Loading...
2013-07-18 Joint wkshpCITY OF OKEECHOBEE .JULY 18, 2013 CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING BOARD .JOINT WORKSHOP CITY HALL * 55 SE 3RD AVENUE, ROOM 200 * OKEECHOBEE, FL AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Pro-Tempore. July 18, 2013, City Council and Planning Board Joint Workshop, 6:00 p.m 11. MAYOR, COUNCIL, PLANNING BOARD & STAFF ATTENDANCE -City Clerk. Mayor James E. Kirk Council Member Mike O'Connor Council Member Devin Maxwell Council Member Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Clayton Williams Chairperson Dawn Hoover Board Member Terry Burroughs Board Member Phil Baughman Board Member Karyne Brass Board Member Kenneth Keller Board Member Douglas McCoy Board Member Gary Ritter Alternate Board Member John Creasman Alternate Board Member Les McCreary City Administrator Brian Whitehall City Attorney John R. Cook City Clerk Lane Gamiotea City Planning Consultant Bill Brisson Board Secretary Patty Burnette III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION DISCUSSION PAGE 1 OF 4 In the absence of Mayor Kirk, and there being no objections, Council Member Watford called the July 18, 2013, City Council and Planning Board Joint Workshop to order at 6:10 p.m. and will serve as Mayor Pro-Tempore. City Clerk Gamiotea called the roll: Absent Present Present Present (Serving as Mayor Pro-Tempore) Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District - Senior Planner Mayor Pro-Tem Watford began the discussion by conveying the Council's appreciation of the Planning Board's hard Brisson. work, and hoped it was not taken personally when the Council's action did not always agree with the Board's recommendations. He also apologized on behalf of Mayor Kirk and Council Member Williams, both had previous engagements that would not allow them to attend. 97 98 JULY 18, 2013 - CC & PB JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 2 OF 4 AGENDA DISCUSSION III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION CONTINUED. A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District continued. In January of 2011, by Resolution No. 2011-01, the Council adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) as required by Florida Statute 163.3191, to periodically assess the success and/or failure of the Comprehensive Plan, which offers a policy for guidance of growth and development for a certain time period. The EAR addresses the changing conditions of the community, identifies major issues of concern, and proposes changes. One area of concern in the EAR, are the conflicts between the Zoning and the Future Land Use Maps. The Planning Board held several workshops and a Public Hearing in 2012 to review and discuss the properties with a Holding Zoning District, and made recommendations to change the zoning based on information and recommendations provided by the City's Planning Consultant. However, at the October 16, 2012 City Council Public Hearing, the owners of the larger parcels, with a Holding zoning and agriculture use and/or exemption disagreed with the recommendations, and raised concern over losing their exemptions. The Council only approved five zoning changes for properties that had an accompanying Future Land Use Amendment (see Ordinance No's. 1092, 1093, and 1095). As requested by Council, the Planning Board re -reviewed, considered, and recommended the City re -adopt a Holding Zoning District, with agricultural uses. These proposed changes will be submitted to the Council as a Land Development Regulation amendment. However, the Future Land Use Element, which governs what zoning districts are permitted in which types of Future Land Use Classifications, would need to be amended first in order to adequately address the new zoning. The Planning Board expressed concern with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and requested the workshop. During the discussion, several specific areas were noted, one was how to adequately address properties that have an agriculture exemption, as the City does not want to put their exemption in jeopardy. There are currently 17 properties within the City with this exemption. Thirteen are zoned Holding, the others are zoned Industrial, Residential Multiple Family, Residential Single Family-1, and Planned Unit Development -Residential. All have some type of an agriculture existing use. The properties currently zoned Holding, with agricultural uses and exemptions will most likely be the easiest to address. The Holding Zoning District as proposed, could be the criteria for the properties to meet in order to remain as Holding, and they would include a broad enough definition to allow current agricultural uses to remain. Should the property sell, the new owners would be allowed to keep the same zoning and use. The majority does not want any new properties rezoned to Holding, only those eligible to be Holding will remain. When the amendments are adopted, the properties addressed will either remain Holding or change. This will be the final opportunity for owners to obtain a Holding Zoning in the City. JULY 18, 2013 - CC & PB JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 3 OF 4 AGENDA III DISCUSSION III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION CONTINUED. A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District continued. There was a discussion relating to renaming the zoning to either Light Agriculture or Heritage, as was adopted by Martin County to resolve this same type of situation. The Planning Board will have the option of creating a new title in their recommendation. Turning to smaller properties, currently zoned Holding, that are either vacant or have a residential use would most likely not be able to meet the criteria to remain, and would need to be rezoned based