The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-06-27 I CITY OF OKEECHOBEE PLANNING /BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING JUNE 27, 2006 SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTION 75 I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairperson. Planning BoardIBoard of Adjustment and Appeals, June 27,2006,6:30 p.m. Chairperson Ledferd called the June 27,2006 Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I II. CHAIRPERSON, MEMBER AND STAFF ATTENDANCE - Secretary. Chairperson William Ledferd Vice-Chairperson Dawn Hoover Board Member Terry Burroughs Board Member Kenneth Keller Board Member Carol Johns Board Member Devin Maxwell Board Member Douglas McCoy Alternate Epifanio Juarez Alternate Mike()'Connor Attorney John R. Cook Secretary Betty J. Clement Deputy Clerk Melisa Eddings Board Secretary Clement called the roll: Present Present Present Present Present Absent (with consent) Present Present (serving as voting member in absence of Mr. Maxwell) Absent (without consent) Present Present Present III. MINUTES - Secretary. A. Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board of Adjustment, Land Planning Agency and Planning Board for the May 23, 2006 regular meetings. Board Member Burroughs moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board of Adjustment, Land Planning Agency and Planning Board for the May 23,2006 regular meetings; seconded by Board Member Hoover. I VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS - YEA MOTION CARRIED. 76 June 27, 2006 - Plannin Board/Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Page 2 of 12 IV. AGENDA - Chairperson. A. Requests for the addition, deferral or withdrawal of items on today's agenda. V. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - Chairperson A. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06-013- SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 9, less the East 32.50 feet of said Lot 9, and Lots 10 to 26 of Block 21; Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Single Family (SF) to Multi-Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th Avenues. The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs, on behalf of property owner, InSite Development Group. This application is associated with Petition 06-011- R and was deferred from the May 23, 2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. B. Rezoning Petition No. 06-011-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1,2,3 and 9 less the East 32.50 feet, 10 to 26 of Block 21, Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family-One (RSF-1) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th Avenues. The petition was submitted by Steven Dobbs on behalf of property owners, InSite Development Group. This petition is associated with Application 06-013-SSA and was deferred from the May 23, 2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. Chairperson Ledferd asked whether there were any requests to add, defer or withdraw items on today's agenda. Mr. Hackl submitted a written request to table Rezoning Petition No. 06-005-R. CHAIRPERSON LEDFERD OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:36 P.M. Board Member McCoy moved to table Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment No. 06-013-SSA until the July 20,2006 meeting; seconded by Board Member Hoover. Planning Staff has not had sufficient time to review a traffic analysis submitted by the applicant. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS - YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. Due to the postponement of action a second public hearing will be deferred until August 1, 2006 before the City Council. Board Member McCoy moved to table Rezoning Petition No. 06-011-R until the July 20, 2006 meeting; seconded by Board Member Hoover. This Petition is associated with Application No. 06-013-SSA, addressed previously. The traffic analysis review impacts this petition as well. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA McCOY - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. June 27, 2006 - Planning Board/Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Pa e 3 of 117 v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. I B. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. c. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06- 014-SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for Lots 1 to 26 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Single family (SF) to Multi - Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 5th and 6th Streets and Northwest 9th and 10th A venues. The application was submitted by property owner, Daniel B. Creech. This applica- tion is associated with Petition 06-013-R - City Planning Consultant. I I Due to the postponement of action a second Public Hearing will be deferred until August 15, 2006 before the City Council. Planning Staff Report Summary: The subject property is located on Northwest 5th and Northwest 6th Streets and is approximately 2.313 acres. The applicant is requesting that the Future Land Use Map be amended from Single Family for this property to Multi-Family to allow for construction of triplex dwelling units. The application was submitted by the property owner, Daniel Creech. Legal description on the agenda is incorrect. While the applicant owns the entire block, the application is only for Lots 4 through 10 East one-half of Lot 15, Lots 16 to 21, and the West one-half of Lot 22 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Consistency with the Land Use Categories and Plan Policies. (A) As proposed, the applicant's request does not show adequate data and analysis to support a conversion to the Multi-Family Land Use category as shown in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.4: The City through revision of the appropriate land development regulations, shall continue to establish compatibility criteria for adjacent land uses. Objective 3: The City of Okeechobee shall continue to work toward the elimination or reduction in size or intensity of existing land uses and zoning designations which are not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF-l Zoning which is currently on the site. (B) Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities Traffic: The applicant has not submitted a Traffic Analysis to support this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property. The applicant should present analysis which demonstrates the traffic impacts to Northwest 5th Street and Northwest 6th Street. Schools: The applicant is proposing a maximum total of 23 multi-family residential dwelling units, but has not given any information as to how many school aged children this development could generate. Drainage: The applicant has not provided information on how surface water management will be provided on-site. During the site plan review phase of development, all design and construction of the proposed storm water management facilities must be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and must comply with all District rules and regulations. 7 June 27, 2006 - Planning Board/Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Pa e 4 of 12 v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. C. Consider Petition 06-0 14-SSA continued. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer: Okeechobee Uti lit Authority (OUA) should have the capacity to provide service from its water treatment plant under the current Single Family Future Land Use Classification of the subject property. The anticipated flow for the proposed Multi-Family Future Land use Category (triplexes) has not been determined by the applicant. It is not clear whether sewer is available and with recent conversions from Single Family there needs to be some acknowledgment of past approval impacts. The applicant should submit data from the ~UA which shows that there is capacity to serve the 23 units. (C) Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses. The proposed Future land use and the corresponding RMF Zoning would be incompatible with the adjacent and nearby uses. Allowing this change would create an isolated multi-family district within a single family neighborhood. The proposed development would be out of scale with adjacent and nearby uses. (D) Compliance with Specific Standards ofthe Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, as they are intended, do allow for a Small Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use map to Multi-Family. This proposed change at this time is not consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the City of Okeechobee Comprehens!ve Plan. Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: This application and its appearance before the Council and LP A was duly noticed for the public in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statues. Based on the Planning Staff findings the application is inconsistent with the request to change the Future Land Use Map from Single Family to Multi-Family. Chairperson Ledferd asked whether there were any questions or comments from the public. There were none. Board Member Hoover questioned that should the application be recommended for denial, would it go before City Council? Planner LaRue answered, yes. Board Member Hoover made a motion based on Planning Staff Report findings, Application No. 06-014-SSA is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial to the City Council; seconded by Board Member Burroughs. June 27, 2006 - Planning Board/Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Page 5 of 11 9 I I I v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. c. Consider Petition 06-014-SSA continued. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers D. Consider Petition No. 06-013-R: Recommendation to City Council to rezone Lots 4 to 10 and East one-half of Lot 15 to West one-half of Lot 22 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family-One (RSF-I) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest Sth and 6th Street and Northwest 9th and 10th A venues. The petition was submitted by Daniel B. Creech, property owner. This petition is associated with Application 06-014-SSA City Planning Consultant. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - NAY JUAREZ-YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS - YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. Application will be forwarded in ordinance form for a final Public Hearing on July 18, 2006 before City Council. Petition No. 06-013-R was submitted by the property owner, Daniel Creech. The request is to rezone Lots 4 to 10 and East one-half of Lot IS to West one-half of Lot 22 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family-One (RSF-I) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest Sth and 6th Street and Northwest 9th and 10th Avenues. Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the RMF Zoning to develop 2.313 acres of land as triplexes. The applicant is also requesting the Multi-Family Future Land Uses Category which allows apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 23 units on the subject property. As stated in the applicant's Small Scale Amendment Report (06-014-SSA), the subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF-I Zoning which is currently on the site. As can be seen on the Zoning Map, an RMF Zoning in this area would be incompatible and create an isolated district within a Single Family neighborhood. Board Member Hoover made a motion to recommend denial to the City Council based on the Planning Staff findings that Petition 06-013-R is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and incompatible with surrounding zoning; seconded by Board Member Burroughs. 8 v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. D. Consider Petition No. 06-013-R continued. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS - YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August Petition will beforwarded in ordinanceformforafinal Public Hearing on August 1,2006 before 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. City Council. E. Consider Petition No. 06-005-R: Recommendation to the City Council to rezone an unplaned, vacant 15.5 acre Parcel of Land from Residential Mobil Home (RMH to Heavy Commercial (CHV) and an unplaned, vacant 1/19 acre Parcel of Land from Holding (H) to Heavy Commercial. The subject property is located North of East North Park Street (State Road 70 East) across from the Post Office. The petition was submitted by Craig M. Hackl, on behalf of property owners, H20Holding, LLC. This application was deferred from the May 23, 2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. Board Member Burroughs moved to table Rezoning Petition No. 06-005- R until August 17, 2006 as requested by the applicant; seconded by Board Member Hoover. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August Due to the postponement of action, the second public hearing will be reschudeled for 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. September19, 2006 before the City Council. F. Consider Petition No. 06-012-R: Recommendation to the City Council to rezone Petition No. 06-012-R was submitted by the property owners, Ismael Gardune-Telles and Maria Lots 11 and 12 of Block 175, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Multiple Ester Garduno. The request is to rezone Lots 11 and 12 of Block 175, City of Okeechobee, from Family (RMF) to Light Commercial (CLT). The subject property is located at Residential Multiple Family (RMF) to Light Commercial (CLT). The subject property is located 216 Southwest 3rd Avenue. Ismael Gardune-Telles and Maria Ester Garduno are at 216 Southwest 3rd Avenue. the property owners - City Planning Consultant. V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. I F. Consider Petition No. 06-012 continued. Planning Staff Report Summary: The current RMF Zoning designation assigned to the property does not allow restaurants as a permitted or special exception use. The applicant is requesting the CLT Zoning District which would allow a restaurant as a special exception use. See Code Book Section 90-253(1). This property, along with every lot within Block 175, has Multi-Family Future Land Use Classification. This presents a problem because the applicant is not requesting a land use change to accommodate the proposed use of the property. The existing surrounding property uses vary, but is mostly residential in nature and the proposed restaurant would not be compatible with the existing residential trends in the neighborhood. In reviewing the petition submitted, another problem presents itself. The applicant stated that the owner and four other occupants still live at this location. It is unclear whether the owners will be moving out of the residence or still occupying the dwelling should this request be granted. I Board Member McCoy moved to table Rezoning Petition No. 06-012-R until a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment Application and Special Exception Application is submitted in association with this property; seconded by Board Member Juarez. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ. YEA MCCOY- YEA JOHNS- YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. I A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. A second public hearing will not be held until further action is taken on this application by the Planning Board. 8 V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. QUASI-JUDICIAL G. Consider Petition No. 06-004-V: The variance was submitted by property owners, Janet and Rohit Dave. The subject property is located at 1020 West North Park Street. The purpose for the variance is to allow an off premise sign to be erected within the 300 feet from a Residential District (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(3), to exceed the maximum 442.5 square feet of signage (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(1), and to allow a second ground sign to be permitted in the front yard with the height exceeding the 30 feet maximum height requirement (ref. LDR's Section 90-568(3). This petition was deferred from the May 23, 2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. June 27, 2006 - Plannin Board/Board of Adjustment and Ap eals - Page 8 of 12 Petition No. 06-004- V was submitted as a Variance request by property owners, Janet and Rohit Dave. The subject property is located at 1020 West North Park Street. The purpose for the variance is to allow an off premise sign to be erected within the 300 feet from a Residential District (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(3), to exceed the maximum 442.5 square feet of signage (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(1), and to allow a second ground sign to be permitted in the front yard with the height exceeding the 30 feet maximum height requirement (ref. LDR's Section 90-568(3). Chairperson Ledferd asked whether the applicant, a representative or Building Offiical Forbes was present. No one was present to address the petition. Planner LaRue advised that his findings were that the section of the code on free standing signs does not mean "on-premise." The matter, in his opinion, should not be addressed as a variance, but as an Appeal of an administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment (reference Code Book Section. 70-371 'The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide an appeal of administrative decision when it is allege that there is an error in any order, requirement. decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of these regulations. 'For this item the decision was from the Building Official to issue a cease and desist order for the sign permit). Board Member McCoy made a motion to table Variance Petition No. 06-004- V and hear as it as an Appeal of an Administrative Decision at the August 17, 2006 meeting; seconded by Board Member Burroughs. VOTE HOOVER - YEA K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS - YEA BURROUGHS-YEA MOTION CARRIED. June 27, 2006 - Planning Board/Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Page 9 of IB 3 I I I v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. H. Consider Petition No. 06-007-SE: The special exception was submitted by Phil Baughman, on behalf of property owners, James and Josephine Baughman. The subject property is located at 1505-C South Parrott Avenue. The purpose for the special exception is to allow mechanical and repair services within a Heavy Commercial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's Sec. 90-283(7)) - City Planning Consultant. I. Consider Petition No. 06-007-SE: The Special Exception Application was submitted by Lowry Markham on behalf of property owner 303 Realty, LLC.. The subject property is located at 303 Northwest 9th Street. The purpose for the Special Exception is to allow a bulk storage of hazardous material and flammable liquid within an Industrial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's Sec. 90-343(2) - City Planning Consultant. Petition No. 06-007-SE is a Special Exception submitted by Phil Baughman, on behalf of property owners, James and Josephine Baughman. The subject property is located at 1505-C South Parrott Avenue. The purpose for the special exception is to allow a mechanical and repair service business within a Heavy Commercial Zoning District. Staff has received six letters from various surrounding property owners requesting specific information as to the type of business that is being purposed, and hours of operation. Mr. Phil Baughman notified staff that he could not attend the meeting this evening. Board Members suggested that the matter be postponed in order to allow Mr. Baughman the opportunity to address the questions and comments. Board Member McCoy moved to table Petition No 06-007-SE until the July 20,2006 meeting; seconded by Board Member Juarez. VOTE HOOVER - NAY K. KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA McCoy - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS-NAY MOTION CARRIED. Petition No. 06-007-SE is a Special Exception Application submitted by Lowry Markham on behalf of property owner, 303 Realty, LLC. The subject property is located at 303 Northwest 9th Street. The purpose for the Special Exception is to allow bulk storage of hazardous material and flammable liquid within an Industrial Zoning District. Planner LaRue explained that the bulk oil facility was previously approved, together with a variance for the west side set backs. Mr. Markham added that a new building is being constructed which will include a warehouse, storage tanks and office building. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Special Exception. Staff received a letter in opposition of the Special Exception from Don Kordalis and Marjorie Cavener. 8 v. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. I. Consider Petition No. 06-007-SE continued. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING - Chairperson. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 90, Division 5, Signs, of the Land Development Regulations specifically regarding Com- mercial and Industrial Sign Regulations. This item was previously discussed at the November 15, 2005 Land Planning Agency Meeting. Board Member Burroughs moved to approve Special Exception Petition No. 06-007-SE to allow bulk storage of hazardous materials and flammable liquid within an Industrial Zoning District for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23,24, and the alleyway of Block 38, City of Okeechobee Subdivision; seconded by Board Member Johns. VOTE HOOVER - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS - YEA BURROUGHS -YEA MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRPERSON LEDFERD CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. At the November 15,2005 Land Planning Agency meeting it was discussed to amend Section 90, Commercial and Industrial Sign Regulations. The matter was not finalized. Attorney Cook recommended that the regulations be amended so that they allow for the Planning Board to approve mural sign applications instead of the matter going to the City Council. Board Member McCoy moved to instruct Attorney Cook to draft the appropriate ordinance amending the Commercial and Industrial Sign Regulations that would allow for the Planning Board to approve all murals within the City and to recommend to City Council approval of that ordinance; seconded by Board Member Hoover. I I I VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONTINUED. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 90, Division 5, Signs, of the Land Development Regulations specifically regarding Com- mercial and Industrial Sign Regulations continued. VII. NEW BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Land Develop- ment Regulations definitions to add language regarding a nursery for the planting, growing and selling of plants and trees - City Attorney. B. Requests for any amendments to the City's LDR's - Chairperson June 27, 2006 - Planning Board/Board of Adjustment and A VOTE HOOVER - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA McCOY - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS -YEA MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Cook explained that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) do not contain a definition for a nursery for planting, growing and selling of plants and trees. The City has received an application for an Occupational License for this type of business. Board Member McCoy moved to instruct Attorney Cook to draft the appropriate ordinance amending the definitions and any other areas of the LDR' s to address a nursery for planting, growing and selling of plant and trees as a permitted use within Heavy Commercial and Industrial Districts, and as a Special Exception in a Light Commercial Zoning District; seconded by Board Member Burroughs. VOTE HOOVER - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA JUAREZ - YEA MCCOY - YEA JOHNS-YEA BURROUGHS -YEA MOTION CARRIED. Chairperson Ledferd asked whether there were any further requests for amendments to the LDR' s. There were none. June 27, 2006 - Plannin Board/Board of Adjustment and A III. ADJOURNMENT - Chairperson. There being no further items on the agenda, Chairperson Ledferd adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Planning BoardIBoard of Adjustment and Appeals 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. General Services tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department. /ij?%L~ William Ledferd, ATTEST: e ",... ~ _ . The Okeechobee News P~O. Box 639, Okeechobee, Florida 34973 (863) 763-3134 Published Daily ST A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J dy Kasten who on oath says she is Publisher of the ;keechobee 'News, a DAILY Newspaper published at Okeechobee, in Okeechobee County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a f~ 7~'a_ a.J 1 i.f 0 '+ 5 ;J.. in the matter of p~ :6 ~~/~o{ . \ /2---'-r~A.,;t ~ ~ in the 19th Judicial District of the Circuit Court of,Okeec?obee County, Florida, was published in said newspaper In the Issues of ~ +1'(' :2-CJOc.. <f Affiant further says that the said Okeechobee News is a newspaper published at Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretof~re been published continuously in said Okeechobee County, FlOrida each week and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says t~at she has neither paid nor promised any person, finn or corporatIOn any discount, rebate, commission or refund for th~ purpose of securing this advertisement for p blication in the saId newspaper. . Conduct a Public HeanngtQ Consider ComprehenslvePla~Sma(IScaie Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No:0p.013-SSA,' Steven Dobbs 15 tti~:ap", plicant,on beha~ of ownerlnS~eDevelopment Group.l))!applica~on 15 to change the Future Land Use desi.gnation fro. mSin. gle Fanii~ (SF) to M.ufti,Fa..m.ilY(MF.)' for vacanttroperty I~ated between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th an 8th Avenues,Legal descnption: Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12;Lots 1, 2,~,,9 less the East 32.50feet'ofLot 9, and 10 to 26 01 Blbck21:Lotsl to 60lBlock 22, Dkeech. Ob..~. ,Pll1l. Book 1. ' Pagel 0, .arnlPlat.. Book 5~pa.g....e. 5;Publ..ic.Re.cqrds; Dkeechobee, count}'.; Flan....d.a and.is approxl. mately 9,159..ac. re..l(.'S),.T. he.'P.roPos.ed.. use of theproperty'isWcbnstruct a Multl-Family.DeveloPment, JhJ$':'!I?pilcation was deferre~~0~the~:a}23:3~6meeting, ..... '..'::"::'i t, <::,..']- * Conduct a PublicHeaiingJo'ConsiderCompreherislve'plan' Small' Sc~le"FOlIire Land Use Map Amendment Ao~lciitlon No,06-014-SSA, Daniel B, Creech is the property owner, ,The application Is to change the Furure ,Land' Use.de~ig".atlon from Single Family (SF) to M.UItl-Famlly.(MF) for. vacant property locate.dbetw. een. Northwest 5th and 6th Street and NorthWest 9th and 10th Avenues. Leg~1 d!scnp' tion: Lots 1 to 26, of Block 99; Dkeechobee,P!at Bqok5, Page 5, Public Records, Dkeechobee, County, Flonda and Is apprOximately 0:58 acre(s), Tne,proposed use of the property Is to buIIdtripl,x,unltsfor affordable housing, I . Conduct a Public Heanng to Consider RezpnlngApplication No. 06-005-R.Craig M. Hackl submitted the application on beha~ofprQperjy:ownersH2D Holdings, LLC, The application is to Ch. ange the z.o.nln.g desi.lgnat.ibnfo. r. Parcei1.'.fi.o. m. . Resl-.. dential Mobile Home (RM.H)"to HeavyCpni[TIercl~I(CHl/,)and Parcel.,Zlrom Hold' Ing (H) to Heavy Commercial (CHV) , forVacant unplatted,properly',located Norlti of East North Park Street (State Road 70 East, across from!tjie Post Office). Legal descnptlpn: A parcel of land Iyingjn ,15 TQWns,hip:37 South, Range 35 East, Dkeechobee. more partlc'ulalfydescrlbell:as .fol. lows: Parcell: C .,. ,comel'ofsaidSectioq'J5:thence along the South:15, South 89 degrees 2 feet 40 incheS West, ' 486.26 feet to a point on the South IIneof'Section ,15: thence North '00. degrees 57 feet, 20 inches West, 63..49 feet: thence North DO' degrees 161aet Winches West, 250'.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 54 feet 49 inches West't86,29.feet to. the Point of Beginning: . feet 49 inches West, 674 West, 943,BO feet, thence North 8g degrees 10 6,67 feet;' thence North 00 degrees 15Jeet 28 inches West, 49.9~ feet; thence North 89 de' grees 9 feet 59 inches West, 336:64 feet; thence South 00 degrees 16,leet 59 inches East, 1 002.571eet to the ,Pqlnt Of Beginning. Approximate~ 15,05, acres.' Parcel 2: Commence at the Soutf1eastcor~er of said Section .15: thence South along th.e SOuth. I.ine,ofsaid S. ectlon. '1.5, Soutti89 d. egre.es..2.te.. et 40 i.nches. west,. 4B6.26Jeet to a point on the South line of ,Section 15:thence'North 00 degrees 57 feet 20' incnes'West, 63:49 feet, thenciNorth DO degrees 16 feet 59 inches West, 25D,9Q ,feet to the Point of Beginning: thence, South 89idegrees 5Heet 49 inches West, 1 86,29 Jeet: thence. North 00 degrees 16 feet 59 inches West, 276.78 feet: thence North 89 degrees2,feet 40 Inches East, 186.30. feet; thence South 00 degrees 16 feet 59 inches East, 27~,61 feet to'fhePolnt of Beginning: Approximately 119 acres. This application was deferred lrom the May 23, 200'6 meeting, . CO.ndU.ct a PUBLIC HEA. RING,to consid, erRezoning A. pplication N.O. 06...01.1-A. Ste- ven Dobbs is the applicant on beha~ of owner InS~e Development Grpup, The ap. plicatIOn is to change the zoning descnption lrom Residential Single'faml~-One (RSF-1)fo ReSidentia.I.