Loading...
2020-02-04 Handwritten minutes� OF-OR m CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 4, 2020, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY LANE GAMIOTEA I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular session of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, February 4, 2020, at 6:0 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 55 Southeast 31d Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. A. The invocation was offered by Pastor Chad Okeechobee Church . B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Watford. II. ATTENDANCE City Clerk Lane Gamiotea called the roll. Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Council Members Wes Abney, Monica Clark, Bob Jarriel, and Bobby Keefe were present. CITY STAFF: City Attorney John Fumero, City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca, Police Chief Bob Peterson, Fire Chief Herb Smith, Public Works Director David Allen, and Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins were present. III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. There were no requests for the addition, deferral, or withdrawal of agenda items. W/D 7.E the EMS verification item by Jarrial, ask if they want that withd arawn. 10 days prorio to the meeting have to put on agenda, yesterday revision, and today revision revision need time to review. Clark no problem with that. Rest of council agreed. Several memos on other items sort them out. B. Council Member Keefe moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Council Member Abney. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. C. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS A. Recognize South Florida Fair Scholarship Recipients: David Daniels, Cody Deloney, Patrick Lehman, Aubrey Pearce, and Kaitlyn Williams. B. Mayor Watford presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms. Jacqueline Dunham for her service on the General Employees' Pension Fund Board of Trustees, which was read into the record as follows: "The City of Okeechobee, Florida recognizes the valuable contribution of community involvement and hereby extends this expression of grateful appreciation to Jacqueline L. Dunham for faithful service as a dedicated Member elected to the City of Okeechobee General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees from January 27, 2016 to December 31, 2019." V. CONSENT AGENDA Item withdrawn. A motion was made by Council Member Jarrial to approve the consent agenda items A [approve the January 21, 2020, Regular meeting minutes;]; seconded by Council Member Clark. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. . Abney need clarification. MDO switch set for weekly for meetings after hours. Manuel Lock that goes to manueal closure after the meeting. Last one here will flip the switch to put it back into operation. Off hours anyone with a key will still be able to get in? Yes. DW right not when city hall closes at 4:30 pm I would not be able to get into city hall? You'd need a key card and key the morning after a meeting. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 11 Peterson, doors open 10 minutes till 8 am, then to lock at 4:30 pm. The individual keys will work if it is Flip the switch to put the system on hold until its flipped back. Council Member Clark moved to approve a Change of Scope to the Security 101 Contract in the amount of $792.15 for installation of a door release switch at City Hall; seconded by Council Member Keefe. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. VI. MAYOR WATFORD OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:?? P.M. A. A motion was made by Council Member Clark to read proposed Ordinance No. 1201 by title only, regarding Rezoning Petition No. 19-006-R, submitted by Mr. Omar Abuaita to rezone Lots 1 through 10, and 17 through 26 of Block 39, CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, Plat Book 5, Page 5, Okeechobee County Public Records, from Industrial (IND) to Residential Multiple Family (;RMF); seconded by Council Member Abney. Mayo tfor ounq' em els A�ney,'9 r , arr' I, and Keefe voted. Aj e. Nays: non otio arrie Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1201 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE BY REZONING A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM IND TO RMF ZONING DISTRICT (PETITION NO. 19-006-R); AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Mayor Watford opened the floor for public comments; there were none. Mr. Steve Dobbs, 209 NE 2nd Street addressed the Council as the agent for the applicant/property owner, Mr. Omar Abuaita, was present. DW 2 alleys & a steet, City Planning Consultant Mr. Ben Smith of LaRue Planning and Management Services explained Planning Staff, as well as the Planning Board, both recommend approval of Rezoning Petition No. 19-006-R based on the Staff findings: the proposed Rezoning is not contrary to Comprehensive Plan requirements as the surrounding properties in the same area of the subject property are zoned IND and RMF, and the corresponding Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendment Application No. 19 -005 -SSA was approved on January 21, 2020. The proposed development of multi -family apartments is specifically authorized under the zoning district and will not have an adverse effect on the public interest, is appropriate for the location, is reasonably compatible with adjacent land uses, and is not contrary or detrimental to urbanizing land use patterns. The current surrounding FLU designations to the immediate South and West are designated IND, to the East is Single Family Residential, and to the North is Multi -Family Residential. The surrounding zoning districts are RMF- to the North and East, and IND to the South and West. The existing surrounding uses are an asphalt and concrete company to the South and West, vacant to the North, and apartments to the East. The proposed use will not adversely affect property values or living conditions, or be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property, can be suitably buffered from surrounding uses, so as to reduce the impact of any nuisance or hazard to the neighborhood. The propose use will not create a density pattern that would overburden public facilities such as schools, streets, and utility services, will not create traffic congestion, flooding or drainage problems, or otherwise affect public safety, and has not been inordinately burdened by unnecessary restrictions. 16 letters and 2 :signs posted on the property no correspondences to date. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 11 B. A motion was made by Council Member Jarriel to read proposed Ordinance No. 1203 by title only, regarding Land Development Regulations (LDR) Text Amendment No. 19 -002 - TA, amending Code Sections 90-78 to 90-83, 90-105, 90-135, 90-165, 90-167 to 90-172, and 90-196; seconded by Council Member Clark. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1203 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LDRS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE; AMENDING SECTION 90- 105, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -ONE ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 90-135, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 900 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -TWO ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SE=CTION 90-165, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 800 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 90-196, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 800 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; RELOCATING HOUSING STANDARDS BY DELETING SECTIONS 90- 167 THROUGH 90-172 FROM DIVISION 4 AND CREATING NEW SECTIONS 90- 78 THROUGH 90-83 IN DIVISION 1; REVISING THE DEFINITION OF MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE IN SECTION 90-80; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member Clark to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1203; seconded by Council Member Abney. Planner Smith distributed a revised staff report that explained Staff was directed to examine increasing the minimum size for single family dwellings. The City's currents standard is located in Section 90-169(1) as follows: Any single-family dwelling located in a RSF-1; RSF-2; RMF; or RMH, zoning district shall comply with the following appearance and design standards. Minimum floor area. The minimum floor area shall be 800 -square feet, including the area of an attached garage (but excluding carport, screened porch or Florida room) except as provided in subsection (10) herein. To be eligible for calculation as minimum floor area, such square footage shall be contained under a single integrated roof system. A roof system designed by the manufacturer to be a single structure shall be considered an integrated roof system under this subsection even if delivered in more than one part and assembled on site At a previous workshop, the Planning Board agreed that increasing the single family dwelling minimum unit size is appropriate, with specific standards adopted for each zoning district where single family dwellings are a permitted use. This allows for the zoning districts with smaller lot sizes (i.e. RMH) to continue to accommodate smaller dwelling unit sizes and to minimize the number of nonconformities that would be created by this code revision. The Board was also not satisfied with the City's current method of calculating minimum floor area, pointing out that it is not common to include garage areas and that the language concerning "integrated roof system" was also not standard. The Board directed staff to propose a revised minimum floor area calculation that more closely aligns with the current zoning standards and is compatible with the Florida Building Code. Additionally, while reviewing the existing codes for this task, staff discovered several sections of code that are not organized correctly. Article III of Chapter 90 is organized into 15 Divisions. Divisions 2 through 12 and 14 each provide regulations for one specific zoning district. Except that Division 4, which provides the Residential Mobile Home (RMH) district regulations, also includes several sections of code which seem to be intended to apply to multiple districts. The Board agreed that it is appropriate to move these sections to Division 1 of Article III, where they will more clearly apply to other zoning districts besides just the RMH district. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 11 Ben - In response to concerns raised by the Council at the first reading on January 21, 2020, Staff offers the following: Despite our research and discussion with a housing specialist, we were unable to locate a HUD standard for minimum single-family dwelling unit size or a HUD definition for floor area or living area. It is not clear that HUD has a universal minimum floor area or living area standard. They work with providers of housing to make sure they get housing to people with low income. Spoke with our specialist on this issue and she does not know of any standards either. Revised the term Minimum Floor Area, to Minimum Living Area which are the parts that are under a/c. If not under a/c it is not included in the calculation and this is the normal standard especially in the real estate industry. Ordinance 1203 has been revised in order to clarify the meaning of the proposed single-family dwelling unit minimum size requirements and the related definition for those requirements. Proposed Section 90-80(1) now refers to `minimum living area' instead of `minimum floor area' as it was previously shown. The areas of the structure included in the definition have not been changed, as our research indicates that is not typical to include garages in minimum living area size definitions. Proposed Sections 90- 105(e), 90-135(e), 90-165(6) and 90-196(5) now uses the term `single family dwelling unit minimum living area'. In examining the issue of lot sizes needed to accommodate the proposed minimum living area standards, it was determined that any lot that meets the existing minimum lot standards (i.e. minimum lot area and minimum lot width) will also be able to accommodate a dwelling unit with 1,000 square feet of living area. This also holds true for corner lots which require additional side setbacks. For example, the minimum lot requirements for a single-family home in the RMH district is 5,000 square feet of lot area and 50 feet of lot width. Even after accounting for an increased side setback for a corner lot, a 5,000 square foot lot leaves a buildable area of approximately 1,750 square feet. Abney clarify 1750 sf lot minus 1000 sf leaves you 750 for garage, porch, or shed, etc. Avg garage is 300-400. It takes away from the opportunity to do more on your property. Other changes that the Council requested to the relocated housing standards have also been made in the ordinance. Pg 3 highlighted change. Pg 5 highlighted. Abney wanted to also strick "Excludes smooths, ribed or corrugated metal or plastic parts" not a lot left out there to be used. Pg 5 (1) Abney why they want to exclude garages. The county allows garage area to be included in the definition. Ben — most communitys do it this way to encourage high quality living areas, certain sizes to accommodate. Abney were garages include? Fumero did the planning board identify ???? Ben our direction on this came from the council, what I brought to the planning board, heres what you have and heres what a lot of other communities have and they made their recommendation from there. Fumero rural communitys Ben Clewiston was included. Clark required sf of area for RSF-2. Ben 6250. Clark so its proportionate to the lot. WE have nice homes for a ... no other way to protect property values in the RSF-1 due to srrialler lots and homes, one reason why I asked for it to be reviewed. Looked at highlands county and cant remember other one. Most require it to be a1080 sf without a garage. Single family homes was the criteria. Abney if council is good with it just wanted to bring it to your attention. Jarriel 90-84, rolls of smooth metal, pg 5, 90-80(4), couldn't used roofing material, don't know if building code allows that to be excluded. MDO all in the product approval and has to be provided. Ben opportunities to bring more into compliance with th emodern building codes if the council wants to instruct us. Public comment? None. DW — this ord with memo than our exhibit memo. Motion to amend to accept the amended ordinance with yellow highlight shown and to add in the language by Abney February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 11 Abney moved/Clark. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion to Amend Carried. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried As Amended. C. A motion was made by Council Member Clark to read proposed Ordinance No. 1204 by title only, regarding LDR Text Amendment No. 19 -003 -TA, amending Off -Street Parking and Loading, Code Section 90-512; seconded by Council Member Keefe. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1204 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE; AMENDING SECTION 90- 512, CREATING A NEW MINIMUM RESTAURANT PARKING STANDARD BASED ON CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member Clark to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1204; seconded by Council Member Abney. Planner Smith distributed a revised Staff Report that provided the information requested at the first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 1204 as follows: City Code Section 90-512 requires that parking be provided for restaurants, nightclubs, and bars at 1 parking space per 75 square feet of floor area. Historically, when reviewing site plans, use of the term `floor area' in this requirement has sometimes been interpreted to mean all inside and outside customer service areas. However, the term `floor area' typically refers to the amount of floor area within a building. Staff is reviewing this parking standard to determine whether additional clarification is necessary and because it may not provide a sufficient basis for determining the amount of parking needed for some types of restaurants, including: Restaurants which primarily provide take-out services Restaurants relying on a significant amount of outdoor seating to serve customers Drive-in restaurants In order to provide some context for this discussion, staff reviewed the site plans that were approved for Lightsey's Seafood Restaurant, Checkers Fast Food Restaurant and the Wawa gas station which included take-out food service. The basic development information and for each project is as follows: Lightsey Seafood Restaurant • 6,076 square feet of floor area • 5,403 square feet of indoor dining • 2,280 square feet of outdoor dining • In review of this site plan, staff calculated required parking based on indoor and outdoor dining area (customer service area). 7,683 - 7;5 = 102 required parking spaces • Site plan was approved with 83 off-street parking spaces, and consideration of street parking was approved for the remainder • Off-street parking spaces required according to actual floor area: 6,076 _ 75 = 81 required parking spaces • Off-street parking spaces required according to proposed code would be same as was interpreted during site plan review, 102 spaces. Checkers fast food restaurant with take-out and drive-through service • 912 square feet of floor area • No indoor seating • 500 square feet of outdoor patio with 6 outdoor dining tables, seating 24 persons • 3 to 7 employees per shift • 12 off-street parking spaces, including one ADA space • Off-street parking spaces required according to current code: February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 5 of 11 912 _ 75 = 12 required parking spaces • Provided sufficient off-street parking to meet current code (based on traditional interpretation of floor area) • Off-street parking spaces required according to current code: 500 _ 75 = 7 required parking spaces Wawa gasoline service station, convenience store, restaurant, coffee shop with take-out • 6,119 square feet of floor area • 3,414 square feet devoted to restaurant/coffee shop • 2,705 square feet devoted to the convenience store and other non -restaurant uses • both indoor and outdoor seating • 7 outdoor dining tables, seating 28 persons • 5 to 10 employees per shift • 47 off-street parking spaces, including three ADA spaces • 16 vehicle fueling stations • 28 on -street parking spaces along surrounding streets • In review of this site plan, staff calculated required parking based on indoor and outdoor dining area (customer service area) and other uses. 3,414 - 75 = 45.52 2,705 - 300 = 9.02 45.52 + 9.02 = 55 required parking spaces • Requested consideration of parking at vehicle fueling stations to satisfy required parking • Off-street parking spaces required according to proposed code would be same as was interpreted during site plan review, 55 spaces To compare the above examples under strict interpretation of the term `floor area', Checkers would be required to have less than currently required; going from 12 to 7 required spaces. Whereas Lightsey's would be required to have more than currently required; going from 81 to 102 required spaces. Adopting a restaurant parking standard that many other communities use, which is based on customer service area instead of floor area, would account for inside and outside customer service areas. The benefit of this is that, regardless what other uses exist, and regardless where the customer service area is located, the restaurant customer service area is considered in the calculation. Public — none. Abney going in the right direction, make sure we can accommodate these buildings that want to have resturants. Aprpeciate the work into this and push a little more if we need to. Keefe are you considering that there be more done here or at another time to bring up considerations such as on street parking. Abney going in the customer area is in the right direction, sometimes it doesn't change at all and other times it does. Don't know that this is the answer for good start. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. D. A motion was made by Council Member Clark to read proposed Ordinance No. 1205 by title only, regarding Land Development Regulations Text Amendment No. 19 -004 -TA, amending Special Exception and Supplemental Use Regulations, Code Section 90-692; seconded by Council Member Keefe. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1205 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE; AMENDING SECTION 90- 692, REVISING REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR SERVICE STATIONS AND UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member Jarriel to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1205; seconded by Council Member Clark. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 11 Planner Smith distributed a revised Staff Report explaining the following: the City's LDR contains a definition for `auto service station' as well as supplemental regulations for auto service stations; which are listed as permitted in the Heavy Commercial (CHV) District, Central Business (CBD) District, Industrial (IND) District and the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD -M) District. Section 66-1 provides a definition as follows: Auto service station means an establishment used for sale of motor fuel, oil, motor vehicle accessories, and as an accessory use convenience goods to gasoline customers, and which may include facilities for lubricating, washing, servicing and minor repairs to vehicles, but not including painting and body repairs. Any facility which sells gas and convenience goods meets this definition of `auto service station' and therefore should meet the requirements of Section 90-692, all of which are more restrictive than those of the CHV and CBD district, and most of which are more restrictive than the IND district. While it may be appropriate to require a larger lot area, less lot coverage and greater setbacks from residential, it may not be necessary to require greater setbacks for underground fuel tanks or greater standard setbacks for all structures. It is likely that the service station setbacks and regulations were intended to apply to service stations with above ground fuel tanks. Now that most gas stations utilize underground fuel tanks, this additional setback could be considered an onerous restriction. Based on staff review of site plans for gas stations, it has been a difficult requirement to meet for some facilities. At their October meeting, the Planning Board held a workshop and agreed to reduce the structure and underground fuel tank setback requirements to match the CHV district setbacks, as depicted in the attached ordinance. In order to address concerns regarding the National Fire Protection Association requirements, the ordinance has been modified from the first reading to include a reference to the NFPA regulations. As the NFPA standards may be updated from time to time, the reference will ensure that whatever the latest NFPA standards may be, future site plans will be required to adhere to the City regulations or the NFPA regulations, whichever are more stringent. Ben we added (8) to cover it. Motion to amend proposed Ordinance No. 1205 Florida NFPA standards Abney/ Jarrial. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion to Amend Carried. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried As amended. MAYOR WATFORD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:08 AM VII. NEW BUSINESS A. A motion was made by Council Member Clark to award Bid No. PW 01-00-12-19, Centennial Park Restroom and Pavilion Improvements, to Seminole Design -Build, Inc. in the amount of $175,562.20; seconded by Council Member Jarriel. Boromei Construction, Inc. also submitted a Bid in the amount of $179,000.00. Construction services needed to furnish and install: One (1) prefabricated restroom building with one restroom, utility chase for housing mechanical, electrical equipment, and storage. All plumbing and other fixtures will be stainless steel including toilet, sink, urinal, drinking fountain and any other fixtures. Drinking fountain will be mounted on exterior wall and a hose bib will be included in the utility chase. One (1) 20' X 40' steel frame, metal roof, single tier, metal hip roof picnic pavilion including 4" thick concrete floor slab. Two (2) 10' X 10' steel frame, metal roof, single tier, metal hip roof picnic shelter including 4" thick concrete floor slab. We are looking for cost-saving measures which will be forthcoming. MDO — Abney — where does this put us at? MDO Allen — large MDO — correct and will be usable park. Just did the overlay today. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 7 of 11 Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. B. Discuss amending Ordinance No. 1150, Alcoholic Beverages, to coincide with Okeechobee County's recent revision. Information may be provided in memorandum format at the meeting per RB. MDO county recently changed their alcohol sales to allow sales to begin on 10 am on Sunday. To be fair to city businesses wanted to bring it up for discussion. Jarriel and 51 % of sales must be food to be a restaurant. All agreed to make it consistent, move forward with amendment. We will have to have two readings on all ordinances, should be able to have it on the next agenda. C. Discuss implementing a resolution declaring the City of Okeechobee a Second Amendment Sanctuary City. Information may be provided in memorandum format at the meeting per RB. DW the county adopted a resolution declaring this, and municipalities have done so. Don't know if it gives us the right to be a sanctuary city. MDO — would be a resolution for the city council to consider adopting. Just following fuit Fumero — policy statement is all it is. Concensus is to move forward. D. Motion to formally request a contract for fire services. Information may be provided in memorandum format at the meeting per RB. Council Member Keefe moved to formally request a contract for fire services; seconded by Council Member Jarrial. BK -by official request I see it as negotiations can take place by the contract coming before us ina public forum for all to see instead of by staff in behind closed doors. Rodriguez to continue his plan. See it as a concurrent working vehicles going down the same road. Tonight is not saying one way or the other and look forward to seeing what they provide back to us. DW -want to give admin any instructions or directions to get answers on to include in the contract. Abney let them provide it to us and then we will respond to it. MDO — council provided information on the equipment already and building issue is off the table. Personnel (refers to memo dated Feb 3, 2020 distributed at the meeting). ABney Jarrial in the contract preference to say we want our FF to get preference in hiring. But not going to have to adopt it. Abney — contract for us to review not just adopt. And to review options Rodriguez is working on. Clark — county cant tell us about salaries because they are now having to negotiate with the fire union. Item E taken off this agenda, some people came in late. DW — be on next agenda I would assume. DW — my opinion firmly believe it should nto be ain a contract. 1 completely turned over to the county for them to do the fire tax, we keep saying were doing this to save our citizens tax money, only true way to do it and have no control over those costs down the road. Once we do this, its not like other contracts weve done with the County like the building department. It would be difficult to go back and start a scratch. 2. It would take a referendum. Think it's a fundamental changes of services we provide to our citizens and believe this; should go before the voters. Keefe I agree with you, stated in previous meeting, presidential election year voter turn out better, ran in both, people turn out for this election. Feel it should go to a referendum. We could do all 3. See what the voters weigh in on it. Is that possible to do it? Agree best way to save the money. Clark DW — Jarrial — lets just get acontract back and see what we have. Herb — all due respect, terms merger and consolidation used loosing. Its more of a dissolving of the department and make sure that people understand that wedont haveguranteed jobs with this and please keep this all inmind when looking at this. DW — you are correct, and we are looking Clark — but no where does it say you all want have jobs based on factual information provided to us. Jarriel — we don't have anything for usto even discuss. Clark — that's what I want to I want factualy information and it has not been provided to us. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 8 of 11 Herb — appreciate your commentsthat you all arelooking at options, and clarifying not just voting on the contract. Clark — union pay information, getting into the .... Got more information today don't want to get into that but want admin to make sure that presentation was factual. Hope as elected official. Day 1 deal breaker if our people are not taken care of. Ria Black 1521 SW 7t" Ave. uncomfortable change from contract to proposal and that's what you all work on. Referendum would have possibility to vote. You said it could come back and do different than what the vote would be. DW — depends on how the referendum is wording. Don't think the council, not sure, we do straw voteto see what the people want but not somethingwe would be bound do. Fumero — two types, straw vote ... Clark do we want to change the word from contract to proposal? Keefe — we want to see what they will come up with at the end of the road its either yes acontract. Distinction witouth meaning, a contract is a proposal. DW — we want it to be factual and what they will be agreeing to Abney — logn way away from a contract getting approved. Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: Mayor Watford. Motion Carried. E. EMS verification updates. Administrator MontesDeOca distributed a memorandum that provided a potential draft budget for the implementation of EMS services within the City, noting the items presented were for budgetary purposes only. Revenues shown are estimated on past years of actual fire callouts with the State of Florida Department of Health transports percentages applied. Collection percentages were also estimated based on discussion with the County, however the potential higher collection rates may be experienced due to the heavier commercial district and health care transportation calls within the City. Supplies & Other Services 3100 Professional Services (MD) FY 2019-20 FY 2019-20 3102 Prof Sery (Phys for SCBA) Proposed Adopted Personnel Cost Fire & EMS Fire Only 1100 Executive Salaries 79,300.00 79,300.00 1200 Regular Salaries 681,500.00 681,500.00 1201 Holiday Pay 30,136.00 25,500.00 1300 Other Salary 15,600.00 15,600.00 1400 Overtime 56,600.00 51,600.00 1401 Overtime Pay/Annual & Sick 77,900.00 65,900.00 1402 Dispatcher Overtime 6,598.00 6,500.00 1501 Volunteer Pay 18,000.00 18,000.00 1510 Longevity/Service Incentive 250.00 250.00 1540 Career Education 6,850.00 3,600.00 2100 FICA 86,046.00 70,850.00 2200 Retirement 227,020.00 190,900.00 2300 Life and Health Insurance 182,900.00 159,300.00 2400 Workers Compensation 59,050.00 51,550.00 Total Personnel Costs: 1,527,750.00 1,420,350.00 Supplies & Other Services 3100 Professional Services (MD) 15,000.00 7,800.00 3102 Prof Sery (Phys for SCBA) 4,000.00 3,500.00 3103 Wellness Program (Gyrri) 3,500.00 3,000.00 4000 Travel and Per Diem 2,000.00 3,200.00 4100 Comm & Freight 20,000.00 20,000.00 4300 Utilities 13,000.00 13,000.00 4400 Rentals and Leases 2,400.00 2,400.00 4500 Insurance 48,500.00 37,252.00 4600 R&M Vehicles 40,000.00 30,000.00 4609 R&M Building & Equipment 40,000.00 33,575.00 4700 Printing 600.00 600.00 February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 9 of 11 4901 Education 7,000.00 4902 Public Education & Fire Prev 5,500.00 4905 Training & Materials 5,000.00 4909 Miscellaneous 500.00 5100 Office Supplies 3,000.00 5200 Operating Supplies (medical) 30,000.00 5201 Fuel and Oil 14,000.00 5202 Operating Supplies (Tires) 5,000.00 5203 Uniforms/Patches 9,500.00 5400 Books, Publications 4,000.00 Total Supplies & Other Services 272,500.00 GRAND TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT 1,800,250.00 STAFFING CHANGES Regular Salaries adding 11 Paramedics pay: 11 x $7,000.00 = $77,000.00 Adding two additional FT Paramedics: 2 x $47,500.00 = $95,000.00 Total: $172,000.00 REVENUES - EMS Projected Billings Professional Services (collections at 5 percent net) Total Fire/Medical Calls 64 percent Transport rate taken from FL DOH Average costs per Transport Gross Total Revenue Projected Net Billings at 5 percent Net Revenue CAPITAL PURCHASES PER AMBULANCE Ambulance Ford E-450 LifePak Equipment Miscellaneous Radio Total Capital Cost per Unit VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS $15,787.20 1,495 957 $600.00 $574,080.00 $315,744.00 $299,956.80 11, 000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 400.00 3,000.00 13,000.00 14,000.00 5,000.00 8,000.00 4,000.00 222,227.00 1,642,577.00 $145,000.00 $22,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00 $197,500.00 x 2 = $395,000.00 Abney — going to be a process and want to see the EMS information or leave as is. 3 options. Jarriel — happy to be at this point, so much misinformation, ananoymous letter which our paper would not allow those to be published. Trying to get through a lot of information. Keefe -this issue stated before very personal to our fire department, on this side of the dias we don't have the luxuary of being personal, I represent all the citizens fo the city. Shared with Capt Rodriguez in the grand sceme of this, negotiations be what they may, you are all certified firefighters, and soon will be paramedics. I know there are a lot of areas that are hiring. Medically discharged from the USMC. I want to be a marine to this day. For six months I was unemployed. Did not have certification to... Ground maintenance guy at the VA clinic to pay bills. Didn't get that $5k/yr job. I would hope our FF wont feel like they cant go out and find a job or continue your career. We haven't signed anything. Severance city will have to put together what will be beneficial for our guys. I don't want to hear our guys are going to be jobless and minimize the dramatic effect. Clark — EMS verificiation on the next agenda. Two weeks plenty of time. Concensus. Mute issue for us, earliest our guys will be paramedics is Feb. Forget how this all started, we have a budget and every year you have to take money out of our savings account how long are you going to have that savings account. We have had to pull money from reserves to cover the budget. Half the people don't realize the city doesn't have an ambulance service. Think what happens we have to take this seriously, don't want to be in situation where we have have to get rid of another department...... where I'm going from. Deal breaker if our guys are not taken care of. Good for our city. Want factual information. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 10 of 11 IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at :7:57 P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lane Gamiotea, CMC, City Clerk Please take notice and be advised that when a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. City Clerk media are for the solei purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 11 of 11 `\y OF OkF,Cy °T CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 4, 2020, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,5. HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY BOBBIE JENKINS CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular session of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, February 4, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. A. The invocation was offered by Pastor Chad Keathley with the Okeechobee Church of God. B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Watford. II. ATTENDANCE City Clerk Lane Gamiotea called the roll. Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Council Members Wes Abney, Monica Clark, Bob Jarriel, and Bobby Keefe were present. CITY STAFF: City Attorney John Fumero, City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca, Police Chief Bob Peterson, Fire Chief Herb Smith, Public Works Director David Allen, and Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins were present. III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. There were no requests for the addition, deferral, or withdrawal of agenda items. Withdraw Item VILE. made by Council Member Jarriel reason — we have 10 days prior to the meeting but yesterday at 3 or 330 1 got the revision and I would like to postpone that to the next meeting so that we may study it. CM Clark has no problem with that. Consensus of Council -withdraw NB VII.E. B. Council Member _BK_ moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Council Member WA Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. C. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS A. Recognize South Florida Fair Scholarship Recipients: David Daniels, Cody Deloney, Patrick Lehman, Aubrey Pearce, and Kaitlyn Williams. Council Member Jarriel represented the City of Okeechobee at the presentation of the scholarships. I'd like to have him do that presentation. BJ -Trustee with the SF Fair and we have a scholarship and during the fair we gave out $50,000 to 23 recipients. IN those 5 counties, 123 apps, 5 from Okeechobee, very proud of them. They have a separate committee for that. These young people did that on their own. Patrick Lehman, Cody Deloney, Kaitlyn Williams. Aubrey Pearce and David Daniel, These are the young people that represent us and our future is bright. A. At the request of Mayor Watford, Council Member Jarriel recognized five local high school Seniors for being selected out of 123 applicants to receive scholarships from the South Florida Fair. He then recognize Mr. Patrick Lehman, Mr. Cody Deloney, and Miss Kaitlyn Williams, who were in attendance. Miss Aubrey Pearce and Mr. David Daniel also received scholarships but were riot present. B. Mayor Watford presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms. Jacqueline Dunham for her service on the General Employees' Pension Fund Board of Trustees, which was read into the record as follows- "The City of Okeechobee, Florida recognizes the valuable contribution of community involvement and hereby extends this expression of grateful appreciation to Jacqueline L. Dunham for faithful service as a dedicated Member elected to the City of Okeechobee General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees from January 27, 2016 to December 31, 2019." Sad for some of us, for one person is very happy. Jackie joined the Mayor at the podium. I've always said the City is like a family and we have fabulous employees. Jackie has retired, unfortunately, but fortunately for you. Heard her retirement party was fabulous. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 12 Jackie -truly did enjoy being on the pension board. Wonderful opportunity for any employee, opportunity to learn how the funds operate and have training. Thank you. V. CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Council Member _BJ to approve the consent agenda items A [approve the January 21, 2020, Regular meeting minutes;]; seconded by Council Member BK Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. CM Abney requested to discuss Item B. Withdrawn from consent agenda. approve a Change of Scope to the Security 101 Contract in the amount of $792.15 for installation of a door release switch at City Hall. WA -need some clarification, after hours events, elaborate MDO-switch can not dedicate a time when the Council meetings/pension meetings/planning board meetings/code enforcement hearings end. Manually lock the door. This will take it to the last person will flip it back to manual. MC -its kind of like a hold on the digital thermostat. MDO-this covers all meetings. Since we don't know the timings instead of changing them weekly. WA -anyone who has a key card will still be able to get in. DW -I can't get in with my card. MDO-on a day like today we have to manually override program. You would have to have your key and keycard. WA -after hours you flip it to manual to get in. Im still confused. Bob -the way the program works the City Hall closes at 5:00. Program set to open the doors at 7:50 and lock at 5. If your key is programmed to open the door it will; this doesn't apply. Now we physically have to go into the program and leave it open. This switch overrides that. Bob -flip the switch, put the program on hold, until the switch is flipped back. Trying to get away from using the deadbolt. WA -thank you. Motion to approve change of scope MC; 2nd BK. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. VI. MAYOR WATFORD OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:20 P.M. A. A motion was made by Council Member _MC to read proposed Ordinance No. 1201 by title only and adopt, regarding Rezoning Petition No. 19-006-R, submitted by Mr. Omar Abuaita to rezclne Lots 1 through 10, and 17 through 26 of Block 39, CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, Plat Book 5, Page 5, Okeechobee County Public Records, from Industrial (IND) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF); seconded by Council Member WA . Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1201 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE BY REZONING A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM IND TO RMF ;ZONING DISTRICT (PETITION NO. 19-006-R); AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ,ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Watford opened the floor for public comments; there were none. Mr. Steve Dobbs, registered agent: for the applicant/property owner, Mr. Omar Abuaita, was present and available for quE�stions. City Planning Consultant Mr. Ben Smith of LaRue Planning and Management Services explained Planning Staff, as well as the Planning Board, both recommend approval of Rezoning Petition No. 19-006-R based on the Staff findings: the proposed Rezoning is not contrary to Comprehensive Plan requirements as the surrounding properties in the same area of the subject property are zoned IND and RMF, February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 12 and the corresponding Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendment Application No. 19 -005 - SSA was approved on January 21, 2020. The proposed development of multi -family apartments is specifically authorized under the zoning district and will not have an adverse effect on the public interest, is appropriate for the location, is reasonably compatible with adjacent land uses, and is not contrary or detrimental to urbanizing land use patterns. The current surrounding FLU designations to the immediate South and West are designated IND, to the East is Single Family Residential, and to the North is Multi -Family Residential. The surrounding zoning districts are RMF to the North and East, and IND to the South and West. The existing surrounding uses are an asphalt and concrete company to the South and West, vacant to the North, and apartments to the East. The proposed use will not adversely affect property values or living conditions, or be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property, can be suitably buffered from surrounding uses, so as to reduce the impact of any nuisance or hazard to the neighborhood. The propose use will not create a density pattern that would overburden public facilities such as schools, streets, and utility services, will not create traffic congestion, flooding or drainage problems, or otherwise affect public safety, and has not been inordinately burdened by unnecessary restrictions. Steve Dobbs, 209 NE 2nd 16 letters sent, two signs posted, no correspondence received to date. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. B. A motion was made by Council Member _BJ to read proposed Ordinance No. 1203 by title only, regarding Land Development Regulations (LDR) Text Amendment No. 19- 002 -TA, amending Code Sections 90-78 to 90-83, 90-105, 90-135, 90-165, 90-167 to 90- 172, and 90-196; seconded by Council Member _MC Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1203 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LDRS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE; AMENDING SECTION 90- 105, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -ONE ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 90-135, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 900 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -TWO ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 90-165, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 800 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 90-196, ADDING A MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE OF 800 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; RELOCATING HOUSING STANDARDS BY DELETING SECTIONS 90- 167 THROUGH 90-172 FROM DIVISION 4 AND CREATING NEW SECTIONS 90- 78 THROUGH 90-83 IN DIVISION 1; REVISING THE DEFINITION OF MINIMUM DWELLING UIVIT SIZE IN SECTION 90-80; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member _MC_ to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1203; seconded by Council Member WA_. Planner Smith distributed a revised staff report that explained Staff was directed to examine increasing the minimum size for single family dwellings. The City's currents standard is located in Section 90-169(1) as follows: Any single-family dwelling located in a RSF-1; RSF-2; RMF; or RMH, zoning district shall comply with the following appearance and design standards. Minimum floor area. The minimum floor area shall be 800 -square feet, including the area of an attached garage (but excluding carport, screened porch or Florida room) except as provided in subsection (10) herein. To be eligible for calculation February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 12 as minimum floor area, such square footage shall be contained under a single integrated roof system. A roof system designed by the manufacturer to be a single structure shall be considered an integrated roof system under this subsection even if delivered in more than one part and assembled on site At a previous workshop, the Planning Board agreed that increasing the single family dwelling minimum unit size is appropriate, with specific standards adopted for each zoning district where single family dwellings are a permitted use. This allows for the zoning districts with smaller lot sizes (i.e. RMH) to continue to accommodate smaller dwelling unit sizes and to minimize the number of nonconformities that would be created by this code revision. The Board was also not satisfied with the City's current method of calculating minimum floor area, pointing out that it is not common to include garage areas and that the language concerning "integrated roof system" was also not standard. The Board directed staff to propose a revised minimum floor area calculation that more closely aligns with the current zoning standards and is compatible with the Florida Building Code. Additionally, while reviewing the existing codes for this task, staff discovered several sections of code that are not organized correctly. Article III of Chapter 90 is organized into 15 Divisions. Divisions 2 through 12 and 14 each provide regulations for one specific zoning district. Except that Division 4, which provides the Residential Mobile Home (RMH) district regulations, also includes several sections of code which seem to be intended to apply to multiple districts. The Board agreed that it is appropriate to move these sections to Division 1 of Article III, where they will more clearly apply to other zoning districts besides just the RMH district. In response to concerns raised by the Council at the first reading on January 21, 2020, Staff offers the following: • Despite our research and discussion with a housing specialist, we were unable to locate a HUD standard for minimum single family dwelling unit size or a HUD definition for floor area or living area. It is not clear that HUD has a universal minimum floor area or living area standard. They work with providers of housing to make sure that housing gets to moderate and low income family. Housing specialist worked with in Fort Myers and she said she has never heard of anything like that. • Ordinance 1203 has been revised in order to clarify the meaning of the proposed single family dwelling unit minimum size requirements and the related definition for those requirements. Proposed Section 90-80(1) now refers to 'minimum living area' instead of `minimum floor area' as it was previously shown. The areas of the structure included in the definition have not been changed, as