Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-23 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 5811 NOR11-1WEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, Ei_Oi4M/'% 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT MIENDMENTS JUNE 23, 1982 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC will hold a Special Public Hearing on Wednesday, June 23, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N.V. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to provide an opportunity for effective participation in amending the Tamarac Land Use Plan Element, in accordance with Chapter 163.3184 of Florida Statues and the Broward County Charter. ITEM - Land Use Plan Element - Amendments - Discussion and possible action on: a) Motion to acknowledge public hearing display advertise- ment as published in the Sun Sentinel and Fort Lauderdale News on Friday, June 18, 1982. b) Motion to acknowledge receipt of all material transmitted by Richard Rubin on June 18, 1982, pursuant to F.S. 163. c) Motion to include three F & R Builders property and Eric Traub property as four additional parcels under Amend- ment No. 5. d) Presentation by Consulting Planner of proposed amendments. e) Consideration of Amendments and approval by Temp. Reso. # 2 3 2 9 . The City Council will hold additional public hearings later in the year to adopt these amendments by Ordinance following recertification by the Broward County Planning Council of the Land Use Plan Element as amended. Council may consider such other business as may come before them. Pursuant to Chapter 80405 of Florida law, Senate bill Nm -RM if b person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such maClnj w hezidng, he will need a record the proceedings and for .such purpose, he may need �o ensure that a verbatim record includ,,v the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based VA I JA "LYNBEYtHOLF Y CLERK 161 3/op-1- CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENTS JUNE 23, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Mayor Massaro called the Special Meeting to order on Wednesday, June 23, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disrael Councilman David E. Krantz ABSENT AND EXUSED: Mayor Walter W. Falck Councilman Philip E. Kravitz ITEM- LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT - AMENDMENTS - Discussion and possible action on; a) Motion to acknowledge public hearing display advertisement as published in the Sun Sentinel and Fort Lauderdale News on Friday, June 18, 1982. b) Motion to acknowledge receipt of all material transmitted by Richard Rubin on June 18, 1982, pursuant to F.S. 163. c) Motion to include three F & R Builders property and Eric Traub property as four additional parcels under Amendment #5. d) Presentation by Consulting Planner of proposed amendments. e) Consideration of Amendments and approval by Temp. Reso. #2329. a) Motion to acknowledge public hearing display advertisement as published in the Sun Sentinel and Fort Lauderdale News on Friday, June 18, 1982. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: ACKNOWLEDGED Public Hearing Display Advertisement. Commissioner Hank Meyers of the Planning Commission informed Council that Commissioner Arthur Gottesman had been acting chairman at the Planning Council meeting that had dealt with these items, therefore, should there be any questions, he would be better qualified to answer. He added that Mr. Rubin, City Planner and Acting Chairman Arthur Gottesman would conduct a review with the Council''s approval. V/M Massaro asked if this was Going to be a joint meeting. Mr. Rubin said the Planning Commission is the local planning agency by Florida Statute and it is their responsibility to prepare the Land Use Plan, and they had had their public hearing last week and were forwarding their plan to the Council. with Mr. Gottesman as Acting Chairman, to answer any questions which they thought might arise. C/M Disraelly said they had a reprint of the Public Hearing Advertise- ment received by the City indicating that the meeting will be held on June 23, 1982 and published June 181 1982 and he MOVED that they ACKNOWLEDGE the Public Hearing Display Ad. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE b) Motion to Acknowledge receipt of all material transmitted by Richard Rubin on June 18, 1982 pursuant to Florida Statute 163. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Final Draft of Land Use Amendment dated 6/16/82. -1- 6/23/82 /nrr C/M Disraelly said they had the final draft of the proposed Tamarac Land Use Plan Amendment dated June 16, 1982 which was presented to council on/or before June 18, 1982 and he MOVED they ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of that publication. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE c) Motion to include three F & R. Builders property and Eric Traub property as four additional parcels under Amendment No. 5. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED C/M Disraelly MOVED that the Land Use Plan Element Amendments include three F & R Builders properties which were given to Council on June 14, 1982 and one for the Eric Traub Property which was also presented to Council on June 16, 1982. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE_ ALL VOTED AYE d) Presentation by Consultant Planner of proposed amendments. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Amendment #1 - APPROVED Amendment #2 - APPROVED Amendment #3 - APPROVED Amendment #4 - APPROVED with the stipulation that if the County Planning Council makes any revisions, as has been indicated, the Council will further review it before adoptinq it. Amendment # 5 - APPROVED Amendment #1 Amendment # 6 - APPROVED Mr. Rubin, City Planner, said the Planning Commission initiated these amendments approximately four months ago. They have had workshop.meetings and their public hearing. on June 16th, 1982. They had transmitted the booklet to Council on June 16th, as well as four other amendments that Council had voted tonight to consider. V/M Massaro suggested that they take one amendment at a time, have the public hearing on it and act on it. Mr. Rubin continued that each amendment in the first sentence explains the purpose and he read the purpose into the record. V/M Massaro opened the hearing to the public on Amendment #1. No one wished to be heard and the public hearing was closed. C/M Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL of Amendment #1 clarifying reserve unit regulations which was also approved by Planning Commission at their meeting. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Amendment #2 Mr. Rubin stated. that Amendment #2 was included in Broward County's Land Use Plan and the County has requested that whenever a City submits for recertification, they would like the City to change their plans according to the same language as the County. The purpose of this amendment is to define which parcels of land may be exempted from the platting requirement. Richard Rubin read the amendment into the record. V/M Massaro opened Amendment #2 to the public. No one wished to be heard and the public hearing was closed. C/M. Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL and ADOPTION of Amendment #2 clarifying types of parcels exempt fom the Tamarac Platting require- ment. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 6/23/82 -2- /nrr Amendment #3 Mr. Rubin read Amendment #3 into the record. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. No one wished to be heard and she closed the public hearing. C/M Krantz MOVED the ADOPTION of Amendment #3 to provide greater flexibility of commercial uses permitted in the industrial land use classification. C/M Disraelly SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Amendment #4 Mr. Rubin read Amendment #4 into the record. Mr. Rubin added that he had received a phone call that afternoon from the Planning Council on this amendment and amendment #5 and he wished to inform the Council that in a letter to the City they said that they would require coordination between the City and County to implement this amendment, they have now had second thoughts and said that there needed to be language included in this amendment that would assist in implementing it. Mr. Rubin had discussed this with Planning Council and -he would, -like Council, if they consider adopting this Amendment tonight, to require that any changes the Planning Council would like to add, Council will review when it gets back to them prior to adopting this amendment by ordinance. He added that they are adopting this amendment by resolution tonight, there will still be two more hearings for the ordinance. He would like to hear what Planning Council has to propose, they only had it in draft form that afternoon, therefore, he would like the Council to be aware that there might be some changes. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. Commissioner Arthur Gottesman, Acting Chairman, Planning Commission questioned the City Planner that when this amendment came back for public hearing, did that mean that the Planning Commission had a chance to review what they wanted to change, since they had already approved what they are asking the Council, to approve. Mr. Rubin explained that after this was sent down to the planning council it took 35 to 55days to be recertified by the county. After that date it will be brought back to the planning commission to inform them of what changes had occured and then once again they will be fowarding it to the City Council for adoption. No one else wished to be heard and V/M Massaro closed the public hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL of Amendment #4 with the Stipulation that if the Planning Council makes any revisions to this, which has been indicated, that Council will further review it before adopting it. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AXE Amendment #5 Mr. Rubin stated that Amendment #5 had many parts to it, and he wished to discuss each part individually. . He thought it might be advisable to open a public hearing on each individual part. Mr. Rubin said that there were six (6) local land use amendments that had been submitted for Council, review and recertification before the LPlanning Council. 6/23/82 -3- /nrr Mr. Rubin continued that, in addition, by their earlier motion, they have included 3 additional parcels by F & R Builders and 1 additional parcel by Eric Traub. He added that in his phone call with the planning council, they recommended a few changes to the map. The changes included will be a note, "Trafficways shall conform to Broward County Traffic Plan as amended from time to time". This is a requirement they have put on every city in Broward County. He did not see the reason behind it, although it is in conformance with the traffic - ways plan. The second addition says "Proposed Sawgrass Expressway". which was changed from;University Expressway. They are reminding the City of that change. The third addition was the 324 foot right of wav on The Sunshine State Parkway. They had omitted a right-of- way for Sawgrass Expressway because there was none when they adopted the land use plan. The Planning Council checked the record and found that it is also 324 feet. He has not verified it as yet, but he would like to put it down and he will verify it with DOT. He has no objections to including the 324 foot right-of-way. V/M Massaro asked if that would affect the amendment which has to do with the extension of the zoning, by extending the 324 feet into that expressway. C/M Disraelly pointed out that they could show residential and industrial. It is underlined uses. It does not matter if it is 324 feet wide or 400 feet wide. The underlying uses can still be used regardless, unless they go ahead and purchase 324 feet of it. Mr. Rubin said that with the new language, the City is now showing it as underlying uses. V/M Massaro said she was just questioning if the city had to eliminate that 324 feet from the underlying use. Mr. Rubin said the answer was no. Mr. Rubin said that the last one that they recommended changing is the roadway designation for McNab Road as 110 foot right-of-way. The Planning Council adopted against,city's request, an increase on McNab Road, from University Drive to 31st Avenue, a 200 foot right-of-way. The City Council was aware of that, they petitioned the county to decrease it again. They have declined to listen to the City's pleas. V/M Massaro asked the City Attorney if the County was confiscating that property to get the extra 45 feet on each side. The City Planner answered that the right-of-way was 110 feet today, but if something came in tomorrow, they would require the additional right-of-way. The property was already platted east of University Drive up to 31st Avenue. The City Attorney asked if they had enforced this against any developments yet? The City Planner said this was just adopted three months ago after all the property was already platted. V/PZ Massaro asked if they adopted this tonight, does that mean that hereafter the City has to require this reservation for the County? The City Attorney said that in new developments and new plans it did look that way. However, -..not until final passage of the ordinance. The City Planner added that the Planning ..Council _ did adopt theirs by ordinance, so that it is in effect in the County right now The City is objecting to it. C/M Disraelly said that the planner had indicated that the property was all platted, the entire stretch. Ile added therefore, how could the city give them 200 feet if it was all platted. He said they would have to take it by eminent domain. V/M Massaro said that some of the property was platted but not site planned. She added that in order to site plan it, wouldit be require by law to require another 45 foot dedication. The City Attorney said he would like the opportunity to give a formal response, but it seemed to him, if they approve this tonight, and if it passes by ordinance after they get the feedback from the County, yes, by their own action the 45 foot dedication would be required in the future. 