~,Uitt. pie Fam.."y. (R.MF). f..Ol vacant'pr.oper..'YI.oc...ate.d.belW.. e.e.n. Northwest 12 and 13th Streets'andNorthwest 5\hand:Bth 'Avenues;,Legal~e, scrtption: Lots 110 26 Of Biock.12; LotsJ: 2, 3, ~ lessthtEast 32,5Dfeef of Lot 9 and 10 to 26, of Block 21:lotsJ to' 6 of Block 22, Dkeefhobee,"PlatBookll Page 10, Plat Book 5', Page 5, Public Records, Dkeechobee, County"Flonda and is approximately 9.,159 acre(s). This application was deferred from ttie:May'23. 2006 meeting. . , ....'. ' , - Conduct a PUBLIC HEARING to consider R mael Garduno.Telles and MallaEster Gar pli- cation is to change,the,zonlng.~eSlgnatio to Light Commencat(CLmor,propertyl gal descrtptlon: Lots 11 and 12 of BI ... . . , ~~~e(~: Public R~ords,Dkeesnobee, Count}', Flonda and is appro~imately 0.325 . Conduct a.'PUBLIC HEARINdtcfcbnsider Rezoning Application No. 06-013-R. Daniel B. Creech is the prope .owner, The application is. to change the zoning designation from'Resldential ne (RSF.l) to ResiqentialMuniple Family (RMF)t.or ' '.' No.rthwest 5th and 6th,gtreet and Northwest \l1Il, al descnption: Lots 4 to'10 'and .East one. half of Lot 15.to .... .... . 22;'of Block 99: DklechQbee,:plat Book 5, Page 5, Public R pkeechobee, County, Flondhnd Islapproidmately 2.313 acre(s). . "., ........" . ,'. ,Y' . Consider anypropose~' al]l~,~!J1'e,nts, ,submitted by City Staff ~r citizens, to the Comprehensive Plan:,which'lnclu~ethe Land De~eIQPrTle[l\ Regula~ons, (~DR's) and render a recommendatlon'to:the City CounclHor consideration and final adoption. . Conduct a VARIANCE to allow an off premise sign to be erected. wit a ReSidential Dlstnct (ref' LOR's' Sec 90.572(3)), to 4425 square feet,of slgnage (ref LOR's Sec 90-512(1 ound sign to be permitted In the front yard with.the 0 feet maximum helght,reQ4lrement (ref LOR's Sec'90, Ichard H Pritchett, III, on beha~ of proper- ty owners Janet and oh~ ave. esubJect property IS located at 1020 West North Park Street, Le@I'descrtption: Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 28, North- west Addrtion.to. . Dkeecho. bee, Plat Book 1, Page 25, Public Rec.ords of Dkeecho- oee Count)', Flortda and.is approximately 0,6'51 acre(s), Petition N. 0, 06.004-V. This application wasdeferredlrdm the May 23, 2006'meeting..'"..' . Cond to consider a' SpECIALEXCEPTlDN40aIl0~,mechanical and' omnlercial(CHV), Zoning District'(relLDR's Sec. . owners,'James and,Jpsephlne' ~aughman. The subjecj'prope. 050 Sduth Parrott Avenue. Legal"descnp' lion:.DR"Bpok??7, 1: Beginning at the Northeast.comer of Section 28;',Tolyns 35 East, run South 1 00 .feet;" thence run West 361 feet mor boundary'lineoj.parrott Avenue: thence run North along the East'boundary line of Parrott Avenue 100' feeno the North line of said Section 28; thence run East:361 feet more, or 'Iess,toth-e,point of Begin- ning. Lying in and comprising apart of North East one-quarter'of the NOrtheast. one-quarter of Section 26, Townshi~ 37 South, Range ,35 East; 'Dkeechobee County, Flonda; Parcel. 2:' Beginnlng;at the South We.stco'nier 'rifLo! 5' of Block 50, First Addition to South latit!jereOf,recordedin Piat Book 1, Page 17 of the. pu Oun\y,FIOhda; thence run North 57feet; l~enceEast l60ife feet;ttJence'\'iest lBO feet to the Polnt.'of ,Beginning, ~Ylngjn '.' . 'parriuts'4arld 5 of Block 50, First Addltl.on to South DReechObee, btl]e aforem~ntioned.Plat Book and Page,DkeechobeeCounty, Flonda and is appnoxllT)atelYl ,1lV~ci~{s), Petl. tion'No.06-006-SE' ' , . ., ' .,<' . :!, ,'",:' ,,:::"-' . Conduct a Pubiic Heanngto conside~a SPECIAL EXCEPTlDil'toaiio"ibtilk;t6rage of hazardous matertai and flammable liquid within an Industrial.(IND)~pnlng Dis. trict (ref. LOR's see C. ,. 90:. 343(2)), submitted b. y applicant. LO. Wry ~a. ri91~m on be- half of property owner, 303 Really: LLC. The sublect property. is...lo.caied at 303 Northwest 9th Street. Legaldescnption: Lots 3 to 6 and'2Yto?4,:and alley be. tween sald Lots' of 8iock 3B,CjlY of Dke. echobee, Piat Book 5". Page. 5, .Publlc Records of Dkeechobee, County, Flortda and Is approximately 1 ,378acre(s). Peti- lion No. 06.007.SE, '. ,i.,"';" A copy of theentiie. apPIIC. ati.on(s) end agenda ar.e aVallable.i.n. ihe G.ener.."i Services Office, Rm 10tatCity Hall or b callin Betty. ,C.le.me. nt at (8.6.3. ) 7..63..3.372..X2.1. B... Please . and A p~al(WillserV! ~s the de- CISion aWofthe ,to approve ordenySpe, (s)"The" . recommen nSldanitidn prehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning APplicatid Regulations (LDR's) Amendments. '. ,'i;C'! ,', I 'c,,::.,.:::.:.,--_:,.'.., -.';'.<.:' .._<\', _:"..,'" " , PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVlS..ED. the atffl'.'..~.ny; pers'on;~es)res.. to ;a.'. PP. aill a. iJy deCision made by the Planning Board/Board o'Adjus\meiit$ijfid Appiliils)withn,. spect to any matter considered at this'meeting, or. heanng will need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings 15 made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which' the appeal is to be based, Tapes are used for,the sole purpose of back-up forthe Clerk's Office. . . In accordance wrth the Amencans wrth Disabilities Act (ADA) and !Fiorida Statute 266.26, persons with disabilities needing speciai accommodati.on to Participate In Ihl.s proceedingsho~ld contactBetty;Clement,noO'ater than't\yb.(g)' working days pnor to the groceedrng at 863.?63-3372 x218; ~ you are heanng or voice im- palred, call T o 1-B00.222,344B. (voice) or 1-868:447-5620 (uy), BV Brtan WMeh'ail, Zoning Administrator 140452 ON 6/9,19/06 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE - June 27, 2006 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS - HANDWRITTEN MINUTES PAGE -1- I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairperson: .June 27. 2006. Board of Adjustment Rel!Ular Meetinl! 6:30 p.m. II. CHAIRPERSON, BOARD MEMBER STAFF ATTENDANCE - Gen Svc. Coord. Present Chairperson William Ledferd ,/ / Vice-Chairperson Dawn Hoover Board Member Terry Burroughs Board Member Kenneth Keller v Board Member Devin Maxwell vCJ/ Board Member Douglas McCoy Board Member Carol Johns / /' Alternate Epifanio Juarez Alternate Mike O'Connor Attorney John R. Cook Gen. Svcs. Coordinator Betty Clement Deputy Clerk Melisa Eddings .~ /' ~ I!~' ~P' fXJ10/dY ~ :J (. Absent PAGE -2- III. MINUTES - Gen. Svc. Coordinator. A. Board Member ~"J...L0I.L(vrt-4. moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Age?cl Action for the May 23,2006 Regular Meetings; seconded by Board Member ~cVjl"'f . VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd ~ Johns // ", MOTION: ~- AGENDA - Chairperson IV. A. V. A. YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT DENIED Requests for the addition, deferral or withdrawal of items on t~day's agenda. TaJdt t'~/lYl E. :t;L4~a /fLUHi't)G f)c_P r /J)L{.ic{~' &Uui<L'~ OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - Chairperson. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06-013-SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1,2,3 and 9, less the East 32.50 feet of said Lot 9, and Lots 10 to 26 of Block 21; Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Single Family (SF) to Multi-Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th A venues. The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs, on behalf of property owner, InSite Development Group. This application is associated with Petition 06-011-R and was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PAGE -3- Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the Multi-Family Future Land Use category to develop 9.195 acres of land as a multi-family development. The Multi-Family category would allow apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 92 units on the subject property. The surrounding area to the east (Block 20) has been recently converted to Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use but is still vacant. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (A) Consistency with the Land Use Categories and Plan Policies. As proposed, the applicant's request does not show adequate data and analysis to support a conversion to the Multi-Family Land Use category as shown in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (B) Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities. Water is available to the subject property. It is not clear whether sewer is available and with recent conversions from Single Family there needs to be some acknowledgment of past approval impacts. Impacts to traffic and schools have not been assessed. (C) Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses. The proposed land is in a transitional neighborhood and it is difficult to know whether it will be compatible with the adjacent and nearby uses. (D) Compliance with Specific Standards of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, as they are intended, do allow for a Small Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to Multi-Family. This proposed change at this time is not consistent with the above Objectives and Policies, Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: This application and its appearance before the Council and the LP A was duly noticed for the public in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Chapter 163 ofthe Florida Statutes. Based on the application being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends denial to amend the Future Land Use ~ap from, Single Fam", ily to MUlti-Fam, il,Y, . 'r, ~ .,' / 'Alo /IJU"", "" ' : _~ jJ l} iii, /! q In::; (1 (' /LLJ--/ ::;....), It - jLl ~d, a t,V" ./A /' 4l, 1. t- J,"~<-L{ (}- L.L?~~f, I . r Iv II, . fllf . ~. - W4/ /lt~10'L,Nd If) ~ JAif~~ cfUrjz,vLVv .~, /~\..' -t 6--({/I,-/,. a../;.{J, 1cNW..M.~ h ~ ',1 IN--iJ - 9 .u of I( 1(/, . ,. J /1 ~ J ' 0 \1/. (0 ~ , ^ n --+L~ ~ ~ .JV1!L(;-tU~1. ,- . ---lf1.A)LK. .L..J Of>t VHfltCl/J - rt\L"--i Do Cr0L(Lt~0 /W1. A / I'V-< (- 7 VOTE -0 YEA NAY' ABSTAIN ABSENT Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns MOTlON~~ DENIED ;lUiJ) .-- j1~k&-"0!jv :(' fir? f/)~ - f2'f,~~~I;M). / ~L7- i~c',~~ eic-t-i 2- L~ ~/,ul' c2yu/t/" v /10: UJf /1ftti /1r pi. ' .. f;-i / {U1- ~ tifr;';~,'f feel /Ji.hu ~ff j.a'Ll. ~ ,6;i<L~:, - CI)w~~ tL I "!~-tj r ~f'" t:; tlL<.(j o/",poh'd Y- /W dLvJlof--&1 - }v~rl CHA-<,L~ J ~ r;it cf '~&--tl/X-'A.p (~( yl{uzitv7r-. 'f)~y~ d-f,t(llj;p-c/~r. ~. .' {'(JL.'lIL tihv Nvit~'r- LuJ ())~ ,'1o,jd- . . If' 0 () , (Lf0P. tI,!:JZ AI~I' '. LJa~j 7z f~f:~' ~(l~ 51110&/ 'i M ClLe ,d'<k J',/J /Jftk"' ay)(it,[;'''Y.ll.1/ r;, D W(/<<Yl w! L.1f:f o/U7 ' tUNd. t'~ UyJtld/'''' \j~(/JA7'od 'i{;~-UUI lJr<": fM~t/ r'u' ~~ 1 'fi<A {l/UU. Ln.lA.L"j~/ y /66 ~J .A' ~ CfL-f..~;J. ( I( f.?'.. i-0tt-t/~) - ( /; d- (I L ul 'j-1)J:'-7t( ,_y;., ltllf J U.f.JtJJ(~/J .A-~1JU( t l--tcL\ , (; . / '-Ib-.b.J (2/ 1.-J.f,./..(t,C4--i-J.. ,.'.f/) e.J~iXc('..:" ..p. 7~ f-'.f. .' ~/(P--L. fl.g;: '. .. ~ '-. 't j Q;h' /1 'I /1 ") .' 1tr-' 'h l C ( /1---7~. ..-.. it,<'----jL.cA.JAJ' /le&:.. -. t-t . L' c- ,,It. .- . . . '7 / I ___--1..' L . ,I / I - .. - r /'__, _ r' '__ 'A-. , ~ j- C;lk?/)t c/ Y~1{A-f)~(..f(L.J /-'}LSe.-tt /J.. 'J 7J ~l/) /u (J Ii /eLL:7 Ie J<- . () , -', ). r (). .... ~ " I' h ' '.'~ . ^ '1 _, , . '_ -- . . I'lLc--a!.. /Q...~.' 1'-/ ,__p'i.tp)),jj-J "p~,<./'~{ /:2~---zL~ . ~ ,fl~1J-/l'-- r-- 7' l;/~ J __ /f-fYlt.-i __ ~l-<-A(J :L-~ "7)'-- <t, Lt:~l/l Q,f- c2./j (hLI--/:+ . r.' I' i ~ '/" J. /"JVI d... /J.5i. I/J (~(L,,--. 1./'/#--1.ID'7'.1, ujj~ u..4 (J./') ',.I/V--,'--' I C# c-c -{:( rvv. . (I ~ f! ( , M...' -1.. -. ' . )JJ, j.... r) '?J2--"'''''---<-X.. LU"<..--(j p.. -' /Y.~CLI~ .- '(, ~ .t::t'lt::7 ..... /L ' '-'t;-y cL t - c'L._.Ui-<- L..L-UV - -- . .' .'.. i L VdL 0~,~,L"C---~ cJJ -1/!A'--f--l~jj;dz0i M ': ckjC~-- .f€xJ" / / {! I' --~ r .j t Ulf--i!f.-l/li. f /1 i' 0 ....>>-Ve tlt.~ - Jlf I r; i/ ~6j)!1.~ ,i.hjL(:" (J I II i~ {L~~ __ : ~~lt flJU-dtJ k CC ~5A, /A4~' d. t'+df reriXi, )I.J.vt {'AJ-/hUv..u{ ,4/-<<.- 1/ !7J'O. Ii (d,/ { Ii.. / !It. Cf '. L} ~f il ('{--'l( /Z0.1 c uj (s.s / I ~ tl~..u~j () 16, aflb-vUlL u.~{ ,L,_ I ~--- ~ 10 i!;"'7lfl/J. 'r..~' ,.(, 1:./ .>, -- . 1 " /J '.... I /1_ .. ,./l./-J:r-. ," --;. ~ '. '~_~/. __ u----L<: U] U..JJJ.--<-- t::UL/ll<.f, -- 1hJ-j /.ff. (l(UC t::J!J.:.. i-tl~>1 1/ ,..'-' l '1 '/ 1 " ~nl1l ;' ;;' , ,,~ / / / II ~ Ct)--r:J ..- _/-,,/) to- C:<La/ / /~~/n i #-~---,4~ ~ {I rTii/-i! p..(j P' LI)!0-, ~ ~ /1iJ-'/ L -' : ' , ill" < ~./ " r'(,,! 9- - AL(' !jZij , L/)-/U.,-,'l /LI:2f0.JZ~L/~"- )1" t,~[~~~ <-:J, ~/r / ( / ' . A -I- " j I.' ! 1 r *" '1 1./1 /-1 ),z/ ' ' Y /;iA./ h:) t:l, /U/I.~- tLL;h/r)L.tZ--u 1'-fi<-1Z_r}( '~'V&1/( I <//f.-(. A-'f1 ;,t!'/. J &~ /J7{/>H'~"r< uj~ !MJfJ!-* ,,'&ju~ / jfl fCh0-cZ( - (' lhd';[ !<-G /Y1C(~' LhA\ ('/I{,{J A ___ I II /!/, l~., /) 'J,~:t;/, /) /X-~ ',1-il-ti,l1,'z'.j'I)'-6-,'{ ,,;SS/1-, I ! t \.../'l (/ L/ /{/lfL"..... "J / ~~/Ti- . , ' ') , ~ Ii .' ,.' D /, .') ('1 UJ.-iid/k--/ [) IJtJ~{ (l~ 1,-f;j'XM1~~~ ~ rj -Jt<Lf - \Jz'-J ~ (,/ 1" \._, /0/" .A.-\J YiLv..( ,/YlC,~'-< /yUJQJ2J,J-? /J;LW~ -; ~.- A '')--' r J -j'd./I:t. j] ,I <~// /', ,U,,4 /y' ~ '-1 .-d ,/, ',/1,/ <c. ,I r A {, / r ~j() I F ,,,)'f ~.f / ( ,X u. I l./J/) JAY-;J 1;:lA? C,{s::J 'I- rfycc.. I LI I I tr~ (7 ~h!--;(' (/'..-' ke(/(~--1S f:9-1 <.:3 ,::')/2- ;Je c!!~~tL(~. ~/:1t/l/~/ /Lt;j{/:'t.A - CL/.u.:~u~' /4J !K-<-ZZOIC \ /, ,/ c" ( # _,' .' 1_' ('-6/ f/ll C~ C'(' (\, " 1 I) Y , (lr , ' - Ie -- ' l,{C ,L.t./!I tLu'1? - \:....?1.t,^u) 1'1- ., /i, --';; '., ( , i (/, C'>.-fL{) / ,j"Ld-l'I( (-<) t,uf" /c " (~fl -- . /I: J~1l ;/ ~ ~ ~ 3-~ C~~- !:<-<-f -- l' / (jL(fiL/,, . Yr'-M~/ - /,/11) f' lj ! , , J.";/,, " J v'- '/7'Y (, '--, jL-I_6;'( Iv tel C)?,t /- · . A, J-j1~.id,,17 ~, / " , ,v ~ Pd.! 'fb i~6il!."~ ,1..0 !l'~ f4 tV~,~-f A..-I,) ~'1f..e -;; c/?Rw - t;J#tl ~e A',6y/v' ,d.'7' /lxl do .: .. ~7( I~if if.)l<J' . %)Jc4<, -: . I f:J-~: VP.lAl oC,uJ P? "e) . a,:~<:' ~'j,f~l C(ft t-u:(J C - f~At C lh":/I'( t "~L{.D' 'I ,iJ//l/iilo ,- UJ J' . )jLlL)Ltv f"AYo/;;'J /IS 0/. j- . (f~Kw / C tn"fiL,,,~,,--;-" UfP~}<c.4' ;ILl V!.fA<)~;r6 ~ ~ J~ / ~di /-U, ') ~ /J.;"v{,l,C\u (fj (u.iJ,,!- (J f:t-d~ftU7'(/.J ,j 0-1,~...\4 , v (J ," .,' j, ii' j.ft;:L~v.-1LLt' " ' cJdAi' / i1Junpt-('6 It I'#'-IL ~A " )!' A '2/; I';' .) ~/J ,//} ,h ,II /-//"..,1..'/' fr.,')/}! ., - ~L ~ ~ V.Jj/j}-u!vL~J - !C~CUU ,,~&1~)L/C~'~ ~~',~~~?~~~~/~\ / ).~ {'-L~I O~L '7' fAJet,c, (f'-1,.V I'lL, 71 'ficili/lG , ,-1 .,. d (v) ./ '1 Lt. ~ (/ bYL i t ll-<uf (!JiF-/~~ "11. I , i--tJ,; It - !J AY,LP/( lJj(J J& c)j~A-<-<J ({f (-L-f.JtY'{j-/-{J" ~/ . /' rVt (j ? I , , ? r.../ t (J /LA./vJ II t'1l /1--L t. ,) T fj'C /,(/M/.J4iZ, L/Xf/J / r \ I -j /5 ~ ?Yt('6;- f,{A;,fu - t~()~ /!~ I-IYL I j' -;J-'-+-L (1:' Y-L fL .' , . ill ~X ,[,"- / / (/ c -- .