Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome. I'd like to call the City of Homestead Local Planning Agency meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, May 28, and it is now 06:16PM. Roll call, please, madam clerk.

Here. Board member Davis? Here. Board member Bailey? Here. Board member Avila? Here. Board member Cannibal? Here. Vice chairman Fletcher?

Here.

Chairman Lasner?

Here.

Exofficial Lawrence Ventura?

He was early. I am. He is. Are you afraid we're gonna start throwing something? Okay. Are there any additions, deletions, or deferrals, mister director?

No, sir.

Thank you. Alright. We have before us the minutes from April 16. Do we have a motion to approve? Moved by board member Bailey, seconded by board member Cannibal. Any questions or comments? None appearing. All in favor? Any opposed? The next item is mister White.

Yes, mayor. The, the first and only item on the, agenda this evening is legislative item, car number forty five sixty nine. This is an ordinance of the city of Homestead, Florida providing for six month extension to the twelve month temporary moratorium enacted by ordinance number twenty twenty four zero six eighteen on issuance of development orders and permits and on the processing of development applications, city code tax amendments, rezonings, comprehensive plan tax and land use plan amendments for development of townhome, clusterhome and multi multiple family residential dwelling units within the city, proposed residential development on lots of less than 7,500 square feet within the city, and any proposed residential development over six dwelling units per acre within the city, exempting specified development and providing for an effective date.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cook. Good evening, mister chair and board members. As stated by the city attorney, the item before you is the extension of a moratorium that was executed on 06/26/2024 for a twelve month period. We're seeking to extend this moratorium for six months. As you understand, through the manager at the vision of the council, he felt it was necessary to have an assessment of our infrastructure so we can improve our services to the community and serve the growth of the community in a fashionable way. And with that in mind, we've deemed that it is necessary that we extend this for six more months as we continue to achieve this so we can serve the community better.

Very good. Thank you, sir. I'll open the floor to questions or comments from the board members. Board member Davis.

Thank you, mister mayor. I I did have a question. And we all understand why we did the moratorium, and we understand why it's there. But I do wanna be able to put a period on this thing at a point. And, you know, we brought up the issue of of this has been a slow burning fuse.

And, you know, and these things need to need to get done in a in a predictable manner. Is there a way for, for example, for people to put in various applications that will that they can start going through the process without being approved until this moratorium is lifted? Is there is there something we can do to keep the keep those gears working until we actually put a period on this thing and

move on from it? I'm a

defer to the city attorney for that. So,

Councilman Davis, there is a way in which you could modify the scope of this moratorium in a way in which you still have a moratorium on the actual development order approvals of a particular project that would be covered by this. But you could allow development applications to proceed in which they would make application go through the application approval process. Now that would work for anything that's not a single family development. Single family developments, there's not really any process except for them to submit for a building permit, and that would be it. They're not going through a DRC.

They're not going through multiple reviews and stopping at that point, right? They don't get to that point. If you do that, right, then you probably have to modify this in such a way where you allow those development permits, but also allow for you don't have to, but you would something to think about, right? In that you would allow for developments or however we frame it on lots less than 7,500 square feet because you would have residential development that's ready to come in, single family residential on lots that are less than 7,500 square feet.

Okay. And so if it was a larger something, you know, whatever it may be to be built, six months, it may not actually even be through the entire process yet.

Correct?

May I could take Correct. Take time. Okay. I don't know. Mayor, what do you think?

Well, board member, you probably probably heard from some sounds like you've heard from some of the same folks I have. And and I wanna point out that our statutory limit is this additional six months. Whatever we're permitted to do it has to be completed within that six months. I have received requests to at least allow development applications to be submitted for the city to be allowed to accept and process applications that would, you know, require our approval, for anything that's under the ambit of the moratorium now. So that when we come out the other end of the moratorium Exactly.

Those items will be ready for public hearing rather than having a crush now. There's more of an orderly perhaps, beginning to fill the pipeline of applications. I kind of thought that's where you were going when you started this. I'm not sure that's where it was, but, you know, the two takeaways, six months at most and we're done. And I I would support an adjustment to the item that's before us, however it needs to be written, to allow application to be made.

It does not allow permits to be issued or even public hearing, but it allows applications to be made to be ready for public hearing upon the expiration of the moratorium. Is that what you had in mind?

That is what I meant to say.

That's what you meant to say. Exactly

the way

I meant to say

it, actually.

Yeah. Just a question.

