The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-04-15 (PB)I ' P��inn...q �A • — ,�� ,� � � � � � � � ,��: : 0 •''��•....•��i CALL TO ORDER �ITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA PLAhJNING BOARD V!/ORK�HOP MEETING APR�� 15, 202� SIJMMARY OF BOARD DISCUSSION Chairperson Hoover called the workshop meeting of the Planning Board for the City of Okeechobee to order on Thursday, April 15, 2021, at 6:18 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast Third Avenue, Room 200, Ok�echobee, Florida. II. ATTENDANCE Roll was taken by Board Secretary Patty Burnette. Chairperson Dawn Hoover, Vice Chairperson Doug McCoy, Board Members Karyne Brass, Ricl�c Chartier, Felix Granados, and Mac Jonassaint were present as well as Alternate Board Members Joe Papasso and Jim Shaw. Board Member Phil Baughman was absent with consent. III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Mr. Ben Smith of LaRue Planning and Management Services was present as the City's Planning Consultant and briefly explained his Staff Report regarding a potential Commercial Corridor Overlay (CCO). In May of 2013, this Board recommended to the City Council adoption of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a CCO with restriction on rezoning that may be approved within that overlay. The proposed amendment was never adopted. The originally proposed amendment designated the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor as weil as the boundaries of a Transitional Commercial Overlay (TCO) Future Land Use (FLU) Subcategory. It appears the language did not include any new regulation and was ma6nly intended for planning purposes as a guide for development land redevelopment along the City's major corridors. However, the languag� proposed in the TCO portion of the amendment would have limited rezonings in the designated areas to Residential Multiple Family (RMF), Light Commercial (CLT), Commercial Professional Office (CPO), Central Business District (CBD) and Public Use (PUB). Presumably, these zoning districts were selected to provide transitional buffers between the more intensive commercial uses lacated adjacent to the corridor roadways and the residential neighborhoods, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. Either this Board can recommend again to the City Cauncil approval as originally proposed or consider some additic�nal options. First, the possibility af allowing rezoning to Heavy Commercial (CHV) and Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use (PUD-M) within the TCO. Compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment requests. Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to limit rezonings within an overlay area to only certain zoning districts creates a more rigid level of protection for those residential areas, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. It will also reduce the City's ability to accommodate projects which may be compatible with those areas but rnrould only be allowable in other zoning districts. Specifically, there may be locations within the TCO which could be deemed appropriate for the CHV and PUD-M Zoning Districts. Hotels are one example of a use that would be effectively prohibited in the TCO, as hotels are only permitted in the CHV and PUD-M districts. It is also possible that operators of existing CHV uses along the corridors may seek to expand their operations into the TCO areas. Second, another required consideration is consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, if the City were to adopt language similar to the non-regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment it would provide additional policy guidelines that would assist �he Planning Board and Council when making determinations on requests for rezoning and amending the FLUM. Though it would still allow for flE�xibility in that decision mal<ing process as needed. Additionally, as the City continues to pursue the initiative of cor�ecting the existing map inconsistencies between the FLU ancl Zoning maps, an amendr�nent such as this would provide another tool to help guide the City's efforts in identifying appropriate map changes. April 15, 2021 Planning Board Worlcshop Meeting Page 1 of 2 41 III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ITEM A CONTINUED: Third, instead of entirely discounting the regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment, the City may also consider allowing an expanded list of zoning districts within the entire Commercial Corridor. In this scenario, there would be no TCO, and within the boundaries of a CCO, only rezonings to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, and PUD-M would be permitted. Low intensity residential districts (Residential Single Family One, Residential Single Family Two, Residential Mobile Home, Rural Heritage, and Planned Unit Development-Residential) and the Industrial district would be prohibited. This would ensure that only commercial, higher density residential, public, and mixed uses would be possible for development and redevelopment within a CCO. Below is the existing description of the Commercial FLU designation from the FLU Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and staff's proposed amendment language which would implement this potential planning option. Existing in Policy 2.1. The following land use designations are established for the purpose of managing future growth: Commercial. Permitted uses include the full range of offices, retail, personal and business services, automotive, wholesale, warehousing, related commercial activities, and accessory uses customary to permissible uses. Other uses related to and consistent with commercial development such as houses of worship, public facilities, public utilities, communications facilities, hospitals, group homes, adult family care homes, assisted living facilities, and limited residential use associated with a commercial building, may be permissible under certain circumstances. Commercial development shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 3.00 and the maximum impervious surface for development within this category shall not exceed 85 percent of the site. Zoning districts considered appropriate within this FLU category include CPO, CLT, CHV, and CBD. Proposed Commercial Corridor Overlay. The City recognizes the importance of State Road 70 and US Highway 441 as the City's primary commercial corridor roadways and desires to follow a. considered, limited, and consistent approach to encourage development and expansion of commercial and mixed-use opportunities in close proximity to the commercial corridor roadways to eliminate uncertainty and foster infill and compatibility with existing development. To this end, the City has identified the Commercial Corridor as being that area generally within one to two blocks of each of these roadways, but as more specifically delineated as the CCO on Map 1.2 in the FLUM Series. The intent of the CCO is to provide additional and varied commercial opportunities in locations in close proximity to the City's major arterials and adjacent residential areas. Within the CCO, the continuation of existing uses will be permitted. Rezoning of lands within the CCO will be limited only to the RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, or PUD-M Zoning districts, and only within the FLU designations appropriate for those districts. After a lengthy discussion, the consensus of the Board was to have Planner Smith bring back revised amendment language which excluded the regulatory components and instead provide a more aspirational vision for the City's commercial corridor; to revise the maps to exclude existing industrial parcels; and re-look at the map boundaries in regard to the current commercial property uses and parcel boundaries. IV. Chairperson Hoover adjourned the meeting at 7:10 P.M. Submitted by: ��I �- O�l �9v�,�.l�i�''1 �� Patty . Burnette, Secretary Please take notice and be advised th�t when a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning Board with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. General Services' media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records. April 15, 2021 Planning Board Workshop Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA APRIL 15, 2021, PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY PATTY BURNETTE �� , �:;: �:' `: �'U��; G; , ��.Y,,, , o, �; �� ; ; I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hoover called the workshop meeting of the Planning Board for the City of Okeechobee to order on Thursday, April 15, 2021, at 1.v.1 �'s P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. II. ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Hoover Vice Chairperson Doug McCoy Board Member Phil Baughman Board Member Karyne Brass Board Member Rick Chartier Board Member Felix Granados Board Member Mac Jonassaint Alternate Board Member Joe Papasso Alternate Board Member Jim Shaw P �SENT �� - � -� �c � ABSENT � l,J � � �J �.., t.:'�f� �. City Attorney John Fumero � City Administrator Marcos Montes De Oca _� � City Planning Consultant Ben Smith Board Secretary Patty Burnette � General Services Secretary Yesica Montoya -� Executive Assistant Robin Brock � III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Mr. Ben Smith of LaRue Planning and Management Services was present as the City's Planning Consultant and briefly explained his Staff Report regarding a potential Commercial Corridor Overlay. In May of 2013, this Board recommended to the City Council adoption of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial corridor overlay with restriction on rezoning that may be approved within that overlay. The proposed amendment was never adopted. The originally proposed amendment designated the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor as well as the boundaries of a Transitional Commercial Overlay (TCO) Future Land Use Subcategory. It appears the language did not include any new regulation and was mainly intended for planning purposes as a guide for development land redevelopment along the City's major corridors. However, the language proposed in the Transitional Commercial Overlay„portion of the amendment would have limited rezonings in the designated areas �~ to RMF, CLT, CPO,CBDw�n.d.2llB. Presumably, these zoning districts were selected to provide transitional buffers between the more intensive commercial uses located adjacent to the corridor roadways and the residential neighborhoods, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. Either this Board can recommend again to the City Council approval as originally proposed or consider some additional options. Potential negative effects of the TCO regulatory restrictions: Compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and future land use map (FLUM) amendment requests. Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to limit rezonings within an overlay area to only certain zoning districts (as proposed in the original amendment) creates a more rigid level of protection for those residential areas, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. It will also reduce the City's ability to accommodate projects which may be compatible with those areas but would only be allowable in other zoning districts. Specifically, there may be locations within the TCO which could be deemed appropriate for the CHV and PUD-M zoning districts; if not now, then conceivably sometime in the future as development intensifies along the corridors. Hotels are one example of a use that would be effectively prohibited in the TCO, as hotels are only permitted in the CHV and PUD-M districts. It is also possible that operators of existing CHV uses along the corridors may seek to expand their operations into the TCO areas. If the City can conceive of the possibility of allowing rezoning to CHV and PUD-M within the TCO, then staff recommends against adoption of the previously proposed TCO and the associated regulatory components. P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 1 of 5 Potential adoption of only aspirational guidelines and objectives for commercial corridor: As previously mentioned, compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and FLUM amendment requests. Another required consideration is consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, if the City were to adopt language similar to the non- regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment it would provide additional policy guidelines that would assist the Planning Board and Council when making determinations on requests for rezoning and amending the FLUM. Though it would still allow for flexibility in that decision making process as needed. Additionally, as the City continues to pursue the initiative of correcting the existing map inconsistencies between the future land use map and the zoning map, an amendment such as this would provide another tool to help guide the City's efforts in identifying appropriate map changes. Potential addition of CHV and PUD-M to allowable districts in TCO and entire Commercial Corridor: Instead of entirely discounting the regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment, the City may also consider allowing an expanded list of zoning districts within the entire Commercial Corridor. In this scenario, there would be no TCO, and within the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor Overlay, only rezonings to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, and PUD-M would be permitted. Low intensity residential districts (RSF-1, RSF-2, RMH, RH, and PUD-R) and the Industrial district would be prohibited. This would ensure that only commercial, higher density residential, public, and mixed uses (highest and best uses) would be possible for development and redevelopment within a Commercial Corridor Overlay. Below is the existing description of the Commercial FLU designation from the FLU Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and staff's proposed amendment language which would implement this potential planning option. Existing: Policy 2.1: The following land use designations are established for the purpose of managing future growth: d) Commercial. Permitted uses include the full range of offices, retail, personal and business services, automotive, wholesale, warehousing, related commercial activities, and accessory uses customary to permissible uses. Other uses related to and consistent with commercial development such as houses of worship, public facilities, public utilities, communications facilities, hospitals, group homes, adult family care homes, assisted living facilities, and limited residential use associated with a commercial building, may be permissible under certain circumstances. 1. Commercial development shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 3.00 and the maximum impervious surface for development within this category shall not exceed 85 percent of the site. 2. Zoning districts considered appropriate within this future land use category include Commercial Professional Office (CPO), Light Commercial (CLT), Heavy Commercial (CHV), and Central Business District (CBD). Proposed: g) Commercial Corridor Overlay. The City recognizes the importance of SR-70 and US-441 as the City's primary commercial corridor roadways and desires to follow a considered, limited, and consistent approach to encourage development and expansion of commercial and mixed-use opportunities in close proximity to the commercial corridor roadways to eliminate uncertainty and foster infill and compatibility with existing development. To this end, the City has identified the Commercial Corridor as being that area generally within one to two blocks of each of these roadways, but as more specifically delineated as the Commercial Corridor Overlay (CCO) on Map 1.2 in the Future Land Use Map Series. 1. The intent of the CCO is to provide additional and varied commercial opportunities in locations in close proximity to the City's major arterials and adjacent residential areas. 2. Within the CCO, the continuation of existing uses will be permitted. 3. Rezoning of lands within the CCO will be limited only to the RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, or PUD-M zoning districts, and only within the future land use designations appropriate for those districts. P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 2 of 5 � �y�i, rc ca �� -�..� , E ��S �R � �i9`Y'��°r� �'(%��' 1��rP.,� �` '; � / �' f g' r�,(' �` ¢� j �1.�� P � �"'�� °`�,��.� f w�' � � �� „,� �,� �� .,-,._ 2 � -� � 8 �� „�,x.�� c�^t.' a ) . b -�� :� ��-�`�a� ��'' � y�,�.�-�` �� '� �;. , ��{)�� :� � � �, b� r � � �. �� 6 �� ,��. � � �,� .��..�'' ,�`� p...�� , � � � (� �^ �'� € �' �, ' f �"� t�,. �� '� U �- � '�`� � � � � _ � �,, � 4'�q��.�+'�'�.f:�tr �1 � 8`� �. �. � � v w^ ��'b � ,— , , ,� x � r P: � : _ Q,_ ��r�� : - r? � ! ��.. � �$��> ;�.- k 4� .� `� �;. .�,�"' ! �' �:�' � � ,. �'i '`�'�'/r �VI ,', � , :. _ R � � ,: � � � �� ' �� ,� �' �3 �� !, �" �. % � , = � p �by�i I,��j `.x � • ,�y,�� t; ,.1 .�` �a;��'�- � �� _ �' � � , �;�.�+ ��`� ��'� � � �- _s-.w---- �• 3 � �� 4�,�,r�- t � .f- � � � ,.,{., ��s�+,(.,6� _ � � C �,� ��.�� -�" '� n `L . ��'e�.' � F, t,. , � � p�;� � �l'� � ei . ��.. � , 4 N _ {, g� [� �� ? :, ..�. C1�"�_ J �,; r ,•,.., . B f (� /'j, � r � �. �: t. i }„ �i., r.r��!P�.�� i '� �5"�'�� '�.7�ia� — �- �1 G�.�D�'�t�� i. b � f 1 /� `� ``�'� �� I Y'� PGtC� �p °i��`'E a..t�`. � �.Ai��ya�, � ` �� 'a, T � �,�� ' � - �' � d,� �,f�°.�e°' � �, � � c�� : �� . � � � , .. r ; ��.��..rF �3 � - ��,� �.J��.E , �'t- # � `�' : �^�` �� '"� �" r� � A,,: -��A , �� , a � � �� ,�- �.,. . > � �� " �k:� �aq�.�. f��, r� �� j �: �'e,�'� �- ,_: '� • ' 4�.�� '�� r � �� 6 i� �' �p: 5}�,�.f-� ;. � � � ��('r�� ` ` �F� � � �J�.�".t�-� .___...�-.--� _ � � � � ..._�.._�_�._. Q, n� � � �� _ , .�_....� . ..,::.... ....� . . ....--. � �_�� .� . _: v� _ _ _ _ ,�� _ _.� �� , ,.,� , r�,; �;� �� -�,�-�� %.�-�'� � ;� ,.�� ,�p�'�. ' �2;'�� (�,�'. ��:� � �;,�' ��'_�� ,�-�1 ��'"�4 � � k �.'` r' ��4� �,�-� � � ll�� •�y ��y'� �..��"� �� e �:"�,t��'� �^� e 1'� f •-`,j ��, i, �yr;Q �o �^yp�'�9 �d`'S' ` /IJ'';✓� v`_ � i1 . � / r �3 ` �� f��„ �6. �e� L � �, � ��e. ,�� a��L� t � "�� v. ..� � rQ�� -►�� '� � - �� .`": __ ; _ �� #W f,�; � ri"S �.� +.�,, � � ��,,�.�—�,' � ��.. „ � �-, w r �, C�.,� �' � .f{��,� �• .��- �..��..�.. �'�.f , � -�. i �� ,�' .� ,k!!� °,� �',. � � �� C�.�`.� `� V 4- ,�t�� ' �'�� 4: �, � �� : �'Y`��. � � .. . . �� F��. +i�. �? € V� � �-t�.-��'��-�� . s t � e l�c,E.��- ��° ��.�,vf� C:v��r .��i'�.�. 9 v`��.� � r�;' QF-� Q,i" �0. �� e� � �� ,t �' <��.� � -� '��-�� `�F �. f�.�t�S —� ✓ Ce/:;, f � � �� -' �� J�; r�J.,� �. ��f+. , P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 3 of 5 � (� ��,��R�. ;�,�. � -�- �, � G �. �..t.. � ��' , �i �li�.; G�� vG�t.=� � `� �'� 3 � � �' � ` '�' ut 3 Gt�'� ��.:r- �, �e� ��' t'� ' � W a� :f � r„a�t`� � `� � �'' *� . �? b k.''r "�. �� 64 � �.� A 4: ��' '�:.1��. �Wt�� ,� � �.2..,� � 4� � �' � �r_ � � t > "^F'' `G�� '�'Jk � `•. i'�:uJ f �;' � � �� pr , r F �'?..... r ��'c ��`�� L,� !� F'`�l��* E . , �'/�z• , � . ., � li . . .� � .. n , <, �-- �' �°.� ' f " ` � i` > F�� i�� ` C� ; h `Y �. � . i � :,. . � 4 d� � .: ` % : ✓" ; � �`'� :� �.,; ��-'.'. a � �i � a.,+�� ,, �;} � . a� � . �.: � �,:r, , C°�v`�°�"� ��,�.�. � �� T�, ' �'�� V I � � �� J „ �F �,:..J � �� _; � � � !... ��%�n- ' � `�". � c �,��. �.1. � e � `� �..� .✓C'i`� 1 ��.' `i'� ��l� �[ /� g�, I� �y 4 �A � %} i. l/ �QJ��i 7F �tl . 9 ��✓r 1 t_ YJ � ��"��& � �:�- ��Yr�'p•�tl�'�Q- 1- � �� x: pp��s� �� 1 (j' �� 4� �.,,5 �'«(. ��`.4:: /' a�� A � ��" � �. �,�.� � �� t �•, <� �'� ..T � �.t �� y',.�9',.�'� E @, � �w � ' 1� ', �� . � � �'� .,�^ "" �, ., .. � <.. � �. �� 9,,� � • p ,t`� #� �'.�s � �-.i. �i �-�-f� �d' � ; �� r — �� r�t�vti�� , � � , � �f� { 1�� N ..,. 5"" � `A �� 1 � Gi` ,� ` � Y I. �� • , " � 0! �_ a �.t. �:rl. f,t.�`� � P.�� ; . `{�.� �. �`'i r� t''f�t.€ �� ,�� ►��,� � ` ' �. � ��. �'� ��.� �.�. �� f . �-.,.r�,... � �C�h, -� ' a��'� �'','.h .� �,� � ,� � ��.,, �;, ;r.� � �� P,_ . ✓„_`�' �1��'L�. ,�� ; . > �.��-� � i J�;;�,,�F �. � � �,�y��.. �� ;fi ��.�°`� ` �l � � N,�,� �,� � �,,N E;.` a � '",,�. �;� �'�.��' �.�'.��.5 �. Cf� � -��. � � v� ` �'!,� ,� � ;� i p ? `�f � � � �f�� .. �. �r �� e't.�� ' � g k ar, �.P�1� a. o� � � � � �� yti_. . . d ��, jEj�,. L a✓F � ��: � �,P �" � ` � � � m� ��C. � � ��`�'��.� � Por,�� ` � � � �,�,,,e.-� ��. ?�� Lj'� � ��'j �y`°��- � U � �_� p� �� '� ° �',��w (� . '�" r E� �� 'y�� t �% �� , , .� , ��' � �,,: � 9 � � � !, r ��C� �� :A� � � �P � ��`' ��-�_k�. C'�°` ��'° `� � ��:, +'_ s �,� ._ r, '��`b r! f ,; i ' y + �� .� � � � � ��'�$ � � t° � �`C�Y"r��. ° � �""�� C'�: {,%: �, ... �,s S � � `,�, �; .� � c �� _ , ,,� �,��a,,r �_� „ ,� �- � E �� ,� lh��r.�...- N t,i t:. C� ��°, � � � � r. , � .�-f � o � `� � � _ � �.��° • � �� o�'' � � P , � � �:, � <, c s =� ,^ � � `��q . � . t v� . � v�`�,c:�s� �c-� �� s ��-�� 1.,�. �'��;t- �' pp�1p �` ��/`-'�,� 4�� §, ![ C 5 E" �� a� C 4::., '�.�` � �� '"; � ��.', �,� ;�..r�m �. . ��m�-�'�'� � C a,�c� � �n ��'c� C C��'` t r'� ,�� , �.�.� � a,,; �� o� n _f,� C,r�a- J � - r� V-Q, 6�- � S�/ � l �., t�(A->", r" `f j� S 1(,�. �� u�✓Q.✓ t� ,� rct�� `� • � � �jp"�- b � ` — �,�r� ( i�. �,� � - { Y r. �j � �� r E � r , �� . �� . . . P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 4 of 5 � IV. Chairperson Hoover adjourned the meeting at �` �� P.M. � g �� ! � � 1 � �.� ;�, r=: {^ b, k _ �-'' , I , �r _ , a , t_.; � i : � �� `� �l�'� � ��}Y �C`. „ ��: F �, raSS �. � P ►" I r'��.U�� P � � ; i � G� �t ;�.,, ; � ��'� � y ( � �?1� � � F��,� �c�. ' �'v i!�,n U �! � Ct�� N� , , ,�. ;� ��P �a a�� l-:�rd� p � ��, �7v� � P � � �, � ,� � �°' � ve��_ : - , �� : s �� _ wt,i�t"f , r - � � i: :.� �. . � �o.� �;�_ �`� w� ��-'- _ � ( �. �s ii,�.� c � r�; �.�.,. �,rv,..�.{'� �� ^ � , �� : � --�6 I �� ' � v2 Cv�� g) _ ��v��/ � f. p� '� R� �✓,( A, �� ^- �. :��. J ,��ifr �ir,;;f- �^,^ �,�� j�,( �d.,e� L.'' `�'E Tf'"'A�a � _ •�E i I'YlG�' �v' ct.l(� — I��Lr � � ] � � � � -. � , _, .�fv< l� ��o� hc�,� € v�.� ��,�, � �' ., U��`s r�,� `�� - � � ��f' � ' � 0.�-e � .�4� f. f> � , ,.., ,F r .{ . (� V �- C �" � � q� � p Y�L.�_ �' � t_, g�(� �; V: �`; �t�l' . C,� � ?_C��p-' 6 " � � �' "�, � � �Y._. ..�y�,�)GU� c�. �"� ►�� '� "� '�a''v`c' ` � �;�� `- l?� �v�e ,mr�ve Co,� c � �' `� �°` �fe �.� � �, �L� ' � �� _, ��i��. -y,�,�y (,C�:✓ � _ � ,,, �v�,�. . , , �� s a. -�, � � � U , -�`' e. 1��_ �.� �n � ,.,�y � �--� �. �� a �/ `� 1 �i'p C �' ��rt �.. � � k �� ' � � �p �:r -- �Q� ��' ; ' , c,,� . . � � , � �...� , a ,. ��'�'" � �,�e U p � ��,�� b�� ..�� - � �, �r�.c� < <�.;1� � �r' i .� J � �:� �_�! ,�,.p�/ � %rirti.� a 1��' � � � ,.r. ^� `/ a {�✓LQ.. � `�' �' .. y � ,. � � v �� li �- �4.�'� ! p t"1 � i,.- �". ..� �,> l D "�i` fi'y ,�. ; �.- ; � �'v� /`-_"-_ . � � �� / .- �,�, ,^,;_ � U � � � �L � �S ��"Y'�_ � a 6ra-a � ':�r7�?� ��' �nfs C; nP_ �%1%c� ��'i �a r��-.�l'`� ( G> Li�� d i �--' � r _. , ; ;; a P°�� r l �,�;��.�_�_�� t�9� �j'Y�c Co , , ,, .