HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-05 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes11
7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 9 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
October 3, 1989
NOTICE OF WORKSHOP MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Workshop Meeting of the City Council on
Thursday, October 5, 1989, at 10:30 A.M. in Conference Room
#1 of City Hall, 7525 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The purpose of this Workshop Meeting is discussion regarding
the City of Tamarac Comprehensive Plan.
CAE/pm
C�
Carol A. Evans
City Clerk
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 5, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this Workshop Meeting
of the City Council to order on Thursday, October 5, 1989 at 10:30
a.m. in Conference Room #1 (City Clerk's Office).
PRESENT: Councilman Henry Rohr
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Vice Mayor H. Larry Bender
Mayor Abramowitz
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Councilman Jack Stelzer
ALSO PRESENT:
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Kelly Carpenter -Craft, Director of
Community Development
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Patricia Marcurio, Office Manager,
City Clerk's Office
Karen Busch, Special Services Secretary
Mayor Abramowitz stated that the purpose of this Workshop Meeting,
as duly noticed, was to have discussion regarding the City of
Tamarac's Comprehensive Plan. John Kelly stated that Mrs.
Carpenter -Craft would be making the presentation.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft proceeded by having everyone present refer to
their copy of the draft of the Comprehensive Plan as it is
proposed to be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs
("DCA"). Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that this document would be
considered at the Public Hearing at the October llth Special City
Council Meeting, not for adoption but for transmittal to the State.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft explained that the word "transmittal" meant
the actual sending of the document to the State requesting the
State's review under Chapter 9J5 of the Florida Administrative
Code. It was stressed by Mrs. Carpenter -Craft that this document
would be close to the plan the City would be adopting when sent to
the DCA; however, it did not have to be precisely what the City
would adopt. She stated that there would be revisions to the
document as the City goes through the next ninety days while the
State was reviewing the submission.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that the Planning Commission has
reviewed the document in Public Hearing and has sent it on to the
City Council with its recommendations for the City to transmit to
the State. She added that the Planning Commission felt that they
did not have adequate time to review it in the detail they felt
necessary and requested that the City might have workshops in which
to refine all aspects of the Plan. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that
the Planning Commission did, however, recommend that the City
Council transmit the document as quickly as possible due the fact
that it was already delinquent in the timeframe for its submission.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stressed that while it was not her habit to
present a document that was not complete to the Council, it was
necessary to do so relative to the timeframe. She did, however,
feel it is a substantial document after checking with the
neighboring jurisdictions whom she felt had done an excellent job
in submitting their plans to the State with gaps in the data and
maps missing such as in this document yet resubmitting and getting
fairly early approval from the State.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that the gaps in the document were in
the data portions and not in the policy sections; therefore, most
anyone would be able to review the plan and understand the intent.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added that many of the gaps that exist at the
moment would probably be filled in by next Friday as all Department
October 5, 1989
/k hb
Heads are currently working on completion of the document.
At this time, Mayor Abramowitz asked it be noted that City Attorney
Richard Doody joined the Workshop Meeting at this point in time.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that if any typographical errors were
found, to please share this with her and she would have her
secretary correct same.
Vice Mayor Bender suggested that all the Department Heads that will
be working on this document get in touch with the Council regarding
comments on their respective Departments because he had a lot of
comments to share with them. Mayor Abramowitz asked Vice Mayor
Bender if it would not be a better idea to have his comments and
suggestions, as well as those of the other Councilmen, transmitted
to Community Development as a central coordinating point. After
much discussion on this point between the various Council members,
it was agreed that final decisions on each individual's input would
be best served by having a professional, Mrs. Carpenter -Craft,
coordinate the end product.
John Kelly further suggested that it might be a good idea to simply
have individual workshops on individual elements, such as Public
Works and Recreation, with the Directors sitting with the Council
reviewing input. Mayor Abramowitz stated he had no problem with
this idea; however, he wanted to avoid having information that
would result from these workshops from going in too many
directions. Mayor Abramowitz stressed that he wished to have the
professional and author of this document make final evaluations.
Councilman Hoffman indicated that the document was not only a
complicated one but one which would lock the City into a definite
avenue for the future and he felt it most important that everyone
understand what he felt was a very complicated document. Mayor
Abramowitz agreed; however, he still felt that everything should
be channeled through Mrs. Carpenter -Craft to make final correlation
on each Department Head's concerns, as well as any others, whether
or not it will or not effect the other Department's sections or the
overall Plan.
Councilman Rohr stated that it behooved the Council to go through
the Plan with Mrs. Carpenter --Craft to clarify their questions as
opposed to tieing up the time of each Department Head into
workshops to explain four or five different individual's questions.
He concurred that having everything go through Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
would be the most economical and sensible method of proceeding.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Mrs. Carpenter -Craft if she was in a
position at this time to review the Plan with the Council and
whether time was of the essence in this matter. Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft responded that if she had to do this in the ideal, she would
have a workshop on each element, or each related element, first
with the Planning Commission and then with the City Council.
However, shE stated the City was not in the ideal due to the Plan
being six months late. She further added that the State was
pressing the City to move forward with the Plan. Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft made the recommendation that the Council proceed to transmit
the document on October llth at which time the State would have
ninety days to review the document and make their comments and
suggestions on January llth, 1990. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that
once their comments are received, the City would have sixty days
in which to clean up the document, respond to their comments and
adopt it. In addition, during those ninety days, the City would
have time to operate in the ideal and hold several workshops on
every single element or related groups of elements with the
appropriate Department Heads present on all items. Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft expressed her desire to encourage community involvement to
K
October 5, 1989
/k hb
produce successful results.
Councilman Hoffman inquired of Mrs. Carpenter -Craft whether the
City had time during the sixty-day timeframe to make substantial
changes to the Plan. Mayor Abramowitz further tried to clarify the
question by asking Mrs. Carpenter -Craft if the Council voted today
to send the document to the State, if there could be any type of
changes. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said there is an Attorney General's
opinion on it; however, not being an attorney, she declined to
interpret same. She did comment that the opinion does state that
a City can make substantive changes after the document has already
been sent to the DCA. Mayor Abramowitz asked the City Attorney,
Richard Doody, to look into this matter and report back to the
Council with his findings.
Councilman Rohr questioned if all the minimums have been met in now
attempting to send the document to the State. He asked if this
would leave the City in future years to amend the document, if
necessary. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded that the City was free
to amend the Plan twice a year from the land use standpoint but
that the County would only let the City amend it once. She said
the State theoretically would allow the City to amend it twice but
the County will only allow an amendment once a year regarding land
use. Mrs. Carpenter --Craft was asked by all attending if the City
was locked into the document now being sent. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
responded by saying that while changes could be made, the document
is more or less a statement of intent and that the City could not
be very far off in what they adopt in February or March.
Mayor Abramowitz wished to announce that he was pleased to see that
the City of Tamarac was one of the very few cities, cited on a map
published in the newspaper that day, having difficulties in road
impact issues.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said if the Council did choose to workshop the
document she would understand; however, she did stress that the
State was pressing for the City's submission.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft began by reviewing the Table of Contents and
its organization. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that this document
was reviewed in great detail in 1988 by the Planning Commission and
the City Council. She said the Planning Commission attempted to
update the document in 1989 to better facilitate the format and
respond to the comments received from the State in March of 1989.
She said her Department has incorporated a response to most of the
State's comments already.
Mayor Abramowitz inquired whether documentation was sent to the
State and when the State responded by saying what they felt was
incorrect. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft answered that in 1985 the
Comprehensive Plan Act was amended and it required that each local
jurisdiction revise and update its Comprehensive Plan and a
subsequent schedule was laid out by the State. The City of Tamarac
responded, actually held a transmittal hearing last December, and
sent this document to the State. She said in March, the City
received a set of comments from the State at which time, the
Planning Commission discovered that there was an error that
occurred during the transmittal hearing held in December, an
advertising error, which negated that document and gave it no
validity in the eyes of the State. She said the Planning
Commission worked with the State over the summer to come to a
conclusion as to how to address the problem, which was to redraft
the document. She said there being many new officials and
management personnel, most of the State's comments were then
incorporated and a new transmittal hearing had to be held to
resubmit the document to the State for review once again. Mrs.
