Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-21 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutesw.� Or rAM�9 ti U C 5 4ORI 7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE . TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTIONS/DISCUSSIONS SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council. on Friday, October 21, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1 (Room 103), City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action regarding: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -- MOTION TO ADOPT Tenn . Ord, #1414 amending Section 21-11(a of the City Code providing an additional 6-month period before which certain non --conforming • signs not in compliance with Chapter 21 of the Code shall be required to comply with all provisions of that Chapter. FINAL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 0-88-37 PASSED APPROVED granting a 6 month moratorium on the existing sign Ordinance requirement for compliance. All meetings are open to the public. CAE/nr Carol A. Evans City Clerk Pursuant to Section 286.0105, rlorida Statutes If a person docides to appeal any decision made by the city Gc �i9 with respect to any matter considered at such meeting cr i c s it; h.a w,II need a record of tha proceedings and for skx-ia o•i�cs;r he moy need to ensure that a verbatim record inclualoo c 0stif',lony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be b�_vj AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS 1 CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on F it day, October 21, 1988 at 2:00 P.M. in Conference Room #1 (City Clerk's office). PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Henry Rohr John P. Kelly, City Manager Janet Lander, Ruf & Carsky Dale Lee, Acting Chief Building Official Pauline Walaszek, Special Services Secretary EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - MOTION TO ADOPT Temp. Ord. #1414 amending Section 21-11(a) of City Code providing an additional six (6) month period before which certain non -conforming signs not in compliance with Chapter 21 of the Code shall be required to comply with all provisions of that Chapter. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED. ORDINANCE NO. 0-88-37 - PASSED City Manager Kelly said he would like to open the meeting by wishing C/M Bender a very happy Birthday. City Manager Kelly said the purpose of the meeting was to adopt an Ordinance declaring a moratorium on the existing Sign Ordinance. He said this would extend the deadline of compliance from October 24, 1988. He said during the next 6 months, a new Ordinance could be drafted that would be more comprehensive. City Manager Kelly said the Building Department would not be placed in a position as to who should be accepted. He said consideration had to be given to the people who complied within the existing Ordinance within the last few months. City Manager Kelly said he met with the Economic Board of the Chamber of Commerce and he advised Glenn Meyers of the Workshop meeting and the moratorium. He said he expected representatives from the Chamber of Commerce at the meeting welcoming the change of the Ordinance and assisting the City with the amendments. City Manager Kelly recommended that a Committee be created that would include staff, Chamber of Commerce representatives, etc. He said the Committee would review Ordinances from other Cities and other information available. Page 1 J 10/21/88 Mayor Abramowitz said he agreed with this recommendation; however, C/M Hoffman suggested that after the approval of the new Ordinance a time limit be set to end the moratorium. He said this seemed to be more sensible to avoid having to extend the moratorium if a new Ordinance was not created in 6 months. Janet Lander of Ruf and Carsky, said the moratorium could legally be handled either way. C/M Hoffman said it seemed more practical to declare the moratorium for a certain time after the passage of a new Ordinance rather than a 6 month duration. He said the moratorium could be passed at this time and extended for not more than 120 days after the passage of the new Ordinance. C/M Bender said one of the reasons for declaring a moratorium was to alert the residents and business community that a change would be made in the Ordinance; therefore, they should not proceed in complying with the existing Ordinance. He said it seemed that these people would not be informed of this if C/M Hoffman's suggestion was approved. C/M Hoffman said if a moratorium was not approved before October 24, 1988, violations would have to be given to those people who have not complied. He said the City did not know how long it would take to create a new Ordinance; therefore, instead 'of setting a specific date for a moratorium it seemed more practical to declare the moratorium until a certain amount of time after a new Ordinance was approved. Ms. Lander said the new Ordinance was not drafted and the contents were not known; therefore, it was difficult to set a sufficient time for compliance. She said the matter may have to be revisited when a new Ordinance was approved. C/M Hoffman said declaring a moratorium until 120 days after the approval of a new Ordinance would not change