on appropriate existing and surrounding uses. Citizen, Mr. Mack "Hoot" Whorley, Jr., announced he was there to advocate for exempting the 4-H and Future Farmers of America (FFA) projects, and for the youth of the community. He then explained he rents out a home at 1115 Southwest V' Street. Next door is an empty lot, appropriately fenced with a horse on it. The owner of the horse is a young girl who lives on the other side. The two lots have different owners. She rides the horse everyday. During livestock show season she raises an animal, housing it in the fenced lot as well. His tenants do not have a problem with the animals, they enjoy them, and he cautioned adopting any changes that would prohibit this type of situation as there are similar cases all throughout the City. Mr. Whorley also explained he recently discovered that a horse is not considered an agriculture or livestock animal, unless its used for breeding, but is classified as a recreational animal. Both the Council and Board wanted to be clear that they did not want to jeopardize the already established make-up of Okeechobee. Residents have bought property and moved their families here based on a lifestyle they cannot get along the coast or other areas in Florida. People want to be able to live with their livestock which is a critical element of the community's heritage and industry. The 4-H and FFA students are supported and encouraged to participate in county fairs, livestock events and sales throughout the year. The City does not want to create a problem for those students and cause them not to be able to participate simply because they live in the City Limits. Planner Brisson explained that situations where there is a principal use on the property, will allow an adjacent accessary use of Light Agriculture, however, it should be clearer in the Code. Clerk Gamiotea explained of another scenario where the property is not zoned Holding, does not have a principal use, and is used from time to time by the 4-H and FFA students to raise their show animals. It was recommended that these types of situations be documented and handled in a separate ordinance, amending either the Animal section of the Code or the Land Development Regulations so that it is allowed, but not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residents. Council Member Maxwell added, while we are addressing these, we should be pro -active and address the community gardens that have become popular recently. The majority agreed. 100 JULY 18, 2013 - CC & PB JOINT WORKSHOP - PAGE 4 OF 4 II AGENDA III DISCUSSION II III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION CONTINUED. A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District continued B. Discuss proposed changes to the Future Land Use categories and map as they relate to Holding Zoning and Limited Agriculture Uses - Planning Consultant Brisson. IV. ADJOURN MEETING - Mayor Pro-Tempore. Please take notice and be advised that when a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. City Clerk media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk. ATTEST: James E. Kirk, Mayor Lane G miotea, CM , City Clerk Several Planning Board Members took a moment to thank the Council for allowing the joint workshop, it seems to have been productive and will assist them in making their recommendation on these issues. Mayor Pro-Tem Watford thanked everyone for their time. Planner Brisson should have the information needed to draft amendments to present to the Planning Board who can then take as many meetings as necessary until the recommendation is the way the majority wants to present it, then the Council will have a chance at them. The discussion did not include specifics to the Future Land Use categories. However, Mayor Pro-Tem Watford was assured Planner Brisson had all the necessary information to draft the appropriate amendments for the Planning Board. There being no further discussion, Mayor Pro-Tem Watford adjourned the Workshop at 7:33 p.m. It was mentioned the proposed amendments would be considered at the September 19, 2013 Planning Board Meeting. NDEPENDENT _ _ NEWSPAPERS OKEECHOBEE NEWS 107 S.W. 17th Street, Suite D, Okeechobee, FL 34974 J STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Tom. Byrd, who on. oath says he is Publisher of the Okeechobee News, a three times a week Newspaper published at Okeechobee, in Okeechobee County, Florida, that the attached copy of advertisement being a !, ( in the matter of in the 19th Judicial District of the Circuit Court of Okeechobee County, Florida, was published in said newspaper in the issues of i; yr G Affiant further says that the said Okeechobee News is a newspaper published at Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been published continuously in said Okeechobee County, Florida each week and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement, and affiant fur- ther says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, com- mission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement forpublication in the said newspaper. Tom Byrd Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of AD Notary Public, State of Florida at Large (863) 763-3134 PUBLIC NOTICE JOINT WORKSHOP OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING BOARD DTICE: The City Council of the Gty of Okeechobee and the City Planning card will meet on Thursday, Ju 18 2013, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon ereafter as possible, at City Hall, S S�3rd Ave, Rm 200, Okeechobee, FL, r the purpose of conducting a Workshop Meeting._ e ropier of discussion will be lim ted or reviewing the newly proposed �Iding Zoning District Regulations and what Future land Use categories of e Comprehenswe Plan should address this new zoning dlstrct; how ould