Loading...
95-420-R RooksREQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. E. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING . Motion to remove from the table petition 95- 420 -R. b. Consider petition 95-420-R for a rezoning request from Heavy Commercial (0-24 to Residential General -2 (RG -2) - Mr, Bill Royce (Exhibit 1). MARCH 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 2 OF 10 Mayor Kirk asked 11 there were any additions, deferral's or withdrawal's of items from today's agenda? New Business item number eight was withdrawn. Mayor Kirk opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember O'Connor moved to remove from the table petition 95- 420-R; seconded by Councilmember Watford. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Council considered a request from Mr. W.I. Rooks to rezone Block 254, Lot 1, East half of 2 and 4 through 12 from Commercial -2 to Residential General -2. His intention is to develop this property into a 17 unit apartment complex. The Future Land Use Map has the property designated for Multi - Family Use. The Planning Board recommended that the City Council not grant the petition for a change to Residential General -2, but to Residential General -1 which would only allow 12 units in the proposed apartment complex. Planning Director Bill Royce addressed the Council concerning the Planning Board's meetings on the rezoning and the petition against the project. Robert Hoover addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant giving further information on the proposed project including aerial maps and proposed drawings. Mr. Martin Williams, Mr. Tom Burks, Mrs. June Boromei and Mr. Terry Cooper addressed the Council opposing the rezoning. 533 534 ENDA ................ .................. ................. MARCH 21, 1995 -.REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 10 E. PUBLIC HEARING 1. b. Consider petition 95 -420 -R for rezoning continued: CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Recess: F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Issue Proclamations - Mayor Kirk. Attorney Cook advised the City Council of Mr. Rooks' right as a property owner. Reminding the City Council that they approved his future land use change in 1993 (from Single Family to Multi- Family) and if the Council denied a rezoning request Mr. Rooks could seek litigation. After much discussion, Councilmember Watford moved to accent the recommendation of the Planning Board to grant a rezoning request from Commercial -2 to Residential General -1: seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Councilmember Watford commented that this is a "no win" situation and that he understood the citizens feelings and concerns. This area is of mixed use and the property owner is only trying to use his property in a conforming use with the City's Future Land Use Map. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 8:31 p.m. Mayor Kirk called for a recess at 8:31 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Mayor Kirk asked if there was anyone present to receive the Exchange Club's proclamation for Child Abuse Prevention Month. There was no one present. Mayor Kirk read the two following proclamations in there entirety and presented them to Mr. Bob Knisley: TO 6cLi `�_ t� C L� 'Cnnt_ 9 L CA Ligg /OW 5th (,) { 0 , OciciriZ, FROM 1 • SPEED MESSAGE Le--wj-4 C-41- LCE lb e SUBJECT c r DATE i Id: IV Y:5 % 'I20-i dit6 <Q t � 1 ;'�;, �),, - u 071 ft WilsonJones® WHITE — ORIGINAL SIGNED CANARY — DUPLICATE 44 -900 • Duplicate Carbonless Snap -A -Way® Forms ©1993 ACCO USA, Inc. Made in U.S.A. u N1Y.: LNG ZC.NIN ;DEPART '4T' .k• 304 Seccrid Street • Ok Honda orida 34972 .: 8 i 3 -7763: 5548 . DATE :':: Ui i n cYi:oN «7 i FEE PAID $ APPLICAT(ON.NUI48ER:;: ; ; 1: AUNTY FIP.$T HEAiUNO: 7• ' NOTICE* MAILED: SECOno HEJ�RINo UNUFORM'LAND USE APPL:lCATIOP • ti> NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER : (8 ) 18/ ! Rc0KS 11,... MAILING ADDRESS 7 q- 3 51/Y ../L i/7 DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY (If none, so stale) I.w ;Z,' Air viz: it. OKF �'c if r_67.4 � FHA• 3 y�- i 2 4- IS THERE ANY CURRENT OR RECENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE? IF 30, DESCRIBE Ne 1 I a :PROPERTY 1.„..a" to ADORE** ` d W^ I , SQL. , • ( € / G O � _ 7-S4E- Z `t' / yi ee-2 NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN OWNER (must state r•latlonehip): +'` WEST KC_ acj /' °a- j� 7 vr1,_ g 2 t't=i Note: If not Owner or Attorney at Law, proof of authority multi N provldad 0n Form L -2 • • .��. r�litii:E'iEo;piiSiiiiE ."14/1.3 HOME TELEPHONE: 7 - WORK TELEPHONE: RR.. EN T ZONING CLASS C M PROPOSED ZONING CLASS A,. :Y . :_ li' DIRECTION* TO PROPERTY 5E ...e.)---5r— 057 Tr-- (T-r t= j. +�r '•` WHAT 13 CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY? ` C P DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY (If none, so stale) I.w ;Z,' Air APROXIMATE NUMBER OF ACRES fl, ? 12 PROPERTY PART OF PLATTED SUBDIVISION? YES '•-S}.1 ' != ye :.•11 ,: _� ARE THERE ANY DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY, IF 80, STATE NUMBER AND TYPE (CONVENTIONAL, MOBILE HOMES ETC.) /VD AND WHETHER THEY ARE OCCUPIED • IS THERE ANY CURRENT OR RECENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE? IF 30, DESCRIBE Ne 1 I HAVE THERE BEEN ANY LAND USE APPLICATIONS CONCERNING ALL OR PART OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE LAST YEAR, IF SO, DESCRIBE DATE, NATURE AND APPLICANT'S NAME no' la A SALE *OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION BEING GRANTED? Vr S , _ IS THE SUBJECT PARCEL YOUR TOTAL HOLDINGS AT THAT LOCATION? IF NOT, DESCRIBE THE REMAINING USE OR OR INTENDED USE rP- _ `4'- -. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE ADJOINING PROPERTY USE TO THE NORTH Cojm ,tA, 'T`• ire cs, t, SOUTH #05 P (C • EAST T , / 1.....A .R PARK. +'` WEST KC_ acj /' °a- j� 7 vr1,_ g 2 rf}f3C'�C�:i:i;i;? �i4 • • .��. r�litii:E'iEo;piiSiiiiE RR.. EN T ZONING CLASS C M PROPOSED ZONING CLASS A,. :Y . :_ I WHAT IS YOUR DESIRED PERMITTED USE UNDER THE PROPOSED CLASS? AP4t.p7 ,r6 -,s,7 5' o- IF GRANTED, WILL THE NEW ZONE BE CONTIGUOUS WITH A LIKE ZONE? tti IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION NECESSARY FOR YOUR INTENDED USE? NI) VARIANCE? /f/l%, mNU .. - DESCRIBE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SOUGHT: et,!. PROVIDE SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCE CITATION (Class and •ito•ptIon number): P','• ARE THERE OTHER SIMUU1R USES IN THE AREA. IF SO DESCRIBE: ,!,..,'"-• . :-. WHY WOULD GRANTING YOUR REOUEST BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AREA AND RESIDENTS? „...... 1 5 ..1:— 5 r 4 (5 1 it ■ k 4.— 1.... -7 IF BUSINESS, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE NATURE INCLUDING NUMBER FF EMPLOYEES. HOURS, NOISE GENERATION AHD •44--r. .2" .-.4 ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING: A a A/ 1.1i4.i • ...,... .-...: • 1 IA .'•■ • 9 3 ............ DESCRIBE VARIANCE SOUGHT: NO /5(...- 1 , ....... DESCRIBE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF PROPERTY THAT MAKES VARIANCE NECESSAFIY: - DID YOU CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHARACTERISTIC? f•tt; .C.Z- WHAT I* THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY? 1.1i4.i • DESCRI•E II ULINO THAT YOU ARE APPEALING: ON oc .