Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-08 - City Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutesf\'�0is"I"Hi%vL,i.T ii I ✓AVENUE'. ..dAM;iHP,C, F1.,.0RiD.A 3332 f December 3, 1981 N O T T C P JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION Please be advised that the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a Joint Workshop Meeting On December 8, 1981 at 2:00 P.M. in Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this Joint Workshop is to discuss Temporary Ordinance #846, a Proposed Ordinance creating the RM-6 District and modifying the M-1 and R4-A Districts.. The City Council and Planning Commission may discuss such other items as may come before them. The Public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans, Asst. City �e�� *""Rt to Chapter 80405 of Florida Law, Senate )fill No. 368. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or le hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such Purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes 12/3/81 the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF TX,A C, FLORIDA JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION. TEMPORARY ORDINANCE #846 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 8, 1981, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice Mayor Irving M. Disraelly Councilwoman Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Zemel Councilman Philip B. Kravitz P Chairman Emil Beutner Commissioner Martin Schoenfeld Commissioner Louis Becker Commissioner. Arthur Gottesman (Alt) ABSENT: Commissioner Carl Alper Vice Chairman Maurice Meyers Commissioner Saul Mesenger (Alt) ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Arthur M. Birken Mayor Falck read the official call of the meeting. The purpose of the Meeting is to discuss Temporary Ordinance #846, a Proposed Ordinance creating the RM-6 District and modifying the M-1 and R-4A Districts. Mayor Falck said the first he knew of the meeting being desired by the Planning Commission was a communication of October 7 from the City Clerk's Office. It stated that Commissioner Alper moved that the Chairman request a Workshop with the City Council on Temporary Ordinance #846 and request that the City Planner be in attend- ance, and also to table Temgo.Ord. #846. The motion was seconded and all voted ave. Mayor Falck indicated the problem at the present meeting centers around the fact that the City Planner had injured his leg and was unable to be in attendance. Also, there are time limitations involved and Mayor Falck said his interest is to determine what they need to discuss so they can make plans to pursue the matter at a later date. Chairman Beutner, Planning Commission, said he was surprised to see the Ordinance was RM-6 since he thought it was RM-5. The City Planner was surprised, he said. Chairman. Beutner stated that RM-5 should be created instead of RM-6. He said the urgency con- cerning the Ordinance is because a developer has told him that it has taken the City eight months to create an ordinance, and he did not know how to reply to that. Councilwoman Massaro asked why the City is not just addressing an RM-5 Ordinance and not all of the other items contained in the ordinance, she questioned why they were mixing other zones into the ordinance. City Attorney Birken explained when Council passed the RM-10 District a year ago he told Council he had gone through the R4-A regulations and cleaned them up and changed the density. At that time he told Council he would come back to Council with lan- guage benefitting from the experience reviewing the R-4A regulations. Vice Mayor Disraelly asked that the M-1 be looked at and there were a number of major changes suggested by Vice Mayor Disraelly and Evan Cross. At the same time Evan Gross suggested an RM-6, and RM-5 is a minor change from RM-6. The City Attorney said at the same time they had requests to change three different zoning districts within the City and as a matter of economy at that time he thought it would give the Council an opportunity to review the documents changing the districts in one ordinance. Mr. Birken said that would eliminate the tim and expense of having three different ordinances creating new districts within Chapter 28, and it is perfectly proper to have more than one zoning district enacted at the same time. The entire zoning code is in one ordinance, he pointed out. Also, Mr. Birken indicated if there is anything Council wants taken out it can be taken out, but the expense of advertising three Ordinances is saved, and they can always delete as they go along. He noted that they can not add things, but they can take things out. Vice Mayor Disraelly questioned if the RM-6 District would preclude development as RM-5. Mr. Birken said it would, he said zoning -wise it could be done, but plate ing-wise it would create a problem. If the plan shows 0-5 units an acre, then there would be problems in building and providing covenants, etc. However, the City Attorney pointed out that to change the RM-6 Ordinance to IN-5 is only a matter of changing one or two words. Councilwoman Massaro pointed out if the zoning is RM-6 and someone agrees to build five units to an acre, but mist come under RM-6, if the property is sold and someone else commis in they can put six units on the property. Vice Mayor Disraelly said he thought at one time someone wanted six, Mr. Birken said not that he knew of, he said Evan Cross had come up with that number. Chairman Beutner, Planning Commission, explained that the problem at the present time is that the builder wants to build five units to an acre and is willing to indicate that in writing, but he prefers that it be done by rezoning the property so there will be no "out" left. Councilwoman Massaro pointed out that the City Attorney has said a Covenant is not good, anyone can wipe a covenant off. She pointed out advantage could be taken of the increased density at some point in time. Commissioner Schoenfeld said RM-6 has no practical relationships, either they have a five unit per acre zoning or a ten. He said a ten would have to be reduced to a six, which would not be proper. Commissioner Schoenfeld said that is is pretty well agreed it should be five units to an acre, and he said he felt five units to an acre would be proper. Commissioner Schoenfeld said if they reduce it to five units to an acre the Ordinance can be simplified by having provisions for only the attached units. The RM-6 has detached units, which are the same as R-1B. Therefore, it would simplify the Ordinance by just addressing an RM-5 just to attached units. All units that are described as single -story detached can come in under the R-1 designation. Therefore, he suggested there is no reason to clutter -up the Ordinance under discussion with anything except attached homes. As an alternative, Commissioner Schoenfeld stated, attached homes of this nature can be included in R-lB permitted uses, and that would simplify the proposed Ordinance, and give the developer the right to build in R-1 zoning without having to go through a rezoning procedure. Therefore, Commissioner Schoenfeld, suggested if Council prefers to have RM-5 they can do that, but anything referring to detached homes should be eliminated and possibly it could be included in the R-1 designation without having to go through a rezoning, because it is still five units for an acre. Commissioner Gottesman questioned an page 6, relative to the size of a lot it said in Section 28 that the miminum. lot shall be 7260 square feet, and certainly five dwelling units could be placed on an acre. Commissioner Schoenfeld said that figure was based upon six units to an acre. The City Attorney indicated there are some changes and improvements in what was detached and what was attached. For example, under residential units, single family detached there is language in the new Ordinance which says garages must be set back twenty feet. Commissioner Schoenfeld said the R-1B should be corrected for that change, but not the RM-5. The City Attorney indicated both may have to be corrected. However, he preferred it. the way it is. Vice Mayor Disraelly said that based'on'the input so far, they are pretty much in agreement in speaking of PM-5 and not RM-6. He said he agrees, personally, that garages should be set back twenty feet, as is being proposed for future developments. He pointed out that is the only way they can have two parking spaces in front of any home. Councilwoman Massaro agreed with that statement. Vice Mayor Disraelly asked if, with that change, it should be reviewed by the City Attorney and Commissioner Schoenfeld, they should review this FM District and simplify it as much as possible. If it can be reduced or just done by simpler changes within the R Districts that are in the City right now, rather than all of them trying to put it together, they seem to be in agreement on basically mach of what Commissioner Schoenfeld has indicated, except the City Attorney is not happy to have to rewrite the Ordinance again. Mayor Falck stated he felt the City Planner should be present to discuss the Ordinance and give his observations. Commissioner Becker noted that they have a number of corrections that have not been discussed as yet. Vice Mayor Disraelly suggested that be done by memo to the City Planner in order that it be done properly. The City Attorney said there 'nave been many Ordinances written the last four years that the Planning Commission has had valuable comnents to provide the Council. He slid he did not remember an Ordinance where a Workshop had been asked for to provided input, they had been able to do so in the past in their notions to Council and the Planner has been able to further communicate the Planning Commission's input. Mr. Birken commented that so far he has not heard anything extraordinary as to why it should be treated any different than the others. He noted the Ordinance has been around for a long time, and Council and the Planning Commission are anxious to see it acted upon and possibly the Planning Commission would like to handle it in the same manner they have handled Ordinances in the past, and that is to make the recommendations and if there is nothing extraordinary possibly Council would prefer to proceed in accordance with standard operating procedures. -2- 12/8/81 /lc The City Attorney said that the Planning Commission should vote either "yes" or:"no", as far as'approval of the Ordinance, and provide,specific recommendations in the Motion or with the Motion. Councilwoman Massaro said that she felt, personally, that was the better way to do it because they would then have the opinion of many people. After the Council receives their recommendation they have food for thought, which is the purpose of the Planning Commission, to give Council their recommendations and Council can analyze them and determine which way to go. That would give Council several opinions instead of someone leaning in the direction of someone else. The City Attorney said if Council has it in writing in front of them they can think about it and study it instead of doing it "off the cuff". Councilwoman said at least they would have someone's opinion other than their own. Mayor Falck said he was inclined to ego along with what had been suggested. Chairman Beutner, Planning Commission, said he would go along, too. However, he said there should be no sub -station in Item #5. Councilwoman Massaro said she did not want to