Good evening, folks. We're going to call the meeting to order. Going to go ahead and call roll. Board member Julia, present. Board member Cruz, present. Board member Deassier >> present. >> Board member Leonio
>> present. >> And vice chair Rodriguez >> here. >> And for the record, Chair Senra is absent. >> Everybody stand please for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> We'll have a moment of silence specifically today for one of our residents who has become ill in the last
couple months and is very special to our town. Thank you. You can be seated. We need a motion to uh approve the minutes from the February 10th meeting. >> I'll make the motion to approve the meeting. >> All right. I have
>> second that. >> We have a second. Calling roll to approve the minutes from February 10th. Motion by board member Deasier and seconded by board member Julia. Board member Cruz. >> Yes.
>> Board member Julia. >> Yes. >> Board member Leonio. >> Yes. >> Board member Delas Deleser. >> Yes. >> And vice chair Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> The motion passes. >> Mr. Clerk, would you uh go ahead and
call for uh public comments and explain the rules, please? >> Sure. Uh good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting. If you are here and would like to participate in public comments, please approach the podium. You'll state your name and address for the record. Anyone
to part wishing to participate in remote public comments online or via Zoom. Please raise your hand by clicking on the reactions icon and select raise hand. Those of you joining the meeting via phone, please raise your hand by pressing the asterk or the star symbol
and then the number nine. It will then allow you to speak. Each member of the public is afforded three minutes. So again, welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting and remember to state your name and address for the record. And thank you a moment of personal privilege if I may.
>> Go ahead. just I I want to kind of lay the groundwork. I'm sorry, Mera. I'm going to be very brief, but I just kind of want to lay the groundwork of what we're doing here tonight. Um you you all as the the planning and zoning board really serve two principal functions. When you were created by the council, I
think it was and and chairman, you might be able to help me with this. I think there was like 08 or 07. It used to be before that time that the council wore both hats as uh a deciding any variances and deciding anything and everything that was quasi judicial and also they
served as a local planning agency. Now those two hats are a little different. You and you both have worn them often. The var when it comes to variances you hear variances and you wear your quasi judicial hat meaning you're acting as a judge. any of those orders can be
appealed subsequently uh to to the circuit court um and and can be um uh decided. Those are very different type matters. The other ones that you handle are in your capacity as a local planning agency and that is pursuant to Florida
statute 1633174 which requires every local government to establish a local planning agency. Now, the local planning agency serves a couple of functions under the statute. One of them is that anything that has to do with the comprehensive plan or any
amendments to the comprehensive plan, you have to uh open up as a as a public hearing. You need to uh listen to the public. You need to uh provide advice to the council as far as anything that is an amendment to the uh comp plan. Now,
you do have an item before you tonight that is a comp plan. That's the Flume amendment. The flume amendment is changing the future land use map of the town to be able to change two of or three right three of the parcels that
are being considered for reszoning into residential RM30 to be specific. Okay. So when you open those that those items up if the public wants to speak and provide public comments in the form of public testimony as far as the public
hearing is concerned that's that's wise to to do that. Uh then the second action that you're looking at tonight is and it's also following what the statute says. Okay. Uh it it says that also um you are responsible to review and propose any land development
regulations, land development codes or amendments and make recommendations to the governing body as to the consistency of of that proposal. So the other item that you have before you is the reasonzoning. So besides the change to the actual comprehensive plan, you're going to be looking at uh this action
that the council is going to be taking with regards to the reszoning of all four parcels uh that are being considered uh to RM30. Okay, RM30 means 30 um 30 units to to an acre. The reason I'm saying all that and it's for the
benefit of the public is that if anybody wants their public comments to be heard in the form of the public hearing, then what I would suggest you do is just open the public hearing or if they want to provide public comments beforehand, of course they you can entertain public comments. There's there's no problem with that. But what I would do suggest
is that you would hear the flume item first, open the public hearing, take all the testimony you want with the public hearing, deliberate the item, close close public hearing, deliberate the item, uh, and then make your recommendation, then go on to the next item, which is the reasoning last. And and and I'm sorry if I'm being
long-winded, but I just want to uh let you all know that uh your your role tonight is important because again, Florida law provides for it, but your role tonight is not one of a decision maker. You are not the decision maker on this item at all. It is the council who will be the ultimate decision maker
whether the future land use map and the resoning is approved. Your role here tonight is purely advisory in nature uh is purely to provide that advice uh transmit that to the council for their consideration. So that is all you are doing here tonight. You're not approving
the item. Uh you're just providing your uh opinion, your your advice. Okay. And with that, I'm sorry if I was longwinded, Mr. chair, but I just wanted to put that all on the record >> and and that advice comes with a vote, correct? >> Of course. I just want to make sure. So, we we will be voting
>> because because the advice is you as a body, >> right? No problem. I just want to put the ground rules down and make sure. Yes. Now, >> um number five, item number five, is that a different uh person?
Am I in the wrong spot here? >> So, no. You're looking at the the items. So you have the zone which is the plume amendment and then you're looking at also the uh the resoning. It says quasi judicial that was put in error. This is not a public quasi judicial matter.
>> Now I was looking at the minutes from the the previous that's why >> the quasi judicial is only for the reasonzoning part >> for neither. You're not actually you're not making a decision tonight. So none of the matters neither the flume nor the
reasonzoning are quasi judicial. The flume requires that you consider in a public the matter as a public in a public hearing format. That's why notice was given out to all the resident to to residents. It was announced as as such. That's why notice is so important.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. So let's open up for um the public comments. Now you I'll give it up to you if you want to do it from the beginning or do you want to go at per per the items? No, I'm not going to do both.