• , , WHO MADE DECISION YOU ARE APPEALING? DATE OF DECISION: !•.. ,- "Z EXPLAIN WHY YOU FEEL DECISION IS IN ERROR. BE SURE TO LIST ANY ORDINANCE REFERENCES YOU FEEL SUPPORT . s' .:..... ;•., YOUR POSITION: ' .-.. 7,Z DESCRIBE ACTION YOU WISH TAKEN: : 2avy P61 • .1::. ■ , i.,=. CITE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE AUTHORITY FOR YOUR REQUEST: ,..i. ,..- ....,,, -:.- NOTE: All requests to Planning Board/ Board of Acquatments MUST how spot:Moe County Ordinance Authority. . 4 . • •. . CONFIRMATION OF INFORMATION ACCURACY • • .... .. . I turebt osr1V fist the Information h this spollostion is correct The Information Inoludsd h tie arcloslion is Ix use by Oleissahobee County in grooming rny tecpest. Fides or sraiesdkig irionnatioa mew Doi • by • line of up b $15XU:s? and krorislorivent of up b110 chsys se mil as die summary &nil d this apploilon. • i I • A 411/111K • :::::::::iiiii:....:,:i:i:;:::::i:::: 3 ■ • • • • • B 9 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 NE 3RD ST (70') Z • Rooks, 535- 420 -R 4 5 6� 2 • • 7 8 910 11 12 NE PARK 6 5 4 3 2 718 910 11 12 ST 70 SE PARK 6 51413 9 Q r 2 10 12 11 x, k • 1 • 1 i • • • • • • ce Q 0, ■ 7 8 6 11 4 5 6 3 2 7 8 9 i 1u111 12 6 72 1 1 n 9 1011 P ST (70 7 8 6 5 4 3 2 7 8 9 11 12 [—NE 2ND ST (70 itgr 111 SE 2ND ST (70 6 5 4 3 2 7 8 9 10 11 2 GU- // 0 3 3 7 5 8 4 9 312 12 Min 7 4-9 2 0 > 0 w in 121 4. 5 87 3 2 w 6 4 3 7 8 9 2 10 11 12 H i hwa 8 9 10 1112 5 6 4 3 2 7 8 6 5 4 3 2 7 8 12 70 Eas rRAW2 DMA" / r c RI ICI II Pe$ 05104:11-1 L\ 252 K SE 3RD dm _p J I 7 8 9 101 I ` SE 4TH ST (100') 6Ii12 1ro 6 5. 3 7 8 9 10 5 4 4 47i 2 1 2� I 70 SE 611-1 S / 6 5 1 1 4 3 2 / A. ,;113, / 6I5t4 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 2� 9 T ;av 7 ■ 9 - t0 1112 7 89 i 78 9 10 1112 2 3 SE 611-1 S / 6 5 1 1 4 3 2 / A. ,;113, / 6I5t4 312 1 7 8 9 10 1112 7 8 9 - t0 1112 6 7 w CO W V7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .8 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 6 5 4 3 2 l� 2 /39 / 4 D G E .. C LJ 0 H RMH 121110 43 9 87 6 5 4 3 2 1 1.3 1415 16 )ET 12111101918171.615 13 1 14 11 101918 ff I 1311 411511 61-. 4 312111 20212221241 5 413 [[5 43 2 l 11fJ }- LL 8 7 ,. 6 5 4 0 1 ___ 5 6 10 11 12 13 ail •1 PP Mg ui o m co � 17 10 .. ¢ 18 9 j 9 Ell II 21 23 Mil Is 14 it �� 15 a 16 — 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 24 34 31 CT 32 33 6/6, 21 22 23 =SE 8T1- T1 I fj�f F:2'T4 1 5�6 87 3 111 J L-2_1.1.1L191 2 4. 5 6 9 87 3 l• an SEMI MIN 11111 3 4 t, 6 r a ••• 6 3 2 1 7 8 9 42 1 321 4.144.•■• 7 •5. 10Ii1 s • • - ; 3 0 1.0 7' 3 2 1 :11' :".1;., I 11 10 !...11111111 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 5 4 3 111 789 7 8 111112 9 10 7 8 9 011 2 815141312111 615141312111 71816licH 11 1515161312111 7 8 2 011 2 1615141+111 7 8 9 1011 2 8 5 4 3 2 1 1 . 3. 3 2 1 7 • • 118 5 +1211 61+1'12111 78 9 011 2 1615141312111 7 8 9 0 11 12 161514131211 171516110i LJl n 65 4 31211 17[8161101"H 1+14131111i 6 5 4 3 2 17181611101"H 1815141312111 171819114 11 S FJ3 1+14 31n r1+1312H 141+1 13181718i ° 9 10 11 12 P uiure Lanu u6e • 1- Industrial • C - Commercial •SF - Single Family •MF - Multi-Family •PF - Public Facilities • gut - tiistoric marKer 2 - imiallmall _4111141117 taloa. . go El 35 F.. 25 3 4 lk ...177-"vr,, • ,,,,.. ,i 111311 11 El 1111 al x * 27 MEN 1E2 1E11 7 8 10 11 12 1615141312111 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 g Ito 1 11/12 1615141312111 7 8 9 10 11 12 INN 11111 Mill I.' I 11 11 H51,[31+1 16k 7 0 211 8 .1111 EMI 1615141312111 ESC 718145111H 6 5 4 3 2 1 1111:11 6 5 4 ••.• -9.11 Mtn 6 6 4 3 2 1 7 8 0 11 615141312 ij 615161312111 7 9 10 11 12 1615141312 7 8 9 10 4 32 r0161413 2 1 1712•1441 5 4 3 2 WA& MEM EMI +7=1213 oem 11111 9/181511111S11111111111/1011/115194 MEM „ • - 5 4 3 2 • N4-1r, 'AZ 1 543 2 10(11 12 7, 8 tt 0171 7:1r 181514 31211 7 6 51413 10 11 21 17 SF Rooks, 95-420-- TI R 0 K 8 c 0 0 H 1 iliii1+18171818141312111 111=11. 1 2S 2 11 11 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :=Kir 4 011111111111111 ermitir es 13 3 4 14 15 16 17 15 19 2. 3 4 2 3 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 15 19 2 3 7 3 3 10 4 11 12 • SF 515 87188189 90 92 9.3 S4 .c--•-•• • : . •.-7- 711 2 3 7 10 11 Okeechobee City Council March 21, 1995 Staff Report and Recommendation Petition 95- 420 -R, W.I. Rooks, property owner and applicant. Request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of #Heavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2)0 The property is in the City of Okeechobee and is bounded by S.E. 2nd Street, S.E. 5th Avenue, S.E. 3rd Street, and S. E. 4th Avenue. Background The subject property is situated between S.E. 4th Avenue and S.E. 5th Avenue, north of S.E. 3rd Street, and south of S.E. 2nd Street. The property includes most of Block 254, and consists of lot 1, the east 1/2 of lot 2, and all of lots 4 through 12. The total size of the parcel is about 1.7 acres. To the north of the subject property is block 253, which is zoned Residential General -2 (RG -2) except for lot 8 which is zoned Heavy Commercial (C -2). On that commercially zoned lot is the American Legion Post Building. To the northeast of the subject property are several lots that are zoned C -2 and that support an electric power substation. To the east of the subject property are two lots zoned Residential Mobile Home (RMH) and which support a single -wide manufactured home. To the southeast of the subject property is property zoned RMH, and which contains a mobile home park. The block to the south is zoned RG -2 and is occupied by the new I- lospice administrative building. The blocks to the west and to the southwest of the subject property are zoned RG -2 and support single fancily dwellings with their subsequent accessory structures and fences. The subject parcel is all of block 254, except for lot 3 and the west 1/2 of lot 2! There is a single structure located on that one and one -half lots that is not the subject of this petition. This structure appears to have been constructed as a house, and currently contains a commercial business. It also appears that the structure serves as a residence in addition to providing the commercial activity. The zoning for this one and one -half lots is C -2. The subject property surrounds this one and one -half lots on three sides. The existing zoning for the subject property, which is the rest of the block, is Heavy Commercial (C -2). The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from C -2 to Residential General -2 (RG -2). 1 Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 94 -420 -R March 21, 1995 Consistency with Land Development Regulations The applicant has indicated a desire to construct multi- fancily residential development 011 the subject property. Such development requires Residential General zoning. Residential General zoning includes RG -1 and RG -2. The primary difference between RG -1 and RG -2 is that RG -2 allows for slightly smaller parcel sizes for residential development, and therefore allows for a slightly greater density. RG -2 zoning establishes a maximum density of 10 units per acre for parcels greater than one (1) acre in size. As the subject parcel is 1.7 acres in size, a maximum of 17 units could be constructed. RG -1 zoning establishes a maximum density of 7 units per acre. That density would allow 12 units to be constructed. In this case, the difference between RG -2 and RG -1 is that RG -2 zoning would allow five more units to be constructed than RG -1. Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning would allow a maximum of seven (7) units to be constructed, each of which would have to be a detached single family dwelling. The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by RG -2 zoning. The subject parcel is located where adequate water, sewer and streets are available. The subject parcel is also within a few blocks of two major roadways, S.R. 70 and U.S. 441, and is also nearby the supporting commercial development located along those highways. Accordingly, staff determines that RG -2 is an appropriate zoning district for the subject parcel, and that the request is consistent with city zoning regulations. Oca sisters y with Comprehensive Plan.. The subject property is located in the Multi - Family future land use classification of the City of Okeechobee's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 'The future land; use classification was changed in 1994 from Single Fancily to Multi- Family. The one and one -half lots that is in the middle of the subject property and which contains the commercial use is located in the Single - Family future land use classification. The Multi - Family classification allows for single and multi- family residential development not to exceed a density of 10 units per acre; 11 units per acre where affordable housing is provided. Zoning districts that are consistent with the Multi - Family future land use classification are RG -2, RG -1, RSF and RMH. The proposed change in zoning from C -2 to RG -2 is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Staff Recommendation The proposed change in zoning is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Much of the surrounding zoning is already multi - family (RG -2); even though all of the adjacent future land use is Single Family. Most of the existing development near the subject property consists of single family homes, although the Hospice building, a mobile home park and duplexes are located nearby. There is also some vacant land in the immediate vicinity. Multi - family housing would provide a natural transition between the existing commercial development to the north along highway 70 and the single - family development to the south. Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 94 -420 -R March 21, 1995 It appears that there will be no adverse impacts to the surrounding area if multi- family housing were to be constructed in this general vicinity. Staff recommends that the City Council grant the request for a change in zoning from Heavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2). Planning Board The Planning Board, on February 28, 1995, recommended, by a vote of 4 to 2, that the Okeechobee City Council not grant the petition for a change in zoning from Heavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2), but that the City Council consider an application for a change in zoning from C -2 to RG -1. The summary of that meeting follows., William D. Royce Planning Director Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 94 -420 -R Match 21. 1995 3 Okeechobee County Planning Board Summary of Meeting February 28, 1995 The Okeechobee Planning Board /Board of Adjustments and Appeals met in regular session on Tuesday, February 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Commission Meeting Room, Okeechobee County Courthouse, 304 N.W. Second Street, Okeechobee, Florida. Board members present were Chairman Frank Marsocci, Monica Clark, Renee Hazellief, Brenda O'Connor, Keith Pearce and John Sinitlr. Board member Jim Burke was absent. Also in attendance were John Cassels, County Attorney; Bill Royce, Planning Director; Damian Peduto, Planner; and Vikki Aaron, Secretary. Petition 95- 420 -R, W.I. Rooks, property owner and applicant. Request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Ileavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2). The property is in the City of Okeechobee and is bounded by S.C. 2nd Street, S.C. 5th Avenue, S.C. 3rd Street, and S. C. 4th Avenue. Bill Royce presented the application for the rezoning and described the surrounding properties. Mr. Royce informed the Board that a sale of property was pending with the approval the rezoning. The potential buyers /developers propose to construct three 5 -unit complexes plus a duplex on this undeveloped land. Mr. Royce stated that last year the future land use for the subject property was changed by City Council from Single - Family to Multi - Family and the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Mr. Royce recommended the Planning Board recommend to the City Council that the requested rezoning be approved from Heavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General 2 (RG -2). Robbie Hoover was present to represent the owner /applicant and the proposed developer. Mr. Hoover stated that Mr. Rooks has a real estate contract pending subject to zoning approval. Mr. Hoover presented material including general site data, written responses to the standard sixteen (16) items considered for a rezoning, a copy of the City's current zoning atlas, a copy of the City's zoning regulations for Residential General zoning districts and the requirements for development in those areas, a map indicating a typical development plan and an aerial snap of the area. Mr. Hoover reviewed the material with the Board. Mr. Hoover stated that under the existing zoning the property is undevelopable and a zoning change has to be made and must be multi family to be consistent with the future land use. Monica Clark stated a lower density multi - family residential development was a more appropriate transition from the existing commercial zoning than ]nigher density multi- family zoning would be. Ms. Clark also stated she believed that the higher density multi- family development would not increase property values in the area. Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 94-420 -R March 21, 1995 4 Mr. Hoover disagreed stating multi family development would be a good buffer between the existing commercial development to the north and the existing single family development to the south, and that this type of transitional land use is used by many communities as a buffer. Mr. Royce stated a petition opposing the rezoning submitted and containing 68 signatures had been submitted to the Planning and Development Department.. Martin Williams expressed concern regarding the impact the proposed rezoning would have on his parents' property and other surrounding properties. Mr. Williams stated Residential Single Family (RSF) was the most appropriate zoning district and also the most compatible with the surrounding area. June Baromei of 310 S.E. Second Street was recognized by the Board. Mrs. Baromei stated she was opposed to the rezoning. May Cooper of 310 S.E. Third Street addressed the Board. Ms. May stated she was opposed to the rezoning. W.I. Rooks addressed the Board. Mr. Rooks stated he owned the property for 25 years and the property was zoned as Residential General for 23 of those years and he now desires to have that zoning restored. Mr. Rooks stated the property is best suited for Residential General 2 (RG -2) zoning. ,Terry Cooper of 310 S.E. Third Street addressed the Board. Mr. Cooper stated the area consisted primarily of elderly people and he was opposed to the rezoning. Renee Hazellief made a motion to deny the request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Heavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2) stating the use would be too intense for the surrounding area. Mrs. Hazellief further moved to forward a recommendation for a change in zoning from lIeavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential Single Family (RSF) to the City Council for consideration. The motion was seconded by Brenda O'Connor. Monica Clark, Frank Marsocci, Keith Pearce and John Smith voted against the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 2. Monica Clark made a motion to deny the request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of lIeavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2). Ms. Clark further moved to forward a recommendation for a change in zoning from the existing classification of lIeavy Commercial (C -2) to Residential General -1 (RG -1) to the City Council for consideration. The motion was seconded by Keith Pearce. Renee Hazellief and Brenda O'Connor voted in favor of the motion. Frank Marsocci and John Smith voted against the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 2. 5 Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 94 -120-R March 21, 1995 FEB 13 '95 2'3!5 WIR11fI L. I1ILLInN Nor 901 4F.5 03F,? MARTIN REGISTERED �LAND�SUR EY°, 11620 S,W, 134TH COURT DUNNELLON, FLORIDA 344.32 PHONE (904) 465 -0387 P.L.S. NO. 4127 Tr)! RE: PETI. CN #94- 420- -R WE THE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF OKEECHOBEE OBJECT TR THE PROPOSED USE OF THAT LAND BOUNDED ON THE NORTH PY S.E. 2ND S'.3EET ON THE EAST BY 5,E. 5TH AVENUE AND ON THE SOUTH BY S.E. 3RD TREET FOR USE AS A DUPLEX AND MULTI- FAMILY UNITS, THE SIGNATURES AS APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING SHEETS ARE RE ;IDENTS AND CITIZENS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SIGNATURES AS SET FORTH BY HAND REPRESENT OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING FROM COMME: CIAL-Z TO RESIDENTIAL GENERAL -2 OF THE OKEECHOBEE COUNTY ZONING CL, SSIFICATIONS OF THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND DESCRIBED AS: LOT 1 AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 2, AND LOTS 4 THROUGH 12, BLOCK Z54, FIRST ADDITION TO OKEECHOBEE, COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 11, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO BE SERVED TO WILLAIM D. ROYCE, PLAN 'ING DIRECTOR FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 1995 THE COPIES OF ALL SIGNATURES TO BE PRESENTED TO THE OKEECHOBEE COUNTY h'LANNING IJQARD ON FEBRUARY Z3TH, 'I99t3 AT REGULAR MEETING. 86 Signed Petitioners on the following (6) Pares. January 27, 1995 TO OUR FRIENDS'tNEIGIIBORS"AND CONCERNED CITIZENS RE: PETITION #9I - ).i ?.O -It SORRY WE 1)ID NOT SEE YOU AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY' 2)i, ].995 @ 7 PM. (Copy of notification attached) THE SECOND PMJRLII' HEARING TIFAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR FI ?RRUA1 ?Y 21, 1995 . - has BEEN POSPONED DUE TO THE 'I'ARELING FHY THE 1ST MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF OKEECHOBEE COIJNTY'. RG -2 ZONING THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR WOULD RESULT IN MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND TUE NEW PROPOSED PURCHASERS OP' THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT PEEN ABLE; TO DESCRIBE IN SPECIFICS JUST WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY AND JUST WHAT TYPE OF LIVING QUARTERS WE MlWfl' PACE. WE SINCERELY REQUEST 'I'HIAT YOU 'TAKE A MINU'E'T'; 'J'0 LWI' US KNOW IF YOU WOULD ATTEND THE RESCHEDULED MEETING * AT THE NEW TIME THAT WILL RE MAILED TO US BY CERTIFIED MAIL. IF YOU WILL NOT BE ARLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON It 'I'IIE A'T'TACHED PETITION IS MOST NECESSARY FOR US TO PRESENT 'T0 THE PI,ANNI N(1 130A RI) AT THAT TIME. MOST SINCERELY, PERCY p. BERTHA W11,LJAMS A /N /A BERT'S TAX SERVICE h12 SE 2 St. Okeechobee, Fl 3)i972 GIVE US A CALL: 763 -3766 NOTICE FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ZONING RECLASSIFICA'T'ION: NOTICE: A PUBLIC HEARING will be held before the Planning Board of Okeechobee County on Tuesday, January 24, 1995 at 7:00 pni in the County Commission Meeting Room, Okeechobee County Courthouse, 304 N.W. 2nd Street, Okeechobee, Florida, to consider a request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Commercial -2 (C -2) to Residential General -2 (RG -2) on the following described property: The property owner and applicant is W. I. Rooks. The property is located in the city of Okeechobee, is bounded by S.E. 2nd Street on the north, by S.E. 3rd Street on the south, by S.E. 4th Avenue on the west and by S.E. 5th Avenue on the east, and is more particularly described as follows: Lot 1, East 1/2 of Lot 2, and Lots 4 through 12, Block 254, First Addition to Okeechobee Florida, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 11 of the Public Records of Okeechobee County, Florida. A second PUBLIC HEARING will be held before the Okeechobee City Council on Tuesday, February 21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Meeting Room, Okeechobee City Hall, 55 S.E. Third Street, Okeechobee, Florida. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND CITIZENS SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE I IEARD AT THE FIRST AND SECOND I-IEARINGS. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City . ' Council in this case, with respect to its consideration of the within matter, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. William D. Royce Planning Director Petition #94 -420 -R Publish in the Okeechobee News on January 6, 1995 and January 15, 1995 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING IlfiXASSI E'1 CATION OF TILE PROPERTY OWNER W. I. ROOKS * HEARING Of TIIE PANNING WARD OF OKEECIIO13EE COUNTY . • Lot 1, East 1/2 of Lot; 2, Lots It through 1. ?, Block 251i, 1st Addition to Okeechobee Florida, according to the Plat thereof recorded i.n Plat (took 1, Page 11 of the Public e.,ords of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, Florida. 1.),Z.11/4404)- °WA A_ZA___/4/_r_i_____ST.C_Altka Name Address 310�� �� 01Z��S boy s.\,,,. 3 11-JE VOto 5.E . 2rUCt"-- • 76�.yyS� oKEE 7G3-H11 � Ci-:, 9"---e- .7`-. . ./.c=2/rg..6) c2/..$ 7- 7.sm.. . 0 AP,,-500.-!:.2,/,Zfc .\,_,A_,_, --eAs\ -.,_,. ,-2._=1__'(.....,____O,A, c L. -stinit /WI! _.,_?_,":".4,,,A)_p_-51c-_%,,F1._5—.0 qi S.I..-- -_ - - -5 : _ / a r17-• 965)4 dk? PC y917' '11 ".' . (?c,c. p po s- (. • n y . 