HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-01 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesPX) ROX 2.5010
TAMARA,C, F-t,(-)RHDA -, 3320
Fi: s IlitoI:i-I-tiNEST 88-I..1.a AVE.NU'E AIVIARAC, FE0RiDA 3 3 321
TELEPHONE 7'r 5900
NOTICE OF
RECONVENED COUNCIL MEETING
October 29, 1982
There will be a reconvened City Council meeting on
Monday, November 1, 1982 at 1:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers
at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321.
The items remaining from the Council Agenda of October 27,
1982, to be considered are as follows:
22. University Community Hospital - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Revised site plan for the front parking lot at the
southeast corner of the property - Temp. Reso. #2496
b) Landscape Plan
- -- -- TT- -
PUBLIC HEARING
23. Woodmont Square - Rezoning Petition #24-Z-82 - Temp Ord.
- Discussion and possible action to rezone lands
on the west side of N.W. 88 Avenue, extending southward
from the Tamarac Fire Station approximately 528 feet,
from R-3 (Low Density Multiple Residential) to B-2 (Planned
Business).
Second Reading. (Public Hearing continued from 10/13/82).
a) Acceptance of Affidavits of Publication and Affidavits
of Posting.
b) Consideration of Application.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Lakeside Plaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #2414
b) Water nd Sewer Developers Agreement
c) Utility easement for sewer purposes - Temp. Reso. #2415.
(to be located on the west side of State Roadp7, nort o
Commercial Plaza) (tabled from 10/13/82) (removed from
Consent Agenda, former item 6 p).
25. Banyan Lakes - Discussion and possible action to amend
t e terms of the Water and Sewer Developers agreement
pertaining to payment of fees for ERC's.
26. Water and Sewer Fees - ERC Values - Temp. Reso. #2498 -
Discussion and possible action. (Adoption of temporary
resolution requires a public hearing).
City Council may consider such other business as may come before it.
P,.rsu: nt to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Lill No. 368:
f a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Car01 A. Evans
:_O.unril with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or Assistant City Clerk
hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such
ourpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
he testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
r_____ 7
L
CITY OF TAMARAC
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 1, 1982
(from 10/27/82)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
Monday, November 1, 1982, in the Council Chambers.
Tape ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
1 Vice Mayor Helen Massaro
Councilman Irving M. Disraelly
Councilman Philip B. Kravitz
Councilman David E. Krantz
ALSO PRESENT:
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager
Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk
Patricia Marcurio, Secretary
Mayor Falck reviewed the items on this day's agenda and hearing of no _
items to be agendized by consent, he ruled that the five items
indicated would be the business for today.
22. University Community Hos ip tal - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Revised site plan for the front parking lot at the southeast
corner of the property - Temp. Reso. #2496
b) Landscape Plan -
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION N0. R - -, 0-
7. PASSED.
Temp. Reso. #2496 with conditions.
a) Greg Darby, representing Darby & Way, said the plan is self-explanatory
for the additional parking area in front of the building which will have
additional -landscaping in the parking areas.
C/M Disraelly said in the report given to Council it was suggested that
the 3' berm to be constructed along the front property line adjacent to
University Drive will be installed and the site plan will show that
revision. He said the sidewalk will be widened to 8' at the request of
Council for the bikepath and the sidewalk will continue across the
driveway. He said in the doctor's parking, they show sufficient lighting
to conform to Code and there is no indication of any lighting standards
being put in there.
Mr. Darby said the doctor's parking area will have to come before Council
as a separate petition and,though it is shown on the site plan, it has
been excluded from this portion because it requires a parking waiver.
C/M Disraelly asked if they are going to cut back the median and Mr.
Darby said they were and they feel it will give the best traffic
circulation in the front of the hospital.
Frank Basile, representing University Hospital, said they have made a
circle taking one of the driveways out of there to help this. Richard
Rubin said Mr. Basile has met with members of the DOT and they are
coming up with alternative designs of the sidewalks and C/M Disraelly
asked Mr. Basile if he agrees that they will put a sidewalk across the
entrance of the hospital to the limits of the site plan and Mr. Basile
agreed.
C/M Disraelly recommended that there be a Stop sign before the entrance
of the hospital drive from the parking lot and a Stop sign in the middle
of the median before the left hand turn into this parking lot. Mr.