>> Do we have to do both or we can just do one? >> Uh I'm going to give the attorney's opinion. >> It's it's really your discretion. >> Uh whether to provide public hearings, public comments are required to be provided before ultimate action is taken. Right. So ultimate action on this
item three minutes each time and >> however you want to do. We'll we'll give everybody the right to to go ahead and speak. Okay. So, let's go ahead and go with public comments, Miss >> There's a button there. >> There's a little button at the bottom of the neck.
>> Hello. I'm sorry. I'm blonde, over 65. I take it when I can. Susan Herrera 14970 Dumbberton Place. I just want to go on public comments, not on the hearing portion. Just to reiterate that
I sat at the town council meeting this um past council meeting in March and sentiment was expressed that perhaps we were not following maybe we're putting the horse before the cart. And the message from that I received or that I
sustained from the town council that even though it went to first hearing and it was voted on does not preclude you from a board to come up with your own recommendations before the second reading which would be the final. Um,
Councilman Moretta made it very clear that the message is he doesn't want you to have the wrong message that just because they pass it on first reading, it's rubber stamp and approve and you do have the right to provide recommendations before the second
reading. And I encourage you to please keep that open and exercise your right to give recommendations. Thank you. Bonnie Cron, 14770 Lewis Road. I did not prepare any statements. I just came to
repeat my my please to please consider the people of this town more than you consider the developers and the realators because they're the only ones who are in favor of all this development
going forward. Um the people of the town were enthused about the idea of perhaps having a village for elderly people uh because it would not cause a lot of congestion. But we know that four more
apartment buildings, even though they're kept at the minimum of what would be allowed, will still generate much more traffic. And we are already very upset about the apartments that are that tall
building that's going up where the golf course is. So, everyone is sort of feeling like our town is being trashed because it's not what we were promised. Those people like
me who have been here for years. I've been here since 1974 and I remember the town and the way it was supposed to be and what what the whole idea of it was and it was a resppite. It was a an escape from the
urban sprawl and it was a place for small town hometown feeling and we have certainly gotten far away from that with almost what is it 34,000 people already. So we're just asking you please I know
there are many people who would love to be here but they they give up because they say what good is it to go and speak because nobody pays attention and the developers always get their way. So that's why you don't see the room full
of people who are upset but believe me they are. So, I ask you to please consider carefully when you make your recommendations that the majority of the people in this town don't want to see more development.
We're trying to keep it down as low as we can. And I know it's not the developers fault. That's their job. That's what they do. But they should please refrain from hurting the town more. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in chambers wanting to provide public comments? Okay. Through the chair, we do have a few participants online. I'm going to go ahead with the first one. Miss Hilda Fernandez. Go ahead and unmute yourself and it please allow her to speak. Remember, state your name and address
and you have three minutes. >> Good evening. Uh members of the planning and zoning board. Hilda Fernandez. Um, my address is withheld pursuant to a protection through uh, state records, state public records law. Um, I am also speaking today on the items on the agenda. I'll I'll save some specific
comments during the public hearing portion, but I do want to reiterate what Miss Herrera said, which is very important because it came up for discussion. There is a planning and zoning board. The attorney explained, city attorney explained why you exist. Um, and even though this is not a this is not a quasi judicial um, action, I
want to make sure it's clear. Your recommendation is vital. This is why you are here. This is why we have a planning and zoning board to get that kind of feedback from the people that have been selected to be on this board to represent the interests of the community. Um and uh it was this is very
unfortunate the timing of how this has all happened. The fact that this could not have gone to planning and zoning board before the first reading is very unfortunate only because of the concern that you would be given the impression that an action taken at first reading is a binding decision that you need to
mirror or you need to ratify the action of the commission. You do not the first reading approving it on first reading just allowed the item to move forward unless and if not just unless if it is approved and it would have to happen at second hearing anyway. So your input is
very vital. You sit here and listen to these issues on a regular basis. Get residents who complain, get people come up and you know present issues and concerns. So your your your input in this process in this project is essential. They are counting on that as they go into the second hearing and said
that on the record and on the record wanted to make sure it was clear that there was an expectation that you all would listen to this regardless of what the first reading action was that you would listen to this um item and make your recommendation based on your best opinion of the facts that are presented. So, thank you so very much. I know you
sit here as volunteers. We appreciate that that you're there representing the interest of this community of the residents if all we all want is a really beautifully growing, you know, Miami Lakes. >> Thank you, Miss Fernandez. We'll go ahead with the next online speaker, Mr.
Abel Fernandez. Go ahead and unmute yourself. It uh please allow him to speak. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. Uh and uh my name is Abel Fernandez, chapter 119, also withhold on uh public
records for address. I'm asking you tonight to make a recommendation against the uh the flume and against the resoning. And I'll tell you why. I know that uh Vice Mayor Nelson Rodriguez was there
and I see Omero Cruz in the audience uh from our great community of Royal Oaks at the time. Let's go back nine years uh when the Graham companies uh came forward presenting this idea of a senior
village and one of the questions that we had was this is going to add a lot more response services for the fire department and people like uh Vice Mayor Nelson Rodriguez and myself and others went uh
to Miami date county and pushed on the issue for an additional rescue unit there at station 64 and it's called Rescue 64. That was needed with the idea of this senior village. Fast forward, we've
developed many more areas on Commerce Lane. We've uh uh grown exponentially and uh we have a massive sevenstory tower coming to the golf course. So, the rescue will be needed. So tonight you're
being asked to pre to combine this and change the land use code. Uh we were told to trust that decision 9 years ago and here we are tonight asking to trust their decision again and and actually it's a little bit more to the
point. This time it was it's it's a threat. uh their attorney uh threatened in so many words the last council meeting and said, "You either give us this or we're going to go with the live local. We're not staying uh stagnant or dormant on this issue." And I took that
as as a as a huge offense. Uh you don't have to do this. You can make a recommendation against it. And I'll tell you why. When they came, they proposed that this senior village was the last missing piece that was part of
the dream from the beginning. And I guess now that dream has has pivoted to rental units at market rate which will add to their bottom line. uh no the dream doesn't matter even though we had individuals such as the
former uh Senator Graham and he came and spoke in favor and how this was necessary and we saw the change that vice mayor uh was there and one of the ones that voted to change this
and we trusted in them. We took their word at face value. There were supposed to be covenants and that's a whole different story. Bottom line, I ask you and I just for 10 more seconds, vote against this. We
don't need to change the land code. It's going to create many more issues. Uh use of parks, crowding of our schools. We're not set up for that. The main vision was to have an industrial area which is all the way to the east side. And this other side was supposed
to be uh offices and now we're changing the character of this town and losing the buffer between offices and the residential area. Please uh recommend and vote against this. Thank you for your time and thank you
for serving us. >> Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Next public speaker online, Dr. David Bennett. Go ahead and unmute yourself. it allow him to speak and once again you have three minutes. >> Okay.
>> Well, I got Abel's over is going through. Let me lower his hand maybe. All right. Let me come back. >> Mr. Abel Fernandez, can you please mute your microphone? >> Thank you. >> Dr. Bennett, go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can. Go ahead. >> Okay, good. Well, good evening ladies and gentlemen. David, Dr. Dave Bennett, 15830 Northwest 83rd Place right here in Miami Lakes. I want to basically echo Hilda and Abel's feelings. The strategic plan has been around since inception.
And in that strategic plan, a senior center was for anything else promised. As a matter of fact, that promise was profered on several occasions over the last 22 years to get other concessions. Now, one of the things that I think
concerns concerns us is we we have still trust in the system that we're hoping that, you know, the seniors that have been wanting this and they I know they've been trying for years to somehow get something or at least get an equitable trade. In other words, get a
piece of land large enough and let them build a shell as they promised some part in some other part of the town if necessary. But more importantly, the density is the problem. Now, let me say something. I'm going to quote you a couple of uh United States Supreme Court
cases. Okay? One case is called village of Uklid versus Amber Realy Company. That was that's one of the foundational cases in in modern zoning law. And what it simply says is that a municipality can restrict development even when it
reduces property value. It can you can do that. Another case which is important is village of bell terror versus borales in 1974. It says that a developer cannot claim a constitutional right to higher density development simply because they own the
property. Now these are just two examples of United States Supreme Court cases. Um obviously getting a u a land develop attorney to talk to me was on shall we say on the difficult side because a lot of conflicts of interest. But I can name
five or six more. But I want you to know you have the power to make a recommendation to say send this back. Get a deal that is equitable to the seniors of this town that will benefit both the developer and the people of
Miami Lakes. This is what we were promised. This is what we should get. These are very important things and I'm hoping that you will go ahead and look at this and come to the same conclusion as we all have. And it's true. There are many people that are watching this in
dismay, but they feel like why should I bother? How can I why should why should I do this? It's already been done. The cards have been dealt and there's nothing we can do. And that's a problem. And the only reason I know this is because I placed this before the people on Facebook and that's exactly the
reaction that I got. Any rate, I'm hoping ladies and gentlemen, please do the right thing for our town, protect our seniors, and give us what we were promised. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bennett. I believe that concludes the online speakers uh through
the chair. I do want to state for the record that through the clerk's office, we did receive written public comments as they were shared with you in the previous meeting in February and two additional ones that were provided to you as well today. I'm going to read out
the list of the written public comments that were all in opposition. None were in favor. They've came from Maria Brero, Andrea Rodriguez, Eduardo Bettincourt, Susanna Herrera, Hope Reynolds, Enid
Lomax, Mario Pineda, Mario Maria Rodriguez, excuse me, Accassio Aguiar, Maria Santises, Abel Fernandez as well, and Georgina Luces. And they were all in opposition of the items.
>> Okay. Okay. >> So, uh, public comments is closed. >> Yes. And there's no one online and I believe no one in ch. >> Want to make sure that everybody got their chance to and then we'll do the second round afterwards. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Attorney with your, uh, your
first item. >> Thank you, um, chair. So, the the first item that is before you is, um, the flume item. Um, and sorry, I'm just going to get to it.