Because I know in some of our one on ones that I had, there there are lots that are developable in the city that I'm aware of that are less than the 7,500 square feet that may be conforming to those specific neighborhoods. And I've received a couple of calls from, let me call mom and pop developers who own a single lot that the moratorium has been in place for a year now and, you know, six more months is starting to create, you know, hardships that can't even go through the process of developing a house on that property that conforms to the neighborhood that it's in. So I I was thinking that maybe we could, similar to what you're saying, is kind of open up the process a little bit to those situations as well. The 7500 lot restriction can't be a permanent one because there's already people that have rights, I think, to build on those lots that are smaller. They're basically infill lots that are conforming to those neighborhoods and those communities.

So does it even affect those at this point? Because they could come in and start their process as well to walk down the line. And then come six months down the road, they could start their process as well. So I'm still interested in hearing and seeing the works that were put in place to actually help us understand where we are infrastructure wise. So we talked about the Triangle properties tonight a little bit in reference to the infrastructure is not in place with water and sewer, and we're going have to make some accommodations for that.

So I don't think a single family house on a conforming lot with a neighborhood is gonna put that kind of a strain on the infrastructure where we have to limit and keep them out of the process for another six months. Just just my thoughts.

Let me ask mister White. Yeah, there there are, let's say, lots of 6,000 square feet. I mean, have we in fact, by the terms of the current moratorium, limited that? Or I guess asking the question another way, do we can can you say that our absolute minimum building lot size, and I'm thinking detached single family, not talking about duplex, not talking about townhouse, I'm talking about a detached single family. But what size range are we in?

And I'll throw that out there to either the attorney or the director to kinda give us some some guidelines on that.

So as the moratorium was instituted, it did prevent development of lots less than 7,500 square feet.

So So, mayor, if I could add to Mr. Cook. So, are places, infill lots, that allow you to have a in some instances, allow for you to build a less than 7,500 square foot depending on the nature and makeup of the surrounding neighborhood. In some cases, that that requires a special exception to come for you. In other places, not.

Like in the Southwest neighborhood, there are, I think, in the sub areas where the detached single family minimum lot size is like 5,000 square feet. So if you're inclined to do something less than 7,500 square feet, we could modify that number with a minimum number for the next six months.

Well, but that would bite us. I would think that that would need to be with respect to lots existing as you know, we're not gonna allow someone to come in and do a plat containing 5,000 square foot foot lots. So, you know, and I don't have a problem as long as it's attached single family, And I would suspect there are a relative handful of those lots. And we still have the frontage requirement of 65 feet, you know, at least in in the Northwest. So certainly, you know, we could layer in a provision for existing lots less than 7,500 but greater than 5,000 that were existing lots as of the date of the moratorium for the construction of detached single family residential.

And to allow those other to at least, you know, take their chances and get in the pipeline. No guarantee of approval, but at least go ahead if they want to spend the time, money, and effort to do so, to go ahead and get in the pipeline.

And, mayor, if I could. I would just well, the caveat to that is that anyone if we're gonna open the door to allow applicants to come in and make application, then they're gonna have to sign a waiver Absolutely. The time frames associated with processing their application so that no one can then say under pending statue that has a shot clock timeframe that we're not following or there's some issue. So I think that would be I would advise you to be a requirement if we're gonna proceed down that banner.

I don't have a problem with it.

Are we all good with that to accommodate those? And look, the application doesn't denote approval, doesn't denote it'll ever go forward, but the relative handful of substandard size infill lots is negligible impact.

And

just for for the purposes of this discussion, those that have those infill style lots that may be less than the 5,000 square feet that are already entitled to build on those lots that are conforming to the neighborhoods, do any of them have to come before us for approval?

There are some that require special exception. And so in those instances, you they would apply, but it's not gonna get them across the finish line because you're not going to approve a development order or development permit for a special exception. They're they can apply, but they'll be stuck in in in they can't go any further.

In a six month window.

Right.

Okay. But at least we're lowering the bar from 7,500 to 5,000. Got it.

Thank you.

Okay. Yes, councilmember. Thank you. Excuse me, board member.

Thank you, chair.

For these purposes.

Are we aware of any lots that are less than 5,000 square feet?

CRA owns a bunch of them.

But so the CRA, I know, but would it be allowed for are there any other lots the Southwest neighborhood, for example, that are not developed yet? I'm just curious because for me, the whole point of this moratorium was for us to obviously catch up with our with our infrastructure. Right? Make sure that that we were doing our part. But as far as I'm concerned, a single family home is a single family home. So if there's somebody then with 4,800 square feet, are we I don't understand why Well,

but but if we still don't have, let's say, wastewater capacity, we can't issue a permit

anyway. Either way.

