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