Darby initialled these changes. V/M Massaro asked if they have paid
the $2,030 Retention fee and the $150.80 Drainage Improvement fee and
Mr. Darby said there is no problem with this and they will be happy to
pay them.
- 1 - ll/1/82
/pm
Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and C/M Disraelly MOVED the
ADOPTION of Temp. Reso.#2496 for the University Hospital proposed
parking for the front portion only for the limits of this site plan
approval,Phase I,whereby the sidewalk on University Drive will be
widened to 8' and will meander across the entrance of the hospital,
the open area adjacent to that will be bermed, the sign will be moved
back so it is 10' from the property line. The sidewalk will be placed
across the entry at 71 St., the Stop sign will be placed at the western
side of the shortened island and a Stop sign will be placed at the
exit from the parking lot into that area. The doctor's parking area
is not to be considered part of this site plan and this is conditioned
upon the receipt of the fees. SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
b) Richard Rubin said the Landscape Plan was reviewed by Broward County
and they not only meet the Code requirements but University Hospital
has agreed to exceed the Code requirements and place a berm along
University Drive to provide greater buffer and screening of the cars.
Mr. Rubin said the only comments of staff, which the applicant has
agreed to, are to sod and irrigate the swale adjacent to University
Drive, recommend accent plants on top of the berm such as crotons,
pampas grass, etc. and show the sidewalk on University Drive which
Council has requested be shown on the site plan. Mr. Rubin said the
staff recommends approval of the landscape plan with those conditions.
V/M Massaro so MOVED, SECONDED by C/M Disraelly.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
24. Lakeside Plaza - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #2414
b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement
c) Utility easement for sewer purposes - T_em_p. Reso. #2415
(to be located on the west side of State Road 7, north of
Commercial Plaza) (tabled from 10/13/82) (removed from Consent
Agenda, former Item 6p).
d) Beautification Plan
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a) APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. Rf_L:xe g PASSED.
Temp. Reso. #2414 with conditions,^
b) APPROVED with conditions, c)
WITHDRAWN since utility easement
will be on plat before it is recorded,
d) Agendized by Consent, APPROVED.
a) Richard Rubin said Lakeside Plaza is a commercial development being
proposed along 441 in a Bl zoning district and the size of the parcel
is 3.83 acres. He said it is part of a plat that has been approved by
the County Commission and is waiting to be recorded. He said the plan
has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approval was recommended
on 4/l/82 subject to several conditions. He said it has been reviewed
by the Beautification Committee on 3/16/82 and approval was recommended.
He said there are certain fees to be paid and this meets all of the
Broward County Development Review Standards and he referred Council to
the comments listed on Page 4 of the Development Review Status Report:
1. Approval subject to plat recordation.
2. Provide header curb for entrances in Swale area, if permitted by
Florida Highway Department. Mr. Rubin said this is an item that they
have been working on with DOT and there is a good chance that they
will allow a header curb.
3. Fire Department recommends smoke detectors be connected to a pro-
prietory alarm company as per N.F.P.A. 72C and Mr. Rubin said the
applicant has agreed to smoke detectors which exceed the South
Florida Building Code but he does not agree to tying into a pro-
prietory alarm company.
4. Applicant to demonstrate that a continuous utility easement exists
from the southwest manhole to the public sanitary sewer system and
Mr. Rubin said this means that on the plat that has not been recorded
yet there needs to be another easement included.
- 2 -
ll/l/82
/pm
F7
Mr. Rubin said the applicant's engineer is present and if he states
that they have already placed the easement on the plat or will place
it on the plat or provide a separate agreement, this would be
acceptable.
5. Mr. Rubin said a new Water & Sewer Agreement is being prepared,
therefore, the applicant cannot be asked to sign it until it has
been accepted by the City Council. He said, therefore, a condition
of approval would be that no building permits would be issued until
they have signed a Water & Sewer Agreement in acceptable form to
the City Attorney.
6. Mr. Rubin said the DOT has changed the location of the main driveway,
since it is a State road, and C/M Disraelly has requested that the
Beautification plans,that were approved several months ago,be revised
to show the change in the location of the driveway.
Hugh Davis, surveyor with Davis Associates, said the question on the
easement for the extension of the sewer line on the back property line,
will be added to the plat which is in the County Engineer's office.
Mr. Henning agreed that this was acceptable.
