Gainesville City Commission moves forward with changes in minimum lot sizes

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the January 11 General Policy Committee meeting, the Gainesville City Commission moved forward with a proposal to change minimum lot sizes in single-family residential zones and added a request for staff to bring back Gainesville-specific data before they vote on the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Bryan Eastman said he had brought the proposal forward to “ensure that more people are able to live affordably within our community” and that it was an attempt to find a middle ground to allow more people to have homes while protecting the integrity of our residential neighborhoods. Eastman said, “We’re trying to make sure that we can build more single-family homes while preserving single-family zoning,… make it possible to build starter homes where it is now nearly impossible financially to make it work, except in a handful of small zoning districts.”

Eastman said the proposal will protect single-family zoning, will maintain space and setbacks between homes, and will “work to preserve neighborhood character and green space.”

The proposal condenses the four single-family residential zones into one single-family zone, adopts the lot dimension standards of Residental Conservation zoning, and allows cottage neighborhoods. Residential Conservation zoning allows 12 units per acre, making the minimum lot size 0.8 acres. The minimum frontage is 35 feet, with a minimum size of 3,000 square feet and a 20-foot rear setback, 10-foot front setback, and five-foot side setbacks. 

According to Eastman, “I don’t think the status quo, as is, is currently working for most people. The cost to buy a home is becoming out of reach for a number of families. Large lot sizes have made starter homes rare.”

Supported by organizations from Gainesville/Alachua County Association of Realtors to the Alachua County Labor Coalition

Eastman said the change is supported by Habitat for Humanity, the AARP, the Sierra Club, the Biden-Harris administration (Eastman said the administration “has really made zoning reform, including minimum lot size reform, a huge part of their push to get cities to be more equitable to help working-class folks”), the Gainesville/Alachua County Association of Realtors, and the Alachua County Labor Coalition.

Commissioner Reina Saco said, “This is a good example of bringing forward something that has been tested out, not in the local sphere… but in larger settings… We’ve seen across a wide board that it is not the end of the world in those neighborhoods.” She said this would “help – not solve – a lot of our housing situation because… this does not fix everything… This is one of the hallmark tools that municipal governments have to encourage more diversity of housing.”

Mayor Harvey Ward noted, “An interesting thing about this, to me, is that we don’t often see the Alachua County Labor Coalition and the Gainesville/Alachua County Association of Realtors come together on something.”

Chestnut: Concerns about city-wide implementation

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut said she was “concerned about implementing this city-wide, which is about 62 miles… I would rather see a smaller study involving the Shimberg [Center]… in other neighborhoods, other than the African American neighborhoods.”

Commissioner Casey Willits said it seemed like “common sense. If you exclude people by saying you have to have bigger and bigger and bigger, then if we want to be more inclusionary in our city, that’s how we go about it.”

Chestnut said she was also concerned about jobs: “We do not have the economic development in this community that allows people to really tap into what we call affordable housing at $300,000… I don’t consider that as an affordable house.” 

Ward: “Allowing smaller lot sizes does not require smaller lot sizes”

Ward said a lot of the existing Residential Conservation zoning is in east Gainesville, and Pleasant Street, for example, is “getting built out; if it’s not completely built out already, it soon will be, with small lot sizes… So people want smaller lot sizes. They’re buying them, and they’re building on them… There are folks who just don’t want to spend the whole summer mowing grass.” He said people also like to downsize as they age. He emphasized, “Allowing smaller lot sizes does not require smaller lot sizes, and that’s something that gets lost in this conversation very easily.” He also wanted everyone to understand that they weren’t making any final decisions in that meeting; any ordinance would still require two hearings before the City Commission. 

Saco spoke about the income needed to buy a house right now: “Gone are the days of buying a house for a stick of gum and a nickel.” She estimated that a household income of $68k to $75k would be necessary to buy a $300,000 home, so by her calculations, two school teachers would be able to buy a home “with this kind of program, if it is allowed to drop down just a little bit… I look at it this way: if this helps five families get a home, I would consider that a job well done.”

Commissioner Ed Book was concerned about provisions in Eastman’s proposal that go beyond lot dimension standards; he asked staff for more information, but Director for Sustainable Development Forrest Eddleton said he had not had a chance to study the proposal in detail, so Book asked Eastman to answer his question.

Minor subdivisions (cottage neighborhoods): “Homes do not have to front a street, so long as they are separated by some amount of green space”

Eastman said the lot dimension standards for Residential Conservation are already in the City’s code, so the process would be for the City Plan Board to review those standards and propose language that would come to the City Commission for a first reading in the spring. He said the minor subdivision language just means that “homes do not have to front a street, so long as they are separated by some amount of green space.” Eastman said the City already has a mechanism for splitting lots, “so there’s no real updates to that; it’s the same structure as before.”

Book said he had concerns about retroactively applying these zoning changes “in a big swath” of existing neighborhoods but said he could support the minimum lot sizes for new development. Eastman said most of the existing neighborhoods already have platted setbacks, so “chances are it will probably continue in that way, and that’s within the contract of the home, so there are protections within there that this doesn’t impact and we can’t impact.” He said someone could still potentially split those lots, but they would have the existing setbacks. 

