Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-17 - City Commission Joint Special Meeting MinutesPr 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 y tii U p TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 F7 P R \ fit MAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 May 2, 1988 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING Please be advised that there will he a Joint Workshop Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 17, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Planning. All meetings are open to the public. agAtle 6�5�'te� Carol E. Barbuto City Clerk CEB/nr AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1988 TAPE 1 ITEM 1: ROLL CALL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on Tuesday, May 17, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers. City Council VPRgVWT Planning Commission T3t1�1tMA' 1W Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Henry Rohr Commissioner.Anthony Grimaldi, Chairman Commissioner Emil Beutner, Vice Chairman Commissioner Morton Winter Commissioner Anthony M. Silvestri Commissioner Henry C. Schumann Commissioner Sam Levine Commissioner David Krantz Commissioner Joseph Schreiber, Alternate ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Commissioner Joseph Suiter, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Richard Doody, City Attorney Pauline Walaszek, Special. Services Secretary Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council thought that this Workshop was a very good idea and he thanked the Planning Commissioners and staff for attending. City Manager Kelly said this meeting was a follow-up of a Workshop meeting several months ago. He said it is important that the City Council and the Planning Commission interact effectively to serve the City. He said it was easier for staff to hold these Workshops as opposed to meeting with each person individually. ITEM 2: The function of Community Development b. How the Department Inter -relates with other departments, the Planning Commission and with City Counc 1.� Thelma Brown -Porter, City Planner, said inter -governmental coordination is of the long range planning and zoning, utility inter -connection, police and fire mutual aide agreements and transportation facilities and construction. She said the responsibility of the Mayor, City Manager, City Planner and the functioning departments are very important to the inter -governmental coordination. Page 1 V 5/17/88 Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Facilities Planning is for joint facilities, parks, playgrounds, coordination and joint -use activities, school transportation and transportation of neighborhood planning. She said the City Manager and City Planner are responsible for the coordination of Facilities Planning. Mrs. Brown -Porter said Ordinances, contracts for service and plat review would be the City Manager, City Planner and the City Engineers' responsibility. She said land use amendments and plan coordination would be the City Planner's responsibility and, plat review,County roads and bridges, drives, intersections, traffic signals, streets, easements and vacations would be the City Engineer's responsibility. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the County Parks Summer Recreation Program, site drainage and reviews are the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer's responsibility. She said the water quality, canals and lakes are the Director of Public Works responsibility and the wastewater treatment and disposal are the Director of Utilities responsibility. Mrs. Brown -Porter said transportation planning and mass transit planning is the Mayor and the City Planner's responsibility. She said the County facilities construction management maintenance are the City Manager and the City Engineer's responsibility. Mrs. Brown -Porter said supplemental law enforcement assistance is the Police Department's responsibility and emergency medical service supplemental fire protection is the City Manager's responsibility. Mrs. Brown -Porter said community development is the City Planner's responsibility and pre -emergency planning and coordination, public health and immunization are the City Manager's responsibility. Mrs. Brown --Porter said community development programs, low -moderate income housing are the City Planner's responsibility. She said the regional agencies affect Broward County and the goals, objectives and development of regional impact are the responsibility of the City Planner. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the regional drainage system maintenance and management and joint use of facilities for open space are the City Manager and City Engineer's responsibility. She said powerline facilities, sighting, service extension, street lighting service and cableline location are the City Planner and the City Engineer's responsibility. Mrs. Brown --Porter said interaction_ with the State requires planning, DRI and grants are the responsibility of the City Planner. She said administration, general government and environmental protection regulations are the City Engineer, City Manager, City Council and the City Planner's responsibility. Mrs. Brown -Porter said social service referrals are the City Manager's responsibility and highway patrol is the Chief of Police's responsibility. She said professional Page 2 i 5/17/88 regulations is the licensing division of the Community Development Department. Mrs. Brown -Porter said these items are functions that are required for the City to inter -relate. City Manager Kelly said the City Attorney is always monitoring these functions to see that the matters are being handled in the best interest of the City. C/M Hoffman asked who determined the responsibility of the functions and Mrs. Brown -Porter said in the Growth Management Plan there is an inter -governmental coordination element which was reviewed and approved by the State in 1977. She said this element was the only method available to assure proper coordination of the functions. Commissioner Krantz said the City Council and the Planning Commission are two of the most important bodies in the City; however, the Planning Commission is not mentioned as a responsible body for the functions. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Unit of Government Agencies or Municipality includes the Cities, Broward County School Board, Broward County Administrative Office of Planning and Planning Council. She said these Items have to be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. She said the staff is responsible for getting the above mentioned items to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Community Development's responsibilities are to adhere to complaints and recommendations. She said alcoholic beverages, antennas and aerials, beautification, site plans, plat reviews, concept site plans, flood hazard districts, garbage refuse and debris collection, Growth Management, health and sanitation, daycare nurseries, occupational licensing and business regulations, off-street parking and loading, platting, signs and canvassing landscaping, solicitation and canvassing, sub -division improvements, swimming pools and patios, setbacks, plot coverage and vehicles for hire are the Community Development's responsibility and other departments assist on some of the items. Mrs. Brown --Porter said prior to any application or site plan coming to the City Council, the Community Development Department reviews the items to insure compliance with the City Code. She suggested the Planning Commission review the City Code on items brought before them because staff could make an error in their reviews. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the matters brought before the Planning Commission are reviewed and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the staff holds a staff review meeting and the matters are discussed, approved and signed -off by each agency (department) involved. a. Discussion regarding how the Community Development De artment is self supporting. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Community Development Department was no different than any other department in the State of Florida. She said the department collected impact fees to primarily operate the department. She said fees are charged for plat reviews and site plan reviews; however, the fees are not supportive unless Page 3 5/17/88 there are developments coming into the City and this problem is in existence at this time. She said in order for the department to survive without being a drain on the City General Fund, 18 site plans per month were needed in addition to having at least 15 small scale developments. She said within the last three months, the department has taken in 3 site plans and 26 small scale approvals; therefore, the department is 75% under the normal balance. She said the surrounding Cities were surveyed regarding this matter and Tamarac is in a mini recession. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the department's budget is $272,000.00 per year and the Occupational License Department will generate approximately $300,000.00; however, this department is not relied on for full support of the Community Development Department. She said impact fees were needed to uphold the staff functions. She said the Department was not in a good position and she may have to reduce the hours of her personnel. She said even though the work for the site plans is not demanding at this time, every employee is needed for the Growth Management Act matters that are being mandated by the State. She said the monies allotted by the State for the 9J5 requirements are in the amount of $69,000.00; however, only $18,000.00 has been received. She said once the department becomes impaired the other departments begin to feel the affects. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Planning Department is responsible for bringing in the development to balance the needed tax base; however, without the developments the department cannot function properly. C/M Bender asked if a study was done regarding other Cities rate schedules for the impact fees and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Occupational License fee schedule was set by State Statute; therefore, it could not be modified. She said the review fee for site plans, plats and minor revisions have been studied and Tamarac is 30% higher in small scale development fees. She said the other fees could be alleviated and she submitted recommended increases during last years budget. She said the City's impact fees, ERC fees and Park and Recreation dedication fees are higher than any surrounding City. She said that not many Cities have traffic improvement fees; however, to develop in the City, a large dollar amount was needed. She said the City had a very low plan review fee with high impact fees and the City has been balancing with these fees like this for several years. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the plan review fees could be increased; however, this would place more of a burden on the developers which may cause the developers to look elsewhere for their projects. C/M Bender asked Mrs. Brown -Porter to submit a list of where the increases in the fees could be made and Mrs. Brown -Porter said within in the next month a new system would be in affect for the plan reviewing fee. C/M Hoffman asked if the City's high impact fees are retarding the development in the City and Mrs. Brown -Porter replied, yes. C/M Hoffman asked if the City would have more development if the fees were like the surrounding Cities and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the City charged the same impact fees Page 4 J 1 1 5/17/88 E 1 as the Cities of Sunrise and Coral Springs; however, both of those Cities have been reviewing the possibility of upgrading their fees. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the fees are being requested at the time of Site Plan which is causing the matter to be more complicated. She said it would be better if the fees were required during the issuance of the building permits. She said the fees should be required during each phase of the development as opposed to one lump sum. Commissioner Krantz asked if the $300,000.00 revenue for Occupational Licenses was a recurring amount and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the price was recurring; however, the City was losing business. Mayor Abramowitz said the Cities of Sunrise and Coral Springs had enough land to build on; however, the Cities of Tamarac and Lauderhill were nearly built -out. C/M Rohr asked what the anticipated cost would be for the Community Development Department for next year's budget and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the department is now $36,000.00 under the normal amount. She said this year's budget will reflect the Capital Improvements Plan and Element. She said each department will have to comply with the plan and the elements in the plan; therefore, the City will see a big impact on the budget. C/M Bender asked if there has been consideration regarding a plan for redevelopment and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the City did not have a revitalization program at this time; however, this matter will be considered in the near future. She said the City has been fortunate in that most of the neighborhoods have maintained themselves. C/M Hoffman asked what the City would have to provide for next year's budget because of the lack of development fees and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the City was looking forward to development on Land Section 7. She said there were 3 plats expected for Land Section 7 which accounts for $21,000.00. She said if the developers come in with the development and impact fees, the City's concerns would not be resolved. Mrs. Brown --Porter said the Community Development Department averaged 50% of developers who pay all of the charges; however, 50% of the developments are under Court Order and do not pay the large impact fees. She said it is impossible to inform Council the exact amount needed because the Court Ordered properties could be negotiated. She said 30% may be lost in next year's budget because of the present mini recession. City Manager Kelly said the dollar value could not be determined at this time. He said when the new property appraisals are submitted and the budget proposals are received from the various departments, the needed costs for the Community Development Department may be determined. C/M Rohr asked if the Code requirements would restrict redevelopment in the City and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Code was reviewed and Tamarac is noted for being a very strict community. She said because of the strictness, Page 5 5/17/88 TAPE 2 the impact fees are high. She recommended that the height requirement not be changed except on development for Land Section 7. Chairman Grimaldi said the City does not have that much land until build -out and he asked if the impact fees should be lowered in order to get more development within the City. Mayor Abramowitz suggested this matter be discussed after Mrs. Brown -Porter finishes her presentation. Mrs. Brown --Porter said the Planning Department functions with a total of 8 employees and Tamarac is similar to the City of Hallandale since it is a bedroom community. She said the population of the City of Hallandale is 43,000 and Tamarac's population is 41,333. She said the City of Hallandale is 4 square miles and Tamarac is 11 square miles; however, the City of Hallandale's Planning Department functions with 14 people. She said Tamarac's Planning Department is actually functioning with 6 people because 2 people are in the Occupational License Department. She said the department's functions may seem small; however, they are huge in comparison to the other Cities because of the staffing. She apologized for the times when the department submitted documents late to the City Council. Mrs. Brown -Porter asked that the Planning Commission not criticize the department if and when a developer brings an important matter to the department for urgent approval. She said staff puts a lot of time and effort into getting the packages together for the meetings. She said the department works with the Planning Commission as opposed to working against them. She said it is humiliating to hear in front of the audience that the efforts in getting the packets together was not appreciated. She asked that the Planning Commission suggest any method they know that would make the matter flow easier. Chairman Grimaldi said recently the Planning Commission was given documents with a recommendation to approve and did not have a chance to review the documents. He said the Planning Commission would Table matters like this to avoid mistakes in the future. Mayor Abramowitz agreed with the procedure in tabling the matter; however, he said it was not proper to humiliate or embarrass the City staff. Commissioner Silvestri said he gets disturbed with matters being placed before the Planning Commission before they can review it; however, the Planning Department needs more assistance in getting the work done properly. He said the developers are taking advantage of the Planning Department because the department was doing their planning and engineering before it came before the Planning Commission. He suggested the City consider that the Planning Department needs more personnel. Mayor Abramowitz said the pressure the developer places on the Planning Department and Commission can be Tabled until the Planning Commission is comfortable with the matter; however, if the Planning Commission can recommend improvements in the performance of the Department, the City Manager should be informed. Page 6 1 1 5/17/88 Mrs. Brown -Porter said there are rezoning matters where the City was not in the position to