Umited Agricultural Uses be defined and what Zoning Distdds ould Eris use be allowed, as either a Prinlpal Use or Special'ceptlon, .e; and what properties/areas would be most impaled by these changes.' : official action will be taken at the workshop as its purpose is to allow in rmal group discussion, inquiries, debate and problem solving on particular public is invited and encouraged to attend. The agenda is published on C%ty webslte cityofokeechobee.com or contact Administration Depart- t: 863-763-3372 ezt 212, or rbrock@city ofokeechobee.com. kSE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that no stenographic record by a fled curt reporter will be made of the foregoing meeting. Accordingly, person who may seek ro appeal any derision involving the matters no - I herein will be responsible for making a verbatim record of the tesNmo- ind evidence at said meeting upon which any appeal is ro be based. In rdance with the Americans wth Disabilites Al (ADA), pe sons wth a bility as defined W the ADA that needs special accommodation to par- ate mthis proceeding, contact the City Gerk's Office, no later than two ness days pnor to the proceeding at 863-763-3372. Published by: Lane Gamiotea, CIVIC, City Clerk ANGIE BRIDGES MY COMMISSION # EE 177653 EXPIRES: April 20, 2016 Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters CITY OF OKEECHOBEE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP CITY HALL * 55 SE 3RD AVENUE, ROOM 200 * OKEECHOBEE, FL JULY 18, 2013 OFFICIAL AGENDA PAGE 1 OF 1 I. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Pro Tempore. July 18, 2013, City Council and Planning Board Workshop, 6:00 p.m. II. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLANNING BOARD, AND STAFF ATTENDANCE - City Clerk: Mayor James E. Kirk Council Member Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Devin Maxwell Council Member Mike O'Connor Council Member Clayton Williams City Administrator Brian Whitehall City Attorney John R. Cook City Clerk Lane Gamiotea City Planning Consultant Bill Brisson III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION. Chairperson Dawn Hoover Board Member Terry Burroughs Board Member Phil Baughman Board Member Karyne Brass Board Member Kenneth Keller Board Member Douglas McCoy Board Member Gary Ritter Alternate Board Member John Creasman Alternate Board Member Les McCreary Board Secretary Patty Burnette A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District - Senior Planner Brisson. B. Discuss proposed changes to the Future Land Use categories and map as they relate to Holding Zoning and Limited Agriculture Uses- Planning Consultant Brisson. IV. ADJOURN WORKSHOP - Mayor Pro Tempore. ANY PERSON DECIDING TO APPEAL any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceeding is made and that the record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. City Clerk media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), any person with a disability as defined by the ADA, that needs special accommodation to participate in this proceeding, contact the City Clerk, no later than two business days prior to the proceeding, 863- 763-33 72. Please be advised that should you intend to show any document, picture, video or items to the Board in support or opposition to any item on the Agenda; a copy of the document, picture, video oritem MUST be provided to the Board Secretary for the City's records. PAGE 1 OF 4 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP City Hall * 55 SE 3" Avenue, Room 200 * Okeechobee, FL JULY 18, 2013 Lane's Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Pro Tempore. In the absence of Mayor Kirk, and there being no objections, Council Member Watford called the July 18, 2013, City Council and Planning Board Joint Workshop to order at 6:10 p.m. and will serve as Mayor Pro-Tempore. II. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLANNING BOARD, AND STAFF ATTENDANCE - City Clerk: Mayor James E. Kirk - Absent Council Member Dowling R. Watford, Jr. -Present Council Member Devin Maxwell - Present Council Member Mike O'Connor - Present Council Member Clayton Williams - Absent City Administrator Brian Whitehall - Present City Attorney John R. Cook - Present City Clerk Lane Gamiotea - Present City Planning Consultant Bill Brisson - Present Chairperson Dawn Hoover - Present Board Member Terry Burroughs - Present Board Member Phil Baughman - Present Board Member Karyne Brass - Present Board Member Kenneth Keller - Present Board Member Douglas McCoy - Present Board Member Gary Ritter - Present Alternate Board Member John Creasman - Present Alternate Board Member Les McCreary - Present Board Secretary Patty Burnette - Present III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION. A. Discuss the proposed Holding Zoning District - Senior Planner Brisson. B. Discuss proposed changes to the Future Land Use categories and map as they relate to Holding Zoning and Limited Agriculture Uses- Planning Consultant Brisson. Watford want to begin by saying thanks for all your hard work, hope you don't take it personal when the council doesn't always go along with your recommendations, and we do understand how many hats you manage as the planning board, board of adjustment, and land planning agency and we do appreciate all your efforts and hard work you put into serving on this committee. Want to make apologies for the Mayor, as you saw through the emails, trying to get a time that would work with 17 different individuals was rough, and the Mayor already had his vacation time scheduled. Council Member Williams also sends his regrets, he is on a mission trip. Gave a summary of how we got to where we are now at the workshop to refresh everyone's memory. Think we can all agree there has to be some mechanism adopted in order to allow some