see sub -stations ixcluded. If there had to be a sub -station it should be by special consent. She discussed the problems the City is having with sub -stations. Chairman Beutner pointed out that the sub -station on Rock Island Road has ornamental bricks about eight -feet in height in a wall around the sub -station and no one would realize it was there. Councilwoman Massaro said that Florida Power and Light refuses to do the same thing now. Vice Mayor Di.sraelly noted that there is no reason to have sub -stations in an RM-5 District. Commissioner Mesenger commented that each transformer station in the City should be discussed on its own merits, and should not be an automatic provision. Commissioner Schoenfeld indicated he understands what the Council is trying to do as far as giving the Ordinance to the Planning Commission and letting them draw it in relation to their thinking, however there is a slight problem that once attached homes are built on five -units per acre which the Planning Commission could not allow at their meeting,since there was no clearance from the Attorney,that they could rezone to an RM-10 with the limitation by covenant to five units. He said the Ordinance will take a lot of time and he would feel happier if the Attorney could advise them that the Developer can submit a covenant prior to rezoning, otherwise the developer will be held up for an inordinate length of time before he can go ahead with his building plans. Vice Mayor Disraelly commented if the Planning Commission does it by that afternoon it would be ready by January 15th. The City Attorney said there are two things - one is the Ordinance and he would imagine it would come up at the next Planning Commission Meeting and any input will be made by anyone who has any and a vote will be taken one way or another and it will be for- warded to Council. Commissioner Becker stated it is very important to have an Ordinance and the Ordinance will be discussed properly as they have always done, Mr. Birken said his position is; what the developer is proposing is to rezone to a district that would permit more units than would be allowed under the land use plan. He said he had told the developer that he had some concern about contract zoning and that he had an open mind on the subject and if the developer could convince him with any -language from any treatise indicating that this was permissible anywhere in the United States, he would like to see it because he could not find any. The developer could not find any either, and he came up with the statement it was conditional zoning. The City Attorney said he still has an open mind, and has been in touch with former City Attorney's who are on the bench right now and he has been in touch with people who do this every day and he has not been able to find anyone who could show him anything written anywhere that would permit this. Mr. Birken stated he understands what they are doing, and in some regards it makes sense, but he has not been able to find a justification for it and that is why he has taken the position he has. Commissioner Becker stated he fully agrees with the City Attorney and in his 45 years experience of zoning appeal, any variance must be based upon an existina law or ordinanr.� of the code of zoning regulations. It can't be based on what is being produced, it must be based on a zoning regulation or building code regulation, but a variance must be based on some existing law. Therefore,, he said, it mn.1st be reviewed and the Ordinance adopted. Commissioner Becker said there are many corrections to the Ordinance and they have not, as yet, discussed them. Chairman Beutner said doing it any other way falls into contract zoning. Commissioner Schoenfeld read a newspaper clipping dated June 6, 1980, in which a zoning attorney was quoted saying there is no Florida Law which prohibits contract zoning. The City Attorney agreed to check the statement with the attorney who was quoted in the article. Councilman Zemel suggested that the Planning Comnission take the Ordinance back and study it and send their recommendations back to Council. Vice Mayor Disraelly said that seemed to be the feeling of all of the Council members. Mayor Falck said that he also agreed that the Planning Commission do that. Vice Mayor Disraelly said it was agreed that the Planning Com-nission should give the Council their input in writing. Mayor Falck suggested if possible that it be done at the next Meeting of the Planning Commission. Chairman Beutner said it could be put on the next Agenda. Vice Mayor Disraelly suggested if it was going to take too long, another workshop could'be held by the Planning Commission. Mayor Falck suggested after the input was ready for Council, if the Commission wished to have another Workshop jointly with Council, they could work out any problems. Mr. Birken questioned if the Mayor wished to have another Workshop, Mayor Falck said if it had to be, Council would be willing to have one, but he is not requesting it. Vice Mayor Disraelly questioned if they were going to do RM-5 or RM-1 and RU-4. Councilwoman Massaro said she would like to see RM-5 addressed at this time. She said they should look at them separately. She said particularly the M-1 should be looked at, and she would like to see it addressed separately. Commissioner Gottesman said it was his thought that they ought to address the RM-5 since time is of tie essence to this particular builder who has been waiting a long time. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:45 P.M. This Public Document was promulgated at a cost of $ F0 or $ per copy to inform the general public and public officers an employees a out recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -4- 12/d/ul /lc