All right. So the the first item is an ordinance of the town of Miami Lakes um amending the future land use map of the town comprehensive plan redesating 12.75 acres plus or minus properties with folio numbers 32 2022
070010 30 32 2022 0680020 and 32 2022 06800330 located in the west side of Commerce way and Northwest 146th Street as more particularly described at attachment A
from industrial and office category to the medium res uh density residential category providing for incorporation over recital providing for findings providing for direction of the administrative official providing for repeal of laws and conflict providing for severability providing for exclusion from the code and providing for an
effective date. Um also uh Mr. chair for for this item. The way that I would proceed if if you as it's again it's just a suggestion is let the uh uh Miss Alonzo from the town present. I am sure that the applicant has a presentation
that they'd like to make, open it up for public comments, close public comments and then deliberate. >> Absolutely. No problem. Good evening um and welcome and thank you for coming today um to deal with a interesting matter. Um we are um Diablo
is proposing a flume amendment to three of the properties that we're going to be discussing today. There's four properties in total that are going to be addressed. Three of them are here for the for the flume amendment. The other one is going to is requesting a a reszoning in addition to the flume
amendment. Uh so three of them for flume amendment and then four for the resoning. Um I'm hereby entering the staff report into the record in its entirety. Uh and most of the questions that you should have uh should be answered in there. Um
basically this is a a a request to reszone from the industrial uh conditional use uh to the to a residential multifamily use in in this area. Uh the applicant is requesting this in order to
uh produce a a project of 541 units. I'm going to let them do their presentation of what they're uh proposing to do. At this time, we are not considering the actual project. We're just rec considering the flume amendment and the resoning. The project will come for site plan approval with second reading to the
town council. Uh but he is going to present his uh his case and I'll answer some questions after. >> Mr. attorney. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> This attorney? >> Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. You're not the only attorney in this room. Okay. Sorry.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chair and uh board members. My name is Jav Vasquez. My offices are at 600 Brickl Avenue and I'm with the Gunster Law Firm here on behalf of the Graham Companies and I'm here with several family members as you can see. Before I continue, um, and this is
an item that I think it's to be taken up with the council, but I appear before every city in this in this county. The only city that allows the the spirit of public comment is not how it's used in Miami Lakes. Public comment is supposed
to be for items that might not necessarily be on the agenda, but when the item's on the agenda and it's going to be open for a public hearing to allow people to come just twice just to make an impact to say the same thing again is wrong. And I'm just saying that for the
record because it's the only town that I see where that happens. I got that off my chest. I'd like to I think that most of you this this happened in a little bit of a different sequence. Um there was a special call where the council heard
this application on first reading. So there's a very high likelihood that you're all very very very familiar with the application not just because of the staff report but because you may have had the opportunity to either be at the town council meeting or to review the
record. So, I'm going to give a condensed version of my uh presentation that I give gave at council with the intention of allowing for questions and answers as may be needed. So, the subject property, you all know it well. Uh we call it Lakeside. It's a
22.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Oak Lane and 146th Street. There's three applications involved in this project. There is the flume amendment, the reasonzoning, and the site plan approval. The plume amendment and the reasonzoning are going through two rounds of of readings and then the
site plan approval will be a resolution on the last time uh next week, next Tuesday when we come to the council for the second readings. As has been said, a flume amendment uh the flume amendment is for three of the folios from industrial and office to medium density residential and the
reasoning is for all four folios from IU and RM36 to RM30. And uh for purposes of tonight, just as as I did in the council, um I will be just making one presentation and then when they call the resoning, I'll incorporate my presentation by
reference. So we're all very familiar with the history of the property dating back to 2010 when the Graham started working on a plan for a senior village. 2017, as was mentioned earlier, the 9.5 uh 9.45 four or five acre portion of the
property um was flum amended and reszoned um to accommodate a senior's village and that plan called for approximately 220 age restricted residential units as we're all very painfully aware um the U
Miami Jewish backed out and left the Grahams in limbo in December of 2019 and the Graham companies had to pivot uh from the senior village idea We've heard several um members of this community mentioned the threat. Um we
all know that while the Grahams were considering the alternatives for the property, the state of Florida in 2023 enacted a law that came to be known as live local. This law allows multif family resident residential development by right on property zone commercial
industrial mixeduse. That translates to 50 units per acre in Miami Lakes. And the law requires 40% of the residential uh residential units to be offered as workforce housing. Given the market for office buildings,
given the market for other options, and given the fact that many many efforts were made to salvage the senior living idea and the fact that that did not work, the pivot meant considering live local. the next slide and I'm gonna ask it to
help me. Those are the three requests that I went over. It's hard to do it without having a TV here. Next one. So, I believe that this is the slide. It's hard for me to see it from here. Um that depicts one of the alternatives that were considered under the live
local which uh called for a total of 822 units with 220 uh units being those approved in 2017. 330 units in the area where the Bob Graham office building was planned and 272 units on the southern
5.5 acres. As our discussions evolved with the town, uh an alter an alter an alter alternative gosh an alternative plan was discussed and uh a lot of the conversation with Mr. Peterman started going in the direction of why we're here
today, which is we're going in the direction of this category that was created by the council last year that we know as RM30, which is a much lesser intense zoning category. Now, approval of the three applications
uh will allow for the development of 541 residential apartments. At this point, I'd like to ask it if you can go to this is a density comparison under uh the current zoning allow what's uh and then the total units
prepared. Let's go to the next slide please. So the next slide uh depicts the 541 residential apartments including a mix of one, two, and threebedroom units. I'm going to skip over the details of the amenities.
Um, but again, all of this represents a downzoning. Downzoning from RM36 to RM30 for the port uh portion of the property that was zoned in 2017 and a downzoning if you consider the 50 units per acre that the Grams can do by right
on the industrial portion. So, the proposed reszoning before you uh reduces the maximum potential development from 978 units to 666, which is a 32% reduction. And not only are we
not proposing to develop the 30 units per acre allowed under RM zoning, the proposed 541 apartments translates to a density of 24 units per acre. A live localbased development would bring dramatic consequences
to the town of Miami Lakes, especially on the subject of advalorum taxes. Under live local, affordable units are granted a 75 to 100% reduction in property taxes depending on the level of affordability. And that's something that this board should consider in making its
recommendation and the council has to take a look at as well. Now, some may ask why in the world would the Graham Companies downzone their land when they can develop more units under live local. First, it provides an opportunity to unify these parcels
under one zoning category to create a much better site plan, which perfectly leads into number two. The Graham Companies always asks the question when evaluating a development or a redevelopment opportunity. Is this
a good thing for Miami Lakes? Historically, the Graham Companies have taken a very responsible approach to development, creating a community that we all value today, and this is no different. We can all agree that this plan undoubtedly is better for Miami Lakes than a live local project.