-/ IfIUIJr. ,yt -" . _ )~ ,i 'Ii U J-tt-Jf ~/1Ju/:! - /1/cu;{ i- j'</ ~~ ~i4P~/(~ cicilL i /S' --1 '4iJ I uavJ2,,<-i t1 Jl~1. h-.u OAt r tf1hJkfr \./ Cpl C &;; - v ~t, f /tU'#<-1 h-vJL<<! <~ /cLcL; 4- cjiff-f;--!JI.{ ,/42 (:-t-J]. PAGE -4- B. Rezoning Petition No. 06-011-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1,2,3 and 9 less the East 32.50 feet, 10 to 26 of Block 21, Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family- One (RSF-1) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th Avenues. The petition was submitted by. Steven Dobbs on behalf of property owners, InSite Development Group. Thispetitioriis-as~ciated with application 06-013-SSA and was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamhers; j, M 0 Av1" /b jJ -"" I" /l yrv~ f uL L( ~ / fnTtr/>>t /J/.!-l'.!.-<X!.e ell" Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the RMF Zoning to develop 9.195 acres of land as a multi-family development. The applicant is also requesting the Multi- Family category would allow apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 92 units on the subject property. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) As proposed, the applicant's request would be inconsistent with the proposed Multi-Family Land Use category as intended in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The RMF Zoning District allows a variety of uses, including multi-family housing, (3) The existing neighborhood reflects a low level of residential intensity. The applicant, in a separate application had applied for and received a rezoning for property immediately east of the subject property (Blocks 4 and 13) in March. This area is being rezoned in relation to the previous application. If this property is allowed to be changed to Multi-Family, it is inevitable that more rezonings in this Single-Family area will occur. (4) No, the use is not appropriate for the location until the applicant submits a traffic analysis of the impacts from the subject property and the adjacent property which was amended and rezoned in March. (5) The proposed use could adversely affect living conditions of the adjacent properties. (6) Should it be granted, buffering would be determined during the site plan review phase. (7) Should it be granted, the proposed use and other rezonings could overburden water, sewer, schools, and streets. The cumulative impacts of this Multi-Family conversion along with other recent occurrences have not been assessed. (8) Traffic congestion will be a problem if zonings of this size and intensity are allowed to continue. (9) No, the proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege but the need to change to Multi-Family zoning has not been demonstrated. PAGE -5- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is recommended that this Zoning application be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and denied. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RSF-l to RMF. VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT MOTION: ~':~i) DENIED PAGE -6- C. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06-014-SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for ~ts 1 to 26 of tslock Y9.::;City of Okeechobee, from Single family (SF) to Multi - Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 5th and 6th Streets and Northwest 9th and 10th Avenues. The application was submitted by property owner, Daniel B. Creech. This application is associated with Petition 06-013-R - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Staff Report Summary: The subject property is located on NW 5th and NW 6th Streets and is approximately 2.313 acres. As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting that the Future Land Use Map be amended from Single Family Residential for this property to Multi- Family Residential to allow for construction of triplex dwelling units. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Consistency with the Land Use Categories and Plan Policies. (A) As proposed, the applicant's request does not show adequate data and analysis to support a conversion to the Multi-Family Land Use category as shown in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.4: The City. through revision of the appropriate land development regulations, shall continue to establish compatibility criteria for adjacent land uses. Objective 3: The City of Okeechobee shall continue to work toward the elimination or reduction in size or intensity of existing land uses and zoning designations which are not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF-1 Zoning which is currently on the site. (B) Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities Traffic: The applicant has not submitted a Traffic Analysis to support this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property. The applicant should present analysis which demonstrates the traffic impacts to NW 5th Street and NW 6th Street. Schools: The applicant is proposing a maximum total of 23 multi-family residential dwelling units, but has not given any information as to how many school aged children this development could generate. Drainage: The applicant has not provided information on how surface water management will be provided on-site. During the site plan review phase of development, all design and construction of the proposed stormwater management facilities must be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and must comply with all District rules and regulations. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer: Okeechobee Utility Authority (OUA) should have the capacity to provide service from its water treatment plant under the current Single Family Future Land Use Classification of the subject property. The anticipated flow for the proposed Multi-Family Future Land Use Category (triplexes) has not been determined by the applicant. It is not clear whether sewer is available and with recent conversions from Single Family there needs to be some acknowledgement of past approval impacts. ,--'7 \-'fil~Lt jVL/~.L t'.cl!./ -' ,-, ,~, rJulpdw,~)fi ~j~ ~ diyp't WevJ v~f /vI F [1c- s r ~L;J >>t.rr-d (e~-J: ~ ,~~ ;f~-6~~_ II '"I'^J Jl!J '7..' .' /' 17 ' pfHIVi~' I I~ eWL ~ duc~~ jdpi- ftjafL ~ J~JC}0 (!{l-WdthU2 {}li1 b . ~fV ~ Jfr1{' t uJ0cI ~ ~ ~ o-llJ1t IL~ ~ jlJJ)0 /0'-' Ilflk - () )l\L~ ~ ftWJ}/I. ~ jUh''-'' ~ ~~ ~I /f/c P~+., 3 /'I--U.. -J--(O~ !f!\'-~ {f--.:J , S r v , I ;r-J2w tHc-U - tp-lc1~1 ~ f/l ~C~ ' ~,-I wa,J- ~ J~<!~'~ C(!jfL:<J ah.,Jb-o "tdfl ",,'o.F Q~ C/- Lif~ ~ io p~.J" l\../ i &~/ PAGE -7- The applicant should submit data from the OUA which shows that there is capacity to serve the 23 units. (C) Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses. The proposed Future Land Use and the corresponding RMF Zoning would be incompatible with the adjacent and nearby uses. Allowing this change would create an isolated multi-family district within a single family neighborhood. The proposed development would be out of scale with adjacent and nearby uses. (D) Compliance with Specific Standards of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, as they are intended, do allow for a Small Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to Multi-Family. This proposed change at this time is not consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: This application and its appearance before the Council and the LP A was duly noticed for the public in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Based on the application being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Single Family to Multi-Family. Lflv (]~~ iV-to ~u f<<lL1!tJ;- r/Jo+/.M AI ~W12 ~~ ~ {:(' 7 cI~ -t;e-O- )LLC_:t;YV--VV-a ~ ~-~-L? c ~M /!Lii~ ic ['0;to ftA;!t d~, ~-k pVi-t-hr VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller / Ledferd c:::::., Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT x MOTION: \..-r ~ - DENIED PAGE -8- D. Rezoning Petition No. 06-013-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 4 to 10 and East one-half of Lot 15 to West one-half of Lot 22 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family-One (RSF-1) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 5th and 6th Street and Northwest 9th and 10th Avenues. The petition was submitted by Daniel B. Creech, property owner. This petition is associated with Application 06-014-SSA - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the RMF Zoning to develop 2.313 acres of land as triplexes. The applicant is also requesting the Multi-Family Future Land Use category which allows apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 23 units on the subject property. As stated in the applicant's Small Scale Amendment Report (06-014-SSA), the subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF- I Zoning which is currently on the site, As can be seen on the Zoning Map above, an RMF Zoning in this area would be incompatible and create an isolated district within a Single Family neighborhood. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) As proposed, the applicant's request would be inconsistent with the proposed Multi-Family Land Use category as intended in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The RMF Zoning District allows a variety of uses, including triplexes. (3) The existing neighborhood reflects a mix of low level of residential intensity and public uses. Should this property not be allowed to be changed to Multi-Family, it will have an adverse impact on the public interest. (4) The use is not appropriate for the location until the applicant submits a traffic analysis of the impacts from density increase on the subject. (5) The proposed use could adversely affect living conditions of the adjacent properties. (6) Should this be granted, buffering would be determined during the site plan review phase. (7) Should this be granted, the proposed use and other rezonings could overburden water, sewer, schools, and streets. The cumulative impacts of this Multi-Family conversion along with other recent occurrences have not been assessed. (8) Traffic congestion could be a problem on a cumulative basis if this zoning request is granted. (9) The proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change could be viewed as a grant of special privilege because the need to change to Multi-Family Zoning has not been demonstrated. PAGE -9- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is recommended that this Zoning application be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and denied. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RSF-l to RMF. ~1A~ ~~~ VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns MOTION: YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT -OC) ~- DENIED PAGE -10- E. Rezoning Petition No. 06-005-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone an unplatted, vacant 15.05 acre Parcel of land from Residential Mobile Home (RMH) to Heavy Commercial (CHV) and an unplatted, vacant 1.19 acre Parcel of land from Holding (H) to Heavy Commercial (CHV). The subject property is located North of East North Park Street (State Road 70 East) across from the Post Office. The petition was submitted by Craig M. Hackl, on behalf of property owners, H20 Holdings, LLC. This application was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Staff Report Summary: The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and within the RMH, Holding, and CHV Zoning Districts. The applicant is proposing commercial uses for the property, but an exact use has not been determined at this time. Given the property's proximity to State Road 70, in addition to the existing land uses of the abutting properties, the proposed commercial development would be consistent with the current surrounding land uses. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) Heavy Commercial Zoning would be a consistent zoning allowable under the Commercial Future Land Use category if granted, (2) Several types of commercial uses are allowed and authorized under the Heavy Commercial Zoning District. The applicant has stated the retail uses will be a part of the development, but he is unsure of exactly what type of commercial development will be going on the site. (3) The public interest will not be negatively affected by this zoning, (4) As stated earlier, surrounding uses show compatibility with uses allowed under this zoning district. (5) The proposed use and zoning if approved will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. (6) If necessary, site plan requirements can help to reduce any impacts upon the neighborhood. (7) The applicant would need to submit a letter to the City which discusses the anticipated flow of water and sewer for the development. The applicant needs to submit information from the OUA which discusses whether there is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. The applicant must submit a traffic analysis which will determine the impact of traffic on the surrounding roadway network. (8) The proposed development is required to meet all conditions and standards required by the City of Okeechobee and the Florida Administrative Code for drainage. This can be done at the site plan review phase of development. As stated above, traffic impacts will need to be determined by submitting a traffic analysis. (9) No, the proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change, if granted, will not constitute a grant of special privilege. PAGE -11- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above analysis Heavy Commercial Zoning seems appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow rezoning from Residential Mobile Home (RMH) and Holding (H) to Heavy Commercial (CHV) permitting the applicant to develop commercial uses at this location. VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT MOTION: CARRIED - DENIED PAGE -12- F. Rezoning Petition No. 06-012-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 11 and 12 of Block 175, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Multiple Family (RMF) to Light Commercial (CLT). The subject property is located at 216 Southwest 3rd Avenue. Ismael Garduno-Telles and Maria Ester Garduno are the property owners - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Staff Report Summary: The current RMF Zoning designation assigned to the property does not allow restaurants as a permitted or special exception use. The applicant is requesting the CLT Zoning District which would allow a restaurant as a special exception use. See Section 90-253(1). This property, along with every lot within Block 175, has a Multi-Family Future Land Use Classification. This presents a problem because the applicant is not requesting a land use change to accommodate the proposed use of the property. The existing surrounding property uses vary, but is mostly residential in nature and the proposed restaurant would not be compatible with the existing residential trends in the neighborhood. In reviewing the application submitted, another problem presents itself. The applicant stated that the owner and four other occupants still live at this location. It is unclear whether the owners will be moving out of the residence or still occupying the dwelling should this request be granted. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) Under the Future Land Use Element, permitted uses under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category are described as apartments, duplexes, condos, single family homes and public facilities. Being that the applicant is not requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map, the request would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan requirements. (2) As stated earlier, Section 90-253(1) allows restaurants as a special exception use under the CLT Zoning District. So if this request were to be granted, the applicant would then need to apply for and receive a special exception to operate this dwelling as a restaurant. (3) This block is still considered a residential neighborhood. By allowing the applicant to discontinue the use as a residence and operate a restaurant or continuing the residential use in addition to the allowing the restaurant would have an extremely negative impact on the public interest. (4) The proposed CLT Zoning and accompanying restaurant being requested would not be appropriate for this location. As stated above, this request would not be compatible with the adjacent residential uses and could be considered detrimental to urbanizing land use patterns. (5) The proposed restaurant would adversely affect property values and living conditions in the area. The subject property is 14,157 square feet and the existing building on the site is 931 square feet. This site is less than ideal for a restaurant, especially since the applicant would have to adhere to parking, landscaping, and buffering requirements. This fact alone would create conditions to the neighborhood that could be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. (6) Should this be granted, the use would be required to be buffered from less intense uses. (7) Schools and utility services would not be impacted by the proposed use and zoning. Traffic impacts would be substantial; however, there is no PAGE -13- documentation to demonstrate how the flow of traffic would be affected. (8) Traffic congestion and drainage could be come a problem. As stated earlier, a traffic analysis would need to show how the flow of traffic would be impacted as cars enter and leave the site. In addition, the analysis should demonstrate whether the level of service would be impacted. In addition, drainage plans would need to demonstrate how the applicant plans to handle stormwater on-site. (9) The only restrictions being placed on the subject property are those within the Unified Land Development Code and the City of Okeechobee's Comprehensive Plan. (10) Should this request be granted, the proposed changed could be considered a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. In order to consider granting this request, the applicant would need to apply for a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for the site to accommodate the restaurant. However, only one use can be allowed on the property, the restaurant or the dwelling unit. Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is Staff's recommendation that this request be considered inconsistent with intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RMF to CLT as the application is inconsistent with the Multi-Family Future Land Use category. JU<<f - (~1A- ~ t oJinJ ~~J;j -- _ '&lL~~ c/-. 1/ ~-c_c<-F-:f:, uJu-zd2 HP~~ ~ ;itt1!PtUH " d /1,0 . _-1/., r fiJJ-.(() ~~ )U)~~r C LT (J-J Off/L~~' ( A-" (:(1, . _ f,.ui~ "./~, ~~.r r -/ !( >>;f F j ~ ~ Lid h (j - ~/ -{W, e C~~b:J./ f--V-A.J ~ I'~r- aY. I.A J () . ~.' --1.. e .{-f!p,)0. ~U Q/)JuJf.J~ '1 ~1~ \ ~fAM /' ~ I~V ,:i~__..J2 ,M.. I. ~l.~ - W.fI. Yh Jt.. t...- it ./lA--yvJ (/f...A.~, ~--{;-Z- () IL./J . . VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT MOTION: AR;IED ..~ DENIED c ~ t7,/) J- ..~ ~ ~~' 0Ij q>V1 . 1vl~ ~ V'~tJLrf IJ-li' ~.~ ~ '1 \~~ .~ (~../..""."'.. ~~, /?J-/ ~ ' "~ ~ /) I! J.", , Cl,t-1" (lj/'~ U ~Afj1 4J ~ ~, ^1~ ~ -<>€. ,.fl .uM~c1' # J d~.u;- ~,;' /u- ~ (" I ai""';f , 'P tj 'fYtcClJ-j ~ )xJJdurrd ;fu ~ I;), u v ~, i)jF~ u/>bLu:r, (~.t~, tLUwl~/.1M",~ t cr - ,--- - /1 ' U ; 1 c r ( )f~ k fI"~-~.. Pw ~ ;{ 'W/<.w-d! -1$ r ~. C~JZpi ~ r r\. i ~J2,cu- / lIJt:A (v,.CC~;;- /"j- ~ 1; 3~ ~ ~ - !f-a '-J C.i.,Jj ice f'.)3-6~ ~ h;) \ i. '-/ /, C:tlJ..Alf< D tr( eJ:rr-.-VT0, I I (])nit{ -' ;S J)p/ c~/ i j ; f' " ''/, r --- C/y.-C-e-f-.T.. ,U'l /(/ ~ ft/~I!'-d) ~~~, ',' - ""(~.J? P v/6--l-{_ -- /fo ;J II" .1-.--- ; dz.. vl.L4L-t jA) / /fA ': LL~~( I ~c. (!5ttopf.' \cl~~- ~ ~ efrrup{ttJi.f;; .,~ r.wU.jwzc5 - ~ C'x. 14 ( ~~0- JVJ~;" tPW-v..~ \0 L&-M/j(. I ffj 'I' " c;/ i0;t,6 L~p.--Ji ))0 \j./~ u-,,-~e~.; /i.1~e~) '~jJI~;Ie:> Cmvvu__ ,j>1~/ A r~~,j-LL/1f_ . '/ / /'(~ u ~}Lo .iU;J>i~-l ) wd/ {t{ ~l {.L<l4~.o LJI.{j.L,/--ld- /;.11; ..fi /I"-JV. l<<tJ<1 - /~ '/J. - t,J- ~1PI__ ~A 0t~ - ArfiJ t/l)>> lj/{l L1-/(/ Iu ciL~1f1 Vt~ ? , J i .j). J ''J''.. p" / L +.., CL,{ /~/) U--~~~/~f. <(+1..J~1Z -' f'-X--..L,c~ L A (J 0 ~ , tluJ cAJI \~j~~ 4&p! ...~~ fd~~~~70 bA c;1~ L;; I ., 1 / . / /; /~ J~)~ -- fry/ ({~ -/.vJ2--Z(~j tt.A?, .~~ , (I gJ (iff /(l~Fb,G~turpu ~;f4-(<-<4. ~ _ )~~ l/40 f>>-,~ d WtJ~ Lu (cui-' .-ju ~.~ q ,::y~- (~f-C. (4) d-~'/YII-..e~t~/V~<-P. r CoJ --' LvA~ (/ru;-Jf:;- {J.,YdJ; 7'~ - Ii:, ' . /-- '/'( ( C'_ 4 , . 1 fjlliJ./;', /l j tJ--r.L-t:J) VI ,-_;fJ-)(A./!-1--~ ~ i1~./ /j)U?/l~, j2AJVLfr,~~<t (~'-/ r- - c-). ~ )xJ . ~g( CB--VV~1J . A ' ~ - aj1/~~ ~& 'tf Jd ~'c!,~~ , gd ~')~~ "'",to. J:') ,<4 ~~. ,pep; "I r.Jt ~ widd flRJii.d.. '1tut~/ (}u;)t cc4g.~ F4;;-- b4~~ fitJ,CiJ;"fhl/<6- p/~ LmUx. ,,Axl ~ IA.L U ~J jua:::h."A,.L~1: ..i./' i^d o,~(<-& -. 3/L-uvL/ /.6u/e;j-' fl/l'L,-jJ~ 6 ,4n, . d:Uu'c/ ,/2A-.~A. iA-c '''p:60, - ~0~ 'fer;;;.jt&u ;UJi lug( f/~ ;Lub~~ - , P f0l ic ~ . :'yJlf U U<.-J {L'-'-'-' [~~u:: / - {~)(r L' j (r- '-11b . ::;:1.1 ',Iv ;dA-eq- (i J t,', / ~ /1 ;" JJ / \#/1 W /.-~{~~ {J-tAA'-MJI4-:U (:j!~ l7~ /LV Cfir ~~ uLtvf L~' 'j{ 1J~Je , /3.~ )~~tL:lL{:M-- -- ~. ,h~/t~ ~'U2.~ 4j,~lt.L-.t'f; t~ /IL.{'jJ /)\LQ.o<--lJ G ' 0 ~.~ rvU)/Ir~. f'IU j) /lr\,I- ,Iii),' - r-f 1.,,0 #'1 IV / .....&-1 I/lx_AL~r.t,0hIJ ~/:J , ~. -f!--7r .' ii,' J I' (/ )/~d~,L ~!i ~Jr~ 'r~J 4u:f ~- {)J_/r~ ;r:rL-~,- oJ1 ;>>"rV] WJ/Ll /w-lwJ2 W if*t , Al,~ (~ ~~~1-j (i r "I .." ~. " lfttJ<( ~~' @iJ<J /'J1.~-l(1f "1 (2ff#L;1t-<)6!4",-:I- IL<J~C ~l -i- V I '..d..ill j / . - " .. f. J, '" /il ',' J6 ~' ('Y-',~ J"-LcAU'A (~'r (:.>>-'- I'~ {;-1--(;u~t"A (), /), 611 I ':j? ""t' l). , r, / 1 ': -. .' ...' 1 ~,oLtY); .~ 6~~/. ~~"1 / . [ .... /; U - ~ ~- tit )4 -J c c-"-/~~A- ~. -, j " jJ <:7 /ci~~) t<v () u r-' I' ,v n .-L~i (J'-X-- . 'J-yt c C &.->-- {~(f /~ ,,;;:> '-" ---' I~ /1 ~ J?1 ~~?.--Lr-r~,/.j./~iL LA.r7W.J!.~V. J !'r(Z.i!./,IJ C..{ UFf)lli!jl ..../ . /- j 1/ )~t--~,j?t.~ l/A-f!.,it f./J..I -tIp' ,,1 .,1..,l.'''1.. ' ~ _:t.-lc.r ~ hd /)/>1 (J ...L"7(,/'C::, /ViA.-.(j,'L.( c..~ r ip''''-"''. .I. ""-.::. '. / f I~ I' I ,I ~A' iI. ~~ JL'l<-/''f c1-<i.-( ~.?-;'-'" /)/) ,..,(. 1/'" J fi ')? JI " ttt " r I ,- ""..l./fi...&C'./,c<}. . , ,{) ~. '4' /-A'1 7AA. UUU..uP ~ .'1 L-& ~ /&<:Y ~ <S'..f. ~(~, CI~-uJf', uJ"-'~ (y,-.c.e/vtulJ d)l~AA;f ~~ 'If Id Y- ,-ffJ-,'H I FG~6-- fie . fytjJ - 4{,J 'I' l~ ~t; '. '. (-. 1 C&€J.vL ~ , E!)l e~ ktL'vU-J aJ!j; >>-~,--& eh /r'~ tif: ~~~l'~t: J v ~ _I, ~ ;.zJ-x ?../-. .r1' ~ f /rJ~ , ,. LLV--()";LJftJtM- U , . 1r r~\ J9-~ ~~*~ uJM' ~b( ,.; ~ tJ(y~~Y 11~ (l V' U fd'- (}J\ ~ ~ ~ .(;- ~ PAGE -14- G. Consider Petition No. 06-004- V: The variance was submitted by property owners, Janet and Rohit Dave. The subject property is located at 1020 West North Park Street. The purpose for the variance is to allow an off premise sign to be erected within the 300 feet from a Residential District (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(3)), to exceed the maximum 442.5 square feet of signage (ref. LDR's Section 90-572 (1)), and to allow a second ground sign to be permitted in the front yard with the height exceeding the 30 feet maximum height requirement (ref. LDR's Section 90-568 (3)). This petition was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant Staff Report Findings: (A) It is difficult to understand the special circumstances existing which are peculiar to the land or peculiar to the sign involved. The applicant had applied for and received a permit for this sign but it is not clear whether all of the information had been provided to allow the reviewers knowledge that all code requirements were or were not being met. The facts do reveal that the applicant had received the permit in May of last year and was six months into its construction when the permit was revoked. (B) The applicant evidently did not follow the City's sign requirements and should have some responsibility for those actions. (C) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Land Development Code would not have deprived the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the CHV Zoning District. The applicant speaks of the hardship incurred by an issued permit followed by a revocation, but it is difficult to turn this action into an undue hardship. (D) As for the request to vary from Section 90-572(3) which states no off-premises sign shall be located within 300 feet of a residential district, this distance of 150 feet is the minimum variance necessary if the initial construction is recognized. It is also unclear whether this is the minimum variance necessary to vary from Section 90-568(3) which states that only one ground sign is permitted in the front yard, and shall not exceed 30 feet in height. In the City's letter to the applicant, it was noted that the proposed sign cabinet will exceed 30 feet and that this will be the property's second ground sign. At this point, the applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate how tall the sign would be after construction, in terms of height. The City stated that the applicant is allowed 442.5 square feet of signage on the property and was asked to provide calculations including existing free standing signs already on the property and all building signage. Until the applicant has provided that information staff cannot make a reasonable assumption as to whether or not a variance will be necessary for this section. (E) Granting the variance request for the enclosed items would confer on the applicant a special privilege and granting this variance may start a precedence that the City may not want to engage with another property owner. (F) Granting the variances as requested does not seem compatible with the Land Development Code and it is difficult to gauge in terms of impact to the neighbors. i9---Kh ~U tJi gt~/f>~ c/ /'. ^ J__; . O{jjl ~' ? '. n.. 0 F AV1t~ iC.'J>. v1~ ,~2 ~ ar~ j, f~ It;};), ,') ~,)'" tY;C\'~--L.'ij, JrAJ-i.e J C14\ j' ((l/'-',: ~lC ~~, (~"""" ' ' l/ / ( I /( r f)...-f,A.(j /'> J... .-r, , ...., (A/ t..-C...c--"'~,c... (/ 1 L' " . GWJ/ /' / ,'" './ ~ 1~7" r ~ <Lfz.,J,'Ct) t ~ .-.- , U~,,"LJ(~ , kJ.', r7 /'} 1/' ;;t, ' '. W! ~/C.u.L, -.JUj/ ~ ;JJ1; ~ ~ ' JJ:u, ~~l~~ (Y1.~YK tt( ud~ 1ft C (tor; / WI. /w r~ du.l'(J LtJ) cJ /J<.jv ~ ? /b r, 1"- L !),{Jt( -.- ..- ~A-yfJ: I. ;J n ~ / ,. j~ . "" 7 j'hv \ " i/l~) '-/" I /~J.{. L,lUUJ/ ,/ i j! I~/j , {Jr; t(}Jr./ ,v./IJ.../ v , \ I, ! I I. U u' ' C'v /1/ ;L II ()/U(i./l;LC,f - t1 f)..,p () I ~j .' / 1 I >/,., 7" Y ~~. ,/~~, n!O ptB'I/.i! /I t>:>..tf~A' . :-t CeLu' -- f./J.uu....( -,,'J / t 11," ",/ /,', - yo \." /<..'>0 -</:J ('_~ '/.) I: . j l (.L/ ~/. f:i...-J/..../t!:-z j t4h/g ( -" (VU 1~~/ /Zi.ZiJ--uJL';',:, I~ /). ", , 0 ' ,/v..--L/,Vll ,.oJ 1 ..- ,'J ,- I~ I '~ _ ......' ..-v'-- ~j /) , '\ Lt~t.j?- - , C,'-Yl.L,,"i:fMfie,: "L 0 I~{;. l' <: J fj 0 /<.,/' f... (-Co C..-L,.i , P"Li.. J\,j ~L{ P,U)Ulf, cf1w, __ * /-, t .1., "J ;C! ~f;f, /~'L: we u i tJl jJ'''''' 4: JJ0.t _ ,}vJYv"-.JL- uJ! ~ jU ~< uJetA C.ihl/J..J.c.Ali (..I) I b.f)/1 tv fJJ / I~ J ~ L 'J~ rY.flR,/J.-<" f riJ.~f" ~J!..ll,~Jj-,<, tj'"'-, ,0 I l~', j _ ~..-vJl ~.(U_ ,~# j. f C A;y 4JL . . J " Lt,!.. '.. 00- (- ; ,J,- IJ-><, \ iP 'c{.(v..Ul r tK, /r-.J tJaP:( - I ), :~ L~~ ; ., v' ., ,\.J. . I ;,.j , I .'; ~ c7lLfc..LU. N LW( iV>.p~;' cp'AU/T' '-IY U {)/'uA/U.<!Aj..YJ ACJLI' .., " _ I, Ii \ /~: PAGE -15- Based on the report findings staff recommends denial of the request. (1) A variance from Section 90.572(3) allowing the applicant to construct a sign 150 feet from the residential district instead of the required 300 feet; and (2) A variance from Section 90.568(3) allowing the applicant to have two ground signs instead of the required one ground sign. (3) Avariance to allow the applicant to exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty feet. N~ 3 r>>tio. w.. -R ~:.- tUJ.' ~!uW. ~ wJd4v. ~ / JL 'J"J? / ~*<j" ~ u-dLo,c .' . ~ ~;~~0~txJkl~ ~~~~ftm~ ~ j {~'L~t~-~ ~/~ ./ r' I t(~ ~'y '-1 -l r- ~ +~-l-/L ci 1~!Ul (L.~ 'II\. V""! ~}J~n < ~ u~ r ,U/IU ' ") 3~u 9/?--<-(:~ VOTE YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy ,---,-_.._---..,. Johns /, MOTION:~ - DENIED PAGE -16- H. Consider Petition No. 06-006-SE: The special exception was submitted by Phil Baughman, on behalf of property owners, James and Josephine Baughman. The subject property is located at 1505-C South Parrott Avenue. The purpose for the special exception is to allow mechanical and repair services within a Heavy Commercial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's Sec. 90-283(7)) - City Planning Consultant. Staff Report Findings: (A) The proposed motorcycle repair shop is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Policy 2.1(c) of the Future Land Use Element states that permitted commercial uses include office, retail, automotive wholesale and related commercial activities. The proposed use can be identified and viewed as a related commercial activity. (B) Section 90-283(7) allows mechanical auto repair services as a special exception use in the CHV Zoning District. (C) The proposed use will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. (D) The proposed motorcycle repair shop seems to be appropriate based on the existing uses at this site. Work should be done in a fully enclosed building. US 441 is a commercial area and this use would be no different in intensity than the surrounding uses along this major roadway. (E) The applicant has stated that he is willing to beautify the property and that would be needed as a buffer to the hotel next door. As such, adequate landscaping on the site could alleviate any adverse affects on property values or living conditions and could possibly encourage development of adjacent property. (F) Should this be granted, the applicant would have to appear before the Technical Review Committee before constructing the building to determine if and how the property should be screened from sUlTounding uses. (G) The property is already within the Commercial Future Land Use and CHV Zoning districts. Because of its commercial nature, public facilities are not expected to be overburdened. (H) This use will not affect public safety. During the site plan review phase of development, the TRC will determine whether significant traffic, flooding, or drainage problems will come about as a result of allowing this use. Based on the report findings staff recommends approval of the request. ~Li - /1jJ-i-k~' 1<./ //)L( i1-~:t/:t ~ ~ ~(; l::-4-~ /~ .fUf~( J/o 'fr10: ;t;Xh4'! ~J [ht ~C~/d' VOTE Burroughs L Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Jobns MOTION:G YEA NAY .._-x X ABSTAIN ABSENT - DENIED 1ft -( L.J.C: tf.JCw lLJ1+Aii- -iLrJil' I~ /~~~~KL" - .... 