No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-12 - City Commission Workshop Meeting MinutesL. J L_. 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 NOTICE OF WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 Please be advised that the Tamarac City Council will hold a Workshop Meeting on Monday, October 12, 1981 at 10:00 A.M. in the West Conference Room of City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue. The Purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Site Plan Review Ordinance - Temporary No. 878 prior to Council consideration of this ordinance at the Regular Council Meeting on October 14th. The public is invited to attend. Council may discuss such other business as may come before it. This ordiM n(n is available for review and purchase at the Office of the City Clerk. 10/2/81 Marilyn Be holf, City Clerk CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING DEVELOPME14T REVIEW REGULATIONS - TEMP. ORD. #878 OCTOBER 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Mayor Disraelly called the Workshop Meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 12, 1981 in the West Conference Room at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilman Irving Zemel Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilwoman Helen Massaro Vice -Mayor Irvina 11. Disraelly Playor Walter W. Falck ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Arthur Birken City Planner Richard Rubin Chief Bldg. Official Al Miller City Engineer Larry Keating Vice -Mayor Disraelly explained the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Site Plan Review Ordinance - Temp. No. 878 prior to Council consideration of this ordinance at the Regular Council Meeting on October 14th. The City Attorney said this Ordinance has been discussed on numerous occasions in many forms. The Council has a copy of the latest draft of the Ordinance and some minor changes may still be needed. In an effort to assist the Council in grasping the overall picture, another Ordinance was submitted to Council one week ago (Temp. Ord. #925), which rewrites Chapter 20 of the City Code pertaining to Planning. These two Ordinances will be complimentary once Temp. #925 is in its final form. The importance of this Ordinance has also been discussed on prior occasions. The County Land -Use Plan and the City Land -Use Plan require certain reviews prior to the granting of the development permit . Development permits are defined both in the County Land -Use Plan and in the City Land -Use Plan in the broadest possible way to include such things as: building permits, site plan approval, plat approval and a number of other items. The County is of the opinion that each city should have a separate ordinance to enumerate each of the development review criteria and saying what those criteria are and what reviews take place. Mr. Birken continued by saying that most of the items that are contained within the development review portion of the proposed ordinance are discussed elsewhere in the code, this ordinance puts them all together. The Ordinance also modifies in several way, the e..istinq site plan regulations, it makes some changes in those regulations. Mr. Birken said the most significant change and the most controversial is the preliminary site plan review. The Ordinance, as currently written, provides for staff review at the preliminary site plan stage. This was first suggested to Council in late July at a Council Meeting. The Minutes reflect that there was some concern even at that time by at least one member of Council as to whether this change would be desirable. The matter was discussed by the Planning Commission and the changes were brought to the attention of this Commission. They voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. The City Attorney continued saying that the staff feels that this procedure would streamline the review process. There is language which the City Attorney would propose adding to the Ordinance to 10/12/81 /pm guarantee that Council was ..provided copies of the preliminary sit-1- plans when submitted initially so that Council would be aware of what is pending at the staff level and Council members would have the opportunity to attend the weekly staff meetings at which time the proposed projects are discussed. Mr. Birken continued saying the Planning Commission will have the full opportunity to review final site plans with more information in terms of documentation submitted. The Planning Commission will be involved in the development review procedure and in making recommendations concerning compliance with development review criteria to the City Council under the proposed Ordinance, so their role is not being diminished, it is just being changed. There are a number of other changes in the Ordinance. The.. Ordinance has lancauaae in some great detail in the area of phasing which was a subject of some discussion with F & R Builders and the language that is in the Ordinance under phasing generally reflects what is in Stip- ulation ##9 between the City and F & R. The City Attorney concluded by saying that there has been discussion that is no .t contained in the Ordinance at. ih.e present time the ability for certain revised site plans to be reviewed only by staff. C/w Massaro asked if there is anything in our general Ordinance that they do not have to comply with. City Attorney Birken replied that the Ordinance as it presently stands, does not deal with phasing in any comprehensive manner and it is written in a incomprehensible way. To clarify, he said the only thing being done is deciding whether a separate site plan would have to be approved for each phase or whether there could be an overall site plan. The next point is that in the first drafts of the Ordinance there had been language allowing staff to grant certain approvals on minor revised site plans. This is not in the Ordinance as submitted. On Page 30, Section 7-10, Richard Rubin stated that the City has specific standards for site plans but there are no specific standards for revised site plans. The Planning Commission has found that it is very hard to review revised site plans since there are not any specific criteria and they brought some good ideas in a memo dated September 18. Larry Keating mentioned that under the current code you cannot "turn a shovel" without having a site plan or a revised site plan. His question was whether Council really has to review site plans? C/M Kravitz remarked that he feels Council has enought to do without getting involved since staff should be able to handle this. C/11 Massaro stressed that it is most important that this Ordinance be moved in the next meeting of Council. This should be done to satisfy the county. At some future date this should be reviewed and modified. 1f there is an interest by any member of Council, a change can be prepared at some later date. Attorney Birken said it will be difficult because of the way the Ordinance is written to have staff input by Wednesday. Further review by Council after the enactment of the Ordinance would be detrimental. Vice -Mayor Disraelly remarked that if a change is made in the size and structure of a building, as pointed out by Greg Darby, there will be no site plan in the City that corresponds to the building that has been erected. - 2 - 10/12/81. /pm J The Chief Bldg. Official commented that on any addition or new building, a permit cannot be issued unless there is a site plan. C/W Massaro said there are too many things that are still hanging that must be decided upon by the Council. C/M Kravitz said he feels that problems that Council sees should be brought to the attention of the staff. Council should not get involved with everything that staff is doing. C/W Massaro answered by saying that if this is done the way it is laid out it will not go to staff but to the Building Dept. Vice -Mayor Disraelly said the Council does have recognition and they know that the fees have been paid and it has been approved by the changes on the site plan. Fie said his comments, as expressed in the Minutes of July 31, are that the elimination of Council or Planning from a preliminary review puts a tremendous onous on Council. For example, Richway went to Planning Commission last Wednesday. There was a pre -agenda meeting on Thursday. It was decided to put this on the agenda. That leaves only Friday to review this. Compounded by the fact that the Council gets no report of what the Planning Commissions' thought was regarding that plan. There is no input on this problem, with only three days to make a decision. There definitely should be a time element so that Council does have an input as to what took place at the Planning Commission meeting. Attorney Birken referred to Page 16 of the Ordinance: under (D) City Council Review, he had inserted the following in all caps: "IN NO CASE SHALL THE PETITION BE PLACED ON A COUNCIL AGENDA FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION UNTIL ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN ACCEPTABLE FORM". C/W Massaro said this could possibly mean a change in the time of the Planning Commission meetings or it would have to wait until the following Council meeting before it can be submitted. Attorney Birken referred to Page 11, (c)2, Line 28, "A copy of each preliminary plan shall be provided by the City Planner to each member of Council". On Page 12, Paragraph D, he suggests adding "Planning Commission" and "Council". If the Planning Commission could meet two days earlier, the Council might have the input sooner. On Page 17, add another item which would be,"draft minutes of Planning Commission discussion on said item". Mayor Falck entered the meeting after being unavoidably delayed. Vice-Mayor-Disraelly brought him up-to-date on the discussion. C/W Massaro suggested that the Planning Commission and the Council should have 5 working days to review the plans. 1. Attorney Birken referred to Page 16 (D) Lines 17 and 18, "ddd "and Council had at least 5 working days before the Council Meeting to review the documents". Richard Rubin said that anything that iq hps.rd hefnrP 1-h.z PlanningT Commission on a Wednesday automatically cannot go before the City Council the following Wednesday. Vice -Mayor Disraelly suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission should meet on the Thursday following the Council meeting. Attorney Birken referred to Page 15, Line 14 "The City Planner shall be responsible for providing a report to the Planning Commission at least 5 working days before action". On Page 37, last paragraph, "The City Planner shall be responsible for inspection of the premises to see that the physical site improvements are in conformance with the approved final site development plan and "Development Order" prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. No building shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy until the Chief Building Official certifies that the project is in accordance with the provisions of the South Florida Building Code, as may be amended (Sec. 307.1) and all other laws and ordinances applicable thereto". 10/12/81 /pm Larry Keating said at the point the developer wants to come in and pull permits they have a check for the permit available. It seems like more paperwork to have the Finance Dept. involved beforehand. He also referred to Page 37, Line 12; "No permit of any nature shall be issued for development which is inconsistent with approved site development plan or the plat approved by the Council". He questioned if Council approves the site plan and the County changes it, the developer does not come back with the changes, what happens if the City does not approve this? The developer will have a problem. Ile said that generally, the changes that are required by the County are not really changes but are additional improvements. The City Attorney said the City Council has a right to have the final word about what is approved. The County should not have this. On Page 37, Paragraph 1, the words "City Engineer" should be removed from this. Richard Rubin referred to Page 37, last paragraph; Section 7-10: the word "City" should be changed to "County". Vice Mayor Disraelly suggested that the Minutes of September 18 be included with 7-10. Mr. Birken said there are a few more minor changes which he will have typed in and distributed to the Council for the meeting. Mr. Keating referred to Page 28, Section 7e, (1), Line 30_. Attorney Birken addressed this subject by saying that the County Land -Use Plan or City Land -Use Plan states that before development the permit is issued and the City must make a finding of adequacy. When the site plan comes in each item should be satisfactory, if not, it can be approved on a conditional basis or it can be denied. Ile said that, hopefully, if an applicant with a plat is turned down there will not be a law suit. He said the problem is where the property was platted 10 years ago when there was no review made. Mr. Keating suggested that the City Council could make a decision that they feel that any plat that has already been approved by the County after (1953) had been evaluated as far as the adequacy of the National Transportation Network. Attorney Birken referred to Page 29, Line 26, (3); and said the City is as well protected as possible concerning this. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Carol A. Evans - Asst. City Clerk This public document was promulgated at a per copy, to inform the general public and about recent opinions and consideration by City of Tamarac. == cost of $ .?for$ - /I public officers and employees the City Council of the 10/12/81 /pm