Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

you can tell what song they're playing

for each one.

All right, Mauricio. OK. Are you ready?

Yes, ma'am.

All right, calling the meeting to order.

Commissioner Joseph.

Thank you. Present.

Commissioner Syleson. Here.

Commissioner Vizcarra.

Here.

is fashion. We have a corner.

Okay. Go ahead. Okay.

So the first item on tonight's agenda, which is the LPA meeting is a discussion and or action regarding ordinance to amend the city's comprehensive plan. The future land use element text.

Okay. Good evening mayor and commissioners sitting as the local planning agency. The first ordinance tonight is Amending the future land use element of the comprehensive plan and here tonight to present that item is Caitlin Forbes and Jeff cadence There was complete cities planning group. You've seen them here before with they led the Commission workshops on this topic they have led the public engagement effort and have met with the developers and have a really good handle on the history and we'll be presenting our recommendations for the future land use element.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor for the record, Vice Mayor Lama is on the phone.

Okay. Thank you.

good evening madam mayor members of the lpa in this capacity caitlyn forbes with complete cities planning group for the record we're excited to be here tonight with you to go through the first formal phase of the transmittal of the comprehensive plan text amendments you will be considering three different agenda items tonight the first two are ordinances to amend the comprehensive plan text and the second is an ordinance to amend the text of the land development regulations so just to touch on a little bit of the history here for the many people in the audience because I know we have gone through this several times together as a group but the history and the reason why we're here of course is there was some pretty large-scale planning efforts that took place several years back now with some recommendations that were made to the city and to the commission to take action to address some of the inconsistencies that were identified between the comp plan and the LDR also between the zoning and the comprehensive plan text and maps so the first item that we'll be considering is agenda item 6a as it's labeled in your commission packet and that's the text to address some of the cleanup as it relates to the future land use element and that's what i'll largely be presenting and jeff will come up and present some of the items relating to concurrency which brings us to some of the the later bullet points on this slide the same planning analysis recommended some needs as it relates to a concurrency ordinance and also to clarify how your transfer of development right ordinance and program works so the first ordinance again item 6a in your commission packet will be basically what i said earlier is kind of a cleanup effort it's the first steps in making progress towards rectifying some of those inconsistencies within the future land use element the large-scale items up on the screen here kind of summarize the overarching effort of this ordinance which included to add definitions to the future land use element which are helpful as staff is trying to apply the policies that are established in the comprehensive plan of course we updated some of the outdated statutory and data reference era and date references i'm sorry of course we started the effort of updating the future land use element to reflect some of the feedback that we've received through the visioning process we also updated some of the compatibility language that you find in the future land use element which largely relates to adjacent developments and how they relate to each other and how you determine compatibility between the two And we also, importantly, ensured that there were maximum level of developments that were clear and consistent for the land use categories that are shown on the screen. If that's a little too small for anyone, I'll read them off. It includes the low density, low medium density, medium density, medium high density, residential categories as well as the mixed-use resort land use categories so overall this was really a cleanup effort we aren't really establishing new policy here we're simply reaffirming the practices that the city's taken as well as said as shown on the screen started to update some of those outdated references and continue to ensure compatibility between the various documents so while this is a legislative item staff does recommend approval the next steps for this item specifically would be to transmit the ordinance to the state land planning agency for review and comment and then we would come back for second reading once we've received any comments or objections from the state and the applicable land planning agencies and with that i will take any questions and then we'll take a motion

Do you have any questions?

Well, the last time that you were before us, I had asked to check with the county regarding capacity loads for our sewer and water systems. Has anything been found out regarding that?

Yeah, so the concurrency ordinances are the second two items that'll be before you tonight. So if possible, we'll take that question when it gets to the concurrency ordinances.

Once again sorry I need to see if there's any public comment.

There's no public comment for the record. Thank you.

I have a few comments.

I gave you kind of a draft of my idea, so I'm sorry if they're not that clear because I didn't have enough time. But what I'm worried is that, is it defined either in the comprehensive plan or the land use? regulations, bonuses, because what I was reading and what I was hearing at the discussion during the workshop is that it seems like we are codifying it here, you know, because we are creating the formula which basically imply that the bonuses are given right to the developers. And for what I understood from talking to some of the staff is that there is going to be a second part of this, right? That you guys are going to bring us with bonuses that are going to be better defined. And also for, if I'm not wrong, I think for mix, no, mix are here. For medium or whatever, I don't know what is next. But it is going to be a second part of that's what I was told. So, but here the formulas are defined that if a new development does comply with whatever is written in here, basically, apparently they will get the bonuses. by default and like we can see here for example that means mixed use resort high density the base is 50 dwelling units with bonuses it goes to up to 80 but with bonuses in TDRs it goes to 104 more than double you know which is the page four of my comments you know So I know this has been a long process, and I really appreciate the job that you guys have done. However, until bonuses are clearly defined as a privilege and at a right and the criteria for them to be approved or not, I do believe that my recommendation will be not to put the bonuses comments in here or the bonuses all together because we don't have them defined apparently and then maybe bring us a new document that also give us the language of the bonuses and or eliminated from this document you know but if they need to be clearly defined I believe that's what it's been the issue here in Sonia for so long where there is two different ways of calculating the intensity of the new construction, basically. So that is my comment. I'm really worried about being undefined and implying there is a given right to developers.

Thank you for putting this together, but I just got this. I wasn't able to read it.

I don't think I can share with you guys this before now.

Can you address some of these questions, please?

I gave it to them like 10 minutes ago, so I'm so sorry. So they could prepare a little bit, just a little bit.

That's okay. Madam Mayor, if I may, I'll provide some additional explanation and hopefully clarification. So the comprehensive plan sets the upper maximums as it's required to for both density and intensity, and intensity for the city is FAR floor area ratio. And so really the heavy lift in work as it relates to bonuses is established through your land development regulations. So the way and the method by which bonuses are allocated and awarded really comes through your land development language, which implements the comprehensive plan. So your maximums are established in the comprehensive plan and it in no way awards or asserts a guaranteed maximum. All it does is simply reflect the land development code in terms of the potential maximums that are currently allowed in the land development regulations and establishes the upper density and or intensity depending on the applicable project. And then through the land development regulations which implement the comprehensive plan, developer would have to apply for and be awarded the various bonuses so you are correct commissioner that we will be coming back with another ordinance as it relates to the bonus program and structure just as a point you do currently have a zoning in progress as it relates to the east side is my understanding so that kind of put a pause on any of the applications as relates to development on the east side but we will be coming back with an ordinance that would modify your bonus structure based on the feedback in the workshop that we had but the language that's in the comprehensive plan before you does not really change any of the policies that the cities had as it relates to bonuses it just reflects the upper maximums that are in the land development regulations currently but in no way again awards or guarantees any sort of maximum. All of the language and implementing language is found in your land development regulations as to how you achieve the maximums that are set forth in your comp plan.

And that's the issue, like you use a very good word, a potential maximum, but it's not written like that. So if it says that the potential maximum is not a given maximum. But the way I read it, and I might be wrong, okay, so everybody clearly is going to have their chance. It's like if developers meet bonus program requirements, apparently they are going to get it. And they can increase density by providing certainty, like affordable housing, et cetera. So if there is a second ordinance coming, my suggestion will be either Wait for the second to have the whole package together and understanding that I'm gonna talk right now on behalf of team the whole Commission that one of the issues that the people the residents only as have Overall is the over development, you know And we are very successful as a city and our finances are so good because that development But we got to a point like it is really hard to explain new tall tall developments you know so that's what I like the word that you just said like potential maximums but that's not the way it's written right now so the way I read it and I might be wrong that's what I'm saying is that I rather we spend so much time and money in this process to make it right I think we can have one more month you know and bring or make sure that if you need two or three months but just to make sure that The word that is the really specific word that scares everybody is bonuses, because they are not defined. And by not being defined, like I said before, and I think we have had those issues in the past, it is open to interpretation. And I do believe one of the tasks that you guys have right now is to try to make sure that the comp plan and the land use and all the languages are you know like really consistent because we don't have it right now because we and then when it's open it is open to interpretation so uh my recommendation would be to defer just 6a for a future meeting provided that all those answers and those specific about bonuses i don't have i meet you with anything else in the document but The part of bonuses, it is scary, because you know what? The way I read it, it's like this is a dream for developers, you know? Because it's being now codified that you have the right for a bonus. And it's a formula, even. Plus bonuses, plus bonuses in TDI. You know, it tells you Not a potential maximum, but the maximum you can get. And when you tell somebody what you can get, then try to get it from them. Then we are open, then that's when we open ourselves, I think, to lawsuits and liabilities. So again, we spend a lot of time and money, and you guys have done an amazing job. My recommendation is to defer the item and just to make sure that we have all that really clearly defined so it's now open to interpretation.

If I may just add just a couple of clarifications. Please. As Caitlin indicated, the comp plan language does not entitle anyone to bonuses. Those entitlements will come through the LDRs to the extent that your comp plan has to refer to bonuses because the only way it wouldn't is if you eliminate all bonuses. which I don't foresee that ever happening. So the fact that it mentions bonuses or the upper maximums doesn't guarantee that somebody will get a bonus. Any of that would be translated and or determined by the LDRs, not the comp plan.

Okay.

Yeah, please, go ahead. To the city attorney, how many other cities do you know that have a bonus program on top of your head that you know?

There's several, I mean, there's some cities that have zero bonus programs, other cities have them, they have affordable housing, there's a good number of them that do, that have development.

Overdevelopment, I guess.

Not overdevelopment, just development. Some cities are prone to development, others are not.

Yeah, clearly, yeah. So that's the thing. I think if we are going to be including the bonuses language, we have to be very careful with what we're putting there. And if we can consider eliminating that, I think we got to where we wanted in Sunny Isles. So I think the bonuses should be workshop on its own. And it is being very consistent by the people that they don't want to continue seeing over development. And then we're going to be talking about level of service. I mean, we have one school for the whole city. And we have basically one big road, which is Collins. We are very tight, like you say, very tiny and very tight. So we have to consider what we are doing in the future. And codifying a maximum right now, in my opinion, it seems a little bit irresponsible, especially when you're going to come back to us with something about bonuses. So I think we can wait for that.

Madam Commissioner, if I may, I know you honed in on the word potential maximum. I'm not sure if it would make you more comfortable if between, or prior to transmittal, if we added the word potential in the mixed-use resort category, if that would make you comfortable with transmitting it and then coming back for second reading to reconsider it for adoption. We could certainly do that if that was the will of the commission or LPA. Thank you.

And again, Mayor, just again, one more clarification. Your clarification is necessary. This is just for the east side, right? So it's already pretty much a done deal except for possibly three parcels.

Right.

So this doesn't affect necessarily the west. This is just we're trying to reconcile the comp plan and the LDRs to what's already occurred on the east side.

Correct. Okay. Is Vice Mayor on? Alex, did you want to say anything or have any questions?

No, not at this point. Okay.

Commissioner Vizcarra?

Yeah, no, I don't share Commissioner Stuyvesant's concerns. I think we have been at this for, I want to say, years that we've been talking about this. Certainly, I remember the Vice Mayor being one of his top priorities and pushing, pushing. No, I don't share those concerns. Not that I don't share the overdevelopment concern, because of course we do, but this is really, what, like about three parcels left. And I think it's important that we get this ball rolling. I've been very frustrated by the pace. And not... I'm not blaming, I'm just saying, we talked about it for a long time. We finally got you guys on board. We've been doing it. I'd like to see it move. And it is two readings, so if in between readings we can explore some things, we can. But for now, I'm fine the way that it is. Okay.

I agree with Commissioner Roscaro, although I think that if that word potential makes any difference, I don't know if legally it makes any difference, Alan, because ultimately they're defined in a specific way. Yeah.

I don't think it does. I mean, I think it can add some comfort there because it does some equivocation there. Unless the state of Florida has a problem with it, I don't think we would.

Okay. And I do have another question. What about the town center district? Do we have anything about that here?

That'll come forward as part of a separate ordinance after the vision documents adopted.

Which is my point. There is a second ordinance coming. And it's going to include the town center. We all know what happened a few years ago when the Infinity Project came, et cetera. So there is a lot more to clean up and to do. So there is more to us coming. So why do we need to hurry right now when this seems that it's just, like I said, this is like the dream of other developers. And exactly, we're talking about the east side, which is where they can reach the sky. So I'm not going to vote for this. This needs to be, I think, revised, and we need to make sure that the concepts and the definitions of bonuses, et cetera, are open. I mean, sorry, I'm not open to interpretation, but they're very clear. So for that, I won't be supporting this item.

So for clarification, to Commissioner Stevenson's point, are those items open for interpretation, or are they clear?

In terms of the current bonus program, I think the city's clear on its position as it relates to the current bonus program. And we'd be bringing forward an ordinance that would implement the discussion and the direction that we heard from the commission at our last workshop, which was to establish some criteria for awarding bonuses. So that would be the next step in the effort.

OK, that's what I needed to hear. Because I believe that in the past, what was the, we'll call it the convenient confusion, is whether bonuses were discretionary or not. And they were being interpreted as if they weren't, to Commissioner Stuyvesant's point. But we know what direction we're going in. We don't agree with that. So we'll take it in steps. And I don't think they're a given. I think they're discretionary, and we'll get there.

Not according to this document. That's the issue that I have with it. And again, if we take so long for this, we can take one more month to clear. And to your question, is that it is not here clear of defined bonuses. It's coming in a new ordinance. So it is not.

OK. You want to add something? Go ahead.

So may I ask, in your opinion, is Sunny Isles Beach overdeveloped currently?

I don't think that's something that I can. Well, it's an opinion.

I'm asking for an opinion.

She's not here to offer that. I can't get that answer? No, she's not here to offer.

That's not why she's here, Jerry. I understand your question, but she's not here to answer that question. OK.

We just need a motion.

Okay, I'll take a motion. No, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Okay, so it is my understanding that with this we are basically just clarifying the language and cleaning up any, let's say, ambiguity, correct? The second step would be, and pertaining to the LDRs, is to define the bonuses and and make sure that those are very clear and set in stone, okay? So I need to know, based on what we're doing here, what would be the second step? Because obviously I think all of us want to go in the right direction. I understand what Commissioner Stubeson is saying, but obviously I just want to get an explanation from our city attorney as to what the next steps would be to obviously have a comp plan that is basically concurrent with the LDRs. I just wanna make sure this is bulletproof and we're going in the right direction.

Well, what we're initially doing here is doing some cleanup work, as Caitlin mentioned. Correct. So at some point, there'll be another phase, which they're well in control of. Where we're going to.

Can you speak louder, Alan? Please speak louder.

Where you are going to, you as a commissioner are going to decide what those parameters are within the LDR, you know, upon recommendations from staff. But ultimately, you're going to decide that, for example, with bonuses, what bonuses are going to be available, to what extent they're going to be available, what kind of bonuses. You're all going to have to determine that.

Did that answer your question?

Can you put the microphone? That would be the second step. I think what Commissioner Stubeson wanted is for this to be defined already, but we as a commission have not had that discussion or a workshop to discuss that. This is just a cleanup job to make sure that what we are going to be working from, the document we're going to be working from, is already cleared of any, let's say, mumbo-jumbo or whatever you want to call it, ambiguity.

I don't know that I understand the question. Can you repeat the question?

So right now, this is just a cleanup job based on language, correct?

Essentially, I mean, that's pretty much it, yeah.

And if I may... This is basically a...

Okay, this is a cleanup of language. So then the second step would be for us as a commission to take care and define bonuses. Whether we want to get bonuses, TDRs, etc. That would be the second step. That was my understanding. I just wanted confirmation, because sometimes it's hard for me to hear certain things. That's why I'm going over this again.

That's my understanding as well. But I'll defer to Caitlin because they're running the process.

Yes, so there would be a couple moving pieces, and before I get into just a high-level summary of what's coming next, just as a reminder, we had several workshops throughout the last year or so, and we did get direction as it relates to the east side to basically bring forward what we've brought forward, which would continue to allow similar development on the last handful of remaining parcels on the east side. So that's why what's before you today was brought forward was based on the direction that we received um i guess earlier last year at this point um in terms of the pieces that will be coming before you um coming up we have the vision document for town center north that would be adopted by resolution hopefully later this summer and then we would be coming back for additional comprehensive plan and land development regulation text amendments implement the vision document as it relates to town center north and then we've also worked with staff to establish some additional pieces of the scope one being to address your bonus program and update the bonus program based on the direction that we received from our last workshop earlier this year and there's a couple other continuing cleanup text amendments that we worked out with staff in the comprehensive plan and through the land development regulations just for consistency and to address some challenging policies as they've been previously reviewed and implemented it's raised issues that the city staff would like to address so we're gonna work with city staff on all of those points over there the next year or so to continue to and bring you ordinances as they're ready in an ideal world everything would maybe be brought together but based on the timing of different things we wanted to at least bring this forward to you as i said you do have a zoning in progress as it relates to the east side so hopefully this will help address the east side concerns and we can move forward with the other pieces that largely relate to town center north and the northern business districts later this year okay thank you all right thank you all right

Another comment, go ahead.

For myself also, I have a big concern regarding the language regarding the bonuses. We've already had circumstance where we had a feeling that one developer felt that they had bonuses coming to them, when actually that's not the case. So we need to nail that down so that bonuses are strictly clarified. And so that any developer knows that bonuses are not a given. We have another building on the east side that just got FAA approval for, I believe, the tallest building in South Florida. So we're going to have to be dealing with that. And also, it's unfortunate, but the five people up here on the commission are the only ones, I believe, except for maybe a couple of people between city manager, clerk, department heads that actually live in the city. So we really need to watch out for all the residents in the language that we finally accept. And that's what I'm here for. That's where I hope every Commissioner is here for as well.

Okay. Thank you Marisa We just need a motion. Okay, I'll take a motion so moved.

I need a second Which motion I'm so sorry Wait, for Fabiola's, for deferment? No, no, no, as is. No, as is.

Adding the word potential. As, sure. Okay. All right, so Alex can't make a motion, correct?

Correct.

I can pass the gavel and second it, but I think I can second it anyways.

As long as you pass the gavel.

Okay, second it.

Thank you. I'll do a roll call. Commissioner Stuyvesant?

No.

Commissioner Joseph?

No.

Commissioner Vizcarra?

Yes.

Mayor Svecin?

Yes.

The motion is tied two to two. It has to be brought back.

Okay. All right, next item.

Okay, so I just need a point of clarification, Madam Mayor. Will this be coming back then? Will this be presented at tonight's meeting at 6.30?

Not if it didn't go through the LPA.

Yeah.

Thank you.

We'll come back next month.

Next month.

Okay. Next item.

Next item is...

So I have one question. Will it be worked on prior to it coming back to us or not?

We can talk about that separately because this is... I think they... The point is that they've heard us. That's why they're...

So if there's a chance it won't be the same when it comes back to us?

I think it's best to just speak to the city.

That would be up to the city manager.

Okay, 2B is a discussion and or action regarding an ordinance amending the infrastructure and capital improvements element of the adopted of the City of Sunny Hills Beach Comprehensive Plan to clarify level of service standards.

Good evening, Mayor and Commission. Jeff Kadams, Complete Cities Planning Group. This is a housekeeping ordinance. It corrects some inconsistencies in your comprehensive plan with regard to level of service standards set by outside providers. That's what all this ordinance does.

OK. Thank you. Do we have any public speakers? No, ma'am. All right. I'll take questions from the commission. Commissioner Stevenson? Mr. Joseph?

No.

Mr. Vizcarra? No comments. Vice Mayor? Okay, I'll take a motion.

No, no questions.

Okay, I'll take a motion. So moved. I'll take a second. I'll second. Okay.

Commissioner Joseph? Yes. Commissioner Vizcarra?

Yes.

Commissioner Stuyvesant? Yes. Mayor Svecchin? Yes. The motion is approved 4-0. It will be recommended to the City Commission. Okay. 2C is a discussion and or action regarding an ordinance amending the land development regulations section 265.11 for procedures of general applicability and providing for a new article 6 adequacy of facilities concurrency.

Thank you very much. This ordinance is housekeeping in a sense. It is creating a new provision, a new article in the land development regulations. But it's not creating any new policy or changing any standards. What it is is taking language from the comprehensive plan, which is required by state law, and putting it in the land development regulations where it's also required to be by state law. So a couple of things. In the comprehensive plan, you have the level of service standards for each facility for the purpose of concurrency. Concurrency meaning that adequate facilities, public facilities have to exist to serve development at the same time that the impacts from those development occur. All those level of service standards are set in your comprehensive plan. All this ordinance does is incorporate them into the land development code. place notice that development orders in addition to other development review requirements are subject to concurrency determinations and it provides some procedures at a finer grain level than you might find in the comprehensive plan in certain instances and as far as how to determine capacity and that type of thing but that concludes the summary of this ordinance we recommend that you recommend approval to the city commission and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have

Okay, are there any public speakers? No, ma'am. All right, questions from the commission? Nope, I'll take a motion. So moved.

Second.

Mauricio?

Commissioner Rezcarra? Yes. Commissioner Stuyvesant? Yes. Commissioner Joseph? Yes. Mayor Svecchin? Yes. The motion is approved four to zero. It'll be recommended to the city commission at 6.30. Okay. Okay, there's no further business to come before the LPA.

All right, so we'll adjourn this meeting, and then we will immediately... You need a minute, Mauricio? Yes, please. Okay, in one minute, we'll start the 6.30 meeting, even though it's later.