1991-12-04 Morell to Cook and Drago — 1 I.: il :O . Mhi i ti 1.:1 2
C E M CO'R [
ATrGINELt A'
?CT,
'T■V_L A 1,41',ZoLL, 3V3.2 A C • r7LJ THE
te6 .s,04
December 4 , 1991
10 : 00 a .m.
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
John R. Cock, Esquire John Urago
Bryant and Cook City Administrater
202 N.W. 5th Avenue 55 S(.:.,uthcast Third Avenue
Okeechobee, Flrida 34972 Okeechobee, Florida 34972
( 813/467-0297 ) ( 613/763- 1686 )
Re : pCA V. City ot Okeechobee, DOAH Case N,D , 91-5962GM
Gentlemun :
After our meeting on Tuesday morning, December 2 , 1991 , I met
with Doug Leonard of the Central fIorida Regional Planning Council .
Doug made a number of he1pf1 suggestions including a
recommendation that the City cnange the language in its proposed
revi,:ion to delete the "Environmental Site Review PrOceSS" and
include a simple one paragraph sttelrit concerning the City' s
"Development Review Process . " Doug said that he had been
successful in convincing DCA to accept s!.milar language in other
plane and he thought they w-,-;uld accept it for the City of
Okeechobee ,
Yesterday morning I met with intervenors Frdnk Altobello and
Le4;ter Jenn! ngs and their consultant, Rnbert Hoover, to review the
draft proposed plan revisicns that 1 provided you during our
meeting on ra,-:-.er:ber 3, 1991 . I alc, showd the:,.1. Doug ' s suggested
language charge to P1iC7 2 , 2 of the future Land Use Llement
concerning the Deelopment evie Process , After the intervenors '
consultant intoned them that Doug ' s sugge,!ted language did not add
additional regulatory restrictions greater than those alLeady
required by the SFWMD, the intervenors stated they would have no
cppositIcn f the City submitted a proposal to DCA which included
language similar to that recomer by Doug. Ihey were generally
pleased with the other proposed revisions v.;nich included suggested
changes that they had previous,W submitted to me.
iHO - _ r • P. 03
..00k
Drago
m‘ver 5, 1991
Page Two
ALLs‘ are 2 changes in the; p,:opo3ed rzivisirs which were
al. t I pIovidel you a dratt copy dutinj or mceting on
Toesi',I, Tie fiLst is a revislcul which inc,,.,ipzvrates changes very
silLilar Le those s,ggested by D,..),1g . The second is a rcvi6ion which
provides density and intercity bLanderds f(it. coNmercial , industrial
and public facilities land uEe categories .
If you have any questions or oncerns aomt these two proposed
changes , please contact me imediately . If 1 do not hear from you
1 Zy noon today, I will incoruordte them into the City ' s proposed
revisions and will hand deliver the package to DC4 this afternoon
for their review . Hopefully, they will agree with the proposed
revisions during our meeting in Okrec.hcbee with the cn December
llth and we can then cemplete cur negotiaticns to enter into a
stipulateJ seLt1e.).ent agreeirent .
With 1.)«_st pei4-.)nal
4zincerely,
1 6 i t
4LWY1 Wk 641M ill
!.itchael Wm . Morel'
MWM:mm
Encios,Ires
.. 4
r, , . 4
11 M 1] If
PKO •uShr; 14EVISIONS TO EUTUSE LAND USE ELt.MENT, GOALS, OBjECTIVtS
is POLICIES (Pg . 3-5)
Policy 2 , 2 ; In accordance with property rights policies
a !,pted by the Central Flori„iu Regif....nal Planning Cf;uncil in
the Central Florida Peglonal Policy Plan, the City of
Okeech,,:bee rccgnize.: and will pitt private property
rights . In implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the city will
ensure that its land de7eloprent 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
governinent land use decisions affecting property rights .
[Strike all of the next four pardqrdphs which Icegin with the
words "By SeptemOer 1991 . . . 1' , "The Environmental Site
"Usl_ng the submittec; informati)n. . . ° and 'Building
permit applications . . . " , and insert the following paragrapht )
Upcn Plan adoption, the Cty shall require that all
development _prposals b.e acc.'dpanied by evidencethdt_an
ineiitory_ of wetlands ; soils posing vere limitations to
cons:tructiunlal,e _habltatl_ en.langere fpecies of wildlife
and lanteL ana areas prone peridio flooding has been
conducted . The City sall firher reqiIretat the extent to
which any develpment or redevelpp?Jent is propo..sed_to JJe
inton, t distuOL, or to alte;-: the natural functions of au
of thee resources be identified. Such identification shall
occur at a phase in the development review process that
provides the opportunity for the Cityt.2reyie the proposed
project t. 7) ensure thdt direct andirreyersitle impacts on the
identified _resources_are -.;:),,nimizeri/__or _ in the extremeL
MItigated . Where mitigation is approved„ wetlands shall pp
EtELIvith_the same _typp dnd form that pertcrm the same
function as the wetland lost—to -development . Where
development i5 determined to encroach upon a resource, the
Cita shall , req't4ixe, a spoific management pn to be pr,epare.d
by the ;-.71e-VS1.-;per, whi-eh results in no net loss of wetlands and
which includer'sneessaky modifications to the_prcposed
aevel3pwent, spec:ific buffers and setbacksi_and clustering of
development away from site resources to ensure the
protection, preservation or natural functions ofthe resource .
Theminimum buffer for wetlads feet and the
average of all setbacks from tc--t ; etiand resource shah be 40
feet , Areas designatedas buffers shall preserve all natural
veoetative cover, except where drainageways and access paths
_
are apbroved to cro5s tr,e butter. Buffers may be supplemented
only with native treesi shru:os and Tround coyers ._
Struck through pa=sage= are
propoded to be deleted .
UlAerlined passages are
proposed to be added. 5
g g 11
C11t OF URLEChObEi. ' S PROPOSED PLAN RitilSIONS, SUbMITTED ON 12 /5/91
IN RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT O C(A1MUNITY AFFAIRS ' ALLEGED PLAN
INCONSISTENCY CONCERNING FUTURE LAND USE
TV. A of the Dapartmcnt 's Statoment cf Intent to Find
the City ' s Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance, August 7 ,
1991 )
TO Mr:IRE LAND tisr ELEMENT, GOALS, OBJECTIVES
1 OLIC:,-ES 0-9 . 3) :
Policy 2 . 1 : The following land use designations are
e:t.tablished f,r the purpose of mJnagtng future growth :
* *
Commercial . Permitted uses inc:iude office, ret5.11. , automotive
wholesale, and related commercial acttvittes . Also permitted
are public facilities . Ct:,mmercial deelcit shall not
exceed a ground floor area ratio cf 0 , 75 and a maximum
impervious _surface not to exceed 85% of the site .
Industrial , fermitted Viles include large-scale man6facturing
or processing activities , 1 permitted are public
facilities . lndustrfal snail not exceed aground
floor are ratio of 0 . 5 and a fraximum impervicx..ls sl)rface not
to ext.:eel -25% jf the sfte
Public Facilities . Permitted uses includes parks , schools ,
government buildings , fire stations and otner recreational and
non-re'zreatlonal putIic properties . Development witnin this
cateocry shal not exceed a gr(),_Ind floor ana ratio of 0 , 75
ea maximum_iarvious surface not to exo.eed85ot_ the
it.j.
_
StrucR thrtnilh passages ale
proposed to be deleted.
Underlinel passages are
1).roposed t._o be added. 1