� � � �:,._. ��D1 � l�hc I v � -��:� � U }.S ` ��'�, � .,� ��-� � �� t� � ` f7 t� ` �' �� ✓ �� ^1 �� rt C) t. �� U:L,�� 5��i . a ►1 �. � �G� IC� � «. ,�,�.� �,1. � �, t(. ;� � :�. � . -� 3�' ` f �' ` � j `�� i� � ��-; � t �`�Dn i � G ��,Ct �' `" �� s= "'; i �f� C C U- �r�' �,_ , ..� � � a --( �, ;' r , � �� -�- ° ' �� a-� �� - ;� �� ~� `� -��, c C �� `� c,r . s�. 9 , !� d � .. h �(i •�? "t"�i�''i�.e� !., ! j r JY�'. 1 -� s. S� �-�w� ��:✓ �.. � � � �-�r�� i-PS rc�c�,� . e. �� U_� �7►fi �'�t.f i_ W� `1 s C�v�� C� � P�' � �+ ' � � �,,,�, � �-� r,�_ i, e. a ��U O l� C�.,� �J 1�1;n C� �-�`%Us �� /" e �� , Q �,r;�� Yy� cr'� � �(�,f;8, f/ (�� a,c U d -� n C`{S "(i! L C(C o a n ;. �P(�,4.�_�� f �;_C1 �- G(�&j�p (j�f.Q � � f --- � C,� ' - ' � C � r�r� ��_ < < � r- �- � � � � � I�r�.�-� �} � � � �;��5'v l?'��i` �'' �� " " `� t�✓� ��J- ,, i '. �� C�� ,,p i3n (/=C, � � (. 1 ' ,_>u,�d- c�,_ � � v,�-P � .� �, . �u� P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 5 of 5 � C G� q {!1 �' �, � r� � �t T�n �� N � , M plc.�f� G��Co , , ft � _, , _ _ U� ��v� �' ,� �y � ' Patty Burnette From: Ben Smith <ben@larueplanning.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:01 AM To: Patty Burnette Cc: Yesica Montoya Subject: RE: April 15, 2021 Workshop Meeting That looks good. We could change it just a little, as follows: After a lengthy discussion, the consensus of the Board was to have Planner Smith bring back revised amendment language which excluded the regulatory components and instead provide a more aspirational vision for the City's commercial corridor; and to revise the maps to exclude existing industrial parcels and re-look at the map boundaries in regards to the current commercial property uses and parcel boundaries. i3ev� Svvtrtln, AICP, LEED GA �C� ��.: � pI ��r��c� 1 3 J 5�ac�sc�r; �J" t i,'� ZOv, �c�rt Mye-i s, �� ? 3 90 i Z�j�-�i�4-'�3L6 �ci:C��r��rue��:�ruiin�-.cc�m From: Patty Burnette <pburnette@cityofokeechobee.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:40 PM To: Ben Smith <ben@larueplanning.com> Cc: Yesica Montoya <ymontoya@cityofokeechobee.com> Subject: April 15, 2021 Workshop Meeting Ben I am preparing the minutes from last week's meeting and just want to verify what the Board asked you to bring back. This is what I have: After a lengthy discussion the consensus of the Board was to have Planner Smith bring back another proposal that is more aspirational and less regulatory, more guidance based, re- look at the map boundaries and change both maps. Thank you Patt� M. Burnette C�. enera�Services Coorc�inator Cit� of O�eec�o6ee 55 S� 3Y`� �Lvenue O�eec�o6ee, rFL 34974 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA APRIL 15, 2021, PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY P�CTT'��"I7F�IVETTE �� e�� C;;�- ��.(��<<,��,,.�GL �� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hoover called the workshop meeting of the Planning Board for the City of Okeechobee to order on Thursday, April 15, 2021, at � P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. II. ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Hoover Vice Chairperson Doug McCoy Board Member Phil Baughman Board Member Karyne Brass Board Member Rick Chartier Board Member Felix Granados Board Member Mac Jonassaint Alternate Board Member Joe Papasso Alternate Board Member Jim Shaw PRESENT X; � >;� Y,, A6SENT �� City Attorney John Fumero �y City Administrator Marcos Montes De Oca -`� City Planning Consultant Ben Smith Board Secretary Patty Burnette � General Services Secretary Yesica Montoya :�: Executive Assistant Robin Brock II1. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Mr. Ben Smith of LaRue Planning and Management Services was present as the City's Planning Consultant and briefly explained his Staff Report regarding a potential Commercial Corridor Overlay. In May of 2013, this Board recommended to the City Council adoption of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial corridor overlay with restriction on rezoning that may be approved within that overlay. The proposed amendment was never adopted. The originally proposed amendment designated the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor as well as the boundaries of a Transitional Commercial Overlay (TCO) Future Land Use Subcategory. It appears the language did not include any new regulation and was mainly intended for planning purposes as a guide for development land redevelopment along the City's major corridors. However, the language proposed in the Transitional Commercial Overlay portion of the amendment would have limited rezonings in the designated areas to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD and PUB. Presumably, these zoning districts were selected to provide transitional buffers between the more intensive commercial uses located adjacent to the corridor roadways and the residential neighborhoods, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. Either this Board can recommend again to the City Council approval as originally proposed or consider some additional options. Potential negative effects of the TCO regulatory restrictions: Compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and future land use map (FLUM) amendment requests. Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to limit rezonings within an overlay area to only certain zoning districts (as proposed in the original amendment) creates a more rigid level of protection for those residential areas, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. It will also reduce the City's ability to accommodate projects which may be compatible with those areas but would only be allowable in other zoning districts. Specifically, there may be locations within the TCO which could be deemed appropriate for the CHV and PUD-M zoning districts; if not now, then conceivably sometime in the future as development intensifies along the corridors. Hotels are one example of a use that would be effectively prohibited in the TCO, as hotels are only permitted in the CHV and PUD-M districts. It is also possible that operators of existing CHV uses along the corridors may seek to expand their operations into the TCO areas. If the City can conceive of the possibility of allowing rezoning to CHV and PUD-M within the TCO, then staff recommends against adoption of the previously proposed TCO and the associated regulatory components. �_� ,G,; '.:,,:, . �,;,,�`. ., --��UTI'f�tte Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 1 of 5 Potential adoption of only aspirational guidelines and objectives for commercial corridor: As previously mentioned, compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and FLUM amendment requests. Another required consideration is consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, if the City were to adopt language similar to the non- regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment it would provide additional policy guidelines that would assist the Planning Board and Council when making determinations on requests for rezoning and amending the FLUM. Though it would still allow for flexibility in that decision making process as needed. Additionally, as the City continues to pursue the initiative of correcting the existing map inconsistencies between the future land use map and the zoning map, an amendment such as this would provide another tool to help guide the City's efforts in identifying appropriate map changes. Potential addition of CHV and PUD-M to allowable districts in TCO and entire Commercial Corridor: Instead of entirely discounting the regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment, the City may also consider allowing an expanded list of zoning districts within the entire Commercial Corridor. In