Carpenter -Craft summarized by saying that a great deal of the
3
October 5, 1989
/khb
intent in the first document was still a large part of the intent
in the current document to be transmitted and that the new
officials should be somewhat comfortable with that aspect.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft proceeded to address some of the major issues
of the Flan. The main topics Mrs. Carpenter -Craft wished to
address were changes to Land Section 7; Hiatus Road; Utility Site;
Levels of Service and Maps.
LAND SECTION 7
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that through the DRI process which the
City was currently going through, there is industrial and
commercial acreage. She said that an applicant has asked to switch
a commercial location for an industrial location. Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft said this would not affect any of the goals and objectives
of the City. She also stressed that no change would occur in the
industrial and commercial acreage. She further stated that
application for developmental approval is in progress and it is
expected that the South Florida Regional Planning Council will
issue a Sufficiency Statement at any time and then Public Hearings
would occur on that Development Order prior to the Comprehensive
Plan being adopted.
HIATUS ROAD
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft referred to a diagram on the front board and
said that on the existing Land Use Plan submitted last year to the
State, there was an area between Commercial Boulevard, the Sawgrass
and McNab Road. She pointed out that Hiatus Road comes up Land
Section 7 through the middle and forms a cul-de-sac and; therefore,
there is no through road on Hiatus. She said that the Westport DRI
people proposed an alignment of Hiatus Road through their property
giving no access across the canal into the north half of Land
Section 7. Ms. Carpenter's Department worked very hard with all
of the land owners in Land Section 7 to come up with an alignment
of Hiatus Road that would take traffic from Commercial to McNab.
She said there would be no left turn allowed and it was proposed
there be a right -turn only lane out. The median would be designed
with a special traffic island which would not permit a left turn
and would force a right turn onto McNab Road.
Mayor Abramowitz clarified that with this design, coming out one
could only go east, that there was no east -west thoroughfare, and
to get in at that point you could only go west separated by an
island or median.
Councilman Hoffman asked why going west would not be permitted
since it dead ends and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded that people
could go west if they were coming from the east to the west.
Councilman Hoffman further added that people would not be able to
get onto the Sawgrass from there but Mrs. Carpenter -Craft and Mayor
Abramowitz said that this design was a much safer one and that
industrial traffic would be deterred from entering 108th Avenue,
which is mainly residential. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added that a
further buffer should be created so that if you were sitting on
your back porch north of McNab Road and you looked south across
McNab into the industrial area, you would not be able to see the
buildings.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that all of the property owners were
aware of that requirement of the alignment and agreed to it with
the exception of one property owner who never attended the Hearing
on this matter. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that she wished to
approach this alignment in the same manner as the Broward County
Trafficways Plan whereby the alignment is fixed in two locations
4
October 5, 1989
/k hb
on the map utilizing the existing right-of-way. She said she would
like the alignment to come through the City's utility piece in some
fashion but leave it with some flexibility to be handled in the
platting process in the proposed places she indicated on the map.
Councilman Rohr said that the way the alignment was drawn indicated
it would go directly through the owner's property that was not in
attendance at the Hearing. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said she respected
Councilman Rohr's concern; however, as a governmental body, the
City had to move ahead and possibly negotiate with the owner during
the platting process or be prepared to condemn the property.
Mayor Abramowitz said that mention should be made out of the 14
owners that this matter directly related to, 13 of those owners did
attend the Public Hearing and were unanimous in their acceptance.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft next showed another map with a slightly
different alignment that was proposed the day of the Public Hearing
with the Planning Commission by the Westport bRI people. She
indicated that it started out at the same point but had variations
in the shift of the alignment which were more fixed, but she
advised that flexibility be left in the Plan.
UTILITY SITE
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft pointed out that there has been a five -acre
utility site on the City's Comprehensive Plan on the land use map
just west of the Sawgrass Expressway. She further detailed that
this was a small sliver of land between the Sawgrass and the levy
that was still out there. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said the County had
on its land use plan a 29-acre site for utilities on its
Comprehensive Plan. She said that by proposing that this is the
map that the City would intend to adopt, the City would be
requesting that during the County's land use plan Amendment period
(starting November lst), that the County amend its plan, decrease
the utility site from the 29 acres on its plan to the five acres
shown on our Plan.
