Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Member Cannonball? Board member Ross? Here. Board member Davis? Here. Board member Bailey? Here. Board member Abula? Here. Vice chairman Fletcher? Here. Chairman Lozman? Here. Ex officio Lawrence Ventura?

Very good. Alright. Mister Cook, do we have any additions, deletions, or deferrals from this agenda tonight? Thank you, mister mayor. No. Thank you. Alright. We have as our first order of business the approval of the 03/19/2025 local planning agency minutes. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes? Moved by board member Roth, seconded by board member Davis. Are there any further questions or comments? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Alright. Mister White?

Yes, mayor of council. So there are no quasi judicial items on your agenda. You have four legislative matters. Tab two, card number, 4542, and tab three, card number 4,584, are related companion items. So I will introduce both, and then we can talk about those, if that's the goal.

Sure. So, card number 4,542, it's an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida, amending the city code of ordinances by amending chapter 30 zoning, article three district regulations, division 22, RT and D, residential traditional neighborhood development district, Division 23, planned urban neighborhood district, Section 30 Dash 396.42 A, Southwest Planned Urban Neighborhood, Division 24, business mixed Use District, division 25, neighborhood Mixed Use District, Division 26, Technology Mixed Use District by modifying the fencing standards and requirements to prohibit wood and chain link fencing and further amending article four supplemental district regulations division five fence restrictions by modifying the fencing regulations for residential and mixed use zone areas within the city, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date. Tab three, card number 4584, is an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida amending the Southwest Neighborhood Master Plan by amending general standards clarifying that the City Of Homestead zoning code shall take precedence over the master plan in the event of a conflict and further amending the development standards applicable to residential and mixed use building types to prohibit wood and chain link fences, prohibit providing for conflicts, providing for severability, inclusion in the code, and inclusion in the Southwest Neighborhood Master Plan, and providing for an effective date.

Very good. Thank you, sir. We have a staff report.

Yeah. Thank you. So, so mayor, what what these proposed ordinances do is go through and amend the fencing regulations to no longer allow for wood or chain link fences, new wood or chain link fences in residentially zoned or mixed use areas within the city. And so the ordinance throughout basically accomplishes that and provides for, you'll see strike through and underlying where wood fences are prohibited and chain link fences are prohibited. And then instead of chain link and wood fences, it also stipulates and provides that composite or PVC or other types of alternative materials would be permitted for those types of fences.

Right. And typically, you know, we don't have encompassing discussion about these items at the LPA, but since they're legislative, let's go ahead and tie up these loose ends so that we can move through to the council meeting. First, a point of clarification is that this only means no new permits will be issued. Existing fences are not impacted by this. Obviously, you know, we have a hurricane or repairs are needed that would trigger the issuance of a new permit, they would have to be replaced with a different product. Correct, miss Roy?

Right. So an existing wood fence or chain

link fence, if you all approve this, right, those would be deemed

nonconforming structures. And then pursuant to your nonconforming regulations, and I'm paraphrasing, but basically you would be allowed to come in and repair a fence up to what we call the 50% rule. If you voluntarily knock it down or take it down or it's destroyed and it exceeds 50% of the cost associated with that, then you have to comply with the new rule, which would be no wood fence, no chain link fence.

Thank you. So as this has moved through the process, there are a couple of issues that have come up that I would like to address. And I ask for this item, and I view this in terms mostly of aesthetics. I mean, certainly, I see it predominantly on the the West side of of our community. And no no offense intended to the code enforcement side.

We don't have enough time or people to deal with the number of fences that that are in dis disrepair. That is not necessarily the case in certain, for lack of a better expression, gated communities, where clearly homeowners associations have more enforcement authority, police authority, than we do for these matters. And I have confirmed, and I'll ask James to read the language as a potential modification to this, that within those areas, this would not apply as to wood fencing. I seriously doubt chain link is permitted in our newer communities, but certainly, aesthetics and visibility and lack of repair and maintenance are not an issue within the newer areas of our community. Secondly, and many of you may have noticed that a lot of folks use the you know, plant nursery type mesh to provide screening and hanging on chain link, and it it rips, it it sags, it it blows away.

So in addition to, you know, for second reading, a clear and moving it forward to the council tonight that we clarify that the only screening to be permitted on existing chain link. There will be no new existing chain link. But the only screening permitted would be the woven composite type slats that you see. And it's funny, I noticed on my way here tonight that one of our lift stations in a residential neighborhood that has a chain link fence around the pumps creates that shielding and a better aesthetic with the woven slats. And further that I mean, you know, those those other types of screening are relatively inexpensive.