6/23/82 -4- /nrr The City Planner pointed out the note that was added, that they will conform to the Broward County Trafficways Plan, they have already amended it and shown the 200 feet. So he felt, by that note alone were they not acquiescing to the 200 foot right-of- way. . The City Attorney said that the question was not whether they were acquiescing, but whether or not there will be compensation of some form, because of this additional right-of-way. C/M Krantz added that it said as amended, and it could be amended from time to time. The City Attorney said that the city was giving the County authority to amend it consistently. C/M Disraelly asked that when the City Attorney does his research, if it has been platted and recorded, isn't that the outline of the piece of property? Can they take away more than that after it has been platted? V/M Massaro said that they needed some hard and fast answers here, because some of the property owners really had no notice that this sort of thing was going to be acted on. She added that the property owners were not aware that this much of .their property would be taken from them. Richard Rubin noted that this had come before the planning council last fall and Fort Lauderdale was aware and they brought all of their property owners out in force along Cypress Creek Road, east of 31st Avenue. Fie said that the proposal was to widen McNab Road from University Drive all the way to Dixie Highway. There were enough property owner- east of 31st Avenue to talk the Planning Council into denying that widening, and therefore, the only parcel that was left was from 31st Avenue to University Drive, and they adopted that portion. He did not think that made sense to have it wider in the west and narrower to the east. Mr. Rubin reminded Council that they had adopted a resolution asking them to change that back again, and so far they have refused to put that on a public hearing for consideration. V/M Massaro said that Council would expect Mr. Rubin and Mr. Henning to get the answers to these items and the position of the City as to the note added that the plan may be amended from time to time, does that mean that unequivocally they can change these plans and that the City has to abide by anything they put down on that piece of paper. She did not think that was constitutional. She thought that before they could pass the ordinance they needed some answers. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing on Amendment #5. No one wished to be heard and the public hearing was closed. C/M Disraelly said if they had to act on this he would table this until such time as they get answers from the City Attornev and City Planner, pertaining to McNab Road and the Trafficways Plan. Julian Bryan questioned if procedurally council could tonight delete a portion of the package under amendment review procedure and proceed with the rest of it and have a proper package to go back to Planning Council. Mr. Rubin answered that the City had done this often enough to know that if Council wanted to delete those two items on this plan, he said it really was not in the packet now, he was asking them to include it. Therefore, they could delete those two items or send them to the planning Council_ for recertification and during this time period they will get answers to questions and decide whether -5 6/23/82 /nrr they want to include it or not. V/M Massaro questioned if it would affect the City's certification. Mr. Rubin answered that was some- thing they would find out during the process. He added that if it is an effective certification/the City will find out in enough time to be able to make an intelligent decision before it is reviewed by the Planning Council. They would know two or three weeks ahead of time. V/M Massaro did not think a tabling actionwas in order, she believed that they should either delete it or some other language should be used. C/M Disraelly said that this still had to be added to the agenda. She asked for an opinion from the City Attorney. Jon Henning said since it was not in the packet now and they needed a motion to include it, he did not know if it would affect the certification of the package if they did not include it, if the County just called today to say that they wanted this in the package. Mr. Rubin added that they wanted it in the package although these were items that they had not included the first time and they received certification. They had asked him to present this on behalf of the County-. fie continued that the Planninq Council staff said they had a memo coming out to the City, including all these items. He had informed them that it was a little late as .the public hearing was this evening, but he had agreed to present them to Council_. He feels that they had adequate time in between now and the time of review by the Planning. Council_ to finalize on the questions that Council.does have. ,Ion Henning said that their remedy could be not to include it. His judgement would be that if it is not included in the oackage, in light of the lateness of the notice and the nature of the notice, they could either accept it and table it or they could just not accept it, or accept it in part. He imagined they would hear from the County- on recommendations when they get the feedback, inquiring as to the status or whether they will approve it without it. Jon Henning felt that they should reflect in the record that the notice was inadequate for Council to give it proper consideration. C/PZ Disraelly asked if in his motion he should use the word table. V/M Massaro said that if they use the word table, they are not giving them a full amount of what they want. She did not think it could be held until they got their answers, because it had to go for certification. Mr. Rubin said that Council was always trying to be very thorough. They have two objects at this meeting tonight, one is to review our land use plan according to Florida Statute 163 and they have met all the requirements, they have received the Planning Council'-s comments back in the proper time, they have replied in the proper time and they neglected to include these comments. According to Florida Statute 163, thev do not need to put these in. Their second concern is recertification and that they can find out from today until they receive the recertification, they can always make those changes. C/M Disraelly referenced the map that was given to Council for Future Land Use, he MOVED that they ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of this from the Planning Council, indicating the changes for Sawgrass Expressway, McNab Road and the note and will advise upon receipt of answers to questions by the Planning Council, City Planner and City Attorney. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTE AYE 6/23/82 - 6- /nrr Mr. Rubin returned to the agenda, pointing out the 6 parcels that were included in the plan and the four that they had voted to discuss. No. 1 SABAL PALM GOLF COURSE CONDOMINIUM SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Mr. Rubin said that this parcel was 15.244 acres and was included in a court order to change from open space to residential. Mr. Rubin added that they had a plat before the City Council now that shows 314 dwelling units on it and therefore they would like to change the plan to reflect 314 dwelling units, which is an increase of 146 units more than originally permitted. V/M Massaro opened the Public Hearing. No one wished to be heard. V/M Massaro closed the Public Hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL of the Sabal Palm Golf Course Condominium to the proposed medium high dwelling units with a total of 314 units which requirement is created by a court order. It was also approved by the Planning Commission. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE No. 2 - LAKES OF CARRIAGE HILLS/ROCK ISLAND ROAD PARCEL SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Mr. Rubin informed Council that this parcel is 1.35 acres in size just north of the entrance to Sabal Palm Condominium on the east side of Rock Island Road. Our land use plan shows this parcel as Recreation/Open Space. The applicant has submitted a request to change the land use to commercial. It has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommend- ation was that 1.35 acres of public park along Rock Island Road is not large enough to serve the community and would be a problem in maintenance and recommended that this be changed to commercial. The Planning Commission voted this down, because there were three people at the meeting. They could not get all three to vote in favor of it. There was a 2-1 vote, but the one defeated the motion. V/M Massaro opened the Public Hearing. No one wished to be heard. V/M Massaro closed the Public Hearing. C/M Disraelly said that although the Planning Commission had denied it based on a 2 to 1 vote, he felt this should be changed from recreational/open space because of the size of the parcel to commercial and he would so MOVE. C/M Krantz SECONDED. V/M Massaro thought that this area did lend itself to commercial use and C/M Disraelly added that it was adjacent to a public street entering into three different condominiums. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mr. Rubin added that there had .been changes in the staff of the Planning Council, therefore, they cannot get a clear answer to one question and that was whether they could get this land use change recertified or whether the small 1.3 acres would require a full county -wide amendment which is an additional six months time. He added that Council was moving in the right direction and he would not be surprised if this would go in a different direction. -7- 6/23/82 /nrr NO. 3 - GOLF VIEW PLAZA Mr. Rubin said that this was an application by the owner of a parcel of land located at Prospect Road and 21st Avenue on the northeast corner. Mr. Rubin said that this application prompted them to also make amendment #2 changing the way industrial can be changed to commercial. The only way the owner can have the change is by a full land use amendment, which he has submitted, paid the fees and requested the amendment. The land use plan shows it as industrial, surrounded by industrial to the north, surrounded to the west and south by the golf course, a shopping center site in the City of Oakland Park to the Southeast, and residential to the east. Mr. Rubin said the city:had approved the plat and sent it to the County. He had informed the County at that time that he would like to build a shopping center, and the County told him it was not in compliance with the City's land use plan. It is industrial and they denied his plat until such time that Council would agree to change his land use to commercial. It has been reviewed by the staff and his comments to the Planning Commission was that he can not justify it by any supporting material. Mr. Rubin continued that the Planning Commission also felt that it would not be appropriate at this time to make that change, since Council still has another opportunity once the other amendment is adopted to just change it by zoning if they could justify it at a later date. V/M Massaro inquired as to the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Rubin said it was a unanimous vote to deny, 3-0. She opened the Public Hearing. No one wished to be heard. V/M Massaro closed the Public Hearing. C/M Disraelly indicated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Y.elch said that she was not swayed with what was presented by the owner of the property. Commissioner Mesinger stated that he had looked at the property and felt that it was not suitable for commercial development and Acting Chairman Gottesman said he did not see any justification for the change. C/11 Disraelly MOVED that the Golf View Plaza change from industrial to commercial be DENIED in keeping with the Planning Commission recommendation. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE No. 4 BIENEMA/TRACHSEL - Commercial Blvd. Site adjacent to the Turnpike. Mr. Rubin informed the council that this parcel was approximately 2.8 acres. This is now on the land use plan as 5-10 DU/AC which would allow approximately 28 dwelling units to be constructed on the property. The zoning of the property is commercial, it has been placed on the agenda to see if there can be some balance between the land use and the zoning. Specifically, a residential parcel at this location may have a major impact by the roadways adjacent to it. He said it had been brought to his attention from one of the homeowners that the property is no more than 150 feet wide, with the setback requirements there will be virtually no property left and would be directly onto Commercial Blvd. traffic. He continued that the development would not be large enough to support its own recreational area for the 28 units and it would be a burden on the area for recreational purposes and it has been recommended and passed by the Planning Commission to change the land use from a low medium to commercial. -8- 6/23/82 /nrr V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. Florence Bochenek raised a point of information. She asked for the tract to be pointed out on the map. Mr. Rubin did so. Mr. Nadeau said that he had been at the planning commission meeting and that Mr. Rubin's proposal had been agreed to by the commission at a 3-0 vote in favor of changing from low density to commercial and it was his suggestion that this should be left an open space area because of the lack of greenery in the state of Florida. C/M Disraelly asked the City Clerk's department to change page 12 of the Planning Commission meeting to show Mr. Nadeau and not Mr. Nadell as it had been mispelled. No one else wished to be heard and V/M Massaro closed the public hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED that this tract be rezoned from low medium density to commercial which would be in keeping with the planning commission and what Mr. Rubin had indicated. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 5. D.O.T. PROPERTY - between Lakes I & II Mr. Rubin pointed out that this piece of property was owned by the Department of Transportation, State of Florida between Lakes I and Lakes 2 on the north side of Prospect Road, east of 21st Avenue. It is 6 1/2 acres in size, which,when the city originally adopted the land use plan, showed as residential because the city did not know that it was owned by a public entity. It is now being proposed by the city as a wild life refuge area and the city is actively pursuing the possibility of receiving this parcel from the State of Florida. Mr. Rubin continued that it would be more appropriate to show this parcel of land as parks and open space for specific use as a Wild Life Refuge . V/M Massaro asked Mr. Henning if they were confiscating this property when classifying it as open space. Mr. Henning answered that Mr. Rubin had said earlier that it had been classified as residential and it was owned by the State. V/M Massaro told Mr. Henning that they were trying to purchase it from the state but that they wanted a ridiculous price and they are still negotiating with them. She is afraid that if they reclassify this property as recreation/open space, the city may be guilty of confiscation. Mr. Henning said they were notified of this hearing as well as the planning commission hearing. Mr. Henning questioned if there had been any feedback at the Planning-Commission_.meeting. Mr. Rubin answered Mr. Henning that the city had received a reply back from the. State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and they had no comment on this one parcel of land. He cannot say that they had addressed it or recognized that they owned it, but they did not comment in any manner. V/M Massaro added that it had been told to them in the past that if the City puts that type of classification on it, they can hold the City liable for confiscation of property, because the City has taken the value away from the property. She said that if the City classified it as open space, the property is not good for anything and they no longer have a value to that property. Mr. Rubin said that when they were including this amendment, it was felt that they would not adopt this -until next November by ordinance, and he felt there would be plenty of time to remove it, that would be no problem. 6/23/82 -9- /nrr V/M Massaro said that in further reviews, when it is going to be adopted by ordinance, can Council at that time, change somethina- Mr. Henning said that if that was Council's, inclination, then they could approve it tonight and see what the feedback is from the County, rather than deleting it tonight and not giving the County an opportunity to address it. lie is concerned tliat if they cake it out now, it will not be addr_esgA,d at ;:ill. C/M Disraelly asked if the Council were to put it in by resolution even at the first reading of the ordinance, it could still be deleted at the second reading of the ordinance, as Council. has done with other ordinances Mr. Rubin stated that the City Attorney was absolutely correct, it could be changed at any time. The City Attorney said regardless of what the reasoning is for changing it, whether because of the feedback from the county or from subsequent research that he is able to determine as to whether or not there is a legal problem. V/M Massaro asked the City Attorney to take this on as a priority to determine what the City's position is here. The City Attorney did not think it was crucial at this time, later on it would be more crucial. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. No one wished to be heard. V/M Massaro closed the public hearing. C/M Krantz MOVED the ADOPTION of Item #5 DOT Property be included in the land use element under the proposed Recreation/Open Space designation. C/M Disraelly SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 6. SHELL OIL/VANGUARD VILLAGE Mr. Rubin informed Council that this parcel was 20 acres in size presently the city land use plan shows it at 5 units per acre, by action of the City Council, they agreed to transfer 100 reserve units to this parcel of land and condition upon receiving recerti- fication by the Broward County Planning Council, this would be a vehicle that the city will use to receive that recertification. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. No one wished to be -heard. V/M Massaro closed the public hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of the application for 100 reserve units as approved by Ordinance #82-21 and Ordinance '#82-22 for SHELL OIL/VANGUARD VILLAGE. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: AL T_ VOTED AYE -10 - 6/2:3/8; /nrr 7, 8 and 9. F & R BUILDERS - Nob Hill Road east side south of 77th St SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Mr. Rubin told the Council that he had spoken with members of the Planning Council, they had advised the city that since the City, had agreed to Stipulation #12 and #13, that it would be appropriate at the same time the City. amends the rest of its land use plan to also amend the land use plan to reflect the agreements in Stipulation #12 and #13. Mr. Rubin said that he understood Council's concern if the Stipulation have not been signed by the judge, the Council might feel it is inappropriate to do it at this moment, but the City_ has still not adopted these amendments, the City is only approving the resolution to send it for certification. The Council will still have a minimum of two or three months before this document will come back before Council. for final public hearings and adoption. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. She added that on Nob Hill Road there will be a rezoning to Open Space and Tract 34 will be rezoned from commercial to open space and the other parcel will be rezoned from residential to commercial. She pointed out that there would be a swap between those two parcels. She said they would be handled as one item in conformance with Stipulation #12 and #13. Mr. Rubin informed Council that the applicant had been notified of this public hearing and proposed change. No one wished to be heard and V/M Massaro closed the Public Hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the F & R Builders items that are covered by Stipulation #12 and #13 whereby Tract 33 a portion is changed from commercial to open space, and that Tract 34 a portion is changed from residential to commercial and another portion is changed from residential to open space be APPROVED by this council. C/M Krantz SECONDED. C/M Disraelly added that the Planning Commission agreed with all three of these. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 10. ERIC TRAUB SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Mr. Rubin pointed out that this is related to a parcel of land located on the Northwest corner of Commercial Blvd. and 441. lie said it is not abutting any major road, it is 300 feet to 500 feet in from Commercial Blvd. and 441, and it is approximately 14 acres. He continued that the land use on this property is commercial to the south, commercial to the east and Residential, medium density to the north. The southern part of the residential property to the north, which would be abutting_ this application, is a recreation parcel., He said that the City has verified that there would be no housing units on this new development that would be facing into this area, the housing units will face east and west and this parcel is on the south side. V/M Massaro opened the Public Hearing. Sid Workman representing Eric Traub, said that the proposal is a request to allow a new use for this.property. It is currently zoned R-4A, 15 units to the acre and was originally planned to be a continuing phase of Treehouse which is a two story rental project to the west of this'property,. Mr. Workman pointed out the complication of the development site is primarily the result of the surrounding neighbors in that it faces the back of a large shopping complex, Sunshine Plaza Shopping Center and the back of Carpetland and Norton Tire, so that on two sides it looks into the rear of the shopping center. He added that further difficulties as a result of building a water and sewer station on the site that was originally owned by Tamarac Utilities and subsequently turned over to Broward County. This station not only complicates the site because it is right in the middle of the surrounding property r but because it is a lift station, it does emit an odor on occasion which would make it very difficult to develop for residential purposes. 