Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-13 - City Commission Workshop Meeting MinutesCity Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 1 CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 Mayor Bender called this meeting to order on Monday, September 13, 1993 at 2:10 p.m. in the Conference Room #1 of City Hall. Mayor H. Larry Bender Vice Mayor Irving Katz Councilman Norman Abramowitz Councilman Joseph Schreiber Councilman Henry Schumann John P. Kelly, City Manager Mitchell S. Kraft, City Attorney Karen Jackson, Secretary 1. DISCUSSION regarding recycling. Mr. Kelly said it is the City's intent to expand the recycling program effective November 15, 1993. He said the expansion program would include the various types of glass, plastics and all metal food and beverage cans; however, there will also be an additional cost for this. Mr. Kelly said at present, a single-family unit is paying $.84 per month and the proposed cost is an additional $.95 per month for a total cost of $1.79 with a 50/50 split in the sale of recyclables. He said the multi -family units are paying $.56 per month. He said there are a couple options due to some areas where it appears that two times per week pickup may be necessary. He said the City went with a proposed add -on of $1.21 per one time pickup per week. He said the Group Cities are buying another truck but the truck will not be available by November 15, 1993. He said when the truck becomes available the price will be reduced to $1.11. Mr. Kelly said after this year there will be five trucks available to be utilized by the five cities. C/M Schreiber asked if it would cost Tamarac 20% for the truck and Mr. Kelly said the grant monies paid for the vehicles and the cities will own them outright at the end of the period. Mr. Kelly said the vendor had originally insisted on a 50/50 split on the multi -family but after some negotiations, he agreed to a 55/45 split with the split favoring the cities. He said the Deerfield cost is presently at $1.77 with all of the revenue going to the hauler and Port Lauderdale's projected cost is $2.05 with all of the revenue going to the City. Mr. Kelly said there were options early in the program of taking a greater risk and reaping more benefits but the cities opted to take a more conservative position in this matter. Mr. Kelly said the contract was rewritten by Howard Kusnick, Attorney for All Service Refuse, which provides in detail what he had summarized. Mr. Kelly said there was a concern regarding contaminants and the Contractor has a problem with being responsible for the decision to stop service. He said it had been suggested that it be the responsibility of the hauler to make this determination but the Committee agreed that the hauler could not assume this responsibility and that only the Group Cities could give him City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 2 direction not to pick up. Mr. Kelly said with a single-family unit, there will be little difficulty detecting and identifying contamination but there will be a problem with multi -family contamination. Mr. Kelly said the detection will occur when BFI turns down the hauler's drop-off. He referred to Page 8 of the contract. He said the Contractor will remove the contaminants, however, the Group Cities will pay the charges incurred at the MRF, plus segregation and ultimate disposal of contaminated materials whether or not the disposal site is at the MRF. Mr. Kelly said if transportation of the contaminants is required, the Contractor will pickup and deliver contaminated loads to a site as directed by the Group Cities, as the Contractor's share of the cost of dealing with the contamination. Mr. Kelly said the Contractor will be responsible and once he is told by the MRF that the load is unacceptable, the Contractor would have to contact him, as the Administrator of the Group Cities, in writing as well as the other cities which may be affected. He said it will be deciphered which day the load was picked up and from where. C/M Abramowitz asked how it would be deciphered which building in a development would be the violator and billing of the costs. Mr. Kelly said the individual cities would have to develop a mechanism for fining the violator to reimburse the Group Cities. Discussion was held regarding the identification process of the violators. Harold Carter, representative of All Service Refuse, said many of the routes are in an individual city but not all of them. He said this would be determined by slowing down the pickup process for identification after contamination has been noticed. C/M Abramowitz asked if this would be in effect if three of the five cities voted in favor of this and Mr. Kelly said, yes. Mr. Kelly said there is speculation that a city may drop out. C/M Abramowitz asked what would happen if there are three cities who do not want to approve this and Mr. Kelly said the program will not exist. C/M Abramowitz asked what the ramifications would be in doing this and Mr. Kelly said the State mandate is to the County. C/M Abramowitz said at present the City has one carrier picking up newspapers and, hopefully, in the future there will be one carrier picking up everything. He asked if there is a possibility of an arrangement being worked out whereby the City can have a carrier pick up everything and lower the cost. Mr. Kelly said he does not know if it will lower the cost but there has been discussion with Waste Management regarding this. Further discussion was held regarding this. C/M Abramowitz asked if part of the money is for other containers and Mr. Kelly said the containers are being bought separately and not out of this money. C/M Abramowitz asked how the Five Cities know that they need other containers. He said if the City implements the total recycling program, his garbage will be very low. Discussion was held regarding the containers needed for the recycled products and the replacement process to be utilized. 