Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

It's 6.15 Thursday, November 20th and we're calling to order. This is a special LPA meeting.

So, Commissioner Joseph.

Present.

Commissioner Stuyvesant. Here. Commissioner Vizcarra. Vice Mayor Lama? Here. For the record, Mayor Svecin is absent. So we have a quorum, sir.

So for tonight, Vice Mayor Lama is the mayor, correct?

Not the mayor. He's a presiding officer.

Presiding officer.

Yeah. Okay, so excuse me the first item on tonight's agenda for the LPA is a discussion and action on recommendation to the City Commission on An amendment to the comprehensive plan regarding the future land use element Okay, good evening vice mayor and commissioners Good evening

Good evening. So this is a text amendment to the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. And this is the first effort to address the inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. which we have been studying and working through for a few years now. Multiple studies have been conducted and with commissioned workshops that have led us to this point. And one of the project consultants who worked on these efforts is here tonight, Caitlin Forbes with Complete Cities Planning Group, who can assist with any discussion and questions that we may have. The amendment has a large cleanup component to it, which is to add some critical definitions that are currently not in the comprehensive plan. It updates statutory references, date references, and eliminates redundant policies. The other big component of this amendment is to establish the upper levels of development for five specific future land use categories. Now, this amendment probably looks familiar to you because it was presented to commission back in August, where it was unanimously approved. The amendment package was then transmitted to the reviewing agencies in September, and they had 30 days to make comment. The only comment letter that we received was from the Florida Department of Commerce. We received that letter on October 6th. And the letter stated that there was one policy change in particular that was proposed in the package that was not in compliance with Senate Bill 180. And therefore, the amendment was found to be null and void ab initio, which means that the city must address the policy that's in conflict with Senate Bill 180 and start the process over again. So that's why we're here tonight with an LPA and again for commission first reading. Also to note, we did meet with the Department of Florida Commerce to verify that this is the proper procedure to address their letter. So as stated, there was one policy that they found not to be in compliance with Senate Bill 180, which is a proposed change to the maximum density that's allowed in the low-medium density residential future land use category. In August, it was proposed to change the maximum dwelling units from 13 per acre to 10 per acre to better align with the land development regulations. But they found that that change was more restrictive or burdensome. So the amendment that's before you tonight keeps that number at 13. There is no change to the maximum density for the low-medium density residential future wages category. This category is located in the Golden Shores neighborhood. It's on the east side of Atlantic Boulevard. And the category allows for single-family homes, duplexes, and townhouses. And so this is the chart that we walked through back in August. Again, the only change is what's circled on the chart, which is in the low-medium density residential category. All of the changes that were previously approved in August remain the same. So with that, I'm available if you have any questions.

Yeah, I have a question. Can you just explain what was the reason why this this change that we had submitted was not accepted. From a legislative perspective, yeah.

So from the Department of Commerce perspective, changing the maximum density from 13 to 10 is more burdensome because it's reducing the allowable density.

OK. Mr. City Attorney, if you'd like to elaborate.

This is all the topic we've been talking about a few meetings, SB 180, where there's currently a restriction for every city and every county in the state from amending their land use regulations or comprehensive plans in a manner that's deemed either more burdensome or more restrictive. So the department found that to be more restrictive, just that one number. So until the issues with SB 180 are resolved, we'll just have to table that. We'll have to table that. Okay, yeah.

Well, I think this goes a little bit back to your legislative updates.

Hopefully now that legislative sessions are about to commence, that there is some action to perhaps mitigate some of the effects of SB 180.

There's a bill that's been introduced that attempts to do that. It's not there yet, but there's Plenty of time to develop that until the session starts and as you're aware, we've joined the litigation It also challenges be one.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you and the comments from the Commission I Had one comment Amy regarding the bonuses You're a memorandum states that there are guaranteed bonuses, correct?

Can you tell us what page you're looking at, Jerry, so we can follow?

It was on the screen earlier. Let me get it.

Commissioner, this was the issue we addressed at the last hearing on this. It doesn't guarantee bonuses. It just sets maximum limitations if you do allow it in your land use regulations. It doesn't guarantee.

Okay, so there's a possibility for bonuses.

Correct. And if you allow bonuses in your land use regulations, the maximums would be stated in your comprehensive plan, which is what this does. The limitations will be stated. Right. Yeah. Okay.

But there's no guarantee of bonuses to the developer, correct?

Correct. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any public speakers?

We do. We have Tracy Slavens.

Hi, good evening. My name is Tracy Slavens. I'm with LSN Partners. My address is 3800 Northeast First Avenue, Suite 200. And I'm just here to speak in support of this amendment package. We've been working with staff. I represent MB Real Estate Investments, which is the owner of the Miami Beach Club. Working with them to make sure that the package makes sense. We even made a phone call to the Department of Commerce to try to help. perhaps work through the issues that they identified because we do think it's important that your comprehensive plan does get updated accordingly. So I'm just here to speak in support and thank you for considering this today.

Thank you. No further speakers.

No further speakers? No?

Okay. All right. So can I get a motion?

So moved.

Second? Okay.

I'll take a roll call on this. Commissioner Joseph. yes commission stuyvesant yes commissioner viscarra yes vice mayor llama yes and the recommendation passes excuse me the motion passes four to zero okay great the next item on the agenda is to be which is an action and discussion regarding recovery residences ordinance

Vice mayor and commissioners, this past year, the state passed legislation related to certified recovery residences. And that legislation requires all counties and municipalities to adopt an ordinance by January 1, 2026 to establish procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences, which includes a process for reasonable accommodation requests under the ADA and FHA. Currently, the land development regulations don't contain a reasonable accommodation process, so that's what is proposed in this ordinance. The ordinance creates a new subsection under the specific use regulations of 26544 for certified recovery residences. And the ordinance will establish definitions and the process for reasonable accommodation. The proposed process is that an applicant will submit a package to the Planning and Zoning Department for review. And once the application package is deemed complete, then the application will be transmitted to the city manager for final determination. Should the city manager deny the request for reasonable accommodation, then the decision may be appealed to the special magistrate. And with that, I'm available for any questions.

Any questions from the commission?

I'd just like to make a statement that my feeling is that these alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers are not compatible with our single family neighborhoods. Hopefully we can somehow mitigate the situation should one come to be or present itself.

Anyone else? No? OK.

So can I get a motion?

Do we have any public speakers on this? No, sir. No public speakers.

So moved.

OK. Okay, Commissioner Stuyvesant. Yes. Commissioner Vizcarra. Yes. Commissioner Joseph. Yes. Vice Mayor Lama. Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

And just to clarify, this is not a welcome mat for these things. It's us being in compliance with the change in the law.

Correct. You can still be against it. Or, you know, not be happy.

I just want to make sure we're voting yes. I just want to make sure people understand what we're voting on.

It doesn't do any good to vote no because it's required.

You have to be in compliance.

Correct.

Okay.

So, any other items? No, there's no further business to come before the OPA. Okay. All right. So, meeting adjourned. And we will see you in four or five minutes. Yeah.

For the regular commission.