95-434-R & SE Daniel
,. L\.~\~~;\\':q1.~:.G\ffi:'()f'[:;J1,J:\:\::,\::W:~:X::~:,r%:}:::,;\
:':O;tFECEfOBE.'~':::':.:::
)(A1oI1O OF Pl'IOPERTI OWNEFl(B): ~"'5 0...+ o.{.. D /
,d.
,
.
U...a.ILIIo4Q AOORE's
@.\t\\\.II\j":~ (: \: \~;:;\; ;::
.:' =::':. ~ ~':' ~ '
.::~<:~~;:;;;~~
.... .....,'...'
~:~~n:~:~)~~~
...:-'". .
n :;:.::..~
': ,... .'
r'"
1-: .
~ r'ROPERTY ADORE'S
~
~ H..a.W;:: 01" APl"lIC..a.HT IF OTHER TH..a.H
1 Ho<.; If not o-n.r 0' Attorn....,. at L.A.... "roo( o( auth~ mu..... ~...,j .,., F~..' l.2
W~l( TELE~HOHE;
r:'
.'..,.,'. .,.." ',',:,:,
.'.....:. ,.;...:.;.
".,. .
:! HO\.lE TELE?HOHE'
. -
nn>Hh;:in:Y<YH;Hj:UHnn~::i<{::: i::H;;:Y,,:U\::<<U<:::liU:::)IH1::YHY:Y::::'::/U::I:::::: '::. u;::::::::':::.::
of. . / ( A;-' {) h (Ie! /
t::
",j OI"EC1'ToHS TO PROPERTY /
~
~
~ .---------
.~ WH..a.T lIS CURREHT USE OF ?ROf'ERTY7 i
..
~ OE'CRIl!E llolr'ROVE:loIEriTlS oH PRoPERTY (If non.., 10 It.'lt.) nD
..a."RO:::Il.l..a.TE HUIoIBER OF ACRES
7/
1:J ?ROPERTY PART OF PUTIEa 3Ul5Cl'{UIIOH7
~ ARE THEnE AH",( OWELL1HQ~ OH THE PROPERTY. IF 30. ~TATE HUWBEi'I AHO TIl'E (C:::::HV8HIOH..a.L U.081LE HO\.l
,~
~ AHO WHETHER THEY ARE" OCCUPIED 2
-. -
--
:_ IS THEnE A~",( C:.JRRE}iT OR RECEflT use OF THIS l'ROPE;:;TY
;01
~ IF so. OEJCRIl!E /J 0 J'Lt
0-;;;0
~'HAVE THERE aEEr< A.H"'( LAND U:aE AP!'t.1C)'TIOH2l COHCl::RHIHQ ALl.. OR r'Ai\T OF TtiIS PROf'!:?TY IH THE LAST YEAR.
~ IF so. CESC::lUle O..a.TE. HATUfle AHO APl"t.1C).KlS H'AloIE
~ 1& A S..a.LE IUJL,.;ECT TO THI2l APPUC).T\OH l5E1HO aAAXTED7
1& THe IUIlJECT I'ARCl::l.. YOUR TOTJ.t. HOLDIHGS AT THAT, lOc..a.T10 1'47 IF HoT. OE;C::llBE THE i'\E).I..a.IHIHQ U3E OR
~ . .
~
~ a'"' IHTE!i~eD u~e
::::'
8RIEFL",( OESCflll!E AOJOINING PROf'!:RTI u:&E TO THE HORTH
Leg'
SOUTH
WH..a.T IS YOUR OESIRED PE1UliTTED U:aE UHOER TrlE p'ftOl'o.ec C:..A~s7
(!"
IF QPI..a.HTED. WILL Tl-lE HEW ZONE aE COHTIGUOU:& WITH A Llla;; ZOHE1
b
.:--
---- '. . -- .....-... -
~~~ _-~:\~c~ -~
9 NW '23 z~iLA ~~
_ N...." 22 l...A. A .~ 1
. NW 2"111l...A. .~
~I INW \i2G LA :;j
r-rb 1 ROOEO ~?-=:-;A ~ t:'_
/ _ " S, HOS?tTAL ('\"
l'l'H1.- 17 If 5T ~ 'y'-J
I II HW. j 16 Jc: 57 I ..'-,.
I ~ r H'H " 15 J 51 ~ Nu~ino; ~Y:'
t 1 A I ~ . t.: ;;J
_~~ 1... ;:)1 ;, Q.ogne~ _
J\ ~113 ~,I\U~\1 ST:> . Clini,~ \\ OTf
J\ JGLJ\ J[ST<n~HE 13 II S-f~\
::, II ~![:; 1 If If ST ~ HE >pT~\:r,~..M E
~\ 1~Dr ST ~ NE<if 10 ,d~ '
II ~GDLr-g NE Ji1rs-T ~\
. \f1 6 ' II 0 TFlANS?:JATA nON i (
, c: .
~1 NW 81\21. ~r;::~ MU1 \1 \ 15
~ JfHW ~n~LJ'::: IHEI f7' 51
-\ ~:fHwIDI6.~~It~ IDr~I[][]r.-\ls7 n. \. ~ ::;
I sadf3:[L]I~t USTHl IO~OI5~:1 ..iL \ ,\i!1 :;il
n \' ~\~G3 =:~DG~QlJGJ~r~ t~ ~'U
f1\1 ik~[!1B~Et~QrlGJ~hj~
\LJ\m~G11al[i1L~\~~[]~~\ ~H5i rC
InrQr--l'lllcoun:1ous C of C Inll~r::;l[/ , .
1
~IC
Estate of D. R. Daniel
Petition 95-433-5 and 95-434-R
" ;
/
\
\OOUGLlAS
HE. 15 SI IPARK
I r;::: r-:-: .-=:' I
~~\~\5\iiI~S 11\
-61r;-o
~HJiU \21
-~Grl~\~\
~; IH UllQ!L.!Gi
-9-9 \~jOG1][]
::.:QO~\ ~;\
~\ \G~~'\hci,
I~Q~jr...L[;;\~
~: uJlWi1lf II "-
G ~Ellit-1.\.E
,~E!f do 1r:~~L
W1 ~1Wi1 Z:rwi~l :>
z-n1 =:...LJG;~ 51 -<{
II HE :01 2 I( ~f 5. i ~ .
Innnlll -
\ . ~
. ,I
'. ' ~
\ \" '~
~
LIME J J
1 :1
<I
J
~I
:\
z\
E
lA 113
e:
9
C@E1<
\1 ..... u
26
.,.,.
~ c:J c=,:, ,,_, ~ \:'1:1; ~ ,i : , it,,,tu tltlliul 'I t \ ~
~ F=-tCdI EBEE' r-=--p-' \ r-::--;~ ,-:--;--- ~:"-: ~;Q ~- _1- J ,....;~
_ _ r _ - _ ~":'-...J' - ".: ': ~' '(,.' '-- I' - - - _::l ---f"-....l'~
Vl ~ .... ~: '" I : I ~~ I i -.: : . ' I /
~ ,:: I r---\"~ -, i~~ ! : - ii' ~ : " .~:: .:. '. 1-, I ' , , I r-=-l8
_ ~ ~ ~,~ I -. ~ H-=t~I~~ ~!\f.~ :_1, ~.~,.:: - ';.~~ ~ I : ~ -
~ ~ : L5-"' ~ : ~ : 8 ci=~ ~o (.: ~ r.' 1',--,' b~~ : :-:i~
de, J ( II, "-'--
Cl - ,--- \,oLl 3/\'1 ;'H~ ]n ::
~! ~ I k.~- ~ : ~ ~~- ~ ~~ "'~'
Cl I ~ ",::::,:::: ~ '" :::J ,,,,-,,
'- '<:':;:: UJ. ~ :;:: 0 "-. :;:: u..J ~ ;;: e::" "
o 1 '" ~ 0::: on '" r-- on '" = on '" 'S-: ~
~ ~ '~ (~Ll ]M "l~ ]N , '2J · , ~' w
"' E~; ~ : s ~ : : L ~~I \,,~ - ~~
~::~:. ~II lti::J
El . ': ~ ~v O~, "]~ - ': TI II :r:d.OL~,,\t O~,.]S R
i~ : ~:: '" }B ;;(\ . mID : ,I 0 :' c
: il~ ] illS'" ; ::z: ; : ~ ~ : I I 0.. :: :::/ /9'~ ~ on ~: on :
------l ~ " 'D" "''' ~ ,,- V1 T V1 ~ (///', ~ '"
~ - Dffi::A'f ONZ ]N j 2 A 2- - - ~ c..l
~ PR EB&:J E2@ ~, : .::'IlJO::. LNlI ~ i
~ -1~'lll=l. . ~I'T'I:I. 'I~I+I=\- 1f.T-\=\- ~ : I[JI ~'. ~' ~,~ I ~l~
I ~__:=l I ~ I
=qf -1",11"",1-'1+' i Hi-i+i-Ti+i,+H i+iiH~ II '1+1 : Jill r " 'f :t::1t'i=i"i '.H-l+
j ~ ~ I: ~ ~ I I: n II~ · 1l[J1 : "E ~~ htf
...