So, you know, we're not kind of we're not eating away at the rationale for the moratorium. You're not letting some horses out of the gate and others others not.

Right. So in in lowering the bar to 5,000, a minimum 5,000 square feet, then those folks would then be able to come in. If they don't require a special exception, those folks will be able to come in, apply for a building permit, and have a building permit issued.

Assuming concurrency.

Assuming, right. Assuming there are no capacity issues or concurrency.

That it? So going forward, this would allow application. If

you will Yeah. If you will

the three issues that we discussed.

Right. It would I I could modify this to lower the threshold from 7,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet. Modify this so that it would allow for the processing of applications, but still keep in place on the issuance of development orders and development permits.

With the waiver. Yeah.

Right. In the in the waiver.

Right. So would someone like to move it as amended? I will do it. We'll let Councilwoman Bailey move. Board member Bailey, seconded by board member. Cannonball. Yes. Mister Proctor. Is the mic on? Better? Okay. Much. Depends on what you're gonna ask for.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, mister mayor. Jerry Proctor, attorney. 7600 I'm joined by my client, Robert Rubin. I have an exemption request, very limited, very narrow in scope, but a little different than what you've been talking about. Mr. Rubin and his partners own about two acres of property in the Southwest neighborhood. Their property is on the North Side of Southwest 4th Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. And as I said, it's about two acres.

Their property is zoned in the Southwest neighborhood and it is designated as neighborhood mixed use. We have a specific need and have spoken already to staff about developing project that has residential only. It does not have mixed use. And under the neighborhood mixed use part of your Southwest neighborhood code, the code requires or the code allows residential only on the 2nd Floor or higher. And we want to be able to seek the approval of the council in an ordinance to amend that for certain properties, not all properties, but certain properties in the Southwest neighborhood area.

As someone said earlier, that's a subject for a different day and it could be voted up or voted down, but we want to have that opportunity. We think our development checks a lot of the other boxes that the city is looking for. It's affordable housing, it's about 32 units and it's located in an area where the city is encouraging development. It's not a large development. But we need and the other kind of special characteristic or unique characteristic, we are expanding our property slightly to purchase two properties from the city, which you have heard in recent weeks and months property that we're purchasing from the CRA.

And so we have a development approval for our property through a prior owner that goes back about four years. But we want to develop something that we that is different. That is we think nicer and that incorporates a little bit of additional property and has residential all the way to the ground floor, does not contain commercial. The ordinance that you adopted eleven months ago does not allow text amendments of this type. Text amendments that would increase the possibility of multifamily residential.

And I think that's the main reason that we're here. I have language that I'll read that's very site specific. It doesn't carry over to the entire area, but I'll read this language and then I'll put it in the record as well as our property folio numbers. The language reads, to be exempt, property in the Southwest neighborhood located between Southwest 5 Avenue and Southwest 6 Avenue, north of Southwest 4 Street, where the property owner seeks to add additional property under consideration for purchase from the city and request approval of a text amendment to the city code in a neighborhood mixed use sub area and seek approval of a new site plan that would replace a plan approved in 2021. Don't think we're going to have a shovel in the ground in the next six months but we want to explore these opportunities and these requirements including an ordinance with the city in order to be shovel ready, if you will, when we get to the end of this year or the early part of next year.

I'll submit this language and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Let me ask mister White, and maybe maybe I misunderstood what what you said, mister Proctor, that the language of the existing moratorium prohibits text amendments. Is that correct?

Yes. The existing language prohibits a comp plan text amendment or a code text amendment that would increase multifamily development. And so Mr. Proctor has a project that was previously approved that includes mixed use commercial and residential. It's my understanding that they want to modify that site plan, but in order to modify that site plan, that's contingent on possible comp plan amendments and zoning code amendments to realize their proposed. I haven't seen it. I've just briefly spoken to mister Proctor about it.

I'm struggling to justify having this conversation in the context of extending the moratorium because it seems to be so narrowly focused. I was thinking out loud. Pretty narrowly focused that the guy next door across the street is gonna say, hey. Give me one of those exemptions also. Now big picture, this body has had the conversation that the Southwest Master Plan has overkill on mixed use and that and we even looked at the maps and the colors.

And again, back when mister Guzman was here as vice mayor, we talked about this really seems to be excessive mandates for mixed use. I guess I'd look to the attorneys to to thread the needle to to find a way to accommodate this if there's a because clearly, you're not gonna be out of

the gate

early prematurely or, you know, violating the moratorium.

