1992-08-21 Morell to Drago •
MICHAEL WM. MORELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
310 WEST COLLEGE AVENUE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL LAW TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 323 01-140 6 ALSO ADMITTED IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE LAW DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(904) 425-8300
(904) 425-8301 FACSIMILE
August 21, 1992
Via Facsimile Transmission ( 813/763-1686 ) and U. S. Mail
John Drago
City Administrator
City of Okeechobee
55 Southeast Third Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34974
Re: DCA v. City of Okeechobee, DOAH Case No. 91-5962GM; DCA
Docket No. 90-NOI-4702-(N) ; Revisions to City' s
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Ordinance No. 645
and Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
Dear John:
This letter is in response to your request that I review the
City' s revised comprehensive plan documents which you recently
received from the Central Florida Regional Planning Council
(CFRPC) . You have requested that I ascertain that the documents
are in proper form and reflect the amendments to the plan as a
result of the action taken by the City Council on March 19 , 1992 .
I have reviewed those portions of the Goals, Objectives and
Policies (GOPs) document and Data & Analysis (D&A) document which
were required to be revised as a result of the March 19, 1992
action of the City Council . I have not proof read the entire GOPS
and D&A documents . Other than the revisions required by the City
Council ' s March 19th action, I assume that the CFRPC did not make
any additional revisions to the documents and that the language in
the rest of the documents is essentially identical to what it was
when the City originally adopted its plan in March of 1991 . The
City should verify this with CFRPC Executive Director Doug Leonard.
If the CFRPC made additional changes to the March 1991 documents,
please request that the CFRPC provide them to the City.
If the City intends to continue to contract with the CFRPC for
revisions to the plan' s D&A, I recommend that the City adopt a
policy which requires the CFRPC to transmit proposed revisions to
the D&A document in draft form for the City' s review and
consideration prior to incorporation into the D&A document.
4
John Drago
August 21, 1992
Page Two
On May 22 , 1992, the City provided Doug Leonard with copies of
transmittal correspondence and Ordinance No. 645 at the same time
that they were submitted to DCA for their review and compliance
determination. The amendments adopted to the plan' s GOPs document
are contained in "struck through and underlined" format in Sections
III-V of Ordinance No. 645.
Subsequently, the City provided the CFRPC with a copy of the
agreed upon revisions to the D&A document which were specified in
Exhibit "B" to the City' s Stipulated Settlement Agreement with DCA.
The amendments to the D&A document are contained in the agreement.
It appears that in typing the revisions into the word
processor, the CFRPC staff may not have been working from the text
of Ordinance No. 645. Editorial changes to the GOPs contained in
Exhibit "B", which were agreed to by DCA and the City before the
City adopted them and which were referred to in the transmittal
correspondence to DCA, were incorporated in the ordinance - not the
agreement.
In order to make it easier to make the corrections to the two
documents, I have made the changes (also in "struck through and
underlined format" ) which need to be made to the documents so that
they accurately reflect the official action that the City Council
took on March 19, 1992 in amending the City' s plan. Of course, who
ever makes the corrections should not type them in "struck through
and underlined" format.
CORRECTIONS TO THE GOPs DOCUMENT
In the GOPs document, on Page 3 of the draft of the Future Land Use
Element, the following corrections need to be made to Policy
2 . 1(c)-(d) and footnote 1 :
Policy 2 . 1 : The following land use designations are
established for the purpose of managing future growth:
* * *
c) Commercial . Permitted uses include office, retail,
automotive wholesale, and related commercial activities .
Also permitted are public facilities . *Commercial
development shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 3 . 00
and a the maximum impervious surface for development
within this category shall not to exceed 85% of the site.
d) Industrial . Permitted uses include large-scale
manufacturing or processing activities . Also permitted
are public facilities . *Industrial development shall not
exceed a floor area ratio of 3 . 00 and a the maximum
impervious surface for development within this category
shall not to exceed 85% of the site.
John Drago
August 21, 1992
Page Three
e) Public Facilities . Permitted uses include parks,
schools, government buildings, fire stations and other
recreational and non-recreational public properties.
*The maximum impervious surface for Ddevelopment within
this category shall not exceed 85% of the site.
1 . Policy 2 . 1, sections c, d, and e marked with an *
have been revised in accordance with City Ordinance No.