'" _ '" _ ... _ ,,,,1_ '" 0... \- '" -
"'TO ",' 0 "'i:::Jhl",(qJ:::J 0 "" "'m ",')C
I; : ;: ;: I,;,; : ill'~ 1': I I...J I .~ (j II n 'CiJ ; ri
"' " ",,, ,,"," L.:::-J '0 <1.) "' I c:::::::::J "" c=:
1\ ~ ~ ('oLrI~; ~ ~~-. ;'; \~\~~\I~ri~
.-t COLl ]/1''1 HlV ,l\N ~ -_:' 1 I
'~I:: '" - ~ ~ m- ~ ~: ,- - i= .1 [] 1 - I ... 11- I " U . E
~ c, 0 0 I ~ '" ' _ :> ....,' ~ ,~I 0....,..l.J 0 .., ':
j :': ~ -: : z: :;: : I I" I :' : I :-': : :
-CoL) 3/1"1 Hl~ ,\\N ~ ~ I ~ I
,- ~ j:2l-=-J ~ - R
= ~ I = r'f :
3~::_ en ~ 1...J ~,; 0 : ,I ; - : ~
.::L -0 I I ~I: :;:: :~:8
31 - (.~~~r~~f~1 ~ ~ ~ II~II : ~ ~ IlffiEE;1 ~ E
-
'" -
-
..., 4 ::
~ " c
on .
'" ,..
- ~
'" -
'" , 0
~ '"
on '"
'D "
Parrott Ave Christian C/lllrcJl
P.o. Box 1785
Okeechobee, Florida 34973
David L. Thomas
Minister
(941)467-4428
The current plans for this propeI1.
will be demolished and replaced. Arc"'"
comparable to the Big Lake Bank 0
enhancing the cultural heritage or'
Planning Board and City Councf
ut two years, the present buildings
." style church building,
dings is preferred, aesthetically
put on these matters from the
uraged and appreciated.
October 18, 1995
To: Okeechobee Planning & Zoning Boar
,. ting plumbing, electrical and
:n be a light grey to accent the brick-
gess. A cross will be installed, the
Sincerely,
() (, / I/) .
/cfv..,..f&~^-
Ie-"" ) ('-'
Billy Beisner
TrusteeiChairrnan
Parrott Ave Christian Church
/ F !!I/S
[)0!;-S
/)/o( Cfl/t/lr(;.E - WE ,MAY
5 TV L E- 11 R K //
I I
CO/)I Sf [) ER
A
Buyer: Parrott Avenue Christlan Church
Purpose: To renovate and establish a house of worshlp.
Our church was started at this locatlon In January 1994. The property was sold to
Scotty's Carpet and we were forced to move across the street to the Wherrell Building.
We will renovate building to county requirements. We meet Sunday a.m., Sunday p.m.
and Wed. p.m. for regLdar services. There are small group meetlngs on the premlses at
, other tlmes that are not attended by the congregation or the public.
The estlmated size of the congregatlon Is 120 at any one tlme, averaging about 65 at
each regLiar service. Specld meet1ngs approximately 5 to 20 persons.
We Intend to ut1llze all areas not used by bLdldlngs for par1<Jng.
We will clean, paint and landscape the exterior maklng an eyesore Into a clean,
attractive asset to the nelghborhood.
We f~we will not Impact the area from the standpoint of traffic as most of our
meetlngs will occur when other business actMty Is at Its lowest.
/
Churches tistorically make good neighbors, quite, c1eaJl and seNe a need In the
comm..ll"ity not only regarding their religious actlvity, but also from the standpoint of
cornrnlJllty support and asslstcnce
...
E-2
Okeechobee City Council
November 21, 1995
Staff Report and Recommendation
Petition 95-434-R, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Bonnie Daniel, applicant. Request
for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Central Business District
Commercial (C-CBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-II). The property is located at 119 South
Parrott Avenue in the City of Okeechobee.
Background
The subject property is located on the east side of South Parrott Avenue in the City of
Okeechobee, south of S.R. 70. The property is zoned Commercial-Central Business District
(C-CBD). The property includes the south half of Block 176, less Lot 7, and has an area
of about .855 acre. There are currently two commercial buildings existing on the property.
One is a commercial structure that was previously used as a retail carpet store, and as a
church and other uses prior to that. This building fronts Parrott Avenue and provides
parking to the rear, or east side of the building. The other building is a small structure
located near the center of the block, just south of the abandoned alley.
To the north of the subject property is a large office building, zoned C-CBD. Further north
is a row of attached commercial buildings that front S.E. Park Street. To the east of the
subject property, across S.E. 2nd Avenue, is some vacant property and a few single family
dwellings in a Residential General-2 (RG-2) zoning district. To the south, across S.E. 2nd
Street, is a motel zoned C-CBD. To the west, across Parrott Avenue, is a restaurant and
commercial building, also zoned C-CBD. Most of the properties on South Parrott Avenue
and on nearby S.E. and S.W. Park Streets are in some type of commercial use.
The applicant intends on using the commercial building that fronts Parrott Avenue as a
church. The current zoning district, C-CBD, does not allow for the intended use, neither
as a permitted principal use nor by special exception. The applicant is applying for a rezone
to Commercial II (C-II) in conjunction with a special exception request (approved by the
Board of Adjustments on October 24, 1995), which does provide an opportunity for the
intended use. Also, the applicant has indicated that the future endeavors of the church
include removing the existing commercial building and replacing it with a new church
building.
1
Staff Report and Recommendarioo
Okeechcbee CIty CoUDCil
Petition 9S-l34.R
N.....mer 21.1995
Consistency with Land Development Regulations
The subject property currently is zoned C-CBD. This zoning district allows for houses of
worship, but only on parcels greater than 5 acres in area. There is no provision for a special
exception or variance to this requirement.
The applicant is requesting a change in zoning to Commercial-II (C-II). This zoning district
allows for houses of worship as a permitted principal use, but only on parcels greater than
5 acres in area. By special exception, a house of worship is permissible with no minimum
lot size.
Other commercial zoning districts can also accommodate a house of worship. In the C-I
zoning district, a house of worship is not a permitted principal use, but is permissible by
special exception with no minimum lot size. In the Commercial-Professional Office (CPO)
zoning district, a house of worship is permissible only by special exception, and only when
the parcel is at least 1.75 acres in area.
The subject parcel is less than 1 acre in area. Therefore, the CPO zoning district, which
requires a minimum lot area of 1.75 acres for a house of worship, is not an option. With
the current zoning districts, the only options for a house of worship on a parcel of .85 acre
is C-II with a special exception, or C-I with a special exception.