But with regards to the language, if you all Yeah. That would allow mister Proctor's client to start applying for a site plan amendment in whatever comp plan or code text amendment is necessary. And so but it just wouldn't be brought to you within that six month time frame for approval or denial.

But just like we talked about, a general project in excess of six units per acre has the right to apply. This situation could also be covered with language in it. Right? That's so yeah. Now, let me ask mister Park, does does that solve your problem if it can't be heard prior to six months from the expiration of the moratorium?

I don't have a strong objection as long as the council can take up the code amendment.

The

code amendment We could take up

a code amendment, but certainly it can't be implemented as to a property prior to the expiration of the moratorium. I think that would be acceptable.

Well, the way the way that this you would not be able to take it up. This would be a private initiated development that's associated with a project that they're seeking approval for. At least, I think, right? I mean, alternative to this is that you could modify the section that provided for specific exemptions.

Yes. We could amend the code, but they can't avail themselves of it until six months.

Well, think it might be problematic with them even applying to amend the code, right? Depends how this is being teed up. I'm not sure how the applications But are all going to

if we teed it up in the context of, hey, we've had the discussion that there's too much mixed use mandate, that's initiated by council and staff rather than a specific property owner. And then we're not spot zoning, so to speak.

I'm not sure if this helps. The code amendment that we have in mind is something that would apply to numerous properties in the Southwest neighborhood, not just our property. We've looked at it with staff and we've devised what from a planning standpoint what we think is a sound proposal. We don't want the message we received as a kind of as a community wide review is we don't want to get rid of mixed use through the entire area. So the amendment that would come forward irrespective of who sponsors it, at least in my discussion up until now, would apply to the entire area.

Not sure if that helps or answers your question.

Let's do this. This has to have a second reading, correct?

That is correct.

So let's move forward tonight on first reading with what we've already discussed, and perhaps you and Mr. White and others can put your heads together and make a pile of rocks and figure out some additional language that we could bring in at second reading. That work?

What I've entered, I'll submit it to the clerk and await

Okay, the good. All right, so I think we have a motion and a second before us on first reading to approve with those issues that we discussed. Certainly, we have an understanding there may be additional changes at second reading if we can find a way to appropriately accommodate that without opening the Pandora's box. So any public comment on this item? It's on the on the moratorium, on the extension of the building moratorium.

Hello, everyone. Just coming up here to express Let's

get your name and address for the record.

Alexander Carbaugh. I'm a mom and pop builder for a small little lot in the Southwest area coming to express my concerns about the moratorium. And given how you guys have expressed yourselves about how you feel and considering that you're gonna drop the square footage on the moratorium, I think that's more than pleased. I would like to see the infrastructure built out within a reasonable time period. I understand everything takes its time to process. But for the most part, I

think I'm pleased,

and I just wanted to thank you guys for taking me and a couple of our friends into consideration with this moratorium. I think we should be able to move forward with our projects and that's basically it.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else speaking on the six month six month final extension, probably the last moratorium to ever be enacted in the state of Florida? Can we come to the podium and give us your name and address for the record?

Mayor, council Raul Gabino. Also have a lot on the Southwest 640 10th Ave. I appreciate you guys. Thank you for taking the time to consider us mom and pop. I'm a father, husband, a brother, a fireman also. We came together to build a lot. And I know you were asking the size. The plan state where we could build a nice single family, 1,700 square feet. It's not gonna be anything small. Something nice, high ceilings, really bring a a life to the community and continue to see the city of Homestead grow.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate you coming tonight. Anyone else?

Yes. Thank you. I wanted to just, at least from my recollection is that when we enacted the moratorium, we had considered lifting it potentially in phases starting with the Southwest area. So this is in line with what I think our original intentions were, and I do want to thank, Councilman Davis for opening up that discussion. But, I appreciate the the consideration for the Southwest area and for these properties. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. So let's have a roll call vote on the first reading of the extension of the moratorium.

Board member Ross?

Yes.

Board member Davis? Yes. Board member Avila? Yes. Board member Cannonball? Yes. Board member Bailey? Yes. Vice chairman Fletcher? Yes. Chairman Lasnum? Yes. The motion carries.

Very good. Any final comments from counsel on any matter? Mister Cook, any further business?

Thank you, mister chair. No.

Mister attorney?

Nothing at this time. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And where's mister Ventura? I don't want him to run off tonight. We're gonna need you for our next meeting. So we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We will convene the regular council meeting momentarily.