Loading...
1996-05-21 Regular Meeting153 i A. Call Meeting to order on May 21, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. B. Invocation offered by Reverend John Paul Ziegler; Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Kirk. C. Mayor and Council Attendance: Mayor James E. Kirk Council Member Noel A. Chandler Council Member Michael G. O'Connor Council Member Robert Oliver Council Member 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 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mayor Kirk called the regular meeting to order on May 21, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Reverend J.P. Ziegler offered the invocation; Mayor Kirk led the Pledge of Allegiance. Clerk Thomas called the roll: Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present D. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Council Council Member Oliver moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Council Action for the Regular Meeting of May 7, 1996 and the Workshop Meetings of Action for the Regular Meeting of May 7, 1996 and the Workshop Meetings of May 6 and 13, 1996; May 6 and 13, 1996. seconded by Council Member Chandler. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. PAGE I OF 22 0 X 154 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 2 OF 22 REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF III Mayor Kirk asked if there were any requests for the additions, deferral's or withdrawals of items on ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. today's agenda. There were none. E. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION III Mayor Kirk opened the Public Hearing for Ordinance Adoption at 7:03 p.m. a. Motion to read by tide only Ordinance 689 - City Attorney (Exhibit Council Member Oliver moved to read by title only (proposed) Ordinance No. 689; seconded by 1). 111 Council Member Chandler. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Clerk Thomas read proposed Ordinance No. 689 by title only as follows; ,AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 3-3(a) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERgBILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. " b. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 689. Mayor Kirk stated that (before calling for a motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 689), he would open the floor for public discussion concerning the proposed ordinance amending the section in the City Code Book regulating the distance of churches, schools and day care centers from a business selling alcoholic beverages. I.C. Public Comment. Attorney Tom Conely approached the podium stating that he represented Danny Entry and Doc Watford who are submitting and recommending to the Council that the amendment be passed as presented. In his address to the Council and those present, Attorney Conely stated, I do not think that it is any secret that the Council did not dream up this amendment on their own, I guess I am to blame 11 for it. X X X X X 155 E MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 22 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment. My clients have outstanding contracts with Walgreen's. Walgreen's wants to come in and build what amounts to a very nice establishment where you now have the Ford Place and Danny's Chevron Station. Two of the main things that I hear that Okeechobee City and County needs is a broader tax base and more jobs. If this ordinance is amended as proposed, and Walgreen's comes in, they propose on building an establishment that will probably yield thirty thousand dollars a year in advalorum taxes. They also will employ at least forty either full-time or part-time employees. Why do we seek the changes in the ordinance like we have? Why don't we use a Special Exception or Variance? Well, the answer to that is, special exceptions and variances are items that are permissible, they are allowed. This ordinance, as it presently is worded does not allow any special exception or any variance. The footage is established, there is no way to shorten the footage distance as the ordinance is written. Since we cannot have a special exception or variance that means the only alternative is to amend the ordinance. In amending the ordinance as I have proposed I am making a distinction, the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises versus the consumption of alcoholic beverages off the premises. There will be no distance as far as the establishment of businesses selling alcoholic beverages as far as the distance from a church. But it will apply to schools and child care centers. It stays unchanged as far as the distance required for the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. I do want to emphasis that to you. Why the amendment? To allow my clients to sell to Walgreen's. One other point I want to make to you. The present ordinance does not apply to, or confer in any way, any distance required for any establishment selling beer and wine. A 7-1 I can open and operate right next to a church, child care center or school. There is no regulation to prevent that. What we do not seek to do, is to allow a bar to open up next door to a church. No consumption on the premises of alcoholic beverages. Thank you. 156 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 8 OF 22 Somebody brought up the issue that churches could not have a school or day care. With the old ordinance. As I read the law I think that the burden is on the liquor store or an establishment selling liquor. I do not see that there are any restrictions to the church. I do not think there is anything in the law that says that the church cannot move next to ABC Liquors. You would have to admit that the church would have an affect on the business of ABC Liquor's if they moved next door. We are not saying that the churches cannot have schools. We are not saying that they cannot open day care centers anywhere they want. Florida State Law points out very clearly that the sale of liquor, has to be in a completely separate building. It can have a common wall but there cannot be a door from the drug store to the liquor store it has to be a separate entrance, separate store. The people that mentioned day care, I cannot imagine that day care would be in any way impacted by the changes in this ordinance. I think that we should be honest about this. Are we against Walgreen's? Are we against the statute? Are we against alcoholic consumption? I am firmly in favor of the property rights of somebody. Walgreen's can come in two or three blocks away and build the same store. Your children will have the same exposure. Your school's will have the same exposure. Whether or not it is on that property or relocated three blocks where it would be in compliance with the ordinance. Thank you. Reverend John Gerald, Pastor of Victory Baptist and Principle of Victory Baptist School addressed the Council stating, I have been a Pastor in Okeechobee for eighteen years but I do not come here as a Pastor tonight. I come as a school principal for sixteen years. I am here tonight because we do not have a good ordinance, we have a tolerable ordinance and I am against back stepping. The constitution prohibits any governing body from putting restrictions upon a church, that is why a church can go anywhere in any zoning and it's right. We do have an ordinance we can tolerate. We have tolerated it for many years. But please let's not go backwards, lets go forward. Danny Giles read into the record, the following letter from Reverend Canon Timothy Shaw: "The Vestry and Rector of Church of Our Savior are unanimously opposed to the proposed amendment to Code Section 3-3(a), eliminating the buffer zone between established churches and places of business for the sale of alcoholic beverages. We own a complete city block approximately two blocks from the intersection of Highways 441 and 70. - j x 157 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 9 OF 22 JiE. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. First, we object to the notice of the proposed ordinance. The title of the ordinance, which refers only to the section number being amended, does not fairly give notice of the subject or substance of the ordinance as required by Florida Statute 166.041(2) and is legally inadequate. Ours is one of the oldest established churches in Okeechobee and the proposed ordinance change affects us in several unique ways. Because our church is located in the heart of the city, our facilities are used daily, and sometimes several times a day, by individuals and groups that we believe will be directly impacted by the change. Alcoholics Anonymous meets at our Parish Hall several times each week, as do other related groups such as Narc Anon and AI A -teen. Girl Scouts and Brownie troops use our facilities weekly, as well. We also have various women's groups and youth activities using the facilities after hours. These groups need the continued protection of the buffer zoning. We have experienced problems with transients and vandals for years. Many times we have discovered people sleeping in our sanctuary or walkways. Some have caused damage or have even stolen items from our church, eventually resulting in a derision to lock our sanctuary, which has always before been available for our members and others as a place of prayer. We continue to have problems with vandals and transients, and we believe the proposed ordinance will cause these problems to increase. For several years we at Church of Our Savior have planned to open a Christian school on our property. That project has become closer and closer to reality in recent years, as our congregation and number of children has increased. The proposed ordinance will hinder this project if an alcoholic beverage business is established within seven hundred feet our church property before our school is established. Immediately east of our property is vacant property listed for sale. The affect of the proposed ordinance change will make this property available for the establishment of an alcoholic beverage business. We believe this will directly impede the mission of our church. The community -wide impact of this ordinance concerns us too. Al churches will be affected. The most obvious question is, "Why exclude churches from the protection of the ordinance, but include schools and day-care centers?" What is the rationale for such exclusion? If the sale of alcoholic beverages will have, or may cause, a negative impact on schools and day-care centers, would it not have the same impact on churches? 158 MAY 2 I , 1996 -REGULAR MEETING -PAGE 4 OF 22 .............. ..::.:......................:.:..::.:..:..:::::.:.:::..::.;: >....:......... .�i E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION Mr. Frank Aftobello approached the podium and stated I am in favor (of the proposed Ordinance No. I Public Comment. 689). As a citizen and a taxpayer and I do not have any disrespect for the people that are up here to oppose it, but as a taxpayer, Tom Conely is right. We have to establish a broader tax base. Okeechobee is on an economic decline, We need some jobs. We need industry to come into Okeechobee. I think it is the proper time to change this ordinance. I know one of these principals that is selling this property. I have known him for fifty years. He has been a life time resident of Okeechobee. A life time member of the Methodist Church. I know deep down in his heart that if he felt this would be a detriment to the community he would back off. Use good judgement. Thank you. Mr. Mike Ratliff addressed the Council and those present in opposition to the proposed ordinance. In his comments Mr. Ratliff stated he did not have any qualms about Okeechobee needing a broader tax base. That Walgreen's is one of the fastest growing companies in America, and have the means to purchase a site anywhere in Okeechobee and that it did not have to be this site. And emphasizing that there was no difference between a church and a day care and a school. Therefore, he did not understand why they were taking churches out of the buffer zone (by proposed Ordinance No. 689). He was concerned also that if a church wanted to open a day care center or school they may be prohibited from doing that if the church was located near a store selling alcoholic beverages. Mr. Ratliff sated in closing, I think that if this was put to the voters it would be no contest. You all are elected officials, to represent the people for the City of Okeechobee. I challenge you to represent them correctly. Mr. Steve Walker addressed the Council stating, I want to thank the Council for allowing me to speak my concerns about this proposed Ordinance (No. 689). 