Mayor Abramowitz questioned if the County was to acquiesce, would
the remaining acreage over there not be able to be used for any
utility site. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded that if the County
took it off their Plan as utility, they would have to designate
another use and the most likely would be for open space and
recreation. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said she did not; however, feel
Optimistic about the County changing its plan. Mayor Abramowitz
questioned her comment as to whether it was based on her experience
that the County seldom does change or perhaps another reason. Mrs.
Carpenter -Craft answered by saying that it would appear that the
County putting that utility site on its Plan has made a definite
statement that this is what they would like to see done with that
acreage.
Vice Mayor Bender questioned what the reason was for what they had
indicated for utility acreage and what the City of Tamarac had
indicated for the same use with less acreage. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
said that the County gave her no reason for this but she thought
that FP & L had probably asked for this to be done. Vice Mayor
Bender asked whether the City should not have had an opportunity
to voice its opinion. Mayor Abramowitz asked what city the acreage
was in and who owned the 29 acres. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said the
acreage was in the City of Tamarac and it belonged in part to FP&L
and others including the Sawgrass. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that
the sale of the land had not been finalized as yet.
Councilman Rohr questioned whether all of the 29 acres were in
Tamarac and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft answered yes. Councilman Rohr
asked if Sawgrass owned all of the 29 acres and Mrs. Carpenter-
5
October 5, 1989
/khb
Craft said they own part of it and she was not sure from whom they
purchased all the land but she was sure they held five acres. She
added that the majority was from Sawgrass and perhaps some from
Leadership, but she could not be sure as she had never researched
that end of the spectrum.
Councilman Rohr added that he strongly felt that if land was
situated within a City that the City should have a say in what was
done with that land. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft offered some history
regarding inclusion maps from staff officials to the County
officials regarding inclusion in Plans.
Mayor Abramowitz asked Richard Doody in the interest of the
Comprehensive Plan, he contact Attorney Sam Goran and find out who
the attorney was for the Sawgrass Expressway to resolve the
question whether Sawgrass still requires DOT approval for this
issue.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that a motion should be made at the
October llth Hearing to have the City's staff request the County,
during the land use plan amendment period, to delete the 29 acre
site and replace it with the five acre site.
Councilman Hoffman asked if the City could delete the five acre
site and call it open space but Mrs. Carpenter -Craft suggested this
not be done since the site has been on the Plan since 1977 and is
recognized for its future use.
Vice Mayor Bender pointed out that the City should have precedent
on that site and ask the County to correct their Plan.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft questioned whether the Council wanted the
Planning Commission to transmit the Plan to the State with the five
acre site and ask the County to correct their Plan. Mayor
Abramowitz felt strongly that no action be taken until all the
information requested was received.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft began by stating that the State requires
municipalities set a level of service standard for water, sewer,
drainage, streets, parks and recreation and those standards are
being set in this document.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that what is important about levels of
service is that there are two distinct groups of people that you
are servicing: each resident residing in the City today
(approximately 43,000) and a group of future residents not yet
living in the City who are currently represented by the present
officials and developers. She added that developers are required
to provide a level of service for the future residents which equals
the level of service being provided for the existing residents.
She said the levels could exceed but not be less than what is
already existing for residents currently.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft continued by saying that if the City provided
half of what the City really thought they needed for the existing
residents, the City could not expect the developers to provide all
of what the future residents need. In other words, Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft said that developers could not be held responsible to provide
a higher standard than what the City is prepared to pay for its
existing residents.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the equation rests with financial matters
and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said it did. Mayor Abramowitz said that
it would be correct to say that if the City hypothetically provided
one dollar for its existing residents, you could not expect a
October 5, 1989
/k hb
developer to provide more than one dollar for any future residents.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft concurred with the analysis.
Councilman Rohr questioned how inflation would affect the equation
presented. Mayor Abramowitz responded that inflation erodes the
value of the equation. Councilman Rohr said that the City had to
provide for inflation and questioned whether developers had to as
well. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said a developer would have to provide
the same because the City does not set its equation in dollars.
Councilman Hoffman questioned the equation in acreage and Mayor
Abramowitz asked by what barometer does the developer use towards
his contribution on the levels of services. Mayor Abramowitz asked
if his determination is made when he submits his site plan, and
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said this was an issue to further discuss.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that she had written it that when the
developer receives his building permit this would be a more fair
and equitable time to approach the standard since the City has a
pro -growth stand. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added that several people
who attended the Public Hearing suggested that the City should
probably make the level of service requirements begin with the site
plan. She added that banks were pushing to have it early because
they were not going to finance a project under which the level of
service statement is not forthcoming from the local government
until he is ready to pull his building permit.
TAPE 2
Mayor Abramowitz stated that he felt everyone in this workshop
meeting felt that they would like the future growth of the City to
offer a level of services greater than what now exists; however,
he wished to inquire of Mrs. Carpenter -Craft whether or not this
would deter or become a disadvantage with neighboring cities as far
as having a developer come into the City and build a quality
project. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded that if the City set their
levels at a low point, she felt this would certainly attract more
developers due to the decreased cost factor involved. Mayor
Abramowitz stated he did not wish to return to the "old Tamarac"
but wanted the City to be competitive. He further felt the City
was far above neighboring communities. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added
that she felt the question was not what the City would demand of
developers but what the City felt it had to spend in dollars to
provide the level of services it wished for its existing residents.
She felt that this was the more expensive side of the equation to
deal with.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft referred to her presentation on the board
before the Council which contained an example she wished to use in
illustrating the above noted point. She stressed that the
following analysis was nothing more than a theoretical example and
not fact in any way. She began with a hypothesis that if the City
was currently providing 1.2 acres per thousand in population in
parks in Tamarac, that with the current 43,000 residents, the City
would have to provide 50 acres of park space. She added that
presently, the City's Impact Fee Ordinance in the Code, Chapter 24,
required through the formulas contained therein, that developers
either pay impact fees to the City or in lieu of this, dedicate
land. Using the current scenario, the developer would be required
to dedicate to the City 3 acres per thousand.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said, therefore, the scales would be out of
balance if the City used 1.2 acres per thousand and required the
developers to dedicate 3 acres per thousand. She stated the law
dictates that the figures must be equal. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said
if the City were going to require developers to provide 3 acres per
thousand, then the City must provide the same to its existing
population. She said the way to balance this and make a decision
7
October 5, 1989
/k hb
population. She said the way to balance this and make a decision
is for the City to state that they really wanted to provide 3 acres
per thousand to our existing population which requires 127 acres
to serve its 43,000 people. With 127 needed and 50 provided, there
remains a deficit of 77 acres in 1989. Once again using
hypothetical figures, Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that if the Council
were to use the number of $50,000 per acre, that would result in
3.85 million dollars that the City would have to raise. In
attempting to raise this type of capital, the City could either
have a one time assessment or utilize financing over a period of
years to provide the 127 acres if they wished to continue to
require developers to contribute 3 acres per thousand.
Councilman Rohr inquired where the City now stood relative to
whether golf courses could figure into the above noted example.
Mayor Abramowitz said that Mrs. Carpenter --Craft would provide some
options in this regard.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that 1.2 acres per thousand is very close
to what the City is now providing for its current residents. She
said the City has plus or minus 50 acres of parks and if the City
were to set a standard of 3 acres per thousand of public park space
now, this is about what the City would need and was more or less
what the City is now requiring of developers. She indicated that
it is not exactly 3 acres per thousand, because the acreage would
vary depending upon the density of the parcel owned by the
developer.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft now attempted to answer the question regarding
golf courses, which was considerably a whole other issue. She said
the City could count private recreation facilities when going to
measure the levels of service and she believed right now that
developers are providing on an average, if you add all the activity
in the City now, about 3.53 acres per thousand of private
recreation space. She stressed that is what they are providing now
at an average. She added another variable to this being that the
City could say that they wanted to continue providing only 1.2
acres per thousand in public open space which would change the
numbers from 3 acres to 1.2 acres.
Mayor Abramowitz said the Council did not wish to do this but Mrs.
Carpenter --Craft assured the Council she was not making a
recommendation but merely providing options for future
consideration. She said if this was done it would cut revenues for
park develofinent by more than half because the City would be going
from 3 acres to 1.2; however, if the City did, and developers only
had to contribute 1.2 acres, the down side would be that this would
assure that the City of Tamarac would always remain a City with
very few private recreation sites. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said as
a professional she would prefer to see some increase in the public
parks up to a reasonable level the City thought they could pay for
over and above the 1.2 acres while considering a requirement of
some acreage of private space from the developers.
Mayor Abramowitz asked whether the figures shown on the
illustration had to be in place or if they could be projected
figures. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said they would have to be equal
now. Mayor Abramowitz said if the City had a lake and waterway
could possibly take the lake and waterway and add this to the
figures. Mrs. Carpenter --Craft pointed out that this, of course,
would give the developer those same rights but, in any case, adding
it to the existing figures could not be done. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
agreed this was certainly a down side to the formula.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that the City owns about 525 acres of
lakes and canals which is not obviously in this 50 acre number.
She said some of this is accessible by the public because it might
October 5, 1989
/khb
Mayor Abramowitz began a discussion on public waterways and canals
and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated these would be owned by the South
Florida Water Management District if reference was to the C-13.
She stated that linear space was counted but not water space
because the City does not own it. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said it is
possible to use some portion of these 525 acres to increase the
number of acres needed but not having researched this item in
detail, the City only use the portions that are directly accessible
to the public and which have more than a minimal amount of land
attached to them. She stated she would not care to see the City
become involved in a position where it would allow Lennar to take
all their lakes at Kings Point and call them open space because
that would not be a true picture. She said some cities have gone
to a requirement that no more than a percentage, for example,
perhaps 20%, of the open space required to be given as public or
private by developers can be in the form of lakes. So while this
is an option to bring the City's figure up somewhat, she does not
know how much and recommended great care because she reminded the
Council that whatever the City allows for itself, it must allow the
same for the developers.
Mayor Abramowitz asked about the example Mrs. Carpenter -Craft gave
on Lennar inasmuch as if the waterways they have are retention or
strictly for beautification. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft answered with
retention. Mayor Abramowitz said he would like some flexibility
to keep the numbers where the Council could have an opportunity to
change them. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that retention is an
entirely different subject than levels of service and that
discussion should continue on parks. She said if the Council
wanted to speak about drainage, that standard is set in terms of
the storm level to which the City would want to protect people and
that right now, the Planning Commission was proposing to set it at
the ten year storm with a 48-hour drain -off period.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if Lennar would provide more retention than
required and if everything they have in this regard falls under the
heading of retention? Mrs. Carpenter -Craft replied she believed
so. Mayor Abramowitz said then if that is the case, Lennar is not
going to devote 5 or 10 acres in order to take advantage of the
figure other than the fact he needs the retention. Mrs. Carpenter --
Craft responded that is true but that there could be a dual use of
those facilities in that perhaps that land, or some portion of the
land and the water could have a potential for recreation use and
if the City allows that for itself that Lennar can do the same.
Councilman Rohr stated the City does not have a lot of residential
land to develop. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded by saying that the
City had about 500 acres. Councilman Rohr said that as far as
Kings Point is concerned, Lennar is creating an overall situation
to sell their units and not doing a minimum of open space because
they are trying to create a very attractive situation. He added
that he did not see where the City had that great a problem in
Tamarac. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said from a perceptual standpoint
there does not look like a potential problem but when you look at
it on paper and what guidelines the State says must be met, the
City did have a problem because the numbers must equal each other.
Councilman Rohr asked Mrs. Carpenter -Craft if she knew whether
Kings Point was providing more than 1.2 acres and she responded by
saying that Lennar was providing 3.53 acres per thousand; however,
that acreage was private land not dedicated to the City. She added
that Lennar does pay money to the City which the City uses to build
multi -purpose projects and that in the tradition, developers in
Tamarac have given money, not land,to the City for future
development.
Vice Mayor Bender asked when the City has to rebuild and redevelop
0
October 5, 1989
/k hb
under the new standards in the Land Plan whether developers would
have to adhere to the new standards as well and how would the City
gain if this was affirmative. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said the way
her Department handled that in traffic calculations for impact fees
is if a building; was 2000 sq. ft. and at a future date that
building is torn down and rebuilt by a developer, the developer is
obligated to pay the difference in impact fees between what they
had already contributed for the 2,000 sq. ft. building and the
3,000 sq. ft. building. Vice Mayor Bender then sought affirmation
that dur in,� the redevelopment period, the City would gain
additional revenue and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft did confirm the City
would receive the difference previously explained.
Councilman Hoffman asked how much time would the City have to
obtain the additional revenue from the public lands dedicated by
the developers? Mrs. Carpenter -Craft replied that this was a test
of reasonableness that developers and the Courts would ask the City
to apply if it got into litigation. Generally, it is considered
the City would make up the deficit within 5 - 7 years. He
continued to ask if the City could purchase 77 acres in the
conservation area which is part of Tamarac could be kept as wild
land and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said theoretically that would work.
Councilman Hoffman asked if you had 27 acres of land that is
called utilities and the City owns it, does it have to be developed
as a park or can it just be raw land? Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said
that is a subsidiary set of issues that would need to be approached
at a future time. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said if the City sets the
standard as open space, such as nature trails, they could set a
standard for open space type park land and develop park lands,
which some cities have done, that is very acceptable. She said
that the Planning Commission needed direction from the Council as
to how they wished them to proceed.
In attempting to answer the 3.85 million dollar question, Mrs.
Carpenter -Craft pointed out the traditional financing methods;
i.e., the City could go to referendum and ask the people to help
you raise the capital or another option is to direct the City's
staff to look at how much, if any, of the 525 acres is available
to add to that 50 acres. She added the Council could look at the
land around the City where there might be a couple of acres of
greenland that could be designated as park. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
responded this may not get the City a quick jump in trying to
obtain the 77 acres, but that every bit helped.
General discussion regarding the qualification of golf courses and
leasing and/or buying land from adjacent cities was had. Mrs.
Carpenter -Craft once again reminded the Council that the most
important aspect was to bring the City's standards up to what the
developers were being charged at the present time.
Councilman Hoffman asked if the utilities land that the City owns
in Land Section 7, the 17 acres, could be used for that purpose or
be declared open space. Mrs. Carpenter --Craft said it could be
developed as utility space with much of the site left for open
space.
Since there was no apparent solution on the issue of parks at this
time, Mrs. Carpenter -Craft proceeded to the levels of service for
roads, water and solid waste.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that for transportation, the level of
service was set at "D" for all county roads and at "C" for all
local roads in Tamarac. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said the "C" part of
the standard could be easily met on the local roads; however, there
are places where level of service "D" could get effected primarily.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said the County has set level of service "D"
10
October 5, 1989
/k hb
as its standard and the County
issuing a Development Order for
traffic exceeds level of service
bound to set level of service "D"
too. She said that would cause
State Road 441 where most of the
is not in the position of not
plats in the areas where the
"D"; and therefore the City is
on County roads as its standard,
some problems on Commercial and
land was platted.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft stated that the City would have some problems
along University Drive and to the north where there was a pocket
of problems that could spill over into Tamarac. She added there
were additional pockets of problems on Pine Island south of Tamarac
that could spill over and effect lands in Tamarac but primarily,
everything west of Pine Island should not have a problem in the
foreseeable future. She said that since this was a dynamic system,
problems could only be identified at any given time and change at
a future date as properties plat and as trips are added to the
County's transportation model.
Mayor Abramowitz questioned the "C" level for local roads thinking
that it was inferior to a "D" level but Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
explained the grading system whereby "C" was a better level than
"D". Mayor Abramowitz inquired if the City would be safer to set
the local roads at "D" but Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded that it
would be better to set it at "C" to collect better impact fees.