Mr. Rubin said the Assistant City Clerk had just received a check for
$16,000 for water and sewer hookup fee and there is also a Drainage
Improvement fee of $624. V/M Massaro said there is a fee of $500 for
the review of engineering which is also required today. The Assistant
City Clerk received a check for $1,124 combining these two fees.
Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and V/M Massaro said she would
have no objection to allowing them 6 months to have the plat recorded
and if within that time they have not recorded the plat then they would
be required to pay the prevailing rate for the CIAO which would be in
effect at that time.
C/M Disraelly recommended ,that the four handicapped spaces in the back
of the building be moved to the front of the building, one at either
end of the row and two in the middle. V/M Massaro asked if there was
a reason the handicapped spaces were put in the back of the building and
Mr. Rubin said there was. He said the Planning Commission was concerned
that when a person parks a car in a handicapped space they would not have
to pass a driveway to get into a building. Mr. Rubin suggested a
compromise with two handicapped spaces in the rear of the building and
two spaces in the front. Mr. Darby said he would put the spaces where -
ever Council specified and Mr. Rubin suggested 2 in the front of the
building and 2 in the rear closest to the doctor's building.
V/M Massaro MOVED the ADOPTION of the site plan for Lakeside Plaza with
the corrections as indicated by C/M Disraelly and with the proviso that
if a permit is not taken and the recording of the plat is not accomplished
by 5/l/83, that the prevailing CIAC rate at that time will have to be
paid in addition to this fee that they are paying now. SECONDED by C/M
Disraelly.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
b) V/M Massaro MOVED that this is all subject to the applicant signing a
Water and Sewer Agreement within the next two days and if they do not
take their permit by 5/l/83, then they must enter into a new Water and
Sewer Agreement and pay the prevailing rate. SECONDED by C/M Disraelly.
VOTE:
c) Jon Henning said
on the plat, this
V/M Massaro MOVED
easement will be
Disraelly.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
that in light of the easement just discussed to be placed
would not be necessary and this should be withdrawn.
to WITHDRAW subsection c inasmuch as the utility
on the plat before it is recorded. SECONDED by C/M
ALL VOTED AYE
.- 3 -
11/1/82
/pm
C�
d) C/M Disraelly MOVED to Agendize by Consent Item 24 d) discussion and
possible action to approve the Beautification Plan for Lakeside Plaza.
SECONDED by C/M Krantz.
1illevow
ALL VOTED AYE
Richard Rubin said the beautification plans have been reviewed by the
Beautification Committee and the staff and the changes have been made
and are now acceptable. C/M Disraelly said the Beautification
Committee, at the 4/19/82 meeting approved this beautification plan
subject to the changes that would be made on 441 for the change of
entry into the Plaza.
Mr. Rubin said the questions of staff in the original memo of 4/15/82
have been included in the revised plan submitted today. C/M Disraelly
said the suggestions of 4/19/82 have been made and he MOVED the
APPROVAL of the beautification plan as submitted, SECONDED by C/M
Krantz.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
23. Woodmont Square - Rezonin-a Petition #24-Z-82 - Temp. Ord. #_1003 --
Discussion and possible action to rezone lands on the west side
of NW 88 Avenue, extending southward from the Tamarac Fire Station
approximately 528 feet, from R-3 (Low Density Multiple Residential)
to B-2 (Planned Business). Second Reading. (Public Hearing continued
from 10/13/82).
a) Acceptance of Affidavits of Publication and Affidavits of
Posting.
b) Consideration of application.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Application
WITHDRAWN.
Miles Tralins, representative of Leadership Housing, Inc., said they
are the owners of Tract 44 which is the subject parcel and, unfortunately,
this is the first time in 3-1/2 years that Leadership has appeared in
the role of an adversary with respect to the City. Leadership
Housing was originally approached by Mr. Toll with respect to the sale
of this property and there was a plan presented to his client and all
indications were that it would be acceptable to his client as well as
the City and it called for a mixed use of commercial and residential
zoning of the property. He said his client has been of the opinion that
since 1972 the property is and should be zoned commercial.
