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.