They're subject to just not holding up. And we would not begin to enforce that, I would propose, until the end of this year so that folks have a grandfathering through the end of this year. There probably aren't that many, but they are very visible when when you see that. So James, if if you could talk about some of the language that that I would ask that we we insert as this goes forward for those two items.

Certainly, mayor. We could we could add language for second reading or to move this on to for consideration by the council. With respect to the prohibition on wooden chain link fences, we could add language along the lines of notwithstanding the prohibition on wooden chain link fences within residential and mixed use zone areas of the city where such property is located within a development which is covered by an active HOA or condo association formed in accordance with state law, you would allow you would continue to allow wood fences.

Right. And to clarify, Chainlink is not going to be in that exception. Only wood fences.

Correct. And then to the second part of what you referenced, for existing chain link fences that would no longer be allowed, those that currently have mesh or similar type screening, that would be prohibited. And they would be allowed to have that through 12/31/2025. And the only if you have a mesh or similar type screening, it would have to be removed by 12/31/2025. And any replacement of that could only be permitted with a composite type of woven slatter inserts.

Yes. Councilwoman Auvela, board member Auvela for this meeting.

Thank you. Chair?

Yes.

Okay. I really appreciate the modifications. It does address some of the concerns that were coming up in discussion. One clarification with regards to, for example, CDD entities. They have used a chain link fence type for perimeter control, but they have camouflaged that with hedging, heavy hedging. And so you don't necessarily see the chain link fence. So would this immediately require upon the deadline of the December 2025 for that to be changed? Or okay. Thank you for

that comment. As as long as it's there and in good shape. Yep. I have a chain link fence. I'd like to make it go away someday.

Right.

But, no. What's there now can remain for its lifetime.

Thank you. And in in the spirit of the of the changes in general, I support the item. I think it allows for a phased approach for an improved aesthetic throughout the city. And in the event of a catastrophic hurricane where fences go down everywhere, insurances will kick in. So typically there's an ordinance and law clause on insurance policies where this type of change in fence would be covered.

So there should be maybe some informational campaigns to go out where, you know, check your insurance policies, make sure your ordinance and law coverages are are existing to allow for that extra insurance to kick in in the event of a of an event like a hurricane. But cross our fingers, thirty years later, haven't had such event. And I hope we don't have

Don't one jinx us. But, you know, I think the value of community, the aesthetics is very important.

And I do have and sorry, one more thing I want to say. For those cases where a permit has to come in and there is a challenge with a person's ability to afford a composite fencing? Do we have grants? Do we have the ability to help get them some preferred pricing with the city of Homestead? Or just something to give them an opportunity to be in compliance and but be able to afford to do so at the same time? Like, is there anything we can do to help in that aspect?

Yeah, good evening. Mayor and Council, the City Manager. Currently, there is no earmarks grant application process for private property fencing. Typically, the CRA used to have some kind of grants opportunity for folks. And we'll also explore the opportunities elsewhere and see what we can do in terms of that.

Thank you. I do look forward to seeing that. I think it's a good opportunity where we can partner with our residents to make our city more beautiful.

Thank you.

Thank you. Did I, the board member accountable? Were you just agreeing or did you have a comment? I don't know. Don't Okay. Vice chair Fletcher.

Yes. Thank you, mister mayor. Just just for clarification, this does not include construction fencing on temporary sites. And then I would like to see if we could look at I know there are some retention ponds throughout the city that have a small chain link fence around them. And if they fall down during a hurricane, replacing that with a wood fence and you're not able to see the water from a public safety standpoint. So can we carve something out for specifically retention ponds that may have a fence around it? There's there's one or two that I'm aware of. I know there's a

couple in some homeowners associations. But is is this gonna be is there gonna be a second reading on this after tonight? You know, why don't we identify those? Yeah. Just identify those. And and address that between now and and second reading. Yeah. Certainly, we don't want to block the view of the walk. Yes. Yes. Councilwoman Bateman. Board member Bateman.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. I had a similar concern, and that was in alleyways. So for example, behind

This is residential and make and

mixed use. Absolutely no okay. So Washington Avenue behind any of the businesses would not

Oh, I I think as it's written, it's residential and mixed use. It doesn't apply to commercial or industrial.