However, let there be no doubt, like I told the council at first reading, that the one thing the company will not do, that the Graham companies will not do and cannot do is to remain idle. A no vote to a responsible plan that's before the council is a yes vote to live
local. And that's the unfortunate reality. Before closing, I do want to mention that while the Graham companies were unsuccessful at creating the senior village that everyone imagined, uh they are very aware of the town's continued interest in having a senior
center. Once again, the discussions with Mr. Peterman included the senior c center's issue and a good faith offer was made by the Grams of $1 million to assist the town with uh efforts to fund a senior center at a location to be uh decided by the council in response to
the profiter amount and appraisal was uh was done. The appraisal came back at a million 560. The Grams increased their offer to a million280. And tonight I will tell you like I told the council at first reading that the Grams have won against once again upped
their profer uh from 1.28 to 1.56 million. Um and once again this is a good faith offer for purposes of allowing the council the the town to build the senior center at a location of its preference.
So be in closing I'd like to just thank staff as I've done in every step of the way. Lorenzo, Susana, Eddie, and uh at every level. Uh we've we've you know, this has been a lot of hard work, grueling work, many many years in the making. And uh there's a recommendation
before you of approval. There's a first reading uh before the council that was passed uh approving this plan. And I would respectfully request that this board forward a recommendation of approval to the council as well. And like I said, we're here to answer any
questions that you may have. Mr. Attorney. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> We're ready for public comments now or do we have another >> No, what I would do is just open the public hearing portion. >> Okay. >> Take testimony and then deliberate. >> Once again, anybody that wants to speak,
please come up to the podium, introduce yourself, and we're happy to hear you. I have a little bit of presentation first >> if it's all right with the with the board. I don't think we should take we should take time out of we shouldn't take time out of her three minutes for her to set this up if that's okay with
the board. >> Yeah, that's fine with the board. >> Yes. M her please introduce yourself one more time for the record. Thank you. >> Susanna 14970 Dumbbertton Place. Um
very rustic but I just want to take us to travel through time. Miss Herto, you have to stay within the mic. >> Is going to go get you the the portable mic or or you >> No, it's right there. We just need to turn it on. >> Are we on? >> No, we just
>> Okay. So, this is what we're looking at, right? We're going to travel through time. I'm going to try to do it as fast as we can. 2017, the Grahams came before us, before you, and they said, "Oh, we have a great plan. Here we are. There's three parts
to this. We have the living component for our seniors. We have the assisted living adult care and we have the community center. Th those were basically the three parts that were committed promise in 2017. Move along.
Jewish came drop and you said okay they came before us and say hey we want you to do two things in 2019. A, we want to separate Miami Jewish from the application and we want you to grant us the opportunity to start construction
here in the community center without tying this to buy us time until we find another partner. And then they profered, let me see if I can do my little thing here.
They profered, how does it go here? They say, Mr. Luis Martinez went on record saying, "We are so confident we're going to find a partner that we are providing a covenant that matches the existing covenant for
the senior living that ties into a term of 30 years, renewable for 10 consecutive year for for 10 years two more times, meaning a total of 60. So he's tying this covenant to this existing condition. Okay? And he says,
"And I promise you in addition to that that we're still committed to providing the 1.3 acre land donated to the town with a community center. And in addition to that, we're going to build the inside
for you at cost and we will manage it." That happened in 2019. And we all they came before you. They came before the town. They promised this to the residents. Time goes by. Here we are today. They want to do this. They want to throw it all on the floor and say, "We're
done. This is what we want to do now." Right? They come up with this plan. This is what they just presented to you. That's the 541 units. We have like 80% more trees than what
the requirement is. I don't need 80% more trees. That's I don't care. Why do I want 80% more trees when I when I cannot develop? I need one more minute. If somebody can sponsor me and motion me for extra >> uh we're going to do a motion for one
more minute. Total of four minutes is uh second. >> Okay. All in favor for the extra minute. >> I'm in favor. >> Thank you. >> Right. >> So, here's the same thing that they promised. 541 units and then they they there's no commitment to the town. The
promises are going away. Why? Why? Here we go. Why can't we let me take that one? Why can't we maintain the element of the senior living not disrupted? I understand that it would be inconvenient to have the community
center in the middle, but why can't we move these the this is a total they had here a total of 72 units. Let them move the 72 units, put additional floors here and and let them keep the 541, but let them carve out the land that they promised they were going to donate along
with the community center. We would have our own access road to the community center. they would still maintain their 541 units and it would allow them to be honorable men and to honor Senator Bob Graham when he showed up here on 40 on
2017 and promised the citizens that this was needed. Thank you for your time. >> Is there anyone else in another speaker >> chambers? Okay, through the chair, we do have online participants that would like to
speak. Okay, we'll go ahead and start with Miss Hilda Fernandez. Go ahead and unmute yourself. It follow suit and you have four minutes. Go ahead. >> Thank you so much, Hilda Fernandez. Address withheld according to FS119. Let
me just begin. I I have to say something because I worked in government for 22 years. I'm quite offended with a concept that you should be told that it's a bad thing, a bad thing that you allow for additional public comments in your meetings. Congratulations for being a
town that is w that welcomes citizen comments and doesn't make it sound like it's a terrible thing that people are given three chances to speak for a whole whopping nine minutes on an issue that is important to them. Uh, and by the way, Miami Beach Stanley Sundnik Hour,
they've had that for 30 years on the record. twice every single meeting people can come and speak about an issue or the item or whatever. So, it is not unique to the town of Miami Lakes. Now, let to get to the issue live local. Uh there's an explanation of why they didn't live local, but there's a simple explanation why they didn't live local
because that's not the brand. The the the Miami Lakes brand for the grand company that owns a lot of the land and most of the land that is not privately owned is a brand of a low density model. And I got to commend them. They came in and asked for 35 originally for that one parcel. coming in and trying to down
zone that to 30. That's fantastic. But the bottom line is live local does not match their brand. Building a live local in that location would be a negative for the the uh adjoining property, let alone for everything else that's happening in the town. Forget the financial fundamentals of whether live local even