The C-CBD zoning district allows for a variety of commercial uses, but they are oriented
towards typical downtown uses, including professional offices, retail and selvice
establishments, bars and restaurants. Setbacks are reduced in the C-CBD zoning district to
allow for a O-foot front yard, and to allow for O-foot side setbacks, which accommodate
attached commercial buildings. The City is also in the process of revising all zoning district
regulations and is considering the special needs of the downtown area, including drainage
and parking.
The C-II zoning district is the heaviest commercial district in the city and allows any type
of commercial activity, either as a permitted principal use or by special exception. More
types of commercial uses are permissible in the C-II zoning district than in the C-CBD
district.
The C-I zoning district is comparable to the CPO district. The CPO district is common in
the area of the city nOl1h of N.W. Park Street and west of North Parrott Avenue. The C-I
zoning district allows professional, business and medical offices, and prohibits retail sales as
permitted principal uses. Certain retail establishments, such as gift shops, tea rooms and
boutiques, are permissible in the C-I district by special exception.
When recommending whether to rezone a classification of land, the factors that the Planning
Board shall consider include, where applicable, whether or not:
2
SloIl Report and Recommendalion
Okeechobee Cley Council
Pedllon 9S-434.R
NOYmJber 21. 1995
1. The proposed change is contralY to the established land use pattern;
The current land use pattern generally consists of commercial uses and a few other
mixed uses, such as the residential uses to the east of the subject property. To the
north, northeast and northwest are C-CBD zoning districts, part of a continuous
C-CBD zoning district that includes a couple of blocks of Parrott Avenue north and
south of Park Street, and all of North and South Park Street from about N.W,fS.W.
8th Avenue east to N.E,fS.E. 2nd Avenue. The entire block south of the subject
property is also zoned C-CBD, although south of that block is Commercial (C)
zoning, which is comparable to C-II zoning. The proposed change would interrupt
this continuous C-CBD zoning district.
2. The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
The proposed change would create an isolated zoning district of C-II or C-I zoning,
although C zoning is nearby. The concept of some type of commercial zoning in this
area is consistent with surrounding zoning and uses.
3. The proposed change would materially alter the population density pattern and thereby
increase or ove/tax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.;
The proposed change would not increase the density or population in the subject
area.
4. Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the
propel1y proposed for change;
The existing district boundaries, with a continuous area of C-CBD zoning including
the subject parcel, are logical zoning district boundaries in this area. Changing the
zoning to another district could create an illogical boundary, although the impacts of
this would be less with C-I zoning than with C-II zoning.
5. The proposed change would be contralY to the Proposed Land Use Plan and would have
an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan;
Any type of commercial zoning could be consistent with the adopted comprehensive
plan, which establishes a future land use classification of Commercial for the subject
property as well as for surrounding property.
6. Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessalY;
Not applicable.
3
Staff Repon and Recommendation
Oteec:hobee City Council
Petidon 9:i-4J4-R
November 21, 1995
7. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
A change to C-II zoning could adversely impact the area by potentially allowing
commercial uses that may not be compatible with a downtown area and with
surrounding development. A change to C-I zoning probably would not adversely
impact the area; however, a C-I zoning district would not qualify for any regulations
that are developed to accommodate the special needs of a downtown area and could
create some inconsistencies. For example, if the applicants demolish the existing
building and build a new one, all parking and retention would be required to be on-
site, and district setbacks would be required. Such a development could be
inconsistent with adjacent and nearby development, where off-site parking and
drainage may be able to be used, and where buildings may locate directly on a front
property line.
8. The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otlzenvise
affect public safety;
Depending on the use, traffic and traffic congestion could affect public safety with
the proposed change; however, traffic impacts are likely to be comparable to uses
permissible with the existing C-CBD zoning district.
9. The proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change (to C-II or to C-I) likely will not affect drainage, unless the
subject property is redeveloped. If that is the case, the site plan review process
would address drainage.
10. The proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjace/lt areas;
The proposed change (to C-II or to C-I) likely will not affect light and air, unless the
subject property is redeveloped. If that is the case, the site plan review process
would address light and air.
11. The proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
The proposed change likely would not adversely affect property values in the area.
However, regulations that address development in C-I or C-lI zoning districts, which,
as previously discussed, are different than in the C-CBD zoning district, could allow
for the creation of an inconsistent development pattern.
12. The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accord with existing regulations;
4
Stall Report and RecommendalloD
Okeecbobeo City Council
Petillon 95-l34-R
N.,...mber 21. 1995
The proposed change likely would not be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property. However, regulations that address development
in C-I or C-II zoning districts, which, as previously discussed, are different than in the
C-CBD zoning district, could allow for the creation of an inconsistent development
pattern.
13. The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare;
A change in zoning to C-II or to C-I would be inconsistent with the prevailing zoning
district and development pattern. If a consistent development pattern in the
downtown area best serves the public welfare, the proposed change could be
considered to be a grant of special privilege. However, the impacts of a C-I zoning
district would be more compatible with the surrounding area than those associated
with a C- II zoning district.
14. There are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with exir;ting
zoning;
The property can be used with the existing C-CBD zoning district, although the
specific use requested by the applicant is not permissible in this zoning district. A
range of commercial uses are permissible.
15. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
[City];
C-II zoning could be out of scale and inconsistent with the area; C-I zoning would
be somewhat more compatible.
16. It is impossible to find other adequate sites in the [City j Jar the proposed llse in districts
already permitting such use.
There are other locations in the city where a house of worship could be developed.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located in the Commercial future land use classification of the
adopted City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The current operating level of service for the segment of Parrott Avenue that includes the
subject parcel (from S.R. 78 to S.R. 70) is "B". The adopted level of service for this segment
is "C".
5
Slaff Report and Recommend.,ion
Okeechobee City Council
PedriOD 9S-434-R
N"""mber 21. 1995
Staff Recommendation
Staff does not object to a house of worship in the downtown area, and endorses the concept.
However, staff is concerned about a change in zoning that will interrupt the continuous
pattern of C-CBD zoning. Staff notes that the city is in the process of revising zoning
district and site development regulations, and notes that these revisions include
consideration of special regulations to address development and redevelopment in the
downtown area. Such special regulations likely would apply only to the C-CBD zoning
district. If the change in zoning is granted, the C-CBD zoning district would be to the north
and south of the subject property, resulting in inconsistent zoning and perhaps incompatible
development or redevelopment of the subject property. Staff notes that the types of uses
permissible in a C-I zoning district, rather than a C-lI district, are more likely to be
compatible with the surrounding C-CBD zoning district, although specific development
regulations, such as for parking, drainage, signage and setbacks, could still be inconsistent
with the surrounding zoning and with surrounding development if the subject parcel were
rezoned to C- 1..
Staff recommends that the City Council not grant the request for a change in zoning from
C-CBD to C-II. Staff also recommends that a change in zoning to C-I not be granted,
although this zoning district is somewhat more compatible than C-II zoning. Staff does
recommend that consideration be given to including houses of worship as permitted or
permissible uses in the C-CBD zoning district, including a provision to consider houses of
worship on parcels less than 5 acres in area. This recommendation would maintain the
integrity of the downtown area, while still allowing for uses, such as a house of worship, that
could be compatible with downtown uses and with downtown development patterns.
Planning Board
On October 24, 1995, the Planning Board unanimously recommended that City Council
grant a request for a change in zoning from C-CBD to C-I. The Planning Board found that
the C-I zoning district is consistent and compatible with the surrounding C-CBD zoning.
l-)L~.{)L
William D. Royce
Planning Director
6
Sloa Repon and Recommendalion
Olteedl"'- City Counc:il
Pelilloa 95-4J4-R
NOYember 21. 1995
On October 24, 1995, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a special exception
on the subject property to allow a house of worship on a parcel less than 5 acres in size,
conditioned on approval by City Council of the recommended change in zoning. The stafT
report for this petition follows. The City Council does not vote on special exceptions.