this scenario, there would be no TCO, and within the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor Overlay, only rezonings to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, and PUD-M would be permitted. Low intensity residential districts (RSF-1, RSF-2, RMH, RH, and PUD-R) and the Industrial district would be prohibited. This would ensure that only commercial, higher density residential, public, and mixed uses (highest and best uses) would be possible for development and redevelopment within a Commercial Corridor Overlay. Below is the existing description of the Commercial FLU designation from the FLU Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and staff's proposed amendment language which would implement this potential planning option. Existing: Policy 2.1: The following land use designations are established for the purpose of managing future growth: d) Commercial. Permitted uses include the full range of offices, retail, personal and business services, automotive, wholesale, warehousing, related commercial activities, and accessory uses customary to permissible uses. Other uses related to and consistent with commercial development such as houses of worship, public facilities, public utilities, communications facilities, hospitals, group homes, adult family care homes, assisted living facilities, and limited residential use associated with a commercial building, may be permissible under certain circumstances. 1. Commercial development shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 3.00 and the maximum impervious surface for development within this category shall not exceed 85 percent of the site. 2. Zoning districts considered appropriate within this future land use category include Commercial Professional Office (CPO), Light Commercial (CLT), Heavy Commercial (CHV), and Central Business District (CBD). Proposed: g) Commercial Corridor Overlay. The City recognizes the importance of SR-70 and US-441 as the City's primary commercial corridor roadways and desires to follow a considered, limited, and consistent approach to encourage development and expansion of commercial and mixed-use opportunities in close proximity to the commercial corridor roadways to eliminate uncertainty and foster infill and compatibility with existing development. To this end, the City has identified the Commercial Corridor as being that area generally within one to two blocks of each of these roadways, but as more specifically delineated as the Commercial Corridor Overlay (CCO) on Map 1.2 in the Future Land Use Map Series. 1. The intent of the CCO is to provide additional and varied commercial opportunities in locations in close proximity to the City's major arterials and adjacent residential areas. 2. Within the CCO, the continuation of existing uses will be permitted. 3. Rezoning of lands within the CCO will be limited only to the RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, or PUD-M zoning districts, and only within the future land use designations appropriate for those districts. ��v�,�t��s°::�:��. , , P-6trrr�e#�e Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 2 of 5 � -,_�c�� Gv� S.�-� �� !'e� ,- �� "� ( � -� �� ' � ' ��(�f� • . < < < , ��c��.� e�„Y,�e{cra- y^ [�i�A �C11 f+,. �i �� _� `, i � �� '" ``�� Y�Z.C�'1 �`"�`� �j� � , _ � �� — � � n^ ' k'Y`� �,�,�a k �i �� s.op1� � A ° �,ta' ;�� r 'r �� a � �� .�- �' �,/ d � � Y �"�`�'� � (�e;,� �� r�.�r '�a-�.. ��— � � � ��r , �� . ��v� � 1 � 5 ,,�.., :,� . C�"'�-- � �. �'`�� -�"�- �'�``� �� `� Y �. ��.� � �v� j _�� \ � � (� � r �°`� ��'` a.. �� c �'� ;� � _ � � �. � } , � ��°'� �� & � s� ��. T << ,,� � � �� C��_ : ^;�� :;� t� _. �ti,S4~�� _�µ. � � � �� .c��..�-�l'� C�.,n�, r� � � � _ ��n�` . �y C\ (�,�.��q `� ,. _ ^_ �� (i� �.. q ��T'\1V'"�V:�j( � � � `...• � �< E� J 1yd�. �..�? !�.!Yv\ ��J `/� �/ l ` � X�p�, _ FEiI"�� i'i�i`��"�� a fti,J ` � i � �, � � i��`''4 :' �` `� �,� � . - ` ;;� �`, `t �' �° � '� 4'�.,'r�`� � E, r; ��,� - � ��C.� �`" � �-( . 6�'`�. � . `� � •P: °Burrte�ffe Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 3 of 5 IV. Chairperson Hoover adjourned the meeting at P.M. ,�: �� a P. Burnette Handwritten Minutes, April 15, 2021, Page 5 of 5 � � NEI�SMEDIA �NC. USE� STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF OKEECHOBEE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Katrina Elslcen Muros, who on oath says she is the Publisher of the Lake Okeechobee News, a weekly Newspaper published in Okeechobee C�ounry,�'�lorida, that the . attached copy of an advertisement being�a ` --�. �•:�� . �� '>'��,;'�'..f`:.� _.. _.�� .-� � in the matter of �"��`';��L�.��-�9d� —9 in the 19th Judicial District of the Circuit Court of Okeechobee County, Florida, was published in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Lalce Okeechobee News is a newspaper published at Okeechobee, in said Okeechobee County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore 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 that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. � � �� Katrina Elsken Muros Sworn to and subscribed before me this •,, ,�e � :��_ day of � '�� S�''a� _ �a•� ; r��._� r.� � AD Notary Public, State of Florida at Large i1: .—,-.._ ' - ,•��:YPy�.,, ANGIEBRIDGES :; � c;, MY COMMISSION # GG 971582 '�,.�o: EXPIRES: April 2Q, 2024 �•YJ. •.... •' P.` '••FOF Ft°; Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters Lake Okeechobee News 107 SW 17th Street, Suite D Okeechobee, Florida 34974 863-763-3134 cn,roFou�o+os� vusuc rion� P�nnrmvic eausn woe� rior�:lt,e�y �o�m� r� e� c�) +� �,a,�r a v�ak I s�p m ppr.15, 2021, 6 PM, or as snn tliaealta as p�le, at OLY Hal� 55 $E 3rd AVE. Rm 200, Okea�obee� R- The pupme of the NkxIaMP 5 to d� �„�,a„�,�ma,er„��,du��a��dr� of tl�e rtpidies�e Plan d�cJ�tn9.a mirnv�i mrrd�r o.etry; ddre n�emr,Y„P,cel mmeoro.etr� bou�r�s ard �� 9 � ��r��al� oYatay. l}e agercla rt�/ be oiN�l fiorn abng or�wAfyi N.o bAxfcs d P�A�,�ue (lb hM^/ 441) ard Noftli� Pa�k ��a�>��y��m�,d. sEnwu�macs�ndvo�,:+�am��rnd�.��r, am.�,�;a�or k� m the vs n suppoit or ovPoatio^ ro arty mn on the agarl�, a mpV of tlm doaanert, Pi�ue, video, a�n rtMnt be qv+ldr.d h� tlie Boaid Se�ary f�r tlie Qy5 iem� ANY PQtSON DEL�IIiG 70 APPFAI. arN de�on rtade tr/ Uie PB wTh iz�d tparry rrel�r mrrtfdaai at tl�ts mad4y v+i need h� a�aae a�batin �d d ihe pro�rc�'s rtede and the remd Ydides �he he�rnaN and �vtknoe ipm wttidi �he �ypa�l wi be bmi N reedrxJs�laamimiodatlonropartr�hth5�p�o��g shaldmMad the Ger�eral Servi.�s Offioe h pe�n or o18Ei-7G3�9824, � T��aied: � r� �-i-i r�o �e,�, rar �a� vrorm r�m� ONE OR MORE QiY OF OI�EQIOBEE OOlN1(a hff7�iBERS MNY BE IN ATTBiDAN� AT'iF¢S MEFRNG. TlRS ��E TU hgEf SfATE Pl3&3C NOliCE REQtfIItEME7'li5 WUIS. g�; QiaiPe�san Dann Flov�s �iiaa�� _— � �'1 I ! 12 �`'��. �� {� � � ' � � f r, `'tisL'. " ' � "'ir��`'� � ., � !�� `� '�! !, �rw ,, �4 r � ; � -� � � �'p�� "' c' � � i8 � _ �ii.�..�o� � � = .�' = � `: ;. . � .: ��. �=-.,, ;,,,.,�•�� CITY OF OKEECHOBEE PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING 55 SE 3R� AveNUE, OKEECHOBEE, F�oR��a 34974 OFFICIAL AGENDA APR�� 15, 2021 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance II. ATTENDANCE III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Planning Staff Report Topic (Exhibit 1). 