Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-11-21
067 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION A. Call Meeting to order on November 21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m B. Invocation offered by Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Kirk. C. Mayor and Council Attendance: Mayor James E. Kirk Councilmember Noel A. Chandler Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor Councilmember Robert Oliver Councilmember Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Staff Attendance: City Attorney John R. Cook City Administrator John J. Drago City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas Deputy Clerk S. Lane Gamiotea Mayor Kirk called the regular meeting to order on November 21, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. Councilmember Watford offered the invocation; Mayor Kirk led the Pledge of Allegiance. Clerk Thomas called the roll: Present Absent due to illness Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent D. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Councilmember Oliver moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary Council Action for the Regular Meeting of November 7, 1995. of Council Action for the regular meeting of November 7, 1995; seconded by Councilme- mber Watford. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. PAGE 1 OF 12 M X X X cl 068 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 2 OF 12 :..::............ .. ,,... REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR WITHDRAWAL Mayor Kirk asked if there were any additions, deferrals or withdrawals of items on OF ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. today's agenda? Councilmember Watf for their diligence on handling the situation on Sunday. ord requested the floor to commend the City Staff E. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION III Mayor Kirk opened the public hearing at 7:05 for ordinance adoption. 1. a. Motion to read by title only Ordinance No. 687 - City Councilmember Watford moved to read by title only proposed Ordinance No. 687 II Small Scale Amendments to the Future Land Use Map; Attorney (Exhibit 1). adopting the 1995-Cycle seconded by Councilmember Oliver. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Cook read proposed Ordinance No. 687 by title only as follows: 'AN ORDRVANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORMA AMENDING THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 635 AS AMENDED, BY REVISING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, PROVIDIlVG FOR INCLUSION OF ORDINANCE AND REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP RV THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVLD12VG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.' 1. b. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 687. Councilmember O'Connor moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 687; seconded by Councilmember Oliver. 1. c. Public Comment. Mayor Kirk asked if there was any comments or questions from the public, there were none. Mayor Kirk then asked if there were any comments or question from the Council. Councilmember Watford and Attorney Cook again discussed the new process for the small scale amendments. X X X X M 0 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION 1. d. Vote on Motion. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING F. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING RECLASSIFICATION 1. Consider Petition 95-434-R for a zoning change for property located at 119 South Parrott Avenue from Central Business District Commercial (CCBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-2) - Bill Royce (Exhibit 2). NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 12 Vote on motion to adopt Ordinance No. 687 is as follows: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLVIER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. Mayor Kirk opened the Public Hearing for zoning reclassification at 7:07 P.M. Zoning Administrator Bill Royce addressed the Council concerning Petition No. 95-434- R property owner being the Estate of D.R. Daniel and applicant being Bonnie Daniel. The petition is for a rezoning of land located at 119 South Parrott Avenue. The legal for the property is the South half of Block 176, less Lot 7 and is an area of about .855 acre. There are currently two commercial type buildings on the property. One is a large building that fronts Parrott Avenue the other is a small structure located near the cent of the block South of the abandoned alleyway. The majority of the surrounding property is Commercial with some Residential Single Family dwellings. The applicant wished to rezone the property from Commercial -Central Business District (CCBD) to Heavy Commercial (CII) with the intentions of using the building that fronts Parrott Avenue as a church. The request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Staff does not object to a house of worship in the downtown area, and endorses the concept. However, Staff is concerned about the change in zoning that will interrupt the continuous pattern of the CCBD zoning. X X X ►Ll 070 F. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING RECLASSIFICATION 1. Consider Petition 95-434-R continued. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 4 OF 12 Staff recommends that the City Council not grant the request for a change in zoning from CCBD to CII; nor a change to Light Commercial (Cl), although this zoning district is somewhat more compatible than CII zoning. Staff does recommend that consideration be given to including houses of worship as permitted or permissible uses in the CCBD zoning district, including a provision to consider houses of worship on parcel less than five acres in area. The recommendation would maintain the integrity of the downtown area, which still allows for uses, such as a house of worship, that could be compatible with downtown uses and with downtown development patterns. The Planning Board unanimously recommended that the City Council grant a request for a change in zoning from CCBD to Cl. The Planning Board found that the Cl zoning district is consistent and compatible with the surrounding CCBD zoning and approved a special exception on the subject property to allow a house of worship on a parcel less than five acres in size, conditioned on approval by the City Council of the recommended change in zoning. Councilmember O'Connor moved to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board "that the request for a change in zoning from CCBD to CI be granted for Petition 95-434-R, stating that CI zoning is compatible and consistent with the CCBD zoning district; that it would help improve the appearance of the downtown area, and that it will not harm surrounding properly"; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Watford. After lengthy discussion by Council, Staff and the Public, vote on motion is as follows: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Q ►4 071 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 5 OF 12 G. NEW BUSINESS Motion to reappoint Mr. Roger Jones to the General Councilmember Oliver moved to reappoint Mr. Roger Jones to the General Employees' Employees' Pension Fund for two years - Director of Finance Pension Fund for two years; seconded by Councilmember Watford. (Exhibit 3). KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. 2. Motion to approve a partial pay request to Better Roads in Councilmember O'Connor moved to approve partial pay request number three to Better the amount of $36,372.28 - Director of Public Works (Exhibit Roads of Lake Placid in the amount of thirty-six thousand, three hundred seventy-two 4). dollars; twenty-eight cents ($36,372.28) for the 1995 Road Improvements as recommended by Engineer Kafer of Lawson, Noble and Webb; seconded by Councilmember Oliver. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. 3. Motion to approve a change order to Better Roads in the Councilmember Oliver moved to approve change order number two to Better Roads of amount of $12,662.50 - Director of Public Works (Exhibit 5). Lake Placid in the amount of twelve thousand, six hundred sixty-two dollars, fifty cents ($12,662.50) for additional supplemental work to the 1995 Road Improvement Contract for Southeast 9th Avenue from sixty feet South of Southeast 14th Street to Southeast 9th Street; seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. KI X X X a X F 072 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 6 OF 12 G. NEW BUSINESS 3. Change Order for Better Roads continued. III Vote on motion is as follows: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. 4. Motion to award a computer bid to ICS Computers, Inc. of Councilmember Oliver moved to award a computer bid to ICS Computers, Inc. of Okeechobee in the amount of $14,919.00 - City Administra- Okeechobee in the amount of fourteen thousand, nine hundred nineteen dollars for (Exhibit 6). ($14,919.00); seconded by Councilmember Watford. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. 5. Motion to approve a budget amendment in the amount of Councilmember O'Connor moved to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $24,600 - City Administrator (Exhibit 7). twenty-four thousand, six hundred dollars ($24,600.00); seconded by Councilmember Watford. Administrator Drago explained that the amendment request is for two items that were overlooked when the 1995/96 budget was adopted. First, an additional fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for street striping. This amount was in the 1994/95 budget, but never re -allocated in the 1995/96 budget. The money was to be used to stripe streets that had been paved in the 1993/94 fiscal year. 3 X X X X X X X X ►:1 073 G. NEW BUSINESS 5 1.1 Motion to approve a budget amendment continued. Discuss the sale of property - Director of Public Works (Exhibit 8). NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 7 OF 12 The second item is an additional $9,600 in the Legal Counsel budget to address the full cost of the City Attorney's service contract. When the City had Public Utilities half of the City Attorney's contract cost came from that budget, just like the auditing cost. Administrator Drago recommended that the City Council approve the budget amendment in the amount of twenty-four thousand, six hundred dollars ($24,600.00). After further discussion, vote is as follows: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLVIER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Public Works Director Elders explained to the Council that a citizen is interested in purchasing City property located where the old sewer plant was and that there is nothing left there now but a lift station. Mr. G.H. Murphy owns the property to the North and wants to buy a piece of the property from the City which is located at the North sixty feet of the old sewer plant. This piece of property is adjacent to property already owned by Mr. Murphy. He is not going to develop it, he just wants to improve the looks of it, especially on the waters edge and fix up the water bank. He came to us wanting to know if he could by it. There is a drawing of the area attached to Exhibit Eight. The Council needs to decide if they will sell it and then an appraisal will be done to determine the value. Attorney Cook advised that the property was purchased in 1958 from Okeechobee Trailer and Fishing Resort, Inc. owned by Roger and Mildred Jones. The deed contains a clause that in the event the City should ever decide to sell the property Okeechobee Trailer and Fishing Resort would have first option to purchase it. And there is a reservation for a thirty foot strip along the West side for some type of street. M X X X M 074 G. NEW BUSINESS 6. Discuss the sale of property continued. 7. Discussion regarding the Florida House of Representative Legislative Delegation Meeting - Councilmember Watford (Exhibit 9). NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 8 OF 12 Mayor Kirk recommended and Council agreed for Attorney Cook to check further into this matter before taking action. Councilmember Watford informed the Council that traditionally when the Legislative Delegation meets here all of our local government entities present proposals or requests to them. In the last few years, we have not had any major items to present to them. It is always nice to at least welcome them to Okeechobee and wish them well in their session and present them with any items we may have. We do need to be represented at these meetings, So if we have any specific items or Administrator Drago may know of some, or the City Attorney, or something from the Florida League of Cities since we usually support what items they propose, we should present those items to the Legislative Delegation. Mayor Kirk explained that in his opinion, Councilmember Watford has done an excellent job with this matter in the past for the City Council and sees no reason to change that at this time. Council agreed and Mayor Kirk asked Councilmember Watford to continue representing them at the meetings of the Legislative Delegation. He commented that Councilmember Watford has served so amicably in the past and Council would be pleased to have him continue to serve. Councilmember Watford thanked Mayor Kirk and the Council and agreed to serve as its representative. He asked Council to give any proposals and/or suggestions they may have to Administrator Drago so he could prepare them and he will be glad to present any item received to the Legislative Delegation for Council. Mayor Kirk thanked Councilmember Watford for accepting the appointment. 075 G. NEW BUSINESS 8. Discuss Building and Zoning - Mayor Kirk (Exhibit 10) NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 9 OF 12 Mayor Kirk opened discussion on this item by referring Council to Exhibit Ten of today's agenda. He informed Council and those present of the problems and concerns that were revealed as a result of the joint City/County Workshop of November 16, 1995, concerning the joint Building and Zoning Department. He further summarized the proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement and pointed out its provisions. He explained the things it would do toward answering everyone's questions and solving their problems and concerns regarding the joint Building and Zoning Department and Staff. After lengthy discussions and deliberations by members of the Council and the audience, Councilmember Watford moved to: No. 1 - Revoke the approval of the Interlocal Agreement on planning and zoning; No. 2 - Amend the City Budget to allow for thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00), to create a Planning position at the County office of Planning and Zoning; No. 3 - That the City Council instruct its Attorney to prepare an Interlocal Agreement to allow the County to conduct Planning and Zoning and Building Department functions for the City of Okeechobee. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Oliver. Mayor Kirk called for discussion. Councilmember Oliver stated that if we do not do this then we are putting ourselves at risk of winding up with the whole department and that is a gamble that he did not think the City should take for thirty-five thousand dollars. We should also add a ninety day termination clause in the new agreement, which was in the last one. So, if we want to get out of it at some point in time we can. If not, I feel we are putting ourselves at too great a risk. 076 G. NEW BUSINESS 8. Discuss Building and Zoning continued. NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 10 OF 12 Mayor Kirk asked Attorney Cook to explain before the vote is taken, what they discussed as far as the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) and the fact that we are mandated or required to develop and enforce them; and how can we enforce something that we have no direct control over? Attorney Cook commented that the Statute provides that: "Each municipality in the State shall adopt or remand and enforce Comprehensive Plan Development Regulations°. He further commented that in taking that for what it is worth, it looks like it is the sole obligation of the municipality to do the enforcement. Which, if you go to the "Option A," it would delegate that to the County. On the other hand there are certainly other governmental entities in this State that have combined departments that work and I cannot say it is illegal for the City to transfer it to the County, because it has been done. However, that language certainly seems to place the burden on the City for adoption and enforcement. Mayor Kirk called for a vote on the motion. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION DENIED. Councilmember Watford then offered another motion and moved to amend the Interlocal Agreement on Planning and Zoning to include the new Section 1.5; seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. The new section of Exhibit Ten is as follows: "All applications for building permits or development orders in both the unincorporated County, and within the City of Okeechobee, shall originate at the County Department of Planning and Development, upon uniform application forms developed by the County of Okeechobee. k-.4 077 G. NEW BUSINESS 8. Discuss Building and Zoning continued. NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 11 OF 12 It shall be incumbent upon the City of Okeechobee to make daily contact with County Planning and Development to obtain possession of those applications for building or development within the City of Okeechobee. The City shall thereafter review the application for consistency with all laws and regulations, including the City Comprehensive Plan; zoning maps, land use designation; land development regulations, and such other areas that may impact the City and/or the applicant. Upon verification by the City that the application complies with, or upon satisfaction of enumerated conditions, will comply with all the above -applicable laws and City regulations, it shall, _ withintwenty- four (24) hours of origginal receipt thereof, transmit the original and one copy of the application package, together with a written transmittal memorandum which indicates that City approval or conditional approval to the County for building code compliance review, and issuance of the building permit." Mayor Kirk called for any further discussion. Councilmember Watford clarified that this has been presented as a compromise and commented that hopefully everyone can see the process we have gone through. We have considered each issue and now we are down to basically this "Interlocal" and I would hope that and plead with the County Commissioners to again, although they did say they are going to consider it, to look at this as a compromise that accomplishes some things for everyone. And, it is certainly the lesser of evils of taking the entire Building and Zoning functions. So, I would certainly hope the County Commissioners would be gracious enough to vote for the amended "Interlocal'. Mayor Kirk asked if there was anything further before the vote and Attorney Cook informed that the Interlocal Agreement has a ninety -day original clause. Planning and Development Administrator Bill Royce commented that the "Interlocal' had a five year period and it must be specifically renewed or not renewed in five years. And, there was also a provision that either party could terminate the "Agreement" with a ninety day notice. Councilmember Watford added it is renewable for another five years, for a successive five years. 078 G. NEW BUSINESS 8. Discuss Building and Zoning continued. Adjournment - Mayor Kirk. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if 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. A ordng of this meeting is on file in the City Clerks Office. James E. Kirk, Mayor ; ATTEST: �J onn�ieZS..:/.�i�;�, NOVEMBER 21, 1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 12 OF 12 With no further comments, Mayor Kirk called for a vote on the motion: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. *Please note there is a verbatim transcript on item eight on file in the Clerk's Office. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Kirk adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 7. 40 //, Z/- 9,sr ea.0 z J. 04 v !, Z, 3:_ -�-�. a .