Petition 95-433-S, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Bonnie Daniel, applicant. Request
for a special exception to allow for a house of worship on a lot less than five (5) acres in
area in a Commercial-II (C-I1) zoning district. The property is located at 119 South Parrott
Avenue in the City of Okeechobee.
Background
The subject property is located on the east side of South Parrott Avenue in the City of
Okeechobee, just south of S.R. 70. The property is zoned Commercial-Central Business
District (C-CBD). The property includes the south half of Block 176, less Lot 7, and has
an area of about .855 acre. There are currently two commercial buildings existing on the
property. One is a commercial structure that was previously used as a retail carpet store,
and as a church and other uses prior to that. This building fronts Parrott Avenue and
provides parking to the rear, or east side of the building. The other building is a small
structure located near the center of the block, just south of the abandoned alley.
To the north of the subject property is a large office building, zoned C-CBD. Further north
is a row of attached commercial buildings that front S.E. Park Street. To the east of the
subject property, across S.B. 2nd Avenue, is some vacant property and a few single family
dwellings in a Residential General-2 (RG-2) zoning district. To the south, across S.B. 2nd
Street, is a motel zoned C-CBD. To the west, across Parrott Avenue, is a restaurant and
commercial building, also zoned C-CBD. Most properties on Parrott Avenue, and on
nearby S.B. and S.W. Park Street, are in some type of commercial use.
The applicant intends on using the commercial building that fronts Parrott Avenue as a
church. The current zoning district, C-CBD, does not allow for the intended use, neither
as a permitted principal use nor by special exception. The applicant is applying for a rezone
to Commercial II (C-II) in conjunction with this special exception request, which does
provide an opportunity for the intended use (Petition 95-434-R). Also, the applicant has
indicated that the future endeavors of the church include removing the existing commercial
building and replacing it with a new church building.
Consistency with Land Development Regulations
An associated petition (Petition 95-434-R), is requesting a change in zoning to Commercial-
II to accommodate the request for a church of worship. The staff report for that petition
expresses concerns regarding a change in zoning to either C-II or to C-I. The staff report
recommends maintaining the existing C-CBD zoning district, and suggests that the C-CBD
12
s.aIf Repon and RecolJUDtnda.ion
Obechobee City Council
Peti.ion 9S-434.R
NCM!mber 21. 1995
district could be amended to provide for houses of worship on parcels less than 5 acres in
area. Staff suggests that this is a better solution to accommodate the proposed house of
worship.
However, an application has been received for a special exception to allow for a house of
worship on a parcel of less than 5 acres in size. The special exception can be considered
if a change in zoning to either C-II or to C-I is granted.
A special exception is a use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction
throughout a zoning division, district or County at large, but which, if controlled as to
number, area, location, or relation to neighborhoods, would promote the health, safety,
welfare, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity, or the general welfare of the
County and its residents. Such uses may be permissible in a zoning classification or district
as a special exception if specific provision for such a special exception is made in the zoning
regulations.
According to Section 11.04.03 of Ordinance 92-20, in reaching its conclusion and in making
the findings required in this Part, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall consider and
weigh, among others, the following factors and standards where applicable. Further, the
Board shall find in the case of any of these factors and standards, where they may be
relevant and applicable, that the purposes and requirements for granting the special
exception have been met by the applicant:
A. Ingress and egress to the property and the proposed structures thereof, if any, including
such considerations as automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe;
Vehicular access is limited to the east parking lot (to the rear of the proposed
church) via S.E. 2nd Street. Pedestrians could access the building by using the
existing sidewalk in the front, along Parrott Avenue. Currently, as the building is
existing and as the subject property carries a commercial zoning designation, ingress
and egress are not of significant concern. It is noted that the hours of peak use of
a house of worship generally are not peak hours of general traffic movements.
B. Off-Street parking and loading areas where required, including consideration of relevant
factors in (A) preceding, and the economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the locations
of such off-street parking and loading areas on adjacent and nearby properties and
loading areas on adjacent and nearby properties and properties generally in the district;
Currently, there is a parking lot to the rear of the proposed church. This is the only
existing off-street parking to serve this building. The applicant has indicated that the
Church intends to create more parking to the east of the existing parking lot by using
the unpaved area to the east of the existing, paved parking surface. This issue could
be further addressed during a site plan review.
13
Staff Report and Recommendation
Okeecbobee City Council
Petition 9S434-R
November 21. 1993
C. Refuse and selvice areas, including consideration of relevant factors in (A) and (B)
preceding;
The applicant has indicated that the Church will have a dumpster on site and will
maintain the area.
D. Utilities, including such considerations as hook-in locations and availability and
compatibility of utilities for the proposed use;
Existing utilities on the site will be available for the proposed lIse.
E. Screening and buffering, including considerations of such relevant factors as type,
dimensions, and character to preselve and improve compatibility and hannony of use and
st11lctLlre between the proposed special exception and the uses and structures of adjacent
and nearby properties and properties generally in the district;
Screening or buffering likely will not be necessalY while the existing building is used.
If the applicants redevelop the property, screening or buffering would be addressed
during site plan review.
F. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting, if any, with reference to glare, traffic safety,
and economic effects of same on properties in the district and compatibility and harmony
with other properties in the district;
Proposed signs will be required to meet all of the appropriate city regulations.
G. Required yards and open spaces;
The building is existing with yards that meet current city requirements.
H. Height of structure where related to uses and structures on adjacelll and nearby properties
and properties generally in the district;
The existing building meets the current city height regulation.
I. Economic effect on adjacent and nearby properties and properties generally in the district
of the grant of the special exception.
The property surrounding the subject property is commercial. The proposed use for
the subject property is for a church, which should not adversely affect the adjacent
properties economically. There is a possible economic effect, however, on adjacent
and nearby properties in this area due to a specific city regulation regarding churches
(City Code, Section 3-3. Distance from church, school, or child care center). This
regulation states that "no place of business for the sale of alcoholic beverages shall
14
S'olI'Report IUd Rec:ommoodalion
O~ Chy Council
Peri,l"" 9S-I34-R
NovetI>ber 21, I99S
be located within seven hundred (700) feet of property owned or utilized by any
established church..." and that "no new occupational license shall be issued for any
place of business for the sale of alcoholic beverages unless the applicant for said
occupational license shall first submit a certified statement and drawing by a certified
land sUlveyor showing the distance of said proposed business from the nearest
church...". This code will prohibit new establishments (with the above descriptions)
from entering a major section in the C-CBD zoning district, one of the few areas
where these establishments are currently allowed by zoning regulations.
While not necessarily advocating the establishment of bars or taverns, staff expresses
concern about effectively prohibiting them in a section of the downtown area. Staff
notes that such uses are now limited only to areas with a Commercial future land use
classification. Such uses are not uncommon in a downtown area and can be an asset
by locating in buildings that may otheIWise be vacant, and by bringing people into a
downtown area. Staff does acknowledge that bars or taverns can also have adverse
impacts to the surrounding area. Staff also notes that restaurants that selve beer or
wine only are not impacted by this provision of the City Code and could locate within
700 feet of an established church.
Section 11.04.05 of Ordinance 92-20 also states that in granting any special exception, the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals may prescribe conditions and safeguards in conformity
with the intent of this Code, including but not limited to buffering and landscaping,
restrictions on operations and reasonable time limits within which the action for which
special exception is required shall be begun or completed, or both. Violation of such
conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the special exception
is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Failure to begin or complete, or
both, such required condition or safeguard within the time limit shall, at the option of the
Board, void the special exception.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located in the Commercial future land use classification of the
adopted City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The current operating level of sexvice for the segment of Parrott Avenue that includes the
subject parcel (from S.R. 78 to S.R. 70) is "B". The adopted level of selvice for this segment
is "C".
Staff Recommendation
Staff does not object to a house of worship in the downtown area and does not object to a
house of worship being located on the subject property. Staff expresses concern that future
bars or taverns would be prohibited within an 18-block area surrounding a newly established
15
Stair Report and Recommendation
0__ City Council
Pellrion 9$434-R
N.....mber 21. 1995
church. Staff notes that certain uses, such as bars or taverns, are now limited not only by
zoning regulations, but also by the comprehensive plan. A bar or tavern could be located
only where the future land use is commercial. This now prevents spot zoning, or the
possibility that a bar or tavern could be located in residential areas or other locations
inappropriate for such a use. Staff notes that a church may be located almost anywhere in
the city, being permitted or permissible in almost any zoning district. Therefore, staff
expresses concern about a church locating in a commercial zoning district, prohibiting
certain uses that may locate only in commercial zoning districts, noting that commercial
zoning districts may be located only within a commercial future land use classification. If
any use, including a house of worship, chooses to locate in a commercial area, that use
should be willing to be located adjacent to or nearby any other commercial use that is also
permitted or permissible in a commercial area.
In the associated rezoning petition, staff recommends that a change in zoning to C-II or to
C-I not be granted. As there is no provision at all for a house of worship to be located in
the C-CBD zoning district on a lot less than 5 acres, staff also recommends that the special
exception to allow for a house of worship, on a lot less than 5 acres in area in a C-II or a
C-I zoning district, not be granted.
As an alternative, staff suggests that the prohibition of bars or taverns within 700 feet of an
established church be reconsidered. Because bars or taverns may be located only in
commercial zoning districts and only within a commercial future land use classification, there
is an additional level of protection that previously did not exist. There may no longer be
a need for the 700-foot prohibition zone. That prohibition zone could be eliminated or
reduced. Reducing the zone to 100-300 feet would prevent bars or taverns from locating
adjacent to or across the street from a church, but would not knock out the 16-20 block area
that the current 700-foot prohibition zone does.
16
s.aff Repon and Recommend..ion
Okeec:hobee CIl,. CowJcil
P.".1oo 9S-434-R
l'lov=Jber 21, I99S
'::T:~: :~;X~:+H~~:::~':
:,,::::::':::
'.'.'..., ' ',..
,:::::;<:::::;;' ;,
. ,. '::: :':':, .:,
.:;;::
;.:::: ::,,::
D;,:fE(((i(\\: )\:. .::'::! ;,\:< 'A'PLIc...no/i:Hui:ia'i:R<;:::; /:i</!::::';
j~'~ I'. d !'#f.!c:H<;:UH:l:HH\Y::\;.~ ni:~lf{/:::::\\:;\H:::::~H:HU::co.U0xH:::::>!.
Ij'ji\\:!lI\\l!I\II:
" ,..,.".
, ,
, . \.;:;'~:~'.\:i;m;\\\;\r~\\\\!I\;:i':un)
.".:.:
1'4.,...: If not Own.r or Attorn.y at L.aw.
\:: ~::::!;!!:;:;! j U; i:H::!;: [I!; H: i;::; l l;: l l::;:;;; ~ Ii!!!::;:: j:; [!;;;::;: i!:! i:::;: l:;! H!;: l: H:: Hi: i;::: l::!!;;:;: l 1;;: ~: i; i! \; \! \:::;: I:::!:;::;;::: I;:!'!::::::: U: I;:: i [: l i;::::::: l::: l:: i:: I::::: I::: i: i:! Hi::::::!:::!!: i!::::::;: i l i: i l! ll: \ I:;! H;:::: U ~;;: \:
HOUE TELEPHONE:
WOOl( TELEI'HONE:
DI~ECTTOH. TO PROPERTY
a tf.I 4
WHAT IS CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY?
u~
A~ROXI'-lATE HU'-lBER OF ACRES
IS I"ROPERTY PART OF PUTTED aU!lDIV1SI0H7
ARE THERE M~Y DWElliNGS ON THE PROPERTY, IF SO. STATE HU'-lBER AJolD TYPE (COHV8HIOHAL. '-lOBILE HOI.IES ET
. J
,
IS THERE ANY CURRENT OR RECEHT USE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD !IE A VIOLATION OF COUNTY ORDINANCE7
,
AJolO WHETHER THEY ARE OCCUPIED
IF &0. OEICR/!lE
orVu
'::::
~ l~::
1& THe SUBJECT ~ARCEl. YOUR TOTAl HOLDIHGS AT THAT,LOCATlO 7 IF HOT. DEIlCRIB,E THE REJ.lAINIHG USE OR
. ,
'::::. :./
. .,
.:.:
::::.
::::.
HAVE THERE SEEN ANY LAND USE APPLICATIONS CONCERNIHG AllOR PART OF THIS PROPERTY IH THE LAST YEAR.
IF &0. DESCRISE DATE. HATURE AND APPUCAHra HA'-lE
.& A &ALE SUa.JECT TO THIS APPLICATION SEINQ GRANTED?
01'1 IHT!:~DeD u.e
(2,S
BRIErlY OEzCR/8e ADJOINING PflOPEJ\TY UlSE TO THE HaRTH
':-'
, .
:::::
~ : ~ : ~ : : : .
~ ~
::::::: ::
::
:'T
: :: ~
:-:.:.:
':.:':'
:.:.;.:
,:.:.:.;
:::::::;
::::::::
':<-:';
': ;.;
.: :.:
:: :::
:: :::
,'[:I!!:'@.I:: 'n
::
., H
II :11\
':
[ ~
.:;.:.:
" .
;I: ~!@ :\~
I 1 ~: ~
:: ~
',:['I\:\\I\1 i:
:.>;;.
oe'C~I.I: THe 'P'ECIAL e:XCEI'T10N BOUGHT:
~:
P'ROVloe aPECIFIC ZONINO ORCINANCE CITATION (cta.. and ..c.ptJO" numtHr):
ARE THERE OTHER SlloIULAn UaE8 IN THE AREA. IF so OESCRIBE:
WHY WOULD ORANTING YOUR REOUeST BE IN THE BE~T INTEREST OF THE AREA AND RE510ENTS7
ACTIVITIES TO se CONOUCTED OUTlllOE OF A BUILDING:
:;:
9
, . ' . , .
; j ~ ~ 1; ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11; ~ ~ ~ ~ I;; ~ j 1 ~ ~; ~ ;1; ~; ~ ~~; ~;~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~; ~;: ~ ~ ~; ~ ~;; 1 ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~; ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ j ~ 1 ~~;! ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ j; ~ ~ \; j; ~; i ~ ~ j ~ ~;; \ j ~j j ~; ~ \ j ~ ~ j j ~ ~ j ~ ~; ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ i: ~; [i ~ ~ ~; j \ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ j ~ \ ~; j \ [; 1 ~ l'~~ j L ~; ~ j ~: ~: ~ [\ I ~ ~ ~: ~~ \ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ j \ ~ j ~ ~ \ 1 j ~; 1 ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ j \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ j~; ~ ~ ~ ~~;) ~ ~ 11~
AfUCTERtsTIC OF PROr'ElIT'r' THAT IoIAXES VARIANCe NEceISARY:
:['\
"
.:':
';:;
'f&-t:I~~HY ORDINANCE RefERENCES YOU FEEL SUPPORT
~ 9/8 7 /9S' :Ii
)'lli!lll!ili!I!li!ill!l!l!i!~i~!II!!llill!iilll!illi!iiili!llli!lllil!ill!!lliillill!!r,ll!!i!iiil'IIIJiiII!!i!!lil!I!!III!III!!!!!I!!I!I!!!!I!I!!!i!!!!IIII,II'!!!'li!I,I!!!!!lll!lj:,lll!!I!i!lllililliilllli!II!!!!11111!1!!IIII!!llll!!!!!II!!II!!!,1
, :
,.1:
~.-I. .
"
. . JO ~ . 1---;-
'.....--.....