our research indicates that is not typical to include garages in minimum living area size definitions. Proposed Sections 90-105(e), 90-135(e), 90-165(6) and 90-196(5) now uses the term `single family dwelling unit minimum living area'. Not always called floor area, so one change we propose is to change the name, as this term is really common to realtors. Typical in municipal codes to only count areas under air, not garages, City can do that. That's your decision, in the latest proposed version, garages are not included. • In examining the issue of lot sizes needed to accommodate the proposed minimum living area standards, it was determined that any lot that meets the existing minimum lot standards (i.e. minimum lot area and minimum lot width) will also be able to accommodate a dwelling unit with 1,000 square feet of living area. This also holds true for corner lots which require additional side setbacks. For example, the minimum lot requirements for a single family home in the RMH district is 5,000 square feet of lot area and 50 feet of lot width. Even after accounting for an increased side setback for a corner lot, a 5,000 square foot lot leaves a buildable area of approximately 1,750 square feet. 20 feet front, 10 on sides and rear. We still feel you can accommodate that 1,000. But if you wanted to require 1,000, you can do that and it would not preclude. WA -this is taking away if we do 1000 DW -as it stands its 800 Ben -you'd still be left with 950 the way it stands. This is a significant change. WA -smooth, ribbed or corrugated metal or plastic parts MC -is there a specific standard WA-florida product approval by building code, reducing the finish of it is taking it down a notch. DW -any more questions February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 12 WA_back to thE� minimum area. Still not understanding why they are wanting to exclude garages. County does Ben -the reason why most communities do it that way is that they want to encourage high quality housing standards, areas fit for living area a certain size to accommodate normal residential uses. WA_im in the construction industry, we're making the minimum area bigger. If you're living area is 1,000 in RSF-1, without garage, before it included the garage? Ben -you're asking if they were. In all that struck out portion of the ordinance, the old standard still appears. WA -if it was not included, we are requiring the houses to be better. MC-isnt the square footage of the lot bigger in RSF1 WA -it is Ben -it is a housing standard MDO-was there a discussion at the Planning Board meeting Ben -see whats typical, talked to County, he says its more in line with what other communities do, I've researched it as well. WA-im just pointing out that we're making with the County. DW-typcial garage size WA -400 sq ft DW -so you'd only have a 600 sq ft house WA -correct Ben -confirmed the changes. the homes be bigger and its not what's in line MC -can we make the changes next meeting MDO-final reading JF -did the planning board identify concerns that we weren't achieving some kind of desired outcome. Ben -our direction on this came from the Council. So what I brought to the planning board was here's what you have, here's what a lot of other communities do, this is whats typical. They felt these were appropriate. JF -rural communities. Differentiation between Ben -looked at City of Clewiston, did not include garages MDO-Council can change it to whatever MC -what is the required lot sf of the area is RSF2, its proportionate to the lot. We have a lot of RSF1 nice homes and we have bigger lots, and to build an 800 sq ft house, and there is no other way to protect property values. We have enough other zoning areas with smaller lots and smaller homes. That's one of the reason why I requested that. I researched it with Highlands County. We are involved in a lot of HUD, and almost every single one of the requires 1,080 sf without a garage. That was the criteria they were using. WA_if the council is good with it, I am. It sounds simple. BJ -90-80(4) page 5 you can get rolls of smooth metal, I think that what monica brought oup that they can't use roofing material. That's mainly roofing material. I don't know if the building code would allow that to begin with. MDO-that follows the product approval. WA -series of tests to be approved for residential siding. Ben -there are some opportunities for improvement. Get withbuidling official to bring up to code. Certainly things like that we'd need to do some research on. Other changes that the Council requested to the relocated housing standards have also been made in the ordinance. 90-79(1)(a) page 3 added "and/or" and 90-80(4) page 5. Still says excludes " Public Comment -none DW attorney apparently this ordinance we received in our memo is different than our first reading, the motion to approve ordinance no. 1203. CC -the ordinance in the exhibit was with no amendments adopted at the first reading. New exhibit provides proposed changes that could be adopted. Motion to amend is needed. If we agree with the suggested changes a motion to amend to accept the WA -motion to amend includes deleting siding materials (page 5); me 2nd motion. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 5 of 12 Vote on motion as amended: Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. C. A motion was made by Council Member _MC_ to read proposed Ordinance No. 1204 by title only, regarding LDR Text Amendment No. 19 -003 -TA, amending Off -Street Parking and Loading, Code Section 90-512; seconded by Council Member _BK_ Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1204 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE:; AMENDING SECTION 90-512, CREATING A NEW MINIMUM RESTAURANT PARKING STANDARD BASED ON CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member _MC_ to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1204; seconded by Council Member _BJ_ Planner Smith distributed a revised Staff Report that provided the information requested at the first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 1204 as follows: City Code Section 90-512 requires that parking be provided for restaurants, nightclubs, and bars at 1 parking space per 75 square feet of floor area. Historically, when reviewing site plans, use of the term `floor area' in this requirement has sometimes been interpreted to mean all inside and outside customer service areas. However, the term `floor area' typically refers to the amount of floor area within a building. Staff is reviewing this parking standard to determine whether additional clarification is necessary and because it may not provide a sufficient basis for determining the amount of parking needed for some types of restaurants, including: Restaurants which primarily provide take-out services Restaurants relying on a significant amount of outdoor seating to serve customers Drive-in restaurants In order to provide some context for this discussion, staff reviewed the site plans that were approved for Lightsey's Seafood Restaurant, Checkers Fast Food Restaurant and the Wawa gas station which included take-out food service. The basic development information and for each project is as follows: Lightsey Seafood Restaurant • 6,076 square feet of floor area • 5,403 square feet of indoor dining • 2,280 square feet of outdoor dining • In review of this site plan, staff calculated required parking based on indoor and outdoor dining area (customer service area). 7,683 - 7;5 = 102 required parking spaces • Site plan was approved with 83 off-street parking spaces, and consideration of street parking was approved for the remainder • Off-street parking spaces required according to actual floor area: 6,076 _ 75 = 81 required parking spaces • Off-street parking spaces required according to proposed code would be same as was interpreted during site plan review, 102 spaces. Checkers fast food restaurant with take-out and drive-through service • 912 square feet of floor area • No indoor seating • 500 square feet of outdoor patio with 6 outdoor dining tables, seating 24 persons • 3 to 7 employees per shift 12 off-street parking spaces, including one ADA space • Off-street parking spaces required according to current code: 912 - 75:= 12 required parking spaces February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 12 • Provided sufficient off-street parking to meet current code (based on traditional interpretation of floor area) • Off-street parking spaces required according to current code: 500 - 75 = 7 required parking spaces Wawa gasoline service station, convenience store, restaurant, coffee shop with take-out • 6,119 square feet of floor area • 3,414 square feet devoted to restaurant/coffee shop • 2,705 square feet devoted to the convenience store and other non -restaurant uses • both indoor and outdoor seating • 7 outdoor dining tables, seating 28 persons • 5 to 10 employees per shift • 47 off-street parking spaces, including three ADA spaces • 16 vehicle fueling stations • 28 on -street parking spaces along surrounding streets • In review of this site plan, staff calculated required parking based on indoor and outdoor dining area (customer service area) and other uses. 3,414 _ 75 = 45.52 2,705 _ 300 = 9.02 45.52 + 9.02 = 55 required parking spaces • Requested consideration of parking at vehicle fueling stations to satisfy required parking • Off-street parking spaces required according to proposed code would be same as was interpreted during site plan review, 55 spaces To compare the above examples under strict interpretation of the term `floor area', Checkers would be required to have less than currently required; going from 12 to 7 required spaces. Whereas Lightsey's would be required to have more than currently required; going from 81 to 102 required spaces. Adopting a restaurant parking standard that many other communities use, which is based on customer service area instead of floor area, would account for inside and outside customer service areas. The benefit of this is that, regardless what other uses exist, and regardless where the customer service area is located, the restaurant customer service area is considered in the calculation. We feel that the revision we are making now, would be a more equitable way for parking requirements. The customer service area would be considered in this calibration. DW -questions Public comment -none Council comments WA -1 see we are going in the right direction to accommodate existing buildligns, I know there are parking reduction rquests to be considered. I think we are taking a good step forward, just want to make sure we can accommodate. Appreciate the hard work, push a little more if we need to. BK -1 was going to ask are you considering should there be more done here or should we bring up other considerations like street parking. WA -1 think going to customer area instead of total sf is a good idea. I think it's a case by case basis. I don't think it's an end answer but it's a step forward. DW only logic to calculate where the customers are going to be. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. D. A motion was made by Council Member _MC_ to read proposed Ordinance No. 1205 by title only, regarding Land Development Regulations Text Amendment No. 19 -004 -TA, amending Special Exception and Supplemental Use Regulations, Code Section 90-692; seconded by Council Member _BK_. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1205 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE; AMENDING SECTION 90-692, REVISING REQUIRED February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 7 of 12 SETBACKS FOR SERVICE STATIONS AND UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." A motion was made by Council Member _BJ_ to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1205; seconded by Council Member _MC_ Planner Smith distributed a revised Staff Report explaining the following: the City's LDR contains a definition for `auto service station' as well as supplemental regulations for auto service stations; which are listed as permitted in the Heavy Commercial (CHV) District, Central Business (CBD) District, Industrial (IND) District and the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD -M) District. Section 66-1 provides a definition as follows: Auto service station means an establishment used for sale of motor fuel, oil, motor vehicle accessories, and as an accessory use convenience goods to gasoline customers, and which may include facilities for lubricating, washing, servicing and minor repairs to vehicles, but not including painting and body repairs. Any facility which sells gas and convenience goods meets this definition of `auto service station' and therefore should meet the requirements of Section 90-692, all of which are more restrictive than those of the CHV and CBD district, and most of which are more restrictive than the IND district. While it may be appropriate to require a larger lot area, less lot coverage and greater setbacks from residential, it may not be necessary to require greater setbacks for underground fuel tanks or greater standard setbacks for all structures. It is likely that the service station setbacks and regulations were intended to apply to service stations with above ground fuel tanks. Now that most gas stations utilize underground fuel tanks, this additional setback could be considered an onerous restriction. Based on staff review of site plans for gas stations, it has been a difficult requirement to meet for some facilities. At their October meeting, the Planning Board held a workshop and agreed to reduce the structure and underground fuel tank setback requirements to match the CHV district setbacks, as depicted in the attached ordinance. In order to address concerns regarding the National Fire Protection Association requirements, the ordinance has been modified from the first reading to include a reference to the NFPA regulations. As the NFPA standards may be updated from time to time, the reference will ensure that whatever the latest NFPA standards may be, future site plans will be required to adhere to the City regulations or the NFPA regulations, whichever are more stringent. MC -it also pertains to number 6, not just above but underground. Ben -but the change is number 8, it applies to all WA -should it say shall conform to current? MC -it should say conform to adopted HS -follow ordinance that talks about fire prevention and it refers to state requirements. Ben -to be clear the Fire chief would ensure we are conforming to these standarsd. Its something he'd be doing regardless. Public comments -none Amend "site plans shall conform to current NFPA standards, as applicable JF -`shall conform to NFPA standards as adopted the State of Florida. CC -we have already adopted the most recent, current. Find the language to be consistent. Motion to amend WA; second BJ; Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Vote on motion as amended Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. MAYOR WATFORD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:08 February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 8 of 12 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. A motion was made by Council Member _MC_ to award Bid No. PW 01-00-12-19, Centennial Park: Restroom and Pavilion Improvements, to Seminole Design -Build, Inc. in the amount of $175,562.20; seconded by Council Member _BJ_ Boromei Construction, Inc. also submitted a Bid in the amount of $179,000.00. MDO-went out to bid. Very close, budget roughly 90k this year with 45k this year. construction services needed to furnish and install: One (1) prefabricated restroom building with one restroom, utility chase for housing mechanical, electrical equipment, and storage. All plumbing and other fixtures will be stainless steel including toilet, sink, urinal, drinking fountain and any other fixtures. Drinking fountain will be mounted on exterior wall and a hose bib will be included in the utility chase. One (1) 20' X 40' steel frame, metal roof, single tier, metal hip roof picnic pavilion including 4" thick concrete floor slab. Two (2) 10' X 10' steel frame, metal roof, single tier, metal hip roof picnic shelter including 4" thick concrete floor slab. Before we do a motion to proceed, an amendment reducing costs and minor requirements may come back. We are looking for cost-saving measures which will be forthcoming. WA_what phase is this? MDO-bathroom, Large pavilion, two more pavilions, then picnic tables, grilles, playground, and fence. DW_what did the leadership class help fund? Playground WA -we do have the playground MDO-we didn't award the bids last year so we did incorporate it this year. DW -other discussion? Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. B. Discuss amencling Ordinance No. 1150, Alcoholic Beverages, to coincide with Okeechobee County's recent revision. MDO-just to talk about the discussion, the county changed the serving of alcohol in restaurants on Sundays from 1 pm to 10 am. Wanted to make the city and county restaurants to be the same. Modify ordinance or leave as is. BJ -restaurant has to do 51% to be considered a restaurant DW -to have an alcohol license 51 % of sales must be food BJ -think we should make it unfiromed BK -agreed WA -yes MC -fine DW -consensus of the council to have the change made. Assume ready by next meeting. Have to have two readings. DW- a gentleman came before us, he thought we were not going to pass it. He was so angry he was literally shaking. C. Discuss implementing a resolution declaring the City of Okeechobee a Second Amendment Sanctuary City. DW-countya dopted resolution declaring county as a second amendment sanctuary city, and several other counties have adopted. I don't know if it gives us the right, or if the council is inclined to do so. MDO-resolution which would refer to ,get what he was reading from". Again, adopted by the county, highlands approving this evening as well. Bring it up to Council. DW -I assume we can do it JF -it's a policy statement DW -doesn't mean a lot; consensus YES from all. Resolution to be presented at a future meeting. D. Motion to formally request a contract for fire services. DW -you were provided a memo at your place today. BK do you want to discuss or motion BK motion to formally request a contract; second BJ BK -last meeting was a touchy subject, apologies to raise blood pressures. Different perspective given after meeting. Still learning. I think that this evening its on the agenda and the intent has been made. In December there was a consensus to February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 9 of 12 direct staff. Between City and County Staff, there has been fact finding, info gathering, contract stuff being drawn up, but the elected officials have not been involved in that. I have not been able to give my opinion to the County on this. The contract will be in front of us in a public forum on record that residents can be privity too. That was the intent and to further, I would hope, that Capt. Rodriguez continuer to develop his plan, postponed as we had info come to us at last minute. I see this is concurrent working two vehicles and at the end of the road will be a formalized and voted on decision. I would like to see his presentation acompleted and data gathered and to see what the county comes back with in a formal setting. DW-im gonna ask a question of the council. Do you want to give the administrator any particular instructions, I know some of us may have a concern on things, direction to at least get an answer or include those in a contract. WA -request a formal contract then review