3 c( 9 3 -S? a ,556-1 . jC/_ ev /� Vi z . C� e, � 3'P9 7 9 x_31.4 S� C' /c_a_ jtr-Q Ty 7%1L WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING RECASS1 P'1 CATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER W. I. ROOKS T HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY . Lot 7., East 1/2 of Lot 2, Lots 11 through 12, Block 25h, 1st Addition to Okeechobee Florida, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Gook 1, Page 11 of the Public Records of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, Florida. Name Af`u 2 � !6 y ,tfici 3J(. Address Date ) L l (/ a- S a5 37 - y / St) 1._�� • ...?/.0 S E'. .2 .mil 0, E. i y / 1 WE THE OF THE PROPERTY COUNTY . Lot 1, Oke- chobee Florl of he Public UNDERSIGNED ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING I(ECASSIF'ICATION OWNER W. I. ROOKS x- HEARING OF THE PLANNING HOARD OIL OKEECHORF:F; East 1/2 of Lot 2, Lots h through 12, Block 2q1, 15t. Addition to da, ccordinp to the Plat thereof recorded In Plat Hook 1, Page 11 of Okesj.hobee, Okeechobee County, F1orI da. Name lag-44 Address Date ev - � fir.,. ` 1.,..rLa -. LC- Cr ti /6 6E _y_74 L o7' 16 j . i{ WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING RECASS 1 F'I CATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER W. T. ROOKS - HEARING OF THE PI/ NNI NG BOARD OF OKEECHOIBEE COUNTY . Lot 1, East, 1/2 of Lot 2, Lots Ir through 12, Bloch 25lt, 1st. Addition to Okeechobee Florida, according to the Plat thereof recorded in P].at Hook 1, Page 11 of the Public Records of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, Florida. Name e--4j4:==-fi:.\.o-L., t, Address Date 1/, S - /3 -�� 5 �� Y` 51 - /.s' — 9 5 ,S) h s7 WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING HECASSiFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER W. I. ROOKS ' HEARING OF THE PLANNING HOAJU) OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY . Lot 1, East 1/2 of Lot 2, Lots E1 through 7.2, Block 25h, 1st; Addition to Okeechobee Florida, according to the Plat thereof recorded in flat Hook 1, Page 11 of the Public Records of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, Florida. Name_ . Address I)a .�, � /j _.t-c a 41/1- A/e, C. Z7- 1'_; ._. WE THE OY THE PROPERTY COUNiY . Lot 1, Okeechobee 7 1ori. of the P tblic e UNI)I�,R SIONE ? ARE SIGNING AS AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING OWNER W. 1. ROOKS * BEARING OP' THE PLANNING JIGARI) O1� East 1/2 of Lot. 2, Lots h through 12, Block 2��1i, 1st, A dal according to the Plat thereof recorded in i'1.i t Book ,ords of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, Florida. HE('ASsi C ] CATION OKEE(:HOIl1;E (.1(1i 1.i on to 1., Page 11 1z.,,e 4ot s �� 4-4 �-% _oev- Name Addr'ens r, (yr7)1 —et r 7. 6(6:770 /S/ A= g-•/1 --7•,__Ac___et.„` x(4 Ad 1 s7 dev-zeer_.(,:k .22c) .s aai � s1- ev (Tht5$<-- %•c/ 69) Da Le (1) 3 D P I 5 t,(-) I 3— c/ — 5 / ,s-r- by - -- 1<< ( The following are the factors to be considered by the Planning Board when considering a change in zoning. When recommending whether to rezone a classification of land, the factors that the Planning Board shall consider include, where applicable, whether or not: 1. The proposed change is contrary to the established land use pattern; 2. The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; 3. The proposed change would materially alter the population density pattern and thereby increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; 4. Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; 5. The proposed change would be contrary to the Proposed Land Use Plan and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan; 6. Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary; 7. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; 8. The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; 9. The proposed change will create a drainage problem; 10. The proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; 11. The proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; 12. The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; 13. The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare; 14. There are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning; 15. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; 16. It is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The following items were submitted by the applicant during the February 28, 1995 Public Hearing before the Planning Board 2/28/95 W.I. ROOKS PROPOSED REZONE, PETITION 95- 420 -R ( Application for Rezoning of Lot 1, and the East 1/2 of 1ot(2, also, Lots 4 thru 12 inclusive, Block 254, City of Okeechobee, Plat Book 5, Page 5, FROM EXISTING C -II TO PROPOSED RG -2 1. GENERAL SITE DATA a. Total area of proposed rezone...74,812.5 sq. ft.= 1.71 acres b. Proposed site is vacant and undeveloped at present. c. Site is served by City of Okeechobee potable water and sewer. ' d. Site is served by paved city streets on the North, East, and South. e. Drainage will be accommodated with exfilltration trench and or dry retention areas, with discharge to city storm system. f. Electrical, phone, and cable will be provided by local providers. 3 LA P -,,1 -1 s-- h -t c\-(or Page 2 Following County Planning and Zoning Board policy, listed below are responses for the 16 items to be considered for re -zone. 1. The proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern of residential. Also, the proposed change is consistent with the city future land use map. 2. The proposed change would blend in with the adjacent and nearby districts which are predominantly residential in character. 3. The proposed change would infill the undeveloped land in the city with residential units, that would take advantage of and utilize the existing infrastructure facilities that are available. Our proposed development meets the criteria of not more than 10 units per acre for the proposed RC -2. 4. Existing district boundaries are not illogically drawn. 5. The proposed change would bring the parcel into compliance with the proposed future land use classification. 6. The comprehensive plan changed the future ability of the site to be used as C -II. In fact, no permitted use in C -II can be permitted on this site, because it would be in conflict with the future land use map. 7. The proposed change will allow development of additional residential use in the district. If the project .,-is' permitted according to the land development regulations it will be an upgrade to the general area. 8. There will be an increase of traffic in the area. As stated there will be a minimum of three directions from which to leave or enter the site. This should provide for a diversity of flow from the additional traffic thereby not creating a problem with congestion or public safety. 9. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem. 10. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent properties. Page 3 11. The proposed change should increase property values in the area. 12. The proposed change will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations. 13. The proposed change will be granting a change in zoning that is consistent with the future land use plan which is supposed to benefit the public at large. 