ask the developer for a conceptual site plan or the type of use being put on the property. She said to request these things is illegal and there are times when she does not want to see a development come into the City; however, the developers have certain rights. she said developers have the right to submit an application and the City has to act within a certain amount of time. She said the City did not have the right to ask for a development plan or the type of use being put on the property. she said if the matters continue to be pursued, the City will be in County Court. City Attorney Doody said under the current Florida Law, Planning Commissions and City Councils cannot or should not inquire into what a specific use is on rezoning matters; however, the inquiry could be done at the time of site plan approval. He said the zoning request and the uses allowed should be reviewed; however, the type of use of the property at that time should not be considered. V/M Stelzer asked if it was legal to restrict the uses at a rezoning request and City Attorney Doody said yes; however, this procedure may not be a good planning procedure. He recommended that the City Council refrain from constantly following this procedure. C/M Hoffman asked if it was the function of the Planning Commission or the City Council to decide the restrictions and City Attorney Doody said the developer usually is the one who offers the restrictions so that the rezoning can be passed. Mayor Abramowitz said he objects to approving rezoning without knowing the reason for the rezoning because there are several parcels in the City that are not proper. He said there has to be a legal way to find the reason for the rezoning request. City Attorney Doody said a developer knowing that the City Council was not comfortable approving the rezoning request should volunteer what he proposed to build. C/M Hoffman asked if it would be proper for a municipality to create zoning to satisfy the City's concerns. He said a developer had the right to build anything on the property that conformed with the zoning restrictions. He said if the City Council agreed to eliminate a use from the zoning, the ordinance should be changed to reflect this and the creation of a new zoning district. He suggested the City review the Code to remove the objectionable uses. City Attorney Doody said it would give the City more latitude if there were several different zoning districts and this may be the appropriate solution to the problems. V/M Stelzer said the concerns should be on rezoning matters as opposed to the zoning districts. He said the City Planner has worked on the changes for the zoning for several years and there are always problems. He said the City is not allowed to request what is considered for the property at a rezoning request. C/M Rohr asked why the City cannot eliminate zones that are in the middle of another zoned area, such as a B-6 in the middle of a B-2 area, and Mrs. Brown -Porter said this Page 7 5/17/88 could be done; however, the cost and the burden would be on the City to identify it by legal descriptions, to post it and to pay for it by advertisements. She said each parcel could be identified; however, there is a large dollar amount involved. Commissioner Schreiber asked if the City could enact local legislation forbidding certain types of uses throughout the City and City Attorney Doody said it would be very difficult to do. He said a planning study would be needed to prove that the use would be inappropriate in the City. He said doing this would not solve the City's problems with zoning because there are very few uses that should be eliminated totally. Commissioner Schreiber asked if the City operated under the Home Rule and City Attorney Doody said yes; however, the City had to comply with Constitutional provisions. Commissioner Schreiber asked if the Home Rule would allow the City Council to ask a developer what is planned for the property and City Attorney Doody said the developer could be asked what is expected for the property as a site plan review but not at a rezoning hearing. He said if the City wants to know what the uses are going to be at the time of rezoning, they should look at the list of permitted uses for that zone. City Attorney Doody said the City will have to have a zoning district that permits intense commercial uses and the developers will always try to get their land rezoned to that use; however, the City could create another zoning district with the same type of uses except for the uses they feel are not appropriate. Vice Chairman Beutner said he was taught through schooling that if a surrounding area did not apply to the piece of property being requested for rezoning, the request could be denied. He said if there are problems with traffic flow, etc., the rezoning request could be denied. City Attorney Doody said there are several uses in zoning; however, traffic flow could not be discussed during the rezoning hearing. He said specific uses could be discussed during the site plan approval process;' however, the specific uses cannot be discussed during the rezoning hearings. C/M Hoffman said the main problems with are the B-2 and B-6 zones. He rezone B-6 zones to B-2 zones. ITEM 3: Land Section 7 a. Impact to community the City is confronted suggested the City Mrs. Brown -Porter read a memo submitted to the Mayor and City Council. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the certified plan in 1986 allowed: residential - 7.4 dwelling units residential (low medium) - 89.3 dwelling units residential (medium) - 42.2 dwelling units total dwelling units - 15.26 dwelling units commercial - 28.3 acres industrial - 243.8 acres Page 8 1 1 1 5/17/88 Mrs. Brown -Porter said there was a small park being constructed which consisted of 10 acres and a school site of 10 acres. She said the proposed plan submitted by the City requested 7.4 acres to the north section of Land Section 7; however, the developer that owned the north portion petitioned the City because they could not market a product that would be surrounded by industrial. She said the owner went to Broward County without notifying the City and the County, along with the State, requested Tamarac restudy their plan for the area. Mrs. Brown -Porter said when City Manager Kelly became employed by Tamarac, the plan for Land Section 7 was reviewed and found that the owner to the north was correct. She said the plan was adopted under the Alternative plan and there were not dwelling units permitted in the area. She said there would be 63.8 acres of commercial and 342.5 acres of industrial. Mrs. Brown -Porter said in 1986 the City would have received $4,352.00 of direct impact to the City and year number 10 shows that the maximum received from the development per year in taxes would be $43,527.00. She said using the Alternative Plan, year number 10 the final figure would be $496,450,000.00 revenue. She said these projections were done in 1986 and to -date, the projections have not changed. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the land is under development review, which is called a DRI (Development of Regional Impact). She said the DRI does not affect Tamarac only, it also affects the surrounding communities and the Regional Planning Council and the State had to review and vote on the plans. She said the plat identifies less than 25% of the land; however, there will be more development on the land but the City could not reflect more than 25% of the plans on the plat during DRI review. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the money for the projected 1992 build -out would be available in the City's budget at that time. She said City Manager Kelly took into consideration that this would be the City's last chance before build --out while reviewing Land Section 7. City Manager Kelly suggested that the Planning Commission submit the reasons they denied a matter and their recommendations regarding the matter to the City Council. He said if the matter had to be approved with reluctance, the City Council should also be informed so that the City Code and the matter could be reviewed. TAPE 3 Mayor Abramowitz asked Chairman Grimaldi to consider City Manager Kelly's suggestion. Mrs. Brown -Porter said some of the Commissioners asked when there would be activity on Land Section 7. She said until the infrastructures are in place there would be no activity. She said since Nob Hill Road is almost completed, there would be more activity beginning in the area. She said staff would be updating the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the area. She said the City had a very strict light industrial ordinance for Land Section 7 and there was a two year study regarding the uses on the property. Page 9 5/17/88 Chairman Grimaldi asked if the City was restricting the area as far as height and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the height restrictions on the perimeter are 35-feet but to the core of the project 50-feet was allowed. She said Land Section 7 was isolated from residential areas; therefore, 50--feet was the maximum allowed. She said the residents surrounding the area were asking that the area be buffered and the height allowance not be more than 35-feet. She said unless there are other reasons why the height should be changed, she recommended the current height continue. She said Land Section 7 is also in the area of Runway 8 of the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport; therefore, the guidelines of height have to be complied with. V/M Stelzer asked if the height could be raised on the outer perimeters of the property and Mrs. Brown -Porter said this matter could looked into; however, the perimeter is abutting some single and multi -family areas. She said areas of Commercial Boulevard, Sawgrass Expressway and the core could be raised in height. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the ERC fees could be raised according to building height and City Attorney Doody the City had a rate study done and the validity of impact fees had to be based on the cost of the proposed development. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City could charge the developer more for a higher building and City Attorney Doody said there were impact fees and regulatory fees. He said the regulatory fees should not be revenue generated fees but pay for the cost of processing the needed documents for the development. C/M Rohr asked if the taxation generated by tall buildings would be large and beneficial to the City. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the more square footage the more costs are needed to operate the development. She said the Occupational Licensing taxes are accumulating benefits. Commissioner Silvestri asked if the hazard location area was approved and Mrs. Brown -Porter said before the plan is submitted to the Planning Commission all of the agencies have to review the plans and sign -off their approval or disapproval. City Manager Kelly said the Attorneys for the property to the South expressed strong reservations about everything being done by the City. He said the restrictions imposed by the regulatory agencies have been very stringent and the City has done everything possible to accommodate the restrictions. City Manager Kelly said the Engineers for Coral Springs were considering putting a bridge over the C-14 canal and this bridge would have an impact on the traffic generated in the area. Commissioner Silvestri had concerns with having a pond on the land and Mayor Abramowitz said the City Engineer should be contacted regarding this matter. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the latest plans for Land Section 7 would consist of a shopping center at the corner of Commercial Boulevard and Nob Hill Road, and, to the west of the shopping center, a 200 bed hotel/motel. She said Page 10 e., 5/17/88 there were rumors regarding Florida Power & Light's interest in 40 acres. She said there will be two storage facilities on 26 acres of land. She said there is only one problem for the City which would be a master canal and drainage system for the property. She said the next phase should be the solution to the canal and drainage problems. Mayor Abramowitz said he thought Florida Power & Light was not considering the land and City Manager Kelly said Florida Power & Light was looking to construct a major substation on 40 acres of land. He said 20 acres would be for the substation and 20-acres would be for landscaping. He said Florida Power & Light would pay the taxes on the property; however, they would deduct the amount from franchise fees paid to the City. C/M Bender said the State of Florida conducted a study on electrical magnetics. He said he has the information, which is very impertinent and he suggested the City utilize the information. C/M Rohr asked if there will be a hotel/motel on the land and Mrs. Brown -Porter said yes, the planning stages are being handled at this time. C/M Rohr asked if the hotel/motel would be built in the core of the land and Mrs. Brown -Porter said this project would be on the perimeter on Commercial Boulevard immediately west of the proposed shopping center. C/M Hoffman asked how many acres the shopping center would be built on and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the. hotel/motel and the shopping center would be on 63 acres. ITEM 4: Capital Improvement Element a. How the City is impacted. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the capital improvement element is part of the Growth Management Plan. She said this element deals with projects that need to be funded because the City is required to have the element and has to address 5 years. She said the element could be amended twice per year but had to have valid reason to do so. She said this element will be the most difficult element that the City Council and the Planning Commission will have to review. She said the element dealt with the financial end of budgeting the City. Mrs. Brown --Porter said the element would be hard to change once the plan was in place. She said at the next Planning Commission meeting, the Capital Improvement Element will be reviewed because the Planning Commission would be involved in the budget process of the capital items requested by each department. She said once reviewed, the Planning Commission would submit their recommendations to the City Council for the budget. She said the element should be reviewed completely and thoroughly because the City Council would be committed to the required recommendations of the Planning Commission. ITEM 5: Review of 9J5 a. Scheduled Public Hearings Mrs. Brown -Porter said 2 Public Hearings were required for each element. She said the public hearings are Page 11 5/17/88 ITEM 6: required to be after 5:05 F.M. by State Statute. She said if City Council or the Planning Commission would like to have the public hearings at 7:00 F.M. it would be allowed; however, staff needed to know at this time so they could begin planning for the advertising and the dates. She said the meetings may be very long because of the public input. V/M Stelzer said since the meetings would be lengthy, it would be better to have the meetings at 7:00 P.M. Mrs. Brown -Porter said it is important for the Planning Commission and the City Council to begin reviewing the elements. She said the Planning Commission should review the documents thoroughly because they would be recommending a plan to the City Council and there may be problems in the future when changes are needed. Mike Von Hofen, Assistant City Planner, said 9J5 required public participation and the questions raised by the residents would have to be answered. He said the elements submitted in the past have been updated and will be updated by revisions. He said as the public hearings begin, he would see that the revised copies are submitted to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Von Hofen said the public hearings will begin in August. He said the City Council would have 2 public hearings per month as well as the Planning Commission. He said the public hearings would be held for each element because the approved 9J5 Plan had to be submitted by December 1, 1988. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the public hearings could be held jointly with the City Council and the Planning Commission and Mr. Von Hofen said no, because the Planning Commission was one body separate and apart from the City Council. Chairman Grimaldi asked how the elements would be staggered and Mr. Von Hofen said he would like to have 1 hard element along with 2 easy elements per public hearing. He said the capital improvements element would be the final element presented because this element would reflect upon all the other elements. Future Considerations b• 90 De2re a Pam = Possible changes to Chapter 18. Mr. Von Hofen said there have been several requests from developers to permit 90 degree parking on their development. He said the Planning Commission asked Community Development to investigate the matter concerning 90 degree parking, why it works and what was wrong with angle parking. Mr. Von Hofen said parking lots were designed for specific needs and 90 degree parking requires less space than angle parking. He said the space efficiency of (22) (90) degree parking spaces are improved over (18) 60 degree parking spaces. Mr. Von Hofen said the traffic for angle parking is only one way where the 90 degree parking traffic goes two ways. He said one way traffic does cause problems and 90 degree parking would alleviate the grid lock pattern Page 12 G' 1 5/17/88 created by angle parking. He said it is easier to park and get out of angle degree parking; however, most of the cars today are smaller and have power steering. Mr. Von Hofen said two --way isles look and feel more spacious to the drivers. He said 90 degree parking allows approximately 45 degree sight visibility