Loading...
1979-08-07 ~ sr SEVENTH MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1979 The Planning Board of the City of Okeechobee, Florida, convened in its Seventh Meeting in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, Okeechobee, Florida, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 7, 1979. Co-Chairman Christina Hooker presiding. Others present were: Jim Wright, Robert Joiner, Frank Altobello; David Conlon, City Attorney; Richard Spray, Building Official and Janice M. Mann, Secretary. Chairman John D. Cassels, Jr. was absent. Co-Chairman Christina Hooker brought the meeting to order. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Wright waived the reading of the minutes and moved to approve the minutes with a waiver of the reading, seconded by Member JOiner, vote unanimous. Chairman Cassels absent. There being no further business of the Board of Adjustments and Ap- peals, the Board adjourned. PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Altobello moved to accept the minutes of the July 3, 1979, meeting as transcribed, seconded by Member Wright, vote unanimous. Chair- man Cassels absent. REZONING REQUEST - HAYNES E. WILLIAMS, REAL ESTATE Haynes Williams Real Estate presented two requests for rezoning of property. The first request being the rezoning of Lots 1 thru 4 inclusive, Block 21, South Okeechobee; and Lots 7 thru 10 inclusive, Block 21, South Okeechobee from Residential, Single Family to Residential, General Multi,. Family. Representative Billie Jean Rpynolds elaborated on the request, for the benefit of the Board and the public attending the meeting. She stressed the need for apartments and rental units in the City of Okeechobee. (8) lots in question, which is equivalent to one family per lot. Mrs. Reynolds explained there would be eight (8) units for the eight Mrs. Reynolds reaffirmed that the sale was contingent on the approval of the rezoning application. The Board called for opinions of the citizens. They were as follows: -- -- -- - - - Linda Sain - Area is quiet, does not want more people in area. 1117 S.W. Jrd Avenue Burnett Bartlett 1201 S.W. Jrd Avenue - Opposed to change very definitely 1) Value of apartments is low, rent would then be low - undesirable renters. 2) He finds renters are very poor maintainers of property. J) Need rental units but not in this area. Mrs. Burnett Bartlett - Concurred with husband. Mrs. James N~uter 1401 S.W. Jrd Avenue Mr. James Neuter Claudette Miller Ida Viers Jll S.W. 17th Curtis Phelps 120J S.W. Jrd Avenue W.R. Burks lJOO S.W. Jrd Avenue Woodrow Walker Elsie Lanier 1420 S.W. Jrd Avenue Dallas Enfinger lJ16 S.W. Jrd Avenue Mrs. Thomas Mrs. Tom Bass 1405 S.W. 2nd Avenue - Objects to duplexes; added traffic would be a burden to roads. Area is now single family residential, does not want to see it changed. - Objects strongly to duplexes in area. - Mother of Claudette Miller, also opposed. - 1) 2) Opposed; pays taxes and does not want to pay taxes for added sewage. Renters run property down. - Streets are poor, unpaved - added traffic would make them worse. - Has apartments in area )motel converted to apart- ments). Is selective of renters but most other duplexes deterioate. 1) 2) Board did a good job with the present zoning plan. Feels this change will not help the neighbor- hood. Wants to continue trend of single family in area. - Neighborhood has been quiet for years, people moving in and out would cause trouble. - 1) ~~ Haynes Williams has other properties else- where to build duplexes on. Does not want a change. 1 or 2 buildings might be easier to take but not 4 units. After hearing the objections of the public, Attorney Conlon reviewed the guidelines for a decision with Mrs. Reynolds as follows: 1) Is the proposed change contrary to the established land use pattern? Yes, spot zoning. 2) Would the proposed change create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Yes. J) Would the proposed change materially alter the popùlation density pattern and thereby increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.? Some change, but not great. 4) Are existing distr±ct boundaries illogically drawn in relation to lfJ OG existing conditions on the property proposed for change? No. S) Would the proposed change be contrary to the City's comprehensive plan? Yes. 6) Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary? No. 7) Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Yes, added children, etc. 8) Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic con- gestion or otherwise affect public safety? Added traffic possibly. 9) Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Not applicable. 10) Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? No. 11) Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or develop- ment of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations? Yes, especially to the people living next to property. 12) Will the proposed change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare? Yes, spot zoning. 13) Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning? No. 14) Is the suggested change out of scale with the needs of the neighbor- hood or the City? No, there is a definite need for apartments. IS) Is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the City for the pro- posed use in districts already permitting such use? No. After reviewing the guidelines, the floor was open for discussion by by Board. Member Wright stated this would be spot zoning and may have an adverse affect on the area. Member Altobello moved to deny the request to rezone from RSF to RG2 for South Okeechobee, Lots 1 thru 4, Block 21 and South Okeechobee, Lots 7 thru 10, Block 21, seconded by Member Joiner, vote unanimous. REZONING REQUEST - HAYNES E. WILLIAMS, REAL ESTATE The second request of Haynes E. Williams, Real Estate was for re- zoning of Lots 1 thru 4, Block 19, Northwest Addition from RSF to RG2. The Planning Board reviewd the objections voiced by the public at the last meeting, after which the Board answered the guidelines as follows: -- -- -- - - - 1) Is the proposed change contrary to the established land us pattern? Yes 2) Would the proposed change create an isolated district unre~~ted to ad- jacent and nearby districts? Yes. 3) Would the proposed change materially alter the population density pattern and thereby increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.? No. 4) Are existing district boundaries illogically drawn in relation to ex- isting conditions on the property proposed for change? No. 5) Would the proposed change be contrary to the City's comprehensive plan? Yes. 6) Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary? No. 7) Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? No. S) Will the proposed change create or excessivÅ“ly increase traffic con- gestion or otherwise affect public safety? No. 9) Will the pDoposed change create a drainage problem? No. 10) Will the prQPosed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? No. 11) Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or develop- ment of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations? No, might enhance the area. 12) Will the proposed change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare? Yes. 13) Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning? No. 14) Is the suggested change out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City1 No. 15) Is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the City for the pro- posed use in districts already permitting such use? No. Member Wright stated, as in other cities, it is possible to mix single family residences with rental apartments if done in good taste. In his opinion feels building these particular apartments in this area would be a betterment to the community, provided there are restrictions regarding trash, junk cars, etc. 21 ~ G2: Single Family to Residential, General Multi-Family for Lots 1 thru 4, Block Member Altobello moved to grant the request to rezone from Residential, 19, Northwest Addition, seconded by Member Wright. Members Joiner, Wright, and Altobello voted yes; Member Hooker voted no; Chairman Cassels was ab- sent, vote carried. Member Hooker voted no because of the objections of the citizens present at the July J, 1979, meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE #402 Attorney Conlon read the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #402. The title is as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 402; ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE. AMENDMENT REDUCING REQUIRED ACREAGE TO 5 ACRES FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARKS OR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS. sion of existing mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions should be The Planning Board concurred, after brief discussion, that the expan- dealt with on a case by case basis. Residential Mobile Home, District: Member Altobello moved that Section VIII, Paragraph 11 entitled RMH, existing mobile home parks or mobile home sUbdivisions, be amended as follows: Within the City as of the effective date of this ordinance there exist mobile home parks & mobile home subdivisions. Such existing mobile home parks & mobile home subdivisions may be zoned RMH, even though such parks or subdivisions may not meet one or more of the requirements for new mobile home parks or mobile home sUbdivisions, set out herein; provided, all minimum health and sanitation require- ments shall be met. This provision shall not be deemed, however, to permit the establishment of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilites under this section except in conformity with all requirements herein set out, except that the minimum area require- ments of mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions for the expansion of existing conforming mobile home parks & mobile home subdivisions shall be determined on a case by case basis. An ex- pansion is a contiguous enlargement of an existing use. seconded by Member Wright, vote unanimous. Chairman Cassels absent. amändment. Citizen Melba Louthan was present and received a copy of the proposed ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, D. Cassels, Jr. R anning Board Chairman City of Okeechobee ATTEST: ~ ~^-, M. Mann Plann ng Board Secretary City of Okeechobee - - - PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 7, 1979 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Rezoning request for Haynes E. Williams 3. Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #402 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM MEMBERS A. John D. Cassels, Jr. B. Frank Altobello C. Christina Hooker D. Jim Wright E. Robert Joiner 5. Building Official 6. Open for citizens not appearing on Agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT