Loading...
2001-07-09 PB CITY OF OKEECHOBEE PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTION I I I PAGE 1 oF5 Meeting to order at ACTION - DISCUSSION- VOTE Vice Chairman Ledferd called the July 9, 2001 Planning Board Special 6:00 p.m. Board Secretary Arnold called the roll Absent (with consent) Present Present Present (serving as Vice Chair) Present Absent (with consent) Absent (with consent) Absent (without consent) Present (Serving as a voting member) Present Present Member Hoover moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action for the June 26, 2001 Meeting. Member Mavroides seconded the motion. VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES-YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA MOTION CARRIED. 6:00 p.m. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER - Chairman. Planning Board Special Meeting, July 9, 2001, I. II Secretary . CHAIRMAN, MEMBER AND STAFF ATTENDANCE Chairman Jerry Walker Board Member Dawn Hoover Board Member Thomas Keller Board Member William Ledferd Board Member Christopher Mavroides Board Member Douglas McCoy Board Member Frank Mueller Alternate Daniel Creech Alternate Sandra Jones Attorney John R. Cook Secretary Carolyn Arnold II. r~ '"'-" -, :::ì MINUTES - Secretary. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action for the June 26, 2001 meeting. A. III. " ~~ ........, """" C\l ...4 JULY 9,2001- SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING - PAGE 2 OF 5 - DISCUSSION - VOTE ACTION Mr. Jim LaRue, City Planning Consultant with LaRue Planning and Management Services, described the petition and gave a background on the subject property. He explained that the parcel is approximately 2 acres in area and is Commercial in nature. Mr. LaRue noted that the applicant stated in his Statement of Use that he is contemplating using this property for a construction office and storage. Mr. LaRue had some concerns allowing storage in Light Commercial, and would prefer storage in Heavy Commercial. He further noted that to allow the storage would require a considerable amount of buffering from the surrounding properties. Mr. LaRue stated the more he reviewed the petition the more inconsistencies were found with the requested zoning for the subject property, one in particular being traffic impacts to the area. Board Member Hoover asked why storage would be allowed in Light Commercial when the Land Development Regulations require storage for trade contractors in Heavy Commercial. Mr. LaRue responded that Light Commercial allows for office storage. He agreed that the storage of trade contractors belongs in Heavy Commercial and that it would be a stretch to allow storage of a contractor in Light Commercial. Board Member Mavroides commented that in the past the Board has gotten into a bind by approving or denying a petition based on just one of the allowable uses in the requested zoning and not considering all permitted principal uses. LaRue Heavy Attorney Cook explained that the Board indeed needed to consider all permitted uses and uses by special exception in the Light Commercial zoning, not just this particular request for storage of a trade's contractor. He further explained that the Board needs to consider the location and if it would be appropriate for a night club, church or car dealership. Mr. agreed with Attorney Cook and again noted that storage would be better placed in Commercial zoning. Mr. George Long, County Administrator representing Okeechobee County, addressed the Board stating that the County is in agreement with Mr. LaRue's recommendation. He opposed the petition and explained that the County is to build a new judiciary facility and will be starting construction within the next six months, spending approximately $12 to $14 Million. The future location of the judiciary facility currently has professional offices that will need to be relocated prior to construction. AGENDA II NEW BUSINESS Consider Petition 01-003-R: Dr. Candidio Aragon, Lori Geddes and Mark Troendle, property owners; Mark Troendle, applicant. Request for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Commercial Professional Office (CPO) to Light Commercial (CLT). The property is located within the 200 Block of Northwest 5th Avenue, and more legally described as Lots 1 through 12, Block 136, City of Okeechobee. A. IV. I I I I I I JULY 9, 2001 - SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 5 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE AGENDA Il Mr. Long continued by stating that the subject property would be a good location for those businesses to relocate to. Mr. Long further noted that Light Commercial zoning allows for a night club or pawn shop and that, in his opinion, would not be an appropriate zoning for the proposed location due to the close proximity to a ball field and playground. continued. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. Consider Petition 01-003-R Mr. John Cassels, a surrounding property owner, was acknowledged by the Board. Mr. Cassels stated that his property is the adjacent block to the East and also agrees that this would not be an appropriate rezoning. He had concerns for the compatibility of the adjoining uses being professional office. The general retail allowed in Light Commercial depending on the type of retail could have major impacts on the traffic in the area: He explained that if a small sewing shop were to open within the subject property it probably would not greatly impact the traffic flow. However, if there was a night club, traffic flow would then become heavy especially during baseball seasons when the ballpark is filled with people. A. IV. The Board had no further comments Board Member Mavroides moved to recommend that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council deny Petition 01-003-R based on staff recommendations and the testimony heard at the public hearing. Board Member Keller seconded the motion. the public further comments from There was no l\; -- .-...., 0J VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES - YEA KELLER- YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Jim LaRue, City Planning Consultant with LaRue Planing and Management Services, described the petition and gave a background on the subject property. He explained that a couple of months ago the applicant applied for a Future Land Use Map Amendment to changing the land designation from Single Family to Multi-Family and was approved by the Land Planning Agency and City Council. Staff findings included that the requested zoning change will not adversely impact the surrounding properties. That it is consistent with the ~'Omprehensive Plan and would not be granting special privilege. w. Consider Petition 01-004-R: Robert H. Cook and Gary W. Utt, property owners; Gary W. Utt, applica:J.t. Request for a change in the zoning from the existing classification of Residential Single Family-l (RSF1) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The property is located at 1114 S 2nd Avenue, and more legally described as Lots 1 through 6, Block 15 Okeechobee Heights. B. " ç.:, .~ ...... C\i ~ JULY 9,2001- SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING - PAGE 4 OF 5 Mr. LaRue said that this would be implementing what was approved a few months ago since the Future Land Use and Zoning go hand in hand. Ms. Dianne Gloves, a surrounding property owner, was acknowledged by the Board. Ms Gloves said that she moved into Single Family zoning because she did not want to raise her daughter in Multi-Family zoning. She requested the Board not approve the rezoning. Ms. Gloves submitted a letter of opposition into the record from Ms. Louis Walker who was unable to climb the stairs to attend the meeting. Ms. Wanda Summerall, a surrounding property owner, addressed the Board. Ms. Summerall said that her property is across the Street. She is concerned with the problems that are caused with Multi-Family, with too many people living in a half of a block. Ms. Summerall was also concerned with this petition being pushed through without notification to the surrounding property owners. She submitted two letters of opposition into the record from Ms.Dorothy Kidd, Ms. Carmelita Kidd and Ms. Brenda Merritt who were unable to attend the meeting. Attorney Cook explained that there are two maps, one being the Future Land Use and the other the Zoning. He explained the differences between the two and also how they work together. Ms. Summerall then expressed her concerns for drainage issues. She was told a few years ago that the block cannot withstand more drainage to be installed, and was concerned that it would flow onto her property. Attorney Cook explained that this hearing was to determine whether this zoning was appropriate for this location, not to determine the drainage for the site. He further explained that Site Plan Review Committee will review drainage at the time of development. Board Member Mavroides was concerned about the comments in the staff report for item eight, which states that there are no drainage impacts on the surrounding property and wanted to make sure that Mr. LaRue still believes this to be true. Mr. LaRue clarified that he determined the drainage will not impact the surrounding property and that he was confident that the Site Plan Review Committee will address the concerns when it is brought before them. - ACT-ION - DISCUSSION - VOTE ~ AGENDA IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. I B. Consider Petition 01-004- R continued. I I JULY 9,2001- SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING - PAGE 5 OF 5 I AC'FION- DISCUSSION- VOTE Board Member Mavroides asked what the allowable density was for the requested zoning. Mr. LaRue responded that the applicant would probably build duplexes considering the total lot size ofthe subject property. He further stated that the applicant may not be able to build as many units as originally thought due to the requirements that the Site Plan Review Committee will enforce to accommodate the drainage, parking, etc Attorney Cook commented that the members on the Board have been there long enough to see that the Commercial Corridor has expanded from Parrott Avenue (also known as Highway 441) to the blocks behind it. To allow for the requested Multi-Family zoning at this location will help buffer the Heavy Commercial business from the surrounding Residential Single Family zoning. AGENDA IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. B. Consider Petition 01-004-R continued. I The Board had no further comments moved to recommend that the Planning Board recommend that the Petition 01-004-R. Board Member Hoover seconded the motion. There were no further comments from the public Board Member Keller City Council grant 1"::' ......... ........ ,~ VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - CHAIRMAN PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Planning Board with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. City Clerk tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk v. William Ledferd, Vice Chairman I items on the agenda, Vice Chairman Ledferd adjourned the meeting There being no further at 6:45 p.m. ATTEST IL..