Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 02-12-1991 Regular — reading text

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. deVaux aoved to take Ordinance 1132 off the table. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wyatt and carried unaniaous1y. with Smith. Rosenbaua. deVaux. Wyatt. Kaney. Nicholson. and Vyninegar in favor. The City Attorney read the Ordinance by title only. Mr. Saith aoved the adoption of Ordinance 1132 on first reading. Motion vas seconded by Mrs. Wyninegar. Mr. Rosenbaum asked if this is the Ordinance which the Planning Board recommended not be approved. and was told that was correct. Mr. deVaux asked if the rezoning is consistent with the present Comprehensive Plan and was assured that was correct. Milton Loggins, 626 Ironwood Drive, one of the requestors for the rezoning, passed out a map to Council which shows the subject properties, Lots 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, I his 1986, 6, zoning. requested ownership of lots 4, 5, & to be rezoned. 6 which was purchased in approximately the same time Council was involved in rezoning the property from C- 2 to the present C- 1 He claimed to have been misled through He informed Council of appraisals that his property was zoned C- 2 all along. The property has been used as a used car lot for at least six or seven years while he has owned the property, and acted in good faith when he purchased the property as C- 2 property. 274 2- 12- 91 ORD. 1132 ( CONT.) Mr. Loggins expressed that he and his wife were not given an opportunity to voice objection to the rezoning, and had no knowledge of the rezoning until this past December. He explained the reason for the request is to bring a long term land use into zoning compliance; the land has been used, and since it is grandfathered in it would continue to be used as a used car lot under C- 2 zoning. This would placed remove a cloud over thei r heads because of the C- 1designation which automatically adversely affects the financing and other aspects of property ownership. Being on reserve status, he could be recalled to active duty, and six months of active duty or six months of sickness could put him out of business since he is a one- man operation. He had been told if there was a fire. he would not be able to rebuild and that would put him out of business. If this were approved, since it is his full intention to continue to operate a used car lot on the property. there would not be surrounding any change to the community, the property south is and right zoned C- 2 beside it is property zoned R- 2. In reading the staff reports, he sees that staff has no problem with the request; there is no technical problem with the rezoning, and he has not been able to find reasons for the rezoning recommendation to deny. He indicated he was told by the Planning and Zoning Director that he did not really understand the rationality of the original rezoning from C- 2 to C- 1 because it did not fall in the pattern established. Mr. Loggins also explained this request does not create any new commercial zoning, but simply makes a slight change of the commercial zoning code from C- 1 to C- 2 that exists now. He looks for a fair and just hearing on the matter. He explained his belief that lots 10 and 11 are still zoned C- 2 because Mr. Brown was in meeting and attendance at the 1986 objected to the property being rezoned. He expressed his and his wife' s thanks to the Council and hopes they can help in this matter. Dee Fife. 129 Alabama Avenue. which backs up to the subject property. expressed his opposition to the change based on the fact Mr. Loggins indicated at the Planning Board meeting plans to intensify his operation. He urged Council to oppose this change, not desiring any more increased commercial operation abutting his R- 1A property. He asked Council to investigate the buffer zone associated with R- 1A and C- 2; he feels it is 30 feet and he was told the records show 20 feet, and requested the distance be verified between his back fence the and building operation in present at the time. expressed his discontent to listening to air He compressors and car engines starting, and noticed a cloud of smoke coming from Mr. Loggins' operation to extend over his property last Sunday. He again urged Council to oppose the change.  275 2- 12- 91 with Mr. Fife the lots which he ORD. 1132 ( CONT.) Mr. Wyatt confirmed on is located as lots 23 and 24. Mr. Rosenbaum expressed his belief that if approved, the result would mean 6 lots north of Williams Street to be C- 2, while three or four lots will be C- 1, and two lots will be C- 2, then 3 or 4 more lots that will be C- 1, etc. in mind the I Mr. Fife asked Council to please keep buffering between R- 1A and commercial. Mr. deVaux asked if the property owners of lots 1, 2. and 3 submitted requests to rezone their properties, and was givenan affirmative reply from the City Manager. Mr. Rosenbaum expressed his belief of an inconsistency; it seemed a solution would be to change lots 10 and 11 to C- 1. Mr.