with a tax abatement of 75% um would be economically feasible for the Grams. That's that's even a totally different issue. And by the way, the issue of tax abatement and the impact to the community is a council issue. That's not for the planning and zoning board. As much as the uh attorney would like you to believe that you also get to re, you
know, give impressions of your concern about that. That's a council issue. It's a big policy problem. Um the senior center is really the issue here. When the first parcel was reszoned, when they came through the PNZ and went to the count to the council and they resoneed the first parcel to do the senior living community, it included a senior center
land and building out a shell. Fast forward and three years later, four years later, what has changed? They come back and they propose 541 units. You know, the only thing that has changed since then, because they have a right to come in and ask for redevelopment, to change something else from industrial to
RM30 or RM36 or whatever. What really has bothered the community is the fact that the senior center, that little parcel of land, is no longer part of the equation. Why? Oh, yes, they were offering a million dollars. Let's be clear about something. We're getting a million and a half dollars, but where in the world would we buy land in Miami Le
lakes if not from the same company that's giving us the money to buy land? Par three, please. You're going to hear part three as an option. Part three has environmental issues. Folks, if we could have gone par three, it would have been transferred already to us a very long time ago because the town really wants
it. So, that is not the solution. the the the best thing they can do is go back to the the people who came when they knew they had no choice but to offer something to the community as a as a way of sweetening the request for the resoning in 2017 and 19 when they offered a senior v senior center the
senior center all of a sudden that's off the table because they believe that they don't need to provide any incentive anymore because they believe that with the implied threat of well we could do live local and do 500 units they don't need to offer anything anymore that unfortunately shows a little bit bad
faith. I'm suggesting to you all to consider the conversation about including the senior center like they originally did. There's no reason with the parcels that they're combining that they could not provide that amenity to the community that they first promised. Thank you very much. I know I went over a little bit. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Fernandez. And through the chair, I believe we have one more participant online, Dr. David Bennett. Go ahead and unmute yourself. It allow him to speak. And once again, we have four minutes. Yeah, Dr. David Bennett, 15830 Northwest
83rd Place. I'm going to echo just about everything that M. Hernandez, Miss Fernandez said. More importantly, I find it personally offensive that the part the uh petitioner's attorney would imply that public debate
and public comments should be excluded the second time. That would mean his entire presentation needs to be stricken from the record based on his own personal wants and desires. So no, public participation is essential. It's unconstitutional
to even assume that we should not be able to speak whenever possible on anything that affects our neighborhoods, our lives, our community. Now, once again, I can continue on. I'm going to take just another minute to give you a couple more Supreme Court cases because
obviously this seems to upset the um the council for the uh for the um never basically once again village of Bell versus Terry versus Morales, the legal principle that municipalities can regulate land use to preserve neighborhood character and family
residential environments. United States Supreme Court 1974. Okay. Uh, and then another one here, um, the zoning restrictions, you can go ahead and do it. I'm sorry, uh, Egan versus city of Tibberon in 1980, US Supreme Court, the court held that
zoning restrictions can be upheld, that you can decide what needs to change and what doesn't change. You don't have any penalties for doing so. So, I mean, once again, I don't want to go through the 12 cases that I have that basically supports the fact that you have the
power to save the people of Miami Lakes to represent us in such a way that, you know, that our community gets better, not just bigger. All right. Well, any rate, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and I wish you all the best. I'll be
watching from the corner here. Have a nice night. >> Thank you, Dr. Bennett and through the chair, there are no further online public comments. >> Excellent. Let me get a point of personal privilege, please. I just want to say that the the attorney did not say
um that people should not be allowed to speak. He basically said that you should not have two bites of the apple. Okay? You have a right to speak on any issue you want and then a right to speak on the item at hand. That's what the attorney
said. It wasn't that he was trying to uh in my opinion constitutionally deny anybody freedom of speech. It was setting up two bites of the apple which in most quasa judicial and other areas it's not allowed. So just just clean
that up and we'll get that we'll get past that so we can move on to the rest of the the information. Mr. attorney. >> So at this point uh what would be proper is to close the public hearing and then deliberate amongst yourselves. >> Public hearing is closed. I see no
objection. Go ahead. >> No objection. >> Anything else that we have to are we ready to vote on the flu? >> We any more information or any question? >> Sure. I mean I would have a motion second and then open up for discussion. >> All right. Anybody motion
on this issue? >> I'll make a motion to open up for discussion. A motion to uh go ahead and approve the flume as requested and as drafted by staff um so that we could discuss the item because there has to be a motion on the floor to discuss. >> I'll second it. I'll second that.
>> There you go. >> Mr. Julia, >> so I understand the issue of people before developers. I understand that quite clearly. Um, we also understand that there's a significant issue with traffic
in our town. There's also a significant uh traffic issue in probably most of Miami date county. Um, I speak regarding this matter because I am pretty familiar with live local and because I've been
practically in the middle of perhaps developing under that law. So, I'd like to at least inform everyone um regarding what live local means. And what live local provides is that you are able to
um literally bypass the mean the municipality. That's a state law. That's not a decision that anyone in this board or in this town approved. that law um allows a developer that if you set
aside a certain percentage and it's like 40%. And you do 120% of area medium medium income, which in Miami Day County, the area medium income as of May of 2025 was 87,000 and change. So if you do 120% of
that, you're at over $100,000. That's what's considered affordable. It's not low income, guys. It's affordable. And I don't know what rule what how the Graham companies work on the residential side, but I do have residential units
myself. And I've always done a third. So if somebody makes $1,000 a month, they or or $3,000 a month, they could they could afford a $1,000 a month rent. So if you under the affordable housing or the affordable workforce, whatever
terminology you want to call it, we're Yeah. That means that the person could pay $2,900 a month in rent, which I would venture to say is not much different than what an average unit in Miami in Miami Lakes today cost. So the live
local, I'm not saying it's a threat. I respect the Graham companies. I think most of us, you know, do. I don't think it's just a development right. And and I understand that uh you know, Dr. Bennett mentioned different um cases case law.