from the rear window of the car. He said the City should consider the type of use going into the development before determining the parking style. He said he has studies from surrounding Cities regarding parking and 90 degree parking was permitted. Mayor Abramowitz said he has been informed that there are more accidents with angle parking and Mr. Von Hofen agreed. Chairman Grimaldi said there are not many developments expected to come into the City that have mass parking. He said the residents in Tamarac are adults and bad drivers and they need all of the help they can get in parking. He said angle parking is the easiest type of parking for the residents and suggested this matter be investigated further. Vice Chairman Beutner said he has been involved for 10 years in the studies regarding parking and has studies of 4 or 5 States. He suggested angle parking remain the same because it was easier than 90 degree parking. Commissioner Krantz said Tamarac Town Square Shopping Plaza has 90 degree parking and he has not witnessed one accident within the 5 years 90 degree parking has been implemented. C/M Hoffman said this matter has been discussed for several years and suggested an Ordinance be drafted for the matter. He asked City Attorney Doody to prepare an Ordinance for 90 degree parking. ' TAPE 4 Mr. Von Hofen said the City had an Ordinance drafted regarding 90 degree parking; however, it was never approved. Mayor Abramowitz asked the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for the next City Council meeting. V/M Stelzer said there is a tremendous difference in angle parking and 90 degree parking. He said direction signs would eliminate the accidents for angle parking. City Manager Kelly said it is not staff's intent to dictate 90 degree parking. He said options for parking should be allowed based on the type of business being used. City Attorney Doody said he would Amend the Ordinance to allow for 90 degree parking in all areas except residential. C/M Hoffman asked why residential would be eliminated and Mr. Von Hofen said residential areas already permit 90 degree parking. b. Possible sign Ordinance changes Mrs. Brown -Porter said two years ago the Planning Commission decided that the sign Ordinance was lacking Page 13 v 5/17/88 many different matters. She said recommendations were given by the surrounding Cities Planning Commissions and the Planning Commission agreed to adopt the Coral Springs Code for signs. She said after reviewing the Coral Springs Code for signs, staff realized that this Code would be worse than the City's existing Code. Mrs. Brown -Porter said a draft of the Planning Commission's comments were submitted to the City Council regarding signs. She said there were concerns about the colors, criteria and why a sign had to come back to the Planning Commission if the criteria was appropriate. She said staff did not want to reappear before the Planning Commission for signs that have already met the criteria; however, the sign Ordinance requires that each sign appear before the Planning Commission regardless. She said this process is wasting the staff and Planning Commission's time. Mayor Abramowitz asked why the signs had to appear before the Planning Commission if the criteria was met and Vice Chairman Beutner said the City staff does not always catch the problems with the signs, for instance, last week the Planning Commission denied a sign because it was not allowed in the area and staff did not recognize this. Mrs. Brown -Porter said it was rare that the Building Department makes a mistake on signs. She said after the sign applications are reviewed by the Building Department, other agencies review it; therefore, if there are mistakes it is usually caught before the sign went out. She said if staff did not handle the matters properly, their licenses and positions would be in jeopardy; therefore, staff was sure to see that the criteria and documents were done correctly. Mayor Abramowitz said anything requiring merit should be handled by the City Manager. V/M Stelzer suggested that the Planning Commission consider handling the sign matters the same way the City Council handles their consent agenda. He said this procedure would speed the process up and the Commissioners had the right to remove any item they would like to discuss and City Attorney Doody said he would have to investigate whether this procedure could be done. C/M Hoffman said this matter has been discussed for several years. He said an Ordinance should be drafted for this matter. He said there are always going to problems that are not caught. He said if the applicant meets the criteria of the sign Ordinance and the Building Department approves the criteria, the Planning Commission should not be wasting their time on the matter. Commissioner Silvestri said ground signs should be the Planning Commission's business because the Code stated that the sign should not be approved until a plan is provided to the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Mrs. Brown -Porter said there are site plans which have signs and the sign location was approved by the City Council. She said after the location of the sign has been determined, a second submittal of the application for the sign is required. She said the signs that already have established criteria are the matters which are causing problems. i Page 14 5/17/88 Commissioner Krantz said most of the problems are with the old signs and the criteria. He said no one monitors the colors of the old signs causing the City to have all types of colors. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the Code sets the requirements for color criteria; however, the criteria is lacking the exact hue. She said ' enforcing people to comply with the sign ordinance is the job of the Building Department's Code Enforcement officers. Commissioner Levine said when a change in criteria is requested, it is given; however, the old signs already on the property are not changed. He said color has to be established. C/M Hoffman said Color Corporation of America has charts with numbered colors. He said the Code could be revised to mandate that a number from the chart of colors from Color Corporation of America be made for each development. Commissioner Levine said there are problems with the alumines in ground signs and there should be an expert to decide how much alumines are in a sign. Chairman Grimaldi said by having a consent agenda for the signs, the Planning Commission's positions were being minimized. He said the Planning Commissions has the opportunity to meet the developers and the Planning Commission takes the responsibility in seeing that the developers meet the criteria of the Code before forwarding the matter to the City Council. Mayor Abramowitz said the intent is not to take powers away from any body. He said he is concerned with the City Manager implementing the ability to streamline matters and he did not want the City Manager to diminish the quality; however, the consent agenda may cut down the hours spent on the signs. He asked City Manager Kelly to see that this matter regarding a consent agenda be implemented. Chairman Grimaldi said by implementing this type of agenda would give the Commissioners little time to know the developers. He said the developers did not need to be present for a consent agenda. C/M Hoffman said it has only been a few years since the Planning Commission began reviewing signs. He said the Beautification Committee used to handle the matter until that Committee was merged with the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commissioner's time is much too valuable to be wasted on matters such as signs that meet the criteria of City Codes. He said the City staff should be allowed to approve signs that meet the City Codes. C/M Rohr said a consent agenda would allow the Commissioners to discuss matters that are important. He said the item on the consent agenda could be removed for separate discussion and the developers could be asked to attend the meeting even though the item is on consent because the Commissioner's may want to discuss this matter separately. He suggested a consent agenda be used for signs for the Planning Commission. Page 15 5/17/88 V/M Stelzer said as long as the sign criteria is met the signs should not have to reappear before the Planning Commission for approval. Bob Jahn, Chief Building Official, said he does not think that signs which meet the criteria of the Code should go on a consent agenda. He said he has been with the City since 1976 he has been issuing building permits and, there has never been problems with his decisions. He said his staff reviews the matter and if the City Code is complied with, permits are issued. He said ground signs should come before the Planning Commission; however, other matters regarding the criteria of signs should not. Mr. Jahn said the Building and Zoning Department sign -offs should be sufficient in issuing permits for the signs that meet the criteria of the City Code. He said the Ordinance for the signs has been in abeyance for so long because of the wide diversity of opinions regarding the matter. Vickie Beech, Resident, said there seemed to be a problem with comprehension from the City Attorneys Department to the Building Department, etc. She said the City's Code has a lot of conflict and there are several double standards in the Code. She suggested the City Attorney and the Departments get together on the standards of the procedures and laws. Mayor Abramowitz said this meeting was for opinions and each person had to make a decision regarding the matters discussed. He said there is a great deal of resistance by the people because matters are being handled differently than they were in the past. He said the City Manager is responsible for implementing the matters of concern. City Attorney Doody said there are some conflicts in the City Code; however, the Code is being reviewed and the matters are being cleared up; however, the Code is constantly being interpreted differently. Vice Chairman Beutner said the sign Ordinance at this time allows a billboard to be erected and protected. He said the Ordinance should reflect and mandate the type, size and color of the signs. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council and the Planning Commission are now aware of the problem which will help in comprising a solution. Vice Chairman Beutner said when he helped draft the sign Ordinance, he streamlined it and received 5 recommendations from the Building Department. Mayor Abramowitz asked how long ago this was done and Vice Chairman Beutner replied, two years ago. Mayor Abramowitz said two years was a very long time; however, the Ordinance may be streamlined further at this time. Commissioner Schreiber said he believed in streamlining matters and handling the signs by a consent agenda. He asked why it was necessary for the City Council to review the site plans that the Planning Commission would be reviewing and approving. He said the Planning Commission is being used as an Advisory body to the City Council. k 1 1 Page 16 5/17/88 Mrs. Brown --Porter thanked the City Council, Planning Commission and staff for their time and input. City Manager Kelly said as of last Thursday, May 12, the annexation package was submitted to the Community Affairs House Committee, Final. Finance and Tax Committee and a Sub -Committee Local Government. He said the package would be submitted to a Special Audit Calendar of the House of Representatives for approval. He said he would inform the City Council of the results. TAPE 5 Commissioner Krantz said this Workshop was a very good idea and suggested the City hold more like this and Mayor Abramowitz agreed. �l With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 12:30 P.M. ��IaIUL &�� CAROL E. BARBUTO, CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $305.12 or $8.48 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Tamarac." Page 17 `j.