Willits said he couldn’t “gatekeep and say Gainesville can’t be a refuge to the next person who wants [to come here]… and there’s no longer any small homes for them to get into when they’re ready. I can’t let the past hold back future human beings; I gotta live for the human beings who are turning 18 today or 24, I gotta live for them, and I can’t hold onto the past too much.”

Public comment

During public comment, Joy Glanzer from the Gainesville/Alachua County Association of Realtors said the Association “strongly endorsed” the policy, “and we’re glad to be on the side of the labor union… We firmly believe that reforming lot size regulations will foster innovation and diversity in the local housing market.” The next speaker said Eastman’s proposal was an “untested theory in towns of our size… Once done, it can’t be undone.” The third speaker said these zoning decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. A representative from Habitat for Humanity supported the policy.

Monica Frazier from Gainesville Neighborhood Voices said the organization has proposed “two ways to strategically add residential density to the city,” but Eastman has not adopted the changes. She also said the City has not provided any information about which lots would be impacted by the proposal and that Eastman should pilot the proposal in his own neighborhood first. 

Kim Tanzer said she hoped the City Commission would “move slowly and that you will ask staff to provide… Gainesville-specific information before sending it to the planning board.” She said the lots affected by this will be in the “Venn diagram” of vacant lots wider than 70 feet and larger than 7,000 square feet that don’t have deed restrictions. “When you have that information, you’ll know how this could actually work.”

Tana Silva said new houses on small lots aren’t necessarily affordable, citing the “$500,000 and up” prices for new homes “on very small lots” in the Pleasant Street neighborhood. She said “existing neighborhoods need to be treated with a scalpel,” which is already possible through case-by-case petitions for lot splits.

Clay Sweger said he thought the proposal would “make the city more competitive and increase the housing stock [and] fight urban sprawl… And as someone that lives in single-family RSF1 zoning, I would be totally fine with these regulations, just as a neighbor.”

Kali Blount said the previous attempt to eliminate single-family zoning, which was repealed in June 2023, was “well-intentioned… but didn’t go far enough.” He said this effort should include “price points and design criteria [for] family-oriented design” for low- and moderate-income families.

Robert Mounts said, “If you can’t find a way to ensure that these homes are actually affordable and built for small families and and not marketed by the room to students, it simply fails.”

The next speaker said the median price for houses currently for sale in Gainesville is just over $300,000, with some available under $200,000: “You have assumed there are no starter houses; you have assumed that greater density will create more affordability. There is no evidence for that.”

Bobby Mermer, Coordinator of the Alachua County Labor Coalition, said the union “is proud to support this proposal to make homeownership more affordable and level the playing field for smaller, local, and nonprofit developers by reforming the City’s minimum lot size requirements.” He said that while people are worried about gentrification, “deep-pocketed developers… already have the ability to use the consultants to game the current system through rezoning and plan development processes. What this proposal does is simply level the playing field for other actors that build the kinds of neighborhoods that we want to see.”

Melanie Barr objected to the plan as a “blanket overlay… The people who are speaking for this are realtors and home builders [and the Labor Coalition]; no person who’s saying ‘I own a home’ [has spoken in favor of the proposal].” She said the proposal could also lead to a loss of trees. 

Faye Williams objected to the proposal and said, “We should be united; we should be trying to take back GRU instead of allowing the Republicans to come in and take it… I have hope because I still believe in the people.”

Peggy Carr said neighborhoods or blocks should have the opportunity to opt out of the proposal, the City should notify every resident when doing city-wide rezonings, and clarity should be provided on whether two Accessory Dwelling Units would be allowed on each property if the proposal passes: “Are we talking 12 units per acre or 36 units per acre?”

Saco: “I think the fear-mongering is really unwarranted”

Following public comment, Saco said the Labor Coalition speaker represented hundreds of people “who voted and took this position.. so let’s go with that, to even up the numbers here.” She said the new houses may not necessarily be affordable, but they will allow people in existing homes to “move on to something nicer,” making that older house available. She said the proposal would not “bulldoze the whole city, which is what this is often painted as… Nobody’s doing that.” She said it would mean “a small injection” of residents into existing neighborhoods, “so I think the fear-mongering is really unwarranted.”

“But, you know, three of the six neighbors move, and now immigrants are there, or a gay couple, or a person of a different color. ‘That’s not the neighborhood I bought into.’ That’s basically what I’m hearing here.” – Commissioner Reina Saco

The audience objected when Saco said, “But, you know, three of the six neighbors move, and now immigrants are there, or a gay couple, or a person of a different color. ‘That’s not the neighborhood I bought into.’ That’s basically what I’m hearing here.” Somebody called out, “What are you talking about?” and Mayor Ward had to repeatedly say, “Let’s not do this,” with members of the audience calling out, “You need to talk to [Commissioner Saco]” before order was restored.