In the state of Florida, there's such a thing called the Bert Harris Act. The Bert Harris Act basically says that we as a town cannot downone someone. We could restrict what you could do to an extent. But if the code allows you to
build a 100 units, this board and this town, if they want to, they could pass and say you could only build 10. the we the town would then have to create the valuation or or the the devel the property owner would have the
opportunity to come and sue us for the difference of value of what one versus the other. We have to compensate the developer for what we're denying them because that's to protect the personal property rights. So
that's why you know sometimes this whole thing is a balance and my observation on on this issue is that's why I profered the motion and I'll be honest with you I my suggestion is to approve it because the overall plan
now whether you know maybe there's a conversation to be had regarding the specific site plan I mean I some of the items that you presented are probably something to consider that's not before us. We we can only uh well we we we're
not even the the final decision makers as to yay or nay. We could only give our our suggestions. Um my only suggestion in this is the applicant has said RM30 because that's what the the the new uh classification they're bringing in
something that's about a 24. I would say I think that they the the applicant would be willing to perhaps go with the RM30 and maybe limit the overall size of this project to the what they've offered which is 540 or whatever
amount of units and I think that that's less than that's close to half of what they could go under Liboku. At the end of the day this property is developable. So whether we do apartment buildings or commercial there's going to be traffic. I know that there's been a lot of talk
about and I was on this board when we approved the senior living and then there's some have probably thought of well if they didn't do the Jewish uh thing with the senior living then we should take that right back for them.
That actually goes against it's not to our benefit because if the argument is hey because they didn't go forward with that initial plan they should revert back to the IU well then that now allows them to build 50 units
per acre under Liblo. So these are all the different factors that at least in my mind with all due respect and I appreciate I live over there too. I live in Silvercrest. It's probably another 10 minutes in my drive in the morning. I I get it and I
live it. But I cannot in all fairness uh weighing all the different factors. This is my me my thinking point and and I want to express it, you know, where I'm coming from and why I think this is a viable uh solution given all
the possibilities for this property. And I hope that at some point maybe in the discussion of the site plan maybe things could be tweaked. Uh but that's basically my recommendation.
>> Anybody else? >> Yeah. Through the board. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. I uh I've lived in the area since 1957 and I've watched the Graham companies develop the properties and I see what's going on in the other cities with the
live local and the Grahams have always been responsible and I concur with what has been said here and I believe that they will do the best for our town and basically that's it. That's how I
feel about it. gentlemen. >> Yeah. Through the sher, I I concur with Mr. Julia and and the Lassier when uh we're voting tonight on just on on this item that has nothing to do with the site plan. And perhaps when it's time to
come in front of us for the site plan or or the council, uh perhaps you guys can uh think about giving a a little bit of land to build a community center within the property.
And I think the residents might be happy uh to have that because with a 1.560, there's not much that the town can do. The town doesn't own any land and to develop that it's going to be more than that. But tonight, we're not voting on
that. That's something just to consider if you guys want to tweak the site plan here and there. That's my opinion. No. Okay. All right. So, I'll close it out just by giving you a couple of of
things. I I was part of that original uh discussion of Miami Jewish in 201617. Um and I was all for it. Absolutely. Mr. Fernandez was absolutely correct. I was planning on it for my future. I was
planning on it for my mother-in-law's future. Um and so, you know, I I I saw the effect. I know that um council member council member Koyaso worked diligently diligently to get that there.
Okay. And yes, I I I can't remember um that it was a promise because and I don't think I've ever heard any of these any developers say I promise. Um because I and definitely no attorneys will say I promise. So, but um the problem is that
and it's not a threat to live local. Um it's a fact. The state of Florida put us into this position. This is not a position in the town of Miami Lakes. This is a position of the state of Florida. The state of Florida has done this to us. Okay? They've tied our hands and I know that people try to fight it
through the home rule charter and all the other things and the state overrode it. So little by little, Tallahassee's, you know, just taking power away from local government. All right. So that's something that needs to be addressed with the state. Unfortunately, not with the town.
The the Grams are downsizing. Okay. They've gone from 50, they can do 50 units per acre, right? To RM's 30, which is 30 units per acre, but they're going to 24, which actually comes out to 22.2, 2, which is I saw in the
presentation. So, it's a little bit lower than 24. I live on the west side. I live on 87th Avenue. If anybody knows about traffic, I was the traffic zar of Miami Lakes. I know we had a a traffic um what was uh
uh Commander >> Summit. >> What was it? >> Gonzalez. >> Gonzalez. Gonzalez. >> He was the traffic >> wizard or he had a whisper whisper. traffic whisperer that I I I with with Vice Mayor Tony
Lama set up I set up with one with him a traffic summit and I set up a second traffic summit when I was a council member. So if anybody understands the in-n-outs what we've tried to do for years and years and years to get traffic development going and doing it right in
the town I know. But I do know that the town has been through this before with the Bert Harris Act and we had a problem up here on the east side and we almost got burned on that one as well. So the fact is that we would lose $2.6 million
in road improvements if they went live local. $275,000 in fire protection. These are funds. $372,000 in police, $331,000 in school, and $1.5 million in parks.