1 found out about this proposed change last night at the Cancer Benefit at the high school when I was there. Tonight I do not want to voice my personal position to the Council about alcohol. That is not why I am here, I would like to ask the Council to consider my views on the ramifications of removing the word church from that section 3- 3(a) of Ordinance No. 577. By allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages for off -premises consumption within seven hundred feet of a church you will have effectively shut the door on that particular church from ever again allowing it to have a private school or a day care at that church, by doing that. It is unlikely that any of us here in this room that oppose this wish to limit someone from using their property, most of us can certainly agree that the consideration should go both ways. 159 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 5 OF 22 And what I would like to request is that the Council find some other means of granting the land owner's requested use without weakening the law that is already on the books. Without watering down that law meant to protect the community. I do not think that a developer should be allowed to come in the City and have an ordinance changed to accommodate the plans they have brought before this Council. Instead I feel like a developer should be able to find a suitable spot that does not violate the ordinances that are already placed on the books. Thank you. Reverend Scot Leslie, Pastor the Okeechobee Presbyterian Church addressed the Council stating, from what I can tell I am about seven hundred fifty feet from the property involved. Our church governing board met yesterday evening and one of the items of business was the proposed ordinance change and I have a copy here that I would like to provide the Council with, a resolution that our board passed in opposition to that ordinance change particularly requesting whether this was a wise idea in light of the fact that our church's long range plan is to open a day care center. Whether the City wants the image of the facl that by this ordinance change in the future there would be no restrictions on having any store within a commercial zoning district open up and sell hard liquor close to a church. My church faces the ABBA Christian Book Store which we are glad to have as a neighbor, but if those folks decide to relocate to a different place, then "Ma & Pa's Liquor Store" can open there, we would have no grounds to complain about that. Finally, the last thing I want to talk about is our most serious concern and that is the fact that changing the ordinance could cause any school or day care center opened by the church to be in violation of the ordinance conceming having a school or day care center on the church ground and this could well lead both churches and the City to unwanted first amendment suits that nobody would want any part of. Churches have been able to successfully sue governments who have restricted their use of their property by zoning and have repeatedly won within the court system and it has been a very costly system and nobody wants to be a part of that but if our vision of our ministry includes a day care, and if we would be prohibited, we might have no other recourse other than to do that. We would like to welcome Walgreen's to our community, personally they would lower my prescription drug cost by about twenty-five percent and that would be a welcome effort to save some money. We would like to have them here in town. But surely there would be a way to have them come into town without either selling the hard liquor or by locating in another spot. Thank you. 160 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment, MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 6 OF 22 Reverend loe Bishop, addressed the Council stating, I am a longtime resident of Okeechobee and long time Pastor of Okeechobee. I am Pastor of Fountain of Life Church here in the City. The amendment as it stands and if passed would affect our church either directly or in the future. But as a citizen I stand in opposition of the amendment. First of all because I believe that it would present a negative image of attracting other businesses and in -coming families into our City. Plus the fact the distance to any church whether it be the church I Pastor or not. I voice my opposition to the amendment. Churches are very much a part of this City and as Pastor and a citizen I would ask that it be given due consideration not to pass proposed Ordinance No. 689. Thank you. Reverend Walter Moritz, Pastor of the Okeechobee Church of God, addressed the Council stating, I have been here for over eight years Pastoring this church. I want to say that I am quite concerned about the proposed ordinance. I do not think we had ample time to prepare for this public hearing. I took the effort to call a number of people and other Pastors and I was amazed at the number of people that were not aware of what was coming up and I do want to thank those that informed me and made it possible for me to be here. As a preacher of the gospel I am concerned about the church. I am concerned about the community. I am concerned about the affect it will have down the road. We do not think sometimes when we vote what the future holds but I want you know that whatever you decide, and you are our representatives, will determine the future for our children and the community. It may have a devastating affect and that is why we need to weigh everything out and give ample time for people to think on an issue. On May 14th our Church Council voted in opposition to this change in the ordinance. 1 spent most of the afternoon weighing this thing out, making telephone calls and I want to tell you I did it because I care. I called the Methodist Church and I was concerned. Their minister is going to be leaving on June 12th. They do not have a Pastor really available to represent that church tonight. They should have been given ample time, the new Pastor will be here on June 12th. I also called a number of other Pastors and found out their council meetings were set up for tonight, so they could not be here. I realize that according to the newspaper article some felt two weeks was enough. This is a grave issue. This is an issue you do not consider lightly. I am not opposed to a vote that is weighed out or a vote that is given due consideration but we need to think not only of ourselves but the future of our community and of our children. j 161 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION 1 I.C. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 7 OF 22 I am concerned because the change would make it possible for any package store to locate next door to any church. We may not think too much about that now, but we could locate a package store next to our church. Our church has had a school, had a day care. We are still licensed for that even though we are inactive but the thing is that the establishment of that package store could close the door on the day care or the future of a school in our community. Another thing I would like to mention is the intersection. This is a deadly situation. When the winter people are down here the highways, roads and streets, you can hardly get out on them because traffic is so heavy. I do not agree with it (the proposed ordinance) but I will put in this possible suggestion, if it was a special exception and I am opposed to it but the thing is it would not change the law, The thing you have to consider is churches directly involved should have thirty days notice. They should have ample time to come together as a body and decide whether or not they are willing to pay the price and say yes. I think that it's important for you to weigh this thing out very, very carefully and that we do realize what this will be because people need to have time to know about such a grave issue. I feel that the ordinance that is on the books already is a good ordinance. It was put there for a purpose. It has held it's place a long time and I don't think that it should be changed. I trust tonight that you will duly consider these remarks as I feel that it affects the future of our children and our community. Amelia Leighton stated that, I live in the City, I have lived here since 1966. We already have one package store here in town. We do not need another one. I have seen the devastation it causes. I welcome Walgreen's and I hope they will find a place in the City but I do not think we need them under these circumstances . I oppose the ordinance change. Bill Osterman addressed the Council stating, I am an active member of the First United Methodist Church. I am here tonight not representing the church. I have no other official capacity other than being an active member of the church. I believe as a Christian that our faith is based on honesty, truthfulness and fairness. I realize that most of the people in this room have strong positions against using alcohol. I have a strong conviction against using alcohol but there are other people who do not have those convictions, The fact remains whether we like it or not it is a legal tax paying business. I think we have to look at it as a property rights issue rather than a drinking issue. I do not think the location of Walgreen's any where in this community is going to change the amount of alcohol consumed in this county. 162 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 10 OF 22 Why was the original ordinance passed in the first place? If the original ordinance was a good one when it was adopted years ago, what has changed that makes it necessary or prudent to change it now? The only change we are aware of is that an individual owner of property within seven hundred feet of Church of Our Savior seeks to sell his property to a company that desires to sell alcoholic beverages. That individual has proposed the ordinance change to accommodate the sale of his property. Thus, the ordinance is clearly legislation intended to benefit a single property owner at the expense of their citizens and other property owners of the community, That is not a good or valid reason to change the ordinance. Okeechobee is a unique, rural community. One of the things making it unique is the respect and protection the community has historically given to its churches in the form of a buffer from activities that are not consistent with the activities of the churches, Eliminating that protective buffer zone moves this community closer to the character of larger cities, where churches have to contend with all manner of activities all around them. We are all aware of the gradual deterioration of "small town America," causing family values and community standards to give way to materialism and selfish endeavors. The proposed ordinance is a step in the wrong direction. We have considered the possible argument that beer and wine are already being sold legally on property within seven hundred feet of our church. However, the sale of beer and wine is not a principle activity of the business of that location. Receipts for such sales is most likely a small percentage of the income of that business. On the other hand, the new business proposed to be located on that property spends large sums of money advertising its liquor sales. We expect their sales to be in far greater volume, and a larger percentage of the total income of that business, than what we have there now. You should also consider the footnote to the attached Walgreen's advertisement. Apparently, Walgreen's has established stores in other locations where they have not been allowed to sell alcoholic beverages. Does Walgreen's' decision to purchase this particular property really depend on their ability to sell alcoholic beverages there? If not, wouldn't Okeechobee be better off to leave the ordinance alone? If it does, do we really need another liquor store so badly that it is worth compromising the standards of our community? .i 163 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE I I OF 22 Lastly if their is doubt as to the feelings of the citizens of Okeechobee on this issue, why not place the issue on the ballot in the form of a referendum in the next general election? We urge you to consider the best interests of the whole of this community, rather than the interest of an individual. We respectfully ask you to reject the proposed ordinance. Thank you." Pastor Mark Belleville of Abundant Blessings Church stated, I am obviously opposed to this, not so much opposed to Walgreen's. I am opposed to removing the buffer zone to churches. My concern was shouldn't we be tabling this meeting or at least this part of the agenda until you could get a larger room for citizens, so they can receive proper notice and be in a place where everybody could hear the discussion going on? One of the previous speakers referred to the sales of liquor as far as not affecting the general area, but ask the Police Chief if it is not true that in every other community the instance of violate crimes around package stores escalates. There are more rapes and robberies there. The reason for the protective buffer zone is to protect our women and children and so naturally I am opposed to a blanket deletion of the buffer zone for the whole community. A Special Exception, for this particular property may be something to look at. Thank you. Administrator Drago asked Fire Chief Tomey to see if any one downstairs wanted to address the Council, they would need to come up to the Chambers. No one downstairs wanted to address the Council. Mayor Kirk continued the public hearing with public comments: Attorney Conely introduced Mr. Bryan West, who is the developer for the proposed project, to the Council. Mr. West explained he develops for Walgreen's in Georgia and Florida. He commented that he had heard several comments made that Walgreen's can go elsewhere. Walgreen's criteria is to locate at intersections and is to pick out where the best intersections are and that is what they want to do and that is why we picked this property. There are no major drug store's within a one mile radius. Walgreen's, if this is not approved will not go down the street. I have some pictures here of some other Walgreen's, it is a very plain view. Please keep in mind that alcoholic beverage consumption is all off - premises. Walgreen's is the largest drug store chain in the United States. The pictures are of a Walgreen's I just built in the City of Vero Beach and again they do not have an ordinance in the City of Vero Beach in regards to churches it only applies to schools. 164 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I.C. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 12 OF 22 Mayor Kirk then commented, that he would make a few comments then open the floor up to the Council. The Council up until this point has not seen any plans as referred to earlier. The Council was aware that Walgreen's was the company trying to come in, but we have not seen any plans. This Council is not trying to cater to some developer. The property in question presently sells beer and so I assume that one of the major differences here would be the strength of the alcoholic beverages being sold that is the only conclusion that I can draw, because if the person who owns that property decided to go out of the business there now and put a bar in there they have a right to do that as long as the bar only served beer is that right? Attorney Cook responded, no, off premises only unless its a restaurant that is approved. Mayor Kirk continued, the other thing that caught my attention as several different people spoke was the intersection, I purchase a great deal of my gasoline there and I do not know what the City could do to make that intersection any more dangerous after the State came through there and took part of that comer they greatly damaged the service stations ability to come in and out of there, it is dangerous now at times. I do not know that if everything was torn down and something built in the center of that property if the City would not be better off as far as the intersection. As far as the distance, I do not know what the magical number is there. We have talked about transients, I do not really understand how this is adding transients to the City, We do have an obligation to try to represent the citizens of this community to the best of our ability. I want to again make reference to the fact that this had nothing to do with the developer. We have property owner's trying to sell property and through their attorney asked for an ordinance to allow them to sell. I do have some concerns that I would like for the attorney to answer. One is the future planning as presented by a couple of the churches. If we have an establishment there that sells alcoholic beverages would that stop the church from putting in a day care or a private school at a later date? Attorney Cook responded, I do not believe so. Mr. Osterman addressed that pretty accurately in that the burden is on the business selling alcohol not to locate near a church. The existing ordinance certainly did not stop the church from going into Fat Johnnie's with the sale of alcohol nearby. It could be drafted a little clearer to protect the establishment of church, school or day care but even as written that would not be a problem. 165 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 13 OF 22 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. 11 Mayor Kirk asked, that would not stop that, if the church so planned, is what you are saying? Attorney Cook answered, I do not believe so. Mayor Krk then asked if he had the answer to his other question? Attorney Cook advised, the existing ordinance is clear that you cannot sell alcoholic beverages within seven hundred feet of a church, school or child care center. But, does not apply to off -premises con- sumption for wine and beer. Mayor Kirk asked for clarification, so it is legal as long as it is wine and beer? Attorney Cook responded, yes, the affect of this (proposed ) ordinance is to expand the sale of the hard liquor to that already permitted by selling beer and wine (for off -premises consumption). Mayor Kirk continued, another question I had was, is there a limit to the number of liquor licenses that can be issued to a town of this size? Attorney Cook answered, the state controls and issues the liquor license. Administrator Drago interjected, there are no liquor license's available in the state for consumption on - premise, but consumption off -premises there are, Mayor K further commented, quite a few of you seem to feel like you did not have enough time for this meeting, but you filled the room pretty good not to have had enough time, more than this chamber can handle. No matter what happens with this ordinance I do not warn people thinking that this Council tried to short change you by ram-rodding something through real fast and not give you an opportunity to be heard because you have every right to do that. One of my final comments is that some of the people that spoke are from the County. It is my understanding that there is no such ordinance in the County. Is that correct or do they have the same thing we have? Clerk Thomas answered, their's is seven hundred feet also. Council Member Oliver stated, I asked the City Clerk to see if similar Cities of our size or our neighboring cities had buffer zones. We found out that Sebring has three hundred feet; Ft. Pierce has one thousand, six hundred feet; Lake Placid has eight hundred feet; Belle Glade has three hundred feet; Arcadia has three hundred feet; and Avon Park has two hundred fifty feet. So it would not be unusual to have a buffer zone. 166 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 14 OF 22 Mr. Smith stated, on the comment you made awhile ago regarding day care centers. It does cause a tremendous hardship on them. If you have ever applied for a day care license one of the first questions is where is that closest liquor store. Its right on the application. It is the first thing they ask you. Council Member O'Connor asked, even though they ask, do they still give you the license? Mr. Smith responded, in the instance we went through they told us we would not be able to do it because it was existing there now. Whether they would stop somebody I cannot answer that. Someone in the audience asked, if this ordinance is passed does that mean a zero tolerance in the City? Anywhere in the City there is zero tolerance for a church? Mayor Kirk answered, for off -premises the way it stands right now. Administrator Drago added, only in a Commercial or Industrial area, Mayor Kirk asked, anything else up here? (No response). Continuing he stated, I have two things that are greatly bothering me and I do not have an answer for them. One is the affect for the future planning of the day care or if the church wants to start a school. I am not real comfortable with that and would like to see some additional research done on that. The other thing is I do not like the thought of the people feeling like we have not given them enough time. I am not sure that we might not be wise to consider re -advertising this and giving them additional time and giving the attorney an opportunity to do some research on how this is going to affect the churches and their plans in the future and maybe even to talk to HRS and see what their requirements are. I do not want any establishment to be penalized six months from now or a year from now as they attempt to grow over a decision we made now if we see that it is going to come that way. I personally do not think it will but I do not have that as a fact, at this time it bothers me. I do not know how you guys (Council) feel about that so you can respond to that. Council Member Oliver stated, I am prepared to vote tonight, I think that a zero buffer zone is in- appropriate, Mayor Kirk commented, I think whatever we do here, if we leave it the same, or if we do not leave It the same, there has to be something put in there because I do not want them this close. I am just not sure what is appropriate . We are worried about that intersection in the center of town and you can go right down the street and there is an ABC store there. It depends on which side of the town, you may have to drive through that intersection to go to the ABC store and drive right back so you can argue semantics but that is the two things that are bothering me more than anything else. 167 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 15 OF 22 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION � I .c. Public Comment. Council Member O'Connor stated, I have two questions for our attorney. One, could this be postponed? Is there a motion that could be made or something like that to give us more time to let Tom Conely and his client work this thing over and for the public to digest it more? The other question that I have, I know you cannot do a Special Exception on an ordinance that is already in effect. Is there a way if you were to do a Special Exception, what would have to be amended, going backwards, to do a Special Exception for this one particular area? AttomeyCook answered, yes there is a motion to give use more time. To the second question, that is a good point because when this Council considers a problem like this, the fact of the matter is that the City of Okeechobee is relatively small and valuable commercial property that businesses want to use is not plentiful. There is only one main intersection in town. You have to weigh the rights of the property owner/business versus the other interest that may be involved. I can see where passing an ordinance that would just give a blanket permission for liquor stores to go up next to any church in town could be troublesome although any businessman will tell you and Mr. West included, that Walgreen's is not going to build a liquor store on 5th Avenue next to the Baptist Church it's not commercially reasonable to do that. But on the other hand a blanket permission for these types of things all over town may not be the way to go either. I believe that it would be permissible for this City Council to abolish the ordinance all together. Address this type of thing in the land development regulations (LDR's); and a Special Exception could be fashioned so that perhaps it makes economic sense in a valuable commercial area that this type of business could go in, But, next to a church that is in another part of town that is not commercially valuable for business it would not be permissible. Now how that affects this particular land owner I do not know because as you know we are going through the LDR's and it is going to be the end of the year before they are probably adopted. Council Member O'Connor stated, it would not necessarily have to go through the LDR's if we did not want it to. Is there a mechanism for us to backup like what you said and to re -address this, leaving the LDR's out of it, so we could go on and get this thing taken care op. The ordinance would have to be changed and that is what I think that with doing several things: One, delaying this a little bit maybe to get everything in line the way that everybody would like to see it and not jeopardizing the property rights of Mr Entry or Mr. Watford because they do have property rights that we have to address. 1 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 16 OF 22 The other thing is I am selfish when it comes to Okeechobee. When we lost the Utilities of the City of Okeechobee we lost the advantage of being able to go out into the County where we had already signed agreements with people on the edge of the City to annex. We do not have that capability any more to annex anybody. The way that we can help our tax base is by good positive growth and like the attorney Tom Conely said thirty thousand dollars in advalorum taxes is still a lot of money for the City of Okeechobee to help do things for your City. But by the same token, if we work this thing out to where it works out to where everybody kind of compromises on this I think it would work. Mr. Osterman, interjected, there are two things that I forgot to mention. Al the churches in town enjoy tax exemption. The other thing is, when was this ordinance written? Does anybody notice the pacification of churches and I think that it is wonderful. I think it is great. But every time a new church moves in to a store front they automatically take away the property rights of everybody around them when you have law s like this on the books. They can actually tie the hands of the entire City and County or the City with an ordinance like this because you know, open a store front, put up a sign, it is a church, there is no definition of a church in the ordinance. These are just two points that I think that I would like for you to consider. Ben Leighton addressed the Council commenting, I have a small business here in town, The church is made up of a body. Everyone of us pays our fair share of taxes. We are the church. Also, as far as rights of people, I am for it one hundred percent (100%). 1 want business. I want Walgreen's to come to town. I do not know why Walgreen's feels that they have to sell liquor, or why they have to play hardball in that they either build there or nowhere, But I believe if you take the people in the church and their responsibility in the community and weigh what you have against a bunch of people in bars and what they say and their responsibility to the community I think that the church will out weigh them. Mr. Jim Myers stated, it is so that churches are exempt from taxes but we are lacking in representation tonight that we would like to have had because this is scholarship night and our church right now as we are speaking is handing out an approximate figure of five thousand dollars ($5,000) representative of our church to our local senior graduates. Please take this in mind because this is part of our taxes. 169 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 17 OF 22 Mayor Kirk commented, when I looked at this ordinance as it applies to this piece of property, this is THE prime commercial piece of property in the City, and that has to be considered. I am at the point where I think probably we do not need to take a vote tonight. But to move in the direction of looking at an ordinance that would give us the authority to make a Special Exception. In my opinion, if this was not downtown, right in the center, quite frankly I do not think it would have gotten this far. We do not have that much prime real estate property that is going to attract something in. I would like for us to evaluate the issues that we have talked about. I would hope that when we have another Public Hearing maybe the Ministerial Association could get together and have a spokesman. We could even meet with a council from the churches that are directly affected since that exception would not affect anybody else and reach some kind of compromise to accommodate this property. I want the audience to understand this. We do not have a lot of commercial businesses knocking on our doors saying: Hey I want to come to Okeechobee." That is sad, because when we are giving these scholarships out to these seniors what we are saying is: "Here is your five thousand dollars, but we are not offering them a place to work." They are having to leave, people. I am an educator I can tell you, they have two hundred forty people graduating. There is not two hundred forty jobs in this community right now. We are talking about a company that is going to come to town and provide forty jobs. Something that we have to consider too and it bothers me, it did not in all honesty, until we got here and I heard some of the comments. That is why you have Public Hearings, but it bothers me that we are about to issue blanket approval through the whole City. That is what bothers me. I think that we need to address it from that issue. I think that the people that own this property and it's been pointed out here eloquently by a couple of people, they have rights and we have an obligation. That is our Downtown District area and Commercial area and we've got to take care of it. We need these pieces of property to pull people in but at the same time I don't want us to create a monster and I think we can reach a peaceful compromise. I really do. Council Member Oliver stated, I would just like to say that my major concern was not Walgreen's and not that comer because I do not think that is really a tremendous problem. It is not Walgreen's primary business to sell liquor, it is their secondary business. Their primary business is a pharmacy. What disturbed me was this ordinance opened it up, City wide, for zero buffer, for a Mom & Pop liquor store across the street from a church. That is what disturbed me and I think that is the point. 170 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 18 OF 22 Council Member O'Connor then asked Attorney Cook, if we have not voted to adopt Ordinance No. 689, which we did not do, how do we do what we are saying we want to do to get this thing started with this being a final Public Hearing? Attorney Cook responded, you move to table the second reading of the ordinance; and then if you wish a final reading again you are free to amend this ordinance anyway you wish legally. The first reading we had is still sufficient for first a reading and if you bring an amended ordinance back up, it would be re -advertised for public hearing just as this one was. Council Member O'Connor asked, if we move to table, what I want to know is, we vote on that and then we have to make a motion to amend the ordinance is that correct? Attorney Cook, no, Council Member O'Connor then asked, to get to where we can make a special exception. Attorney Cook explained, Attorney Conely, myself and anybody else who is interested, would draft an amended ordinance and present that at the next meeting or the meeting after, for Proposed Second Reading and we would go through the same process we did tonight. Now if you have a specific ordinance in mind you could make a motion to have it address accordingly, but there is still some questions I have in my mind about establishing Special Exceptions in ordinances. Administrator Drasuggested the Council should abolish this particular section then come back in and amend the current zoning ordinance to give you the power or on a case by case basis meeting certain criteria. Attorney Cook interjected, but in order to abolish you have to abolish the ordinance in the same process that you adopt it. Administrator DraRo continued, yes, in other words you will have to go through a First Reading. Have the Public Hearing. Invite the public. People can come up and say yes we favor abolishing section 3-3 or no we do not and why. Council votes on it. Then we would have another ordinance prepared to amend the current zoning ordinance, which would be No. 402. Set up the procedure to grant Special Exceptions in commercial areas for those types of establishments and then you can put the buffers in it. 171 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 19 OF 22 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION Council Member Oliver asked Attorney Cook, if we do not adopt Ordinance No. 689, would that take I .c. Public Comment. care of it? It there is not a motion to approve or a second? It would not need to be tabled would it? Attorney Cook answered, no. But the affect would be, to get it back to process again you would have to start over and have another first reading. If you table it you do not have to have another first reading. Council Member Oliver then asked, if you table it, you could do this in two weeks. Council Member O'Connor moved to table Ordinance No 689 until the new paperwork is ready to be presented back with this ordinance to the Council; seconded by Council Member Chandler. Mayor Kirk stated, I have a point of order from the attomey there is no discussion on a motion to table. All those in favor state by saying aye. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirk asked for clarification, it has been tabled. Let me make sure I understand where we are going. You are going to get together with the land owner's attorney, a representative or two from the two churches that are affected and see if we can write something that is agreeable to the City, the land owner and those two churches? Administrator Drago responded, the procedures as I envision it would be to pull the proposed Ordinance No. 689 of the table at a Public Hearing, it can be amended to abolish that section, you will not have to wait the extra two weeks. From a public perspective if that section gets abolished it can be done two weeks quicker than the normal process of having to go through a first and second reading. Then create a new ordinance to take care of the Special Exception. Mayor Kirk commented that is as long as the public is notified. Pastor Belleville asked, if we abolish the ordinance that is currently on the books with the buffer zone how fast can we put another one back? X X X X X 172 E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION I .c. Public Comment. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING RECESS: F. NEW BUSINESS Motion to approved Alan Clark as a new Firefighter - Fire Chief. MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 20 OF 22 Administrator Drago responded, I would not recommend abolishing one unless the other one was ready to be adopted. MMor Kirk commented, they got to go hand and hand. Pastor RadifF addressed the Council again stating, I have a question you mentioned maybe at the next hearing the ministerial group appoint one person. I do not have a problem with that as long as you had those that were not in opposition appoint one person to be the spokesperson for that group also. Council Member Oliver asked when is our next meeting going to be? Administrator Drago answered, the next scheduled one is for the 3rd of June. June, July and August is usually the vacation time for the Council. So considering this could be a little bit of a complex issue because of private property rights, zoning and those types of issues it may take a little bit longer to first put it in a conceptual idea and then some sort of written form and get together with the appropriate parties to see if they can reach a consensus before it comes back to the Council, Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 8:38 p.m. Mayor Kirk called a recess at 8:38 and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Council Member O'Connor moved to approve Alan Clark as a new Firefighter; seconded by Council Member Chandler. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. X X X X /0 I 173 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 21 OF 22 NEW BUSINESS 2. Discuss repairs to fire truck number three -Fire Chief (Exhibit 2). Council asked Fire Chief Tomey his recommendation concerning fixing the 1956 tanker, also known as Truck No. 3. Estimates from Domer's Inc. are six thousand, seven hundred twenty dollars ($6,720) and Kelley's Machine Shone Inc. six thousand, seven hundred sixty-nine dollars ($6,769) for stainless steel or five thousand, forty-two dollars ($5,042) for steel. He was also concerned about not having the truck with an ISO rating coming up on the department. Council Member O'Connor felt enough time and money had been put into the tanker and recommended the Fire Department take the City's equipment off, give the tanker back to the Division of Forestry and stop insurance. Then decide what we need to get the department back up to speed, Council Member O'Connor asked the Administrator for the information he asked him to research concerning ISO ratings. Administrator Drago suggested the tanker not be fixed because the ISO rating is on a weighted schedule and that the points lost from not having the truck could possibly be made up in other areas. Following lengthy discussion the majority cf the Council agreed to take the City's equipment off the tanker, Truck No. 3 and give to back to the Division of Forestry, and stop the insurance. 3. Discuss 457 Deferred Compensation - City Administrator Administrator Drago informed the Council that the Finance Department sent out surveys and nine (Exhibit 3). 11 employees s wanted to participate in the 457 Deferred Compensation plan. Council Member O'Connor asked how many employee's the Crry currently had, Administrator Drago responded fifty. Council Member O'Connor then commented that if only nine were interested that is not a majority of the employees. Mayor Kirk asked what a 457 Deferred Compensation Plan was? Administrator Drago responded it is a way to defer some of your income for a later date along the lines of a tax sheltered annuity. Mayor Kirk then asked if these were available on an individual basis? Administrator Drago answered yes under a different name from banks. Mayor Kirk then stated with the lack of employee interest he felt it should be left alone, Council concurred. 174 MAY 21, 1996 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 22 OF 22 F. NEW BUSINESS 4. Motion to approve a Professional Services Contract with Genesis Council Member O'Connor moved to approve a Professional Services Contract with Genesis Group, Group, Inc. For the Downtown Redevelopment in the amount of Inc. for the Downtown Redevelopment in the amount of eighty-nine thousand, six hundred sixty dollars $89,660.00 - City Administrator (Exhibit 4). ($89,660.00); seconded by Council member Chandler. The original company who had the first contract was ROF, they were bought out by Genesis Group. Fred Fox, consultant for the grant checked this out and made sure it was alright to continue with the new company. This contract is not being paid for out of the grant money, but with the new money from refinancing the gas tax money, Adjournment - Mayor Kirk. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that da 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 test mon evience upon which the appeal is to be based. A tape recording of this meeting is on file in theCity Clerk's/Office. James E. Kir'k, Mayor gel 11 @1 r4bm I I e - Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the City should again put out request for proposals with a new company and the time and money involved to do that, Council Member O'Connor called the question. Vote on motion is as follows: KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Kirk adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. X X X X KI IPA