agriculture uses in the city. Think it was good to request the workshop since it came to a stopping point of where yall didn't know how to proceed. We don't know all your discussions, I use to attend your meetings a long time ago, but it became a situation too frequently of where I'd be put on the spot for comment. Hoover do ya'II get the minutes? Watford Yes, but like all they are summary so we don't know all the discussion. Ritter I attended that city council meeting where the items were sent back and I understood it the same as Watford, my confusion came with the holding folks out there and thought the council wanted to give them the option of keeping the land use with the classification. But then thought about when those folks move on or sold those properties, did the city want to continue that ag use and holding zoning or didn't' we want to have it move forward with the new uses/names. Maxwell Agree with scenario of the situation stated by Watford & Ritter, and believed it was in connection with the EAR as it identified that we said we were going to get rid of the map conflicts, especially the holding cases. Concerned with what this could do with properties that have an ag exemption, will the zoning come into play on that? Do we know the ramifications on those? Gamiotea According the property appraisers office, there are currently 17 properties with an ag exemption in the city. Of those 17, 4 do not have holding zoning, 13 do. The four are industrial, RMF, PUD-R, and RSF1. Maxwell Have to make sure we do not cause a problem for them. McCreary What about animals limited to the use? Where do we want to go with it? That was a real problem for me with the way the wording was proposed. It looks like we're changing the make up of the town and what people want to be able to do and how they want to be able to live with the their livestock. PAGE 2 OF 4 Baughman when I moved into my house, I purposely bought it because it had dirt roads and more of a country feel to the neighborhood, since I've purchased it, the county has paved the dirt roads, now water is standing in my yard at least 4 inches every summer, the change they caused isn't what I bought into so I caution any decisions we make that will change the make up of what people like and enjoy about living in this town. McCreary is right we need to be careful to what we change, the community is established, now we're wanting to change it. Burroughs justified why we didn't' go with my motion from the other meeting, to live everything like it is but I think we need to stretch further to be sure we don't have something were not going to want to deal with by taking away a lifestyle that people want here. Watford Doug had a good suggestion, what do ya'II think about instead of calling it holding call it light ag zoning? Hoover would be better than holding, easier to understand its use. Maxwell the holding was because it didnt really fit in a density pattern used in general planning situations, most are classified by the density patterns and it's a base line all over the state used by planners, for example everyone knows that an RSF 1 will be the least dense zoning district. Doug in my job, I don't know what the properties with H are, if you tell me ag or commerical, I know what to expect on that property. Baughman holding was because the property didn't fit into any of the categories or was undeveloped was its purpose. Watford if we change Holding to Light Ad, what if the property sold, or wanted to change use, then they could change what they wanted? Brisson Will you want to change the ag to the same regulations where you had to have at least 2 acres get the ag zoning, not just a lot? O'Connor Thing worries me is you have situations in the NW with a lot zoned RSF1, then one beside it zoned RSF1, then one beside it zoned Holding, then one beside it zoned RSF1, then the next two or three zoned Holding. People have built or fixed up a nice home, but their neighbor who has a home next to them with the Holding zoning decides they want chickens or crowing roosters, the RSF1 neighbor is stuck with the problem until the person sales the land. There is also similar situations in Old East Okeechobee around 10 the & 11 cn Avenues. Baughman but thats us and why we choose to live here, understand progress but need to do it gently, go to the newer slowly, make sure you don't create more of a problem, because then your going to have code enforcement out there writing everybody up for having animals in residential zoned areas how have had them for many years with that zoning, then the nightmare begins for the city. Maxwell He's right, we have to control it, but if you cant get an ag exemption with the other... Brisson (6:55) so are you saying you want .... Watford is there a consensus that you probably want to do light ag? (Many 'yes' stated). Maxwell I'd like look at another method of solving the issues and avoid creating a new zoning and permitted this use district, cant it be done that way as well? Watford don't think you can. My next question is, do you want them to be allowed to choose, either change to the zoning that the planner is recommending & at the City's expense or stay the same (except the Holding would be called Light Ag). (many'yes' stated) Maxwell I'm still concerned about the smaller lots, like the ones O'Connor talked about. Those are not going to be able to meet the size/dimensions requirements to stay holding/light ag, will they be able to keep their animals without being a non -conforming use? And what if we now have properties that can't meet the requirements to stay holding/light ag zoning, but do qualify for an ag exemption, as the Clerk explained earlier, minimum acreage isn't what qualifies you for an ag exemption any longer. Are we saying if they cant meet the size requirement to stay holding/light ag they have to go to the RSF1 or whatever the recommended zoning would be? O'Connor I would, because I don't want to add to the problem with the neighbors. Watford in other words, what I'm asking, if you have holding now, do you want to allow existing ag ones - holding properties? PAGE 3 OF 4 Member of the public in attendance, Hoot Whorley asked if questions would be taken from the public? Watford responded yes. Mr. Whorley continued, I own a rental house at 1115 SW 81h St, next door there is a vacant lot that's fenced in with hog wire, and there is a horse on the lot, it use to bother me until I saw a little girl out there riding it every single day. I'm sure the property is not zoned holding, they do not have an ag exemption either, but I'm asking that you not take the away from that little girl. My tenants love the horse being out there, it doesn't bother them. We also have 4-H kids and FFA kids who have animals that they raise, show and sell at the fairs, don't take that away. Okeechobee has always advocated agriculture and promoted these events for our youth, don't cause a problem for them. Brisson the situation is a nonconforming use, unless the lot has a single family on it, then it's an accessory use. If you don't have principle use you cant have an accessory use. Whorley it does not, she lives next door but on a different lot. Watford adjoining properties or across the street? Whorley Yes property adjoins. Brisson Technically its non conforming, but we could address it with some language to allow these types of situations. Whorley would also add, a horse isn't an agriculture or livestock animal, it's defined as a recreational animal unless you are breeding it, seems you can accomplish solving the problem with the ordinances and not the zoning. Watford got to do something with H, either recreate H or change it to something else. Burroughs Assuming light ag, have the 13 properties with ag exemptions go to light ag zoning. Baughman What about surrounding properties when you change it to light ag, will it effect their sale of their property? Watford at least if that zoning you know whats there and I think its better to know. Burroughs We're talking about very few properties. Hoover The properties will have to fit in the criteria for light ag, it wont be automatic, those individual lots with individual owners aren't going to fall in the criteria and wont be able to get the light ag zoning option. Ritter Martin County has a solution on situations like these, they called it Heritage zoning, and it seemed to solve it. Baughman So the properties that wont fit into light ag based on criteria, the ones that are individual lots, we'll have to look at those to make sure we aren't creating spot zoning if we base the zoning on the use, or do we just create a use for that land? Watford Whatever the land use map says it what its going to be is what those individual lots would be changed to. Simpliest thing is creaste light ag, give them a choice, and move on. Brisson Only a few of those properties will be able to go to the ag zoning, most wont be able to do anything with their properties because they are too small of lots. They cant even put a house on the lot. Under RSF1 they can do it. Only ones to think about are the larger ones. Burroughs This would give them opportunity to handle the larger parcels with animals or ag exemption - accomplish what your doing. Go with Doug's suggestion and then RSF1 with the smaller ones. Ritter Selling point, they get to rezone to RSF1 for free. Brisson Those in light ag could then convert on a temporary basis, even the PUD, then no more properties to light ag. Will draft that, at your next planning board meeting - Watford Hopefuly the situation like Hoot brought up about the horse issue can be addressed too. Brisson City initiate it, then he's in a land use catgegory - PUD issue will have to be handled, will figure something out something. I can write something when there's a principle use. However, some of the properties allow for grazing, do you want a provision for those ag type uses to be addressed? Yes. Will have to write it in. Gamiotea I'm clear that you're addressing situations with an adjoining principle use. What about when it's a 4H or FFA animal thats on a property without a principle use? PAGE 4 Of 4 Brisson Comp plan amendment - concurrently zoning changes - anything else will be handled as a totally separate situations. Watford to McCreary are you advocating to allow or not allowing the youth animals? McCreary To allow, I know I enjoy riding my horse and they are next to my house. If nothing else its bringing all these non conformities out in the open for us to address. Whorley I'm advocating exempting 4H and FFA projects - advocating for the youth of the community. Watford we've resovled for the H zoning, believe Brisson understands what all he needs to give as suggestions. Want to again say what great work you all do on the board. We'll let ya'II hash this out at your next meeting. Its going to be like Clayton said with the perfect sign ordinance that weve changed several times already. Brass Are we anticipating attaching ag zoning parameters around this material? Watford I don't know if you are going to use it are not, currently H will allow them to go to Light Ag. Brisson It will be very limited. McCreary Want to say this has been helpful, and kept it from being the perpetual ping pong ball. Would you all be open to havign another workshop to look at final solutions and try to work through it? Watford I don't believe workshops work well for that because you cant make decisions. But you all can make motions, it may take several meetings to come up with the recommendation the way want to go. There are many details that need to be worked out, and there are too many ideas out here. You cant vote on it, I believe its much better for you to take it up at your meeting to vote it up, down, change it .... McCreary and then the you all get a shot at it, Watford yes or we may send it back. You all need to think about this light ag, its very limited, some are not going to want it, not talking about huge number, allow those who want it to continue doing what they want to do it. Suggest each one of you need to point those out to the planner so he can formulate the solutions or suggestions and ya'II decide what the best solutions are. Ritter Right now if we continue to add in all these variables, light ag will only be a few properties in that category, continue to allow them, then were not going to increase it any more. These other ones we don't need to mix and match in with this. Burroughs but we need to list those out so we address them. Maxwell and while your at it you need to address these community gardens that have gotten popular. Whitehall I like Ritter's idea of calling it Heritage instead of ag district, that has an implication of that. Brass like that name better. Watford if they sell the property will allow them to sale the property and continue the same use with the cows, etc. McCreary thank you ya'II for doing this with us, felt this would be a better situation. Ritter really want to thank Brian and Robin on scheduling this workshop, had to have been hard with so many schedules. IV. ADJOURN WORKSHOP - Mayor Pro Tempore at 7:33 p.m. Topics for Discussion Joint City Council and Planning Board Workshop July 18, 2013 l . Why do we need to change the Zoning and/or Future Land Use Maps for properties now shown as "H" (Holding District) on the Zoning Map. 2. Does the City wish to allow for limited commercial and/or noncommercial agricultural uses and, if so, for only existing agricultural uses or allow for new agricultural use? 3. If the City wishes to allow for agricultural uses, how do we go about it? MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Kirk and City Council Members From: Robin Brock, Executive Secretary Subject: Materials for Joint Workshop Date: July 9, 2013 Attached you will find a memo from Bill Brisson, along with materials for your review, which will be presented at the July 18th Joint City Council/Planning Board Workshop. Thank you. Planning Management Services Inc. 9k' Iry Memorandum To: City Council and Planning Board Members From: Bill Brisson Date: July 9, 2013 Subject: Materials for the July 18th Joint City Council & Planning Board Workshop BACKGROUND Despite the fact that the old "H-Holding District" zoning designation was eliminated from the LDRs quite some time ago, there are a number of properties, of varying size, that still show as "H" on the Zoning Map. Some of these properties are large and some are small. Some are currently being used for agricultural purposes, primarily the boarding, raising and grazing of livestock. Some of these parcels are being used for a commercial agricultural operation; some are not. There are also other properties, largely in the RSF1 Zoning District, which may be vacant or in single-family use and on which varying numbers of livestock are being kept and raised. The Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains no provision for agricultural uses within the City. While this omission presents a barrier to the use of lands within the City for commercial agricultural purposes, we do not believe it prohibits the noncommercial keeping and raising of livestock as an accessory use to a primary residential use on a property. In fact, Section 10-3 of the City's Code of Ordinances allows the keeping of animals in a non- commercial environment. If more than three animals are kept on a property, this section requires the provision of pens or shelters with a facility for sanitary waste disposal. Section 10-8 also sets forth nuisance provisions to protect neighbors from excessive noise and odors associated with animals. It has been our aim to ensure that the conflicts and inconsistencies between the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map and Land Development Regulations are elim- inated. This will allow property owners to know what they can do with their land and, to the extent possible, allo owners to continue agricultural and related uses on their properties. THE TASK AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL It is our understanding that the City Council wishes to allow limited agricultural uses, including certain commercial agricultural uses, where they were once allowed (i.e., areas zoned "H") simi- lar to that allowed under the old "Orange Book". The Council also wanted to provide the ability for property owners in other areas to have limited agricultural use of their property when and where it would be appropriate and would not unduly impact nearby neighbors. Providing Planning and Management Solutions for Local Governments Since 1988 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, FL 33901 239-334-3366 www.larueplanning.com To this end, the City Council directed that we modify the Future Land Use Element to allow limited agricultural uses in all of the Future Land Use Categories and to re-create a modified version of the old "H-Holding District" to allow for limited agricultural uses throughout the City. SUMMARY AND EFFECTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed changes to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan previously reviewed by the Planning Board are few and fairly simple. They allow for limited agriculture use in every Future Land Use Category (FLUC) in the Plan, provided the land is zoned H. The changes also include listing the H district as one that is appropriate within each of the Future