Parrott Ave Christian Church
P.o. Box 1785
Okeechobee, Florida 34973
David L. Thomas
Minister
(941)467-4428
October 18, 1995
t two years, the present buildings
" style church building,
dings is preferred, aesthetically
Input on these matters from the
ged and appreciated.
To: Okeechobee Planning & Zoning Boar
TIle current plans for this propeI;t'
will be demolished and replaced. Ar..,
comparable to the Big Lake Bank...'
enhancing the cultural heritage 0 .
Planning Board and City COU11c~
.. ting plumbing, electrical and
II be a light grey to accent the brick-
ess. A cross will be installed, the
Sincerely,
(J r;'/ /7 .
f:fi0j. /~^-
Billy Beisner
TrusteeiChainnan
Parrott Ave Christian Church
/F TillS
Co/.,! sr D EP.
WEll n
. R /I. C-K f/(
/)0E-S
/)/o( Cf!/j/lf(;'E - WE
5 T'! L E 11 ~ K //
.MITY
I I
A
Buyer: Parrott Avenue Christtan Church
Purpose: To renovate and establish a house of worship.
Our church was started at this locat1on In January 1994. The property was sold to
Scotty's Carpet and we were forced to move across the street to the Wherrell Butldlng.
We will renovate bulldng to county requirements. We meet Sunday a.m., Sunday p.m.
and Wed. p.m. for reguar services. There are small group meetings on the premises at
other 11mes that are not attended by the congregat1on or the public.
The es11mated size of the congregat1on Is 120 at anyone time, averaging about 65 at
each regular service. Special mee11ngs approximately 5 to 20 persons.
We Intend to utlllze all areas not used by buildings for parking.
We will clean, paint and landscape the exterior making an eyesore Into a clean,
attrac11ve asset to the neighborhood.
We feel we wlll not Impact the area from the standpoint of trafflc as most of our
meetlngs will occur when other business actlvlty Is at Its lowest.
/
Churches historically make good neIghbors, qulte, clean and serve a need In the
community not only regarding their religious activity, but also from the standpoint of
community support and asslst<:rlCe
'f
A). Ingress and egress is available from S.E. 2nd Street and
S.E. 2nd Avenue which are City maintained streets and
open and available to the area businesses and public. The
responding fire department is located two blocks away and
the ambulance service is also only a few blocks away and
all are readily available as is the local law enforcement.
B). No commercial deliveries for supplies will be needed by
the Church, only parking by Church attendees and ample
parking is available on Lots 11 and 12 which are now va-
cant and Lots 9 and 10 have approximately 2/3's of their
area available for parking. Said lots have ingress and
egress from paved local City streets.
C). This Church will not generate a large amount of refuse
and trash as it is not a commercial business as has occupied
the premises in the past. We intend to use a dumpster with
a lock-bar in order to deter unauthorized dumping and rum-
maging. The dumpster area will be well-maintained at all
times.
D.) Utilities have traditionally been available to this building
by FPL, United Telephone, and City of Okeechobee for water
and sewer. No changes in this method is contemplated.
F). Non-illuminated lettering will be affixed to the front of
building facing Highway 441 identifying the Church name.
G). Appropriate landscaping and turf management will be under
the direction of a professional landscaper.
H). There is an existing one story building at this location
with no exterior structural changes contemplated.
I). Economically the only adjacent businesses we might impact
would be the neighborhood restaurants as all other busi-
nesses would traditionally be closed during our times of
use.
~1!fs]~~L.;:~,~,: ...;:t
EAS~ VIEW OF ENTIRE SUBJECT ?RO?ERTY
SHALL REN~AL OFFICE LOCATED ON SUBJECT ?ROPERTY
11
~
FRONI VIEW OF SUB~ECI ~ROPERIY
REAR VIEW OF SUBjECI PROPERlY
10
---
3\1 S?'J{{iS CU:,U'L.c.....\.": co .~
z 1\ "~;(9~ ~\ ~---;~
\ NW 23 2 LA ~
\\
10,
I I II
.1
Estate of D. R. Daniel
Petition 95-433-$ and 95-434-R
b
LlM ITS
s
~
~
~
<Xl
23
,:l
.-=0
W
tIl
HOBEE
3:
tIl
~~
o ,..
a:
~,-~
C-1 '
.....
-----
BJ1i
crJJ~
1J1J~
6 5 ~ J 2J
7 8 9 10 1112];
l I /I I I
I 11_
LLu~
I
-L
2,
NW 4fH Sf (100')
-----
~;j I
L...J 9 8 7 2
>
<C a-l
a ~
9 10 1112 ~ I 1112 5
I 6
~ I
~
<C
:c
l-
'"
:s:
z
---J
~ J 2 I
6 5
7 8 9 10 1112
5l[~- L j[- A- il
-
I :: :.::,,~
- SW 2ND Sf 70'
fill 65~J21
fill
,W JRD ST 70'
r-
J
654 J 2 I
7 8 9 10 1112
6 5 ~ J 2 I
-
7 8 9 10 1112
ST 70')
6 5 4 J 2 1
-
7 8 910 1112
- NW 2ND
101112
Ii 5 ~ J 2 I
7 8 9 10 1112
789101112
J21 654J21
')
7 R q 101117...... 7
6 5 4 J 2 I
7 8 9 10 11 12
f (70 )- =il
I
6 5 4 J 2 I
I
I
7 8 12
910 II
(~rf
I 2 1
6 5 4 J I
7 8 9 10 II 12
NW JRD S
6 5 4 J 2 I
7 8 9 10 1112
~
6 5 4 J 2 I
7 8 9 10 1112
'- ~
-
~
~B!J ;
IEEI j.
~ -Ill
I [Ej~
~~;i
654 J 2 I
-
7 8 9 10 II 12
654
7 8
G
J 2 I
--
m:r#J
9 SUbject Parcel -f.
:B
~
-/
I
6 5 4 J 2 1
7 6 S '0 1112
h r"l_
l.,
- - . (
I
654 J 2 1 654 J 2/1
b'
10
7 8 9 10 II 12 7 8 9 t-t'I'
12-
C '-
7 I
654 J 2 1 R 2
- q J
- 10' - 4
" ,') II ~
.~-.'-. --'.' -'-,~ --,..I_~___~ "
~-- --~~1 L_- ....__-.;.1,
Estate of D. R. Daniel
Petition 95-434-R and 95-433-5
Lt,j~
. I..
I
NE 4TH Sf (100')
EE!fJ,f;l~I, , . J 2 . ~ ,I,
6iLl1J"""1 a
7 Z a:::
: : 'II "112/1 t~ 10 "1~2; 7/8
:!.l~.! .J.. ""
J 2 I) 6/5 4 J 2 I 1~16 5
4 J 2
:c
I';:
o
654J21e1654J/211
>
<(
,~
:c
7 8 9 10 II 12:: 7 8 9 10,11 I"J
2:
U.J
,Z
9101112
NE JRD ST J70 )
~ h l.... 1"-1 ,y
1J/2" 6514h21
I ~,
9 10 II 12 I 7 8 9 10 II 12
1
rs-
r-t-
7 I I' I
; 8 Ie ",~ ~ 8 9 ~ 1112
9 lJ-y rl I-+- I/:}-LJ I
~"~~
6 5 4 J 2 I
7/8 9 ri~ I ~
70')-
7 8
L-- L:: NE 2ND Sf
I
6 5 4 J 2 I
I
/7 8 9 101112
I
J21 654J21
A Q 1n 11 I'
. ~
- 10--' - - ,_IIr: PARK ST 70 - - ___
I - L- Subject Property PI,., ~ T I
- . i-- - - SE PARK 51 (70 "1::IU I
n .. + ' 8 H J 2 1 I .. IfW/ 1 If C - I [I r A
7811~ 7 II ~ 'ff~~ W'l'l :2~2 ~ ~
~ ( H I "f I SE 2ND S1 70 L ---=---- ~ E - --
8 ~ .. JIZ 1 WI I / ~ 4 J Z I 8 ~ .. J 2 lej~ ""~ ~ I ~ L Sl F7
w 0 ~ 252 L I ~
7 8 11 ~ J2 11 7 8 11 IC l' ~ 7 8 11 1C I 7 8 11 10 11 ~ K ~
- - - ;::J -< SE 0 51 70
: 7 1; /~ J 2 1 18 H JZ 1: n 4 J :: I, ill1J ~l rH'
TO'28 .. '-8.!.. ~ '" ~ ~zll tEEE ro..:\1.