the purpose of declaring a moratorium for 6 months except that it would prevent the City from having to extend the moratorium after 6 months. City Manager Kelly said declaring a moratorium for 6 months seemed to make more sense because it was fairer to the public and business community. He said the individuals having to comply with the existing Ordinance would have at least 6 months to do so. C/M Hoffman asked what happened if the City did not pass an Ordinance for 5-1/2 months. Dale Lee, Acting Chief Building Official, said there were two different matters being discussed. He said Section 21-11 - Non -Conforming, only referred to signs in existence on October, 1984. He said these signs were the only signs of concern. He said the new Ordinance was a completely different matter. C/M Hoffman asked what would happen to the signs installed in 1986 and Mr. Lee said those signs should be in the process of compliance at this time. Page 2 10/21/88 Mayor Abramowitz asked what would happen if these signs were not in compliance and Mr. Lee said violations would be given. Mayor Abramowitz asked what happened to the signs erected in 1985 that would not be in conformance with the new Ordinance and Mr. Lee said during the approval of the new Ordinance, a compliance date would have to be set. V/M Stelzer said it took a long time to create the first Ordinance; therefore, he did not feel that 6 months would be long enough to draft a new Ordinance. He said a moratorium should be granted for the signs presently needing to comply and, if a new Ordinance was created, a time limit would have to be created for conformance. Mayor Abramowitz said he distributed copies of the City of Coconut Creek Sign Ordinance and he asked that staff and the City Council review the Ordinance. He said the City looked very foolish because they gave the communities 5 years to comply with the first Ordinance and now a moratorium was being declared. Mayor Abramowitz said at the end of the 6 month period a new Ordinance may not be available and the City would have to grant an extended moratorium. He said he agreed with C/M Hoffman's suggestion because it would not require the City to extend the moratorium after 6 months. City Manager Kelly said he was not embarrassed or felt the City looked foolish because the City was trying to create a workable, fair Sign Ordinance for the City. He said the City had very good ideas about a new Sign Ordinance; however, a decision has not been made because of the existing position the City was in. City Manager Kelly said the moratorium pertained to one provision of the existing Sign Ordinance. C/M Hoffman asked if the public would have 6 months to comply if the City approved the Sign Ordinance in 2 months and City Manager Kelly replied, yes, unless the City Council extended or expired the moratorium. C/M Hoffman said he did not want the City to be changing their minds every few weeks and City Manager Kelly said 6 months should be sufficient to determine what the new Ordinance would contain. V/M Stelzer asked what the Workshop on October 26, 1988 would be about and what the City Council expected to accomplish at that meeting. He said the City Council already gave their input at the previous meeting today. Mayor Abramowitz said he would like the interested parties in the City to input their opinions and concerns regarding the Sign Ordinance. He said a City Attorney created the Sign Ordinance; however, the City Attorney was not a sign expert. He said after reviewing Ordinances from other Cities, he realized the proposed Ordinance was not written by a professional. He said a comprehensive study was needed to create a Sign Ordinance with good beautification. V/M Stelzer said the existing Ordinance was valueless; however, the Sign Ordinance should be drafted by staff and the City Council should review it. He said the City Page 3 `� 10/21/88 Council were not sign experts and were not aware of the size of signs or the setback requirements. He asked what would be accomplished at the October 26, 1988 Workshop. Mayor Abramowitz said he would listen to what the interested parties had to say and determine what was wanted and needed in a Sign Ordinance. V/M Stelzer asked what objections the business communities could have if they did not have an Ordinance to follow. He suggested an Ordinance be created so that the public would have something to follow. Mayor Abramowitz said there was an Ordinance in existence and V/M Stelzer said the existing Ordinance was valueless. City Manager Kelly said the Workshop meeting for October 24, 1988 was called for representation from the public; however, the representation did not occur. He said the meeting was rescheduled and there was enough debate among the City Council and staff to monopolize staff's time for the next 3 months. He said the Chamber of Commerce has several questions regarding the matter and they agreed that this matter had to be discussed at the Workshop meeting to get a resolution. City Manager Kelly said the City was creating an opportunity for interacting to develop a workable, enforceable Ordinance. He said the City wanted the community to see that the matter was being considered and discussed in order to find a solution. He