Land Use Categories. Following is a summary of the effects of these changes. Provide a vehicle whereby a property owner anywhere within the City may ask for his/her property to be rezoned to the H-District which, if approved, would allow him/her to under- take limited agricultural activities on the property. The description of limited agricultural uses is contained in the list of Permitted Uses in the new proposed H district, and reads as follows "(2) Limited agricultural uses and associated structures for the boarding, raising, and grazing of livestock; noncommercial plant and vegetable gardens; and cultivation of hay for use or sale." 2. Allow properties zoned H to retain, or apply for, an agricultural exemption for commercial agricultural activity from the Property Appraiser. Most importantly, without some recognition of the appropriateness of agricultural uses in the Comprehensive Plan, any existing agricultural uses would be considered nonconforming and at best would be "grandfathered." Furthermore, properties which now are shown as H on the zoning map would have to be rezoned to some district that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the owners wish to engage in, or continue engaging in, commercial agricultural activi- ties, that district would have to allow some form of commercial agricultural activity. At present, there is no such district. To resolve these issues, either we must (a) re-create the H district, (b) create a new agricultural district, or (c) allow some form of agricultural use in existing zoning districts. Almost all of the properties shown as H are on the Zoning Map are located in the Single -Family Land Use Category. Therefore, unless some new district is created, if the City wishes to allow limited commercial agricultural activity, it would have to be allowed in the RSFI district. This could be done if a suitable minimum acreage is established for limited commercial agricultural uses, and a minimum lot size is set for noncommercial agricultural uses and other safeguards are instituted to protect adjacent properties. Serving Florida Local Governments Since 1988 � SUMMARY AND EFFECTS OF RE-CREATING THE "H-HOLDING DISTRICT As reviewed by the LPA atits`­May4V6 +ub, ea�, t"Tie proposed H-Holding District was intended to implement the changes to the Comprehensive Plan by providing the listing of allow- able uses and the lot and structure requirements associated with those uses. The proposed H District regulations are provided on the following pages, along with some new changes we recommend as a result of further investigations and input. The starting point for the proposed provisions of the H District was the original H District regulations. These were modi- fied as deemed necessary to be consistent with the other regulations and appropriate to the intent of the H District. Setback, coverage, and height regulations are the same as those applied in the RSF1 District. The map on page four identifies the properties now shown as being zoned H-Holding on the City's Zoning Map. These are the properties most affected by the proposed changes to the FLU Element and the LDRs. The table on page five provides basic information about the lots and parcels within each of the areas identified on the map. In total, there are about 63 lots or parcels. Of these 50 are vacant; 46 are comprised of less than one acre of land; 17 encompass one or more acres. Of these 17, eleven each have more than two acres of land within their boundaries. Six of the parcels range from 9.9 to 56.4 acres each. We assume that in order to board, raise, or graze livestock at least one acre of land is necessary so as to minimize the effects upon neighboring properties. Therefore, the properties most likely to be affected by the proposed changes are mainly located in areas 2 through 12a. Of the 17 parcels in these areas, all contain at least one acre and 11 contain two or more acres. Almost all of the lots located in areas 1, 14 and 15, are less than one acre in size. Serving Florida Local Governments Since 1988 Z I= ■� ,` ■■ llll ■II'lll ��! �" ■II11 I1111 ■11" cs S I� w j �11` all u■ 111' Ir1 ■u =� II■■ ■I■ in �� ■ uuu ■ill '' . =:'�'� _�_ �Li WIN ■■ ■I■ ® we ■: Sol�O��IrI■ s p» �i� �M ■m ■11 ll■ ■� ■1� "Illlllll _� mill ■mi I • ®.t!�� ���IIIIIIIIIIIMo 1 � mill ■�■1911n. � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIUr � s ���aum=� II ftl I■� ■ m� MINIISO ® mill ll■ (i�l ill �� �� � 1 mio��o `������ Mimi ■■ mill ■■ �in�nun ID# Existing Uses Location/Addresses FLUM Zoning Lot/Parcel Characteristics Some vacant lots referred to only by street number. Vacant lots as well as nine single-family homes and th Specific addresses include: 1202 NW 13 St., 800, 803, 804, 806, & 810 NW 121h St.;1109 NW 8`h Single -Family H, Holding 16 lots < 1 ac. 1 one lot with a triplex and Av.; 1100 and 1110 NW 9`h Av.; 800, 802, 5 vacant lots 1 ac. or more two single-family units. 804,806, & 808 NW 11`h Av. 2 Whole block is vacant. Located on NW 7"' Ct. between NW 10` and NW Single -Family H, Holding 1 vacant parcel 2.2 acres 11 Avenues 3 Whole block is vacant. Located on NW 7` St. between NW 91and NW Single -Family H, Holding 2 vacant parcels, each 2.2 acres 10"' Avenues Property is improved pasture referred to only by 1 vacant parcel @ 13.acres; 4 All properties are vacant. street number. Properties are located between SW Single -Family H, Holding 1 vacant parcel @ 13.3 acres 2°d and 9"' Streets just east of SW 10"' Av. Two single-family units on 517 SW 2 1 " St.; balance of property has no 1 vacant parcel @12.9 acres; 5 small lot, large parcel is specific address but is located in southwest most Single -Family H, Holding 1 parcel with sf,1.5 acres, both vacant. part of City on north side of 23rd St. under same ownership 6 Vacant Improved pasture between SE 8" and 13" Streets Residential H, Holding 1 vacant parcel @ 32.5 acres west of Ta for Creek Mixed Use Western strip of this lot is part of the parking for the Parcel is 2.2 acres part of which is 7 commercial office use 815 South Parrott Av. Single -Family H, Holding used for a parking lot for immediately to the west and adjacent property. owned by the same entity. 