't)' ! I. ' JJ'Tt--I--1&t tJ!.di; (~ ()-#-d. ~ (,J-f: /J'7ULIM~r.D_ 11 If' :7 .t'A..{ /" /- 0:V~l ' / ~-, IV clAJr ' , (HLI W1-p...6& rdo-tJ ~!2e/l 4 c. l04"- ~Ji}1J)~!~ tYhypd( '/0~ C{) / /;ullv~~:~ /) ;i3AUl./t{t-L~vJ '- .- ~~) ;./!d)~. . ; (-) (.. ~(':Co?/ ~~, ;)~ ~ ttr1 .~iie / ~) ,!~(~r-fc A4.:z^- (t- {L~ ~>(~ (;~p c, ~{!LJ - /!V~ jUr>-J> l..., /Yt('~ -, ~ M ~', ~~~(: dJ'Ldl jL4'RM. c cf. P ad cJJJ.kh O"Y-:J /J, / viv' '~' /II_(} i!, - I/A. !. 1 ,/ ~ l~-u./h..;L(t-U;r'k/j - q--;f.., l 'lC/ ~ l- e. (#L ~~ ,~ ;~:llf:u.o - d.{c 11/ { u.J0-v:! /'f',{KJ'f~V'-pf'~rr C) M. . \.j , /Yl(C^1 ~h (- A, f...-<VP/;/~J ~-tJ (:-f::f,t ~ Ie /l1I:-thL<:{ Cf2~ < , PAGE -17- I. Consider Petition No. 06-007 -SE: The special exception application was submitted by Lowry Markham on behalf of property owner 303 Realty, LLCoThe subject property is located at 303 Northwest 9th Street. The purpose for the special exception is to allow a bulk storage of hazardous material and flammable liquid within an Industrial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's Sec 90-343(2)) - City Planning Consultant. ';jJ-cu / /lA. au ~d ~ 0!1->>-<~ . 01/, ~. ~(J-;,i ~ <U v,~ LV) JVI~,- 0 -- / / lJ / j /) '" _ _ ^ ~; I pl p-;tlr1-~JL _~ , ~~ ~ a~X0TLU/J t~/(~ p4~ ~~ ;;~ b[C. ;e~,-~tJrck(l- c4- c};LU Ct Lt lu ~-/ tJ);Ie~T'~ ~ (jiJ ~lG kc~, 7~~ ~~UI Wwlf~ ~ ~Qj) / ~_". ru1 q}~~,;~ / , ~ '*-~t-(/'...( cL,~-L-ie I~.<J ,~~^7j / /l~ t~_ iu; 1iil2~/ ,~Md_ .8-~, ,~j( ~ 'f rt/C. J ,,) ~ l' (J;1r, 4J~ l~jJ- (uf~ I~ - ~ - g/J ~ / (I/O % ~.&--,J ~) ~j~ - gpec-&f:c', )xJ'IoIU-v~ j~(ftr-' ~ U?{J"~- , ., . ~! )j-Je fI. c/3S ~ ttflJ'(l <1~ f-/!!fr,,;{Uaffid;, '-~flfl.._~ l~wM\' N F) / #v~ \ / CHAI~RSON LEDFERD CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AT P.M. PAGE -18- VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 90, Division 5, Signs, of the Land Development Regulations specifically regarding Commercial and Industrial Sign Regulations. This item was previously discussed at the November 15, 2005 Land I " annmg gency Meeting. ~-u.-Il k 9 () ~~ .5 aJ> (f:VY')!~ - ,'ujlfr/V1/~d;~ cJtJ- ~!~ tljJfYWr/~ .1..,\, --r: ,;1( v )1 D. (Y\l~ . '. 'V' '/YL C- 6t ;n4iM j I t)iH/"'1 fV~ ~ .-: ~~ CLJv~ VII. NEW BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Land Development Regulations definitions to add language regarding a nursery for the planting, growing and selling of plants and trees - City Attorney. Co~ - ~U" . t- ~ ~?11/';- L Die :0 ... fie ('~. '''' .tM (' C- ,~'Glv-z-+-kJ. L0L-G .V(/C HI! i-.,~t / ~~ c.1j (I, c:Jr ~.{t.L-L !'-L'j- /:L.("r Ice {~)i/L-<-U2. t./l Pj)'fiJ.l;t- . , L A ~ ///,1 "-\ ' o / , I ~..d u/z ,i:J (.LX-^-O W 7Yl C l(f C r2 tlU)f1-M"dh /)th~) eMLJ ~ Requests for any amendments to the City's LDR' s - Chairperson. -- ') B. ~ TE Bu roughs Hoo er Kelle Ledfer Maxwell McCoy Johns STAIN ABSENT ON: CARRIED - DENIED ADJOURNMENT - Chairperson Ledferd at ~: as-:m. ~~r- ~1+ !J-;r V. {){U't s).iind [J{ tfLJ tAj ~IUJ rl-Ce~U?~(S-<J f r- / I /; V /V),'~ c,/./lj?7 /1 .~ - rh7 ' 'J /--' .Q . . i~~Z ../ {A)~& t!:~iudll b-v f)'JfUlV p~ ~ ! \()1 ~ L/;(cJ'7~~ . ,,{/Jj (if2-/Xf?-1... ~~)'v--"'cu c;~ (JL~.ci7J to; ,./2 f ;21d oV~ ~~UlJl;(.nd It<; J '. r<-') (-~1 ( j-J e (.LA;1.-c<-.)sL PAGE -1- CITY OF OKEECHOBEE - June 27, 2006- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS - HANDWRITTEN MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairperson: June 27. 2006. Board of Adiustment Re2Ular Meetinr! 6:30 p.m. II. CHAIRPERSON, BOARD MEMBER STAFF ATTENDANCE - Gen Svc. Coord. Chairperson William Ledferd Vice-Chairperson Dawn Hoover Board Member Terry Burroughs Board Member Kenneth Keller Board Member Devin Maxwell Board Member Douglas McCoy Board Member Carol Johns Alternate Epifanio Juarez Alternate Mike O'Connor Attorney John R. Cook Gen. Svcs. Coordinator Betty Clement Deputy Clerk Melisa Eddings Present Absent / v ./ v v iJJIUr' A n ",-I- ,/ ,/ ./ v' ,/ /' ./ ['Yl elLZ. f r~ '+0 P S th Lhl PAGE -2- III. MINUTES - Gen. Svc. Coordinator. A. >1 Board Member -FLi Vi-tV-tJ;-/ moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Agt'fncy Acti n for the May 23,2006 Regular Meetings; seconded by Board Member ~I,LC'\ , . VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA / / / / / / NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT MOTION: rCR~~- \~ AGENDA - Chairperson DENIED IV. A. Requests for the addition, deferral or withdrawal of items on today's agenda. \~ ( MaorJcc tf- iV1tUv'o C,u,)~~ V. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - Chairperson. A. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06-013-SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 9, less the East 32.50 feet of said Lot 9, and Lots 10 to 26 of Block 21; Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Single Family (SF) to Multi-Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th Avenues. The application was submitted by Steve Dobbs, on behalf of property owner, InSite Development Group. This application is associated with Petition 06-011- R and was deferred from the May 23, 2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ~ )'"f6*. ktF'--vJ Jx.~ tit.;; AfiUi- PAGE -3- Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the Multi-Family Future Land Use category to develop 9.195 acres of land as a multi-family development. The Multi-Family category would allow apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 92 units on the subject property. The surrounding area to the east (Block 20) has been recently converted to Multi-Family Residential Future Land Use but is still vacant. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (A) Consistency with the Land Use Categories and Plan Policies. As proposed, the applicant's request does not show adequate data and analysis to support a conversion to the Multi-Family Land Use category as shown in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (B) Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities. Water is available to the subject property. It is not clear whether sewer is available and with recent conversions from Single Family there needs to be some acknowledgment of past approval impacts. Impacts to traffic and schools have not been assessed. (C) Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses. The proposed land is in a transitional neighborhood and it is difficult to know whether it will be compatible with the adjacent and nearby uses. (D) Compliance with Specific Standards of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Pol icies, as they are intended, do allow for a Small Scale Amendment to the J;uture Land Use Map to Multi-Family. This proposed change at this time is not consistent with the. above Objectives and Policies,. ~, L _ :-rf-::. /! I Ii ri I -I--;-{: , lL ( ,.ht-: /) L -r' (~r}(..l1/<...4r' ~ yr.L- ,U~ ~ ~,- CLU )~~~-t L.UAI.-GLL.~ V().rJ,.;I ,li&Yt Cfrft - [lu /) L-e./ ./J ~-r.)IC:~'%..~ ~ . ~ ~ to t t,Jr~~ / a~ hr /:J j7 \iIJ u. /l~-;' cCCi::.'!r ~<'I (J'-<< 1'-'<--<' 7'--~_./I 1f.. r-f ~ r- -7/'0- ~.f' . Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: This applIcation and its appearance before the Council and the LP A was duly noticed for the public in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Based on the application being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends denial to amend the Future Land Use Map from Single Family to Multi-Family. /VI or ( 0 AI .' ~CC^r~ ~\ tCt~r -kl~~ ~'U~>-v VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Ma~~~/' McCoy ~O - r) ~ Johns /~ MOTION: ~ YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT ./ .' /' - DENIED (16~~LU/r~. f~ {l:i1r:'~" Ck'd;f.,~j .""-" ,I'''''~ <k'li",l<< C-61.(Q~ vf./lt~d /ftt-<,#~/ " .- &-t.evv1L~ ~ ']tclIiL (t1,,,41 ~ :fa ilL- {0<' ~"~ (!< ~~~ ~i<<"?I ,ruuU; 'f11,dZ f~lt'd c~ 01' ll:fJei<"!c~ ' ~ WJlO<"- it4-/' i2tch<) V1'-,e.."Q ,-k~c, ~ ~ G/.ff''''v-..JJ . ~ 41Ka1€ 1ie~L:.. /,~{lA_<-L--- ~ /6CTDf-CT / ~-H~ C-Z.U-UJ/L) -/f.aAU Ja~kw~1Jdu~~ (j.L/f~ - )}~/O- /1~~ A , J1Y k<-~ Q~ - PO bJA7) S1.Q..'\..LLDd){75 -~-L<S:tCL~l~ ~~-Q -Iz,fu- I{A.....L.Ju +---:-- r- \. A-cl /1...4-- . --t ,ft . Ii q ~VaAU<..e'/...~-(;rVL -- ~-1-U2- ~~ d-. / f~..L)t..{4-A. O. '- rLrr-. ;,theC ,ahtyfl -J", Mu ~<V ({~~cUi:~ ~ r.r' ~ (t;~.'~ /U.UhM>LL""',C C;)L{N. C ~ ~ {iJCnc.,...Dtn..} '* . ~ ~J ~t 0CLc+>-e - Dol .',/v ~o: itv..,,'( ,'" h"td r"- - '~. ""tc i,-,,,jt'~~6 't\Jt ~t'^,Jt~ C""J'L , 4'(; CLe..'u'.4. /.;L ~ t;-) k \j HLL,;v/ lft LLILd{.. ~C&~~ ~'- ~lC"~~( ~.~ O-'U-eL .~ ~\..'O>y-C- 46lU../ (h~&",- ,'-lLtl~ R~ f! !,..M11 ~MJ t'" eVe<..- YCkJ! '''' (Q.u"p~ . ~. ;:,ttY S\~.L~.~ )>t,.,o.c ,",,0L~ .J..~' tit ~o Cf*'4i~~\.-lC~ -, _ ~Q - . ' ./ ~l> '. ld1.QQ{~ 'to .1 \ '>-6'''>'TQ CL"'/'UU p,- dC/c.'_,lL~,-,,--ti-)/ -~~ ~ ~ Ol.<.A ~)'r\.C~~Ll tJ(~ ~'taJJ I';;"X}.t.__~~h)~~ - L,-\(i:Jt~" ~k"U_-"'.-L"-) U lJ) I ~ ~~c4~~) ~~, 1'5 U-10..-b ~1t1~ ~. . <.0 ~~~J<-t:\ JA-' KkLdt ~ lk~c..(~Uj-b-'c:l-U_5-k_____ Lu~~t.~ :;J..SO. ~ if7:]JVJ\N:JWJ-.. - ,k '\"c C'.lf}LCA.c"~~O r-"r\ fT~0cJV\ lR.-~ - ~~~V~ -*-- ~ ~;;;;;;: ~ (PIA 1 cfo-~-r/~ttfLt.\ /&-+Ot,j~t1--~\-~ '- 5f e.~hc( 6:+ -Jur-f 'Y~'+i" ,f4l"\ - W-<-v k Ct~ f';Y ~<.cL( - u-<l'-<-i X. fv...-cd,<<t :j -1-.-"1~ r-~--- . 7<Ak HL~ 7U-'<l 'ik s11v~\, ;tu~ t0M,l 'P. "w-c ~ "-'LttcCl-lu ~ 'fJ~u. -JttF- aj - ~~ c,~ ~' ~^ F~ti-JVV {u ~~ .l\ . ,) 1\\t.L~,-- q,z; O-~ U-~~ SSfI <4- ,h..4fu~: > 4~~~ ~t,~4J4v0. ycv\,~jzL ~W, ~,,\ 2-~. C:..k ~.., tLtr~ -:.- t'~u-^,-,- '<L C<- ,~t ~~ \--k~r~ CJ N:~ ~t.T ) I [)sbtS . Bl-<1'-L-()k...." c~\ 1"at fJ-~/ r:.;"tH'--ct.J\.."-G ~t~r~ ~ ,~ "LCt~ - 'J1VJ.~k 4t~ct-~.'~ ~/...)"L~--""1)O..~~:t . UJ~.'-"''<V-O'-'--~ "- ~ '~~ '>~ncul-I-c ,1,------- e,-,._ k a~e"-r>h<&t~t-~J PZJ (d_LIAi-~ · (s--f< ~~~ w~ ,e-" tT L~ ~ ) L' LC!Cd.-t"'il. "h-",-,J.-.<--f:L~ ~'T'-- ~fj:C'L wi ~~ ~ EfA' [Uk,) r;~ ~~ -S--tr $-L/~ CL-.~. ~~-1irr~\J t-'-4/' (uu-- ~,Q.tTjJo..<J~t o~nu..'1'- ''-&D);~t t-(llL'7D '+kl.- '1.6 t~\:.so 8C;LL~ ' Tf4FT Ie I Lr7/LiT') \ DE ~. ,<], c..'-Jff/,,fk~T ale (.e-7C~~r- ,- k:ct.,-~ i~t,......C.('~ -)-...~f \ 1L.1~""'~{. , ?-LIf"-" <k M.'U.~.J.-, ,1u.t.l~ r:J ,t..tl,,-~ (rc u:t.t:k~ 4~,bcC'-r~ -J-t'Z... 1 "J . rD L, . , ,I J dU.A)'A.e~vC.l!.m'\ + w~ '+'t ~'\/l:\- c.~~-t\ iVL ~iLL ~ - LcLe- ~l -I- "f'&vu---z... 'Jtlz.A 111.t'lU~j ck'.--' oc.cu-t.o-C~i L.LU.~1:t.t.~ . . c:.,L , ~' , <"')".. .J10\J-.-L Lu e-.J._ .' _ . ( " ';' . /~etttarvlA...x2.(;;f 0. 77-/ t--l 1-!t./ q.A.~-_ ({,(H L .il:{ JC7LU..i ~ tc1t(\ULL-c-{ d;: i- ~)~4t..ct .. ':3d-,~cf ~-A-- 1~~uj J~,o-<-i~ ~ N C ' [SkIM - ~{, t~~ ~lt~::; ~.Aj~ eJ-C{'f!;- NO Llcql+T, lk:T) () ,. 0 c) . iT'"' TcJRG , - PAGE -4- B. Rezoning Petition No. 06-011-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 1 to 26 of Block 12; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 9 less the East 32.50 feet, 10 to 26 of Block 21, Lots 1 to 6 of Block 22, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family- One (RSF-l) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 12th and 13th Streets and Northwest 5th and 8th Avenues. The petition was submitted by Steve!!J2obbsJ.ln behalf of property owners, InSite Development Group. This petition is associated with application 06-013-SSA and was d~terred f;om the May 23, 2006 meeting - C~ty Planning" C~nsultant. \ \c;\- \i1 \ I/' \ t \ t t..n X *r1iv-u,,"- L.dJ-v'v~1 \ t A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the RMF Zoning to develop 9.195 acres of land as a multi-family development. The applicant is also requesting the Multi- Family category would allow apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 92 units on the subject property. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) As proposed, the applicant's request would be inconsistent with the proposed Multi-Family Land Use category as intended in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The RMF Zoning District allows a variety of uses, including multi-family housing. (3) The existing neighborhood reflects a low level of residential intensity. The applicant, in a separate application had applied for and received a rezoning for property immediately east of the subject property (Blocks 4 and 13) in March. This area is being rezoned in relation to the previous application. If this property is allowed to be changed to Multi-Family, it is inevitable that more rezonings in this Single-Family area will occur. (4) No, the use is not appropriate for the location until the applicant submits a traffic analysis of the impacts from the subject property and the adjacent property which was amended and rezoned in March. (5) The proposed use could adversely affect living conditions of the adjacent properties. (6) Should it be granted, buffering would be determined during the site plan review phase. (7) Should it be granted, the proposed use and other rezonings could overburden water, sewer, schools, and streets. The cumulative impacts of this Multi-Family conversion along with other recent occurrences have not been assessed. (8) Traffic congestion will be a problem if zonings of this size and intensity are allowed to continue. (9) No, the proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege but the need to change to Multi-Family zoning has not been demonstrated. PAGE -5- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is recommended that this Zoning application be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and denied. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RSF-l to RMF. MOTIO N'. <;zCCtJb '. VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABST AIN ABSENT MOTION: CARRIED - DENIED c. X' ,'[J _ t"J~'ve ~",.' , \J "-' \r \" ' v~\~ PAGE -6- /- (Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Application No. 06-014-SSA: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the land use designation for / Lots 1 to 26 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Single family (SF) to Multi - Family (MF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 5th and 6th Streets and Northwest 9th and 10th Avenues. The application was submitted by property owner, Daniel B. Creech. This application is associated with Petition 06-013-R - City Planning onsultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, July 18,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Staff Report Summary: The subject property is located on NW 5th and NW 6th Streets and is approximately 2.313 acres. As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting that the Future Land Use Map be amended from Single Family Residential for this property to Multi- Family Residential to allow for construction of triplex dwelling units. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Consistency with the Land Use Categories and Plan Policies. (A) As proposed, the applicant's request does not show adequate data and analysis to support a conversion to the Multi-Family Land Use category as shown in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.4: The City, through revision of the appropriate land development regulations, shall continue to establish compatibility criteria for adjacent [and uses. ()l~jective 3: The City of Okeechobee shall continue to work toward the elimination or reduction in size or intensity of existing land uses and zoning designations which are not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF-l Zoning which is currently on the site. (B) Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities Traffic: The applicant has not submitted a Traffic Analysis to support this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property. The applicant should present analysis which demonstrates the traffic impacts to NW 5th Street and NW 6th Street. Schools: The applicant is proposing a maximum total of 23 multi-family residential dwelling units, but has not given any information as to how many school aged children this development could generate. Drainage: The applicant has not provided information on how surface water management will be provided on-site. During the site plan review phase of development, all design and construction of the proposed stormwater management facilities must be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and must comply with all District rules and regulations. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer: Okeechobee Utility Authority (OUA) should have the capacity to provide service from its water treatment plant under the current Single Family Future Land Use Classification of the subject property. The anticipated flow for the proposed Multi-Family Future Land Use Category (triplexes) has not been determined by the applicant. It is not clear whether sewer is available and with recent conversions from Single Family there needs to be some acknowledgement of past approval impacts. PAGE -7- The applicant should submit data from the OUA which shows that there is capacity to serve the 23 units. (C) Compatibility with Adjacent and Nearby Land Uses. The proposed Future Land Use and the corresponding RMF Zoning would be incompatible with the adjacent and nearby uses. Allowing this change would create an isolated multi-family district within a single family neighborhood. The proposed development would be out of scale with adjacent and nearby uses. (D) Compliance with Specific Standards of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, as they are intended, do allow for a Small Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to Multi-Family. This proposed change at this time is not consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: This application and its appearance before the Council and the LP A was duly noticed for the public in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Based on the application being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staffrecommends denial of the applicant's request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Single Family to Multi-Family. ll'n'--.c ~l&-t Qj ,IL~' ClLu.-.,j(' ~iLLrPA-cCLlL./~\.f-ll'- U{cLc s/ ~ (jju6~.I,,- 1"-<'>" s"1 L 4~ 1~"Jll . . '7"- Ul.,MI...- 'Sc,,~-<."- ~lc C<S-"L""... - ~r-h~. 1 'vcL~k .wt.~D l-l ~r{ c: "Jc"--Ct./.. 3 ~--, ~ - L.-0~ r' ~ 0-:- h~-,-- itP:'~rJ '3.\1, W"'U lLkL+C f''"'''CLLX--- "''1'JIg-~1 DhkOc · {\t"" L:'''-Q. <--tc~ ~Y-Q._~/IL i~1... (O_'u..R td "" f'I) UTI O~, t-ko \~,,--, SfCot)D " (~~"'-',-~~-A'-., ,) YEA NAY ABST AIN k't'-~ VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd ~. Maxwell McCoy Johns MOTION: ABSENT J. \,// .~~ .J DENIED t. O~i-O/~-~~A fJCrq~~M_~W{~li1'-f. c*lcw. )h~v"'(Cv-Gc.JQ [t~__1-. CA..c~ Jo.&..t ~ t4 ~4 ~ 19->, f<dC}'c,~~ Cut l\ C~l_'\ltV [L'L.L M \:'I~~ \;.;:) ~~ ~tt-'},(.Ji'L] . \?ccof ,/i.UMrt,..."C"; t"'tNcf!At-"-A '1),BtIO>, ~ ~4,- J4 <t ~ L-h~l - r Ie" .~>y,cf-,~6 ~o 4'0' - 'L~ ~L' (' C., D. M&h () A--) vi sSA- Rezoning Petition No. 06-013-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 4 to 10 and East one-half of Lot 15 to West one-half of Lot 22 of Block 99, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Single Family-One (RSF-1) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF). The subject vacant property is located between Northwest 5th and 6th Street and Northwest 9th and 10th A venues. The petition was submitted by Daniel B. Creech, property owner. This petition is associated with Application 06-014-SSA - City Planning Consultant. PAGE -8- A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Staff Report Summary: The applicant is requesting the RMF Zoning to develop 2.313 acres of land as triplexes. The applicant is also requesting the Multi-Family Future Land Use category which allows apartments, duplexes, and condominiums at a maximum density of 10 units per acre. This could allow up to 23 units on the subject property. As stated in the applicant's Small Scale Amendment Report (06-014-SSA), the subject property would seem to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies by remaining in the Single Family Future Land Use category and retaining the existing compatible RSF-l Zoning which is currently on the site. As can be seen on the Zoning Map above, an RMF Zoning in this area would be incompatible and create an isolated district within a Single Family neighborhood. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) As proposed, the applicant's request would be inconsistent with the proposed Multi-Family Land Use category as intended in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The RMF Zoning District allows a variety of uses, including triplexes. (3) The existing neighborhood reflects a mix of low level of residential intensity and public uses. Should this property not be allowed to be changed to Multi-Family, it will have an adverse impact on the public interest. (4) The use is not appropriate for the location until the applicant submits a traffic analysis of the impacts from density increase on the subject. (5) The proposed use could adversely affect living conditions of the adjacent properties. (6) Should this be granted, buffering would be determined during the site plan review phase. (7) Should this be granted, the proposed use and other rezonings could overburden water, sewer, schools, and streets. The cumulative impacts of this Multi-Family conversion along with other recent occurrences have not been assessed. (8) Traffic congestion could be a problem on a cumulative basis if this zoning request is granted. (9) The proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change could be viewed as a grant of special privilege because the need to change to Multi-Family Zoning has not been demonstrated. PAGE -9- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is recommended that this Zoning application be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and denied. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RSF-1 to RMF. MclflC N'. 9tCc /J 1) , VOTE YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns MOTION: CARRIED - DENIED PAGE -10- E. Rezoning Petition No. 06-005-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone an unplatted, vacant 15.05 acre Parcel of land from Residential Mobile Home (RMH) to Heavy Commercial (CHV) and an unplatted, vacant 1.19 acre Parcel of land from Holding (H) to Heavy Commercial (CHV). The subject property is located North of East North Park Street (State Road 70 East) across from the Post Office. The petition was submitted by Craig M. Hackl, on behalf of property owners, H20 Holdings, LLC. This application was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Staff Report Summary: The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and within the RMH, Holding, and CHV Zoning Districts. The applicant is proposing commercial uses for the property, but an exact use has not been determined at this time. Given the property's proximity to State Road 70, in addition to the existing land uses of the abutting properties, the proposed commercial development would be consistent with the current surrounding land uses. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) Heavy Commercial Zoning would be a consistent zoning allowable under the Commcrcial Future Land Use category if granted. (2) Several types of commercial uses are allowed and authorized under the Heavy Commercial Zoning District. The applicant has stated the retail uses will be a part of the development, but he is unsure of exactly what type of commercial development will be going on the site. (3) The public interest will not be negatively affected by this zoning. (4) As stated earlier, surrounding uses show compatibility with uses allowed under this zoning district. (5) The proposed use and zoning if approved will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. (6) If necessary, site plan requirements can help to reduce any impacts upon the neighborhood. (7) The applicant would need to submit a letter to the City which discusses the anticipated flow of water and sewer for the development. The applicant needs to submit information from the OVA which discusses whether there is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. The applicant must submit a traffic analysis which will determine the impact of traffic on the surrounding roadway network. (8) The proposed development is required to meet all conditions and standards required by the City of Okeechobee and the Florida Administrative Code for drainage. This can be done at the site plan review phase of development. As stated above, traffic impacts will need to be determined by submitting a traffic analysis. (9) No, the proposed use has not been inordinately burdened. (10) The proposed change, if granted, will not constitute a grant of special privilege. PAGE-11- Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above analysis Heavy Commercial Zoning seems appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow rezoning from Residential Mobile Home (RMH) and Holding (H) to Heavy Commercial (CHV) permitting the applicant to develop commercial uses at this location. M tlT( 0 N', 5t('O IJO " VOTE YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns MOTION: CARRIED - DENIED PAGE -12- F. Rezoning Petition No. 06-012-R: Consider a recommendation to the City Council to rezone Lots 11 and 12 of Block 175, City of Okeechobee, from Residential Multiple Family (RMF) to Light Commercial (CLT). The subject property is located at 216 Southwest 3rd Avenue. Ismael Garduno-Telles and Maria Ester Garduno are the property owners - City Planning Consultant. A second public hearing will be held before the City Council on Tuesday, August 1,2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Planning Staff Report Summary: The current RMF Zoning designation assigned to the property does not allow restaurants as a permitted or special exception use. The applicant is requesting the CLT Zoning District which would allow a restaurant as a special exception use. See Section 90-253(1). This property, along with every lot within Block 175, has a Multi-Family Future Land Use Classification. This presents a problem because the applicant is not requesting a land use change to accommodate the proposed use of the property. The existing surrounding property uses vary, but is mostly residential in nature and the proposed restaurant would not be compatible with the existing residential trends in the neighborhood. In reviewing the application submitted, another problem presents itself. The applicant stated that the owner and four other occupants still live at this location. It is unclear whether the owners will be moving out of the residence or still occupying the dwelling should this request be granted. Planning Staff Report Comprehensive Plan Analysis: (1) Under the Future Land Use Element, permitted uses under the Multi-Family Future Land Use category are described as apartments, duplexes, condos, single family homes and public facilities. Being that the applicant is not requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map, the request would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan requirements. (2) As stated earlier, Section 90-253(1) allows restaurants as a special exception use under the CLT Zoning District. So if this request were to be granted, the applicant would then need to apply for and receive a special exception to operate this dwelling as a restaurant. (3) This block is still considered a residential neighborhood. By allowing the applicant to discontinue the use as a residence and operate a restaurant or continuing the residential use in addition to the allowing the restaurant would have an extremely negative impact on the public interest. (4) The proposed CLT Zoning and accompanying restaurant being requested would not be appropriate for this location. As stated above, this request would not be compatible with the adjacent residential uses and could be considered detrimental to urbanizing land use patterns. (5) The proposed restaurant would adversely affect property values and living conditions in the area. The subject property is 14,157 square feet and the existing building on the site is 931 square feet. This site is less than ideal for a restaurant, especially since the applicant would have to adhere to parking, landscaping, and buffering requirements. This fact alone would create conditions to the neighborhood that could be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. (6) Should this be granted, the use would be required to be buffered from less intense uses. (7) Schools and utility services would not be impacted by the proposed use and zoning. Traffic impacts would be substantial; however, there is no PAGE -13- documentation to demonstrate how the flow of traffic would be affected. (8) Traffic congestion and drainage could be come a problem. As stated earlier, a traffic analysis would need to show how the flow of traffic would be impacted as cars enter and leave the site. In addition, the analysis should demonstrate whether the level of service would be impacted. In addition, drainage plans would need to demonstrate how the applicant plans to handle stormwater on-site. (9) The only restrictions being placed on the subject property are those within the Unified Land Development Code and the City of Okeechobee' s Comprehensive Plan. (10) Should this request be granted, the proposed changed could be considered a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. In order to consider granting this request, the applicant would need to apply for a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for the site to accommodate the restaurant. However, only one use can be allowed on the property, the restaurant or the dwelling unit. Planning Staff Report Analysis and Conclusions: Based on the above information, it is Staff's recommendation that this request be considered inconsistent with intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow rezoning from RMF to CLT as the application is inconsistent with the Multi-Family Future Land Use category. i~~:).~~ ,;l-"-Ll(; h-<-/~<LLY-~_, l~~-~;.<-~C-"--;f~ ("-~. 'v-G:.-"-U - ~,,~. c-\." VOh &.--c{ LU ~tJ,-, - ,A~J..-<.<.i<z ~~.~ ~ JV.-A-'-<-"--"" ~---- l,vllo..tL "~IP y~~C~ .. 'iu ~'t'\..LLd..4--// 1\~Ll,-~C<L""-fe~~ -)1Uki"-~ ~,!~~14ot~;U--- ~~~. '3~,- ~~, h~~ ';L'f\~l~~lC~'\t~~ t~l0~-.k.' ;~-~('bka7 fL2 ~fUl-L '~ttJ'~' - !\\~,. t: il~JV !tc~ 'i" ., v-LQ... l0t'1"..~~ kl~<.k, affjj A,\lL S. f. " ~r \ Di\fJ\- -;; -.pA~.~. aQ./).',c~at JMlc-- - ~~. c~''-'tA,~~ b-o(?C)~', ' ,j" -J-' u u ~~ '&;;::;.i!~~{k:--tf;A-{(!.tb,) ~-'f~Y~L~~' k \y.~Y)~~ ~~, ~ '~'>1x- ~ c'- ~ +- ~..~ - IV () Ke5/o:t?-;, c' "'- - ~ <}c I)'tuf Iz,j ci--t'-L h-("LO-,,{~ _, ~~a/l.A..l!v C1-<fakL- -C'lJ...+-. IfJik - ah~ ....l. ~..1... '~c :tcw-fcD-tt),'\~'5j,t()t',-.1~t~.;L--. I0CiTCl_t~ fu;/!-<-u :5- V~,f"\RYr 1 .r~, ~~~~ f.-eJ---J a ,....J.. 'vl.-iLL ct,~ Cj+- 'SE S'buIJ I\.d- f'~d thf"a: (.. ~/fVSC I/e~ Me; I O~' ;,,1rl~,f-c.t() I&tiet~ St~o ^"l).. Ef{ YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns //~ MOTION~ED r / - DENIED ~ . 1KOv.~~-7,~~~~: ,- D D€:'h' ~ dAL~. ~.u.u L4--L. '\A)~ ~L ~ ~ ~ lC+,L&L6 Ctq~L1->zi >L'T... ~v"-Y-tR (L~"k (:jlf.~Jbr-. - Ce ~k~r 1') IJ / LC..-.' . . " t{, ,e.,~. c{.xr\c.,J!.,J~~. , It-.. .......... ~ ~ ~ .' ,.J.- +-= . ~V". \v..~tj.;.-1~' ~"- VUttv-v\..:t" ,\'s''W ~ 0~(A.- . ~vl~ . J" ._~. . ~! t rJ '\j)rc~ ~-{-" Ju",-k<,ctc~ 9 r-<-r*'X "'^- <40J~"-'-~-6 {~~ - () ~fUIv\~ ~.Lqu' ~,u~,vJ ~ ~ .e.:i I f'hJ--- G - ix<4".,J - '4Ak <(" kC~LO S-cp-, .~ LeA 0-\. reC,L<.t'ye fM e.,.~t-s. lc, k fll~~./' C/~'1~ . \ X '.. , i J .. ~ PAGE -14- G Consider Petition No. 06-004-V: The variance was submitted by property owners, Janet and Rohit Dave. The subject property is located at 1020 West North Park Street. The purpose for the variance is to allow an off premise sign to be erected within the 300 feet from a Residential District (ref. LDR's Section 90-572(3)), to exceed the maximum 442.5 square feet of signage (ref. LDR's Section 90-572 (1)), and to allow a second ground sign to be permitted in the front yard with the height exceeding the 30 feet maximum height requirement (ref. LDR's Section 90-568 (3)). This petition was deferred from the May 23,2006 meeting - City Planning Consultant Staff Report Findings: (A) It is difficult to understand the special circumstances existing which are peculiar to the land or peculiar to the sign involved. The applicant had applied for and received a permit for this sign but it is not clear whether all of the information had been provided to allow the reviewers knowledge that all code requirements were or were not being met. The facts do reveal that the applicant had received the permit in May of last year and was six months into its construction when the permit was revoked. (B) The applicant evidently did not follow the City's sign requirements and should have some responsibility for those actions. (C) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Land Development Code would not have deprived the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the CHV Zoning District. The applicant speaks of the hardship incurred by an issued permit followed by a revocation, but it is difficult to turn this action into an undue hardship. (D) As for the request to vary from Section 90-572(3) which states no off-premises sign shall be located within 300 feet of a residential district, this distance of 150 feet is the minimum variance necessary if the initial construction is recognized. It is also unclear whether this is the minimum variance necessary to vary from Section 90-568(3) which states that only one ground sign is permitted in the front yard, and shall not exceed 30 feet in height. In the City's letter to the applicant, it was noted that the proposed sign cabinet will exceed 30 feet and that this will be the property's second ground sign. At this point, the applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate how tall the sign would be after construction, in terms of height. The City stated that the applicant is allowed 442.5 square feet of signage on the property and was asked to provide calculations including existing free standing signs already on the property and all building signage. Until the applicant has provided that information staff cannot make a reasonable assumption as to whether or not a variance will be necessary for this section. (E) Granting the variance request for the enclosed items would confer on the applicant a special privilege and granting this variance may start a precedence that the City may not want to engage with another property owner. (F) Granting the variances as requested does not seem compatible with the Land Development Code and it is difficult to gauge in terms of impact to the neighbors. PAGE -15- Based on the report findings staff recommends denial of the request. (1) A variance from Section 90.572(3) allowing the applicant to construct a sign 150 feet from the residential district instead of the required 300 feet; and (2) A variance from Section 90.568(3) allowing the applicant to have two ground signs instead of the required one ground sign. (3) Avariance to allow the applicant to exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty feet. ./ j ((1;", ,t ,~~/'\lo ('LL",t If h j'+ .;l1"-'L at< J.-'-;" ~r fJ>--. f'&~' *1\-" tcvt - Ilt lJ. L< (( lu"...nc,,-, cb ~ff~ - . ilQctt"L<e( )c.'DJ'~68 €vJ..v ~NL"-,, *~.("'0 c.\" 6w:J.~'~ llvc<.d~~ G~Q,O ~~~ ~UCMg ~o~ ~ ~ ~ . fJ<'\ ct \L"hOQ"(~'fj ,Hc,- - '-ik~' ",' Q.~ "~~Lt<.:"-'L ~ 'j-fL V'- v' r:-~ ~VtJc i~_~\ J'u'-c-JLc) k GLA,- CltJ_L~LP - r, cl---~ CL \}Q,,--~ LL( 12[,-~ -- /de.['-hL.C--.<---ct~-'-ro k-fJLQ.4.{- Y1c-r- L af\.-L~- e- ~&c~ c.b---a:.tt--Y'-';' '--L,)J.:-~ ;:2 {V.-cF' c~rn~~n~ -- ctut eLf ~ -;q:4~ ' ~ J ') \ \!J I I' L j - - -0 ~;r<.A/. '/'? / Me {.cy- f-knJ.-l 71:' fl/lJU0 Cf- /J:VU~ 6', ")LPf:..- ~ n. noI.. (,*h d-u iL~ ~ -\-A t:> Il'l. \ "_11 51,c' ,HI \I t T{'i TiE II-' y'I'" f T;A Tl N(:. T Sib O-d--t'--o/./T;r . <'t1>-- ~. 1M oT ( 0 ~J '. (V\ ~ C C 'I --r/\ (!;L 'C- C:;Z(C 1--0', 8di.fLC1M:Jk ir VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns _ /~" MOTION: (J- YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT ..../ (.../" o \., <- DENIED - '$?wj\LILlr/tu1.0 - SC01/L}.~ - ~ 'i6.Le-~ PAGE -16- H. Consider Petition No. 06-006-SE: The special exception was submitted by Phil Baughman, on behalf of property owners, James and Josephine Baughman. The subject property is located at 1505-C South Parrott Avenue. The purpose for the special exception is to allow mechanical and repair services within a Heavy Commercial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's Sec. 90-283(7)) - City Planning Consultant. Staff Report Findings: (A) The proposed motorcycle repair shop is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Policy 2.1(c) of the Future Land Use Element states that permitted commercial uses include office, retail, automotive wholesale and related commercial activities. The proposed use can be identified and viewed as a related commercial activity. (B) Section 90-283(7) allows mechanical auto repair services as a special exception use in the CHV Zoning District. (C) The proposed use will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. (D) The proposed motorcycle repair shop seems to be appropriate based on the existing uses at this site. Work should be done in a fully enclosed building. US 441 is a commercial area and this use would be no different in intensity than the surrounding uses along this major roadway. (E) The applicant has stated that he is willing to beautify the property and that would be needed as a buffer to the hotel next door. As such, adequate landscaping on the site could alleviate any adverse affects on property values or living conditions and could possibly encourage development of adjacent property. (F) Should this be granted, the applicant would have to appear before the Technical Review Committee before constructing the building to determine if and how the property should be screened from sUlTounding uses. (G) The property is already within the Commercial Future Land Use and CHV Zoning districts. Because of its commercial nature, public facilities are not expected to be overburdened. (H) This use will not affect public safety. During the site plan review phase of development, the TRC will determine whether significant traffic, flooding, or drainage problems will come about as a result of allowing this use. Based on the report findings staff recommends approval of the request. -- CfL~/L - II/tO pc> f0 yV\ e L0~'(J Sf{"CI---:0'. f~ _ . VOTE YEA Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns ii(~ NAY ABSTAIN ~ ~ ABSENT ,/ ~ v V ~ MOTION: CARRIED \- DENIED /-~ '\ tC'1t "?' . 4 . ) I .. f ~/ l {It:) ~. ~L':{L~~ ~1-r L~6~LC_c( ~~rZ-~ - lA).' 1<---r\&K-{T lu-->t.! - 'lV<{ ~*- d:t sc f.~ d- -:2:, r ~~ -. (-~ ,~ vtJ-Z C1--r- ~f~ h -~ E. 3'U'--,'JJJ~/- (J'?f L)-(C) reV! Gte) ("'~~~. ~~c.t... ^L~U] ...~. ~:--C>'- .ll'--'--+--- ~+- NO fY'-C+DG.VlU.-L-+~ _' j ~ ~~ ~\.X1--~f -T~~ 'w arJ~''-+--. v~ ~ LL-I-- - I. Consider Petition No. 06-007 -SE: The special exception application was submitted by Lowry Markham on behalf of property owner 303 Realty, LLC.. The subject property is located at 303 Northwest 9th Street. The purpose for the special exception is to allow a bulk storage of hazardous material and flammable liquid within an Industrial Zoning District (Ref. LDR's See 90-343(2)) - City Planning Consultant. PAGE -17- , , b.ct~ &.tV t' c1t..c\ ~Rh>__ ok'''''.r' 0- l'r'" .~J . - ~"-~~ ~~ ~f k,L/ L'[,""L' ~<-, ('fr'~ 'F,-,-<,cJ!(j . :;!"'.v",{) Ill, /cc.r'.u...~ 3c~ - NiLW ~ ~ LV ~ ' \'0()(,~~ , ,':C~ ~~ y o1!c~) Lxl~- \t, , hu)~ t;?' Let\ >;' -IV:Cf - (feC' L~j.<- l[;+-s;Ln hr- . >>v0(,,+lcD~ ~~-t;=' 'D( ,uQ.Lt Ct~ > ary^.lcc..,,~ j"",~ en'1Rc.c.JiJxk f < " ''-L-L' c.L.,' ~ ruv.J' 12; 8:' -;- Me ~$T(CIO : IvQ}LTL-(j S'1['OluD " ~ '~('vr;rl- 61.- <:-/ ') rPcLl~\ J CHAIRPERSON LEDFERD CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AT ?> '..J- 0 P.M. PAGE -18- VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend Section 90, Division 5, Signs, of the Land Development Regulations specifically regarding Commercial and Industrial Sign Regulations. This item was previously discussed at the November 15,2005 Land Planning Agency Meeting. --yyttU\-trJ.) ~ l PA 01 C C--- MCl/cil'" () ,e C~()- . SUO ~.A/. ~1Y$-~,- )Cke~.\.~, tc- 4c- cJu...-~ . t~tvk~ VII. NEW BUSINESS - City Attorney. A. Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Land Development Regulations definitions to add language regarding a nursery for the planting, growing and selling of plants and trees... City Attorney, 1~cC' C f, \l "~_;--L,l <-\'-~ (' C~_ U, ~'\.A;: "Ie\ ~c~, (eel t-c.l...'--k_-C\.. . '-~~ C \-\ 'I/,..J ,f}.. ~ c-;) cC. /----v:' C LT II C~10 (lu::tiM'"\.. . 6"'cJ ,--r:"t- \. . {lfjJCU'1 ()(.5 !p(ep; ~'{JT It () '. V\,\~ C:{5\.'o - l C~,~~ L 1)6'Z '1""-0 &JLObt t fuLl-tV) . A---- C(-h; . .!A-.{ --- C-6>----- ~ ~tC;t..l D . {!Jv'.v~.:fv.----- ---n B. / Requests for any amendm//to the City's LDR's -- Chairperson. I\\C1i D~ , (V~ %0 QJ!JL",,- 5l6f7/JL>. f-Y_C,~,-~:Ef7:_/ VOTE Burroughs Hoover Keller Ledferd Maxwell McCoy Johns YEA NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT ,/" 1-/ c../" ~ v :: /~--\ MOTIO : CARRIED DENIED ADJOURNMENT - Chairperson Ledferd at Cb', :J-7 v. p.m. 700 600 500 400.. 300 200 100 o City of Okeechobee, 2006 . . ~ 2005-2006 Dwelling Unit Increases (""-" r T u ~ ~ ~ rf-- ~ ~ ~ <::t- . Old Dwelling Units/Acre 1 ~ . New Dwelling Units/Acre r ~ .:t ~ ~ ;:s I ~ ~ ') C-' -. \ ~ ~ ./\-~ F- ~ 2005 2006 Years City of Okeechobee 2005-2006 Small Scale Amendments Case # Property Owner Land Use Acreage Comments Old Density New Density 05-001-SSA Wilson 05-002-SSA Nunez 05-003-SSA KMJ 05-004-SSA Altobello 05-005-SSA Tedders/Dyal 05-006-SSA Mossel 05-007 -SSA Cook 05-008-SSA Goodbread 05-009-SSA Williams 05-010-SSA Wallace 05-011-SSA Goodbread 05-012-SSA Lewis 05-013-SSA Surface 05-014-SSA Stepping Stones SF to MF SF to MF 0.321 SF to MF 3.18 SF to MF 9.9 MF to COM 0.48 SF to MF 1.033 SF to MF 1,39 COM to MF 0.491 SF to COM 0.2 SF to COM 0.17 SF to MF 0.69 SF to COM 0,321 SF to MF 0.689 SF to MF 0.656 withdrew - approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved approved 1 3 13 32 40 99 5 0 4 10 6 14 0 5 1 0 1 0 3 7 1 0 3 7 3 7 Old Density New Density Total 2005 Density Changes 81 184 06-001-SSA 06-002 -SSA 06-003-SSA 06-004-SSA 06-005-SSA 06-006-SSA 06-007 -SSA 06-008-SSA 06-009-SSA 06-010-SSA 06-011-SSA 06-012-SSA 06-013-SSA 06-014-SSA 06-C 1-00 1 06-C1-002 Hester Samms CR Investments Childs World Simms Fulleda B & R Enterprises Frazier Insite Sullivan Altobello Insite Creech H20 Holdings Altobello MF to COM SF to IND SF to MF SF to MF SF to COM SF to MF 0.344 2.06 0.516 0.688 0.327 0.332 approved approved approved approved approved denied approved approved approved approved denied (tabled) denied (tabled) denied up for Aug up for Aug 1 0 8 0 2 5 3 7 1 0 2 0 1 0 37 93 2 0 40 99 37 92 85 0 132 330 Old Density New Density Total 2006 Density Changes 351 626 SF to COM SF to COM SF to MF SF to COM SF to MF SF to MF SF to MF SF to COM SF to MF 0.52 0.25 9.33 0.48 9.89 9.195 2.313 21.14 32.97