So an alleyway, for example, behind Chrome Avenue, if that lot is zoned mixed use, I'm curious if that would affect any of the businesses. Just to keep in mind also for safety reasons, I that's what was what I was thinking. If those alleyways have chain link fences right now, businesses or residential, depending on what's abutting what, might not want

They don't have to remove them until they're destroyed or

yeah. Okay. But then comes that that mesh piece. I don't know. If you if you have a look there, and it does it does affect Washington Avenue, I know that there are a lot of old chain link fences, including mine, that have trees growing through them, and that mesh is already intertwined. And I don't know how that would how that would work. So just something that I'm sure my neighbors would also be asking me about and that I'm personally curious And

that could get into a permitting judgment call as replacing the chain link. And putting down trees.

Just something to keep in mind, please. Thank you.

Thank you. We're good? Just And one

then inside those new developments that are coming up, a lot of times they put the chain link fences around their pools as well. And I don't know if you want to put wood up on those because you do like with the ponds, you want to have some visuals on those specific pools. Now you could require them to go with a, not the slats, but the,

what do call it? Picker types. That

it's not chain link, but some of them have that. So just as long as they understand, especially when they come to us, we can explain it to them. You can't put chain link, but you have to put a different type of fencing up around to protect those areas. And I think you brought up a good point too. A lot of them use the chain link perimeter fencing. In fact, I think the new one on Mowry and the Doctor Horton project is a chain link fence that they've put up there as well along with their, their little pillars or whatever. So it's and it's decorative and it's protected by

Well, and they have the option to do, you know, aluminum that looks like wrought iron rather than chain link, which would

create the open

effect around pools and and the perimeter fencing.

Yeah. As long as, you know, children are protected. That's all I

can say. Absolutely so. Alright. Cool. Alright. Alright. Thank you. Alright. So would someone like to move this subject to the amendments we or the the comments we we heard tonight? Moved. Moved by, councilor Wlavuwa, seconded by, board member Davis. I think we need a roll call on this is on tab two.

Board member Ross? Yes. Board member Davis? Yes. Board member Abula? Board member Cannonball? Yes. Board member Bailey? Vice chairman Fletcher? Yes. Chairman Lozman?

Yes. The motion carries.

And tab three, same issues, subject to the Southwest neighborhood. So I think we've had the discussion. Anyone like to move it subject to the discussions? Moved by board member Canibel. Second by board member Bailey. Let's have a roll call.

Board member Cannavale, board member Ross, board member Davis, member Bailey, board member Avila, vice chairman Fletcher, Chairman Lozner?

Yes. Motion carries.

Good. Thank you all. I'm taking a big step forward. We're chipping away at some aesthetic issues. Alright. Moving on to tab five, card number 4545. O, 4. Yeah. 4. Let's do, the day care issue.

Yes.

I'm jumping ahead of myself already. Mister White.

Yes. Card number 4563 tab four. This is an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida, amending the city code of ordinances by amending chapter 30 zoning, article three district regulations, division 10 b one a professional business restricted district section 30 dash two forty one uses permitted, removing daycare as a special exception use. Division 11 b one restricted retail commercial district section 30 dash two fifty six uses permitted division 23 planned urban neighborhood district, section 30 dash three ninety six point forty two a, Southwest planned urban neighborhood designation of PUNs, section 30 dash three ninety six point sixty two sub areas, removing day care centers as a permitted use within the neighborhood mixed use sub area and modifying the permitted modifying the prohibited uses to include day care centers within the commercial sub area. Division 24, business mixed use district, section 30 dash three ninety six point five zero one, uses permitted, and division 25, neighborhood mixed use, section 30 dash three ninety six point five thirty two, uses permitted, removing day care centers as a permitted use, and article four, supplemental district regulations, division eight, special exceptions, section 30 dash five thirty one established relating to day cares, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for conflicts, and providing for an effective date.

So this proposed ordinance would prohibit new day care centers, facilities in the commercial mixed use zoning districts that we currently have. And so throughout the ordinance, you'll see in strike through underline that it either removes day care facilities as a special exception within those districts. It still leaves in place family day care centers and residential, which are provided for pursuant to state law. And also in the industrial zoning districts, we allow for day cares pursuant to a special exception. However, they're specific for that particular use, for the children related to that industrial category or that industrial use.

And so that's what this ordinance does.

And making the analogy to the fences, if one exists now and as long as it remains, they have the right to remain in place. So with that, council board member?

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. So this is specifically in mixed use zoning only? Changes?

In b one.

Commercial. Okay. B one a,

b two. I wanted to understand.

It's already not permitted in b one a except special except by council approval.

And so where would they where would they be able to open up if not in those locations?

Real quick. I wanted to recuse myself from this one. Should I do it now or should that only be for the council meeting?

Do it now.

Alright. Thank you.

So to answer your question, basically they would no longer be permitted within any of the commercial zoning districts or the mixed use zoning districts that we have.

Thank you.

That's for industrial zone areas. We're not prohibiting it, but right now, we still have council approval for industrial area. And and again, if you have one in the areas that are pro proposed to be prohibited, you can continue to maintain that.

And mayor, there's a second reading on this one too. Right?

Correct.

Okay. I'm good for

now. Just

one question. I know the we say that it will exist after this goes, but if a business is sold, somebody sells their business to somebody else and they come for a new business license, do they allow are they still allowed to carry on?

As long as that use hasn't been abandoned and hasn't been dark for longer than ninety days, then it could person a could sell it to person b, and they could still exist as a day care facility.

Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

Yeah. Well, we we won't readily see the impact of this, but this is for the future. Yeah. Any further questions on this side?

Just curious. Do we do we know how many exist within those areas that we're modifying tonight?

Let's get that for a second. Just curious. Just to know.

Yeah. Just curious.

Just to know. Alright. So, did we have a motion or move and seconded by Cannonball? If there are no further comments, we need to have a roll call vote.

Board member Davis? Yes. Board member Roth? Yes. Board member Cannonball? Yes. Board member Avila? Vice Chairman Fletcher? Yes. Chairman Laszmann?

Yes. The motion carries.

Now, tab five.

Somebody want to tell Councilman Bailey?

Oh, yeah. Here. There's still a reliever out there.

So tab five is card number 4545 is an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida amending the city code of ordinances by amending chapter 23 signs and advertising, article three signs to address current case law requirements and to establish specific standards and regulations related to signs, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. So essentially, what this ordinance does is it, primarily deals with modifications and changes to temporary signs that are required, that we are required, and that's pursuant to supreme court case law that basically stipulated that municipalities can no longer treat temporary signage based on the content or the message, and that it needs to be content neutral, and that we can no longer regulate temporary signage based on that content. So political signs, ideological signs, any type of temporary sign has to all be treated the same. So we still have the ability to say in residential, you could have this. In nonresidential, you could have this.

But in those categories, you have to treat those signs similarly and on the same basis. You can't have different sizes. You can't have different duration times. So this treats everything the same consistent with Supreme Court case law.

But just to clarify, between commercial property and residential property, you can have different size. You just can't say political signs have these limitations and other signage has this limitation. So we're not giving up the yard type signs for residential. If if you're done, mister White I'm done.

I'll answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. This will have second reading as well? Okay, So in between now and second reading, would like to take the opportunity to try to get some clarification on the sign code as it pertains to business owners and some maybe not considered temporary signage, but signs that businesses might use alongside their storefronts that is kind of in a gray area. I might work with the

And that's a whole other can of worms and you know

So maybe it'll come separately.

Banner signs and flag This is really more as to truly temporary, like seafood festival, campaign signs, prayer breakfast

signage.

Truly temporary event type or campaign type signage. That that's a whole other

Alright. So then anything relating to existing businesses is not being touched under these current modifications?

Maybe I'm saying we're not, but Right. Not in this.

Got it. Perfect. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you. As far as temporary is concerned, is that is there language in there depending on if it is an event that that temporary signage can only come out a month or so before?

Yeah. So the language If only. The language currently in the ordinance, right, provides that you have X amount of signage that can be displayed no more than ninety days in the calendar year. However, no more than ninety days before an event can you display that sign or that message, and within fourteen days following the event, it has to be removed.

That would be my next question.

That's ninety days prior to an event and fourteen days after is more than ninety days in the calendar year, So, the individual displaying the message can decide, give or take.

If they're doing eighty nine days before the event, they've got a day to take it down. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

And and I guess, real quick, to clarify, alright, board member Alvo's question, like, new businesses under the timber, they have the right to hang a banner until their regular sign is in or a going out of business sale or clearance sale, you know, versus your point with flag type banners and other. Councilman?

Thank you. So this is the final discussion for tonight on this. We're not gonna do it in council office.

Well, we'll blow through it.

Yeah. Okay. So just So the problem I have with this, and I know it's really out of our control at this point is we have no control over signage in the city when it comes to temporary signs. Very little. They're taking away any of the bond processes where we would collect bond money to ensure that the signs were picked up on a timely manner after campaigns are over.