Regarding the levels of service for water, Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
said that the figures contained in the Plan should be self-
explanatory.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added that there should be no problem relative
to solid waste until 1997 which is past the end of the planning
period and; therefore, appropriate changes could be made later to
accommodate any problems that could arise. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
said that water and sewer should not be a problem and that the
County was expected to increase capacity at its plant in 1992.
Councilman Hoffman asked if the City had to have a projection as
to how much water may exist at what point the population cap would
require additional water supply. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said
affirmatively that the City had to say at what point the City had
to keep adding raw water wells and during this planning period, the
City was expected to bring on two raw water wells. Mrs. Carpenter -
Craft further explained that a professional was not expected to
make this type of survey but simply make an estimate at what point
in time the City would need to bring in additional water wells.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said right now that type of determination
rested with the South Florida Water Management District.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said that Tamarac was about 72% built out and
the land not yet built out was primarily controlled by Le nnar.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft added that the City needed to direct its
thoughts in the future to the redevelopment cycle in light of the
fact that the City was nearing a point of being built out and how
redevelopment will effect the City's tax revenue, etc.
Vice Mayor Bender asked if annexation was another method to gain
the additional acreage needed and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft responded
this could possibly equate to the population count.
John Kelly said the actual document before the Council today that
is being considered for transmittal is a blueprint of the City's
current situation but the real importance is the vision of the
future levels of service that the City will need. Mr. Kelly said
that the future role of the City in Broward County is what will
really interest the residents at this point in time and that he and
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft were looking towards that point and how to
finance what the City will need to look forward to. He also stated
$so
October 5, 1989
/k hb
he had just met with a developer who had 300 acres that he could
not develop in a neighboring city and was looking to see what he
could do in Tamarac. Mr. Kelly said the City should set some
higher levels of service and formulate future goals and that the
standards should be tightened up to encourage better products from
developers.
Mayor Abramowitz said that another important issue for everyone to
keep in mind is that the Plan is extremely important because it
affects not the residents currently existing in the City but the
residents that will someday reside here.
Councilman Hoffman questioned the contents of Page 69 of the Plan
where it talks about bringing in low and moderate housing in the
City and utilizing surplus lands for public housing sites as well
as allowing trailer camps. He said he did not feel the City would
want to do this but Mayor Abramowitz said that he felt this is one
of the things that the State would demand. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
read an excerpt from the State that demands that if proposals are
received from either the Broward County Housing Finance Authority
or the Broward County Community Block Grant Program for surplus
land for public housing it must be honored. Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
stated that the City has a T-1 District on their books and;
therefore, it must allow applications for trailer parks for in that
District.
Mrs. Carpenter -Craft asked for an idea as to what the Council
expected on October llth regarding the transmission of the Plan;
i.e., will the Plan be transmitted, will the City go to Open
Hearing on the llth and defer it to another date so additional
workshops can be held or does the Council anticipate transmitting.
With regard to open Hearing, Mrs. Carpenter -Craft said Council can
expect at minimum an owner from Land Section 7 and FP & L to appear
and speak because they want to make public record of their remarks.
Mayor Abramowitz suggested that at the City Council Meeting on
October llth, if Council so decides, that an affirmative vote be
made to send the document to the State and then hold either public
hearings and/or workshops to further refine the document.
Councilman Hoffman asked if a public hearing had to be scheduled
prior to transmittal of the document and Mrs. Carpenter -Craft
replied that this action must occur at a Public Hearing and that
is what can be accomplished at the October llth Council Meeting.
Mayor Abramowitz added that he believed that Council call the
Public Hearing at the October llth Council Meeting by adjourning
and reconvening but the overall consensus of the Council was to
attend to the three items on the Agenda and then go as far with
this issue as possible in the time frame allowed since Councilman
Hoffman would have to leave the meeting due to a prior appointment.
With nc further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED the workshop
meeting at 12:40 p.m.
Carol A. Evans
City Clerk
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ or
$10. (,,C per copy to inform the general public, f iblic officers and
employees of the recent discussions and considerations of the City
Council of Tamarac, Florida."
12
1
1
11