Loading...
1982-05-04 - - - After much discussion, Member Ferneau moved to table this item until the May meeting. As there was no second, motion died on the floor. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Member Wright moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Ferneau; motion carried. Meeting adjourned. ~~ &JJ Dale Burk Chairman Planning Board City of Okeechobee ATTEST: £~ ll~i/Z-dt: Ruth Berndt Planning Board Secretary City of Okeechobee REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1982 The Planning Board/Board of Adjustments and Appeals of the City of Okeechobee, Florida, convened in regular session in the Council Chambers at City Hall in Okeechobee on Tuesday, May 4, 1982, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. Members present were: Jim Wright, James Kirk, Darrell Ferneau and Chairman, Dale Burk. Member Frank A1tobe110 was absent. Others present were: Building and Zoning Administrator, Mallette Westbrook; Assistant Attorney, Mary Dunn; and Secretary, Ruth Berndt. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Chairman Burk called the Board of Adjustments and Appeals into session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Burk asked if any Member noticed anything that needed to be corrected in the April minutes. As there were no responses or objections, Chairman Burk stated the minutes of the April meeting would stand approved as presented. ROBERT E. BURGESS - SPECIAL EXCEPTION Mr. Lavon Bass was the representative for Mr. Robert Burgess. He stated that Mr. Burgess wished to add an extension on his store building for living quarters at the rear of his paint store. He informed the Board that 90% of todays paints are water based. Mr. Bass stated that Mr. Burgess felt that with so many burglaries that living at the storl would act as a night watchman. Mr. Burgess wished to build storage area upstairs and have living quarters downstairs. Mr. Bass stepped to the blackboard displaying drawings of the proposed building and point- ed out the living quarters area and storage area. Mr. Bass stated that all doors would be steel and every fire protection and safety standard would be taken. Chairman Burk questioned the zoning of this Special Exception. He asked Administrator Westbrook to check the zoning on the map as Administrator Westbrook thought it to be Commercial and Chairman Burk stated he also thought it was Commercial until he looked at his zoning map and now be1ives it to be C-CBD (Commercial-Central Business District). After locating the property on the map, it was found that Chairman Burk was correct, in that it is zoned C-CBD. lOf) ~jO T Chairman Burk then asked Administrator Westbrook to read the Special Exception for this classification, which he did. After some discussion, Chairman Burk and Member Ferneau checked the map again for Special Exception to clarify the Zoning Ordinance Section under which the Special Exception was sought. Chairman Burk stated according to the Special Exceptions for C-CBD, there are none. Discussion ensued concerning Special Exception for Commercial area. Mr. Bass questioned whether the area was improperly zoned as C-CBD instead of C (Commerci¿ Chairman Burk stated he didn't know and his point was, did the Board have the power to grant Special Exception in this case. Member Kirk asked if Item 3, under Commercial Permitted Uses, "Dwelling Units for Owner or Employees" would tie into this. Chairman Burk stressed that this is C-CBD and not C zoning. He would need to apply for a Commercial rezoning and then apply for a Special Exception. After checking Special Exception for Commercial District, Chairman Burk stated he didn't see any way to give Special Exception even under Commercial Zoning. Chairman Burk explain the Special Exception rule to Mr. Bass. Member Kirk asked when the Special Exception Accessory Uses comes into play? When can it be used? If zoned Commercial could Accessory Use be used then? It does give the right to haVE living quarters for owner or employees. Chairman Burk stated Permitted Accessory Uses is one that does not involve operation or structure not in keeping with the character of the district. Living quarters are not in keepir with the character of the district. Member Kirk re-iterated that if zoned Commercial could the Accessory Use then be used. Chairman Burk stated he didn't think so, as the use requested was not in keeping with the character of the district. Residential use is not in keeping. Mr. Bass stated Mr. Burgess would be acting as a night watchman of the place, not use it as a residence as there would be no cooking. After further discussion on Permitted Uses for C-CBD, which is the same as C, Mr. Kirk ¡nd stated he thought this was a permitted use, any addition would add to the value of the distric Chairman Burk again questioned the power of the Board to grant Special Exception on this. He asked for the Attorney to shed some light on this. Ms. Dunn made no response to the request . ht Chairman Burk stated his concern was that if granted, theym¡gIater be told the Board could not do it. Member Kirk stated he read it as Permitted Use and did not need permission. Member Wright said he agreed and so did Member Ferneau. Chairman Burk stated if it falls under this category, "Permitted Accessory Uses of Structures", it does not need a Special Exception. Chairman Burk advised Mr. Bass that Mr. Burgess be made aware that this could not be rente out and could only be used by store owner or employees. Also, that Mr. Burgess does not need a Special Exception and can go ahead and build. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Member Kirk moved to adjourn; seconded by Member Ferneau. Motion carried. PLANNING BOARD Chairman Burk called the Planning Board into session. - - - - - - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Burk asked if any Member had any corrections to the April minutes. There being no corrections or objections, Chairman Burk stated the minutes stand approved as presented. CPO - ORDINANCE Chairman Burk explained that the Board èrred in thinking the meeting of drafting the CPO Ordinance was a public hearing and it wasn't, therefor~~~6u1d not send proposed ordinance to the City Council. Chairman Burk asked if any communications from any citizens in regards to the CPO OrdinancE had been received. He was informed that one gentlemen had come into the office, and he was in favor of the CPO Ordinance, and was in attendance. Dr. Pharr identified himself, and then was asked if he wished to address the Board. Dr. Pharr stated he would liked to have been zoned CPO instead of Commercial. He questione why 5 acres for a House of Worship. He thought this was a very extensive amount for a House of Worship. He also stated he is very much in favor of this type ordinance. that Chairman Burk stated/certain parts were picked up from other classifications and the Board may want to take another look at some items. Dr. Pharr asked if this is intended for establishing a CPO zoned area or will areas be zoned CPO only as they are requested. Chairman Burk stated the second part of the statement was the original intention to see what developed. Dr. Pharr stated then we need no Special Exception, as this would creaœspot zoning. Attorney John Cassels stated they might want to, although it would be very rare to use Special Exception on this zoning classification, keep it in as there are large amounts of Holding or undeveloped land that could sUbsequently be zoned and rezoned, rep1atted and sold and eventually have problems or even annexation in different parts of the City and cause problems when going into the area for the first time to decide the zoning. Chairman Burk stated, also an owner of a large block of land might want the whole block zoned CPO and then perhaps sell off other sections of the block for something that might go under Special Exception category. Dr. Pharr questioned if there wasj~tent, if this is passed, to allow professional of- fices to request, under a grandfather clause, to be zoned CPO, or would they need to go before the Board again, since they already came before the Board to get their Commercial rezoning. Member Ferneau stated it would be a good idea for a grace period for those already zoned Commercial to go to CPO without reappearing before the Board if done within the grace period. Dr. Pharr stated one person would like CPO but had already paid $100.00 to rezone to Commercial and he didn't want to pay another $100.00 to go to CPO. Chairman Burk stated he didn't know if the Board had power to offer grace period and needed legal research. Chairman Burk explained the original thought was~~a~reat deal of expense would be entailed in establishing CPO Districts as maps have to be redrawn, and perhaps changes made in the Com- prehensive Plan. Their intent was to try to suggest to people who wanted CPO to keep in areas wher:e it provides a buffer zone between "hard core" areas and RSF areas. In a sense, this would be establishing CPO areas indirectly. They didn't really want spot zoning. 107 gOT Member Ferneau pointed out to allow grace period for Commercial zoned only, and not RSF changing to CPO. Member Kirk stated if in RSF area they definitely would have to appear before the Board for CPO zoning. changing Chairman Burk stated we would have to have the Attorney check out/RSF ahd Commercial zoning to CPO. Chairman Burk suggested holding this unti1~~torney checks out points brought out in discussion before forwarding to City Council. Member Kirk moved to table until legal possibilities are checked out. Seconded by Member Ferneau. Motion carried. Chairman Burk thanked Dr. Pharr for addressing the Board. Z. K. AND EVA MAE WILLIAMS - REZONING Chairman Burk stated the next item was a request by Z. K. and Eva Mae Williams for rezoning the entire Block 121, a Residential Single Family area to a Commercial area. Attorney Burton Conners represented Z. K. and Eva Mae Williams. Attorney Conners stated Mrs. Williams was in attendance and their intent was to have Daviä Haze11ief,herson-in-1aw, present as he wished to purchase this property if granted the rezoning Mr. Haze11ief planned to build a Hardware Store on the South side of this parcel of land the North side would be used for future expansion of the business. Attorney Conners displayed a rendering of the proposed site requested for rezoning. He pointed out that there is ample parking space for the building on the south portion of the bloc provisions for grass area and further parking in the future. for future expansion. Attorney Conners outlined the present zoning districts that surround the block, RSF, RG-2, The north side was and Commercial. He stated that only one person in an RSF area had objected to the rezoning. All of the other objections were from persons on property rezoned to Commercial from previous RSF and RG-2 areas. He also stated that . but 1 at one t~me,/ne now on y owns one truck, and Mr. Haze11ief had owned a trucking business definitely did not intend to park trucks or make a truck stop on this property as some feared. Attorney Conners stated he did not think that a Hardware store would be an obnoxious commercial business. He pointed out that Fry Hardware has offices around it. He stated that there are three sides with paved streets and the fourth side was a dirt road that surround this block. Mr. Haze11ief planned to put a shell drive to the rear of the store and all de- liveries, loading and unloading, would be made from this point. Attorney Conners further stated that Okeechobee is growing and needs this Commercial type business and income. He also stated he thought that sooner or later thiE Commercial type business would be moving into the area where they were requesting the rezoning. Chairman Burk asked the Board if they wished to act on Attorney Conner's presentation, or if they wished to hear the other side first. Member Ferneau stated he would like to hear both sides and then act on the issue. The other Members agreed. Chairman Burk, at this time, recognized Attorney John Cassels, Jr., representing Dr. JameE Tenniswood, who was strongly opposed to the rezoning. Attorney Cassels pointed~ghe surrounding area is RSF, Commercial and RG-2 and stated we have to zero in on the area being talked about. He stated that the plans submitted would have to have half struck out of the request as speculation or reselling purposes. Plans only show half being used. The other half would increase in value as a Commercial District and be more valuable for selling. - - - - - - The subject of "hard core" versus "soft core" Use would place the Professional Offices in the area as "soft core", and this is the developing trend in the area. The people wanting a Professional Use or wanting a less active type of Commercial Use were forced into it because there was no provision in the old zoning ordinance to allow for it. Attorney Cassels stated the proposal amounts to "hard core" Commercial Use and could, therefore, have no legal basis to deny bowling alleys, gas stations, billiard parlors, bakeries laundries, skating rinks, bars and other such uses. The question is whether you want to deve10 the area for "hard core" Commercial Uses or "soft core" Professional Office Use. Attorney Cassels stated he had given each Board Member a memorandum stating opposition to the rezoning request and requested the proposed rezoning be denied. After further discussion on the above issue, Member Ferneau asked if both sides were finishe~ and if so, they would proceed. There being no further discussion, the Board proceeded Chairman Burk proceeded by reading the following sixteen requirements and the Members answered as follows: A. Is the proposed change contrary to the established land use pattern? Ferneau - Yes; Kirk - Yes; Wright - Yes. B. Will the proposed change create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby property? Ferneau - Possibility; Kirk - Possibility; Wright _ No. C. Will 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? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright _ No. D. Are existing district boundaries illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change? Ferneau - No; Kirk _ No; Wright - No. E. Will the proposed change be contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan? Ferneau - Yes; Kirk - Yes; Wright - Yes. F. Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright - No. G. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright - No. H. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety? Ferneau - Possibility; Kirk - No; Wright _ No. I. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright - No. J. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to the adjacent areas? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright - No. K. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas? Ferneau - Yes; Kirk - No; Wright - Yes. L. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations? Ferneau _ Yes; Kirk _ No; Wright - No. M. Will the proposed change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare? Ferneau - No; Kirk _ No; Wright _ No. N. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright - No. O. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City? Ferneau - Possibility; Kirk - Yes; Wright - Yes. P. Is it impossible to nnd other adequate sites in the City for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use? Ferneau - No; Kirk - No; Wright _ No. 10n orT Chairman Burk stated thaf~ff had heard the responses, would someone like to make a recommendation to approve or disapprove the rezoning to be sent to City Council, or ask for changes or adjustments in the request for rezoning. Member Wright stated he understood they could not put conditions on rezoning. Chairman Burk stated that quite a lengthy list was placed on the L. M. Taylor property. Mr. Taylor did not wish to accept the conditions so it was never rezoned. After some discussion concerning placing conditions on the rezoning of property, it was determined they could not put any conditions on it. Chairman Burk again stated the options to be selected and Member Ferneau moved to recom- mend to City Council not to rezone to Commercial. Chairman Burk asked if there was a second to the motion. thÇJ. t .. d . 1 Member Wright asked/~f Mrs. W~ll~ams requeste Commerc~a what would the Board's feelings be concerning this. Member Ferneau stated it depended on any objections by the people and after hearing both rezoning without a building, sides, then he'd make his decision. He'd do what the people wanted. Member Wright stated he'd like to know what is going on the North side of the block. Attorney Conners stated again that it would be used for expansion and not for any truck stop or gas station. If they had other intentions, they would not have filed as requested. Member Ferneau's motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Burk then asked for a motion to send to City Council a recommendation approving the rezoning. Member Wright so moved. Member Kirk objected to encroaching in~~sidentia1 Single Family areas. After further discussion, Member Wright's motion also died for lack of a second. Member Ferneau then moved again to recommend to City Council to deny the rezoning. Member Kirk seconded. Members Kirk, Ferneau and Chairman Burk voted Yes. Member Wright voted No. Motion carried. LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Due to the lateness of the hour and the length of materials to be studied and reviewed, it was suggested the Members review the materials and a discussion take place at a later date. All agreed. Chairman Burk stated he hadn't set a date for the Workshop of the proposed Landscaping Ordinance and wanted to do so now. Member Ferneau asked if it could be put off until after school was out sometime in June as his activity schedule was heavy. After some discussion, it was agreed the Workshop Session be held on May 12, 1982, from 5:00 to 6:00 o'clock P.M. in City Council Chambers. Chairman Burk asked the Members to please decide on the Correspondence Course on City Planning material given them at the April meeting. Member Kirk stated he thought it a good idea. Other members agreed. Member Kirk moved to take the course as a group project study with each person having a textbook. Seconded by Member Ferneau. Motion carried. Mr. Fellows to proceed with entry for course. ADJOURNMENT Member Kirk moved to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. Seconded by Member Ferneau. Meeting adjourned. A??~ gÞ~ß¿dZ Ruth Berndt, Planning Board Secretary City Of Okeechobee - f)ae~~ Dale Burk Planning Board Chairman City of Okeechobee - -