HEARING NO. 17-002 -- DISTRICT(S) 08 -- 12499 HOLDINGS, LLC -- REQUEST(S): - THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHANGE FROM AU TO RU-3M -- LOCATION: LYING SOUTH OF THEORETICAL SW 232 STREET, APPROXIMATELY 337.56' WEST OF SW 124 AVENUE, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY (UDB)
Indexes:
NONE
Sponsors:
NONE
Sunset Provision:
No
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist:
None Listed
Legislative History
Acting Body
Date
Agenda Item
Action
Sent To
Due Date
Returned
Pass/Fail
Board of County Commissioners
10/19/2017
C
Approved
P
REPORT:
Mr. Nathan Kogan, Assistant Director, Department of Regulatory an Economic Resources, read the item into the record.
Chairman Bovo opened the floor for public hearing; seeing no persons wishing to appear, Chairman Bovo closed the floor to public comment.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that the motion was to approve with staff’s recommendations with exception to the covenants.
Mr. Humberto Pastelito, 2525, Ponce De Leon, Coral Gables, FL, attorney for the applicant, provided his name and address for the record.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to approve staff’s recommendation with conditions.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board and set forth in the Record of Resolutions and assigned #Z-25-17.
Board of County Commissioners
7/20/2017
2
Deferred
9/14/2017
P
REPORT:
Mr. Nathan Kogon, Assistant Director, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, read the title of the item into the record.
Mr. Gilberto Pastoriza, 2525 Ponce de Leon, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Board, noting this was an appeal from a decision by the Community Zoning Appeals Board (CZAB), denying a re-zoning of the property from Agricultural to RU3M. He clarified that the property was located south of 232nd Street and within walking distance of the Rapid Transit Busway, and US1. Mr. Pastoriza stated that this denial was inconsistent with the County Code, the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and State law. He pointed out that the property was zoned agricultural, which requires one unit per five acres; and the CDMP amendment which was recently adopted by the County Commission allows from 6-13 units per acre. He recalled that at a zoning hearing held in 2016 some of the commissioners voiced the opinion that more density should be allowed close to the highway. He noted this Application made sense, because it would put density near the highway, and prevent urban sprawl going west. Mr. Pastoriza stressed that all of the County departments were recommending approval of this Application, and urged the County Commission to overturn the decision of the CZAB, and approve the re-zoning of the property.
Mr. Juan Carlos Lopez, 23401 SW 124th Ave., Miami, appeared before the Board, noting he owned a home across from the property that was the subject of this Application. He stated that his neighborhood constituted a little Horse Country; and if the re-zoning were approved, it would affect the residents’ lifestyle and property values. Mr. Lopez lamented that no traffic study had been undertaken; and the conclusions that the busway ridership would increase if the property was developed was based on assumptions.
Mr. Bryan Throckmorton, 12299 SW 232nd Street, Miami, appeared before the Board and expressed his concern with the proposed development. He said he and his family had lived in this neighborhood for 28 years and had witnessed many changes; they enjoyed the peace and quiet of the area. Mr. Throckmorton lamented that having a multi-apartment building in the neighborhood would have a negative impact on the area; and would negatively affect traffic.
Ms. Johanna Coppers, 23401 SW 124th Ave., Homestead, appeared before the Board, and stated that she and her family bought a beautiful house in the neighborhood one year ago. She said she used to live in Doral; but she and her family wanted to live in the country. Ms. Coppers noted when they moved in traffic was not a problem; however, recently, traffic had become heavier, and she feared that it would become worse if the proposed development was allowed.
Mr. Jorge Cuadrado, 23451 SW 123rd Ave., Miami, appeared before the Board, noting he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. He said he and his family moved there shortly after he retired from the United States Navy because they wanted space, peace and quiet. Mr. Cuadrado recalled that at the last hearing which he attended near his home, hundreds of property owners expressed their opposition to this development.
Commissioner Levine Cava said it gave her great pause to hear the concerns of the residents who were fearful that their lifestyle was threatened. On the other hand, she pointed out that the CDMP had already been changed in accordance with the development along the transit way. Commissioner Levine Cava requested some clarifications regarding the proposed development.
Mr. Pastoriza said he believed that there were some misunderstandings because the advertisement for the Application indicated that the property was to be zoned RU3M, which included minimum apartment house districts. He clarified that the applicant would not be constructing apartments, but rather two-story townhouses; and he displayed a rendering of the project.
Pursuant to Commissioner Levine Cava’s question as to whether a covenant to the Application had been proffered to that effect, Mr. Pastoriza noted he would support an after-the-fact covenant which would provide that apartments would not be built, but rather two-story townhomes.
In response to Commissioner Levine Cava’s question regarding the appropriate mechanism to ensure that apartments would not be built, Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised that the appropriate mechanism would be for the applicant to voluntarily proffer a covenant providing that a particular site plan would be developed. He noted this was a re-zoning application, which typically could not be subject to conditions. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel recommended that the application be deferred to provide the applicant sufficient time to prepare the covenant, as this would allow the County Commission to approve the application and a fully executed covenant at the same time.
Commissioner Levine Cava noted the reason the Comprehensive Plan was changed along this corridor was to provide connectivity to the transit way, and to Rapid Transit for pedestrians and vehicles. She pointed out that currently there was no developed through road at 232nd Street; and she inquired as to the plans to complete 232nd Street to US1, and as to the requirements for the developer to build a complete street segment along the front of the property on 232nd Street.
Mr. Kogon noted through the plating process, the applicant was required to build 232nd Street in front of the property.