said the meeting should take place to find out the problems and he recommended a Committee be created to find solutions by comparing notes. C/M Hoffman said he did not feel that a Committee should be given the power to create the Ordinance. He said information could be submitted by the Committee; however, the Administration should be the final creators of the Ordinance. He said business people should not be on the Committee because they would only care about their area. City Manager Kelly said this was expected and he did not object to this occurring. C/M Hoffman said the business sector should make recommendations and staff should determine if the suggestions would be implemented. Mayor Abramowitz said the public could never say that they did not have an opportunity to give input if they were allowed to participate at the Workshop meeting. He said he was embarrassed because the City created an Ordinance that gave the public 5 years to comply and he was very happy that the City decided not to use what they presently had. C/M Sender said there was an Ordinance that would be expiring shortly and the public had to be notified as to what the City wanted to do. He said a moratorium should be declared. C/M Bender said he had a model Ordinance from the American Planning Association which was a good foundation for the City to start with. He suggested the Ordinance be used during the Ordinance preparation. Page 4 10/21/88 C/M Rohr said he would like staff to review the City of Coconut Creek Ordinance and compare it to the existing Ordinance. He said he would like staff to inform the City Council where the improvements were needed. He said the City's staff were experts and they should make the comparisons. V/M Stelzer said he took the old Ordinance, dismantled it and pasted some of the provisions on the Coconut Creek Ordinance. He suggested both Ordinances be reviewed and the best of the two be used. C/M Rohr said he would like staff to determine the best of the two. * C/M Rohr MOVED to APPROVE Emergency Ordinance Temp. Ord.'#1414, * SECONDED by C/M Bender. Mr. Lee said the moratorium Ordinance referred to Section 21-11 only. C/M Hoffman asked if the 6 month period would be implemented as opposed to a longer period of time for the moratorium. He said legal Counsel did not indicate what should be done. Mr. Lee said the compliance date had nothing to do with declaring a moratorium and C/M Hoffman said it did because a new Sign Ordinance may be different than the old Ordinance requiring the existing signs to be changed. Mr. Lee said the compliance date only referred to signs that existed in 1984 and C/M Hoffman said the criteria may be changed. Mr. Lee said the owners of the signs decided the criteria. C/M Hoffman said a person may put up pole signs that woz-ld not be permitted in the new Sign Ordinance. He said this should not be approved if it would be changed in the future. Mayor Abramowitz said Counsel informed the City Council that when a new Ordinance was created a compliance date could be determined. C/M Bender said the purpose City Attorney suggested that the existing Sign Ordinance. given. VOTE: of meeting was because the a moratorium be declared on He said a legal opinion was ALL VOTED AXE V/M Stelzer said the moratorium would be giving the public, who needed to comply with the existing Ordinance by October 24, 1988, an additional 6 months to comply. C/M Rohr suggested that the Building Department review the applications for signs and, if they felt that the signs would not be permitted in the new Ordinance such as pole signs, they should inform the applicants. V/M Stelzer said the Building Department indicated that pole sign permits would not be permitted and they would inform the public why. Page 5 10/21/88 City Manager Kelly read Emergency Ordinance Temp* Ord. #1414 by title. City Manager Kelly said he informed the Chamber of Commerce that the Workshop meeting would not result in a resolution; however, each area would have a right to present their concerns. He said the City Council should inform the public of this and he suggested a strategy be determined so that the City Council could keep control of the meeting. Mayor Abramowitz said he was an advocate of bringing a community together without coming to a resolution and to make everybody happy. He said he hoped that the City Council had the stamina to create an Ordinance that would benefit the City. C/M Hoffman suggested that the neighboring Cities, especially the Cities sharing roadways with Tamarac be notified, of the Workshop meeting and request copies of their Ordinances and their plans to make changes. He said he did not want to see two sides clashing. City Manager Kelly said he invited the City of Sunrise to the Workshop meeting and they expressed their interest in working with Tamarac on this matter. He said progressive visibility and viability should be considered when creating the Ordinance. With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 2:50 P.M. jVj' 6�,� L.sA*e N MAN ABRAM73WITZ, MAYOR CAROL A. EVANS, CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $76.60.cr $2.12 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac." APPROVED AT MEETING OF // 9 City Clerk 1 Page 6 V