645 and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
In the GOPs document, on Page 4 of the draft of the Future Land Use
Element, the following corrections and new footnote need to be made
to Policy 2 .2 (renumber footnotes accordingly) :
*Policy 2 .2 : In accordance with property rights policies
adopted by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council
in the Central Florida Regional Policy Plan, the City of
Okeechobee recognizes and will protect private property
rights . In implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the city
will ensure that its land development regulations protect
the use and value of private property from adverse
impacts of incompatible land uses, activities and
hazards . Planning for land use and public facilities in
the city will consider private property rights, and
ensure citizen input into government land use decisions
affecting property rights . Upon Plan adoption, the City
shall require that all development proposals be
accompanied by evidence that an inventory of wetlands;
soils posing severe limitations to construction; unique
habitat; endangered species of wildlife and plants; and
areas prone to periodic flooding has been conducted. The
City shall further require that the extent to which any
development or redevelopment is proposed to be in/on, to
disturb, or to alter the natural functions of any of
these resources be identified. Such identification shall
occur at a phase in the development review process that
provides the opportunity for the City to review the
proposed project to ensure that direct and irreversible
impacts on the identified resources are minimized, or in
the extreme, mitigated. Where mitigation is approved,
wetlands shall be replaced with the same type and form
that perform the same function as the wetland lost to
development. Where development is determined to encroach
upon a resource, the City shall require a specific
management plan to be prepared by the developer, which
results in no net loss of wetlands and which includes
necessary modifications to the proposed development,
specific buffers and setbacks, and clustering of
development away from site resources, to ensure the
t
John Drago
August 21, 1992
Page Four
protection, preservation or natural functions of the
resource. The minimum buffer for wetlands shall be 25
feet and the average of all setbacks from the wetland
resource shall be 40 feet. Areas designated as buffers
shall preserve all natural vegetative cover, except where
drainageways and access paths are approved to cross the
buffer. Buffers may be supplemented only with native
trees, shrubs and ground covers .
2 . Policy 2 .2 has been revised in accordance with City
Ordinance No. 645 and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement
In the GOPS document, on Page 29 of the draft of the Sanitary Sewer
Element, the following corrections need to be made to Policy 7 . 1,
Policy and 7 .2 and the footnote:
*Policy 7 . 1 : By 1996 the City will initiate an inventory
study of the function and capacity of the City' s existing
stormwater drainage facilities and system. The
Comprehensive Plan will be amended in light of the
ctudy' s results and recommendations . In addition to
using any funds of its own, the city will request funding
assistance from the South Florida Water Management
District to undertake this study [ 9J-5 . 011( 2 ) (c) 1] .
*Policy 7 . 2 . The City will amend the comprehensive plan
to include the recommendations of the
stormwater drainage
facilities and system study, upon its completion .
*Policy 7 . 3 . Drainage facility improvements will be
provided according to the following priorities : ( 1) to
fulfill the city' s legal obligations; (2) to prevent
further degradation of Taylor Creek; ( 3) to provide
adequate drainage for existing development in the city;
(4 ) to provide adequate drainage for new development in
the city; and (5) to extend municipal drainage facilities
to areas outside the city.
2 . Policies 7 . 1-7 . 3 marked with a * were revised in
accordance with City Ordinance No. 645 and the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement.
John Drago
August 21, 1992
Page Five
In the GOPs document, on page 30 of the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element, the following corrections needs to be made to
footnote 3:
*OBJECTIVE 4 : The City shall coordinate with the Resource
Management Plan for the Lower Kissimmee River and Taylor Creek
Drainage Basins to the extent that such coordination: (a) is
consistent with the principle that local governments and
landowners alone should not be forced to bear public burdens
which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the
public as a whole; and (b) would not result in inverse
condemnation.
*Policy 4 . 1 : The City will coordinate with the Resource
Management Plan for the Lower Kissimmee River and Taylor
Creek Drainage Basins through the adoption of other
objectives and policies contained in this element and the
establishment of development review procedures designed
to provide the City with the opportunity to review
proposed development to ensure that direct and
irreversible impacts on environmentally sensitive areas
are minimized.
3 . Objective 4 and Policy 4 . 1 marked with a * were
added to this element in accordance with City Ordinance
No. 645 and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
CORRECTIONS TO THE D&A DOCUMENT
In the D&A document, at page 5 of the Future Land Use Element, the
following corrections need to be made under the subsection titled
"Vacant and Undeveloped" :
Approximately 645 acres . . .City sewer and water line
connections are readily available to these three large
tracts of undeveloped land so that septic tanks and well
water would not be necessary for their development. . .
In the D&A document, at pages 12-13 of the Future Land Use Element,
the following corrections need to be made under the subsection
titled "Natural Resources" :
Taylor Creek. . .The only surface water body to be found
within city limits, the creek and lands adjacent to it
have been altered through channelization and dredging and
filling to the point that they can only loosely be called
a natural resources.
R
John Drago
August 21, 1992
Page Six
* * *
However, water quality in the creek. . .Other water quality
improvement measures have been taken by the
District. . .The SFWMD is requiring property owners of
large tracts of property to have their property checked
for phosphorous discharge and is requiring a reduction of
this discharge.
In the D&A document, at pages 13-16 of the Future Land Use Element,
the following corrections need to be made under the subsection
titled "Development Review Process" :
The shadowed box on page 14 titled "Objectives of the
Environmental Site Review" should be removed from the
document.
The following corrections need to be made throughout the D&A
document:
Everywhere the terms "ESR" , "Environmental Site Review"
or "Environmental Site Review Process" occur in the D&A
document, the terms "DR" , "Development Review" or
"Development Review Process" should be substituted
accordingly as the context calls for. This can be
accomplished easily with the use of the word processor's
search and replace function.
If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
AattliC 4 , I11
Michael Wm. Morell
MWM:mm