement, and C/M Disraelly
SECONDED.
ALL VOTED AYE.
g) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement -
Mr. Birken said there was a check received in the amount of
$1,454.25, and covered 136 units and 2 1/2 for rec. complex, which
is based on meter size. He indicated that it was a standard agree-
ment, with a check, which was submitted by Mr. Toll this morning.
VIM Massaro MOVED for the adoption of the Developers Agreement,
-11-
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
___ as it relates to Toll Developme-nt_ Co.ru.or-ation. ,-_ gou.thc e•-GadP_a,9-- ---
East project, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
a) Site Plan -(Previous Action Rescinded)
C/M Disraelly inquired whether a revised site plan was necessary
to show the median cut on the west, to which the Vice -Mayor stated
that it would be included in the motion, with Engineering Plans to
be submitted.
Mr. Toll indicated they have agreed to do the engineering for the
street, and was interested in amending the agreement, to include
the median cut, with the same terms.
V/M Massaro said this agreement will be modified to include the
refund of monies within the five-year period, as stated in the
other agreements, if other people benefit by such use of the median.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that the agreement will be modified, and the
site plan will be approved, 1) subject to acquiring ownership of
the property; 2) to create a median cut in Southgate Boule-
vard into 71st Avenue, with stacking lane; 3) subject to the agree-
ment currently listed as Item #50f), as far as the responsibility
for building the road, with a proviso, that if someone builds to
the west, and has the use of that turning lane, and 71st Avenue,
for the length of that property, that they will be subject to pay-
ment toward Toll Development, within a period of five -years; 4)
furnish the necessary engineering plans, to be approved by the City
Engineer; 5) rezoning of recreation parcels to S-1; and 6) the cor-
rection ofthescrivener's error as far as the parking plan; 7) the
rezoning must be initiated before a building permit is issued.
V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
61. Temp. Reso. #1683 - Pertaining to Construction of Commercial Boulevard
and Rock Island Road by Burkhard Plaza
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted, as amended. RESOLUTION NO.R_ PASSED.
See page 3) ___..
The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1683.
V/M Massaro said this item was discussed during the City Council
reports, which memo was distributed this morning. She MOVED to
approve Temp. Reso. #1683, and be hand delivered to Mr. Gerren's
Tape office, in order to expedite this, because the work is being held up
Side for receipt of this legislation. She felt if a safety problem was
#5 evident, the City would take necessary steps to correct this..
Mr. Birken felt that Mr. Mercer, the County Traffic Engineer,should
provide something in writing, that this is a reasonable and prudent
method of traffic engineering, to have the median end at that particu-
lar point, and would not create a dangerous condition. He said that
a situation should not exist where bad traffic engineering is ac-
quiesced to by the City. He reiterated his request that the Traffic
Engineer submit something in writing, that this is a reasonable
approach to the problem.
Mr. Birken felt that an addition should be made to page 2, line 2,
after the word goal, " would appear to be, to have the median", rather
than would be.
V/M Massaro CHANGED HER MOTION, and MOVED that Temp. Reso. #1683,
pertaining to construction of Commercial Boulevard and Rock Island
Road, at the Burkhard Plaza, be approved as amended, and be hand -
delivered this day to Mr. Gerren's office. C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE_
-12-
6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
r
51. Tamarac Gardens - Discussion and possible action on:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Site Plan
Plat - Temp. Reso. #1595
Water and Sewer Developers
Landscape Plan -- AGENDIZED
Agreement
BY CONSENT
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a), b), c) Approved with RESOLUTION NO.R- d 41 /,4,e�P PASSED.
conditions, and d) AGENDIZED BY CONSENT, and
Approved, with conditions.
Julian Bryan, who represented F & R Builders, and said the Landscape
Plan was inadvertently omitted.
d) C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT Landscape Plan, under
Tamarac Gardens, and V/M Massaro SECONDED.
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Absent from dais
C/M Zemel - Aye
C/M Disraelly- Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye
Mayor Falck - Aye
Mr. Bryan indicated that K, L and M, were the three tracts directly
west of the existing Lime Bay development, on the west side of
Westwood Boulevard -- West; also, on the south side of McNab Road;
and on the north side of Westwood Community 2, along with the
existing canal. He further added that the west property line will
be an extension of Nob Hill Road or 100th Avenue, in the very near
future.
Mr. Bryan said it is zoned R-4A, which would normally allow 15
dwelling units per acre, but was shown as medium density 10 in the
adoption of the City's Land Use Plan and the Broward County Land
Use Plan. Therefore, he said, they have voluntarily restricted
this to 10 units per acre development; which are two-story condominium
living units, in clusters of 20 to 32 units per building, and were
walk-up to the upper level. He said this data was indicated on the
site plan.
a) Site Plan - Mr. Bryan reviewed the three tracts of K, L and M,
running from east to west, with provision for the required parking,
based on 1.5 spaces for a one -bedroom apartment; 1 3/4 spaces for
a two --bedroom, and 10% additional spaces for guest parking.
Also, the configuration throughout the development permits an
interior circulator street, which is dedicated to the public
but would serve this particular development and the residents
living within the tract. He stated an existing median opening
was located, which was planned previously, and installed when
McNab Road was originally four-laned. This, he said, will be
utilized for ingress -egress to tracts L and M. Mr. Bryan advised
that tract K also has an existing median crossing for 95th Terrace,
which goes into Westwood Community 4, and will be utilized with
a new left -turn lane.
Mr. Bryan said that the recreation facilities are shown on tract
K, and a larger one, of approximately 1 1/2 acres, on L and M,
which will include tennis court, cabana, pool and shuffleboard.
The other rec area will primarily consist of barbecue area and
passive open space.
He additionally stated that on -site retention has been handled
by taking the existing property line, where the canal is generally
excavated within five to eight feet of the line; and agreed to
excavate it within the property, which would widen the existing
body of water. He also stated that by the plat and site plan,
they would dedicate the additional area to the public, for reten-
tion. This, he said, would create retention around the tract,
with a graded slope in conformance with Ordinance 78-48, with
something similar being done on tract K, to a lesser degree, but
would be contiguous.
In response to the Vice -Mayor's question of the width where the
-13-
6/3/80
Recon. 5/29/80
mr/
stacking lanes are cut,..t was stated by Mr. Bryan that the green
area varies, but was approximately eight (8) feet, for ingress
and egress. He said that if it has to be curbed in its entirety,
then it would be included in the City's ordinance.
Mr. Bryan advised of a substantive change to the site plan, which
revision was changing the sidewalk width on Westwood Boulevard, from
four (4) feet to five (5) feet, and adding another portion of side-
walk on the culdesac. He indicated that the east -west leg, that
terminates in a culdesac, will also be dedicated to the public.
C/W Kelch inquired as to indemnification of the owners, because
they are now under the Home Insurance Plan, to which Mr. Bryan said
it was discussed with Lennar, and there were a number of options
available, which included bonds and other forms of guarantee. it
was, he said, discussed with him by Mr. Birken, for consideration
of the site plan, because his client was not a HOW builder.
Mr. Birken said he would be troubled if a project was approved,
and it was obvious that there would not be compliance with the City's
ordinance, without the posting of $1,500.00. But, he said, on the
other,hand, if Lennar agrees to comply with the ordinance, whether
it is in Court or otherwise, and is modified, then it would apply,
and he would be satisfied.
Mr. Bryan said that the City Attorney advised that this would not
be a requirement of site plan approval, but may be discussed, and
they should be aware of it, prior to pulling a building permit,
noting they are not a HOW builder. He said that F & R Builders
and Lennar, would perhaps like to impose an alternative in the form
of bonds, which they were aware should be determined prior to the
pulling of permits. Mr. Bryan felt this should be put on record,
as to compliance with the ordinance.
V/M Massaro said there were several areas with canals, and excavation
would be required. She also noted there were guardrails, and after
excavation, the seawalls and guardrails would require extension to
the full width of the excavation, or be installed.
Mr. Bryan concurred with the various areas requiring seawall and
guardrail extensions, as noted on the site plan, and said that such
responsibility was clearly stated in Ordinance 78-48, which would
be reflected on the Engineering plans.
C/M Disraelly discussed the dumpsters, and the proposed location
which is noted on the site plan, to which Mr. Bryan said this will
be noted per the applicable ordinance, with the concrete slab and
enclosures, with the required opening, relating to Ordinance 79-67.
He further advised there was a dumpster adjacent to every building.
V/M Massaro referred to a lift station which the Planning Commission
requested to be moved, and would recommend landscaping in the area.
Mr. Bryan said that the City Engineer's office requested the location
along McNab Road, but the Planning Commission requested to place it
in the recreation area, and then screened, as long as access was
available.
V/M Massaro said the recreation parcels have to be rezoned, and the
Developers Agreement has to be re -executed, to which Mr. Bryan con-
curred, indicating it would be submitted by Friday.
Mr. Bryan said they would agree to curb the median on McNab Road,
in front of the property.
V/M Massaro MOVED for the approval of the site plan, subject to
the following conditions being met:
1) That wherever excavation takes place, and a seawall exists, the
seawall will be extended to the full width of the excavation,
according to the City's ordinance, and the guardrail either be
extended or installed, where necessary, in each case of excava-
tion where it is adjacent to a road.
aAIC
6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
J
2)
That the recreation parcels be rezoned to S-1.
3)
That the median be curbed all. -around the full length of the
property at McNab Road.
Tape 4)
Nob Hill Road to have two (2) lanes installed, with half of the
Side
median on the east side.
#6 5)
Dumpsters to be created to proper size, in accordance with the
present ordinance.
6)
Development review requirements have been satisfied.
7)
Two streets must be named and approved by the Planning Department,
in order to avoid duplication.
8)
Developer required by City's ordinances, to comply with HOW agree-
ment, unless an agreement is entered into, which would be acceptable
to Council, prior to requesting a permit.
It was noted by the Vice --Mayor, that checks were received for the fol-
lowing; $15,000.00 for the recreation fees, $500.00 fee for the engineer,
for water and sewer plan review, $3,484.78 interest for 269 unit connec-
tions, and $2,814.00 for drainage fees at $130.00 per acre, which in-
volves 26.806 acres.
*SEE EDITOR'S NOTE
C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
d) Landscape Plan
C/M Disraelly inquired whether Westwood Boulevard - West would have
a hedge running the length of the recreation area, or a separation
would be installed from the sidewalk.
Mr. Bryan said that no specific arrangement has been made, but dis-
cussion was held to provide it at the end of the parking area, but
felt that berms or clustering of trees would best serve the area
along the perimeter. He stated that additional planning was required
within the recreation parcel, and would resubmit a landscaped plan
for the facilities, as amended,.. -to the Community Development Depart-
ment; which would include rearranging the size and number of trees.
C/M Disraelly further requested that McNab Road be bermed, and the
hedge be protected in the rec area around Westwood Boulevard - West.
Also, he said, the apartments would have trees in the area. He then
MOVED for the approval of the Landscape Plan, and V/M Massaro
SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
c) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
Mr. Birken advised that an executed copy was just received, relating
to the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement, with a check which is
in compliance with the ordinance enacted this morning. He felt the
Developers Agreement should be approved subject to re -execution of
the latest form.
V/M Massaro MOVED that the Developers Agreement for Tracts K, L and
M of Tamarac Gardens, be approved subject to it being re -executed,
and the proper persons be authorized to sign this agreement, in the
newest form. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
b) Plat - Temp. Reso. #1595
C/M Disraelly read Temp. Reso. #1595.
V/M Massaro said the plat would be subject to naming of the streets,
which is to be discussed with the Community Development Department,
prior to transmittal to the County, to avoid duplication. She then
MOVED for approval of Temp. Reso. #1595, the plat for Tamarac Gardens,
with the streets names being approved, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
*EDITOR'S NOTE: Item #51 -- $2,814.00 is interest for 269 units; and $3,484.78
are the drainage fees.
-15- 6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
55. Tract 70 - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Woodmont
b) Plat - AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) Approved with conditions; RESOLUTION NO.R-fp-Ln���? d PASSED.
and b) Approved - AGENDIZED BY _CONSENT (See page 17)
a) Tom Schnars representing Tract 70,said that the Planning Commission
submitted their approval, with recommendations, which requirements
were performed.
Mr. Keating indicated that Rafael Pena checked the area of 75th Street,
and he determined that the sewer line which was extended across the
road, going into LaForet, was repaired, but the backfill on the
south side of the road was not properly performed, and subsided.
V/M Massaro said the cut only goes from the center of the road south
to Tract 70, and not to LaForet.
Mr. Keating said that after the last severe storm, it was noted that
the drainage involved a large problem in front of the project on
75th Street. He said there were three items which would require
compliance by the property owner; 1) swales being redressed to con-
form with the City's standards, and insure a smooth run --off flow to
the catch basins, located on the east and west sides of the project,
2) also the cleaning of the swales, and 3) and the existing outfall
line be shown, which is adjacent to the west -side of the property,
and be cleaned.
He further added that the swales should be redressed, in the front
of their project, and clean the outfalls to the two catch basins,
on both sides. Mr. Keating stated they were not aware of existing
culverts, but then found culverts and catch basins, which may not
be functioning properly, because of construction debris.
V/M Massaro said that $95.00 per unit was required for recreation,
and requested copies of a letter relating to this, by Mr.Cross, for
the City Council to be aware of transactions. She also inquired
about curbed medians on 75th Street, to which Steve Epple said they
would comply with the curbing for the length of the property. Mr.Epple
requested a street --cut, in order to install a sprinkler system into
the median, for landscaping and irrigating.
V/M Massaro said the street -cut can be made, but felt that a depres-
sion in front of it has to be corrected, and required a commitment
for such handling. She felt the area was not properly compacted.
She then MOVED for approval of the site plan, and also noted that
the development review requirements have been met; also, the applicant
has agreed to curb the median for the full length of his property;
check the fees; and redress swales for the full length of the property
on 75th Street, and clean the east and west outfalls. C/W Kelch
SECONDED -the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
b) V/M Massaro MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, plat approval, and
C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: C/W
Kelch
- Aye
C/M
Z eme 1 --
Nay
C/M
Disraelly
- Aye
V/M
Massaro
- Aye
Mayor Falck
- Aye
56. Park and Recreation Site Acquisition -- Tem. Ord. #742
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled to 6/11/80
(See Minutes 28/80)
V/M Massaro MOVED to table this item to the 6/11/80 meeting, and
C/W Kelch SECONDED.
a9�
6/3/80
Recon.5/29/80
mr/
VOTE: C/W Kelch - Aye
C/M Zemel - Nay
C/M Disraelly- Aye
V/M Massaro - Aye
Mayor Falck Aye
58. Lease of Tamarac Elementary School for 1980 Summer Youth Program -
Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved, with execution by
the proper authorities, (See page 2)
C/M Zemel MOVED for approval of the lease agreement between Tamarac
Elementary School and the City of Tamarac, for the 1980 Summer Youth
Program. C/M Disraelly sai6 this was similar to the 1979 lease, and
would SECOND the motion, for approval, to be signed by the proper
authorities.
Mayor Falck indicated that the only requirement was for necessary
liability insurance, which has been accomplished.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
59. Solicitation of Architectural Quotes - Addition to the City Hall Buildi
Authorization for the City Manager to solicit quotes.
;YNOPSIS OF ACTION: City Manager authorized to
contact architects for proposals, in compliance
With City law, after discussion with the City Attorney.
C/M Zemel said the City Manager requested permission to solicit quotes
.from architects, under the Competitive Negotiation Act. He then MOVED
that the City Manager be authorized to contact architects for the pur-
pose of submitting proposals, in accordance with the City's laws, after
discussion with the City Attorney, and V/M Massaro SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
60. Architectural Plans for Community Center - Discussion and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Item withdrawn, with a
bequest for a Workshop Session to be held.
'Tape
,;i.de
7 ,.
V/M Massaro MOVED to withdraw the item, and a Workshop Session be held,
which would be scheduled by Mayor Falck, and C/W Kelch SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
55. Tract 70 - Woodmont - b) Plat (See page 16)
b)
VOTE:
Plat -- Temp. Reso. #1684 (Recalled)
Mayor Falck read Temp. Reso. #1684, and V/M Massaro MOVED for its
approval,with C/W Kelch SECONDING.
ALL VOTED AYE.
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
ASS T. CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $-26� /� , 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 .
APPROVED BY
-17- CITY COON IL, W 1D 6/3/80
Recon.5 29 80
mr/