And this would also apply if we decided to impose a bond of some sort, it would affect real estate agents as well, because that's a temporary sign and that sign would be assessed a bond of some sort also. And I don't think I covered this in our one on ones, but do we have the ability to tier the bonds or you have to do it for everybody? One bond covers One amount.

Yeah. So one one amount. Right? You you won't you won't be able to say $50 for this type of sign, $50 for this type of sign. I mean, because that's getting to the message, the content. Right? We have to be content neutral. So temporary sign, whether it's a real estate sign, whether it's political sign, ideological sign, either you are gonna require a bond to be posted for everything or not. We can't we don't have the ability to tier or treat differently. So it's either in or out. You have the ability to choose which way So you want to

just in my thought process, if we imposed a bond of some sort, who's going to regulate that? I I don't think code would be able to go through every community and look at It's got a real sight sign in every yard and you can't selectively enforce that as well. And think in my one on one, we talked about others that campaign outside of our city. They come into our city and pollute our city with those signs as well. You know, we have an obligation and hopefully when we run for elected office in the city of Homestead, we care enough that we go pick up our signs afterwards.

And we don't violate any of the sign ordinances, but I just feel that we're getting, our hands are tied and we have no enforceability to keeping our city aesthetically clean. And it just puts a bigger burden on our code enforcement officers to pick these signs up if someone doesn't clean up after themselves. So I just wanted to say that and let people understand that we're losing control then instead of gaining some control over what we used to have. Thank you, mayor. Thank you.

And I agree, know, This hatched from my thought that we needed some clarity in campaign signage as to when it could go up, primary versus general. Some folks may not have a primary, and I I had hoped to say, okay. This is the first day any campaign you know, gear it to qualify. Let's say, you know, my thought was the Saturday before qualifying starts is the first day any campaign sign can go up. But I think what we've all been schooled in is that our sign ordinance in general and our temporary sign ordinance is is subject to to attack anyway.

So what's before us has grown into far more what I had hoped to address and and establishes a a constitutional and judicially acceptable mechanism for temporary signs. Well, it would have to be a bond for every kind of temporary sign. So, you know, just the the issue is is that campaign signage candidates can no longer be required to post a signed bond. And I I don't I'm not aware that any other temporary signs ever had to post a bond. I don't don't know that they did.

So that piece is and and again, councilman, you're you're right. We have been preempted in large measure by those at a much higher higher pay grade.

Just to piggyback on the other organizations. I know that when I used to do the RIBFest, I used to put a bond in the city so that I could place signs all over the city. I'm not sure if Rotary does that, but if you put up a temporary sign, you have to do a bond at that time. So this is just eliminating that process that you can't, we have no

enforceability. And we cannot prohibit, Correct? We cannot across the board prohibit temporary signage? No.

And we can't even remove the temporary signage. If it's on our

right away.

If it's on our right away, we can. But, you know, when I I I envision Flagler and Miami Dade College's chain link fence with candidate signs from outside of the city that sat there for months. We couldn't take them off because it's private property.

But we can cite Miami You can

cite Miami Dade, absolutely. And

we've adjusted our compliance table recently so that the property owner for the property upon which an improper sign is located has to act more quickly.

So it'll be on our system, and it'll speak volumes for those who decide not to follow the

rules. Mhmm.

Alright. Do we have a motion to move this forward? Yes, councilman.

I have one more thing. So when you say honor system, it's interesting to ask about that. Yeah. So if and well, I'll use campaigns because that's mainly what we focus on is the campaign signage. If someone places signs and their signs are picked up by code, they have a right to enforce a fine on them. My thing was most campaigns are exhausted by the time the campaign's over with. And now you're gonna send them a bill saying, you owe us money for a sign that you picked up illegally. There's just there's no there's there's no way to recoup what we've expensed in as far as time and effort to clean the city up.

Well, it's gonna put the burden on property owners. Alright. So do we have a move by council by board member Avila, second by board member Davis. Let's have a roll call.

Board member Abner? Yes. Board member Cannibal? Yes. Board member Davis? Yes. Board member Ross? Yes. Board member Bailey? Yes. Vice chairman Fletcher?

Yes.

Chairman Lawson?

Again, reluctantly but dejectedly, yes.

The motion carries. That

completes your items for consideration this evening on the AOPA.

Alright. Are there any public comments with respect to the LPA agenda? Any public comments? We'll close the public comments. Any further from the development services department or the attorneys? Mister chair, no. Okay. Any further comments or reports from members of the board? With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. So it is now, according to smartphone time, 06:09. Let's, open the council meeting at 06:15.

Okay.

This

is my first one.