1. Potential amendments to the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and Map of the Comprehensive Plan designating a commercial corridor overlay; define the commercial corridor overlay boundaries; and discuss limiting rezoning classifications of the commercial corridor overlay. IV. ADJOURN MEETING 'Per Resolution No. 1997-05 Officials must disclose any communication received including the identity of the person, group, or entity; written communication may be read if not received by all Board Members; disclose any site visits made; disclose any expert opinions received; disclose any investigations made; disclosures must be made prior to the vote taken. Persons who have opinions contrary to those expressed in the ex-parte communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond. BE ADVISED that should you intend to show any document, picture, video or items to the Planning Boartl in support or opposition to any item on the agenda, a copy of the document, picture, video, or item must be provided to the Board Secretary for the City's records. ANY PERSON DECIDING TO APPEAL any decision made by the Planning Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceeding is made and the record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the General Services Office in person or call 863-763-9824, Hearing Impaired: Florida Relay 7-1-1 no later than four business days prior to proceeding. April 15, 2021 Planning Board Workshop Meeting Page 1 of 1 I Qj � -- � � � � �/ .. �. Staff Report To: Okeechobee Planning Board From: Ben Smith, AICP Meeting Date: April 15, 2021 Subject: Commercial Corridor Workshop In May of 2013, the Planning Board recommended to the City Council adoption of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a Commercial Corridor Overlay with restrictions on rezonings that may be approved within that Overlay. That amendment was never adopted by the City Council. Staff has now had an opportunity to review that previously proposed amendment and is now recommending that the City consider revisiting the original proposal as well as some other options for corridor planning. Original Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment See attached for the originally proposed amendment, which designated the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor as well as the boundaries of a Transitional Commercial Overlay Future Land Use Subcategory. Also, see attached Okeechobee Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map which have been revised for the purposes of this workshop to include the originally proposed boundaries of the Commercial Corridor (CC) and the Transitional Commercial Overlay (TCO). The CC boundaries are depicted as a solid line and the TCO areas are shown as shaded on the maps. It appears that the language in the Commercial Corridor portion of the amendment did not include any new regulation and was mainly intended for planning purposes as a guide for development and redevelopment along the City's major corridors. However, the language proposed in the Transitional Commercial Overlay portion of the amendment would have limited rezonings in the designated areas to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD and PUB. Presumably, these zoning districts were selected to provide transitional buffers between the more intensive commercial uses located adjacent to the corridor roadways and the residential neighborhoods, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. If the City would like to proceed with this amendment as it was originally proposed, staff can begin preparing the materials for public hearings. However, there are some additional options that should be considered as well. Proviciing Plannin .��, anci mana�ement solutions For Aoca� govcrnments � 375 ,�ac{c.son Strcet, �juitc 206 Fo� MyefS, FL 3390 � 239-334'-3366 www.�arueP�anning.com Potential negative effects of TCO regulatory restrictions Compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and future land use map amendment requests. Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to limit rezonings within an overlay area to only certain zoning districts (as proposed in the original amendment) creates a more rigid level of protection for those residential areas, lighter commercial areas, and public use areas. It will also reduce the City's ability to accommodate projects which may be compatible with those areas, but would only be allowable in other zoning districts. Specifically, there may be locations within the TCO which could be deemed appropriate for the CHV and PUD-M zoning districts; if not now, then conceivably sometime in the future as development intensifies along the corridors. Hotels are one example of a use that would be effectively prohibited in the TCO, as hotels are only permitted in the CHV and PUD-M districts. It is also possible that operators of existing CHV uses along the corridors may seek to expand their operations into the TCO areas. If the City can conceive of the possibility of allowing rezoning to CHV and PUD-M within the TCO, then staff recommends against adoption of the previously proposed TCO and the associated regulatory components. Potential adoption of only aspirational guidelines and objectives for commercial corridor As previously mentioned, compatibility with adjacent uses is already a required consideration for all rezoning requests and future land use map amendment requests. Another required consideration is consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, if the City were to adopt language similar to the non-regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment it would provide additional policy guidelines that would assist the Planning Board and Council when making determinations on requests for rezoning and amending the future land use map. Though it would still allow for flexibility in that decision making process as needed. Additionally, as the City continues to pursue the initiative of correcting the existing map inconsistencies between the future land use map and the zoning map, an amendment such as this would provide another tool to help guide the City's efforts in identifying appropriate map changes. Potential addition of CHV and PUD-M to allowable districts in TCO and entire CC Instead of entirely discounting the regulatory components of the previously proposed amendment, the City may also consider allowing an expanded list of zoning districts within the entire Commercial Corridor. In this scenario, there would be no TCO, and within the boundaries of a Commercial Corridor Overlay, only rezonings to RMF, CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB, and PUD-M would be permitted. Low intensity residential districts (i.e. RSF-1, RSF-2, RMH, RH, and PUD-R) and the Industrial district would be prohibited. This would ensure that only commercial, higher density residential, public, and mixed uses (highest and best uses) would be possible for development and redevelopment within a Commercial Corridor Overlay. Below is the existing description of the Commercial future land use designation from the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and staff's proposed amendment language which would implement this potential planning option: I_�R�,� 2 �iannir7g Policy 2.1: The following land use designations are established for the purpose of managing future growth: * * * * * * * * * * * * * d) Commercial. Permitted uses include the full range of offices, retail, personal and business services, automotive, wholesale, warehousing, related commercial activities, and accessory uses customary to permissible uses. Other uses related to and consistent with commercial development such as houses of worship, public facilities, public utilities, communications facilities, hospitals, group homes, adult family care homes, assisted living facilities, and limited residential use associated with a commercial building, may be permissible under certain circumstances. 