1 1 City Council Workshop Meeting .9/13/93/KJ Page 3 C/M Abramowitz said there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the cost. Mr. Carter said the rate that has been established is presently the lowest rate in Broward County and will probably be the benchmark for South Florida. He said this price includes all nine products from all multi -family units at $1.23. He said to make this figure lower, the City will be receiving material revenue from the MRF, instead of what has been happening and the City's 50 or 55 per cent of the material revenue could be used internally by each city to offset what the customers are billed. Mr. Carter said some of this money would have to be retained for parts replacement and contingencies. C/M Abramowitz asked if Mr. Carter would be willing to purchase the City's 50 per cent of the revenue and Mr. Carter said this would be the exact opposite to what the other cities want to do. Mr. Carter said both parties need to be involved in making the program work. He said this makes it important for the City and the hauler to make it work and both are receiving some benefit from it. Mayor Bender asked what controls will be in place that when the trucks arrive at the MRF, dump their loads, leave and then are notified that contaminants exist. He asked if it will be deciphered from where the contaminants came. Mr. Carter said the staff at the MRF must look at the load while the truck is on location in order to decipher whether or not contaminants exist. Further discussion was held regarding this. V/M Katz said he would like to see a surplus go back to the General Fund. Mr. Carter said that would be Council's decision. C/M Schreiber asked if the 55/45 split can be revised at a later date and Mr. Kelly said this split is pretty much set for the duration of the contract. Mr. Kelly said there is presently approximately 313,000 pounds of paper recycled in the City of Tamarac. Discussion was held regarding the cost for recycled paper. Mr. Kelly said he would place this on the agenda for September 22, 1993 for the rate increases and additional information would be provided to Council. 2. pISCUSSION regarding the Economic Development Proposal by Richard Rubin of Conjor Company. Mr. Kelly said he provided Council with information from Conjor Company with a proposal that Council should consider. He introduced Richard Rubin of the Conjor Company. Mr. Rubin said this is a proposal to amend the City's Land Use Plan. He said this would be the first of a three -step process to increase the economic redevelopment of the community. He said in 1993, a Legislative Session adopted revisions to Growth Management Legislation which allowed exemptions to traffic concurxency in three areas downtown areas, urban in -fills and redevelopment areas. Mr. Rubin said Fort Lauderdale has already chosen to apply for exemption of their downtown area from concurxency. He said Conjor Company is currently utilizing the third tool as a method to assist another City to exempt a portion of their arterial roadways from concurrency using the guidelines allowed by State Law. City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 4 C/M Abramowitz asked if redevelopment means the tearing down of old buildings and rebuilding and Mr. Rubin said it means this and vacant land. Howard Craft of Conjor Company said the concurrency problem is caused by an unintended result of the concurrency laws passed by the State several years ago. He said there is a new policy which is proposed for adoption by the Broward County Planning Council. Mr. Craft said the critical areas in Tamarac are Commercial Boulevard, University Drive and State Road 7 (441). Discussion was held regarding concurrency. Mr. Craft said their analysis shows that the concurrency problem throughout Broward County and the State is beginning to affect a number of smaller areas. He said Conjor Company can explore ways to provide, within the City's Land Use Plan, justification giving the City the option to allow the proposed development to go forward even though they are caught up in the trafficways problem. C/M Abramowitz asked if this is applied for and is successful and a developer comes in to develop, would he not need his trip ticks and would he not be bound by the concurrency problem and Mr. Craft said, yes. Mr. Rubin said they would amend the County and City's plan to get double protection. He said he spoke with Representative Geller and Senator Forman regarding this and the intent of this legislation was to fine tune concurrency and get development where it should belong. He said this process will take nine months, but it can be done. Mr. Rubin said there are a couple of areas in the City which should be exempted from traffic concurrency. He said this will need to be determined by the City. Further explanation was given regarding this process. V/M Katz said this Council can determine where there is a lack of concurrency. He said there are certain areas in the City where development may be desired. Mr. Rubin said Conjor Company will define the areas which meet the requirements of the State and County to be exempted. C/M Abramowitz said he did not hear a cost estimate. Mr. Rubin said it would be a cost of approximately $10,000 for a document to exempt the areas from traffic concurrency. Mayor Bender asked if Mr. Rubin is asking for $10,000 for approximately nine months of work and after those nine months, Council would be presented with a package and Mr. Rubin said the City can adopt this at a public hearing in nine months. Mr. Rubin said at that public hearing, the City would be adopting the circles and the guidelines to exempt somebody from traffic concurrency and will be adopting the requirements that the developer must follow in order to be exempted. Further discussion was held regarding this proposal. C/M Abramowitz asked if they could mitigate to the point where anything that has to be done would have to be within the borders of the City of Tamarac and Mr. Rubin said that is his personal interpretation of the intent of the State Law. C/M Abramowitz asked why the City would want to mitigate some concurrency and not all of it and Mr. Rubin said the legislature did not give the municipalities the ability to mitigate all of it. 1 E Mr. Rubin said it must be a downtown area, urban in --fill or urban redevelopment. He said the City of Tamarac meets the City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 5 classification of urban redevelopment. C/M Schreiber asked if the City's Community Development Department would develop the information of what area would be worthwhile researching for future development. Mr. Rubin said Mr. Vonder Meulen can do this but the Conjor Company is currently doing this for another municipality which gives them a step forward in understanding the process and moving that much faster. C/M Schreiber asked why they are talking about nine months and Mr. Rubin said that is the length of time it takes to go through the Land Use Plan process. Mr. Rubin said the fee can be fixed based on the discussion currently being held. TAPE 2 C/M Abramowitz said he would like a little more information but he is very interested in this process. Mr. Rubin said it would cost $10,000 for one corridor area, Commercial Boulevard and University Drive are over capacity. He said 441 will soon be in concurrency. C/M Schreiber asked how much land needs to be developed in the City and C/M Abramowitz said there are a lot of small areas to be developed. C/M Schreiber suggested that this study be done on the entire City and then be broken down by projects and charge piecemeal. C/M Abramowitz suggested that a more detailed proposal be given to Council for review. 3. regarding the Ci.ty's Easement Vacation/ Encroachment process. Mike Vonder Meulen, Senior Planner, said there has been some discomfort shown during some of the Council meetings regarding easement vacations and encroachments. He said this is to provide a brief explanation to Council. Mr. Vander Meulen said these are two separate issues. He said the one which is rarely seen is the easement vacation, where the City actually gives the rights of the particular easement away. He said easements are a reservation on a private piece of property where a franchise or City utility has the right to go in and run and maintain lines. Mr. Vander Meulen said when someone builds a structure which encroaches an easement, a release needs to be acquired from the company with the easement rights. He said if there is no objection, there should be no problem allowing construction of the structure. C/M Schreiber asked why the City prohibits construction in the utility easement. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the Code prohibits this unless a waiver is acquired from these utility companies. Mr. Kraft said this is a good rule to have, otherwise everyone would encroach on the easements. Mr. Vonder Meulen said fences, walls and hedges do not fall under the same category as a structure or a slab. Discussion was held regarding the wall constructed across the street from City Hall. Mr. Kraft said the property owner owns the easement but does have underlying interest and the easement needs to be protected. City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 6 C/M Schreiber said the purpose of keeping the easements is to not allow building in there so that the utilities will not be obstructed from going in. Mr. Vonder Meulen said to ensure this, the City receives a letter of no -objection from every utility involved with the easement. He said if there is a problem and the lines need to be maintained and something goes wrong where the City has to remove a piece of the slab or other portion of the owner's property, it is the owner's responsibility to make the necessary repairs. C/M Abramowitz said it is much easier to allow a non -permanent structure in the easement. He said if it is permanent, it is the owner's responsibility to repair it if the utility company has to remove it. C/M Schreiber said the City Council approved the site plan with a berm and utility easement on the property across from City Hall and then they were permitted to build the wall in the easement without Council's approval. He said the Code should be revised to a point where all of these revisions should go before Council. Discussion was held regarding the revisions which need to be brought to Council. C/M Schreiber said there is no clarification in the Code as to what is a minor or a major revision. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the wall which was built. Mr. Vander Meulen said there was a determination made in the past regarding the issues of minor and major when the structure is being discussed but a fence or a wall has been considered something in between. He said items which are considered major are such as if a change occurs in the traffic circulation on --site or off -site, if there is going to be an increase in parking and if there is going to be an increase in the footprint of the structure. He said all others are considered minor. Mr. Vonder Meulen said this is why when the wall came through, there were no limitations in the Code about the wall except for the height. Further discussion was held regarding the wall being built. C/M Abramowitz said the City should place in the Code that a wall is a major revision. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the City does not want Council in the position to be subject to a lawsuit by turning someone down if the City receives letters from all of the utility companies stating that there is no objection. C/M Schreiber said the utility companies have no objection as long as they can get to their lines and have no responsibility to damages, however, they do not live in the City. He said the people that live in the City are concerned with the beautification of the City and that is where the objection is. Further discussion was held regarding the wall. 4, regarding the City's Action Plan process as part of concurrency review. Mr. Kelly said this ties in with Mr. Rubin's discussion and Community Development's ability to handle the economic development. He said Mr. Vonder Meulen is fully qualified to do this, however, he would like Council to sit with Mr. Vonder Meulen to review his workload to make the decision as to whether or not his workload permits the time he would need to do this. F� 1-1 Mr. Kelly said the Conjor Company can handle this for a fee. He City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 7 said if Mr. Vonder Meulen does it, this would mean he would not be handling another task. He said the City can cut the fee because there are skills that Mr. Vonder Meulen has which can assist Mr. Rubin, C/M Schumann asked what will happen after Mr. Rubin has developed the program. Discussion was held regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the exemption process. C/M Schumann asked what is done with this land after the exemption process is completed and Mayor Bender said this opens the door for development. C/M Schumann asked why the City should engage in this fee when it is going to enure to the property owner. He asked why the property owner cannot apply for the exemption. C/M Abramowitz said the taxes the property owner pays on raw land are low but if it becomes developed that is revenue that comes to the City. C/M Schumann asked why the City should pay to get the owner's property exempt and C/M Abramowitz said for the same reason the City pays for sewers in a place that there is no development, because the City wants people to come in. He said the law states that the infrastructure must be placed prior to development. Mr. Vonder Meulen reviewed the State regulations. He said roads are one of the biggest problems which is the reason Mr. Rubin came before Council. He said what Mr. Rubin was saying is that the City should initiate a change to allow for future development within a particular corridor if the City considers that corridor important for development and redevelopment. He said it will take nine months of paperwork to get this started, not including development. Mr. Vander Meulen said there are people who want to build now and are willing to pay the price. C/M Schumann asked why the property owner who has potential developers to build should not pay to have his own property exempted and V/M Katz said if the property owner had a contract sale subject to this, then he most likely would, but it just does not work this way. Further discussion was held regarding the City paying for the exemption process. Mayor Bender asked if the City has recourse to get the money back from the exemption process once someone develops and Mr. Kelly said that is an investment that the City made hoping to achieve development. '1M.C. Vnnde2_Meulen referred to action plans. He said the exceptions tcC:.-Ponct![riency are single-family houses and duplexes on a single =_ lcrr_in ab in -fill area. He said if there is a recorded plat from = r Oc bb—L -bf=1979 through today, this is an exemption and a trip run does riot -deed to be sought, however, the County places a fes.tri,arion on the plat. He said the only other way to get s6mething developed in the City is to get an action plan approved. Mr. Vonder Meulen explained the action plan process. He said the County action plan process is drawn out and somewhat expensive, depending on the solution. He explained the trips run process. C/M Schumann said the County declares concurrency and any or all may later become exempt. Mr. Vonder Meulen said the Conjor Company is creating rules to get the City exempt. He said when there are 100,000 cars on the road, the road must be six lanes, but when there are 100,001 cars on the City Council Workshop Meeting 9/13/93/KJ Page 8 road it has to be eight lanes. He said once there is the 100,001 car, the State Law rules that there will be no more building in that area, which is why there is such a problem with concurrency. Further discussion was held regarding this. V/M Katz said development is based on the number of trips on the roads. Mr. Vander Meulen said Sunshine Plaza Publix and St. Malachy's vestibules were action plans which were approved by Council. He said vestibules do not generate any additional traffic which is how the City was able to approve these two projects. TAPE 3 Mr, Vonder Meulen said the next project looking for an action plan is on McNab Road next to John Vince Market. He said the development of this property will generate additional trips on McNab Road which will need to be mitigated. He said the property owner is looking to install a right turn lane or possibly a bus bay which will eliminate the stoppage of traffic when a bus has stopped to pick up or drop off passengers. He said the County allows for 20 additional trips on the road by the installation of a bus bay. Further explanation was given regarding the trips process. Mr. Kelly said the action plans are site specific and cannot be done for the entire City. He said the advantage of going through the exemption process is that it allows the City to pick the location. Discussion was held regarding the areas in the City which fall under concurrency. Mr. Vander Meulen said a compact deferral area is a mile on each side of the road segment and one half mile from the ends of the road segment. Further discussion was held regarding the various areas in the City that have concurrency. Mr. Vander Meulen said his intention for this meeting was to clarify what an action plan is and what concurrency is because there will be an action plan on an upcoming Council agenda. C/M Schreiber asked about the entranceway signs and Mr. Kelly said the new sign is ready to be installed. Mayor Bender suggested that a statement should be placed on the back of the sign which reads, "Thank you for visiting Tamarac" and possibly install some back -lighting so it can be seen and Mr. Kelly agreed. With no further business, Mayor Bender ADJOURNED this meeting at 3:50 p.m. r CAROL A. EVANS, CITY CLERK 1 1