�/�� �„zS- V/"t (.IorE: 11-91-95 r. Agenda Item F. Public Hearing on zoning reclassification - Bill B.R.- Thus is a request for a change in zoning. The subject prope is at 119 South Parrott Avenue. It's about five city lots, or a little less than an acre. On the property right now is an existing building that's currently occupied by a carpet retail business. It was previously occupied by a church. The property is in the Commercial future land use of the Cii 's mprehensive Plan, and this is, has to be changed from one type of Commercial ni ig to another type of commercial Zoning so there is no conflict with the Compreh nsiv, Plan in that regard. The Applicants requested a change in zoning to C-2 or Heavy C realize they didn't really need, they just wanted to change into a would allow for the church. I think discussion from this point will probably reference the commercial zoning district, that would also accomodate their surrounded on three sides by other CCBD zoning. On the N CCBD zoning district is just in the downtown area a little bil Avenue, mostly on South Park Street, that accomodates the district has provisions for zero setbacks. We are working on ordinances perhaps considering additional special or specific that would apply to CCBD zoning district that would apply t area that may not be appropriate for Commercial developmi DNTN area. Although I certainly have no objection to a church being in would be pleased to get a good viable use out of that buildi and utilized, I was concerned about changing zoning from ( commercial zoning district when it is surrounded by CCBD maintaining the continuity and integrity of that dntn zoning vial, which you district that zoning to C-1, a light ;st. The property is south and West. The orth and South Parrott awn area. That zoning tions and city :)pment regulations Jopment of the DNtn areas outside of the (ding, actually I see it maintained well any other I like the idea of The reason that a zoning change is needed is because there is no provision in the CCBD zoning district for a special exception or something to allow 0 church on a parcel of land that is less than 5 acres in size. I would suggest that a better', long term solution would be to reconsider the uses in the CCBD z.d., and perhaps if you want to consider churches in that zd, create a special exception that would allow that to be ocpsidered. At the P.H. of the Planning Board, there was quite a bit of discu ion of the C-1 versus the CCBD zd. The C-1 zd is a very light commercial zd. It allows primarily professional offices and uses of that nature and it would does not allow a lot of retail except somebody's special exception. It does not allow heavier comilnercial uses. The Planning Board found that although this parcel is surrounded by CCBD zd that the C-1 or light C zoning d. is still compatible with the dntn area, and is still compatible with the CCBD z. On that basis the Planning Board recommended that the Citvl Council approve a rezoning not to C-2 but to C-1. for your information as well he tlannigg Board also i that's less than 5 acres in size. IOWA A�4 i • V7,�,x,el -a&a sw.) I:�o�c • f RK ii, CIZMA- C.— 6A^-ftu� A&e� zxp n/a I n/a L • KIRK n/a a/a CJ`l/�} E ✓ O'CONNOR ✓ 4ayyi P, 4ATFORD CARRIED LDWIED r � / r MIMMMM / W'M ©-. lei; MIMMMM �: 7� i Vc+ ���%i Uia/vV .iS�i�A•/(A/Y�/f J . .�tr �� Re er yo last copy of tie i t, r 1 ayr Y o g end a) r th e s eo,'ags 1.5 APPLICATIO FOR BUILDING PERMITS AN I, a 0 V'A —h-j DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. All applications for building permits or development orders in both the unincorporated County, and within the City of Okeechobee, shall G, originate at the County Department of Planning and Development, upon uniform application forms developed by the County of OkeechobeeAWit shall be incumbent upon the City of Okeechobee to make daily contact with County Planning and Development to obtain Possession of those applications for building or development within the City of Okeechobee. The City shall thereafter review the application for consistency with all la s and regulations, including the City comprehensive plan; zo ing maps; land use designations; land development regulations, nd such other areas " that may impact the City and/or the applicant Upon verification by the City that the application complies with, or upon satisfaction of enumerated conditions, will comply with all the above -applicable laws and City regulations, it shall, within t ent -four (24) hours of original receipt thereof transmitthe oricrinal an one copy o the application package, together with a written transmittal memorandum which indicates the City approval or conditional approval to the County for building code compliance review, and issuance of the building permit. AC c • L KIRK I n/a I n/la II ✓ O'CONNOR 1/ -1 E R WATFORD ■ ( CARRMM) / vj -- &-V%,.. ulp a -s:u exce uon tnat would allow the chart to that's less than 5 acres in size. ,w 4,.,,,a- go to #416 side A tape to finish this. //. Z I- 9s' _ G. New Business Continued G, - g 8. Discuss Building and Zoning - Mayor Kirlt (E- 0) Mayor Kirk commented we need to get this thing cranked I up. We have a proposed amendment to the Interlocal in front of you. I will break t fis d the way I see it and the way I understand it with conversations with John. Lool ing at the problems that come out of the workshop and the concerns. The contractors had a concern that, number one, they didi more money, and I can definitly appreciate that. The tong in that they do not want to run from one place to another definitely appreciate that. We have a concern and especial] some type of control over our planning for the future. The with the fact that the Zoning and Planning did not support functions with the Building Department did. So the amend esscence would do the following things: It would answer all these questions by having all the County the applications would be filled out there; aY is, if it relates to the City, the City would pick it up. Comprehensive Plan Zoning and LDR's when they a return it to the County, with an agreed upon twenty - would start this process by having our Attorney and authority to look at these and make sure they are in back. It w t it to cost the taxpayers lcto have a second concern, ,o ge something done and I V my if, that we should retain County also had a problem itself but all the other vent to this Interlocal in its to be done by the way I understand this ►ould review for the place. We would then tours turn -around. We dministrator given the Hance and turn them I believe we have the responsibilty of the LDR's and feel we need to provide this, it's not word for word in the state statute but it is somewhere ix that range. So I would like to recommend to you that we discuss this and send this to tl te County because I do feel like it, (this new Interlocal Agreement), answers everyones nce ms and gives us a way to go ahead and move on. As stated in the, (City/County), workshop this thing can be cancelled if it is not working. Hopefully this will be a working one that we can proceed with, d at the same time answer everyone's concerns. The two Attorneys will have to set d and look at the liability issue on the Zoning and LDR's. I understand it's ou re s onsibility and we are liable for it. But I am not an Attorney. I feel we have an ex llent chance here for a compromise that will answer everyones concerns. So with th t I'll open the floor up here first and then I'll go to the audience. C. Watford commented, that is an interesting thought, on theres naift ty or liability or whatever, and that is one thing I haven't quite fully understood, o havot yet quite • grasped. I'd like to ask our Attorney, in an instance where, soirleone were going to bring an action, in a zoning matter, who would that action be against? Would it be against the City? The City Attorney commented that it would be against the entity that enacted the regulation or ordinance. And that would be the City. C. Watford further commented that if something in our zoning ordinance that someone was going to challenge that suit would be against the City Elf Okeechobee? Attorney Cook commented, that depending on the Attorneys in rolved. You could certainly sue the County as well. But I would think the Coi inty ould say it is the City's rule, we are just hired to interpret and issue permits. But ltim tely,. since we passed it, it is our ordinance. C. Watford stated I did not get that impression in our disc ssio at the workshop. I certainly didn't get that impression. It didn't dawn on met even question that. That does sound logical though. You would sue the entity that i sued that ordinance or that regulation. Attorney Cook commented that typically, those types of la suits are by an agrieved land owner that wants to make some use of the property that a authorities want let them do. Part of that process under so called plan A, where the un had it all, it would certainly involve Mr. Royce's Department and the Board o Adjustments, because if they didn't like Bill's opinion they would take it to the Board of Adjustments, and if they turned it down a person would have the right to sue. So it would be both the County and the City. C. Watford stated that under the Interlocal that we adopted,since own Board of Adjustments and Appeals, there is no we would have our question that we would be us. Mayor Kirk stated that is the one section where it wasn't sui it right, so we are removing that. ---C. Watford, Planning taini g itself. If I understood an don't know and won't say that sometime down the road in that we may have to hire someone to in Zo a futuresit 'th may and I possible assist this and help Zoning. But I certainly think that arriving at what's acceptable that our Attorney and our Administrator to :he Planning and both governing bodies and/or should be able as things are now and tell us if it's in compliance and get it[lack t look at the maps and twenty-four like stated in this Agreement. Because I think that's the key. an amendment if we were We n hours could not offer this as going to take an unlimited time t somebody's desk. This is affecting someone that's trying to ;ake return it. It can't lay on appreciate that fact. a living and again I Attorney Cook commented that if the Council accepts this of appi oves this middle ground Plan B, I certainly think that the City's planning and future growth efforts really go about every two weeks down the road to the next meetings Anc when some little fire POPS in we stamp it out and move on. If the City is interested 'n keeping Planning and Zoning. It is my belief that we are going to have to have 'a Pla er shortly. And that perhaps the Council needs to be planning down the road n fur or five years as towhat you want the City to acquire, if we are going to go throuI th' process. M. Kirk commented that to get it under way, do you thin) the two of you could make these decisions as we have set out? Attorney Cook responded that we have been doing it, either successfully or unsuccessfully for a couple of years bul yes we could do it. C. Oliver commented that in his opinion he felt it would be in he City's best interest to fund an employee from the County, to have a professional under the direction of the County and Mr. Royce. And I think it would be money well spent. To spend $35,000 to do that. And that too is not a lifelong agreement. We could have a ninety day termination clause. C. Watford asked, do we, I know that at the Workshop the: Chairman Commission were gracious enough to consider the Interlocal, what we in fact do tonight, do we anticipate that they would you and County know, depending on accept the Interlocal? Do we have any indication or anything? i reverse g• their decision and M. Kirk commented I don't Know. While we do this I thin couple of things in mind if they do turn it down. We will hi c the we need to keep a meeting immediately following, in whatever time it takes f that our Administrator will still have to be working ive to r it to call an emergency be legal and I think to put 1 happens, have one available for it. As I thought about this, Workshop went very well, for plax since together, and if that I didn't feel like the whatever reasons, but as I looked address each individual issue I think this covers it. I personally work and work don't at this and tried to see why this won't well. If we are charged with the responsibilfty then this gives us a way to do it. I firmly believe we are dealing of enforcing our LDR's, are charged with by the state and if we don't do it correctly down here and jump on the County. And I'll they with something that we are not going to come give you an ex because it is easier for me to understand: pl or relate to myself I am charged with running the middle school and I have two assistant principals. I take the rules and interpret them to the individuals and I tell them to do this or that but if I tell them one of these things and they are wrong, they follmy nstructions and if it causes a real problem, the Superintendent of schools is not Ding to come after them. He is going to come talk to me. Because I am charged with the respoInsibility of that institution. And I think we are charged with the responsibility of enforcing th am not trying to play Attorney but I think it is the responsib' 'ty 6 planning of the City. As long as we are a city I don't think we can else. If we have to hire a Planner, and it cost $35,000. and he can do this planning. ;se LDR's. And again I it that and for the give that to anyone work for us and he can I think we probably will need to. (Hire a planner). Part c (teeth?), of this amendment is for a twenty-four hour tur tiget good service. And I would like to say we are fault fi think that in times in the past we have not given them gc nobody's going to convince me that we do on a regular h done. And if this is accepted, it will be done. Because it i sure that it is. If it is not being done then we will address C. O'Connor questioned Attorney Cook. -.John, when you did he agree to this change? .... that's in here? ..... Atty. Coc the Because part of the aro nd. These people deserve B, b it I don't think we are. I I tum around time. And is, but this calls for it to be our responsibility to make t. Aid we address it hardily. meeting with Cassels, C. O'Connor..he did not agree to it? ... Atty Cook, no, we iscussed the Thursday night meeting in general. And I told him that I was going to prc pose an amendment and I said, I left his office and sent this over later in the afters n. d I think his position is, well, it is in your court so... C. O'Connor, so he didn't give you any indication that he as either way on this? Atty. Cook ... No. O'Connor, on that specific amendment change. Atty.., No we did not discuss it,.Kirk, that would be difficult for him to do probably ... C. nor, I just thought that he might have had something to say similar to John's. O'Connor, you know there is a funny thing about this I asked B 11 Royce, and I am not trying to put Bill on the spot..but one day in the Courthouse, w en you get to the LDR's, I asked Bill, I said Bill would you want the City int epre 'ng the County's LDR's?... (to Bill R,), do you remember that? ... Bill R... Yes. O'C and what did you tell me? (Bill R... ), No... O'Connor, I rest my cast! M. Kirk, I think this addresses the concerns of all the parties involved. It certainly addresses the concern that I had, that the contractors have nore .. concerns that I heard from the County Commissioners and at's that this party of addresses department was not paying for itself, so we are saying okay, we mill take it and it won't be an expense to you. And at the same time it keeps us involved in the planning for the City. And as far as I am concerned that is part of what we are elected to do. But that's why we have a democracy and that's why we have five of us here We vote, etc. ..We discuss very heatedly at times but after the vote is taken we out of here and we are still friends and we don't take it personal, so we do the best 7adk e c n_ M./ Kirk opened the discussion to the public. Frank Marsok a co ented to Council that the original Interlocal Agreement was prior to the Growthanagement Act, and Comp Plans and LDR's. When I was doing the evaluation over t ere (at the Department), when I looked at that Interlocal Agreement which t probably the era of that time, but what red flagged me was it was obvious that it was ay too generic for what has happened since the Growth Management Act. F. Marsokee...then I got to thinking well what if these rolls Iere versed and for reason the City was doing the department planning and building r the County?some After the GMA, would the County in fact allow that process to, them but I would guess that they con nue? I can't speak for probably wouldn't. The additional expense... substantial expense ... We didn't have GMA, a Pla has caused the County ning Department four years ago. and now we are (headed) for a quarter -million Commissioners just didn't wake up one doll rs. Or in that area. The morning and say department and let's budget it for a quarter -Million dollars, well 1 is have a planning when you reverse the rolls, you know I can see why some is of you a result of the GMA. So are very about letting someone do that for you, that's not an employee understand that anxiety very concerned of the City. And I well. Not that anybody wants think anybody wants that. To see government get any bigger. to glow government, I don't FM ... I think if you grow a lot you are going to probably going Another thing you have to is need a planner. realize, the County has been non-residential type development... for the City under the supp ying the Engineer for the will need to be looking into that. Not that you'll need a fu to p U tim an review process. So you review but you'll have to have someone available for that type development. Of Course if the Commissioners of "All engineer sor a site plan non-residential stay with the know. Then you are really going to have a decision to make. as or nothing", I don't to the Building going to be expensive for the county, scaled to the amount City. of a too, it's 'vity you have in the FM ... I can understand your concerns, so I would feel like tie that service for them. So I can understand concerns. unty wouldn't let you do your I got to probably end up with a Planner, and some staff. They ofif you're going to do that, get your own Planning that yo area. But you'll, you've 've got to face the issue Board, Appeals, and that will have to go into your LDR's, I don't that now I don't know if they do, I haven't Boar know, of Adjustment and They'll have to address seen them. B. Royce ... They'll have to address that but it's been put off series of meetings,as soon as these meetings are done. pending the outcome of these FM..so I do understand your concerns .... and no one would 1 have this dual function continue, but if really ke b tter than to be able to you analsys wl understand the process, and I know, it's very confusing, and at h happened, if you icated, then I know it is confusing. But the County really hasn't bee mp if I get confused since the enactment of the GMA, hasn't really been serving Planning. Because you have done , si otal ce the adoption of in the capacity of your own comprehensive Planning Council. You do your own land lan i dth the Regional use map, and now place, although, Administratively Mr. Royce, just like what h n the did process that takes here tonight, process of applications over there at the department, they co sign off on before they e over with the here for the City to are processed over there. FM ... So, It's by no means a total one stop situation by any i reviewing the applications and whatever petitions that come thing you need to do is try your best to come up with and w, make things easy as possible for all applicants. whether they Because the City is r there so, I think the t something that will itractors, other 1J F'M... Pg.7 builders, or whatever.... but I don't think most basically have been for the most part on the significant is GMA. A lot of people don't understand that. They think there (at the County). And that is really not the case. M. Kirk ..I'd like to ask you a question and if you'd like definitely would understand... The proposed amendment know that you've read Plan B. do you think that is work. reasonable? Or are we being unreasonable? If that is an can't answer it. FM ... not, well I like to stick my nose in.. if I was in Mr. Royce's position, or Mr. Crum's position, th Christmas present, if you guys just took it all back, becau over there. Believe me. Although where the County's rea far as the operations of the department is in Planning. Tl economies of scale, activities, petitions of land use chang community. For the resources and staff you have to have FM ... You do not have those type of activities. Some of th, there now are pretty substantial... You can pay a $1500.001 for site plan review work. There's substantial fees in plao them high enough in the rural community to have the revel self sufficient. On the building side of course it is much clo building permit fees. So, from the County's standpoint they additional expense from planning, although the........(?) is st department no matter what. From the building aspect if at standpoint, contractors, builders, and so forth, it would prol one place. understand that you :en doing that since the is all being done over de r from answering I 've ot, which is plan B and I e t both sides? Is it ifai question, just tell me you Bess firom the countys aspect would be a really nice it's not all peaches and cream on the hook financially, as GMA, did not allow for and zoning changes in a rural ad inister that plan. FM..and try to do the process as expediently as possible. So I w be acceptable. By no means am I going to have to vote in that I few things that you may be overlooking from the City's side like the engineering services and things like that but I think it could thing you have to realize is that if you, especially for non -re idic have a applicant over there that's and its going to be a large de` going to be able to do a twenty-four hour turn around. The ite going to have to be a scheduled process. Usually with their ngil or whatever. FM...I don't see why it would be any less workable than wh; everybody will cooperate, it could be more streamlined I thi today. When I did the evaluation I never realized myself an, going on, we had two site plan review processes we had one residential development in the county and one over here wit and some of the county staff people, for non-residential devi proposed in the evaluation for them to address that. and ha-, process with a City representative making up the compositio x1rmit fees that are over er there. So if you know l you just can't make `o make the department self sufficiency from its d not being encoring any t going to be in that ssible from the users be better to keep that in d hope that it would 'ess. There may be a iat I brought up about workable and the 1 development, if you pment, you are not a review process is r or representatives is g ing on today. If k. an what's going on I th ught I knew what was ver ere for non - some of your staff people, rpm nt in the City and I one site plan review Of t at board by • FM .... Ordinance and I'm speaking of the County's Ordin could have them all in one place. and at the same time 1 representation there. because we'd take a unanimous vol had a problem with that development, his no vote would its not any less workable than what's going on today. If y going on. M. Kirk asked for any other input from the audience .... C the record that I was part of the working group and we c and I stated that at the Commission meeting, and I states the compromise where you do your own planning and zol keep the Building Department consolidated. And I belie-, better product. I feel like I will support that. Plan B with M. Kirk ... thank you ... K. Tomey..the way you have it up th keep the building and zoning? That's what everybody wan and inspections....KT ..Yeah ..... JD, he's trying to get outa going to do the LDR's, site plans, comp. plan, ...Okay, let something ... that'd be like I came over there with a site pl, how is this going to work? B, Royce ... right, they would as far as building permits go, I comes in and they want to build a house, addition, or shed single building permit application against the zoning regula make sure that they can do what they want to do. A lot of a site plan. So all that would come to the City. Every single reviewed with respect to the zoning ordinances and comp F through the City, you'd establish whatever procedure you w whatever people you feel is appropriate to review all site pi except a single family dwelling reviewed plus through Maio, ice, taking them, so that we * City would be guaranteed so if the City representative top it until he was satisfied, so 1 really understand what's In. J Abney, I'd like to say for ne lip with a good product that the other night. I believe ng i the best way to go. But tha this amendment makes a •e now, they (County) will ? .• ...we keep the building Drkl...KT, you are (City) ie Ok Bill R. y04'11 go over half of it, or ght ow if a building permit You have to check every ions and the comp. plan to onst ction does not require pen it out there should be an. ite plan also to be done nt tx 1 do. Bringing in ns d generally everything J-- V BR ... then you have to determine what you are going to do i i s fi exceptions, and variences that type of thing. The procedure ou boards, if you have the City Council, as well as the comp pl n the Land Development Regulations, and also everybody tha co property owners, Realtors, Appraisers, and just people, spec Jai know, on any given piece of property what the address is, w v is, what the land use is, what the setbacks are, what they ca oro etc .... who's your boss, who's your councilman, etc,...and eve hi People who may not do anything but just want to know how it c potential, a lot of realtors and appraisers do that.... out.,etc.. JD, Keiths job isn't it??? BR, oh yes!!! as rezoning, special set up if you have lay endments, as well as -s in every day. The s, who just want to its it, what the xoning "mot put there, . And activities as well. be worked, what's the KT the reason I asked that question was did I understand yoju said "twenty-four hour turn around"? Is that written in there? MKirk.... yes..the 24 h tuni around is in there. And as FM just pointed out there is going to be some cases *here that is going to be E impossible... and I think the County will know that too ... but have to be put in there because we have not given, in myl c myself, good service all the time. And there is no excuse %o on someone's desk. If they are that busy we need to see wt laying there and they are not busy then maybe they need ttc doing somewhere else. KT..I agree with that 100%...as a ones that pushes them out of there...I agree, because every( that contractor is being held up and that is money in his Flo responsible for that. thing is Keith, this will Dn, and I'll speak for mething to be here laying ley are doing. And if it is doing whatever they are of fact I am one of the hat we hold up over here —and I don't want to be KT... but I just thought the 24 hr. turn around, because I s t in on this committee right now, and that will be awful hard to do ... BR,,,well site plan is different though .... a site plan wouldn't be ... this is the 24 hr. applied to a specific permit application with specific instruction. If that were for a site plan that wouldn't be ajequa...KT, that is all I wanted to clarify.... BR ... may I? I think sometimes your City staff has taken so have taken .... I am not really aware of problems with turn I me h at that they shouldn't around through the City for review, when everything is appropriate there has been a holdup, there has been a reason or that. and with permits that go eve thing experience at the County. Every once in a while something shouldn't but the vast And gets that iisthe same we held up when it g majority of those that have been held reason for that. And people get blamed sometimes up, have had a very specific when they City has a five dollar permit for a driveway or something... I been held up pending the payment of that five dollar fee. really L nu shouldn't. Like, the ber of permits have that, but it is not the City staff's fault, for holding up a pen fee. Because that is what the current City lot it u f people might resent itil they pay that $5.00 regulations call fc number of things and why permits are being held up. Do yc you drop it? Is it worthwhile? But don't r. SC u want you have to look at a to do the fee? Should blame the staff who is ji st doing their job. MK.... well you are a diplomat..I appreciate that thank you, d 11 didn't say that to jump on our staff. Because for the biggest part I am sure we 've made the best of it where we can. but I think with what we are talking about here, we cal. give fast turn around time. BR..well I think you can ..but I would be concerned about a toY dead time limit in any interlocal agreement .... M Kirk, we arewilling to�negotiateg in a rthat if it becomes an issue -that's not something were gonna live or die on ... but that was put in their for good faith ... to show that we are trying ... and that we do nderstand the problems.. Quite frankly, its like you're saying with staff, we re doing the best we can, up here. Coming to grips with this and trying to do this thing too -we were very happy with the way things were but unfortunately, one of the County Co ninissioners pointed out the other night times change, and so do all other things. And yox hav to adjust and come back to not only to today but for the future also, and I understanc that the agreement was outdated but we still would have been just as happy if that could have kept on going. But I don't blame you guys for not wanting to keep going il that direction too. • BR ... well when we started working on this way back in the S 'n trying see how we make an Interlocal Agreement that is going to work?...and that ihenothere have been some situations, and there have been some situations, no that many, but there have been a few situations over the last couple of years when i re realized that issue of linking the responsibility and authority, that's what we dis{cusse I I think in the Workshop, and the previous meeting, was the critical importance of N rhornver is in charge, being able to call the shots. And being able to do so consistent and expediently. That is why those two functions need to bet get er. Rightbnow the y are sorta split and I have probably called some shots I shouldn't hi ve. but when we have to consult to call the shots it adds quite a bit of time to the proce . It is just not a real workable situation, with the builders and all so those have to b together. I think everyone understands that concept now pretty thoroughly. So t e issue is just who should be the person who calls those shots? BR ... I don't think it is wrong, I've never thought it was wrong own planning department. I think that is a very intricate of for the City to want their City pan Particularly in the state of Florida. It always came down to importance a any of County, licy decision of having your own planning department's such or if there are other alternatives or lesser aalternatives is that on, is the it is worth whatever cost ... little bit of control realizing still of ultimate control of your out weigh the cost of having it at adopted okay you can give up a laws. If the benefits in-house and paying for it versus may not result in a cost savings and that is a policy decision Unfortunately, that contracting it out which only the City can make. after you make that decision then another wringer cost escallated. The cost of having a planning department without is put in there and the apparently having a building department. And that's where we are contingent on also today. M.Kirk..I am not going to ask anymore questions. I don't think on the spot. I hope we haven't done that ... If we have I apol we should be putting you for haven't put me on the spot. Not at all. gize that. BR..no you M.-Mayor Kirk if you would like I can give you this, I've 9 here from four cities of comparable vt some 19 -96 budgets populations on Building Just to help you in your deliberations. I know you don't like and Planning depart, on your agenda but between your workshop and your mee ' (FM poassed out copies to Council Staff). stuff g th submitted that wasn wasn't re 't time for that. and These are C counties. They range from a low in P & Z of $29,000 to aave ties. h these aren't towns. not be careful when you look ... at the county for government be o to �include stuff that may belong to another department and sometimes use hey sometimes they o just the opposite so M. Kirk ... I would suggest that if we decide to go with this with the County, that we present this to them with the understanding that we will negotiate on the items. The time or whatever ... as long as they are willing to do so. I don't kn ow. Wien at this and they see that we are making a strong effort I am hoping at i thethey cceploot it we can go on or if not they will give us some amount of time for us t h h these out I think we can do it. But if they just say no, then the handwriting is on t e w 1. We will have another meeting and we will have a tough decision to make, a may have to do that anyway. It is up to you (Council), if you want this presented tc them... CW..Mr. Chairman if I may, since I had kind of led the discussion workshop, I feel like we indicated that we would considers the oney situation. and e would like to offer a motion. if the chair is entertaining one... I to tnova that . ,........-- LL _ _ _..Yes...Cw--I MK...Your motion is to give all to them?. motion is there a second? C. BO seconded the motion bM d cal for further ave a on it. C. BO stated that if we don't do this that we are u discussion ves at risk of winding up with the whole department, and it is a gamble a g don't think we hould take. I think for $35,000, with I think we should add a 90- 'ay t rmination clause in the new agreement which was in the last one. So if we want to get ut of it at some point in time we can. but if not we are putting ourselves at too Are t a sk_ MK..I would like to ask the Attorney, about what we have iscu ed as far as the LDR's, and the fact that we are mandated or required to develop a nd a force, and how can we enforce something that we have no direct control over? Anil is tiat possible? You tell me before we vote... Atty. Cook... I looked through that today and in reviewing tonight's meeting that thought jumped out at me. The Statu in the state shall adopt or remand and enforce Comp plan regulations..Now in taking that for what it is worth, it looks the municipality to do the enforcement. Which, if you go to that to the County ... on the other hand Bill may know more certainly other governmental entities in this state that have work. So I can't say it is illegal for us to transfer it to the ( But that language certainly seems to place the burden on th, enforcement. MK..I guess we are ready to take a vote here and see what compromise ... CW, just as a point of order, I would anticipa occur. Vote on motion: Oliver, Watford - Yeas; Kirk and O'Connc CW... I would like to offer another motion. MO'C. ,e things again for that each municipality 's the sole obligation of i A would delagate this than I do, there is ied departments that because its been done. for adoption and A about the a two to two vote will - N�...Motion denied. MK called for further discussion ... CW stated that just to clari , I ould, this has been • presented as a compromise, and I have been, although I hope everyone can see the process we have gone througl issue and so now we are down to basically this Interlocal and plead with the County Commissioners to again altho to consider it, to look at this as compromise that accomp And is certainly the lesser of evils instead of taking the e functions. So I would certainly hope the Co. Com would the amended Interlocal. MK..Anything else? ... Twila, asked is this for a one year Interlocal? ... MK, we didn't put a time limit on it. to n t support the initial, I We have considered each nd I would certainly hope that ;h ey did say they are going ohes some things for everyone. ire Puilding and Zoning : gr cious enough to vote for the amended Atty. Cook..I think it has a 90 day original clause. BR this, Interlocal had a five year period and it must be specifically renewed or not renewed in five years. And there was also a provision that either party could terminate with 904 av n tit-p MK thank you Bill. CW... It's renewable for another five years, or a successive questions? Vote on motion: Kirk, O'Connor, Watford - Yes; Bob Mayor Kirk Adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. MK..any other Motion carried. w O U c v 0 0 �U UUOcc dImc .c co4 Qy ).22� a�EEEE EEEE U `o c c c c a�000Qpo ��UUU V Q m d 0 W } 6 0 • W O O U o o z � a Z �^ c c�0c O O` z C V O� �O 2 �a 0 �► .per` O �., O O O Z Z � coo 10 00. a O � .iZ ci ti uj •� Q � O 4 m p � N O) a tz Cl) o 0 O a o a •e Q � � uEu y a a� zz C? LU cLo o O N E -121 y y N co _ m = V co c o v v J a� ca :3 w Z �f N as qcz) b V a W... v- p 0 ` p 0 �. 4 c �° CO Um o0 c o c o. �� a O � W j O O 10 N .0 � o , 'U � O N ° o ' Q o U ,c o m +5 y s oQ cn �V o a' a O O C orn o � o� o m 0 Q 44 Im .y m J o � C) cx O a L O0 o a� � 0 o m a Z � -W � ' o o, m o o� C N 4 c� b C H m :S N o Wco m Q cD ►.; co m W c .Q ID H V � w N ,o a •a a �► cEo Co4)E to a� y�aa a 71 V •y 'a c � 0` 44 i a m� cc 0 :4 .c o a ».. E y W 42 mto °' y q0 o•8 as uj yew F- 0 •� Z302 0 cc V) vet aVc�a3 • ORDINANCE NO. 687 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF O AMENDING THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE 4 ORDINANCE NO.635 AS AMENDED, BY REVI USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Okeechobee orderly growth and development; and elf EE HOREE, FLORIDA 3M REHENSIVE PLAN, IN THE FUTURE LAND OF1 ORDDINANCE AND DM REHENSIVE PLAN; the need to plan for WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J5, j orida Administrative Code provide for amendment to adopted Comprehensive Plans; a WHEREAS, the City has received and reviewed certain plication(s) for small-scale amendments to the Future Land Use element of the City's mprehensive Plan, and said applications being reviewed by the City's Land Planning Agency at a duly advertised meeting, and submitted by staff report, which determinec such applications(s) to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate tot a future rand uses within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed with the recommendations of the Land Planning Agency that the proposed applications(s) complies with the requireme of F.S.163.3187 (c)(1)(a-f), and that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensiv Plan and appropriate to the future land uses within the City; BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Okeechobee, Florida as follows: Section I. SHORT TITLE THIS ORDINANCE shall be known as the "City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan Small Scale Development Activities Amendment, Cycle II, 1995, p rsuant to F.S. 163.3187, and shall be effective within the City limits of the City of Okeechobee, Florida. Section 2. AUTHORITY This City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan Small Sc le Development Activities Amendment, Cycle II, 1995, is adopted pursuant to the provisi ns of Chapter 163.3187, Part II, Florida Statutes. Section 3. 1. The following described lands are hereby redesignated for purposes of the Future Land Use Map of the City of Okeechobee Comprehe sive Plan: - , • a. Applicatioto. 95-CII-001, from Residential to Commercial: Lots 1, 2, 3, inclusive, Block 125, City of Okee to plat thereof at Plat Book 5, Page 5, Okeechobee County, Florida. Section 4. INCLUSION OF ORDINANCE AND RE MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN It is the intention of the City Council of the City of hereby provided, that the provision of the Ordinance, and 1 use map more particularly described as "Future Land Use: 2( 19, 1991, as amended December 6, 1994", which is incorpor become and made a part of the City of Okeechobee i Okeechobee Ordinance No. 635, as amended). Section 5. SEVERABILITY If any provision or portion of this ordinance is de jurisdiction to be void, unconstitutional, or unenforceable, portion of this ordinance shall remain in full force and e Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE according Records, eechobee, Florida and it is revisions to the future land City of Okeechobee, March d herein by reference, shall aprehensive Plan (City of i by any court of competent all remaining provisions and The effective date for the enactment of this OrdinanceNo. 687 shall be the date that the State Land Planning Agency issues its notice of inte to find the adopted plan amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 1633184(9); or until the Administrative Commission issues a final order finding ie adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. INTRODUCED for first reading and public hearing on the 7th day of November, 1995. James E. ATTEST: Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC, City Clerk Adopted after second reading and second public hearing on they, i ATTEST: Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC, City Clerk James E. Mayor day of November.1995. Mayor E.2 Okeechobee City Council November 21, 1995 Staff Report and tion Petition 95-434-R, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner, Bon' ie Daniel, applicant. Request for a change In zoning from the existing classification I of Central Business District Commercial (C-CBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-II). The pr perty is located at 119 South Parrott Avenue in the City of Okeechobee. Background The subject property is located on the east side of South I Okeechobee, south of S.R. 70. The property is zoned Comme (C-CBD). The property includes the south half of Block 17, of about .855 acre. There are currently two commercial buik One is a commercial structure that was previously used as church and other uses prior to that. This building fronts parking to the rear, or east side of the building. The other located near the center of the block, just south of the aband To the north of the subject property is a large office building, is a row of attached commercial buildings that front S.E. P� subject property, across S.E. 2nd Avenue, is some vacant pri dwellings in a Residential General-2 (RG-2) zoning district. Street, is a motel zoned C-CBD. To the west, across Parro commercial building, also zoned C-CBD. Most of the prope. and on nearby S.E. and S.W. Park Streets are in some type The applicant intends on using the commercial building tha church. The current zoning district, C-CBD, does not allow as a permitted principal use nor by special exception. The app to Commercial II (C-II) in conjunction with a special except: Board of Adjustments on October 24, 1995), which does pr intended use. Also, the applicant has indicated that the fut include removing the existing commercial building and rep building. Staff RV- end Reoommenda&m ok-ch bee city cmwdl Petbba 95.434-R November 21, 1995 irrott Avenue in the City of cial-Central Business District , less Lot 7, and has an area ings existing on the property. retail carpet store, and as a arrott Avenue and provides building is a small structure ,ned alley. :)ned C-CBD. Further north c Street. To the east of the �erty and a few single family 'o the south, across S.E. 2nd Avenue, is a restaurant and es on South Parrott Avenue commercial use. fronts Parrott Avenue as a )r the intended use, neither -ant is applying for a rezone n request (approved by the side an opportunity for the re endeavors of the church .cing it with a new church Consistency with Land Development Regulations The subject property currently is zoned C-CBD. This zoni district allows for houses of worship, but only on parcels greater than 5 acres in area. Th re is no provision for a special exception or variance to this requirement. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning to Commercial II (C-II). This zoning district allows for houses of worship as a permitted principal use, but only on parcels greater than 5 acres in area. By special exception, a house of worship is perinissible with no minimum lot size. Other commercial zoning districts can also accommodate a rouse of worship. In the C-I zoning district, a house of worship is not a permitted princ' al use, but is permissible by special exception with no minimum lot size. In the Commer al -Professional Office (CPO) zoning district, a house of worship is permissible only by special exception, and only when the parcel is at least 1.75 acres in area. The subject parcel is less than 1 acre in area. Therefore, the CPO zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of 1.75 acres for a house of worship, is not an option. With the current zoning districts, the only options for a house of worship on a parcel of .85 acre is C-II with a special exception, or C-I with a special except n. The C-CBD zoning district allows for a variety of commerc towards typical downtown uses, including professional establishments, bars and restaurants. Setbacks are reduced i allow for a 0-foot front yard, and to allow for 0-foot side attached commercial buildings. The City is also in the proce regulations and is considering the special needs of the dowr and parking. The C-II zoning district is the heaviest commercial district W of commercial activity, either as a permitted principal use or types of commercial uses are permissible in the C-II zonin� district. The C-I zoning district is comparable to the CPO district. Th the area of the city north of N.W. Park Street and west of No zoning district allows professional, business and medical office; permitted principal uses. Certain retail establishments, such boutiques, are permissible in the C-I district by special excep l uses, but they are oriented offices, retail and service the C-CBD zoning district to tbacks, which accommodate of revising all zoning district )wn area, including drainage the city and allows any type by special exception. More district than in the C-CBD CPO district is common in h Parrott Avenue. The C-I and prohibits retail sales as gift shops, tea rooms and When recommending whether to rezone a classification of land, the factors that the Planning Board shall consider include, where applicable, whether or n t: Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City Council Petition 95d34.R Nouetnwr 71. 1995 N 1. 2. Y 4. S. +O The proposed change is contrary to the established The current land use pattern generally consists of cc mixed uses, such as the residential uses to the east i north, northeast and northwest are C-CBD zoning C-CBD zoning district that includes a couple of bloc south of Park Street, and all of North and South Par 8th Avenue east to N.E./S.E. 2nd Avenue. The en property is also zoned C-CBD, although south of zoning, which is comparable to C-II zoning. The pr this continuous C-CBD zoning district. The proposed change would create an isolated district ui districts; use pattern, imercial uses and a few other the subject property. To the fistricts, part of a continuous of Parrott Avenue north and Street from about N.W./S.W. re block south of the subject iat block is Commercial (C) rased change would interrupt to adjacent and nearby The proposed change would create an isolated zoningll district of C-II or C-I zoning, although C zoning is nearby. The concept of some type of commercial zoning in this area is consistent with surrounding zoning and uses. The proposed change would materially alter the popula increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as The proposed change would not increase the density area. Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in properly proposed for change; density pattern and thereby ►ors, utilities, streets, etc.; population in the subject to existing conditions on the The existing district boundaries, with a continuous are of C-CBD zoning including the subject parcel, are logical zoning district boundaries in this area. Changing the zoning to another district could create an illogical boundary, although the impacts of this would be less with C-I zoning than with C-II zoning. The proposed change would be contrary to the Proposed L nd Use Plan and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan; Any type of commercial zoning could be consistent with! the adopted comprehensive plan, which establishes a future land use classification o Commercial for the subject property as well as for surrounding property. Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the Not applicable. amendment necessary; Staff Report and Reo=Mndad= 3 Okeechobee City council POddon 95 34-R November 21, 1995 7. VA 10. 11. 12. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; A change to C-II zoning could adversely impact the area by potentially allowing commercial uses that may not be compatible with a downtown area and with surrounding development. A change to C-I zoning; probably would not adversely impact the area; however, a C-I zoning district would not qualify for any regulations that are developed to accommodate the special needy of a downtown area and could create some inconsistencies. For example, if the applicants demolish the existing building and build a new one, all parking and retenti n would be required to be on - site, and district setbacks would be required. S ch a development could be inconsistent with adjacent and nearby developmen , where off -site parking and drainage may be able to be used, and where building$ may locate directly on a front property line. The proposed change will create or excessively increase affect public safety, Depending on the use, traffic and traffic congestion the proposed change; however, traffic impacts are lil permissible with the existing C-CBD zoning district. The proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change (to C-II or to C-1) likely will subject traffic congestion or otherwise I affect public safety with to be comparable to uses affect drainage, unless the property is redeveloped. If that is the case,'' the site plan review process would address drainage. The proposed change will seriously reduce light and air tQ adjacent areas; The proposed change (to C-II or to C-I) likely will not ffect light and air, unless the subject property is redeveloped. If that is the case, he site plan review process would address light and air. The proposed change will adversely affect property The proposed change likely would not adversely affei However, regulations that address development in C-I as previously discussed, are different than in the C-CI for the creation of an inconsistent development patte The proposed change will be a deterrent to the Property in accord with existing regulations; in the adjacent area; property values in the area. C-II zoning districts, which, zoning district, could allow or development of adjacent StWReport and Reootumendation 4 Okeechobee City Council Petition 9543/-R November 21, 1995 13. 14. The proposed change likely would not be a dete •rent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. However, regulations that address development in C-I or C-II zoning districts, which, as previously discussed, are different than in the C-CBD zoning district, could allow for the creation of an inconsistent development pattern. The proposed change will constitute a grant of special as contrasted with the public welfare, A change in zoning to C-II or to C-I would be ince district and development pattern. If a consist downtown area best serves the public welfare, considered to be a grant of special privilege. Hoc district would be more compatible with the surroi with a C-II zoning district. to an individual owner ent with the prevailing zoning development pattern in the proposed change could be 7, the impacts of a C-I zoning ig area than those associated There are substantial reasons why the property cannot a used in accord with existing zoning The property can be used with the existing C-CBDI zoning district, although the specific use requested by the applicant is not permis ble in this zoning district. A range of commercial uses are permissible. IS. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with then ds of the neighborhood or the [City]; C-II zoning could be out of scale and inconsistent with the area; C-I zoning would be somewhat more compatible. 16. It is impossible to find other adequate sites in the [City] r the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are other locations in the city where a house of worship could be developed. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The subject property is located in the Commercial future 1 nd use classification of the adopted City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. The propo ed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The current operating level of service for the segment of P subject parcel (from S.R. 78 to S.R. 70) is "B". The adopted is licit. Stall Report and Recommndatlm, Okeechobee City Council Petition 95-434•R November 21, 1995 Avenue that includes the of service for this segment 41 Staff Recommendation Staff does not object to a house of worship in the downtown However, staff is concerned about a change in zoning th, pattern of C-CBD zoning. Staff notes that the city is in district and site development regulations, and notes consideration of special regulations to address developm downtown area. Such special regulations likely would ap district. If the change in zoning is granted, the C-CBD zonil and south of the subject property, resulting in inconsistent zi development or redevelopment of the subject property. St permissible in a C-I zoning district, rather than a C-II compatible with the surrounding C-CBD zoning district, regulations, such as for parking, drainage, signage and setb with the surrounding zoning and with surrounding develops rezoned to C-I.. Staff recommends that the City Council not grant the reque C-CBD to C-II. Staff also recommends that a change in although this zoning district is somewhat more compatible recommend that consideration be given to including house permissible uses in the C-CBD zoning district, including a I worship on parcels less than 5 acres in area. This recomn integrity of the downtown area, while still allowing for uses, s could be compatible with downtown uses and with downtow Planning Board On October 24, 1995, the Planning Board unanimously re( grant a request for a change in zoning from C-CBD to C-I. I the C-I zoning district is consistent and compatible with the William D. Royce Planning Director Shmr Report and Re000mknd,don 0keecb&1 ee aty awnW Peddon 93-434•R NOVOGA r 21. 1995 rea, and endorses the concept. will interrupt the continuous he process of revising zoning hat these revisions include .it and redevelopment in the ly only to the C-CBD zoning ; district would be to the north ling and perhaps incompatible ff notes that the types of uses strict, are more likely to be though specific development *s, could still be inconsistent mt if the subject parcel were for a change in zoning from Ining to C-I not be granted, ian C-II zoning. Staff does of worship as permitted or 'vision to consider houses of ndation would maintain the h as a house of worship, that development patterns. mended that City Council Planning Board found that rounding C-CBD zoning. 21 OAT T ::... 1r 1 �.iitt'in2'*Q ! I :3 a• i0•i�]LrtCz: con Street: ••iR.tl�� `H:. 'F. T: EEJ1iAMc��'�E�EEi�E- E•:�.• eec�w e F kxida•: 9� 3-► 72 t2 � U �C•• tl TJti•• A t•1` •AT • �3^ A E ,O:: N F��Rli.�`� N �'U S E�'�►.P P_1cA;zon heuaEi': fi'C3N • o• H Er1:,: • NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER(8): 5 Q C L / ` L uAll!}IG AOOAEis 11 PROPERTY ADOREis / - HASTE OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN OWNER (must state relaUonshlo-. j Y No'*: It not O.rner or Attorney at LAW. Praaf oN authortty must 11r Pro idrd an Forr.' L-2 HOuE TELEPHONE: WORK TELEPHONE: . ..C4 ..l• ..A..�....�.�,:. OtRECTTOHs TO PROPERTY �, (•• �.. bra l�• WHAT IS CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY? oa �. _. DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY (it none, so state) nO E APROXU1tATE NUuBER OF ACRES IS PROPERTY PART OF PUTTED 8 ARE THERE ANY DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY, IF SO. STATE NUuBER AND TYPE (C AND WHETHER THEY ARE OCCUPIED LL ' _ Ul /1'7 %' BDIYISION7 NYENTtOHAL 1t013ILE HOu 3 ETC.) OF COUNTY ORDINANCE7 - 1 12 THERE ANY CURRENT OR RECENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY T4AT WOULD BE A Y10LATION IF SO, DESCRIBE v ne • HAVE THERE SEEN ANY LAND USE APPLICATIONS CONCERNING ALL OR PART OF THIS IF SO, 13ESCRI5E DATE, NATURE AMC AP PtlCANT'E NAME PROPERTY IN THE LAST YEAR, Is A SALE SUS-SBCT TO THIS APPUCAT70N BEING GRANTED7 Is THE SUBJECT PARCEL YOUR TOTAL HOLDINGS AT THAT.LOCJ►TtOH7 IF NOT, OESCCA OM INTENDED USE C l..'J SE THE REMAINING USE OR BRIEFLY OEESC�R1'BE ADJOINING PROPERTY USE TO THE NORTH L �q SOUTH EAST WESTI CURRENTZCNNNG GUISE C Cj3D PROPOSED ZONING WHAT IS YOUR DESIRED PERMITTED USE UNDER THE PROPOSED CLl3s7 (%_ 1F GRANTED, WILL THE NEW ZONE BE CONTIGUOUS WITKA LIKE ZONE? IS A SPECIAL. EXCEPTION NECESSARY FOR YOUR INTENDED Use? =Mwi - ' - - - •111 <\\I • J �- N`�r`/ 23 z:ILA Est to of D. R. Daniel _ NW 22 LA Petition 9 -433-S and 95-434-R lh"- N W 2111 LA © INW �20 LAZ. / Q I 1i00EO A°.. 4-A I ,� HOSPITAL �-- w 17 I s T i NW 16 I ST ,v 1 NW 15 I ST Niur_sin; i 14 �I SZ Home l�l » � Clinic C17Y Lr:N/i� 13 ¢I� >� ST IN U G LAS 12 <, ST NE 13 5' I HE 15 5, IFARK ST NE 11 1 ST h, ca I STi 11 QII cl 11 I mil it _ >' IF 10 ST NE¢I 10 IST Ii2 CI F571. I❑ "'I ST- CF- NE IrST R!, I� II TRANSrQAT liA NDID ST 17 6 a I II ST a �-, l 15 14 R' ILA` ST; NW 7 I l ST1I 1 Q NEILI �ST - Z > E I al NW b ai ST IU a dllb IIST III < U�� STi ¢ Saec- CZI5 �� ST NE: 5! 571 wl ui rl I,,. 8 LIST N ❑ ' �� 4K Z' STI nz�', NE!l�i� ai(ST V cl S m w CTas Collector �l �❑�L-J� NE a w'lyE; I ILI NE ST (Z > Z. ST Z NE: Il—�al ST Q =1 � L C�UC1L l �In�E `I wwl 2 T ■ T ZI NE 2 I =1 ST 1 NE iL IL ��) ST 1 2 IF Courthous CENTER I I 1 Ih�;� •_J L- re I ' Ir= CcNTER �-T "IL� 2 rr Subject Parcel 'o■> > STST �'❑CSC❑ ST s �I �' a 4 �� < E ET H E R (�������I�� > I5��� �❑�❑' ACRES �L_!L_11=Q > ST S c < 5 STI f �Q _ ((--� 6 T < 12 r SE 1 6 ST C� -�Sc >I LJ 6 ©SEi 6 LA �I> 7 `T ST 21 u,I�n w L - 23 S e --r-TJ SE 8 STc`nn Q I� ST L , .1 SE 8 CTR!m >t S 10 ST - STI(w ® EE ( CTII ® B _I[<t I 0 � Ti' =IRON: 11 � ST > F 11 5 - - -� 1 1Z STl < �/ 12S ., + 3 5T IQE C C ESE 13 ST I "- �'�=� E > ld STI`���_ 1:C 15 T- ST i �\ \ t W 15 STI 16 ST l�117 ST l� 5=18 > ST H f �-C rfTK sL i IOLAND .2 ST D Ln sue - PARKS F� ad. C o 2E 22Lm c] ST 28 z--;-11 STall ZS ST ' r� T \T'LOR sE 26 - _ EE rTl Cl OL) -31,1 ril> ry rT N I V w M rn O T rn v rn O �4 c+ L t a \\ C ' (•OL) ]AV H16 3N Vn Ln .... ) a a rn O T rn n � -.>• rn I i Q T � Y'1 �_ u r r rn - c m �n a G 3nv 084 3N _ (,OU3nv aK 3S - p W n O O O rn ' m rn Z rn rn a O d O N / ID n3 p n C rn s c Jl m Jl m Yl m �� Vl m �EJLT--j — OL any ONZ 3N 1 Ft t1 Q, ITP I F-1- Ec. a m _ m r m I IJ I m ^ mI o 3 N N N N CI N N 1 I, - n In m N m m m m I I Alt I I `n m Jl a. 'O 10 ^ (AL) 3w GH MN - _ N n n n O I n ^ c m ^ m ^ (,OL) 3w Hlb 141N Ln m ^ n m N C n o N N nIT O Z n m ^ ^ r- (.OL) IAV H1.S MN o ^ o m ^ - nl \ O- v', _ N _ COL Inv H19 M0-- ^ —� ,r-� N v, 71--, 77 n o I n , _ Parrott Ave Christian hurch P.O. Box 1785 Okeechobee, Florida 34973 David L. Thomas Minister (941)467-4428 October 18, 1995 To: Okeechobee Planning & Zoning B The current plans for this prc will be demolished and replaced. A comparable to the Big Lake Bank.n enhancing the cultural heritage oidG Planning Board and City Council -- The initial plans for thifrroperty roofing defects; are paint, landscagitio e work on the facade and wlute'titp;.e exact style is yet to be decided. Sincerely, 1 Billy Beisner Trusteei Chairman Parrott Ave Christian Church tw years, the present buildings sty.e church building, i11g3 is preferred, aesthetically pu on these matters from the ige and appreciated. i ting phimbing, electrical and 1 be a H lit grey to accent the brick- ss. A rocs will be installed, the wFf &'oi /Mfiy • • Buyer. Parrott Avenue Christian Church Purpose: To renovate and establish a house of worship. Our church was started at this location In January 1994. Scotty's Carpet and we were forced to move across the sire We will renovate building to county requirements. We meet and Wed. p.m. for regular services. There are small group m other times that are not attended by the congregation or the The estimated size of the congregation Is 120 at any one tir each regular service. Special meetings appro)dmately 5 to 20 We Intend to utilize all areas not used by buildings for partcing. We will clean, paint and landscape the exterior making attractive asset to the neighborhood. We feel _we will not impart the area from the standpoint meetings will occur when other business activity Is at Its lowest. Churches historically mace good neighbors, quite, dean a community not only regarding their religious activity, but ais, community support and assistance ie property was sold to to the Wherrell Building. xiday a.m., Sunday p.m. Stings on the premises at averaging about 65 at eyesore Into a clean, trafAc as most of our d serve a need In the from the standpoint of Y On October 24, 1995, the Board of Adjustments and Appeal a roved a special on the subject property to allow a house of worship on a p rcelless than 5 acres inption size, conditioned on approval by City Council of the recommendt d change In zoning. The staff report for this petition follows. The City Council does not ote on special exceptions. Petition 95-433-S, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner, Bonnie Daniel, applicant. Request for a special exception to allow for a house of worship on lot less than five (5) acres In area In a Commercial -II (C-II) zoning district. The property is located at 119 South Parrott Avenue In the City of Okeechobee. Background The subject property is located on the east side of South Okeechobee, just south of S.R. 70. The property is zoned District (C-CBD). The property includes the south half of an area of about .855 acre. There are currently two comm, property. One is a commercial structure that was previousl and as a church and other uses prior to that. This buildi provides parking to the rear, or east side of the building. structure located near the center of the block, just south of To the north of the subject property is a large office building, is a row of attached commercial buildings that front S.E. P. subject property, across S.E. 2nd Avenue, is some vacant pri dwellings in a Residential General-2 (RG-2) zoning district. Street, is a motel zoned C-CBD. To the west, across Parrot commercial building, also zoned C-CBD. Most properties nearby S.E. and S.W. Park Street, are in some type of come The applicant intends on using the commercial building th, church. The current zoning district, C-CBD, does not allow as a permitted principal use nor by special exception. The api to Commercial II (C-II) in conjunction with this special e: provide an opportunity for the intended use (Petition 95-43e indicated that the future endeavors of the church include rem building and replacing it with a new church building. Consistency with Land Development Regulations An associated petition (Petition 95-434-R), is requesting a chat' II to accommodate the request for a church of worship. The expresses concerns regarding a change in zoning to either C-1 recommends maintaining the existing C-CBD zoning district, � Sty Report NO Reeomm udetio Okeechobee City Cmwu MOM 95434-R November 21, 1995 arrott Avenue in the City of 'ommercial-Central Business lock 176, less Lot 7, and has cial buildings existing on the used as a retail carpet store, fronts Parrott Avenue and 'he other building is a small ie abandoned alley. :oned C-CBD. Further north k Street. To the east of the :)erty and a few single family Co the south, across S.E. 2nd Avenue, is a restaurant and on Parrott Avenue, and on -rcial use. fronts Parrott Avenue as a or the intended use, neither icant is applying for a rezone ;eption request, which does R). Also, the applicant has ving the existing commercial e in zoning to Commercial- taff report for that petition or to C-I. The staff report A suggests that the C-CBD 12 district could be amended to provide for houses of worship on parcels less than 5 acres in area. Staff suggests that this is a better solution to accommodate the proposed house of worship. However, an application has been received for a special worship on a parcel of less than 5 acres in size. The sp if a change in zoning to either C-II or to C-1 is granted. A special exception is a use that would not be appropriate throughout a zoning division, district or County at large, number, area, location, or relation to neighborhoods, wou welfare, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperit County and its residents. Such uses may be permissible in a as a special exception if specific provision for such a special i regulations. According to Section 11.04.03 of Ordinance 92-20, in reachi the findings required in this Part, the Board of Adjustments weigh, among others, the following factors and standards Board shall find in the case of any of these factors and relevant and applicable, that the purposes and requirer exception have been met by the applicant: ption to allow for a house of exception can be considered :nerally or without restriction ut which, if controlled as to l promote the health, safety, or the general welfare of the oning classification or district ception is made in the zoning its conclusion and in making d Appeals shall consider and ;re applicable. Further, the ndards, where they may be its for granting the special A. Ingress and egress to the property and the proposed strcc ures thereof, if any, including such considerations as automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe; Vehicular access is limited to the east parking lot church) via S.E. 2nd Street. Pedestrians could acc existing sidewalk in the front, along Parrott Avenue. existing and as the subject property carries a commerc and egress are not of significant concern. It is noted a house of worship generally are not peak hours of g o the rear of the proposed ;s the building by using the Currently, as the building is it zoning designation, ingress liat the hours of peak use of feral traffic movements. B. Off -Street parking and loading areas where required, including consideration of relevant factors in (A) preceding and the economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the locations of such off-street parking and loading areas on adjace t and nearby properties and loading areas on adjacent and nearby properties and pro erties generally in the district; Currently, there is a parking lot to the rear of the pi existing off-street parking to serve this building. The Church intends to create more parking to the east of the unpaved area to the east of the existing, paved p; be further addressed during a site plan review. Staff Repot aad Recatmnendadon Obwchobee City t Wndl Peddon 95-434-R November 21, 1995 ised church. This is the only )licant has indicated that the existing parking lot by using ng surface. This issue could 13 C Refuse and service areas, including consideration of t levant factors in (A) and (B) preceding The applicant has indicated that the Church will ha e a dumpster on site and will maintain the area. D. Utilities, including such considerations as hook -in cations and availability and compatibility of utilities for the proposed use; Existing utilities on the site will be available for the �roposed use. E. Screening and buffering, including considerations of such relevant factors as type, dimensions, and character to preserve and improve comp rtibility and harmony of use and structure between the proposed special exception and th� uses and structures of adjacent and nearby properties and propet�ies generally in the di.� rzct; Screening or buffering likely will not be necessary whi the existing building is used. If the applicants redevelop the property, screening or uffering would be addressed during site plan review. F. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting if any, with eference to glare, traffic safety, and economic effects of same on properties in the district 4nd compatibility and harmony with other properties in the district, Proposed signs will be required to meet all of the G. Required yards and open spaces, The building is existing with yards that meet current H. Height of structure where related to cases and structures on and properties generally in the district; The existing building meets the current city height i I Economic effect on adjacent and nearby properties and of the grant of the special exception. The property surrounding the subject property is com the subject property is for a church, which should not properties economically. There is a possible economic and nearby properties in this area due to a specific city ri (City Code, Section 3-3. Distance from church, school regulation states that "no place of business for the sale! StW Report and Recommendatbn Okeecbabee City camcti Petitica 93434-R November 21. 1995 priate city regulations. requirements. and nearby properties generally in the district mrcial. The proposed use for adversely affect the adjacent effect, however, on adjacent :gulation regarding churches or child care center). This of alcoholic beverages shall 14 be located within seven hundred (700) feet of prop 5rty owned or utilized by any established church..." and that "no new occupational license shall be issued for any place of business for the sale of alcoholic beverage unless the applicant for said occupational license shall first submit a certified state' ent and drawing by a certified land surveyor showing the distance of said proposed business from the nearest church...''. This code will prohibit new establishmen (with the above descriptions) from entering a major section in the C-CBD zoning district, one of the few areas where these establishments are currently allowed by oning regulations. While not necessarily advocating the establishment of ars or taverns, staff expresses concern about effectively prohibiting them in a sectio of the downtown area. Staff notes that such uses are now limited only to areas wi a Commercial future land use classification. Such uses are not uncommon in a dow own area and can be an asset by locating in buildings that may otherwise be vacant,, and by bringing people into a downtown area. Staff does acknowledge that bars or'taverns can also have adverse impacts to the surrounding area. Staff also notes that) restaurants that serve beer or wine only are not impacted by this provision of the Ci Code and could locate within 700 feet of an established church. Section 11.04.05 of Ordinance 92-20 also states that in gran ng any special exception, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may prescribe conditions and safeguards in conformity with the intent of this Code, including but not limited to buffering and landscaping, restrictions on operations and reasonable time limits within which the action for which special exception is required shall be begun or completed,) or both. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms and r which the special exception is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Failure to begin or complete, or both, such required condition or safeguard within the time limit shall, at the option of the Board, void the special exception. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The subject property is located in the Commercial future nd use classification of the adopted City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. The prop sed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The current operating level of service for the segment of Par tt Avenue that includes the subject parcel (from S.R. 78 to S.R. 70) is "B". The adopted level of service for this segment is ttCtt. Staff Recommendation Staff does not object to a house of worship in the downtown house of worship being located on the subject property. Staff bars or taverns would be prohibited within an 18-block area su Stag Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City council Petition 95.434_R Nowtober 21, 1995 a and does not object to a )resses concern that future unding a newly established 15 • church. Staff notes that certain uses, such as bars or taveril zoning regulations, but also by the comprehensive plan. A 4 only where the future land use is commercial. This now possibility that a bar or tavern could be located in reside inappropriate for such a use. Staff notes that a church may " the city, being permitted or permissible in almost any zo expresses concern about a church locating in a commerc certain uses that may locate only in commercial zoning di zoning districts may be located only within a commercial fu any use, including a house of worship, chooses to locate i should be willing to be located adjacent to or nearby any otl permitted or permissible in a commercial area. are now limited not only by ar or tavern could be located prevents spot zoning, or the itial areas or other locations ,e located almost anywhere in ing district. Therefore, staff I zoning district, prohibiting ricts, noting that commercial ire land use classification. If a commercial area, that use :r commercial use that is also In the associated rezoning petition, staff recommends that a change in zoning to C-II or to C-I not be granted. As there is no provision at all for a house of worship to be located in the C-CBD zoning district on a lot less than 5 acres, staff alsorecommends that the special exception to allow for a house of worship, on a lot less than 5 acres in area in a C-II or a C-I zoning district, not be granted. As an alternative, staff suggests that the prohibition of bars o established church be reconsidered. Because bars or tav commercial zoning districts and only within a commercial futui is an additional level of protection that previously did not e, a need for the 700-foot prohibition zone. That prohibition reduced. Reducing the zone to 100-300 feet would prevent adjacent to or across the street from a church, but would not I that the current 700-foot prohibition zone does. steR Repot and Reootmnendation Okeechobee city camuwn Petition 95434-R November 21, 1995 taverns within 700 feet of an :rns may be located only in e land use classification, there ist. There may no longer be zone could be eliminated or bars or taverns from locating pock, out the 16-20 block area 16 DESCRIBEa T HAT YOU ARE APPEALING: EDECI-SMIO: - - APPEALING? WHO MADE DECISION Y ?E A 13ATE OF DECISION: EXPLAIN WHY YOU FEEL DECISION IN ER O-LIS-T-ANY ORDINANCE YOUR POSITION: REFERENCES YOU FEEL 'SUPPORT .......... DESCRIBE A M YOUWISH TAXEM:* CITE . SPECIFIC ORDINANCEORITY FR�EOUEST: NOTE: All relmoats to Planning Board/ B-Xd of Adjuacrm-ontz MUST haw "Inc* County Ordinance Authority. E u Parrott Ave Christian Church P.O. Box 1785 Okeechobee, Florida 34973 David L. Thomas Minister (941)467-4428 October 18, 1995 To: Okeechobee Planning & Zoning B The current plans for this propej will be demolished and replaced. Ard comparable to the Big Lake Bank S :: t enhancing the cultural heritage odtar Planning Board and City Council j* i The initial plans for tlu:`pfvpert roofing defects; are paint, landscapir`g work on the facade and white trxn;.ih exact style is yet to be decided;.': Sincerely, Billy Beisner Trustee%Chairman Parrott Ave Christian Church IF --- W�� 111 S two years, the present buildings s le clnurcln building, l'3,s is preferred, aesthetically Ptt on these matters from the ig d and appreciated. Wting Olumbinng, electrical and 1 be a light grey to accent the brick- ss. A cross will be installed, the G C- S INTY4 fiy • Buyer. Parrott Avenue Christian Church Purpose: To renovate and establish a house of worship. Our church was started at this location In January 1994. R Scotty's Carpet and we were forced to move across the street We will renovate building to county requirements. We meet St. and Wed. p.m. for regular services. There are small group mee other times that are not attended by the congregation or the pL The estimated size of the congregation Is 120 at any one time, each regular service. Spedd meetings appro)drrtately 5 to 20 pE We Intend to utilize all areas not used by buildings for parking. We will clean, paint and landscape the exterior making attractive asset to the neighborhood. We feel we will not Impact the area from the standpoint meetings will occur when other business activity Is at its lowest. Churches historically make good neighbors, quite, clean c community not only regarding their religious activity, but al comet rwty support and assistance "rty was sold to :0 Wherrell Bulldng. a.m., Sunday p.m. on the premises at averaging about 65 at sons'. eyesore Into a clean, traffic as most of our i serve a need In the from the standpoint of 4 A). Ingress and egress is available from S.E. 2nd Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue which are City maintained streets and open and available to the area businesses and public. The responding fire department is located twD blocks away and the ambulance service is also only a fe blocks away and all are readily available as is the loca law enforcement. B). No commercial deliveries for supplies w the Church, only parking by Church atte parking is available on Lots 11 and 12 cant and Lots 9 and 10 have approximate area available for parking. Said lots egress from paved local City streets. C). This Church will not generate a large an and trash as it is not a commercial busi the premises in the past. We intend to a lock -bar in order to deter unauthorize maging. The dumpster area will be well - times. 1 be needed by ees and ample icY are now va- 2/'3' s of their ve ingress and unt of refuse ess as has occupied se a dumpster with dumping and rum- aintained at all D.) Utilities have traditionally been availa le to this building by FPL, United Telephone, and City of Ok echobee for water and sewer. No -.changes in this method is, contemplated. F). Non -illuminated lettering will be affixe to the front of building facing Highway 441 identifying �he Church name. G). H). Appropriate landscaping and turf management will be under the direction of a professional landscaD r. There is an existing one story building t this location with no exterior structural changes contemplated. Economically the only adjacent businesse we might impact would be the neighborhood restaurants aslall other busi- nesses would traditionally be closed during our times of use. •.if 4. . �,•y": ,y �-• .ems•+= - t!: nip— i�{ 't+' ;�"s\: -..i{. r , �•.. y �� t� a'yi�.y::+! I' a..' :• j.i�. ,. ((� `y-''y a 15 9 NW 2 3 10 3 z LA Estate of D. R. Daniel Rivet _ NW 22 LA r- 4 r1 Petition 95-433-S and 95-434-R unity NW 21I LA 1 ollege Nyy 20 LA RODEO ARENA o, NW 17 HOSPITAL O� Nw 16 NW 15 zNursing NW 1 14 ST i Home W 13 QIL1h ST> ; wClinic CI7Y LIMITS W NE 13 S7 — �❑ 12 ST< DOUGLAS l� +r❑ NE 15�5(T�JPARK W Q Q z 1 1 ST NE (11 ST h wiwi > L4 Fs-p W ❑ 10 � ST NEQ 10 S7 �LJ❑1�.31� 9 H. --;I S v 2 ❑❑ ST "' ST`" F- NE CSX —1(--� S T TRAN POR TAT ION > = ❑ Q STQ' °� NW 81 ST > Q b ST SET �❑❑�❑ r 15 Rq Cl❑©❑ 14 7 Io l NW 7 ST�❑ a Q NE ST > <INW ❑ 6.< ST .b > > a ST Sberiff3 t (ajaa 6 ST a T ~j7� Q E Dew[ Z ST L I NE ❑ 5 Q ST LE❑ I ST ST ❑ �❑ # q`f Z ST NE ,� �>>�,, zl zIL z N �1 i ❑�L'w ST V ❑ N 5 S ❑� 3 - ❑i T3 CollseTtor ❑r❑❑❑❑ ST NE 4 LA w w z' LU Z 'r--ZIP Z u u N E LEn 3 r` ❑ E ®� S❑� u 2 o z 3: z z NE w 2 LLI z z z ST Z E �z a ST Q �ourthous IF —Ogg NE ❑J�❑� ST -- CofC I CENTER T > �--J 2 re CENTER Subject Parcel 'o ■ 2 ST ST a ��❑��❑ sT E❑-- f IC�� Qt_^!❑� 4 ST Q S M `*`Ja f m G Q LJ 4 I a Sa ❑ a BET -HEIR �C 5>> m �� s� Q ST sE a 5 sT C (WLJ 5 Os�m ACRES 6 Ea 12 cv SE g ST 6(� SE ' �>-� ©© 21 7 S� DUP�J T ❑ ST SE 6 LA 3 cam❑ C3 S� N a❑ w I 2 S �(� 3 C8 w 9 ❑� ST L "I SE 8 CT —9_ E 8 $ w _ L-Ql S W❑ 10 S T 9 C T rn 3 casW❑L>J11 sT �b STLU 0 EE HOBEE f 11 12 S Q 12 S ❑ KE HOBE ' 13 ST 3 ST �s 7..__ J14 ST 14 ST ' ATES� J14 CT Q 15 T `® � ST W 15 ST 16 sT 15 w r = 17 ST iBl r` '9 S,T�cS 18 ST 1 c*� 19 ST CC 9 Q � G 20 ❑ ST � L ODILANDST a� J PARKS 28 22_ � ST 2 _ 23 ST 25 ST 1l OEK B,.v o 26 OR o n¢SEz4 a' w Y CIR SE 26 _ U� UU • D � 4J ul co jA IS ca ,o ,n co O O 3S — f 3A Hi b 3N LO N ^ O-1:1 n rl * �' O m <D ^O q) N N n n O I O^ O n L'icn lV R N ry 3A d rn ! O w a� 3s O Lo - N N !D � � Q� N OL 3Ab' 7 n w O O N/ O N ONU 3N -�= I ° O W N r v'I m n <p rn Z W cc 17 to Lo (,oz 3n d — N ONZ MN - cr _ N (,OL) 3lI Y QaL MN m n n 10 n I ul U * Of 10 � co to w O * n o ry I N OL) -)A n w kn N — G Nv CNN Cc U I n O ) cc co Z co Z — N N(,OC) 3AV HlS MN n N I M c Y co a, cc) � � co N 1 rOC 3� Y n Z n rn _ � Q n O n N�' �'•7 flD � � N "I O - � n A (- __ . _--+ NF Subject Prooerto mmmmum Oo�aol-A�fO000 ee I7lelp` P SE 4TH ST (100') loo©os000eem t Area Out A 100�'0. ■ it 4-f - ,PTIF, i 11 GU Mi s I 2P m 6. r �©�voov�a�m��n�omm������®� • ; ;jam Okeechobee County Planning Summary of Meeting October 24, 1995 The Okeechobee County Planning Board/Board of Adju session on Tuesday, October 24, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Okeechobee County Courthouse, 304 N.W. 2nd Street, and Appeals met in regular ssign Meeting Room at the ,obie. Florida. Board members present were Chairman Frank Marsocci, Jim urke, Keith Pearce and John Smith. Board members absent were Renee Hazellief, Brenda 'Cgnnor, Warren Watt and alternate member Mike Long. Also in attendance were John assels, County Attorney; Bill Royce, Planning Director; Damian Peduto, Planner and Vii Aaion, Secretary. Petition 95-434-R, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Bonnle Daniel, applicant. Request for a change In zoning from the existing classification of Central Business District Commercial (C-CBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-II). Petition 95-433-S, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Boi for a special exception to allow a house of worship on a lot Mr. Royce presented the applications and described the surrol discussed the differences in the different types of commercial z Mr. Royce stated the applicant intends on using the commerc Avenue as a church. The C-CBD zoning district allows hous are greater than 5 acres or more in area, but has no provisioi parcel less than 5 acres in area. Therefore, a change in zonin in order to consider a special exception for a church on a p, Mr. Royce stated he did not object to a house of worship in favor of the concept. Mr. Royce expressed concern about a interrupt the pattern of the C-CBD zoning district. The C-C] to a small geographical area and has specific regulati characteristics of a downtown area. He stated that if a change result in inconsistent zoning and possibly incompatible devel the property. Mr. Royce stated that the proposed house of woi by either C-I or C-II zoning. He stated that the uses allowe opposed to a C-II zoning district, are more compatible with th district, but noted that specific development regulations, su signage and setbacks, still could be inconsistent with the s surrounding development. Staff Repw tmd Reeomnwndedon Okewbobee City councll Petltkm 95.434-R November 21, 1995 Daniel, applicant. Request s than live (5) acres In size. iding properties. Mr. Royce ning j districts within the City. it building that faces Parrott s of 'worship on parcels that for 4 house of worship on a to �-II or to C-I is required Tel that is .85 acre in area. he downtown area and is in ,hange in zoning that would D zoning district is confined ns addressing the unique n zoning is granted, it would pme�t or redevelopment of hip could be accommodated in 4 C-I zoning district, as surrounding C-CBD zoning h as, for parking, drainage, rrounding zoning and with 27 Mr. Royce recommended that the change in zoning not be gi C-I nor C-II zoning districts are consistent with the surrounc noting that the C-I zoning district is somewhat more compati Royce suggested that a better solution could be to review the i zoning district, and perhaps include a house of worship on a I as a use permissible by special exception. That way, the a would remain intact. Mr. Royce also recommended that granted, stating that if the change in zoning were not grants district to which the requested special exception could apply The Board discussed the provision of the city's code of ord taverns from being located within 700 feet of a church, school explained that the prohibition would not apply to the on-pr wine in a restaurant. Jim Neilis addressed the Board. Mr. Neilis stated the church 21 months prior to Scotty's Carpet occupying the building. 1 has been for sale for quite some time and the church has mE ed, stating that neither the C-CBD zoning, but again than the C-II zoning. Mr. permissible in the C-CBD el, less than 5 acres in area of the city zoned C-CBD special exception not be there would be no zoning =Os that prohibits bars or daycare facility. Mr. Royce ise consumption of beer or per,ated in that building for Neilis stated the building the only offer. Keith Pearce stated he felt that Heavy Commercial (C-II) was 100 intense for that area. Mr. Pearce also stated that there are already a number of churches in the area, so that most land in the downtown area already is ineligible to have a bar or tavern because it is already within 700 feet of an existing church. The additional land area that might be impacted by this church would then be pretty small. Mr. Royce stated that Light Commercial (C-I) would be more inclined to recommend approval of a rezoning. Twila Valentine inquired about the availability of space for Mr. Royce stated that parking is not necessarily a consideration of a zoning application, but that the issue considering the application for the special exception. He be obligated to meet all applicable regulations. There was no other public comment. John Smith made a motion to recommend to the City Council In zoning from Central Business District Commercial (C-CBl be granted for Petition 95-434-R stating that C-I zoning is cc the C-CBD zoning district, that it would help Improve the appe and that It will not harm surrounding properties. The motion was seconded by Keith Pearce. The motion Staff Report and Recommendation Okeechobee City councii Petition 95.434-R November 21. 1995 if the Board was nt! issue with respect to be more significant when d that the applicant would iat the request for a change to Light Commercial (C-I) patible and consistent with -ante of the downtown area, unanimously. 28 John Smith made a motion to grant the request for a special exception to allow for a house of worship on a lot less than five (5) acres In area In a LI ht Commercial (C-I) zoning district with the following conditions: 1. If the proposed use does not commence within 6 months of the date that the special exception Is granted, or if the propose use 'ceases for a period of 6 continuous months or for 12 non -continuous months during a 24 month period, the special exception shall be null and old;! and 2. If the request for a change In zoning to C-I or to CrII is not granted by the City Council, then the special exception shall linmediately be null and void. The motion was seconded by Keith Pearce. The motion carriled unanimously. 29 Staff Repot and Rec mmeodatkm Okeechobee City Council Peddon 95A34-R Nowmher 21, 1995 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE M E WO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEN THRU: R A N D M DATE: NOVEMB R 13, 1995 SUBJECT: PEN ION BOARD TRUSTEE THRU: JOHN J. DRAGO, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ROBERT M. DELORME, FINANCE DIRECTOR:* Ordinance 686 changed the General Employees' Pension Trust Fund to include the Okeechobee Utility Authority employees. The composition of the Board of Trustees was also changed. The City employees must elect one employee to serve on the Board and one person from the local c mmunity is appointed by the City Council. The same procedures were fo lowed by the OUA. The two Trustees from the City and OUA respectively will elect a fifth member. Notices were sent out to all General Employees' en�ion Trust Fund employees of the City asking for volunteers to serve on th3 Board. Only one employee, Richard P. Bonnell, ran to serve on the Board of Trustees. It is recommended that Mr. Roger Jones be reappointed to serve on the Pension Board. He was previously appointed and desires o continue to serve in that capacity. Mr. Jones is also a resident of the ityl,. • t/J..i J. N-/ iy i�i/J.r. V ii V J5� J1 ��OR10P MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Drago, City Administrator DAT THRU: SUBJ. THRU: FROM: Chuck Elders, Public Works Director I would like this item to be put on the November 21st meeti no. three (3) in amount of $36,372.28 for Better Roads of L Improvements. E-4 November 14, 1995 CT� Pay request to ('approve the pay request e Pllacid, on the 1995 Road November 8, 1995 City of Okeechobee 55 S.E. 3rd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Attn: Mr. Chuck Elders, Director of Public Works Re: CITY OF OKEECHOBEE DRAW REQUEST NO. 3, LAKE PLACID, INC. 1995 ROAD IMPROVEMENT L.N. & W. Project No. 94-279 Dear Mr. Elders: LNW • • • • • • • • • • ••" Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc. ENGINEERS - PLANNERS* SURVEYORS FROM BETTER ROADS OF This letter is to certify that LAWSON, NOBLE & WEBB, M C. (L'.N. & W.) has reviewed the attached invoice Application No. 3 dated October , 1995, Invoice No. 8130 from Better Roads of Lake Placid, Inc. for accuracy, and avel approved such with no adjustment. The total amount due is $36,372.28. If further explanation is needed or if I can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, hristophe . K Project anager CJK:jhj cc: Dennis Horton - Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc. Enclosures: Invoices J HJ%RD W Y194- 2 79%ELDERS 1.108 LAWSON, NOBLE & WEee, INC. 420 Columbia Drive - West Palm I LAWSON, NoaLE & ASSOCIATES 590 NW Peacock Boulevard, Suite 9 - Port St. FL 33409 - (407) 684-6686 - Fax (407) 684-1812 FL 34986 - (407) 878-1700 - Fax (407) 878-1802 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Drago, City Administrator D) THRU: THRU: FROM: Chuck Elders, Public Works Director November 14, 1995 ECT• Change Order I would like this item to be put on the November 21st meetin to approve the Change Order No. 2 in amount of $12,662.50 for Better Roads of Lake Placi , for'�the Road Improvements. Additional supplemental work - S.E. 9th Avenue (from GO' S)uth of Southeast 14th Street to Southeast 9th Street). CITY OF OKEEC MEMORANDU TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: John J. Drago, City Administrator The City mailed out 22 computer bids. On November 13 from ICS Computers, Inc. of Okeechobee, and the other Sioux City, South Dakota. The City requested in the bids a complete turnkey. That install the new units, transfer all data from the old units personnel. ICS' bid was complete. The Gateway 2000 transferring of data from the old units to the new unit software that the City requested. Gateway 2000 also req install. The bid price of each unit from ICS was $2,329. The Gateway 2000 was $2,153 — a difference of $176. Howevi Gateway bid all the items that were requested in the City ICS, Gateway was $252 per unit more. Of course, the bigg maintenance on the units. That fact alone would warrant, if both bids were equally responsive. E.6 OBEE November 15, 1995 Computer Bids City received 2 bids; one 1 'Gateway 2000 of North the�successful bidder must the new units, and train all d did not provide training, nor' provided the required A an additional $79/unit to J price of each unit from when you add back to the to j make it comparable to fa0tor to consider is future arding the bid to ICS even The City did ask for various options to the basic units to*�'e the units more user- friendly and provide for additional memory for current and f re software programs. The additional cost of those options brings the ICS units to $2. 83.80 each. I am recommending that the City Council award the in the amount of $14.919.00. JJD: nb ,r bid to ICS of Okeechobee CITY OF OKEEC140BEE MEMORANDUI TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: John J. Drago, City Administrator Nolvember 15, 1995 Budget Amendment E-7 Two items were overlooked when the 1995/96 budget was adopted. First, an additional $15,000 for street striping. This amount was In the 1994/95 budget, but never reallocated in the 1995/96 budget. The money was to be used to stripe streets that had been paved In the 1993/94 fiscal year. The second item is an additiona $9,600 in the Legal Council budget to address the full cost of the City Attorney's service contract. When the City had Public Utilities, half of the City Attorney's contract cost ca from that budget, just like the auditing cost. I am recommending that the City Council approve a budg amendment in the amount of $24, 600. JJD: nb 11 • 'OP a »I If le a� ra )q 3 3 8 0 8 JM . y �V . _ N �w0 Q aS y N o rl M A. w Ljj awa vi w v a e i IF ; •' O � F I (OLr«e �I a �'0 Asa aou" i lavik ISOM '•�'11i1MN.7!Mri;ii f• -' �o' �• -E%• 'ATM _61.1L00-2 SZTV=` L 30NMtS38 JNILSDG Ed 10-1 Eag CITY OF OKEECHOBEE MEMOR,ANDUi TO: John J. Drago DATE: City Administrator THRU: SUBJECT:I THRU: FROM: Chuck Eldersf� Director of Public Works Mr. G.H. Murphy would like to purchase a piece of prc located at the north 60' of the old sewer plant (copy attac Is adjacent to property already owned by Mr. Murphy. He the present time, the City is not using the property. Mr. Murphy would like the City to discuss the sale of thl appraised, and the City Council would discuss an equitat M. November 16, 1995 Purchase of City Property Wtv from the City which is )d) This piece of property ans to improve the site. At property; it would then be cost for this piece of land. s • 4 �tie�6 bma � �4•tr� C d �OIIID/' rD Ijoricla "ouse of Aepre IRLO "BUD' BRONSON 1415 West Vine Street REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT 79 P.O. Drawer 4a469 Kiwimmeg, FL 3474Y-Y469 407-33-2307 October 19, 1995 Mr. John J. Drago Administrator City of Okeechobee 55 Southeast Third Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Dear Mr. Drago: The Legislative Delegation of Okeechobee County will h public hearing on Thursday, December 14, 1995 at 1:30 j at the Okeechobee County Commission Chambers, 304 Okeechobee. The Delegation is meeting prior to the convening of the Legislature in order to consider the introduction of Special exclusively to Okeechobee County, and also to allow those opinions on various issues to the delegation. Anyone wishing to introduce a Special Act (local bill) possible for more information on the proper procedure. Interested groups and agencies planning to distribute pr: Delegation Meeting are requested to provide four copies of December 7, 1995. COhLf MEES Stream/inir�q Ciorernutenta/%legu/ations, Select, Gair ' fltgriculure c&' Transportation/Pcu+rl Construction & TAYA 9y selkty, Clair ' lipprop Tourism & Cu/turalA airs ' W ter Policy, Select • E-9 nfatives 307Howe Office Builcltty 7a/laliassee, FL 38399-13o0 9o4.488-8992 Id its annual meeting and .m. IThe meeting will be held lorthwest Second Street, !gular session of the Florida -ts (local bills) relating teres,ted to voice their ild notify my office as soon as Led mat erials x erials at the ie material to my office by }ter Set•vicesIGeneral.16ricultute, Clair Re: Okeechobee County Legislative Delegation Meeting October 19, 1995 Page Two of Two Please contact Becky Simmons, Legislative Assistant, a of subject matter of a proposed Special Act, request a place of information. Sincerely yoh r� Rep. Irlo "B District 79 IB:jd cc: Okeechobee County Legislative Delegation Members The Honorable Rick Dantzler The Honorable Rick Minton, Jr. The Honorable Tom Rossin (407) 933-2307, to advise the agenda, or for further rs, n « l" Bronson s- -City of Okeechobee 55 S.E. Third Avenue • Okeechobee, Florida November 20, 1995 Re: Building/Zoning Department Gentlemen: I met today with County Attorney C proposed City/County interlocal agreement meeting on the 21st. Mayor Kirk suggested at our Thursday mee possibly arriving at some sort of agreement hand retain to the City its right to contrc functions, while at the same time transfer Department to the County. We discussed on appeals review by the City, but that process that this level of control would have littl day to day planning decisions rendered by tl zoning Department. As one area of concern was the conv contractors, I have put together a change tc we approved, that still leaves planning and Department, but seemingly eliminates a porti the contractors. I propose to require all app] in the County, and place the burden on the Ci applications from the County, act upon them, to the County within 24 hours of application. still adds another layer of inefficiency, in would be handling separate functions on one if the City planning and zoning department doi of the application, the County would st. Therefore, I do not see this as adding any woi simply permits each entity to perform its ha procedure. Kindest Regards John R. Cook City Attorney JRC/ rb • 813/763-3372 ssels to discuss the agaGin, prior to our ting that we meet with that would on the one 1 zoning and planning --ing operation of the 'hursday some sort of is used so sparingly, or no effect on the e County planning and >nience of the local the last inter -local zoning as a City -run on of the, concerns of ica,tions to originate y itaff to obtain the and get them returned It could be said this that each Department application. However; !s not handle that end 11 have to do so. k or inefficiency; it If of the application r� �J �i Refer to your last copy of the interlocal a your agenda) for these following changes: 1.5 APPLICATIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS All applications for building permits or dev the unincorporated County, and within the Ci originate at the County Department of Pla upon uniform application forms develop Okeechobee. It shall be incumbent upon the make daily contact with County Planning an possession of those applications for buildin the City of Okeechobee. The City shall application for consistency with all 1 including the City comprehensive plan; z designations; land development regulations that may impact the City and/or the applican the City that the application complies with of enumerated conditions, will comply with a laws and City regulations, it shall, within of original receipt thereof, transmit the o the application package, together with memorandum which indicates the City ap approval to the County for building code issuance of the building permit. eement (exhibit 10 in D DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. p 1 opment orders in both y of Okeechobee, shall ning and Development, by the County of City of Okeechobee to d� DeV el opment to obtain or'development within hereafter review the ws and regulations, ping maps; land use and such other areas Upon verification by or upon satisfaction 1 the above -applicable wehty-four (24) hours riginal and one copy of written transmittal ov4l or conditional ompliance review, and INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as '"County", and THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corpora on, by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "City", pursuant to the Florida Intterlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 (Section 163.01, Florida Statutes) as of this day of , 1995. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City has the duty and the power to provide for certain construction, building and planning services for the residents, businesses Hand facilities within, its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS the City is desirous of providing services at the most economical rate possible consistent with state law and sound construction and planning methodologies; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have the p wer to provide construction, building and planning services; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have the power to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies within or outside of their r spective boundaries for joint nit on behalf f the other, or any of either performance, or the performance by one u agency's authorized functions; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act grants the City all governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable it to conduct trunic�pal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services except when expressly prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have the authority to enter into agreements with other persons to undertake to fulfill some or all of they respective responsibilities for the provision of planning and building services; and WHEREAS, on the 15th day of April, 1985, the C unty,� and City entered into an interlocal agreement and amended said agreement on the 6th day of January, 1987 ("First Agreement") for the purpose of providing certain unified construction, building and planning services to the public for the mutual benefit and efficiency, of the parties; and [7000-153841 WHEREAS, both the County and the City have adopted Comprehensive Plans as mandated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes since execution of the First Agreement; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted Land Development Regulations and the City is in the process of adopting new Land Development Regulations since execution of the First Agreement; and WHEREAS, the County and the City desire to enter into A new updated Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement") which takes into account the County and City ordinances adopted since the First Agreement as well as which idea tifies the relative rights and responsibilities of the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premis s and of the terms, conditions and covenants herein contained, it is agreed by and between, the parties hereto, as follows: SECTION I CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING S 1.1 Unified Services THAT there shall continue to Administration of Construction and Building Related S Okeechobee County Department of Planning and Developm 1.2 Unified Building Codes THAT as is more par below, the following standard building codes incorporated County Ordinance 92-20 (Land Development Regulations), shall apply to the incorporated as well as unincorporated a A. Standard Building Code The 1991 Standard Building Code as promul Building Code Congress International togethe. D, F, G, H, J, K and M, as adopted by the Le Florida as the State Minimum Building Code B. Standard Plumbing Code The 1994 Standard Plumbing Code, together, D, E, F, G, I and J, as promulgated by the Congress International. In addition, the follo created: Section 407.1.6: A minimum of one (1) ter shall be provided for one (1) to ten (10) work facility shall be provided for each additioi development there shall be a minimum of on, VICES one unified institution for the This institution shall be the it, Code Compliance Division. ularlQy described in Section IV Ar�ticle VIII of Okeechobee s amended from time to time, gas cif Okeechobee County: pteo by the Southern with Appendices A, C, islatlure of the State of ith appendices A, B, C, outhl rn Building Code ing sections are hereby poraportable facility ien. One (1) additional it 2$ workmen. In a (1) facility for each five [7000-153941 2 (5) lots or within 500 feet of the work area; ection 407.2.3: For existing structures, the required facilities may be accessed by use of a covered, paved walk way not to exceed 50 feet in' ength. This shall be at the discretion of the Building Official and shall be on a case by case basis. C. Standard Mechanical Code The 1991 Standard Mechanical Code, together with ,appendix A, as promulgated by the Southern Building Code Co gress International. D. Standard Gas Code The 1991 Standard Gas Code, with no appendice, as ,promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress Internatio al. . E. National Electrical Code The 1993 National Electrical Code as promulgate by the National Fire Protection Association and approved by the American National Standards Institute and known as ANSI/NFPA 1 0 090. F. Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code. The 1985 Standard Unsafe BuildingAbatennent Cc e as promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress Internati al.- G. Standard Existing Buildings Code. The 1988 Standard Existing Buildings Code toget er with Appendix A, as promulgated by the Southern Building Code C ngress International. H. Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings The 1985 Standard for the Installation of Roof Co rings as promulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress International I. Standard Swimming Pool Code. The 1991 Standard Swinuning Pool Code as p � mulgated by the Southern Building Code Congress International and revised by deleting sections 315.2.1.9 and 315.2.2 in their entirety. J. Standard for Hurricane Residential Constructi The 1993 Standard for Hurricane Residential promulgated by the Southern Building Code Cc used within its limitations as an alternative ti section 1205 of the Standard Building Code construction.) 1.3 Code Compliance Director. THAT the Okeec n S$TD 10-93. 'onsquction SSTD 10-93 as egrets International. (To be meet the requirements of 991 edition for residential County Code Compliance Director as defined in Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20 s all be deemed to be the 'City of Okeechobee Code Compliance Director with jurisdiction 'I to enforce any construction 17000-15sa4] 3 CJ • codes referenced in section 1.2, above, Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20, as amended from time to time and the enabling legislation described in Se tion 1V below, provided said codes relate to construction, additions or renovations of buil ings and structures. It is the intent of the parties that codes not referenced in section 1.2, ovel shall be enforced by the City Code Enforcement Board as more particularly desc ibed in Section III of this Agreement. 1.4 Development Orders. THAT Part 13.05.00 of ticle' 13, Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20 as amended from time to time, shall govern Ithe Administration and issuance of building permits and development orders in the incorporated as well -as unincorporated areas of Okeechobee County. Provided however that Section 13.05.02A of Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20 shall be administered by a person designated by the City Council as more particularly described in Section 11 of � is Agreement. 1.5 Applications for Building Permits and Developme t Orders All applications for Building Permits or Development Orders in the unincorpor ed areas of the County shall originate at the County Department of Planning and Devel pment. All applications for Building Permits or Development Orders within the incorporated limits of the City shall originate at the City Hall and utilize application forms provided to the City by the County. Upon verification by the City that the application complies with,; or upon satisfaction of enumerated conditions, will comply with all applicable City zoning, planning and land use laws, it shall transmit the original and one copy of the applic tion��,package together with a written transmittal memorandum which indicates the City ap rovaI or conditional approval to the County for building code compliance review and issuo nce of the building permit. 1.6 City Development Conditions. THAT following City'approval as described in section 1.5 above, all building permits and development orders shall be issued in accordance with Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20, as amended from time to time and the Standard Codes incorporated into said Ordinance. Where the City review process results in conditions for approval, it shall state those conditions in the ansmittal memorandum that will accompany the application package to the County. The memorandum shall separate those conditions which must be met before a building permit or development order is issued from those conditions which must be met before the certifica a of'occupancy is authorized. The development order or building permit shall recite the corgi itions imposed. The County 4 will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy on a project loca been advised in writing by the City that there has been c previously imposed. 1.7 City Fees THAT any review fees charged by th the standard construction permit fees authorized by County or( any fees that it imposes for either development review or iml within the City until it has pliarce with the conditions City shall be in addition to name. The city shall collect 1 ct. 1.8 County Fees THAT the County shall segregate a y cligrges presently included l in the construction permit fees that are attributable to a plannig review or function and no longer make such charge for construction occurring within tl� incorporated limits of the City. SECTION II PLANNING SERVICES 2.1 Separation of Planning Services That as the City as the City of Okeechobee Local Planning Agency and as tl dissimilar Comprehensive Plans, Plan Amendment Processes; Land Development Codes, it is in the best interest of the parti its Planning Services for proposed development within the ini Accordingly, as of the implementation date, the County PI Adjustments and Appeals shall no longer review applications fl incorporated limits of the City. That as of the implementation of Planning and Development shall no longer review or ap concurrency, comprehensive plan consistency or the existic applications for property located within the incorporated lim 22 Intergovernmental Cooperation. Nothing contai deemed to waive either party's rights and obligations u Cooperation elements of the parties' respective Comprehensive of Florida Law. SECTION III CODE COMPLIANCE 3.1 Construction Industry. THAT Okeechobee ourcil has designated itself County and the City have Subdivision regulations and s tl1gt the City shall perform rpgrated limits of the City. nning Board and Board of property located within the te,'the County Department ovd the site plans, zoning, or, proposed land use of of,the City. d in this section shall be Jer the Intergovernmental Plans or under any provision County Ordinance 93-3 (Construction Industry Licensing), as amended from time t time, shall extend to the incorporated as well as unincorporated areas of Okeechobee I ounty. [7000-15ssa) 5 3.2 Construction Industry Licensing Board. THAT Sections 12.03.01 and 12.03.05 of Article 12, and sections 11.03.02 and 11.03.05 of Arti le 1,1, Okeechobee County Ordinance 92-20 as they relate to the Construction Industry I-, censing Board shall apply to the incorporated as well as unincorporated areas of 3.3 Separation of Enforcement Activities That as th established a City Code Enforcement Board and as the Count codes and regulations, it is in the best interest of the parties tl majority of its code enforcement activities. Accordingly, as of County Department of Planning and Development shall n( allegations of ordinance or code violations occurring within 1 City that do not relate to new construction, addition or )ee County. City Council has previously and the City have dissimilar at the City shall perform the he implementation date, the longer investigate and cite incorporated limits of the novation to buildings and structures. Investigation of violations occurring within the incor ora'ted limits of the City that do not relate to new construction, addition or renovation to Imildings and structures shall be governed by the provisions of Section 3.4, below. The County Code Enforcement Board shall no longer review complaints or citations for persons o property located within the incorporated limits of the City. This section shall not be construed to eliminate the jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Licensing Board or the Code Compliance Director as otherwise described in this Agreement. 3.4 Existing Unsafe Structures Investigation of existing structures located within the City which allegedly fail to meet the standards provided in the Standard Unsafe Building A atement Code, described in section 1.2, above, shall be by referral from Okeechob e City Administrator only. Complaints received directly by the County shall be forwarded to the City Administrator for determination of whether a referral is warranted. Should the City Administrator determine either as a result of a complaint or through the City's init ative that there may exist a structure which fails to meet the standards provided in then Unsafe Building Abatement Code, the Administrator shall notify in writing the County Code Compliance Director of the condition. This notification shall constitute a referral by the City and a request that the County investigate the allegations and take appropriate steps as provided by law to abate or eliminate the unsafe condition. The City shall reimburse the County for any and all expenses incurred by the County as a result of the referral including administrative, legal [MOO-15-Wi 6 and demolition cost if expelled. The County shall keep detailAxpense records of any abatement or condemnation action initiated. Provided howeever, that should a court of competent jurisdiction enter an order compelling the Coun y to take some action with regard to an unsafe structure within the City, the County ,all be reimbursed for the expenses described in this section despite the absence of a SECTION IV ORDINANCES AND JURISDI 4.1 Adoption of County Ordinance. That within thi date of this Agreement, the County shall hold the require Amending Ordinance 92-20 as amended, to extend jurisdicti Okeechobee County to the extent described in this Agreerr 4.2 Adoption of City Ordinance. That within thirty (2 of this Agreement, the City shall hold the required public I Ordinance 660, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the 4.3 Condition Precedent. Approval by both parties described herein shall be a condition precedent to the impl 4.4 Existing Interlocal Agreement. The First Agreeme of April, 1985 and amended the 6th day of January, 1987 effect until the implementation date at which time it shall 1 ty referral. N (30) days from the effective public hearings to consider to the incorporated areas of t. days from the effective date rings to consider Amending :ent of this Agreement. they ordinance amendments entation of this Agreement. entered into on the 15th day all 'remain in full force and deemed to be superseded by this Agreement. Provided however, should both parties', not amend their respective ordinances to permit effective implementation of this Agreement, the notice of intent to terminate as described in paragraph 9 of the First Agreement may be provided by either party irrespective of the July 1st deadline described in said �gree,ment. 4.5 Due Process. This agreement and the ordinanj a amendments contemplated by this agreement, shall be construed to afford due process I o all persons affected by said ordinances. In the event that any right of appeal is removed by the separation of the governmental functions, the City shall be deemed to have juj, isdietion to hear said appeals affecting land lying within the incorporated limits of the Ci'y. 17000-15384) 7 r SECTION V MISCELLANEOUS 5.1 Tenn and Effective Date The term of thisll commence upon the approval by both the Board of Countyl Council and shall continue for a term of five years and may t year periods upon approval by both governing bodies. Interlocal Agreement shall ioners and the City renewed for successive five 5.2 Implementation Date The implementation dal shall be January 1, 1996. 5.2 Termination. This Agreement may be termin ted for any reason by either party upon not less than ninety (90) days written notice to tl a other party. 5.3 Recording. A completely executed copy of this ;nterlocal Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Okeechobee Co nty. 5.4 Obligations Obligations under this Agreement ire n;ot an indebtedness of the County or City. The respective obligations of each party here to under this Agreement shall not be an indebtedness within the meaning of any consti utio0al, statutory, charter or ordinance provision or limitation of any party hereto. Nei Iler of the parties hereto are obligated to pay or cause to be paid any amounts due under] this Agreement except in the manner provided herein, and the faith and credit of any par hereto is not pledged to the payment of any amount due under this Agreement. This A4reement shall not require any party hereto to levy or pledge any taxes whatsoever for the payment of any amount due under this Agreement. li 5.5 Relationship of the Parties Except as set forth herein, neither party to this Agreement shall have any responsibility whatsoever with rl spegt to services provided or contractual obligations assumed by the other party and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute any party a partner, agent or local represesitative of the other party, or to create any type of fiduciary responsibility or relationship of any kind whatsoever between the parties. 5.6 Assignment. This Agreement, or any interest herein, may not be assigned, transferred or otherwise encumbered, under any circumstanl es, by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 5.7 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be cot, laws of the State of Florida. struod in accordance with the 17000-1538a] 8 • 5.8 Constuction. Should any provision of this Agre interpretation, it is agreed that the court interpreting or consid apply the presumption or rule of construction that the terms strictly construed against the party which itself or through prepared the same, as all parties hereto have participated in form of this Agreement through review by their respective c� changes in language in any provision deemed unsuitable or i and, therefore, the application of such presumption or ru� inappropriate and contrary to the intent of the parties. 5.9 Notices. All notices, consents, or other commy or otherwise delivered under this Agreement, except corr, relating to specific development orders and permits, shah delivered either by hand with proof of delivery or certified ct postage prepaid, to the parties at the addresses indicated be ment be subject to judicial ering such provision will not of this Agreement be more its counsel or other agent the (preparation of the final unsel and the negotiation of adequate as initially written, e of construction would be iicaGions required, permitted :spopdence and transmittals be !in writing and shall be sail, return receipt requested, ow: As to County: County Administr, or Okeechobee County, Florida 304 N.W. 2nd Street, Spite 106 Okeechobee, Flor da 54972 Attention: Count' Adelninistrator With copy to: John D. Cassels, J ., Esquire County Attorney 400 N.W. 2nd Str et Okeechobee, Flo da 34972 As to City: City Administrate , y City of Okeechobee 55 S.E. 3rd Avent, e Okeechobee, Florida .34972 With copy to: John R. Cook, E uire City Attorney i 202 N.W. 5th Av nue Okeechobee, Florida 34972 Changes in the respective addresses of the parties may be made from time to time by either party by notice to the other party given by mail. otices given in accordance with this section shall be deemed to have been given five (5) business days after the date of 17000-153sal 9 0 mailing; notices and consents given by any other means shall' a deemed to have been given when received. 5.10 Incorporation of Agreements This document sub ersedes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements, or understand srigs applicable to the matters contained herein. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation) from the terms of hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements whether oral or written. It is further agreed that no modification, amendment or alteratil on in the terms or conditions herein shall be effective unless contained in a written docum, ent executed by the governing bodies of the parties and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit' ourt of Okeechobee County. 5.11 Severability. In the event that any provision of this, Agreement shall, for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable its any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree as to such amendments, modifications or supplements of or to this Agreement or such other apprd riate actions as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein, and the othet provisions of this Agreement shall, as so amended, modified or supplemented or othel vise affected by such action, remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County ommissioners of Okeechobee County, Florida has caused this Agreement to be executed aof the date first above written. ATTEST: Sharon Robertson, Clerk, Board of County Commissioners BOARD OF COUN*Y COMMISSIONERS OKEECHOBEE CO NTY, FLORIDA By: CLIF BETT, CHAIRMAN (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO CORRECTNESS: FORM AND UNTY A 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Oke Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written. ATTEST: BONNIE S. THOMAS, CNIC, CITY CLERK CITY OF OKE] By: JAMES (CORPORATI APPROVED AS TO IT CORRECTNESS: By: CITY ATTO Florida, has caused this EE, FLORIDA K, MAYOR SEAL) ORM AND NEY' IMM-153MI 11 Working Paper Consolidation of City/Cou ty Planning and Building Ser cf November 16,1995 I. Introduction A. History B. Present situation 1. Black Hole? 2. Current Deadline C. Purpose of Joint Meeting II. Philosophy of Consolidation A. General Considerations B. Dogmatic Truth C. City Considerations 1. Advantages 2. Disadvantages D. County Considerations 1. Advantages 2. Disadvantages III. Required Committment IV. Converting Philosophy into Action A. The "Options" 1. Option A 2. Option B 3. Option C B. Fourth Option? V. Implementation A. Interlocal Working Group B. Planning Board C. City LDR Committee VI. Conclusion 1 LJ • I. Introduction This outline has been written in an effort surrounding consideration of a meaningful and in of the community Planning and Development doubt that a single department would enjoy a separate operations, there are many non-mc governments. Where these considerations are w should be debated. Where they are merely mi dispelled. W History focus on the many issues ally beneficial consolidation vices. Although few would ificant cost savings over two ary considerations for both philosophical concerns, they .derstandings, they should be In 1985, the City and County entered to 'an interlocal agreement whereby the City abolished its building deportment and the County amended its code to provide for an expa I tided! Planning Board to hear zoning, variance and special exception petitions. Additionally, the County began permitting and inspecting construction within the City. This arrangement worked relatively well f r a number of years until the enactment of the Growth Management Act y the. State. This act required all governments in the state to write and ad(,)t a Comprehensive Plan and update their land development regulation (LDRs). Unlike a previous state attempt to manage growth, this tine t,hey meant it, and local develo ement issues became extremely co plicated overnight. Hurricane P Andrew also had a direct impact on Ol reevaluation of the building standards that level. Andrew and the "deemed to coml State complicated the construction permi manner similar to the way that the Growth the Planning functions of local governmer eechobee by forcing a state must be enforced at the local ly" rules promulgated by the Ling', and inspection rules in a ✓Ianagement Act complicated Present situation 1. Black Hole? There are few functions of local gvernment that draw the ire of , the public more than Planning and', Development services. Although there are as many opinions as to the nature of the problem as there are opinion mad ers it is suggested that the mission of the department responsible for these functions is likely the greatest irritation. The function of my Planning and 2 «yN. w � �. ,_ ,...,,. .., ,.,»..... ,., ,,�.. III • development department is to control and regulate development in a manner which balances individual property rights with the overall good of the community. Sometimes' egulation that contributes to the overall good is immediately apparent as in the case of ensuring that adequately engineered trusses are used in construction. In other cases, the overall good is ind ect 'and long term, as in the case of attempting to maintain pith erty values by discouraging conflicting uses. In any event, timmediate perception of an affected landowner may be that suregulation is an infringement upon their right to "do what I want my property". At the very least, someone seeking to develop] will, fate increased cost as a result of new construction code Oquixements and the need to engineer more projects than ever be re. 'This fundamental friction between individual property rights and the obligation of government to protect the general health, , safety and welfare of the whole community, will remain the major source of controversy whether the functions are performed by the City, County or a combination of both. When the mes sage is unpopular, it is hard to embrace the messenger. Without w espread public support of the mission, people will continue t, criticize the Planning and Permitting functions regardless of a justification. This discussion does not in -.end to imply that the Planning and Development department ne Is be a black hole, or that the governing bodies are helpless to ' prove the services provided. The goal should always be to pr 'de, more efficient, courteous service. The Planning and Development department can be improved. Unfortunately, some residents feel that the word "no" is synonymous with rudeness or ' efficiency. It is suggested that however the interlocal issue is resol ed,! the City and County make an extra effort to educate the p Aic 'on the positive aspects of professional planning, enforceme and construction requirements as well as the decisions resulting rom' the workshop. 2. Current Deadline Unless there is further action by the two governing bodies, the current arrangement will expire ecernber 31, 1995. C. Purpose of Joint Meeting The purpose of this joint workshop sho d be: C To determine whether there are sufficient common philosophies and goals to support a consolidation Of the Planning and Development functions of our community. H. Philosophy of Consolidation A. General Considerations It should be noted that the word "cons oli ation" is used as opposed to "integration" or "servicing". As stated ab ve, any interlocal agreement should result in a meaningful relationship thi t has as its common goal the betterment of our community. The City, not the County, is responsible for providing planning and development ctions within its corporate limits. Despite the possible unpopularity of the preceding statement, it is the basic truth that must serve as the starting point for discussions. Each government has a duty to provide pla ing and construction related services in its respective jurisdictional areas but,, no primary duty beyond. With this in mind, why would the County entertain extending its obligation and responsibility given the ackplowledged headache that accompanies the Planning and Building function? Conversely, why would the City not be interested in shedding itself of the obligation at almost any cost? Although some advantages and disadvantages will be discussed below, it should be noted that an arrant ment as complicated as that contemplated by a consolidated Planning! and Development department needs to be beneficial for both parties. The County should have little interest in an agreement that merely hires Qut county staff or continues to provide a service at a deficit. Neither the City nor the County should feel that it is being forced into an undesirable an$ement, but neither should shy away from an opportunity to provile a single, unified department which is governed by a unified code fort the benefit of all residents. B. Dogmatic Truth The following is underlined in the hop that if no other part of this document is read, the next sentence will e: 4 Because of this, fixation on the issue of dail` counterproductive but may prevent discus prospects for an agreement. Regardless would always have to vote to change a Ci plan, rezone a City parcel or continue with The City (and County) would have the agreement should it not continue to be bet C. City Considerations 1. Advantages a. Significant cost savings over b. Knowledge pool and expe department. C. Not competing with County d. Integration of Planning an throughout entire Okeechobi e. Integration of Planning and I Okeechobee community.' f. Consistent level and style throughout Okeechobee con g. Utilization of experienced exceptions and appeals. h. Utilization of experienced 1 development of recommen comprehensive plan amendr. i. Avoid confrontational conta and residents. j. Continuity of development j when personnel are sick, on 2. Disadvantages a. No direct control over planni b. Perception of some residen fundtional control is not only ion of the real issues and the if any arrangement, the City y ordinance, amend its comp ie interlocal agreement itself. ight, to cancel the interlocal irate department. e of larger, established - qualified personnel. Development philosophies community. relopment codes throughout code enforcement efforts _.� . 2 planning board for special mg board as LPA for the I ns as to ordinances and with contractors, developers and approval processes or quit. and development personnel. that Council is not doing its job or is not in control. C. Loss of an opportunity to utilize resources or personnel left idle by sale of the utility. d. Lessens separate City identity.' e. Certainty that on occasion, the County method of handling a situation may not be the approach that would have been selected by the City. f. Concern that export of another City function will lead to eventual total governmental nsdlidation. g. Uncertainty as to the quality o job that will be performed by County. h. Direct out of pocket cost pay' ible toCounty. D. County Considerations 1. Advantages a. Additional staff depth resulting from addition of new City Specialist position. b. Reduce criticism of County staff for problems originating in City. s C. Enhanced opportunity to treamline the planning and inspection process. d. Avoid possibility of conflicting development patterns with City. e. Meaningful implementation of the intergovernmental cooperation element of the Comprehensive Plan. f. Reduce the number of instances' where City and County duplicate effort and work at rosy purposes. g. Strive toward a unified devel meet code that will be easier for contractors and resident to use. 2. Disadvantages a. Additional responsibilities r a department that already receives critical scrutiny. b. Enhanced expectations fro City and public as a result of new specialist position and grepment in general. 'This is listed as a disadvantage on the premise that the cultural identity from the community at large. It is suggested as city or county residents, but merely "from Okeechobee". If I cultural identity, duplication of services in an area the size of OI justified. does, in fact, have a separate most don't identify themselves e is no separate city /county chobee may not be cost 0 C. Complexity of the details of an interlocal agreement that will have to deal with such areasas indemnification, appeals, administration, Comprehensive: Plan and code enforcement. d. Uncertainty as to level of Citv commitment to confine its role to the ultimate legislative function as opposed to daily administration. e. Realization that City funding of a position will not begin to cover the true cost of providing professional planning services to the City.' III. Required Commitment The list of advantages and disadvantages is by no means complete. As indicated, depending upon one's viewpoint, an advantage in one area may be considered a disadvantage in another, and vice ve,sa. A decision to consolidate the Planning and Development functions will equine a commitment to the philosophy that the future of the Okeechobee community will be positively advanced by unified codes, planning and enforcementm In other words, if either government feels it is being forced, coerced or R essured into an arrangement, then it will not endure. Each governing body should make the decision that it feels is best for its constituency and not apologi4,e thereafter. IV. Converting Philosophy into Action A. The "Options" There remains some confusion as to the opt ons discussed in the meetings and press. Following is a brief description of these options. A more detailed listing of the speck functions involved is attached as an appendix. 1. Option A - Consolidated department "For example, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Admiistrative hearings with DCA, consultants to assist in ordinance research and preparation can a costly. Overhead items such as building cost, utilities, staff support to lay boards, legal and ao linistriative support also need to be considered. 7 • C 2. This option of total consolidation is in this report as it is the option discussion by either governing body examined the concept of Option A, viable option as its basic philosop� rejected by the City Council. Name, "City Specialist", designating the coin LPA, and beginning an earnest effort and County LDRs as possible. Giv discussion of the mechanics of o implied above, this option has the community. However if it is to be sur have to be committed to get ouf development business. Although ordinance recommendations would continued rejection of proposed c interlocal agreement and the unific Oven the most consideration that has received the least The working group briefly Hwever, dismissed this as a rues appeared to have been ly, funding a new position of rty planning board as the City to unify as much of the City -.n this rejection, no detailed tion A has been made. As neatest, potential to unify. the ;cessful, the City Council will of the daily planning and the !final decision to accept always remain with the City, ianges would jeopardize the Option B - Separation of Plannin permitting and inspection. This is the option that was red agreement. As many of the existing zoning and land use issues, it wit workable compromise between the "all" or "nothing". Although this of the efficiencies of option A, it w and economically shocking as opt' by county staff and initially appr Commissioners (BOCC). When forthcoming from the City, the B the table. At that meeting, the BO position that a simplified system is and that they wished to either do til Option B was further refined by t the City Council and resubmitte rejected. Option B essentially ay destiny and self determination planning functions to the City. Op as to the inspection function is ,process. functions from construction ed to a proposed interlocal roblems stem from planning, s felt that this option was a two more radical options of tion did not have the promise not as politically, emotionally n C. This option was drafted ved by the Board of County a positive response was not CC removed this option from C discussed and announced a in the best interest of the users e entire function or none of it. e working group, approved by to the BOCC where it was ids all issues of city control, y returning the problematic ortunity for mis-communication nimized by specific notice and 8 t 3. communication procedures. Option C - The City takes back all coons This is the default option if there is n Intperlocal Agreement. This option entails the City providing its own planning, building, inspection and code enforcement services. Although to many this is a step backwards, it is only truly unfort if the decision was made without examining all the adv takes and disadvantages. B . Implementation Should the two governing bodies return to t, implementation is outlined in the latest draft of thi Option C be the choice, no joint implementati chosen need the implementation of the agreeme detail. C. Interlocal Working Group The working group reached agreement d be worked out once the Council and I consensus. It is submitted that once the s-, both, the mechanics of the interlocal submitted to the Council and the BOCC D. Planning Board Under Option A, the Planning Board mandate to begin reviewing the City wd the goal of a unified document. Differei development patterns could be acc( Differences should be preserved where d based merely on historical or proprietai compromise Option B, its interlocal agreement. Should n is required. If Option A is t must be discussed in further implementation issues could CC reached a philosophical course has been charted by ,eement can be written and ✓ould need to be provided a )unty development codes with es necessitated by unique City imodated by overlay zones. y serve a valid purpose but not notions. E. City LDR Committee The City LDR Committee has served a va uabl'e function and the result in some instances has produced a concet t that may be superior to the - • . .t n - -__i_ _L_..1..1 ---nicer residents. V. Conclusion In the final analysis, indecision can be more destructive than resolving to make the best choice based upon the options available d move on. Reassured with the knowledge that either the Council or the B CC can pull the plug on the whole agreement, it would seem that little can be lost and much may be gained by attempting a real, rather than cosmetic, consolidation of the Planning and Development services. Despite this, if both the City and the County are not firmly committed to the philosophies surrounding die effort, it will be a waste of everyone's time and resources. 10 • c' D Cp as . °qq cD n a 7d ° �• a Y Cco CD r. O• vs cp O �-+ Q c9•i r� CD O y M (AD r0 (D b co co � r END p1 n cD �b A O OCC O O Opp COC O O O O OI O O n "� 'ty m rn Q � p A � m CD a A 44 EJ y cr O o. va Q C CD H to cD p. C� b m b n o 0 0 M o ° � � �• o � CD p to m �. IQ r► A � P� � n ao �•� • g O oq p v4 is a o A p am A oa � V is y W p C'1 oer C•p,y y tee. o y O o+ O kY vi H �• C�s1 � v� L, UQ tp UQ O+ A+ cao d i �? b 7•� ,�� coo n D �8co � OQ O p U) 64 UQ M O H cc) 5 n c td CIco CD 0 C7 �� lu �� O H ^ O O IFQ o--• o c Q ►O+� 0 0. H a. c to O w CJ " m 7D a0. C1 H A b �g•co5' 4 J. � m O A a . CIO a, p Cy � . it • a ►:i c� ���Ao � �cs o o co yrQ ao � �r i�b•r H A w r. O UQ Oro CD ° coco ~' (Q e•r y y pyp1t ° p7 �3 in, a' O O M Ol COC0in. ow CA. rb r'•d tea- �cr o, 0 R. "' m �•�o'� ao'� A� �' m py is p �. y Co P.co yco A� 0 bdCD " (7 C� o c~cgg n 46 On+ n o n' o p go so ° O M A Cs Cy p O+ M c� ,� M i•� C7 ,' cR A „ y �• a P o q IV ° rU3�ri Q' o a. aq dCA W �-1 ,�• SS ►1 �' (Q cEt A o Gy O a, p (�9 A r�i' ►C A as V I c p, M ncoM C7 C7 ty ¢ a A R• to b� b r•► � y p y m vas. (JQc R dq W Yc CrQ b��a�00.0. b a V tD p �1 sc.) ~C b ( p ►� "d � a "r O o 10 1. ell 0m C CPO,p C• a p. H H i y ►p'h (0�r. p b rn fA co 0 0 O N n..• ..• d b C @ y a aIICSp, o n w 0.ks (IQ Uq r 'd �'! m �' y p o p OD �* s a co co gs tv O O w y O' `I O p n cow nl n o c p R ►tCD R. b co = R. y p to � w 1co d �' C1Q to O c9 co • a' nC eA•r m O' roO A. ; nG'I y FA OQ • p. co Q O O w to p• 'i �+' ol CL y O co CD ►py KtD S. H cn co o o � Co -e�� p to to n `C t . N `G N `G d' c� oer ' o '�' '� C A �• p ~' (D ► (D N �* C co t�l v, a (� ate, �; co TM co p~t C) C O O CA c¢. p eao ,v0 y Gy � O C COD ti p. (IQ p w N w y E 1995-1996 iM C CITY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA; POPULATION 4,643; CONTACT: FRANCINE JERNIGAN - FINANCE DIRECTOR, (904) I. PLANNING/ZONING 2. BUILDING/CODE COMPLIANCE 3. OTHER - NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING CC (BUDGE CITY OF FT. MEADE, FLORIDA; POPULATION 4,947; CONTACT: EMILY BROWN - INTERIM CITY MANAGER, (813) 285-� 1. PLANNING/ZONING 2. BUILDING/CODE COMPLIANCE CITY OF MADEIRA BEACH, FLORIDA; POPULATION 4,221; CONTACT: MARGE WARD - DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE (813) 391-9951 1. PLANNING/ZONING 2. BUILDING/CODE COMPLIANCE CITY OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA; POPULATION 4,500; CONTACT: BILL KASCAVELIS - FINANCE DIRECTOR, (407) 575- 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING/ZONING 2. BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION (1 - BLDG. OFFICAL 1 - ADMIN. SEC./pLAN EXAMINER, 1 - CONTRACTUAL SEC.) 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLIANCE DIVISION (1 - FULL-TaE OFFICER) 4. BUILDING DEPARTMENT/INSPECTION COMPLIANCE D (1 - PART-TR,4E INSPECTOR) 1231 SUBTOTAL = 191 SUBTOTAL = SUBTOTAL = $ 63,240.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 4,500.00 ----------- ---- $117, 740.00 $ 29,710.00 $123,680.00 --------------- $153,390.00 $ 76, 000.00 $ 24,000.00 -------- ------ $100,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $118,415.00 I $ 63,340.00 $ 82,450.00 --------------- .. AL = $329,295.00 0 0 CITY OF OKEEC MEMORANDV TO: Mayor and Council DATE: SUBJECT:!, FROM. John Drago, City Administrator I, OBEE November 15, 1995 STATUS REPORT 1. Enclosed are the minutes from the LDR Citizen's A visory Committee meetings of November 6 and November 13, 1995. 2. The emergency generator at the Police Departmen will be fixed. The price is $3,000. However, because the size is too small to he idleboth buildings, the fixed generator will be installed at Public Works. We are iYorking on getting prices for a larger unit for the Municipal Centre. 3. Chief Tomey is getting sketches for enclosing the tairwell at the Public Safety Building. The sketch will also include the enclosure for a larger generator. The stairwell enclosure will add extra protection to the building in case of natural disasters. 4. The 1995/96 Budget for Public Works had $45,000 drain on S.W. 8th Street. Lawson and Noble is woi the plans are complete, it will be bid. JJD: nb Enclosure 1 )eted to replace a storm on the project and when