Mr. Tralins said that his client agreed, when asked by Mr. Toll to
execute his consent to a zoning application, in effect zoning the land
partially commercial and partially residential. As a result of some
subsequent events arising since the Council's approval on the first
reading on a 3-2 vote of that application, in order to protect his
client's interest, he has been instructed by Leadership Housing to
instruct Mr. Toll, on behalf of Toll Development Corp., to withdraw
his application and likewise, he has been instructed and has filed a
motion to enforce the court orders entered by Judge Weissing in 1973,
1974 and 1976; which they believe conclusively demonstrates, along with
the City's attempt to rezone the property after the entry of those
orders, that the property is and should be zoned commercial.
Mr. Tralins said, the result of that is that in order to protect this
piece of land he had no alternative, on behalf of his client, but to
advise Mr. Toll to withdraw his application and to go forward with the
hearing for the circuit court which they should have within short order
to validate or enforce what they believe is the court's prior ruling
that the entire parcel is, was and should be zoned commercial. He
said, the only other thing he could add is that his client's interest
is and has been to divest himself of his land holdings and his relation-
ships in the City. He has been attempting to do so diligently.
- 4 - 11/1/82
/pm
1. J
Mr. Tralins said his client's interest is only in selling his property
and selling it in a way that is consistent with the City's development
standards and also in a way that is profitable to his client. He said
as far as they are concerned, had the program that was worked out with
the developer gone forward, they would have no objection to it, since
they have no objection to any plan that would allow them to conclude
the sale. On that note, he asked, on behalf of Leadership, that Council
now recognize its withdrawal of its consent as a land holder to the
application for rezoning.
Jeffrey Mombach, attorney for Toll Development, said Council is aware
of what Mr. Tralins has indicated and he has no choice but to withdraw
the application and cannot go through with what they thought was a very
good plan for the City. He said they have always taken the position
when they negotiated with Leadership for the property and when they met
with various members of Council in good faith, they have taken the
position that this property is totally zoned commercial and that as far
as the entry into a stipulation or a settlement, they did not have to
do it. However, Mr. Mombach said, to preserve what was better for the
City, they did negotiate in good faith and they provided the City with
various benefits such as extra setbacks and certain residential
properties which, under the existing zoning, they did not have to do.
Mr. Mombach said, based on what Mr. Tralins has said, Toll Development
hereby withdraws the petition and Mr. Mombach thanked various members
of Council for working with them and they will await the decision of
Judge Weissing on the petition filed by Mr. Tralins.
Jon Henning said at this point, since the petitioner is not proceeding
forward, he would suggest that the Chair entertain a motion to remove
it from the agenda since there is no item to be acted upon.
V/M Massaro MOVED that in view of the statements made by the attornev
for Toll Development and the statements made by Mr. Tralins on behalf
of Leadership, she said she sees no choice but to allow them to
withdraw this petition and let the courts rule on it. SECONDED by
C/M Krantz.
VOTE. ALL VOTED AYE
Ben Allen, resident, asked what this means in relationship with the
Tape Tract marked R3 and Mr. Henning said there are court orders governing
2 portions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 and Tract 44 is in a portion of Section
5. Mr. Henning said this land, at one time, was in unincorporated
Broward County and adjacent to it was a portion of land that was part
of the municipality of Tamarac. He said in order to have an orderly
development of this combination of incorporated municipal land and
unincorporated land, all of which was owned by Leadership Housing,
Leadership went to court to see that the development of the land in
the City and outside the City would be the same. He said this was
so that the restrictions would not be more restrictive inside Tamarac
than they would outside in the unincorporated areas. He said the
essence of that was that this land was annexed around l/l/73 and the
original circuit court order stated something to the effect that all
the regulations that were in effect in 197.3 in the County,before this
land was annexed, could continue to be developed on those 1972 regula-
tions.
Mr. Henning said, since this land was started to be developed in 1972,
the court ordered that they could continue the development of these large
tracts of land using the regulations or Ordinances that were in effect
for Broward County in 1972. He said other portions of the City have had
other Ordinances revised along the way and an outgrowth of that 1973
court order has been clarification of what was heard today as an
additional motion for clarification as to what the ramifications of
that court order are.
- 5 - ll/l/82
/pm
Fred Chippenway, resident of Section 22, said that in 1972 there was
nothing in this area and he cannot understand how they could make
plans then as to what is appropriate now and if they were made, they
should be changed accordingly. Jon Henning said in 1972 Tract 44 was
zoned commercial and any rezoning to residential happened after that
time. Mr. Henning said the court had held, in its order, that apparently
there was some plan.
Lou Vladim, Vice President of the Woodmont Property Owners Association,
said that based on the fact that Leadership owned the land, the residents
should have gotten the stipulations for the ruling from the Judge.
He said a beautiful map was issued to all of the purchasers showing
that area was residential and the Council voted for a Land Use Plan
showing on the map that this property is residential. He said the
Sunshine Law in this state demands that everything be told to the
people and now they are being told that they are at the mercy of that
court order.
Mr. Henning said he is not telling the people that they are at the
mercy of that court order but Mr. Tralins has said that he is going to
court for clarification and the City will be there. My'. Henning asked
Mr. Vladim if he would like to put his address into the record and he
will be notified of the hearing and he may be used as a witness. Mr.
Vladim stated his address as 7598 NW 86 Terrace, Tamarac, Fla. 33321.
Harold H. Newman, resident of Westwood 23, asked the City Attorney what
position the City is going to take in regard to the court order. Mr.
Henning said he would not be in a position at this time to give the
full strategy of the City on this court case. He said in trying to
untangle this he learned there was a density of 144 units assigned
to this piece of property which did not necessarily mean that it can only
be residential property. He said back in 1972 even commercial property
was given a density because of County regulations. He said today's maps
show a density of a certain amount of units per acre for residential
designated property and usually you do not see density on commercial
tracts. He said this tract is approximately 25 acres.
Mr. Newman referred to a map that was circulated in 1972 by Leadership
and was called Timber Run. He said this is called the Land Use Map and
Tract 44 is known as R3 and this was a selling point by Leadership and
the City pursued this under an R3 in the Land Use Plan regardless of
whether or not it could be used either residential or commercial. He
said he would like to know who takes the responsibility for all of the
residents accepting this as R3 when they purchased their homes. He said,
should the courts decide that this remains as is, he would expect the
City to appeal it.
Mr. Henning said neither he nor Council are in a position to comment
on this with the uncertainty of the court action. C/M Krantz said the
court order is only for clarification of the original Judge Weissing
order and Jon Henning agreed.
Ray Munitz, President of the Tamarac Presidents Council, said he met
with the Board of Directors of the Presidents Council and their concern
about the legal consequences is welcome so that once and for all it can
be determined which way this will go.
Morris Glicksman, resident, said Tamarac was one of the first cities
in South Florida that established the beautification Ordinances which
were copied by most of the other cities in the area. He said in 1972
Pine Island Road/88th Avenue was no road at all and was developed
subsequent to that time by Plantation, Sunrise, North Lauderdale and
Coral Springs. He said there are only residential structures all along
that area. He said he believes that the City can show that this area
has changed and it can be proved that this land should be zoned
residential to keep the structure complete throughout from Plantation
to Coral Springs.
Mayor Falck declared a five minute recess.
ll/l/82
/Pm
F-_]
25. Banyan Lakes - Discussion and possible action to amend the terms
of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement pertaining to payment
of fees for ERC's.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
( See Page 9 )
Alan Ruf said he appeared before Council in May and requested they
agree with an amendment to the Water and Sewer Agreement and at the
5/12/82 meeting. Council agreed to make certain concessions for
Crestmark Corp. in order to reflect Council's concern and cooperation
because of the unlikely business climate in terms of sale of residential
units. He said, at that time Mr. Bruscino paid approximately $30,000
to the City and entered into an agreement for the payment of approximately
$30,000 additional no later than 12/31/82. He said the payment of the
$29,790 was tied to payment for ERC'S at the time that he was given
building permits for construction of quadruplexes.
Mr. Ruf said, unfortunately, they discovered that the applications for
building permits were not made to the City of Tamarac but rather were
made to Broward County because it is in the unincorporated area and
Mr. Bruscino had started three Mr. Ruf
quadruplexes . contacted Mr.
Bruscino and he sent Mr. Ruf a letter indicating that the City must
recognize that these payments must be tied to when he can make construction
draws and he asked for the City to consider an amendment to his
agreement as follows: that he pay no later than today the sum of $8,000,
Mr. Ruf had the check for $8,000 with halm, and that the City would give
him four meters for one of his quadruplexes. Mr. Ruf said he has included
that sum of money in the $8,000, the check is for $8,680, $4,000 will
apply against the $29,000.
Mr. Ruf said Mr. Bruscino has told him that he would pay the City
$13,000 no later than 11/9/82 and the balance due on the total amount
no later than 12/7/82 which would coincide with the construction draw
for his final building of the three. Mr. Ruf said he has no problem
as a practical matter in recommending that Council proceed with this
proposal, however, he would add that if the payment were not made on
11./9/82, no additional water meters would be issued until the total
amount is paid. Mr. Ruf said, however, if Mr. Bruscino should make
the payment that he has indicated than no meters would be provided for
the third building, which is Building 8, until the entire balance is
paid.
C/M Disraelly said for clarification, Mr. Bruscino will pay $8,000
today of which $4,000 applies against the $29,790. He will pay $13,000
of which $4,000 will be for the meters on Building 34 and $4,000 against
the outstanding balance. He said of the $5,000 which applies to the
clubhouse ERC'S, $2,500 applies to the clubhouse, which is 2-1/2 meters
and $2,500 will, apply against the outstanding balance. The total is
$10,500 which will mean that he will then have $19,290 outstanding.
C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Ruf if he were telling Council that on 12/7/82
Mr. Bruscino will give Council a check for $19,290 and Mr. Ruf said
this is what was stated in Mr. Bruscino's letter. V/M Massaro asked
what happens with the $22,000 in addition that is owed? She said if he
can get permits for that last building or if he can get service he must
pay for that service. She said he will still be owing 22 ERC'S and he
now has outstanding 30 ERC'S and will be paying for 4 today and the next
check will be for 4 more. She said the $19,290 is arrears and Mr. Ruf
said his recollection is that Mr. Bruscino had a requirement under the
Developers Agreement to take down 100% of the ERGS within a certain
period of time. Mr. Ruf said if Mr. Bruscino paid the $19,290, he
would have then paid for all ERC'S against the project and he would be
able to use them then in the other remaining buildings.
- 7 - ll/l/82
/pm
L
C/M Disraelly said Mr. Bruscino would have to pay for additional
buildings that were put up. Mr. Ruf said he would have to check this
further and his recollection was that if Mr. Bruscino paid the $19,290
he would be completed with the City for the number of ERC'S that he was
obligated to pay under the Developers Agreement.
V/M Massaro said she understands the facts as C/M Disraelly does and
Mr. Ruf said that would pay up all of the ER_C'S required in Phases 1
and 2 and he referred to Paragraph 7 of the Developers Agreement and he
said the $19,290 will make up for the ERC'S that Mr. Bruscino had
contracted to purchase in Phases 1 and 2 and the contribution charges
with respect to Phase 3 have been delayed to 10/83.
C/M Disraelly asked about the guaranteed revenues and Mr. Ruf said he
is beginning to pay guaranteed revenues now on Phase 3. Mr. Ruf said
they are in need of their meters now to close on that building to get
the cash flow moving and he said he does not mind if Council would
amend his proposal to say that the City should receive all of the
CIAC required in Phases 1 and 2 no later than 12/7/82.
V/M Massaro asked if there is a provision in this agreement if Mr.
Bruscino were to start building in Phase 3 and Mr. Ruf said Mr. Bruscino
is not constructing in Phase 3 but is finishing construction in Phases
1 and 2 since Phase 3 is furthest to the south and it is not advantageous
to start developing there. V/M Massaro said within this agreement,
should they start Phase 3 within the year, it is at that time that they
have to pay the CIAC charge, not 10/83. Mr. Ruf agreed that this is
so and he requested holding this item for a few minutes so that he
could get more information on this. Mayor Falck agreed to go on to
the next item and hold action until Mr. Ruf's return.
26. Water and Sewer Fees - ERC Values - Temp. Reso. #2498 -
Discussion and possible action. (Adoption of temporary Resolution
requires a public hearing).
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: The City Attorney
was authorized to draw up a Resolution
and the City Clerk was authorized to
advertise for a public hearing.
Jon Henning said he sent - memo #82-10-9 which was the outline of the
proposed water and sewer charges for ERC'S which he received through
phone calls with Williams, Hatfield & Stoner. He said there was not
a report coming from the engineers that followed this up and what is
before Council now is a proposal that the multi -family units remain
at the same charge which is $1,000 per unit. Mr. Henning said the
change goes along with the procedure which is prevalent in many
communities in Broward County where a single family home has a higher
rating so the full ERC'Swould be for the single family home or the
commercial unit.
Mr. Henning said the multi -family home is now 2/3 of anERCS with the
effect of that being the increase by 50% of charges for the single
family home. He said this would be a proposed utility increase which
will not necessarily affect the present users but to affect the builders
and developers that would come into the system after this is passed.
The City Manager said this is part of the City's rate Resolution and
this would have to be advertised as an increase in the rates.
C/M Disraelly stressed that this should not be restricted to just
single family residential since it refers to any ERC'S commercial as
well as residential.
Mayor Falck said if the motion he suggested is adopted, he would ask
Mr. Henning to draw up a Resolution and release this to Council for
their review and Mr. Henning said he would do this as expeditiously
as possible.
ll/1/82
/pm
Tape Mr. Henning said this would tie in with the Water and Sewer Agreement
3 and this should be advertised for the next meeting. V/M Massaro said
this should also only apply to TUW and she MOVED that the City Attorney
be authorized to draw up a Resolution and that the City Clerk advertise
for a public hearing according to procedures to reflect the proposed
change in the contribution and aid to construction charge for one or
more ERC'S and that charge is to reflect the cost of $1,500 per ERC.
The multi -family units will remain the same, 2/3 of an ERC at $1,000.
C/M Disraelly respectfully requested that the motion not say $1,500
per ERC but show the breakdown between water and sewer because they
could buy just water or just sewer alone. V/M Massaro agreed and said
it means $525 for the water and $975 for the sewer totalling $1,500
per ERC if a combination of both. She said the other 2/3 is $350 for
water and $650 for sewer which is the same as it is today. SECONDED
by C/M Krantz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
25. Banyan Lakes - Discussion and possible action to amend the terms
of the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement pertaining to payment
of fees for eres.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED
with conditions. (See Pages 7 and 8).
Mr. Ruf said he has two checks that total $8,640. He said there were
three agreements since Banyan Lakes is being developed in three phases.
He said the first agreement was executed in 4/79 for 50 ERC'S, the
second agreement was negotiated in 10/80 for an additional 76 ERC'S and
a third agreement for Phase 3 was 7/81 for an additional 72 ERC'S
He said his understanding is that the $29,000 indicated as being owed
for CIAO is the $52,000 on Agreement No. 1, the 25% of the 72 units in
Agreement No. 2. He referred to Paragraph 7 of the Amendment Agreement
which states that the City extend the obligation to take down all the
CIAC in Phase 2 through 10/20/83. He said basically,Mr. Bruscino was
required to do the 25% take down, require him to finalize the obligation
under Phase 1 for a total of 19, extended his obligation to take down
the balance of the CIAC on Phase 2 to 10/83 and extended his obligation
to take anything down on the Phase 3 to 7/8/84.
V/M Massaro asked Mr. Ruf, in view of the length of time involved and
the fact that Mr. Bruscino is already in default, is the City in a
position to cancel out Phase 3 and say that he must enter into a new
agreement with the City? Mr. Ruf said Mr. Bruscino is not in default
of the Phase 3 agreement.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that the City accept the payments from Crestmark
Corp. as referred to in the pay schedule in the memorandum from Mr.
Bruscino of 10/21/82 whereby he has given Mr. Ruf a payment of $8,000
to be applied toward ERC'S on Building 3 and for other unpaid ERC'S and
that by
11 9 8 2 Mr. Bruscino will be required to pay the City $13,000
as he has indicated for the payment of ERC'S on Building 34, 2-1/2 ERC'S
on the clubhouse and the other amounts of $6,500 to be applied to
unpaid balances. That Mr. Bruscino will make the final payment of all
unpaid used ERC'S which according to the City's figures, will amount
to $19,290 which will be payable for complete payment for Phases 1 and
2 on the date of 12/7/82. That no permits for meters will be issued
for Phase 3 until all of these payments have been completed by that
date.
V/M Massaro said all of the numbers mentioned are subject to verification
as to their accuracy and C/M Disraelly added this to his MOTION. Mr.
Ruf said C/M Disraelly meant to say there would be no additional meters
for any buildings, not Phase 3, including Building 8 until the entire
balance is paid. SECONDED by V/M Massaro.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
ll/1/82
- 9 - /pm
77
MAYOR FALCK ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 3:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
SISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ Cc or $ W, :� 9
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.
- 10 -
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL Oil 3
11/1/82
/Pm
�. J