Saco raised her voice and said, “The government cannot guarantee that people are not going to move or stay or not go anywhere, based on any trait… and families come in different shapes and colors and types… And I’m sorry, that sounds offensive, but that is analogous to what is being said here, guarantee that only some people will live here.” After another comment from the audience, Saco sarcastically said, “I appreciate the maturity in the room, really.” She said she didn’t “believe in spot zoning… I’m going to do what is good for the whole of the city, for the majority of the city and those who most need help.”

Ward: “This is about lot sizes. Let’s not make it anything more than what it actually is.”

Ward started to call on Eastman but paused to “ask that everybody, up here and out there, remember that we’re neighbors… This is about lot sizes. Let’s not make it anything more than what it actually is. We did a lot of that a year and a half ago. It got real ugly. It doesn’t need to be ugly; it really doesn’t.”

Answering the question of why he wanted the change to be city-wide, Eastman said that allowing zoning “by right” makes it available to smaller builders who don’t have the resources to go through the City’s approval process. 

Eastman’s motion

Eastman made a motion for staff to review and bring back an ordinance altering the single-family zoning code to reflect Residential Conservation lot dimension standards, as well as the minor subdivision standard. Saco seconded the motion, and Chestnut said she would have another motion after the vote. 

Book asked whether existing development could maintain its zoning, while the changes could apply to land that’s not in an existing neighborhood: “I do not support retroactively applying something across an entire grid of a city, even though extremely well-intended. But I do support the goals that we’ve talked about today,… diverse housing stock and affordability options and more opportunity.”

Commissioner Desmon Duncan-Walker said she would be interested in seeing something “a little more fleshed-out, that definitely does include that opt-in and opt-out [and a] price point… I have also shied away from anything that just covered the entire city… I would much rather deal with a pilot.”

“I don’t like it when we say things about students as if we were going to spit on the ground after we said the word. But let’s just keep that in mind when we talk about students as a class of people. They’re not a class of people; they’re just like all of us. They are people who need a place to live while they study. And they’re young, usually, so they party a little bit, they make a little noise, they make a little trash. But they’re not the only ones who do that.” – Mayor Harvey Ward

Ward said the City is already “testing this” because there are already neighborhoods with Residential Conservation zoning, and they have big houses and small houses. He disagreed with some of the criticisms of developers that cater to students: “I don’t like it when we say things about students as if we were going to spit on the ground after we said the word. But let’s just keep that in mind when we talk about students as a class of people. They’re not a class of people; they’re just like all of us. They are people who need a place to live while they study. And they’re young, usually, so they party a little bit, they make a little noise, they make a little trash. But they’re not the only ones who do that… I don’t think this is the sort of thing that is going to destroy family homes… If this passes, there will be at least three more opportunities for everybody to weigh in on it and to learn more about it.”

Eastman’s motion passed 4-3, with Book, Chestnut, and Duncan-Walker in dissent.

Chestnut’s motion

Chestnut made a motion to ask staff to bring back information that had been requested by Kim Tanzer:

1. How many housing units are allowed across the city now in all zoning districts?
2. Where are the vacant lots relevant to this proposal located? These will be lots larger than 70 feet across and more than 7,000 square feet.
3. Which neighborhoods have restrictive covenants that would exclude the subdivision of lots?
4. How many new homes would likely be built in five years?
5. Which of these neighborhoods with sufficient large lots seek the changes proposed?
6. Which neighborhoods with sufficiently large lots beyond these could be persuaded to endorse this proposal?
7. Are these neighborhoods served by infrastructure, roads, wastewater and stormwater removal, power, cable, etc., with sufficient excess capacity to absorb substantial additional development?

Chestnut also added the recommendation from Peggy Carr to allow blocks or neighborhoods to opt out of the new minimum lot sizes. Duncan-Walker seconded the motion.

Ward said he supported some of that but not all of it; he said some of it would be conjecture. Chestnut said staff could come back and tell the commission which parts they can do.

Chief Operating Officer Andrew Persons said some of the data is available, but parts 5, 6, and 7 would require conjecture; he said it is difficult to research deed restrictions because some neighborhoods are very old, and there’s no central database with that information. “Everything else, I think we can pull that information together.”

Chestnut agreed to remove 5, 6, and 7 from her motion. Eastman said he wasn’t sure how an opt-out would work, and Persons asked who would opt out: “So would it be an adjacent property owner who would be opting out of allowing the neighboring property owner from splitting the lot? Would a neighborhood decide which lots are in, which lots are out?” Chestnut suggested that a neighborhood association could make that determination: “Anyway, come back, just look into it. It’s worth looking into.”

Willits said that in Houston, “their wealthier neighborhoods are the ones that opted out, and so I don’t look forward to an opt-out kind of thing because when you invite people to vote against the people who… don’t have the, quote, same income, relatively speaking, it opens a real ugly can of worms.”

The motion passed 4-3, with Saco, Ward, and Willits in dissent; Eastman was the only commissioner who voted for both motions.