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