8 Single Family 1105 SE 91h Dr. Single -Family H, Holding 1 vacant 2.2 acre parcel Westernmost parcel is 802 SE 10` Av.; parcel to 1 vacant parcel @ 4.7 acres; 9 Vacant east has no address. Single -Family H, Holding 1 vacant parcel @ 9.9 acres, both under same ownership 10 Vacant No address; located south of NE 4"' St. west of Single -Family g y H, Holding g 1 vacant lot of less than one acre Taylor Creek. 11 Vacant No address; large tract located east of Taylor Creek Single -Family g y H, Holding g 1 vacant parcel 56.4 acres p @ to Citylimits and south of the railroad track. 12a Accessory building to 649 NE 61h St. Single -Family H, Holding 1 vacant lot of less than one acre single-family use 14 All vacant No addresses; all properties are vacant and located Single -Family H, Holding 11 vacant lots all under one acre between NE 9"' & 11 Streets and NE 3rd & 5th Avenues. Only one parcel has an address, 150 NE 13` St.; the balance of the parcels have no addresses; they 12 vacant lots all under one acre 15 All vacant are located between NE 14`h and 121h Streets west Single -Family H, Holding 1 lot @ 1.1 ac. of Taylor Creek. PROPOSED NEW H-HOLDING DISTRICT The following presents the n- ewly re-created version of the old H-Holding District as previously discussed by the Planning Board at its May 161h Public Hearing, with some new changes. New text is highlighted DIVISION 15. HOLDING (H) DISTRICT Sec. 90-434. Generally (a) There are, within the city, parcels of land or ownerships (even though technically subdi- vided) that are presently undeveloped or used for agricultural purposes. The future direc- tion of development on such parcels is not presently apparent. Lands zoned H are intended for rezoning at a future date, either by action of the city or by application showing intent to develop in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) Holding (H) zoning districts shall be permitted on lands designated single-family residen- tial, multi -family residential, mixed use residential, commercial, industrial, or public facil- ity on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. (c) The uses in holding (H) districts shall be subject to the regulations of this division. Sec. 90-435. Permitted uses. The following principal uses and structures are permitted in the H district: (1) Detached single-family dwellings. (2) Limited agricultural uses and associated structures for the commercial or noncommercial boarding, raising and grazing of horses and cattle; noncommercial raising or keeping of a maximum of three in total number of hogs, sheep, and goats; noncommercial plant and vegetable gardens; and cultivation of hay for use or sale." Sec. 90-435. Special exception uses. The following uses and structures are permitted in the H district after the issuance of a special exception use petition. Permitted uses in excess of 30 feet in height. Sec. 90-436. Customary accessory uses. Each permitted principal use and special exception use in the H district is also permitted to have the customary accessory structures uses for that use. Serving; Florida Local Governments Since 1988 a r Sec. 90-436. Lot and structure requirements. (a) Minimum lot area. Except where further restricted by these regulations for a particular use, minimum requirements for the H district shall be as follows: (1) Single-family dwelling: (2) Other permitted principal uses and structures: a. commercial or noncommercial boarding, raising, and grazing of horses and cattle; b. non-commercial raising or keeping of hogs, sheep, and goats; Area two (2) acres Width 200 feet Area one (1) acre per animal Area one (1) acre per animal c. None, except as needed to meet all other requirements set forth herein. (b) Minimum yard requirements. The minimum yard requirements in the H district, except where greater distance is required by yard setbacks, shall be as follows: (1) Single-family dwelling: (2) Other permissible structures Front 25 feet Side 10 feet Rear 10 feet Waterfront 20 feet (c) Maximum lot coverage by all buildings. Front 25 feet Side 20 feet Rear 20 feet Waterfront 20 feet (1) Single-family dwelling: 45% (2) Other permissible principal uses: 45% (d) Maximum impervious surface. (1) Single-family dwelling: 55% (2) Other permissible principal uses: 55% (e) Maximum height of structures. (1) Single-family dwelling: 30 feet (2) Other permissible principal uses: 30 feet Serving Florida Local Gmernmenis Since 1988 2 6 7 10 IEnr_Ir: L1 NW 17th S1. 111111 ■1111111 • 1111111 11E1111 ■1111111 • • • City of Okeechobee "H" Zoned Properties Potentially Affected by Proposed Changes 1■ -I• • im 1111111111 1111111/1 1111115111 111111■ NE 10th St. NN 9t N 11 ■111 ■i■ ■■,■■ MINIM 11■ 111111llr NW 4th St. NE 4th St. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11111 111111 hill 11111 •■11 ■1■ NUM 134 NW 2nd St. to • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5111■ ■111■ 11111 111111 ■ ■11 •1111 ■UN■ :iuuu issos SW 4th St. M■■■■ ■W11 ■111■ 111111 1111■ smile 1L1 • • • • • • • ■■■■■. 111■ 1■i■ 11■ SE 2nd St. 1■I SW 4th St. n u fl SE 4th St. 111■■ •Iu1 ■1111■ 11111 ■1111s Imp ,■,■ hill 111111 1111111 MINN ■Mil■■ ti�ra�a. 9 SE 1115 51 SW 11th St. LEGEND wow will NI /M 111 ■mon WWIIIIIIIn sug - m>t 1 "H' Zoned Area Future Land Use SINGLE - FAMILY MULTI - FAMILY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE • • • • • • • • • • 'NA 44444 • • 00 • • • 0.3 0.15 0 0.3 Miles