6/23/82 Mr. Workman, pointed out that the proposal before Council_ would allow the applicant to seek a commercial designation on the property and follow that with a more formal zoning request at which time they will be very specific as to the nature of use in a zoning designation. He added that their current intent, given the nature of the property is to look at a mixed use retail commercial center. The property would be accessed from 441 as well as from the property to the north which has a tie in at the northeast corner. Mr. Workman said his view is that the property would be site planned to have a variety of uses that would benefit the City in certain areas. The area that is near the shopping centers would lend itself to a service road off for other service uses. He added that this would be tucked in, in the back between the Norton Tire and Carpetland in the back of the Sunshine Plaza. He said by doing it on that basis, they would have a service area that would not be visible to the street but at the same time would be accessible to many of the residents in the City of Tamarac. C/M Krantz asked if there was_ any access from Commercial Blvd. to that property? Mr. Workman said the 14 acre piece does not have anv access from Commercial Blvd., the piece next to it does. V/M Massaro said it does have an access, but C/M Disraelly pointed out only because Mr. Workman. -owned the piece of property next to it. Mr. Workman said it was fairly complicated and that gives them one. of the dilemmas in how the site will be developed. The existing commercial property which is zoned B-1 has about 150 feet of frontage on Commercial Blvd. He added that they do have reciprocal easements on Treehouse Lane which is the residential property abutting the site. Therefore, it could be said that they do have access to Commercial Blvd. through these reciprocal easements. Whether this will be the proper method of entry is difficult to perceive given the layout of the site and the retail usage. Ile added that it would offer an alternative way of getting out perhaps with a right turn only, but all this would be a function of working a plan that would really allow the site to flow. Ile has avoided using the word Commercial Blvd. access for that reason. Certainly there is a road there and they have a right to access. He added that one of the things that would be very difficult to answer and was important is the level of cooperation they get from the owners of Treehouse in coming up with a master road plan. V/M Massaro asked where does the road that they show coming through there connect -to? Mr. Workman answered that half that road was owned by Treehouse and half owned by the people who own this property, so there is reciprocal easements. This was an agreement that was made some 10 years ago. Ile added that the real question is, given the size of the road and it is a non dedicated road, how will they solve this problem? He added that with their cooperation, there are alternativesthat might allow for a better road system that would tie into Commercial Blvd, but they cannot represent that. Julian Bryan, representing Granek Properties, the property to the north. He pointed out that Council was aware he was very much involved in this even prior to Mr.,Workman's involvement with Leadership Housing. He did not think that access was a problem for him. He added for the record, when the commercial front is on State Road 7 was site planned and platted, it was platted with the segment of roadway dedicated to the public, so there is legal public access to this property now: IIe added that this was a more sketchy ingress egress easement that at the time of the sale of the property by Leadership Housing to Continental Illinois Realty in about 1972 had with it an access easement and unfortunately, that has managed to disappear over the years, and he as recently as three or four years ago did a study for CIR before they sold this property wherein they were considering a Condominum Conversion for it and at that time they were unable to unearth to anyone's satisfaction, whether or not there was good access there. 6/23/82 -12- /nrr Mr. Workman said that they had done their homework since they are heavily involved .and this would be a very critical part of this program. Without giving a legal opinion, there does exist a series of easements that allow the developers of the Phase IT Treehouse parcel access on that road. V/M Massaro pointed out that it was still a private road. Mr. Workman added that was the point that comes in with the City, yes it is a private road and the City would like to see a dedicated right--of-way. V/M Massaro could not envision them being permitted to use a private road to get into a commercial property. Mr. Workman said that was why he had been very careful in not suggesting to the Council that this is the primary access. V/M Massaro wished to state for the record that even if Council does move to designate a land use of commercial to this, that what is shown here may not be acceptable in a site plan. She added that it might be that their only access will be 441 or using their commercial frontage as a road. Mr. Workman said for the record, the map sketched and seen by Council now was done merely to show a potential flow of develop- ment. It was not meant to reflect any plan that they currently have on the drawing board. He had chosen that layout only because it would show how things might flow, assuming they were successful with what they would like to do. He added that it would be to their benefit as well as the benefit of the City to see a dedicated right- of-way properly laid out to that property. He added that they think they have the opportunity to some degree to attempt that, because they have certain legal rights which vest to them through this easement. Secondly, they think they have some other factors which he cannot disclose at this point in time, pending conversation with owners of the Treehouse, that would be mutually beneficial to them that might allow them to work with Eric Traub in cleaning up that whole area. One of the reasons to be there really, if they did not have the support at this level, there is no sense going through the time and effort with lawyers and surveyors to clear this whole thing up if they cannot see a reasonable opportunity to rezone. He added that one of the conditions he would assume of a site plan, would be the proper presentation of a traffic plan that meets the needs not only of the city, but of a commercial development. V/M Massaro said that there were two things that would be needed. One is the proper site plan with proper traffic plan, secondly, before they even come near Council with a site plan, Councilwould want a covenant positively restricting any mini warehouses on this