: SE 4TH ST (100')- 'I Til 1
J 2 , 1::JI8 ~ 4 J Z 1 8'" J 2 1 II lC 11 8 7 8 , 4 3 2 1
'I~I /b
J~I '0 ~
" j f 8 11 lC 11 7 8 ; l{ J 2 ~
ISE 51H ST 70') i!:
;/, ~ ; 8 7 =1= ~ ~ '1~18 , .. J 2 1 GJ:EEIJ; I11C; 8 7 8 , 4321
m:1C11 -t~Lf-~~I+~17U~~3 m 21
- vi ~ f-ol" ~ SE6THST(]0)rn _
8 ~ 4 3 2 1 I g~"; :::t: ti:: 3 2 1 8' 4 J 2 1 8 ~ 4 J 2' ~
78 111CI11: IIC11 ~ C~, 178 111Cll 7 8 11~CI1121~
8 ~ .. 3 2
1~
-<
o
2$i
~
z:
78;011
-
o
!:::..
NW 4TH ST (100')
4 J 2 ,
8 ~
7 8 11 10 11"
8 ~ 4 3 2 1
7 8 ;ho 11 '2
T ( 70 1- ~
I 8 ~ 4 J 2 1
I
7 8 1
11 0 "
. T
I 2 1
8 , 4 J I
7 8 ; II( 111
7 8 11 ~C *:
~
-<
i!:
U")
~
z:
J NW JRD S
BIB]
~
m
8 ~ .. J 2 1
I
7 8 ; IC 11 2
I LLL =.J
r;::;::;:.. .....
8 , 432 1
5T 70')
8 , 4 3 2 1
7 8 ; 1C 'I
I-A- H
I
G
----
8'4J21 8'4J21
8 , 4 J
7 .. .2
~ ~ ;if.il
7 11 lC 11 2
.....r-C
8 , J 2 1
~ ~~:=
7
,--
, 4 J 21Y
+
V
8 ~ .. J 2 ,
8'4J21
>--!-:;l
1187~
~I
'0 11 ~
8 I
8'W ~
7 8:r:m - 7\:';
--,
TT-'O~
L-o~
- 8
~ ~ ~ l---2....-
~II ~:
g :t:
Daniei. Petition #95-433-5 & #95-434-R
,
~
8
7
8
11
I I , I I , I I I I ' , :
HE 51H 51 70')
8 ~ .. J 2 I r 8 ~ , 3 2 1
7 8 11 011 2~ 7 8 11 IC l'
BE,
Ern
I I I I ; I ;
LLL
L.o.J
:z:
111-
'0 8
~ 8 H J 2 1 ~ BfEIT]~;, , :
i!: r:TJJ]JJ:: 7 8 11
<0 l.JJJJIJ:z:
L.o.J L.o.J
:z: :z:
8 , 4 J 2 ,
7 8 11 I1c 1112
~
8
7
8
;
8 , 4 J 2 1
7 8 ; 10 11/1
~
-<
HE JRD S1 70
~
-L
8
-.2...-
8
11
'- , .I
J 2' 8!1 4 3 2 1 ~ 8 ~ '17 2 ~ ,\. r;, ~ r ~ ~ 2 1 8 ~ 4 J 2 1
"~1~~811~11 17811/10111 17811101112 7811~~1P.z
io- - ~ - ~NE 2ND 5T (70
I I I I
2114J','
11 878'
-
I I
8 ~ 4 J
]. 8 11 10
J 2 1
8 !I 4 J 2 1
8 , .. 3rJ
8'432'
8 , 432 ,
oj.,,; I 7 8 11 ~( 1111
78 ;/1c" . 7 8 11~Cl111
78111(111
700-foot Area
I--
R
K
,
I
tT
J.
s=:
10
11
C'\\
-- -
I
J
l'
18
17
18
'11
20
%1
1
~ a 5 2 0
J .....
-< .. ~ 10 , C-I
li= 7 8 9 , 11 5
] U") i!: Cl 8 Cl 11 8 C
~.- . ~ffiEEt z
7 1 ""
I l.'-U)"/A1~ ~ ~ ~ a 2 ~ r-T
Okeechobee County Planning Board
Summary of Meeting
Octo bel' 24, 1995
The Okeechobee County Planning Board/Board of Adjustments and Appeals met in regular
session on Tuesday, October 24, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room at the
Okeechobee County Courthouse, 304 N.W. 2nd Street, Okeechobee, Florida.
Board members present were Chairman Frank Marsocci, Jim Burke, Keith Pearce and John
Smith. Board members absent were Renee Hazellief, Brenda O'Connor, Warren Watt and
alternate member Mike Long. Also in attendance were John Cassels, County Attorney; Bill
Royce, Planning Director; Damian Peduto, Planner and Vikki Aaron, Secretary.
Petition 95-434-R, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Bonnie Daniel, applicant. Request
for a change in zoning from the existing classification of Central Business District
Commercial (C-CBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-II).
Petition 95-433-5, Estate of D.R. Daniel, property owner; Bonnie Daniel, applicant. Request
for a special exception to allow a house of worship on a lot less than five (5) acres in size.
Mr. Royce presented the applications and described the surrounding properties. Mr. Royce
discussed the differences in the different types of commercial zoning districts within the City.
Mr. Royce stated the applicant intends on using the commercial building that faces Parrott
Avenue as a church. The C-CBD zoning district allows houses of worship on parcels that
are greater than 5 acres or more in area, but has no provision for a house of worship on a
parcel less than 5 acres in area. Therefore, a change in zoning to C-II or to C-I is required
in order to consider a special exception for a church 011 a parcel that is .85 acre in area.
Mr. Royce stated he did not object to a house of worship in the downtown area and is in
favor of the concept. Mr. Royce expressed concern about a change in zoning that would
interrupt the pattern of the C-CBD zoning district. The C-CBD zoning district is confined
to a small geographical area and has specific regulations addressing the unique
characteristics of a downtown area. He stated that if a change in zoning is granted, it would
result in inconsistent zoning and possibly incompatible development or redevelopment of
the property. Mr. Royce stated that the proposed house of worship could be accommodated
by either C-I or C-II zoning. He stated that the uses allowed in a C-I zoning district, as
opposed to a C-II zoning district, are more compatible with the surrounding C-CBD zoning
district, but noted that specific development regulations, such as for parking, drainage,
signage and setbacks, still could be inconsistent with the surrounding zoning and with
surrounding development.
27
Stall Repon aud Recommendalioa
Okeecbobee City Council
Peritlon 95-134.R
November 21, 1995
Mr. Royce recommended that the change in zoning not be granted, stating that neither the
C-I nor C-II zoning districts are consistent with the surrounding C-CBD zoning, but again
noting that the C-I zoning district is somewhat more compatible than the C-II zoning. Mr.
Royce suggested that a better solution could be to review the uses permissible in the C-CBD
zoning district, and perhaps include a house of worship on a parcel less than 5 acres in area
as a use permissible by special exception. That way, the area of the city zoned C-CBD
would remain intact. Mr. Royce also recommended that the special exception not be
granted, stating that if the change in zoning were not granted, there would be no zoning
district to which the requested special exception could apply.
The Board discussed the provision of the city's code of ordinances that prohibits bars or
taverns from being located within 700 feet of a church, school or daycare facility. Mr. Royce
explained that the prohibition would not apply to the on-premise consumption of beer or
wine in a restaurant.
Jim Neilis addressed the Board. Mr. Neilis stated the church operated in that building for
21 months prior to Scotty's Carpet occupying the building. Mr. Neilis stated the building
has been for sale for quite some time and the church has made the only offer.
Keith Pearce stated he felt that Heavy Commercial (C-II) was too intense for that area. Mr.
Pearce also stated that there are already a number of churches in the area, so that most land
in the downtown area already is ineligible to have a bar or tavern because it is already
within 700 feet of an existing church. The additional land area that might be impacted by
this church would then be pretty small.
Mr. Royce stated that Light Commercial (C-I) would be more appropriate if the Board was
inclined to recommend approval of a rezoning.
Twila Valentine inquired about the availability of space for parking.
Mr. Royce stated that parking is not necessarily a significant issue with respect to
consideration of a zoning application, but that the issue would be more significant when
considering the application for the special exception. He indicated that the applicant would
be obligated to meet all applicable regulations.
There was no other public comment.
John Smith made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the request for a change
in zoning from Central Business District Commercial (C-CBD) to Light Commercial (C-I)
be granted for Petition 95-434-R stating that C-I zoning is compatible and consistent with
the C-CBD zoning district, that it would help improve the appearance of the downtown area,
and that it will not harm surrounding properties.
The motion was seconded by Keith Pearce. The motion carried unanimously.
28
S laff Report BOd Rec:ommenda.ion
Okeechobee Chy Council
Pe.i1ion 9S-434.R
N"""mber 21. 1995
John Smith made a motion to grant the request for a special exception to allow for a house
of worship on a lot less than five (5) acres in area in a Light Commercial (C-I) zoning
district with the following conditions:
1. If the proposed use does not commence within 6 months of the date that the
special exception is granted, or if the proposed use ceases for a period of 6
continuous months or for 12 non-continuous months during a 24 month
period, the special exception shall be null and void; and
2. If the request for a change in zoning to C-I or to C-II is not granted by the
City Council, then the special exception shall immediately be null and void.
The motion was seconded by Keith Pearce. The motion carried unanimously.
29
Stair Report and Recommendalion
Okeecbobec Oty Council
Petition 95-434-R
November 21. 1m
",,',....
", ~ OKEE;-_.
" 0 ,~O"t.
'.:-..'....B' i\ .....
~o,-' ":~
, .- -a 1
" - -- -
" --=.
\. ~.::a l
~~1..0A\O"',,'.
"'-",,,,,11
Ci ty of Okeecho bee
55 S.E. Third Avenue. Okeechobee. Florida 34974-2932.813/763-3372
November 3, 1995
Okeechobee County
Property Appraiser's Office
307 Northwest 5th Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
Attention: W,c. Sherman, Property Appraiser
Dear Mr. Sherman:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the November 21, 1995 City Council
minutes pertaining to the Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition No. 95-434-R. And a
copy of the Rezoning Application. This copy is for your records, should you require any
additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am
Sincerely,
Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC
City Clerk
BST IIg
Enclosure
,'i"'.....
,I' ~ OKEE;-....
,'... 0, , +0 ,
~ ~ ...'t ".,""'.~~
~U "'~
~ : ~-.: ':!' 1
\. - ~~ t'\
~-"'(OR\O"',r"
"-,,,,,,,
Ci ty of Okeecho bee
55 S.E. Third Avenue - Okeechobee, Florida 34974-2932 - 813/763-3372
November 3, 1995
Okeechobee County
Tax Collector's Office
307 Northwest 5th Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
Attention: Juanette Shirey, Tax Collector
Dear Mrs. Shirey:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the November 21, 1995 City Council
minutes pertaining to the Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition No. 95-434- R. And a
copy of the Rezoning Application. This copy is for your records, should you require any
additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am
Sincerely,
~~
Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC
City Clerk
BST/Jg
Enclosure
I"'~;;""--
, ot C'~ .
.' , , o'\.
It-'''''B' ...
:i3 ,- "..., -':~
... -- '"Z 1
.. - -- -
.. -~
\. ~~ l
--:.....:{ ORIO"',,"
-",,;11
Ci ty of Okeecho bee
55 S.E. Third Avenue. Okeechobee, Florida 34974-2932.813/763-3372
December 5, 1995
Okeechobee County
Planning and Development Department
499 Northwest 5th Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
Attention: BilJ Royce, Planning Director
Dear Mr. Royce:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the November 21, 1995 City Council
minutes pertaining to the Public Hearing for Rezoning Petition No. 95-434-R. This copy
is for your records, should you require any additional information please do not hesitate
to contact me. With best regards, I am
Sincerely,
~~
Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC
City Clerk
BST/lg
Enclosure
U5~r
Vote on motion to adopt Ordinance No. 687 is as follows:
NOVEMBER 21,1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 12
E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION
1.
d. Vote on Motion.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
F. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING RECLASSIFICATION
1.
Consider Petition 95-434-R for a zoning change for property
located at 119 South Parrott Avenue trom Central Business
District Commercial (CCBD) to Heavy Commercial (C-2) - Bill
Royce (Exhibit 2).
KIRK
CHANDLER
O'CONNOR
OL VIER
WATFORD
MOTION CARRIED.
x
x
X
X
Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Mayor Kirk opened the Public Hearing tor zoning reclassification at 7:07 p.m.
Zoning Administrator Bill Royce addressed the Council concerning Petition No. 95-434-
R property owner being the Estate of D.R. Daniel and applicant being Bonnie Daniel.
The petition is for a rezoning of land located at 119 South Parrott Avenue. The legal for
the property is the South hali of Block 17&, less Lot 7 and is an area of about .855 acre.
There are currently two commercial type buildings on the property. One is a large
building that fronts Parrott Avenue the other is a small structure located near the cent
of the block South of the aband oned alleyway.
The majority of the surrounding property is Commercial with some Residential Single
Family dwellings. The applicant wished to rezone the property from Commercial-Central
Business District (CCBD) to Heavy Commercial (CII) with the intentions of using the
building that fronts Parrott Avenue as a church.
The request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Staff does not object
to a house of worship in the downtown area, and endorses the concept. However, Staff
is concerned about the change in zoning that will interrupt the continuous pattern of the
CCBD zoning.
070
NOVEMBER 21,1995 - REGULAR MEETING - PAGE 4 OF 12 ::I~li:::::~::::::::jl:::::::!:l:11
F. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING RECLASSIFICATION
1.
Consider Petition 95-434-R continued.
Staff recommends that the City Council not grant the request for a change in zoning
from CCBO to CII; nor a change to Light Commercial (CI), although this zoning district
is somewhat more compatible than CII zoning. Staff does recommend that consideration
be given to including houses of worship as permitted or permissible uses in the CCBO
zoning district, including a provision to consider houses of worship on parcel less than
five acres in area. The recommendation would maintain the integrity of the downtown
area, which still allows for uses, such as a house of worship, that could be compatible
with downtown uses and with downtown development patterns.
The Planning Board unanimously recommended that the City Council grant a request
for a change in zoning from CCBO to CI. The Planning Board found that the CI zoning
district is consistent and compatible with the surrounding CCBO zoning and approved
a special exception on the subject property to allow a house of worship on a parcel less
than five acres in size, conditioned on approval by the City Council of the recommended
change in zoning.
Council member O'Connor moved to uphold the recommendation of the PlanninQ
and ZoninQ Board. "that the reQuest for a chanQe in zoninQ from CCeD to CI be
Qranted for Petition 95-434-R: statinQ that CI zoninQ is compatible and consistent
with the CCBD zoninQ district: that it would help improve the appearance of the
downtown area. and that it will not harm surroundinQ propertvl1: the motion was
seconded bv Councilmember Watford.
After lengthy discussion by Council, Staff and the Public, vote on motion is as follows:
KIRK X
CHANDLER X
O'CONNOR X
OLIVER X
WATFORD X
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Kirk closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING