Loading...
07-21-09 Item 10 (1)ou N � DRAFTU " � INCORPORATED � 1927 L p a�9 P CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, July 14, 2009 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Present: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Whitman, Mr. Cruz, and Ms. Young. Absent: Mr. Farfan, Mr. Comendeiro. City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning and Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Principal Planner), Ms. Maria Stout -Tate (Administrative Assistant II). IV. Planning Board Applications /Public Hearings (C) PB -09 -017 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE 2007 SOUTH MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED TEXT AMENDMENT DOCUMENT ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON AUGUST 23, 2007 AND FOUND CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ON JANUARY 18, 2008, IN ORDER TO REMOVE FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT A PROPOSED NEW FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ENTITLED "NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER / MIXED USE DISTRICT "; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Action: Ms. Yates read into record. Discussion: Mr. Youkilis stated that at the April 21, 2009 City Commission Meeting, the Vice Mayor agreed to sponsor a special ordinance which would allow the EAR Text Based Amendments to be considered again, voted upon, and forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. This renewed effort would be in the form of a draft Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 2 ordinance which removes from the original Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based Text Amendment document (adopted in August 2007) any reference to a new proposed future land use category entitled "Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use District." The final adoption of Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based -Text Amendments has been pending since August 23, 2007, when the document was approved and sent to DCA. The document adopted in 2007 was approved by Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in January 2008. The final adoption has not been completed despite continuing attempts during the past two years. Mr. Steven David, Director of CRA stated that taking the text out of the EAR and then putting it back in at a later time is fine with him and his Board. Various studies have been done along with holding a charette and other meetings utilizing all the information that was gathered in the past. The CRA Board which is made up of the City Commission and two local residents wanted to have a mini workshop. The City of South Miami's Legal Department stated that CRA Board could not discuss Madison Square because the Board is made up of City Commissioners and due to the fact that it was going to vote on the issue causes a challenge because they could not discuss this item. Mr. Morton interjected and said that you have a Board made up of the City Commission who can not discuss what the CRA Board is going to discuss, because they are the City Commission and they can not talk about the issue? Mr. David then discussed a possible pro - forma study which would set forth a development program for Madison Square. Mr. Cruz inquired as to how much money the CRA has for this study. Mr. David stated approximately $5,000. Mr. David interjected and said that if the CRA Board does not want to do a new study, let's look at the previous information and make a decision on that. Mr. Morton opened the Public Hearing Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Reverend Gay 6961 SW 59 Place OPPOSE Reverend Gay, Pastor of St. John AME Church stated that there is a misunderstanding of this item. There is a need in the CRA community to have lots of things such as restaurants, shops, and barber shops. CRA was the economic engine to build the Shops of Sunset and Valencia but we can not build anything on Madison Square. I hope that what is on the books for Madison Square will go into effect. Mr. Youkilis stated a point -of- order, that in the staff report the section that would be removed is "Exhibit A ". This section would be the only section that would be removed. Ms. Young wanted to make sure that "Exhibit A" is the text that was sent to Tallahassee and this is what the Vice Mayor wants it to be stricken? Mr. Youkilis answered that that was correct. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 3 Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Phillip Stoddard 6820 SW 64 Court OPPOSE Mr. Stoddard stated that he was looking forward to seeing a diverse community. He recommended voting against this item and letting the Madison Square category stay as is. Mr. Morton directed a question to Rev. Gary asking if he was in agreement with what Mr. Stoddard was saying. Reverend Gay answered let's get it built and provide affordable housing. Four stories are what we are asking for. We might need four stories but maybe one story of commercial and provide the other stories for affordable housing. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Rev. Harris 6816 SW 59 Place OPPOSE Rev. Harris said that he would like to see a plan not just a study. The problem with the people who oppose this is that there is no one in the "target area" who is against this project. There should be some consideration that the people who live in this area want this project. All of the reverends have committed parking spaces, financial support, etc. Let's look at the houses on SW 64 Street that can be used for commercial use in the future. Now is the time for this issue to be passed. We need mixed use of every kind for our community. Valencia, Shops of Sunset and Red Road Commons are examples of what needs to be done in our community. Mr. Cruz inquired if the purpose of this item is to take it off this text so that the EAR can go forward. It might make the Madison Square project move faster in the future. Mr. Youkilis answered yes. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Dr. Joyce Price 6821 SW 59 Place OPPOSE Dr. Joyce Price, Chairman of the CAA Advisory Board. There have been three charettes, and a number of studies. CAA has earmarked $100,000 for this project. Do not take this item out of the EAR. Do not let the federal government take back the money. Remember that this is what the people want for their community. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Bob Welch None Written SUPPORT Mr. Bob Welch stated that he has spoken to people about the density of Valencia and Red Road Commons due to the 60 units per acre debate. None of the people whom he had spoken to has liked the fact that the density is so high. His concern was how far the density would go. He would not like to see 60 units per acre on SW 62 Avenue known as the Miller properties. He would like to have the Planning Board recommend removal of "Exhibit A" from the EAR. Once the EAR is passed, and then bring it back at 25 units per acre. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Cruz asked if this zoning is somewhere else besides this location. Mr. Youkilis answered by saying that this is a land use category not a zoning district. This land use category does not exist right now. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that it could be used anywhere once it is approved. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Walter Harris 7100 SW 64 Court SUPPORT Mr. Harris would like to have this one clause removed and then brought back. He believes that this issue needs to be moved forward. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Ms. Beth Schwartz None Written SUPPORT Ms. Schwartz stated that this is not an issue about Madison Square. This is a density issue and a land use issue. Approve this without having 60 units per acre density. Ms. Schwartz held up the colored future land use map showing possible locations where this land use category allowing 60 units per acre might go if approved. Change the language, take the land use category out of the EAR and go forward. Mr. Morton asked a question to Mr. Youkilis referencing the color shown on the map, and inquired as to how these locations were determined. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that these areas are mixed use commercial four stories. Mr. Morton stated that under the current land use it is limited to 24 units per acre. Mr. Youkilis answered yes. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Christopher Cooke - Yarborough 6802 SW 64 Ave. SUPPORT Mr. Cooke - Yarborough stated that the issue is who decided that 60 units per acre; where did this come from. This density is overwhelming. He went on to remind the audience that this density could be used City wide not just in one location. Mr. Morton asked where the amount of 60 units came from. Mr. Youkilis stated that a past Planning Director decided on 60 units per acre after discussing the issue with neighborhood representatives and City consultants. Mr. Cruz asked why this issue is focused solely on Madison Square when it could be any where in the City. Mr. Youkilis said it was created specifically for the Madison Square and that category would be placed on the map if adopted. Under the Comprehensive Plan Act a land use category is generic and it could be used some where else. Mr. David interjected and stated that the two higher density projects Red Road Commons and Valencia were done as PUD's. Mr. Morton asked how big is the Madison Square area. Mr. David answered by saying a little over one acre. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 5 Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Levy Kelly 6250 SW 60 Ave. OPPOSE Mr. Kelly said that this project can be up -to 60 units. You paid consultants to give you a study and now you have a Commissioner that does not like the wording, so now efforts are being made to reverse it? There is an agenda to reverse this issue and it should not be allowed. Pass this EAR with the original wording and go forward. Mr. Cruz asked if a PUD requires a minimum of 2 acres. Could we do a variance for Madison Square? What is it that we have to do to have this project done? Mr. Youkilis answered by saying that most zoning codes require minimum acreage. The Code could be amended to show a lower minimum acreage. Ms. Yates inquired if you could do a variance. Mr. Youkilis answered no. Mr. Cruz stated that there must be a way to get Madison Square built, but he did not want this to become the standard anywhere for South Miami. But based on what they want for this area; let's get it done. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that you could produce an overlay area like you have downtown and have a mechanism where by special exception they could exceed that density. In the Hometown you have 24 units per acre, but you can go higher than that by getting a special exception per the Land Development Code. Mr. Youkilis reminded that the City Commission approves everything. We are more concerned about getting the EAR based amendments approved so that we can go forward because there are other amendments that we can not go forward on until the EAR based amendments are approved. The State is requiring us to do text amendments which we can not do until the EAR based amendments are approved. Mr. Cruz asked again why Madison Square has to be linked to this issue. I do not want 60 units throughout the City, but I would vote immediately if they want it in their area, then let's get it done. I did not realize that this issue would affect the entire City. Mr. Youkilis again stated that what is being proposed by the Vice Mayor is a method to remove the current land use category and bring it back at another time. Ms. Yates interjected that it does not matter if it is 60 or 25 units per acre, if the City Commission does not approve it, then it does not matter. As a planner density is not your enemy it is your friend. The Commission is not going to accept it. Mr. Youkilis stated that the City adopted this issue and it was sent to Tallahassee; so some action has to occur to receive approval from to the State. Mr. Cruz asked what they would have to do to get the area of Madison Square built. Mr. Youkilis stated that the Vice Mayor said that he would sponsor at a later date an appropriate Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 6 amendment that would relate to Madison Square; that would be a new land use category that could be used there. Mr. Cruz asked if this Board could sponsor it or does it have to be done by the City Commission. Ms. Young asked if they could recommend back to the Commission what we already recommended several times. What happens? Mr. Whitman interjected and asked if we could vote against it. Mr. Youkilis answered by saying that he would have to look into who could start a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment. He would have to get back to the Board. Mr. Cruz added by saying that he would like to get this done so that they could come back and get Madison Square done. Ms. Young inquired about Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use District. Does it stand for Madison Square? Mr. Youkilis answered that is a land use category set for Madison Square. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Oliver van Gundlach 6755 SW 74 Street SUPPORT Mr. Oliver Van Gundlach stated that the only reason Madison Square can not be built is because it does not meet the underlying zoning which is non - conforming. We need to pass the EAR first, and then we can do a study and then go forward. Speaker: NAME: ADDRESS: SUPPORT /OPPOSE Mr. Rodney Williams 6041 SW 66 Street OPPOSE Mr. Rodney Williams stated that his concern was that at the Commission level they are being ignored. The issue is still that the units are up -to 60 units and that taking out the wording would not be what the Commission had voted on in the past. Mr. Morton closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Morton asked Mr. Youkilis how long it would take to determine how a Land Use Amendment can be initiated. Mr. Youkilis stated that the Planning Board can only recommend a land use change to the City Commission, but only the Commission can start the process. Mr. Morton went on to say that with what we have tonight, if we voted to recommend against the change, it would go to the City Commission? Mr. Youkilis answered by saying that it would go in front of the Commission on July 21sT , both this ordinance that you have in front of you, and an ordinance adopting all the EAR based amendments. It would be Is' reading. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that it would go to the Commission regardless of what this Board does tonight. Mr. Morton answered that he understood that the final approval is made at the Commission level. If we recommend approval this evening, then the EAR based amendments would go through, then at what time frame could an amendment be initiated to make a change for the over all density issue. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Youkilis stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendments are introduced twice a year. Mr. Morton asked how long it would take the DCA. Mr. Youkilis stated 3 months. Mr. Whitman stated that it is useful to talk about the history about this issue; it has been going on for four (4) years. On the basis of all those discussions there were a series of recommendations based on all those public hearings and those were encompassed in the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report which is available on the City Web site. Mr. Whitman read into the record from the 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report section Table II.A.2. page 12 of the report titled Potential Future Land use Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendments: Two areas required new land use categories, locations 1 & 2; SW 62 Avenue and the Madison Square area. Under category 1 which is SW 62 Avenue the following has been written:. "Change Mixed Use Commercial/Residential to a category that allows for current or existing uses plus mixed -use commercial /residential, offices, or town - homes (limited to two stories)." The question which Mr. Whitman asked was why wasn't there a future land use category in this recommendation corresponding to that? I shall answer that in a few moments, because currently there is no category for SW 62 Avenue. "(Madison Square) Change Mixed Use Commercial/Residential to a Mixed Use category that includes Commercial /Office/Residential and Neighborhood Center /Cultural uses, limiting to 2 stories with adequate setbacks to protect the residential areas." The final proposed text amendment, however, was for 4 stories and 60 units per acre. Mr. Whitman went on to give an explanation as to why he felt certain things were changed or weren't changed. Mr. Whitman felt that it wasn't just the Madison Square issue but four (4) stores could be placed at other locations. Mr. Whitman made a motion recommending approval of the ordinance as submitted. Mr. Whitman encouraged members to vote for this ordinance as written and if we want to recommend a new land use category which is two stories and allows mixed use that can be a recommendation. Ms. Young asked Mr. Youkilis under Exhibit "A" the proposed Amendment to the EAR Based Text Amendments, Chapter 1 Future Land Use Element, Future Land Use Category, under the second paragraph which was stricken it states "In addition, the City adopts a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units per acre ". As per the comments from the public, 60 was used as the ultimate, as a one time number. No where in the future Land Use Category does it say 60 units must be built. It could be less than 60 but it did not say 60 only. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that everyone knows that, and that all land use categories say a maximum of 24 or 16 units or whatever. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 8 Ms. Young went on to say that she was hearing something different in this meeting then in previous meetings. It was "up -to" and not just 60 units as a flat number. We voted 6- 0 in the last meeting; it was my understanding that it could be a maximum of 60 units but 60 was not an absolute number per acre. That was not my understanding at all. Motion: Mr. Whitman stated that he made a motion to approve. Mr. Morton repeated that there was a motion and requested a second? The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Morton went on to say that in the original text it says 60 units per acre, but that any residential component should be not greater than 75 % of the gross floor area, so a reduction will result. Mr. Whitman interrupted and stated that he did not understand why his motion did not get a second. He went on to say that if you wanted to vote against it, then vote against it. Mr. Cruz asked Mr. Youkilis that when the new category was created was it a category that was general or specific for Madison Square? Mr. Youkilis stated that Madison Square was the target of this land use category. Ms. Yates stated that the pink land use area on the Land Use Map as displayed by Ms. Schwartz was misleading in that it is a current designation. The text gets approved and then the next thing is where the designated areas will be. Mr. Whitman interjected and said that if you owned a property in that future land use area then you could be able to apply to build up -to 60 units per acre on the property. Mr. Youkilis stated that it would be possible to build 60 units, but that the final approval /decision maker would come from the City Commission. Mr. Whitman motioned to move again to accept the ordinance as written, and it was seconded by Mr. Cruz. Mr. Morton had to advise Mr. Whitman that his original motion failed due to lack of a second, so in turn he was not able to make the same motion, another party would have to make a motion. Motion: Mr. Cruz made a motion and Mr. Whitman seconded to approve the proposed ordinance as written. Vote: 2 yes, 3 no (Young, Morton, Yates) The motion failed of passage. Mr. Morton asked Mr. Youkilis if at this point there is no action due to the failure of passing the ordinance. Mr. Youkilis responded that he was correct that no action had been taken due to the voting. Mr. Morton inquired with the Board if anyone else had a motion to make on this item. Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2009 Page 9 Motion: Ms. Young made a motion and Ms. Yates seconded, to recommend back to the City Commission the Board's previous recommendation to keep the Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use Land Use Category in the EAR Based Text Amendment document. Mr. Whitman questioned Ms. Young as to why make a motion if the Board just finished voting down the ordinance as is. Why would you need to recommend something to happen when it is already in existence? Ms. Young stated that the City Commission is waiting to hear from this Board, so she was recommending back what the Planning Board recommended in February 2009. Mr. Whitman interjected and said the Board recommended doing what the Commission did not want to do, and it is still in effect from the previous EAR. Ms. Young reworded her motion and Ms. Yates seconded, by saying that the Board wants to continue support for the established language maintained in the existing EAR. Vote: 3 yes, 2 no (Mr. Cruz, Mr. Whitman). The motion was adopted. Mr. Morton accepted another motion by Mr. Whitman. Motion: Mr. Whitman motioned to recommend to the City Commission to create a new land use category, a two story mixed used land use category as specified in Table II.A.2, Page 12, of the City of South Miami 2006 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which referred to a future land use plan map amendment for the SW 62 Avenue corridor, because no such land use category exists. Mr. Morton asked if there was a second. Ms. Yates seconded the motion. Vote: 4 yes, 1 no (Ms. Young). The motion was adopted. XAComm Items\2009 \7- 21 -09\PB Minutes Excerpt EAR -] 4 -09 Am