property. Mr. [workman, wished to read into the record a letter that had been prepared by his client, Eric Traub. "In connection with my pending application for land use amendment on the 14 acre parcel located near the intersection of Commercial Blvd. and the Turnpike, I have been advised by Mr. Sid Workman that there is a concern as to whether this property might be used for so called Mini Warehouses. Accordingly, this letter will document my agreement that the property will not be developed for a mini warehouse program, and I further agree to record a covenant restricting the property from this usage at the time a site plan has been approved and the plat is recorded. The specific language of the covenant will obviously be subject to the approval of the City as well as myself. Please be further advised that Mr. Workman is authorized to represent me at the public hearing of June 23 and has been requested to read this letter into the minutes of this meeting. I trust this letter will answer any questions that might have arisen regarding the subject." -13- 6/23/82 /nrr Mr. Workman gave the original of the letter to the City Clerk and copies to members of Council. C/M Disraelly asked Julian Bryan a question concerning a meeting three years ago when there was discussion of this property and there was discussion of the pumping station, wasn't there a discussion of a meandering roadway that was not clearly defined but was indicated on a map of some sort? Mr. Bryan said that that was precisely correct. Julian Bryan representing Granek- Properties, Lakeside at Tamarac, multi family residential parcel of some 208 units and the Lakeside Plaza which will be brought before council in the next several weeks which is a 4 acre commercial parcel fronting on State Road 7. In direct response to C/M Disraelly's comment, originally in 1972 when they planned the Treehouse Apt. Parcel and did -;,preliminary site plan studies of the balance of the residential property, they did show a road, the purpose of which was to eliminate the prospect or possibility of traffic not going through the signalized inter- section of Commercial Blvd. and State Road 7, and the prospect of then seeing southbound traffic coming through this development and westbound on Commercial or Eastbound on Commercial going through and northbound on State Road 7. He added that if they could drive by and see the prospect of being able to zip right through it, then of course, that was what they would do. They prepared a plan that meandered through the 14 odd acres, recognizing and at that time they did not have the prospect of the fire station being there. He continued that they recognized that it would be nice since that piece of the City up on the north end there is almost an outparcel in the City that they have to serve with police and fire. They felt that it would be desirable to serve it through there. He would not have any objection to this kind of alignment under the present circumstance because they would then be eliminating residential on either side of the roadway and that would eliminate the danger of children etc. on the roadway. Mr. Bryan continued that he would like Council to be aware of their position and would like to voice their concern of how this might be developed as a commercial or business use. One concern was that if any kind of service uses developed on the property, they would begin to be incompatible with residential, he was talking about auto repair, paint and body shops, cabinet and carpentry shops and those kinds of uses would seem to be light industrial uses, rather than commercial. Mr. Bryan said the major thing that they always wanted to accomplish was an artery through the property. C/M Di:sraelly asked if he were indicating a cul-de-sac, if it goes up that way. Mr. Bryan said that perhaps a cul-de-sac for legal access off of State Road 7 that would enter in and terminate itself at some point in the property, and then whatever access they are able to work out leaallv. Mr. Workman said they were getting into something that was not meant to be. He added that the road was just meant to be a schematic because they did know that they had a tie in point. He added that they were going into site plan conversation. V/M Massaro thought they would have to work very closely together in order to come up with something. She added that certainly the Planning Commission and Council when they come in with site plans, are going to be looking at what effect they might be having on the other property. She said they were spinning their wheels right now. Richard Rubin said for the record, the requested amendment is on the gross acreage basis for the entire piece of land, it does not 6/23/82 -14- /nrr contemplate any roadway location, that will be later on down the road. Mr. Bryan said they were obviously opposed to mini warehouses because it had been proposed on the north in contemplating some development of this property. It had not been taken favorably by Council, so they trusted that council would not change their minds now. He stated that he was not there tonight to oppose business uses, but to suggest to them that this is a very delicate piece of property, one that he is very familiar with and so is Council . He would even suggest to them some kind of planned business district wherein as a part of any subsequent rezoning, they strongly consider buffers, set backs retention areas, vehicular circulation, in which case they would be very happy to work with them. He. was sure they could work something out that would be beneficial to everyone. Richard Rubin asked Mr. Workman if the City Council agreed to this amendment tonight, and if technically he could convince the Planning; Council that this is in accordance with their land use plan with the flexibility that they give the City , within 2 acres, he is very close to convincing them, it is in the cityyIs favor right now,. If all of this occurs, and we are recertified, will Mr. Workman come in with the rezoning.. .followed by a site plan. Would Council like to ask Mr. Workman if he would agree to present the rezoning and site plan together so Council. would be able to have that guarantee of review during the rezoning process! V/M Massaro thought that if Council adopted the land use classifi- cation tonight, there was plenty of time for them to come in with at least concept plans which are closer to reality than what he was showing them tonight. She added that he was certainly going to have to do that if Council is going to approve any kind of plans for them. She thought they understood and Granek. Properties under- stands and the city understands that this is of a very sensitive nature, this piece of property and it is going to be looked at with a jaundiced eye and they are going to do a lot of work on it before they bring it in. C/M Disraelly questioned if this could change in the land use plan and the proposed site plan come in before Council passes this by ordinance. Mr. Rubin said that if Mr. Workman chose tonight to begin the site plan process and if he chose to submit to the City and agreed to covenant that he would live with this site plan, at the time they change the land use plan, of course it could occur. Normally the site planning occurs after the rezoning, which