what they provide and then negotiate. MDO-lease fire truck at no cost MC -i thought that was an item to negotiate MDO-1 put down building, rehab for other uses, assume be off the table, so when they prepare, and that's the reason I gave the email I sent to Robbie. At least have consensus on the truck, lease at no cost they maintain it. WA-im assuming we are getting into the weeds, they are going to provide us with a proposed contract and then negotiate. I don't know what they're going to ask, who knows. I cant answer those questions BJ -that's really what we've been asking for all along. In that contract I would want it to say preference would be givent to our FF's. Doesn't mean we're going to approve. BK -I imagined it would have amendemnts WA-rquest to gest a contract from the county for us to review. Just to be clear. We also want to see other options as EMS, those items can be parallel together. MC -in fairness to the OCunty, it sounds like they can not make a decision on pay scales with personnel until after fire union negotiations. Almost a waste of our time to consider a conract until they have negotiated. MDo-that's why we tag this on, just trying to minimize the back and forth BK -back and forth going to happen WA back and forth cannot be minimized MC -informed everyone who came in postponed Item VILE because we just got new info today. DW -one statement -just like to express my opinion, if we're going to consider, and you can use whatever term you want to, consolidate mereger, fire service to county, I firmly believe if we are going to do that, it should not be in a contract. #1 completely turned over to the county to do fire tax, only fair way to do it, for our citizens, keep saying to save citizens to lower millage rate, only way you can guarantee to save money. NO control over future contract and don't know what those costs are going to be 3 to 5 years down the road. Once we do this, its not like building department, we felt like ti didn't work, its very easy, couple of employees, office, desk. This isn't going to be that way, start from scratch, employees, equipments, used space for something else. #2 as I understand it it requires a referendum. WE've been asked why don't we let citizens vote on it, fundamental change to our city and I tend to a agree we should allow citizens to vote on it. Requires one in the COuntya nd one in the City. BK -I would just like to say I agree with you, I stated in a previous meeting, presidential election year, more voters turn out than mid terms, ran in both, notice difference when it's a presidential election year, they're at the polls. I just feel like it should go to a referendum, if its possible to do all three, put it on ballot, let them vote, if not then we can do a contract, or EMS. Is that possible, that would cover all of our basis. I just want to say I agree with you that is the best way to save the money. DW -I don't know if the clerk has that info available. Have time to get on ballot before election, #2 assume county would have to do the same thing. AS I understand it, it takes 2 referedunms. WA -if we don't have factual information, how can we decide that if we can't get accurate information. They said the numbers are going to change with fire union negotiations. That's not going to happen to get it on the ballot. DW -you don't have to know that info to get it on the ballot. MC -you have to get it to the citizens. DW -it will change every year MC -whether they want the concept or not. DW -exactly then you would count on County officials. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 10 of 12 MC -that hasn't been decided so. BJ -we just need to get a contract back to talk about intelligently. Opened the floor HS -all do respect, the term merger and consolidation has been used pretty loosely. We're looking at dissolving. Merger dominant one takes over. People need to understand what's really happening. A lot of our citizens don't understand that we don't have guarantedd jobs after this, we can apply and so can you. Keep that all in context. DW -we are talking about a contract. You are correct, there would be no reason to have a fire dept. MC -another comment there has been no information given saying you will not have jobs. HS -there is no guarantee like wise BJ -approve for all FF"s to go to school, I want in the contract to say, preferenced. I don't know what you expect us to do. WE don't have anything to discuss. We need it in writing. MC -that's what im looking for too. Im not making decisions on what somebody says here and somebody says there. HS -1 appreciate the first thing you said about not voting right away, that means a lot to my dept. MC -i don't expect it to come back after union negotiations. But to be fair, but asking them to take all our FF's and their pay has to be negotiated. IN addition to that we were presented with new info. My direction and question was to marcos to come back with detailed information and make sure its accurate and factual. SO honestly we got the info this afternoon and its not fair to us to make a decision with info we just got. Said from day one, take care of our employees. Rhya Black 1521 SW 7t" Ave, I am very uncomfortable, school contract, change the word contract to proposal, and that's what you negotiate, then sign a contract. Also it makes me very nervous. It might go to a referendum, and if I vote no, you can change that by bringing it back to the Council. Did I understand wrong? DW -depends on what it is and how it is worded. Attorney correct me if im wrong, the cOUncil I don't think would be bound by that, a lot of times, it's a straw vote. Im not sure if we would be bound to or not. Rhya-im just saying as a taxpayer, how I would feel as a taxpayer if I voted no. JF -there's two kinds of referendums, however I think this would be more oalong the lines of the approval of county taking over, haven't discussed how it would be voted. MC -can we change the wording BK -at the end of the day we don't have to appove the contract. I understand the citizens sentiment:, words do mean things, but at the end of the road. JF -if I present you with a contract, you can say that it's a proposal. WA -any contract not signed is a proposal. DW -long way away from signing. Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: Mayor Watford. Motion Carried. E. EMS verification updates. THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA. VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS5 WA -unsigned contract is proposal. Its going to be a process, consideration on both sides, not an overnight situation. I really urge EMS proposal, both can be done together, there are 3 options now. BJ -happy we finally came to this point, so much misinformation, paper Friday had an anonymous letter, like the paper to not post anonymous. Let us know who it is. One of our residents wrote in, if this happens, how much addition are we going to pay. BK -I promised I wouldn't have! any comments. This issue ive stated before is very personal to our FD, on this side of the dais, we don't have the luxury of emotions, I know a lot of these guys. I represent the citizens, that being said, to say anything to our staff its tough I want you to know. In the grand scheme of things, whether the FD is dissolved, whatever negotiations between the City and the County with the number of hiring our FFS, you're all certified FF's and soon to be paramedics, you're going to be marketable. A lot of other areas hiring, couple of employees left and re-employoed. Medically discharged from the marine corps, I got a severance package, 12 years in and injured in Afghanistan, can't. so for 6 months I was unemployed, not for loack of training, but I didn't have anything translate February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 11 of 12 to the civilian sector. I finally just took a job as a grounds mainteinance guy at the WPB VA for $10/hour. I needed to pay bills. I would (hope that our FF's would not feel like they couldn't do anything ,you have certifications, you have the ability to continue your career, you may have to commute or relocate, I know what it's like to not have a job anymore, if this is what we choose, severance, we'll ake care of our staff. I don't want to hear that my guys are going to be jobless, if you choose to be jobless you'll be jobless, you will be employed. Ask you to consider minimizing the dramatic effect. MC -i want to make sure we bring back the EMS verification update in two weeks 2/18/20 meeting. Mute issue for us, earliest is February, even if they come to us with a contract, we can't [rovide paramedics. I think we kind of forget how this all started, we have a budget. You have $10,000 in savings, every year you take a $1000 to pay mortgage, how many years. Every year we've gone into it to balance the budget, id rather be in a position to negotiate, rather than dissolve. Agreed to look at what we can do, consolidate/merger whatever you want to call it. A lot of people have called me, they don't' even realize the city doesn't have an ambulance. I think what bobby was saying tonight, we have to take this seriously. In 10 years, what dept are we going to get rid of in the city to save money, if we don't do something with our tax basis here, we will not attract businesses or have people to move in. Fire assessment would be 3x higher than the county. If we exclude churches, residence and business price would go higher. IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at 7:57 P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lane Gamiotea, CMC, City Clerk Please take notice and be advised that when a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. City Clerk media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk. February 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Page 12 of 12