14. The property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning because the existing zoning is non - conforming with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan. 15. The proposed change is very much in scale with the needs of the city. There are not many rental units in the city. A check of vacancy rates will attest to this statement. Also, in reviewing the future land use reap it is evidenced that this parcel is the ' only parcel proposed for multifamily development in the southeast quadrant of the city. 16. It is not impossible to find other sites in the city for this use. However as stated this is the only parcel proposed for this use in the general area. 11 17 110 2 5 2 i3 4 4 2 4 5 10 M1 1 3 1 a 2 1 4 S 61 4 6 7 } 8 9 I'1e191'on111 •�1e1911 1171 •�li ei9J' 1111'] 11 f I� NE 6111 Sr 70' II I 4 5 6 7 3 2 1 NE PARK R SE PARK 10 rani MIN ..fit Nei HHI 5 413 2 7 e 910 I1 615 413 7 e 2 1 0 10 11 a NE STN ST 70 6 5 7 6 413 9 x 10 2 11 fE41HST(00') `� 4 6 3 4 3 2 1 6 11111 7 6 9 1 111? W 7 8 9 0111? x •t 111 i x Y NE 3110 SI I1I 6 fli , 7 8 �sm� INN: 5 4 3 2 6 5 4 3 2 1 111 ST 70 4 IPPW. 11 9 ID 11 F15 7 8 413 9110 11 1/ d 9 e 7 -1:11t t 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 1 514 619 3 2 011 1: 2 1 011 it I T 1 1 1 1 W.I. ROOKS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE EXISTING C -II T0: RG -2 L-- NE21,oSr(7 -- - 654 21 oilimi 0101 769 01112 119.0 7i1l 1J 6I U IlijAi 'FIE arr 651321 T O P 0 D O sr f�l N t5E-- c 2 4 312 910 SE 2N INJ0 gni MN !gm SE 3130 6 3 4 3 2 1 arm tniz Eto PI OA1E: 2/28/95 SCALE: NTS 8 Y• RRH 6 5 4 3 2 1 etid e 5 4 3 2 7 e 9 1011 SE61HSr(70 615 4 3 2 7 8 9 0 II 17 SE 7111 S1 (70)1 PURPOSE: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE 252 K 2 312 5 617 2 11 9 e 7 6 5 4 3 2 1314l51en 211, 9 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 MUM h ?.(..I, , o4 . M1 „ 2, 1.14151 I. 3 12YL- 4 1 i __ T.T 20 7 11 Hoover 1 and Associates, . I FOR: W. I. ROOKS SHEET OF 1 1 JOB NUMBER 3395 421 N.W. 3rd Street OKEECHOBEE, rt. 34972 (813) 763 -8999 11 • Englneering Geodetic do Land Surveying Mopping Planning Intent: OKEECHOBEE CODE RG- RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL, DISTRICTS , s:: • Cdr These districts are intended for low to medium. density.] rte;., .,. residential uses, with a compatible mixture of housing'_ hypes. 't .: ,�;F; I� .� Regulations are designed to preserve the Districts .: residen- , �p�,....,. . tial character. Certain .non- residential. uses, property,. sited.l ',���:, and controlled, are 'permissible as special exceptions in�these:..Ii_ :districts. Two RG districts are established with the pritnary difference between the two being density of development. • Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: As for RSF, and in addition .1. Two family and multiple family dwellings. 2: Townhouses, rowhouses, or cluster housing, provided density shall not exceed that permitted for the RG district involved. 3. Rooming and boarding houses in RG -2 only. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: As for RSF, except that paragraph 5 shall read: 5. Do not involve operations or structures not in keeping with low to medium density residential neighborhoods. •1 Prohibited Uses and Structures: Any use or structure not specifically, provisionally;` or by reasonable implation [implication] permitted herein or per -. missible by special exception. Special Exceptions: Permissible by board of adjustment after public notice and! hearing and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards] •.a: (see Section 13.3) . 1656 APPENDIX A-ZONING ORDINANCE As for RSF, and in addition: 1. Private clubs and lodges. 2. Nurses home or similar housing for institutional ern-. ployees ; convent or monastery. 3. Funeral homes, but no crematory. 4. Professional and business offices. 5. Residential structure in excess of 45 ft. in height. 6. Commercial marina, not involving removal of boats from water for purposes of repair or major motor repair. 7. Child care center. 8. Hospital and nursing homes, provided no structure shall , be closer than 50 ft. to any boundary line in separate ownership and no offstreet parking shall be located closer than 25 ft. to any property boundary line in separate ownership. 9. Medical and dental clinics; other activities and services directly supporting hospital activities. Minimum Lot Requirements (Area and Width): RG-1: Single family dwelling: As for RSF. Two family dwelling: Width: 100 ft. Area: 12,500 sq. ft. . -": Multiple family dwelling , Width: 100 ft. f.! Area: 15,000 sq. ft. for 1st 3 units, plus 6,250 sq. -• ft. for each additional unit. ('... ! •• Town. or row houses, cliister housing: .. :, Width: 200 ft. •...itl' if''''• ; .• I:1 Area: 20,000 sq. ft: for 1st 4 units plus 6,250 sq. ft. for each additional unit. ..:•;;;;,,.... 1657 OKEECHOBEE CODE RG-2: Single family dwelling'. :, As for RSF. Two family dwelling: As for RG -1. Multiple family dwelling: Width: As for RG -1. Area: 12,500 sq. ft. for 1st 3 units, ft. for each additional unit. Town or row houses, cluster housing: Width: As for RG -1. Area: 17,500 sq. ft. for 1st 4 units, ft. for each additional unit. plus 4,350 sq. plus 4,350 sq. Other Permitted or Permissible Uses and Structures: None, except as needed to meet requirements set out here- in. On multiple family developments only of greater than one acre, density shall not exceed 7 units per acre for RG -1 or 10 units per acre for RG-2. In density calculations a remaining fraction of greater than 1/2 shall entitle developer to one added unit. Maximum Lot Coverage by All Buildings: Single family and two family dwellings: 30% Multiple family town or row house & cluster: 35% Other permitted or permissible buildings & structures: 30% }'Iininluin Yard Requirements (Depth of Front, & Rear Yard; Width of Side Yarda) Single family and two family dwellings: As for Multiple family dwellings: [Front:] 25 ft.; Side: 20 ft.; Rear: 20 ft. Town, or row houses, cluster housing: As for RSF, provided side yard requirements apply only to end units, or units at sides of parcel. Other permitted or permissible buildings, except where a greater distance for yard or setback is required for the • 1658 APPENDIX A-ZONING ORDINANCE particular use involved: As for RG, multiple family dwellings. Maximum Height of Structures: No portion shall exceed 45 ft. Limitations .on Signs: As for RSF, and in addition: 1. One wall sign, not to exceed 32 sq. ft. in area, on each street frontage to identify a multiple dwelling. 2. One ground sign, not to exceed 20 sq. ft. in area, on each street frontage to identify town or row housing or cluster housing in common ownership and utilized for rental purposes. 3. One non-illuminated identification wall or ground sign not over 8 sq. ft. in area to identify a rooming or boarding house or child care center. 4. One'illuminated ground or wall sign not over 8 sq. ft. in area to identify a private club. 5. One ground or wall sign not over 6 sq. ft. in area to identify an individual professional or business office. 6. One ground or wall sign, not to exceed 32 sq. ft. in area, on each street frontage to identify a professional office building containing more than 3,000 sq. ft; of office space. 7. For marina, one ground sign for each street frontage' and one ground sign for water frontage, each not to exceed 16 sq. ft. in area and to be used for identifica- tion only. 8. One Wall or ground sign not over 8 sq. ft. in area on each street side for a nursing home. Signs for uses permissible by special exception: As for RSF. 1659 OKEECIIOBEE CODE Minimum . Offstreet Parking Requirements: (See also Section 7.13,; for offstreet loading require- ments see Section 7.13, m —p) As for RSF, and in addition: Two family dwelling, town or row housing, cluster housing, multiple family dwellings: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. Professional or business offices: 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus 1 space for each 2 occupants or employees. Private clubs: 1 space for each 3 seats, or 1 space for each .300 .sq. ft. of gross floor area, whichever is greater. Rooming, . boarding house: 1 space for each 2 bedrooms. • Nurses home, convent, monastery: 1 space for each 4 bed- rooms. Hospital: 2 spaces for each bed. Medical, dental office: (For offstreet parking determina- . Lion only, medical or dental office shall be calculated differently than for other professional offices) 1 space for each doctor, nurse, and employee, plus 3 spaces for each 'consultation, practice, and /or examining room. Marina.:, 2 spaces for each 3 boat slips or moorings ; • re- quired offstreet parking spaces cannot be used for stor- age of boats or boat trailers. Nursing home: .1 space for each 4 beds plus 1 space for each employee. Child care center: 2 spaces for each employee plus ade- quate provision for loading & unloading children from off the street. For other special exceptions as specified herein: As for RSF. RMH -R + SIDENTIAL, MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS Intent: See Section 8. 1660, APPENDIX A- ZONING ORDINANCE Permitted Principal Uses and Structures. See Section 8. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: See Section 8. Prohibited Uses and Structures: See Section 8. Special Exceptions: Permissible by board of adjustment after public notice and hearing and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards (see Section 13.3) : See Section 8. Minimum Lot Requirements (Area and Width) : See Section 8. Maximum Lot Coverage by All l3uildings: See Section 8. Minimum Yard Requirements (Depth of Front & Rear Yards; Width of . Side Yards) : See Section 8. Maximum height of Structures: No portion shall exceed 35 ft. Limitations on Signs: (See also Section 10) No signs intended to be•read from off the premises except: 1. One ground sign not to exceed 24 sq. ft. in area, on each.. • street frontage to identify a mobile home park. 2. Decorative identification signs for entry ways of mo- bile home subdivisions, provided such signs shall con- tain only the name of the subdivision and shall not contain promotional or sales material. 3. Two, non - illuminated, mobile home subdivision ground signs, each not to exceed an area of 100 sq. ft., on a 1661 OKEECHOBEE CODE subdivision property while under development to ad- vertise the sale of lots, • provided such signs shall. be removed when 70% of the individual mobile Borne sub - division lots have been sold. 4. For other permitted or permissible in mobile home parks; signs as specified for the use concerned' where in these regulations. Minimum Offstreet Parking Requirements: • Mobile Home park: See Section 9.9(k). . Mobile home subdivision: 2 spaces to be located on. each mobile home lot. In addition, for other uses, offstreet parking requirements shall :be as for the use specified elsewhere in this ordinance. C- COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Intent: These districts are intended primarily for commercial ac- tivity. Retail sales and service establishments are found in this district as permitted uses, with wholesale and warehouse .. activity permissible as special- exceptions. Residential uses are discouraged, for the district is not residential in character. Very limited residential uses are permitted or permissible .b3r special exception. 'It is not the intent of this district that it be used for extension or encouragement of strip commercial activity, but the district is applied where there are existing patterns of strip commercial activity as of the date of adop- tion of this zoning ordinance. ' f, Permitted Principal Uses and Structures : 1. "Establishments for tlre:'sale of goods at retail, but no manufacturing ..::.establishment except as specifically • permitted.:or. perniis 1ii l 2. Service establishmeii barber or beauty shop, restaurant or drive- ihjestaurant, funeral home or mor- 1.662 CONCERNS FOR RE- ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3RD STREET AND FOURTH AVENUE: (1) THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER TWO BLOCKS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM BEGINNING AT THE DANIEL BUILDING ON SOUTH PARK STREET, WHICH THE CITY HAS INVESTED TIME AND MONEY AND RECEIVED GRANT FUNDING TO COMPLETE. THIS FUNDING WILL ENABLE THE PEOPLE ALONG THAT PARTICULAR STRIP OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO RE- CREATE THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF OKEECHOBEE CITY. THIS PROJECT, WHICH THE CITY IS ALREADY COMMITTED TO, WILL INVOLVE APPROXIMATELY ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS. (2) THE PROPOSED COMPLEX AND THE REASON FOR CHANGING THE ZONING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, IN THAT THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF TOWN IS ONE OF THE OLDEST AREAS OF OKEECHOBEE. THIS AREA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SETTLE DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TRADE ON TAYLOR CREEK IN THE LATE 1800'S. ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, EXCEPT FOR THE GROUP HOME FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED AND THE NEW HOSPICE FACILITY. THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS CURRENTLY A NON - CONFORMING USE AND CANNOT BE EXPANDED OR REPLACED. (3) MOST OF THE HOMES IN THIS AREA, FROM 441 EAST TO TAYLOR CREEK ARE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT A LONG TIME AGO; THEREFORE,IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE CITY, WITH ITS THRUST TOWARD PRESERVING OUR HISTORICAL ORIGIN WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH CHANGING THIS PART OF TOWN FOREVER, BY ALLOWING THIS CHANGE TO TAKE PLACE. (4) THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DENIED THIS APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL LOWER THE DENSITY FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IF THE CITY CHOSE TO APPROVE IT. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DISCUSSED AT GREAT LENGTH THE HIGH DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RG ZONING AND A MOTION WAS MADE TO RECOMMEND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING TO YOU; HOWEVER, DUE TO THE FACT THE CITY HAD RG ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IN ITS AMENDED PLAN, THEY SETTLED ON RG -1. (5) THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES AND WOULD ALLOW AS MANY AS 11 UNITS PER ACRE. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO OFF STREET PARKING IN THIS AREA OF TOWN AND WHERE WOULD THE VEHICLES PARK IN THIS AREA. THE SINGLE WIDTH OF A CITY STREET WOULD NOT ALLOW, FOR SAFETY REASONS ONLY, PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET AND OPENING FOR TRAFFIC TO FLOW SMOOTHLY. HOW COULD A MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OCCUR ON ONLY THIS AMOUNT OF LAND AND NOT GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF OVER - CROWDING, AND SO FORTH? IS IT THE TAX PAYERS PLACE TO PROVIDE PROPER OFF - STREET PARKING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? (6) IF TRAFFIC IS INCREASED IN THIS AREA, WILL THAT MEAN MORE STREET LIGHTS AND SIDEWALKS WOULD BE INSTALLED? AND AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE? WHAT KIND OF REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE THAT WOULD PROTECT THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES FROM ENCROACHMENT IN THEIR YARDS BY PEOPLE HAVING NO WHERE FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO PLAY EXCEPT IN THE STREET OR ON SOMEONE ELSE'S ADJOINING PROPERTY. WILL THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ALSO INCLUDE RECREATION AREAS FOR THEIR FAMILIES? (7) CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE AREA, WITH THE QUAINT LITTLE HOMES, AND NEARBY DOWNTOWN OKEECHOBEE, NOT TO MENTION THE CITY HALL BUILDING ITSELF, AND RATIONALIZE WHETHER THIS DENSE USE IS PROPER FOR THIS AREA OF TOWN. OKEECHOBEE CITY IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR SQUARE MILES AND WE SHOULD BE PARTICULAR WHAT WE PERMIT TO BE BUILT IN THIS SMALL AREA. THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR MANY YEARS AND WHO HAVE ROOTS TIED TO THIS PLACE DON'T WISH TO SEE IT COVERED WITH HIGH DENSITY USAGE AND ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN COME WITH IT, BY WAY OF TRANSIENT RENTERS, CRIME, ETC. ONE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE CAN GENERATE MORE, UNTIL OUR CITY BECOMES LIKE SO MANY OTHERS AND IT'S DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WAS SETTLED YEARS AGO BECOMES NOTHING BUT POTENTIALLY RUN DOWN RENTAL UNITS. it/Cho k,./ /9-7-13- CLOSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSED 17 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX INITIAL INVESTMENT: ESTMIMATED COST PER UNIT $28,852.00 X 17 UNITS TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $490,484.00 ANNUAL ESTIMATED REVENUE GENERATED IN COMMUNITY: RENT $550.00 PER /MO X 17 UNITS _ $9,350.00 PER /MO X 12 MONTHS $112,200.00 INSURANCE $ 4,250.00 MAINTENANCE $ 5,100.00 UTILIY FEES: WATER /SEWER, ELECTRIC, PHONE, CABLE, TRASH ETC. (ESTM. AT $210 PER /MO. PER /UNIT) $ 42,840.00 $ 52,190.00 TOTAL $164,390.00 ESTIMATED TAXES AT 24 TOTAL MILS: TAX ASSESSMENT AT $500,000.00 MILLAGE RATE AT 24 MILS TOTAL $ 12,000.00 ` all, 111 al ,all. al , It. A. alb JIi, JII, all. ,dl, 411 11. 116, a6, all. al' 411, JL, all, Jlb alb ,dl, Jlu I , .b all, .111, all, JII, all, 411, JII, all, a4. Jh. i �, Alt, JII, ,.L, all. f >le. JIr,JII 111, dl, alb all, db all, 411, 11b all. JII, I 1 alt, di' all, ,Ili, db ,I 4, all, .6' Jlb Jlb IV. I I all, 16, aU, all, di. alb .db 1�, alb .d1, dl, i I ail, III, Ail, all, ,Il, a11• 41 I. 111, J1b ail, t 1 I I t I II, JIf, .11tr all, alb JII, JII. ,./, I „1, all, .11b all�,�.,......A1, JI /, all, 411, JII, all, JII, J b . Al. all, all, all. alt, JII, JII, all, JII, 41,..._,..1. lil, Jlr, alb ,db alt. JII, Jllr JII, Jh, r Jlb Jlb JI(, 4,4'4 .. ^T— .Ii, all, all, JIt, aU, 1 PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED SIDEWALK 11111 all, all, all. ,111, JI/, ail, \a11, 411, .411, 11, Jib PROPOSED PARKING LOT TYPICAL 3 ENTRANCE FRONT ELEVATION OF 5 PLEX INCIL 01„ nap asnce ./4 Y./: 1/, . Yd Nu* Iff M I.JJ. :R,. CLOSE CONSTRUCTION Hoover and Associates, Inc. 2 > 3 3345-44 /i •• ®® on AY': +9,;# .•n NU a � ®® ®® `��F = . n . a. ©® :M m �F �MoV PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED SIDEWALK 11111 all, all, all. ,111, JI/, ail, \a11, 411, .411, 11, Jib PROPOSED PARKING LOT TYPICAL 3 ENTRANCE FRONT ELEVATION OF 5 PLEX INCIL 01„ nap asnce ./4 Y./: 1/, . Yd Nu* Iff M I.JJ. :R,. CLOSE CONSTRUCTION Hoover and Associates, Inc. 2 > 3 3345-44 4.4.1frio%, ;1 41 .S. il7ki- ...net. • PROPOSED CONCRETE Alf„dt, III, AI/. Ilh 411, 411, .111, db AI, Alt, lb ,di, ,It, .:1 'Il'• 'III' AII, . Alb ,II, „II, . 4Iit • 41/, 411, A11, .11,, Ai„,li, All, 411, Alt, '11, "1" 44, 411, 411, all, . 41, at, al, 41,, 41,, 41, at, all, alb 11" 411, 41G 41/, I, 411, 411, Al, At. .11h Alt, 4/I, 411, all, .Jr, .Ilb Alt,. AI. 41, ,s1t, .I,. .u. 4, • oIt, .11, .11t, . • 411,, ‘II, ‘III. 41, •‘I, . stht 41I, olt, alb ,ft„dt, dlt, ,,It, ,II, Alt, alt, ,it„di, • .11. di' ,II,• 4, l'' ,1I, all, '11' di!, ,Ii, Alt dIi, Alb '11' 4, 411, '11' “IG A, 111, dlb all, „di, . Alb '11' . .11, '1" •Ilit 411, '11. 40, dli, '1" dIG at, '1" dlt, all, Alt, 11, 4, 411. 'll' ' '44, 41/, 411, III!' 411, 41t, II4' 411, 41/, sd!' 411, 411, 411, 41f, kit, Id!' • n1!, 41/, "1" dlb All, 411, 411, All, 4I/, 411, A Id', • '‘I'' Alt A11, 41b at dlt, "1" ,I1,, alt, 'I" dlr. dlt, SE 'l1, 41, 411, 411, All, 411, 41i, 41, REAR VIEW FROM STREET 41r, 44, .111, 41!, „if, 41!, 1111 CPA. 13/17/115 MD SANE, ti/. SCALE DRA. BY: BC,. COMPUTED BY: 7.C.P. JOB N. 3.39, F.B./PG 3/1 NO BY 04/1 CLOSE CONSTRUCTION 3073 Hoover and Associates. Inc. '7'317257- PROPOSED PARKING LOT / 411. AL. ,/ all // AL At, //411, 111. 4, .1, At. A, .411, -- - - -----7...- ..■=..■ - ■•••■ ' -•.... . -.- 41, IL OM MINS MUM MOO aa ••••■• ZI l: Ma M M MUM NIBS MIMI MIN Loll .. ••.1 MI. 111..10 =... = = El El 0 M M M 1mM :::: ma 4, 4 t 4 1 1 I 1 441t, 4 '. 4 . al, 4, ., 4, i, Al, .i, , al. AL ,, A, , ‘4,, ,A, a,AL AI, A, AL A, Ai, A. a, .41,, "L AL 01. . A, Ai, 4, 4, A, A, A, , A, A, 1 4 alb 'L 4, o , 44' A `b. , `11. Aa , 'IL Ali, 41, III, All, 41, a• Ali, „di, 'IL' 41, 4,, `4' Alit 4, IJI. Alb Ai, AI, '`IL 411, Alf , .j, At, 4,, A, At, At, 4,, 411, 41, ,h, , I. 4 41, oli, 4,, ,4i, Air, Alb 4, 44, 4, 41, lik, 44, ,,h, Ali, 44 A, AL, a, A, 4,, 4. AL alt. alla . , L PROPOSED SI DEWALK 41, al, .11, a, +IL 41, 4. .11, 411, a, +lb 4,. 111, AL At, Al, 411. 4,. A, Al, 411, 4,, AL At, AL k, 4'. 41, a' 44. 4'. "L 4,, AL th, AL 4,. 41, .4, 4, Ai. At, AL AL ,,i, Ai, At, A, 4,, 4, TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION OF DUPLEX 411, At, AL 411, 41, 414, 411, NAL 0/17/116 no. O.. 1/.' - Mum 01.,111. ra.e. an 'ea 17. INC rOt CLOSE CONSTRUCTION Ho-over and Associates, Inc. •"' 1 3 a..s- 3' TYPICAL r'LOORPLAN TWO BEDROOM TWO BATH APARTMENT 1;000 SQ. FT. +/- 15' -10' 7' -2' LIVING # ROOM m 8' DINING AREA KITCHEN BATH 5' co N 12' CLOSET BATH MASTER 2' CLOSET BEDROOM c.. CLOSET ° BEDROOM crs ' 10' —6' VIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING FROM NORTH SIDE LOOKING SO EXISTING VIEW OF UNIMPROVF AVENUE, FROM SOUTH LOOKING EXISTING ALLEY VIEW 14ROM E OF BLOCK LOOKING WEST. r DUPLEX APARTMENTS ON SOUTH S.E. 4TH. ST. THREE BUILDINGS (6 UNITS 'I • 911ML‘rir • SITE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST TOWARDS NORTHEAST VIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING rWOM EAST SIDE LOOKING WES TRIPLEX AND DUPLEX ON SOUT OF N.W. 7TH. ST. AND N.W. RG-2 THIS DENSITY EXCEEDS PER ACRE r- OKEECHOBEE COMMONS N.W. 1C RG-2 10 UNITS PER ACRE OKEECHOBEE COMMONS N.W. ' RG-2 10 units PER ACRE TANGLEWOOD N.W. 9TH. ST. RG -2 10 UNITS PER ACRE APARTMENTS ON B.W. 3RD. ST. S.W. 4TH. AVE. AND S.W. 3RD. RG -2 This density exceeds 11 per acre.