And I'm not sure if that includes the the the 1.5 million doesn't include the senior center as well, right, >> Mr. Attorney or? >> No, >> no, no. So, the 1.5 million is for parks plus 1.5 million for the senior center. >> Correct. >> Okay. Right. So, I can do some math
and 541 is a lot better than 978. >> Okay. And I'd rather have 978. I'm sorry. I'd rather have uh 57 541 than to have 978. I can do the math. And so can
they. And I guarantee you if it was profitable for them to downsize even more, they probably would. But there comes a time where, you know, money and construction and factors come in and, you know, at the end of the day,
I'm not g I refuse to put the town in a position where we're going to get sued and go through all that process. We've already been sued multiple times by other people and spend millions of dollars on other stuff, which will is not part of this now, but I can do that. So, that's my concern and I agree with
with the gentleman. if the if the if the Grahams find it in their heart later on to find us a piece of land where we can put that senior center because 1.5 million is not going to buy us a piece of land and and build a building. So, um maybe we can squeeze their hearts that
way and figure it out there, but that's not here and now. So, we do have a motion on the floor and I think we're ready to vote if there's any no other issues. >> Yeah, I'm ready to vote. >> Sure. Calling the role to approve the
item 5A, the future land use map amendment. Motion by board member Robert Julia and seconded by board member Deasier to approve the item with the recommendations by staff. Board member Cruz. >> Yes.
>> Board member Leonio. >> Yes. >> Board member Deassier. >> Yes. >> Board member Julia. Yes. >> And Vice Chair Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> The motion passes. >> Let's move over to the next item. Mr.
Attorney, >> give me just a minute. I'm looking for the uh >> You're not You're not charging by the >> I just just just asking. Oh, the other one's charging by. Oh, >> all right. So, the next item you have
for you is this is the resoning. Uh this is not a a public hearing. Um this is an ordinance of the town of Miami Lakes, Florida, amending the official zoning map to reszone uh approximately 22.2 2 plus or minus acres of property located on the west side of Commerce Way and
Northwest 146th Street with folio numbers 32 2022 070 0010 32 2022 0680020 32 2022 0680030 and 32 2022 0680010
and more particularly described at attachment A from the IU industrial district conditional and from the RM36 residential multif family 36 units to an acre to RM30 medium density residential district 30 units to an acre. Providing for incorporation of recitals, providing
for findings, providing for direction to the administrative official, providing for repeal of laws in conflict, providing for severability, providing for exclusions from the code, and providing for an effective date. >> We we need a motion. >> Can I have a question
with this conversation of Burke Harris? How does that affect? We're down zoning from RM36 to RM30. Is that because there's consent for >> It's applicant driven. >> It's applicant driven. The applicant driven. Sure. So, okay. >> I just wanted to make sure we're covered. >> And again, I just want to make sure that
u the record reflects that our presentation is incorporated by reference. This is just the reasoning component, but I'm not going to repeat the same thing. So, >> go ahead, Mr. Attorney. You you you're good. >> I'm just incorporating my entire presentation from the last item. >> All right. Excellent. >> By by reference. >> All right. So, do we have a motion to
>> I believe the staff may have >> Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Yes, the same thing as the as the attorney for the the I'm going to uh incorporate the staff report by reference. And um just to remind you that this does uh inure the four
properties now, not just three. and that they're going for RM30, which is 30 units to the acre for one of the properties is a down zoning from 36 to 30 and is a voluntary uh downzoning uh requested by the applicant themselves and the other properties are going from
industrial to RM30 to match so that you have a uniform um density throughout the throughout the throughout the area. >> And I just if I may really quick, Mr. Chair, uh to your point, u uh member
Julia, what you said about u B Harris is absolutely 100% correct. Um yes, we as a government can decide to not approve this project. We can decide not to do the flume. We can decide to vote no on the site plan. We can do all those
things. However, with that decision comes a the part that affects them and they they are as property owners. If they are not able to use their property as zoned as their rights are under our
code and we take that from them, which you they can do, then that's called a Bird Harris claim. And so that's a taking. In other words, whatever value they've lost in their potential to build out, then the applicant could file uh a claim against the the town. So again,
and and that happens all the time throughout the state of Florida. uh less so now I think with uh live local because live local offers another opportunity. Well, we're just not going to go through the town. We're just going to do it as a matter of right and and build out if it's industrial commercial. So, uh I just wanted to say that
everything you you stated is correct. >> So, do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Anybody anything you need to say? >> No. >> Anything else? Okay. Well,
so again, this goes from here to the town council. They'll finish it off. We just give our recommendations. Um I do I do have faith in what the the Grams have built. Um, I did come here and move
here because of the area and what what I u expected and it and to me it's all been it's all been class um traffic. We're not going to stop it. It's just not going to stop. And you can call uh I I call as a matter of fact I put a call
in today to our state representative Mr. Fabrigio about the palmetto um and the design on that. So, we can there's there's major flaw designs that I see, but I'm not an engineer. But those those things are out of our hands. They're out
of the town hands, and unfortunately, um, we have to deal with what we got. So, Mr. Clerk, >> calling the role for item 5B for approval of the resoning with staff recommendations. Motion by board member
Cruz and seconded by board member Leonio. Board member Julia, >> yes. >> Board member Deassier, >> yes. >> Board member Leonio, >> yes. >> Board member Cruz, >> yes. >> And Vice Chair Rodriguez, >> yes.
>> The motion passes. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. >> Any other items that we need to finish? Uh, Mr. Clerk or Mr. Attorney? Any any any housekeeping? Any We're good, >> Miss Alonzo. >> Uh, yes. Just to reiterate that this is
our um April uh hearing. Uh we will have another hearing scheduled not on May. Uh the next one will be in >> June. >> June. >> June. Uh we will probably skip July and August and try to do September, October
uh in a row. Obviously, if there's no applicants, I won't drag you in. Um if uh but uh at at this point we're looking at uh June and then skip July and August and then August. Did I say that right? September and October. >> Okay.
>> Excellent. All right. Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Excellent. All right. Meeting is adjourned.