Loading...
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