Mr. Raul Pino, Chief of Planning, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, indicated that at this moment 232nd Street was not a dedicated right-of-way; through the development process, the developers to the east and to the west were constructing 232nd Street. He pointed out that the connection to Dixie Highway was problematic because of the adjacent canal; consequently, staff was considering re-aligning the road slightly to the north. However, Mr. Pino assured Commissioner Levine Cava that while vehicular connectivity was problematic, pedestrian connectivity could be provided to Dixie Highway.
Commissioner Levine Cava noted connectivity was essential; and she inquired whether this could be included in a covenant.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that the covenant could provide that connectivity would be explored through the plating process; however, because of the lack of an engineering solution to the vehicular connectivity to Dixie Highway, it would not be possible to impose this as a requirement, at this time.
Commissioner Levine Cava pointed out that there was more than one property, and she inquired whether the vehicles would be able to connect from the properties to the major corridors.
Mr. Pastoriza indicated that the applicant owned both properties; the property that was adjacent to US1was already zoned RU3M; and staff was supportive of having both properties re-zoned to low-medium density residential. Mr. Pastoriza stated that the applicant was planning to develop a townhouse complex on the second property.
Commissioner Levine Cava inquired whether the applicant would agree to conditions requiring that a neighborhood street network be built to avoid having a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Pastoriza stressed that there would be no cul-de-sac in the properties, as designed. He said the applicant would agree to provide a pedestrian connection to US1.
Mr. Kogon defined the RU3M designation, noting it was essentially a townhouse district, which only allowed a maximum of two stories.
Commissioner Moss noted this was the type of discussion that the County Commission members should be having in the future; it involved a choice between moving the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) or allowing more density. Commissioner Moss said in his district it was clear that he would prefer to allow more density along the transit way. He pointed out that at some point the UDB may need to be moved. He expressed his support for a deferral that would provide the time for the applicant to develop a covenant.
Commissioner Sosa wondered whether it would be possible for the County Commission to approve the item pending the covenant. She expressed her agreement with Commissioner Moss’ observation that it was inevitable that the County would experience more density in the future; however, she said she would prefer for the density to take the form of two-story townhouses rather than apartment buildings, as a number of apartment buildings did not have sufficient parking. Commissioner Sosa expressed her support for this type of controlled growth.
Commissioner Monestime expressed his support for the deferral to provide time for the applicant to develop a covenant; and he said he agreed with Commissioner Moss’ assessment that there should be more density along the transit way. He pointed out that the residents appeared to be misinformed regarding the developer’s intent regarding the property; and he inquired what steps could be taken in the future to better explain to the residents the nature of a proposed development. Commissioner Monestime also suggested that perhaps the Code could be amended to avoid such confusion in the future.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that it would be appropriate for the residents to speak with the Zoning staff and with the developer. He suggested that the Code could be amended to adjust the title of the Zoning district to avoid confusion.
Commissioner Jordan pointed out that Miami-Dade County was almost completely built with the exception of South Dade; and affordability was an important consideration.
In response to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding the price range of the units in the proposed development, Mr. Pastoriza stated that this would be a rental community.
Mr. Irvin Grainer (phonetic spelling), 12999 Homestead, appeared before the Board, noting the primary intent of this development was to sell the townhomes in the range of $200,000. He stated that if the units were not sold, they would be rented for $1500.
Commissioner Moss questioned whether it would be necessary to defer the item. He inquired whether an agreement could be reached regarding the terms of the covenant; and whether the County Commission could condition its approval on the execution of the covenant.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that a long body of case law existed which prohibited conditioning a district boundary change; therefore, if the Applicant did not proffer an executed covenant, and the County took the Applicant to court, the judge may decide that the County did not have the ability to impose the condition in the first place.
Responding to Commissioner Moss’ question as to whether the case law was based on State or federal law, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted it was based on State law that was rooted in the issue of contract zoning; and this had been the County Attorney’s consistent advice for many years.
Pursuant to Commissioner Moss’ question regarding whether the County’s lobbyists could lobby the State Legislature to have the law rescinded, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel said he would study the possibility of contesting this law.
Mr. Pastoriza acknowledged the existence of case law supporting the Assistant County Attorney’s advice; however, notwithstanding that case law, he promised that he would proffer the executed covenant within a week. He recalled that many years ago, the County approved items pending receipt of an executed covenant.
Commissioner Levine Cava said she believed that the covenant would be complicated, because it would include the nature of the homes, the pedestrian access, and road access. Therefore, she noted, in an abundance of caution, she would heed the Assistant County Attorney’s advice, and defer the item to have time to review the covenant. Commissioner Levine Cava thanked the residents for coming. She acknowledged that most of them had lived in this area for a long time, and that peace was fundamental to quality of life. Nevertheless, she pointed out that Miami-Dade County would continue to expand, and it was inevitable that growth would have to occur in areas located close to the transit way. Commissioner Levine Cava noted the County Commission was working very hard to ensure that the County had quality transit. She said it was the Administration’s expectation that property values would increase because of the proposed development.
Mr. Pastoriza said he wished to ensure that in drafting the covenant he met the wishes of the County Commission members. He noted based on the discussion he believed that the commissioners wished the covenant to cover the two-story townhomes at the density afforded by the RU3M zoning, pedestrian access to US1 immediately, and in the future vehicular access to US1.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that the item would be considered at the September 14, 2017 Zoning meeting; and at that meeting the members of the public would not have the opportunity to speak, because they had been provided that opportunity today (07/20).
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to defer the item to the Zoning meeting of September 14, 2017.
Legislative Text
There is no text currently available online for this item.