1. Commercial development shall not exceed a floor area ratio of 3.00 and the maximum impervious surface for development within this category shall not exceed 85 percent of the site. 2. Zoning districts considered appropriate within this future land use category include Commercial Professional Office (CPO), Light Commercial (CLT), Heavy Commercial (CHV), and Central Business District (CBD). * * * * * * * * * * * * * �) Commercial Corridor Overlay. The Citv reco�nizes the importance of SR-70 and US-441 as the Citv's primary commercial corridor roadways and desires to follow a considered, limited, and consistent approach to encouraee development and expansion of commercial and mixed-use onportunities in close proximitv to the commercial corridor roadways to eliminate uncertaintv and foster infill and compatibility with existin�; development. To this end, the Citv has identified the Commercial Corridor as being that area eg nerally within one to two blocks of each of these roadways but as more specificallv delineated as the Commercial Corridor Overlav (CCOI on Map 1.2 in the Future Land Use Map Series. 1. The intent of the CCO is to provide additional and varied commercial opportunities in locations in close proximitv to the Citv's major arterials and adjacent residential areas. 2. Within the CCO, the continuation of existing uses will be permitted. 3. Rezonin� of lands within the CCO will be limited onlv to the RMF. CLT, CPO, CBD, CHV, PUB or PUD-M zonin� districts, and onlv within the future land use desi�nations appropriate for those districts. Review and Confirmation of Boundaries Whatever planning direction the City decides to go for the commercial corridors, the boundaries of any overlay or planning area should be carefully considered in the context of the current Future Land Use Map, Zoning Map and existing uses. �aR�� 3 pbanning N W�E ,r S � � e t� 1 � . . � � . . . � � � � ._ � � � e_ w �;w �� ws ��, w ■� �� ■� 0 ■�o �� 0�- � � � — �� 1�� s. �� :� �► ��.�. �1��1��.�� II � = � � , �I. � � �11�� d — � �.� , ��i , � 1� p��l �� - - : � �� ... �� — 1�—�= �� e,� � � 0 ; __ � � ��S ii �S I �S �� I �T'� �� '1��1��11� �, �� m �::�: : m' �� ::� _ � � m � �: � :: m� �; � � � � ��,�� .'�� : � �: :�� .�� —�� : :;.-� ■ s�aw� ■�w � �, � ww■ �e� ' .��.��. �� ..�� .a �. .��.�..� � �t� .��: �� ■ .,. � � �. .�� . .� .. �..� �. �. , 1 � � � �r,� er■ I� � � � � � � � .e■ ■rs ,�o� � „% . �� :.- � � �a ■� � �;� �I �� e �s e� �� ■■ w■ si■ e■ m�s w ,_ � ��'1 �C � � �if� lir' �� p!! � � illli m■ III�'� ��il'iil� �i � ww■n��' a i��.a�� ; . -. si� �� rN .�.. � � _�� I� � � � w�.�. �. � ►� �°°: : i • �� 'r e: � � E �. � oo�lela � m �� oo� � � � 1: � � �: �! �'� i : � � �� e�f �s�o �"� � ��,:'! !j I�� !es��6 �m� � �o.� � �w �I■�Iw � J _ lsl� � .. . � �..�..�.e ;�� m �� a — � � � � E� .� � �1 1�1 � � /� � �� •��sa�� et � �,�.�— �� _u■ � � �:-�e �� : �''=I �: �' IIo I_ � :m �s � � � �� _o �s `� . �� m E� ■� � �� -�- , � i � �v � ��m �� - ��Ea��.. �� . � �.aa. a: �za -. �. � " . p . ps � � °�� s D � � — — I� .. . . . , .� .._�. � 5, � . -- . . . I � � Cainrnnicial CoiiiJW BuwNaiy Trairsilional Cammcrdal Overlay _ _ _ ' I Ga�ai rvo�ec: Nleyssl�uwn�reun et5or2pfealinw�E�n r .. br apeci c �... . n rn�k. �,v.noeia�rn'�cn��Qox�n,�ome�rc�� ......._.. n.�.s,..i c�..;,.��.....�� x�ye . . �an Exhilbit 3, Attachment A, Page A-8 through Page A-9 11. Changes to the Future Land Use Element relating to the Commercial Corridor and Transitional Commercial Overlay Policy 2.1: The following land use designations are established for the puipose of managing future growth: d) Commercial. '✓ 3. In reco�nition oi' the importance of tlle SR 70 and US 441 as the city's primary commercial corridor roadways, the City has identitied the Commerci�il Corridor as bein� that area 7enerally within two blocks of each of these roadways as delineated on Map 1.2 in the Future Land Use Map Series. 4. The City is interested in followin� a considered, limited, and consistent ap�roach to allow expansion of commercial and mixed-use opportttnities gradually outward from established commercial corridor roadways to eliminate uncertainty and foster intill and com�atibility with existin� development. To this end the Citv has delineated the Transitionzl Commercial Overlay Future Land Use Subc�te�ory on Map 1.2 in the Future Land Use Map Series. This category is intended to: �. a. Provide additional and varied commercial opportiinities in locations in close proximity to the Citv's major arterials and adjacent to residential aY•eas. b. Permit the continuation of a wide variety of existin� residential commercial industrial and public and seini- public uses as allowed witliin the RSF1, RMF, CPO, CLT CHV CBD IND and PUB zonin� districts. c. Limit rezoninQ of lands within this Future Land Use cate�y onlv to the RMF CLT, CPO, CBD or PUB �oning districts thereby providin� a transition fi•om more intense develo�ment alon� ihe major ai•tel•ials to lessen intensitv closer to residential areas. .� d. Allow iniYed residential and commercial uses on the same parcel. L- - --- -� , A-8 � � Scn�in� fluricla Lucal Govcn�men[s tiincc 19Sh Map 1.2 (proposed) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND TRANSITIONAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY AREAS City of Okeechobee, Fiorida _.. . : H;;•;n'� 5�, � : '' , � �MYtET.S:' ; xrY�t:mS� 1 � � �� r'��""'��• '��""' � �"�"�'��"�" � , .. � : �. _ . _ _ . . ..; ' �.__-.... :.. � , . � ' MY1'.T�t . MEI�T L � . � � ...'. - ._ � � . :... : :.�.:.. ..... �� .� � � � � 'f1YCt�5� ' '�Et S . Y � � . �� - . . : . , . , � +i . . �p �'hY:�f.Y.S: ' �_NE1 n:e � � � . Z . . .� � . . - .� � . <A JiCT . h O^SL , ', � � � � ��:��5 . ' � .. �� .h}t•ATR. .!::IaNSL ' �. � . - ' � � , ' . MY :S.Ct. : < ' . .. - ■ . . .. � ' 3 . � fG.Y7ms c'1:�5. . . � , , � 2 , , . . . s �C�YfsSt � � ': NEEe . : <;¢ • i . � L . <' � .,.�'�',, � rr:r:, �<. nes,si- � � � e t < : < �: i �? ' � � �.-� z � '�f:tcas,� n �;'n_am�s: ..s.�. •`�l . . � 3 :.3 ]ro� �"`1 �. � � ' � _ , -- - a � a. _ -.. � � •KXPafRS; � . � . �. . . SR )0 .. SYt. ."�27C . � SEP.itSt: . � S baf C -.. 3 � <' . _ . . .� < . , Sl'l29�:. . .. � _ ',� YkCS:� � �YS. �W � cl:�.� W . 5 y � : SE<V�St.- � 'sf:aTsc 3 s •<h'S g - s'Eaasi' � ; � �. . - � . �� g . � ' _ - � ' sesms� �; �.�t � . ....` 6 , SN$�`:. . < m ' �. � < ! � � , E _ . . . -3 : . : _ = S�ChS�' e' ; � � ' �' a � �S:lxS1'.' � ".£6T � � . . � � . _ ° `g� SE]Wh � ` � � , r.�sz �i. l l �� : ' . . � � �. -.: � E4msc.: , . `y �•ta+s: . - � .'si .. �ms� �i��. � � � � �rr�:a .. : . � . � sEw.s�: '; . � ,.: . . SY?]:5. ' .. . . �9TCt'. . ■ � �SY1?AA SY�1 ST.- - gipLA � ' ■ � .. . � . S�a' :.. . . . SE 7IO+St' ' � � Svtfn__ . � . � � - . . . � � . � � SJ 12 S_ � � SE 71u45t: . . � � '. . -i7ns. �f3oiA � . � � � . . � strtta5e .. .. SE�enSt� : �,J � � .:': � �. � � . . iir5:. . � :• . � EIiTCt '■ / . . "i' 'SeV1i�C1 . . . ... .. SEtWCt �, :. �.. :' �� .: ..;; yz5r.s_ �� .SEiCms��. ��, � � , � ' S�Y 1'.^S . � �' . � � SY: i7:�51. � � . ...'I / � StF1Ci5l y �'�n �� .' � , � . �1'l15�:5: �. '� � � . � �' > , � ' �_. '... . . .. . .�� /.' � ' �� :I ' . ' , � .. . : S.Y2 St . • � , ■ / ... ♦ � � . � s z'n! St ♦ - �.N ♦ i. ■'�"�'i.` ' `��r .. � Commercial Corridor Boundary Transitional Commercial Overlay Water 0.4 0.2 0 0.4 Miles Prepared by_ LaRue Planning & Management Services. Inc. March 93. 2012 � -... _. .. _ �� A-9 ticr�'in;; l�luriila Lucal (�<n�crnmcnts tiince l9Sti N W�E City of Okeechobee Zoning Map } � �x>�� ` S _�_�--y- , - ...... . ?�i � ., , , ; �.. , , , __� ...;. : ., �, � -- -- � , � _ ., ..; ; 3 _. I.. .... . .. _ .. �::: .. . :. : . ...: .:.... :�: : ° � . .. :: .. . :.. :.. ..... _ _. r _ _ . ....:�... ... .'.. ' .. . ...�.. ' , . . . ... .. . . . . _. .. ,. .. � � . . � . , . . S ., .. : .. ... .. . . � . ... . . ... . . . ... . .. ..... . . . .: . �: . ... .