is after the land use amendment. C/M Disraelly added that assuming they pass the resolution tonight, there are two more public hearings and it is after the third one that they adopt the ordinance. Mr. Rubin added that was changing the land use only. C/M Disraelly continued that there would be an ordinance passed after the other two hearings. V/M Massaro stated that they still had an opportunity before the rezoning to change their minds. C/M Disraelly repeated that his question was, can he propose this site plan before the ordinance is passed? Mr. Workman said that no he would not submit a site plan before the time frame for rezoning was reached. He explained that there was a series of reasons, some technical and some practical. One, he believed that the procedures that are required in terms of a rezoning process do not require a site plan be submitted attached to a rezoning request. He repeated for the record, when he makes a 6/23/82 -15- /nrr a request for rezoning, he has to be specific as to what zoning classification he is seeking, B-1, B-2 or B--3. What council is doing now is not acknowledging any classification other than the designation of commercial on a county plan, it is not specific it is a general classification for the Gounty's- purpose. He added that with relation to the City, what he would like to do, given the complexity of the site and the amount of time that will be necessary to properly plan the site, is discuss with Council and Planning the type of uses at the time he makes his request for a rezoning. Perhaps provide a very broad concept plan. He added that he did not want to limit himself-' to a specific design until he goes to the site plan process. The Site Planning process is relatively expensive . What he is saying is that he has enough obstacles in the development of the site plan from the practical view, the traffic, Treehous.e-, and other problems, that to go through a site plan process now, in anticipation of the rezoning, would be a burden and a hardship that he did not think was required by the methods of procedure which they have in the City. Mr. Workman said he was not disagreeing with Council in terms of giving them more information, he thought they were entitled to that at the rezoning request. He said that when he talks about B-2, he has to be quite specific and so on. He added that when he makes that request, Mr. Bryan will have the opportunity to talk about uses. He said he was not ready to be tied to a site plan because by the Council's own definition requires engineering etc. V/M Massaro thought it would take at least 6 months to accomplish what he had to accomplish. He agreed. Iie added the reason why they were so anxious to get on the agenda was because of the difficult with the site itself before they approach the City they need 6 months and if they waited for that time, they would never get their zoning application in. No one else wished to be heard and Vice Mayor Massaro closed the Public Hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED the approval of the Amendment concerning the Eric Traub property to be APPROVED for the inclusion of 14 acre parcel to the proposed change from residential to commercial designation. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mr. Rubin wished to address one question that Mr. Henning had. Since the council has approved some of these changes and not all and also have added 4 more. There are 8 pages of changes after the first page that refer to the tables and graphs which must be changed now according to these amendments. He added that they had to have more commercial acreage, remove residential acreage and so forth. He asked Mr. Henning if council needs to authorize and make these changes or by the approval of the overall amendment, they automatically understand that these graphs and tables have to be changed. Mr. Henning felt that Section 2 covered that. V/M Massaro added that there was, no question that it was covered, that they would be expected to make the appropriate changes in conformance with what had been discussed here tonight. 6/23/82 -16- /nrr Amendment #6 SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Mr. Rubin said that Amendment #6 included 5 areas which were the property of the County, waiting to be annexed into the. City at a later date. Amendment #6 had been reviewed by the State and they felt that as long as the City clarified the language and put one sentence in that said the City is not changing the density or anything else until these are annexed, then Amendment #6 is a guide for future growth and therefore they have recommended that this is consistent with the Florida Statute 163. Mr. Rubin indicated the areas for the public: 1. East of Prospect Road, South of Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport, is a little piece of land that is industrial zoned with warehouses and manufacturing going on there now. He has spoken with the planners at Fort Lauderdale and they have no plans for adoption of this into their City_, therefore they backed us in bringing this into the City of Tamarac. 2. A:.very small piece of land that has duplexes on it now, North of Caporella Park that is just a little outparcel surrounded by Tamarac and Fort Lauderdale. 3. A group of parcels that jump around from Commercial Blvd. east of 441 up and around the Trafalgar Industrial Park that is being developed there now and then jumps across to the triangular area where there are mobil homes on the west side of 441, and stops again at the Turnpike. The only piece that is out of this parcel that someday should be in Tamarac is the Holiday Inn on 441. Fort Lauderdale had annexed it. It abuts Tamarac more than it abuts Fort Lauderdale. 4. A Parcel that would help fill in an area that is surrounded by Commercial Boulevard on the South, Bailey Road on the North, Rock Island Road on the East, and Sabal Palms on the West. There is the Gate Condo in there and a few other developments that are in the County. Comrock Estates is the name of the Plat. 5. A Parcel just west of Shaker Village, East of the Bermuda Club, Bailey Road on the North and Commercial Boulevard on the South. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing. No one wished to be heard. V/M Massaro closed the public hearing. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the Future Land Use Plan that the city is proposed to be amended to include 5 annexation reserve units which have been described by the City Planner both in the far east and 441 and south of Bailey Road parcels. C/M Krantz SECONDED. VOTE: e) Consideration of Amendments and approval by Temp. Reso. #2329. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Reso. #2329 RESO. 110. R��-/,74p PASSED. 6/23/82 -17- /nrr Jon Henning read the resolution by title only. C/M Krantz MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2329 approving amendments to the Tamarac Land Use Element and authorizing submission to the Broward County Planning Council for recertification thereof. C/M Disraelly SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT I0:25 P.M. i This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ & 05 or $6--0/ per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -18- 6/23/82 APPROVED Y CITY COUNCIL ON