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