� ' :.� - : � . ... ... .. ... . ..... . . ... . .. . . .. , . . ., . � .......... .......... ... __ .. . � . : ' , . .. . . „� ,.,... � � t � _ ,,,.. .. .. .. ._ . .. � . ........ ... . . . .. �--.. ... a , . . .... .. . . ... . .. , , . .. ; .. .... ,.. �.._... ,.,.._ § .. .�.,. � _. .._ ... .. - . . . _ . . �. . .. . . ... ... _. � , � .. .,. ... ..: .. ... ..: .., u. .-_ . ..: : ..:' .., __ . . ..... .. . ..... .._. ..:. . . . .; . _ .. . . ... : . . _ ... .... .. . . _ .. I _ . _ .. ...._ . - . . ... -. • :. _ � � ��... . : . ,; ..,. -�,.. . .. � , . . ... . .. .. .., . . . . . .... ., fr :., .". .-.'... . . . .... . ; -� , �� . - . �;' F� ...� � . � � _ �. . . . . . . . �. . ' t k . '.. . . . ..... � _ .. . .. .: .. . ��.�■ �� .. , :: .. _ . .. .. ... .. .:....... .. ,.., ,.. . : . .:.. . . _ � � ........, , �:,�. ......, _ ... .. ... : .. .w .. �� - � .... . ... .�..... �.�' '.�S � � � � � � �r.": . ... ...�� . . .. . � �Sk, . ` + - . . � �. ..........� .......... : : . : .. :. .....: ... . .�._.. ' "' ; �. . u�-.:.: _ ' .,. ..'.. ' ( ..... ....... : - ... . . . .. . , . : .. � ,. .. _ . . ' .. .. : �v . .:. ,_. . . . . � � .. „ : ' � :., . . .. �..... ' : . ..._...... .. . ..._. � . . . . ... : . . . 5. . , ;.,, .,.... , . .,. , .._:'....s....._._i: �. �._. ..._. �. .t'.., � ..� ... . _ .. : �, x : . . � � e . . � <.. . 5 ...� . � .. I . : ...... � Qc ..�.,.� �� . , �� . ZONlNG - . .. . ,.. ..,. i .....,._...- j� ., ��., .... .ioi ai a�ix ' � i _.. _ . a 1 _ � � � .� P 1 � ti � .. .... , ' � ' ,� � � , ...... ... ( . . . ' . . ..._., ,.�,.,i i . . , � . .. �:. ' . .Y. .� . .�. . „ .. ..... ... . . " ..�.�,; . . ��. � .... .... ....... _ � r � � 1 . . .. . .. .""'" " ..�.. . �- il�_ . � ' - ... .... � j � .�,,. ...� . . . . . .,. ..I . �,X � : i� . .. . ... .. : . .� � .... . . . - i . - .. ,..�,. . . " x ' �4.._...... : .% " ...... ' �� :l -. _�F . . � ' ' " ' " . .. - . .--}¢ �'f ' ' .. _ .._�.-3 �— � �� i �; �{ � , �..�7 � •�`�� . _ . ��. � � ., . __ . ...... _ �'. ... �-,, . . . „�,; \ _.-'. Gene�al �IOMs'. 0 01:5 G]5 OS 0]5 Kq�,�'u�rionaclScrMllc��n 'M�� a aaben,T��Gt/dOk �' r va�lar �nY �� oi om�svws ceonn�neE �xe�� AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. ConsiderComprehensive Plan TextAmendments to the Future Land Use Element to (1) Accommodate adding Map 1.2 °Commercial Corridor and Transiiional Commercial OverlayAreas"; (2) Provide the purpose of Map 1.2 is to recognize the importance of Parrott Avenue, North Park Street, and the area generally within two blocks of each of these roadways; and (3) List provisions of ihe Transitional Commercial Overlay which explains the City's consistent approach to allow expansion of Commercial and Mixed-Use opportunities to eliminate uncertainty, foster infill, and compatibility with existing development - Senior Pfanner (Exhibit 3, Attachment A, Page A-8 through Page A•9). Hear from Planning Staff. Public comments or queslions from those in attendance, or submitted to the Board Secretary. MAY 16, 2013 - PLANNING BOARD • PAGE 7 OF 9 ACTION - DtSCUSSION - VOTE Consider Comprehensive Plan TextAmendments to the Future Land Use Element to (1) Accommodafe adding Map 1.2 °Commercial Corridor and Transitional Commercial Overlay Areas;° (2) Provide the purpose of Map 1.2 is to recognize the impoRance of ParrottAvenue, North Park Street, and the area generally within two blocks of each of these roadways; and (3} List provisions of the Transitional Commercial Overlay which explains the City's consistent approach to allow expansion of Commercial and Mixed-Use opportunities to eliminate uncertainty, foster infill, and compatibilitywith existing development. Planner Brisson explained the Commercial Corridor has been identified as that area generally within two blocks of North Park Street (SR70) and Parrott Avenue (US Hwy 441). The Transitional Commercial Overlay area is identified as the second block out from the major arterial roadway. These are less intensive uses as this area is adjacent to residential areas and less intrusive. Any Zoning designation or use that exists now will continue and is only affected should a property owner wish to rezone. This would give owners better knowledge of what fhey wiil be able to do. Future Rezoning's wouid be limited to Residential Muitiple Family, Light Commercial, Commercial Professional Of6ce, Central Business District, or Public Use districts. Chairperson Pro-Tem Brass asked wheiher lhere were any comments or questions from ihose in attendance, Mr Jason Tomlison, 212 Southwest 3id Avenue addressed the Board with concems fhat should ihis area ihat is being identified as the Transitional Commercial Overlay be established, he would not be able to petition for his property to be rezoned. to Heavy Commercial (CHV). He purchased Lots 1 through 3, Block 175, City of Okeechobee, with the iniention of rezoning to CHV sometime in the future. Currently the propert}r is zoned Residential Mulliple Family, with CHV zoning surrounding it. Mr. Thomas Hoover, 2473 Southwest 24"' Avenue and business ownerof Kahootz Draft House inc., was also concemed with noi being able to request CHV zoning. He had always ihought that his property, Lots 4 through 6, Block 161, City of Okeechobee; was zoned CHV, though it is really Central Business District, and believes he should have the option to petition a rezoning. Additionally, the establishment of the Overlay would limit how owners market their property. Ms. Glenda Fulwider, 908 Southwest 2"d Avenue, added an individual should have the opportunity io ask for a cer�ain zoning even though that might not be granted. They would at least be able to voice their opinion where as they would not all have thai opportunity should this overlay be identified. AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. D. 3. Disclosure of Ex-Parte communications by the Board 4, a) Consideration of a motion to recommend the City Council approve or deny Text Amendment. b) Board discussion, c) Vote on motion CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING - CHAIRPERSON. VI. NEW BUSINESS. A. Discuss proposed amendments to the Land Development I Regulations - Chai�person. MAY 16, 2013 • PLANNING BOARD • PAGE 8 OF J`� � ACTION • DISCUSSION • VOTE Chairperson Pro-Tem Brass asked whether Board Members had ex-parte communications to disclose for the recorci. She then disclosed that her residence is located within this proposed Transiiional Commercial Overlay area and will be abstaining from voting. Board Member Creasman asked Attomey Cook whether he needed to disclose anything as he rents from a properiy owner in this overtay area. Attomey Cook responded no. Board Member Baughman made a motion to recommend ihe City Council amend ihe Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to (1) Accommodate adding Map 1.2 identifying the Commercial Corridoronly, (2) Provide additional and varied commercial opportunities in locations in close proximity to the City's major arterials and adjacent to residential areas; and (3) Allow mixed residential and commercial uses on the same parcel; seconded by Board Member Ritter. � Chairperson Pro-Tem Brass asked whether there was any further discussion. There was none. VOTE HOOVER-ABSENT BURROUGHS•ABSENT BAUGHMAN-YEA BRASS•ABSTAIN KELLER•YEA MCCOY • ABSENT RITTER - YEA CREASMAN - YEA MCCREARY • YEA MOTION CpRRIED. The recommendation will be fonvarded to the City Council for consideration at a final Public Nearing on a date fo be determined, � CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM BRASS CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:42 P.M. 1 Proposed LDR amendments were added for consideration below: