The URL can be used to link to this page

1979-10-02 -- -- -- NINETH MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1979 The Planning Board of the City of Okeechobee, Florida, convened in its Nineth Meeting in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, Okeechobee, Florida, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 2, 1979. Chairman John D. Cassels, Jr. presiding. Others present were: Christina Hooker, Frank Altobello; David Conlon, Cit: Attorney and Janice M. Mann, Secretary. Members Wright and Joiner absent. Chairman Cassels brought the meeting to order. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Altobello moved to waive the reading of the minutes, seconded by Member Hooker, vote carried. Members Wright and Joiner absent. Member Altobello then moved to approve the minutes of the August 7 and September 4, 1979, meetings, seconded by Chairman Cassels, vote carried. Members Wright and Joiner absent. There being no further business of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Member Hooker moved to adjourn, seconded by Member Altobello, vote carried. Members Wright and Joiner absent. PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Hooker moved to waive the reading of the minutes, seconded by Member Altobello, vote carried. Member Altobello moved to approve the minutes of the Seventh and Eighth Meetings, Members Wright and Joiner absent. REZONING REQUEST - LASHLEY seconded by Member Hooker, vote carried. The Planning Board reviewed the rezoning request of James D. Lashley, tabled at the meeting of September 4, 1979. No one was present for or against the request to rezone from Holding to RSF, All of Blocks 5 and 6, City of Okeechobee. This being the case, the Board considered the factors before a decision to recommend acceptance or denial of the rezoning request as follows: 1) Is the proposed change contrary to the established land use pattern? No, Adjoining RSF District, change would extent an existing district. 2) Would the proposed change create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent: and nearby districts? No, as stated above. 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 existing conditions on the property proposed for change? No. 5) Would the proposed change be contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan? No, RSF development is best for City, most desirable and restrictive. 25 ~ ~ O~ ~(, 8q P81UEJ~ S1 1S8nb8J ~U1UOZ8J 8q1 J1 1Eq1 pJEOg 8q1 p8lliJOJU1 J811ng ·JW .8J01S ÅJ8JOJ~ E Sp88U E8JE JElnJ11JEd 1Eq1 P810U pUE SU011J8Çqo OU pEq 8nU8AW q18 1S8Mq1JON GOGl JO UOSS1N UElliÅH 'SJW 'p8p88U ÅI1E8J~ s1 11 JOJ E8JE 8q1 u1 8J01S E 8llioJ18M PlnoM 8q p8pPE 8~Ed uez1118 ·111nq ~u18q 8J01S E 01 SU011J8Çqo OU SEq PUE'u011s8nbu1 Å1J8doJd 8q1 SU10ÇpE Å1J8doJd s1q P81E1s '9G ~Jolg 'G 101 '188J1S q111 1S8Mq1JON (08 JO ·Jf '8~Ed ÅOJ81 u8Z1118 .8nU8AW q16 pUE 188J1S q111 '88qOqJ88~0 JO Å118 '9G ~JOlg 's pUE ry '( S101 lE1JJ8llilli08 01 lEJ8U8D 'IE11U8P1S8H lliOJJ eUOZ8J 01 J811ng 118A8S00H JO 1S8nb8J ~U1uozeJ 8q1 ~U1PJE~8J sU8z111J lliOJJ S1U8llilliOJ JOJ pellEJ s18sSE8 UElliJ1Eq8 H3110g - lS30G3H DNINOZ3H '11Jun08 Å118 8q1 8JOJ8q SU011J8Çqo J8q 8J10A 01 Å11Un1Joddo 8q1 8AEq 111M uoss1N 'SJW °Å1uO ÅJOS1APE s1 u01s1J8p 8q1 'SME1 8q1 e~uEqJ 01 Å11Joq1nE 8AEq 10U S80p pJEog ~U1UUE1d 8q1 '8~UEqJ ~u1uOZ E s1 8J8q1 8lli11ÅUW 'IEU1J 10U SEM u01s1J8p 8q1 J8q p8lliJOJu1 s18SSE8 UElliJ1Eq8 ·pessEd SEM ~U1UOZ8J 8q1 1UEJ~ 01 u0110lli 8q1 J81JE p8JE8ddE uoss1N UElliÅH 'SJW ·1U8sqE J8U10f pUE 1q~1JM SJ8qlli8W .P81JJEJ 810A 'J8~00H J8qlli8W Åq p8pUOJ8S 'Å81qsE1 ·0 S8lliEf JO 1S8nb8J ~U1UOZ8J 8q1 8AOJddE 11Jun08 Å118 8q1 pU8llilliOJ8J 01 p8AOlli 0118q011W J8qlli8W WIN ¿8sn qJns ~U1111lliJ8d ÅpE8J1E S1J1J1S1P u1 8sn pesodoJd 8q1 JOJ Å118 8q1 u1 s811s 81Enb8pE J8q10 pU1J 01 81q1ssodlli1 11 sI (91 'ON ¿Å118 8q1 JO pooqJoqq~18u 8q1 JO Sp88U 8q1 q11M 81EJS JO 1no 8~uEqJ P81s8~~ns 8q1 sI (SI 'asn ou SEq ~u1P10q 'sex ¿~U1UOZ ~u11S1x8 q11M pJOJJE U1 p8sn 8q 10UUEJ Å1J8doJd 8q1 ÅqM SUOSE8J lE11uE1sqns 8J8q1 8JW (ryl 'ON ¿8JEJ18M J11qnd 8q1 q11M P81SEJ1uOJ SE J8UMO lEnP1A1pu1 UE 01 8~811A1Jd 1E1J8ds JO 1UEJ~ E 81n111suoJ 8~uEqJ p8sodoJd 8q1 111M ((1 'U01SUEdx8 3SH 8JOlli 8~EJnoJu8 PlnoJ '811sod -do 8q1 1snÇ 'oN ¿Su011Eln~8J ~U11S1x8 q11M pJOJJE u1 Å1J8doJd 1U8JEÇpE JO 1U8llid018A8P JO 1U8lli8AOJdlli1 8q1 01 1U8JJe18p E 8q e~uEqJ p8sodoJd eq1 111M (G1 ·8SE8JJU1 ÅIQ1ssod PlnoJ 'oN ¿SE8JE 1U8JEÇpE u1 S8nlEA Å1J8doJd 1J8JJE Å18SJ8ApE 8~uEqJ p8sodoJd 8q1 111M (11 'ON ¿SE8JE 1U8JEÇpE 01 J1E pUE 1q~11 8Jnp8J Ålsn01J8S 8~UEqJ p8S0dOJd 8q1 111M (01 ·ON ¿lli81QoJd 8~EU1EJp E 81E8JJ 8~UEqJ p8sodoJd 8q1 111M (6 'ON ¿Å18JES J11Qnd 1J8JJE 8S1MJ8q10 JO U011S8~UOJ J1JJEJ1 8SE8JJu1 Å18A1sS8JX8 JO 81E8JJ 8~uEqJ p8sodoJd 8q1 111M (8 'ON ¿pooqJOQq~18U 8q1 u1 SU0111puOJ ~U1A11 8Ju8nlJu1 Å18SJ8APE 8~uEqJ p8sodoJd 8q1 111M (L 'Å118 8q1 JO q1MOJ~ P1dEJ 8q1 uEq1 J8q10 'oN ¿ÅJESS8J8U 1U8lli -pU8lliE p8sodoJd 8q1 JO 8~EssEd 8q1 8~Elli SU0111puOJ ~U1~uEqJ JO p8~UEqJ 00 (9 -- -- -- - - - will be purchasing Lot 6 of Block 26, which will give free access to Northwest Nineth Avenue, a main thoroughfare. Chairman Cassels called for discussion from the Board. It was determined with Northwest Nineth Avenue being a main thoroughfare, this would be the logical place to begin expansion of a commercial area. Member HOoker noted the need for this type of facility is present with the recent closing of the only grocery store in the area. The Board reviewed the guidelines before rendering a decision. 1) Is the proposed change contrary to the established land use pattern? Yes. 2) Would the proposed change create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent 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 existing conditions on the property proposed for change? Possibly, there is no allotment for commercial expansion in the area. 5) Would the proposed change be contrary to the City's comprehensive plan? No, this would be a remedy to an existing problem. 6) Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary? Yes, due to the closing of the only grocery store in the area. 7) Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? No. 8) Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety? No. 9) Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? No. 10) Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? No. 11) Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in adjacent areas? Perhaps, but could also increase values. 12) Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations? Yes. 13) Will the proposed change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare? To a certain extent but this change would also be serving the public. 14) Are there substantial with existing zoning? reasons why the property cannot be used No. in accord 15) Is the suggested change out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City? No. 16) Is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the City for the proposed use in districts alread permitting such use? No, but they are not in this area. Chairman Cassels moved that the rezoning request be recommended to be accepted as to Lots 4 and 5, Block 26, however that it be denied as to Lot 3, as there is no showing of a need for it at this time, and no showing of any proposed use. 27 - - - After brief discussion Roosevelt Butler withdrew the request to have Lot 3 rezoned and considered by the Board. Accordingly Chairman Cassels withdrew his motion for the partial grant. Chairman Cassels respectfully moved that the application as amended for Lots 4 and 5, Block 26, be recommended the City Council grant the request, seconded by Member Altobello, vote carried. Members Joiner and Wright absent. COMMUNICATIONS FROM MEMBERS A. JOHN D. CASSELS, JR. Chairman Cassels proposed that the Board ask the City Attorney find out whether a six month reverter clause can be established, stipulating substantial performance must have begun on a proposed zoning change otherwise it becomes null and void. B. FRANK ALTOBELLO Member Altobello requested the Chairman contact Building Official Spray by letter requesting his presence at each meeting. Questions are being left unanswered due to his absence. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Meeting adjourned. ¿ ATTEST: J n D. Cassels, Jr. hairman Planning Boar City of Okeechobee ~.~ -- Ja ice M. Mann PI nning Board Secretary City of Okeechobee 28 PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 2, 1979 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 1. Approval of Minutes PLANNING BOARD 1. Rezoning request - James D. Lashley 2. Rezoning request - Roosevelt Butler COMMUNICATIONS FROM MEMBERS A. John D. Cassels, Jr. B. Frank Altobello C. Christina Hooker D. Jim Wright E. Robert Joiner Open for citizens not appearing on Agenda ADJOURNMENT