Good morning, the clerk's office has received notice that Commissioner Bermudez and Senator Garcia will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner Cohen Higgins, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Gonzales, Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Vice Chairman McGee, Chairman Rodriguez. I'm present. Eight members present, you have a quorum. All right, sounds good, please take your seats. Let's get this show on the road. If our county attorney, Eddie, will lead us in prayer this morning. Good morning, Chairman, members of the board, members of the public, please bow your heads. As we join here today, we ask for God's blessing. We ask that we are guided towards doing the right thing for the community, that everyone is grateful for all the abundance that we have, and that we all look forward to celebrating our fathers this weekend and enjoying the long weekend and the Juneteenth holiday. And all that we pray, amen. Amen. Please join me for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag. You may be seated. All right. Good morning, everybody. Back again, second time this week. Hopefully this meeting is not as long as Tuesdays. Mr. Attorney, is it proper to set the agenda at this time? Yes, sir. All right, do I have a motion to set the agenda? It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay, show the agenda hereby set. Mr. Attorney, can we have the zoning director read his opening statement since we're in the speakers? Yes. All right, let's do it. Good morning. In accordance with the Code of Miami-Dade calendar, all items to be heard today have been legally advertised in the newspaper. Notes have been mailed and the properties have been posted. Additional copies of the agenda are available here in the chambers. Items may be called up to be heard by agenda number and name of applicant. Please note, all action on any item at today's meeting may be reconsidered and additional action may be taken on such an item at the same meeting. Applicants and members of the public may wish to govern themselves accordingly. The reckoned and filed for the hearing on each application will include documents from the public, agencies, the Department of Regulatory and Accounting Resources. And when there's an appeal from the Communities on the Appeal Board, we also have the appeal transcript for those hearings. All documents are physically present today, available to all interested parties, and available to the Board of County Commissioners who may examine these items from the record during the hearing. Parties have the right to cross-examination. This statement along with the fact that all witnesses have been sworn in shall be included in any transcript of these proceedings. In addition, there's an official translator present in the chambers for those individuals requiring such assistance. Will the clerk please swear in the witnesses? Witnesses, please stand and raise your right hand. Do solemnly swear or affirm that all the testimony we're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I'll be God. Interpreters, do you swear or affirm that you make a true interpretation of the questions asked and testimony given? Thank you. All right. Do we have any deferral requests? No, we do not for zoning. No? All right. So do we have any deferral requests for CD&P? No? That's a no? Okay. Any from the dais? Commissioner Bastien, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move to defer 8A1. To allow the applicant to engage with members of the community. And also, should I do both at the same time, Mr. Chair? Do you have another one? Yeah, I have another one. Sure. Which is the other one? It is 3B1. 3B1. Oh, for 8A1, it's to defer to no time certain. Okay. And for 3B1 until January, 2027. Oh, wow. So January on 3B1. Hold on. 3B1 here. Okay. So 3B, 3B supplement, and 3B1. Yes. All right. So we have a motion to defer. Second. And you have that. So the 8A1 is till no time certain. It'll be re-advertised. 3B supplement and 3B1 is till January, 2027. To the January meeting. I'm not sure we have those dates yet, so that will likely be re-advertised as well. But it will be re-advertised for the January CD&P zoning meeting of this board. The other one will be re-advertised at the appropriate time when the applicant is prepared. Thank you. Fair enough. All right. So we have a motion to defer. We have a second by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. All right. All opposed nay. Show the item deferred. All right. I'm going to start and take up. Let's see if I go out of order here. I'm going to try to get my bigger groups out. Where is, I know we have a school or a church here. What's the item number? I'm trying to look for it in my. 8C4. 8C4. That's what I'm being told it is. I haven't found it yet. Can we take up item 8C4 to the attorneys? Yes. Application 8C4, the Most Reverend Thomas G Winski, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Miami. Application number Z, 2025-000-209. We've had no protest and no way to support this application. All right, so I have, I will open up public hearing at this time. I have 14 registered speakers and the position is they're all in favor. So, does one want to come up and speak? And stand up if you're here in support of this application. Okay, so. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You can be seated. And then, I guess, stand up if you're here in opposition. Anyone here in opposition? All right. Well, that settles that. All right. So, I guess public hearing has been open, it's been closed, and to the applicant, you're the applicant, representing the applicant? Yes, sir. James Williams, Gunster Law, 600 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33131. Okay, so bear with me a second. I'm going to do this a little bit different. Commissioner from District 6, you're recognized to see if you want to hear a presentation or how you wish to proceed. Thank you, Chair. At this time, if we don't have anybody who's speaking against it, I believe the staff is approving. They've recommended approval, and they understand there's one denial from staff. Staff has explained to me, right, that they're okay with that. So, I'd be okay just moving the recommendation at this point. Okay. All right. It's been moved to move this item with staff's recommendation for approval, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, if I may. Is that to also approve the recommendation of denial application? Yes. Okay. Yes, the full staff recommendation. Thank you. Through the Chair, if I may, do you need explanation as to why that's being denied? No, no, no. We are requesting that it be approved and not denied. Request number eight for the vacation right away. Okay, so I can ask staff to explain why. Staff, can you please explain why the denial? I know it's a traffic situation. Yes, I can explain it. If I could have someone please put up that one slide with the aerial photo. And you'll have an opportunity to dispute that if you need to. Yes, please. I have a brief presentation. I need maybe 10, 15 minutes. Okay. That could backfire. No. Just saying. Trying to help you. No, no, I appreciate it. If the staff is willing to support the request for the waiver of the dedication, then I'm happy to forego the presentation. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there's one request I recommend denial of. It's this request number eight. Here in yellow is the subject site. In red is a property to the north that is about 87,000 square feet. And the applicant is requesting to waive the 25-foot road dedication shown here where the yellow notch is out. So Public Works has objected to that request. Platting staff have objected to that request. And if this was approved, this property in red shown here, which is 87,000 square feet, would have issues with access if they ever decide to subdivide in the future. So 15,000 square feet is the minimum lot size here. He's got a very large property. If you ever wanted to create those four or five lots there, he could have an issue with access. That's why I recommend denial. Would you like to respond to that? Yes. If they could please put the PowerPoint up. I'll jump straight through the PowerPoint to the relevant slides so that we don't take up too much time. Thank you. So as you see in the crowd, we have several supporters for this application. This area of the county is very vocal, as we all know. So if the neighbors don't like something, they would be here and they would be opposing this. Now, this is just the general location. You know, it's St. Thomas. It's on the northwest corner of southwest 72nd Avenue and southwest 64th Street. It's been serving the community for over 65 years. They've served thousands of families and students throughout that time. They are a staple of this community, dare I say a foundational pillar of this community. Now, I want to take you very quickly to the 2022 approval, which is what was last year. They approved the extension of the future classrooms, the gym, the church expansion, and then the rectory. Now, there's eight total requests here before you. Seven of them have staff's recommendation of support and recommendation of approval. Part of the reason we're here is because staff and this commission in 2025 approved the vacation of right-of-way along southwest 74th Avenue. That's the area outlined in green to the west of the site. Now, as we said, this is pertaining to the application to the north. So let me fast forward through here. And so you can see the area that's outlined in blue on the top left of your screen. That's the area we're asking for the waiver of dedication, not to provide the 25 feet. And the real reason goes into the surrounding area. When you look to the west, we already vacated southwest 74th Avenue, right? And there were several reasons, privacy, security. There was no intent or ever an intent to improve that right-of-way. So that was vacated. It wasn't even being maintained. We've been maintaining it. And so it was vacated. Now, to the north, you have the southwest 62nd Street. That's the request we're asking for, which the staff is recommending denial on. When you look at the overall neighborhood context, right, you can see on the bottom left of your screen, west-facing, which is southwest 62nd Street. It's dead end. That's how it's existed. It's two-lane road right now. So you have in and out that you can come through. I do want to point out that if you were to approve the waiver of the dedication, you would still be able to have access to go north on 73rd Court, be able to make a left on the 74th, which would take you directly to Miller, or you could go east on southwest 61st Street and go to 72nd. That still takes you to Miller. You can also go to Sunset through that way. Now, we're looking at the grand scheme of context here. You have the 826 that's directly to the west, right? There's no immediate access points to it unless you're going to Miller. The reason that's important is because the design of this area doesn't have a lot of network connectivity, but that's how it was designed to from the very beginning, right? There's no significant impact if you approve this waiver of dedication. You're not going to have an overflow. For instance, if this was southwest 72nd Avenue, I would tell you this would be a bad idea. My arguments wouldn't, they wouldn't even land, because there's no way that that would not have an impact on the surrounding area. In fact, the neighbors that we met with, and we've done town halls, we've had several email correspondence, we've had video meetings, we've had calls. When this was noticed to the neighborhood, they are all in support, at least everyone that I've spoken to. I don't want to give a blanket of support, but everyone I've spoken to is in favor of this. They're actually encouraging this closure. Now, I do also want to note that Fire Rescue has reviewed this application, and they are not objecting to the application. So, in terms of emergency issues, right, you're not going to see any impedance to the emergency personnel or emergency traffic. And, again, this neighborhood is extremely vocal, and they would be here objecting. They are all in support of this application. And with that, I'll conclude the presentation. Thank you. Thank you for that. Commissioner, do you have questions for everyone? No. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. My questions are more to staff. Can you explain in more depth what is your rationale for the denial exactly? Part of it is to maintain east-west street connectivity in the neighborhood. But part of it is also that one property that I showed in red with that large property that's 87,000 square feet. The attorney mentioned that last year there was a road petition through Public Works to vacate 74th Avenue. At that time, that property that we're concerned about signed off on that petition. At this time, we've received nothing in writing from that property owner that he's okay with this vacation. Okay. Did we attempt to notify him? He would have been notified through the mail notice. Okay. So he goes out. Okay. So if he did not respond, that means he doesn't have an issue. It could, or it could mean that he didn't understand how it would impact his property. But you gave proper notice? We gave proper notice, yes. And he's not here complaining? No. We've had no protests, no complaints on the project, no. Okay. So I'm okay then granting the approval for that portion. So can we go ahead and correct the motion to approve that, to switch that to an approval? Understood, Commissioner. Okay. All right. Through the Chair, Mr. Chairman, one thing I wanted to mention is we do have an addendum with a new landscape condition to reference a new landscape plan and some Durham comments. Let's add that to the record. Does somebody need to review the addendum, or is the Commissioner of the District good with it, and the applicant is senior and good with it? Yes, yes, sir. All right. It's been moved for approval on all ends, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bassian. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Seinberg. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. Let's not do that. All right. Please exit quietly. And thank you all for coming out so early to everyone that did come out in support. All right. Next up, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 3A3, supplement number one, 3A supplement number two, and its companion item in zoning 882. And if the director needs to read anything into the record, now would be the time. Yes, sir. I'll read first on the CDMP, and then the director will read the zoning. This item is a small-scale application before you today for final action, along with a concurrent zoning application. A single public hearing will be held in accordance with quasi-judicial principles and incorporated into the record as to both the CDMP and zoning items. I will now read the ordinance title and reference a companion resolution in the event the board wishes to convert the item to a standard application and transmit. However, if the board takes final action today on the small-scale application, the companion resolution will be deemed withdrawn. Separate vote shall be taken on the CDMP and zoning items. This is item 3A, an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-0013, located at plus or minus 200 feet north of Quail Roos Drive, between Southwest 125 Avenue and Southwest 124 Court, followed by Blue Nest Development, LLC, in the May 2025 cycle to amend the county's comprehensive development master plan, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. That's item 3A, 3A supplement. The companion resolution is 3A1. The second supplement is also included, and then this companion item on zoning is 8C4. The director can now read that item into the record. 8C2. 8A2, the companion item. John P. Sosama-Thomas, application number Z-2025-000-130. We've had two protests and no way of supporting this application. And this is a public hearing for all these items. All right. So we will now open a public hearing for all the items. I will start with the public first when I call your name. Actually, I'm not going to call your name because I have no one registered to speak. So public hearing is now closed. Is the applicant here and wish to present? This item was deferred in the past, right? That is correct. Patrick Gustano, following the night with officers at 701 Brickle Avenue on behalf of Blue Nest Development, I'm joined by my colleagues, Mishka Yosetut and Oscar Brayan. The item was previously deferred. We've had a staff recommendation of approval. We've gotten approval from the community council and the PAB. I can do a presentation. I can do a 10-minute presentation. I can do a one-minute presentation. Or I can just keep my comments to myself and allow the commission to the district board. Yeah, let's keep your comments to yourself for now. I suppose that the – I forgot why this was deferred or who deferred it. But whoever deferred this, everything has been worked out. That's correct. Yeah. Yes? To the district commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To staff, let me ask you a question. What's your recommendation as it relates to these items? Through the chair, Jerry Bell, planning director, our recommendation is to adopt with acceptance of the proper declaration of restrictions. And for the record, did the planning advisory board unanimously support this, or was there any objection from the members of that board? The recommendation was to adopt with acceptance of the proper declaration. Unanimous. It was unanimous? Okay. So it was unanimous. Thank you. I'll move the item. It's been moved by the vice chair, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Seeing no further discussion, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. For. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Do I need a separate vote on 882? Yes. All right, vice chair moves 882, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, congratulations. All right, he's not here either. Let's see. Mr. Chair. Someone that is here. Staff is just advising me that that would include a 10-day condition for them to submit all of the appropriate documents. If that's what staff is saying, then that's what it is. Thank you, staff. All right, Mr. Montoya. Let's take item 8C1. Anything to read into the record? Yes, Mr. Chairman. 8C1 LR Miami Airport Hotel, application Z2024000244. We've had no protests and one letter of support. All right, we'll now open up public hearing. I have no public speakers signed up to speak, so I will now close public hearing. Is the applicant here? All right. Good morning, everyone. Graham Penn, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Burke Howard, Delph Hernandez, Larkin Tappanis. All right. I'm going to do it the same way I did the last one. Commissioner from District 6, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. Seeing that there's no – oh, did you have a comment? Yes. Can I recognize our staff? Absolutely. Please go ahead. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, we did add one condition related to workforce housing. The applicant's aware of it. It was shown on the plans. It was just not in the list of conditions. So that's your addendum today, okay? Okay. Well, I'm happy to move it with the staff recommendation and the conditions. Second. It's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Seeing no further discussion, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Yes. Commissioner Gilbert. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. All right, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 8C. Application 8C2, 1414 Brickle. Application number Z, 2025, 000030. We've had no protest, no way to support this application. All right, I'll go ahead and open up public hearing at this time. I don't have anyone. Any public? Nope. All right, so public hearing is now closed. I see the applicant at the well. Go ahead. I'm here with the law firm of Bills and Sundberg, 1450 Brickle Avenue here on behalf of the applicant. I'm prepared to do a presentation or not. At the will and discretion of the board. How well prepared are you? Prepared. All right. Like how many hours, available hours have you prepared? Efficient. Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since there has not been any opposition and staff is recommending approval of the project, and I certainly support the project. I don't think we need a presentation. Fair enough, so you move the item? I move the item. Second. All right, it's been moved, it's been seconded by the Vice Chair. Seeing no further discussion, everything good? Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Milian Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastion? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Yes. Commissioner Gilbert? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 8C3. Application 8C3, UR Cousin-Farro, RE Acquisitions, application number Z-2025-000035. We have no protest, no way to support this application. All right, I have no speaker, so public hearing is open and it is closed. The applicant is already ready, also very well prepared, I assume. You want to introduce yourself? Mr. Chair, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm prepared to provide a brief presentation. If necessary. But I don't need to. Self-awareness is so good, I love it. Thank you. Congratulations, number one quality in a person almost. Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there has been no objection that we are aware of and staff has moved to approve with conditions. So I'm in favor of the project and so I will move the item. Commissioner from the 5th District moves the item, seconds by Commissioner Gilbert. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Regaletto. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. So I have two left and the District Commissioners are not here. So I don't know what the will of the body will be in the past. It could go either way. But I guess I'll start with one in District 3 and one in District 11. We normally deferred, it's not here. So for District 11, unless there's a memorandum or a- Staff. From either staff. I'd like to hear the presentation on 4A. On which one? On 4A? Yeah. Without the District Commissioner? Yes. Okay. All right. So I'm happy to call it up. Mr. Attorney, would you take up 4A for a supplement, 4A1? Let me, let me. I got a question, Mr. Chairman, so if we hear- All right, so what about, let's go with, let's go 8B1. And although the District Commissioner's not here, I don't know if the staff is here. But I have, I do have speakers for 8B1, and they're all in favor of the application. So I don't know if that sways our decision here on this dais. Can, has somebody, can my office try to locate, see if someone from his office is available while we wait? And then, do we know if Commissioner Hardiman is on his way? Do we know, has anybody, you want to move, you want to check, you want to take up the one in District 3? All right, so Mr. Attorney, let's take item 4A, 4A supplement, 4A1. The next CDMP item is a standard application before you today for first reading, public hearing, and transmittal. I will read the resolution for transmittal as well as the ordinance title for first reading. The board can vote on the resolution and ordinance together by roll call. So 4A is a resolution pertaining to out-of-cycle application number CDMP-2025-0006, filed by Biscayne Shores Development Group, LLC, requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, directing the county mayor, county mayor's designee to act in accordance with the transmittal instructions included in this resolution related to application number CDMP-2025-0006, located between Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 14th Avenue, and between Northeast 114th Terrace and Northeast 115th Street, abutting on the south side of the Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park. Requesting the state land planning agency to review application number CDMP-2025-0006, reserving the right to take final action at a later date, declaring intent to conduct one or more subsequent public hearings. 4A1 ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP-2025-0006, located between Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 14th Avenue, and between Northeast 114th Terrace and Northeast 115th Street, abutting on the south side of the Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park, filed by Biscayne Shores Development Group, LLC, as an out-of-cycle application to amend the county's Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. All right. Public hearing is now open. And I have, without the commissioner here. Yep. He's coming. All right. The commissioner is coming. All right. Well, I'm going to call your name. Are you the applicant? I'm going to call the public speakers first. So everyone's in favor of it. I don't know if you all want to actually speak or wave in support, but I have five. Alexis Santos, Giancarlo Vergara, Jerick Mariategui, Alessa Calderon, and Maria Garcia, Essen Wanger. I'm on 4A. You're waving in support? All of you are waving in support? Awesome. Okay. All right. Those are the five that I have. Let me make sure I see five hands. Do I see five hands up? I see more than five, but that works. Mr. Chair, are you on 4A? I am on 4A. Okay. I'm on 4A. Is there confusion? Does everybody know we're on 4A? I think there's... I'm not sure all those folks... Gonzales is coming. Gonzales is coming. Oh, great. Perfect. Okay. But we're on 4A. Yeah. We're on 4A. We're on District 3. Okay. So everyone wave in support. Public hearing is now closed. All right. To the applicant. Is that the... Guys, I see Commissioner Gilbert. What's going on here? What are we doing? Because I see half the body is like trying to see if we defer. Half the body is seeing if we hear the presentation. No, I'm not. I'm doing something else. No, no. I know, but I'm... We're going for a presentation on the item. I've been briefed on the item by staff, and my staff has been briefed on the item by the developer. Commissioner Hardiman's staff has indicated he wants us to proceed. Okay. To proceed. Yes? Okay. All right. That's all I needed to know. I just saw confusion on the days. All right. Please proceed with the presentation. How much time are you going to need? I think about six minutes. Okay. All right. Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Chair, County Commissioners. My name is Jeff Burkow. Office is at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here today representing Biscayne Shores Development Group, LLC, and I'm here with our entire consulting team. The application has a favorable recommendation from staff and a favorable recommendation from the Planning Advisory Board. The property that's the subject of this application is a little bit over four acres. It's located on Biscayne Boulevard. You have Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park directly to the north. This is the perfect location. The property is in the RTZ Smart Plan Northeast Corridor. We are proposing a mixed-use project with residential and commercial components. This is a conceptual rendering. It would complement other commercial and multifamily developments in the area, including many large, tall buildings on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. My colleague, Rob Alvarez, is going to give you handouts of this slide. Fifteen stories or more, including the Jockey Club, Cricket Club, Quayside, and newly completed Biscayne Shores multifamily project directly to the east. We have two recent approvals to our south, the Mega Publix and the 430-unit multifamily residential building that you approved in December. Further to the south is the Altman project with 336 units. And then you can see the constructed building, Biscayne 112 apartment building with 400 units and eight stories. This application is going to set the framework for the future development. And we filed a companion concurrent zoning application that addresses the details. The requests are to amend the text of the high-density residential land use category and to redesignate the property to high-density residential. Today, the high-density category currently permits from 60 to 125 units or more to the acre, but does not provide standards for what happens when you exceed 125 units. Our proposed language creates a pathway to go up to 150 units to the acre with a 3.0 FAR under specific conditions including proximity to a county park. Parcels have to be two acres or larger inside the urban infill area within the smart plan corridor buffer area and fronting on a major roadway. That potentially only applies to six parcels in the county, including this one. And each of the others would have to separately apply to the high-density residential designation. We are proffering a covenant that limits density to 550 units with 35 percent of those being workforce housing at 120 percent AMI, high foreign excess of the RTZ requirements, and 20,000 square feet of commercial use. This is the future land use map today showing most of the property in business and office, small part in medium-density residential, and our proposed redesignation to high-density. And although the RTZ regulations only require 12.5 percent of the units to be workforce housing at 140 percent AMI, this project is going to be delivering 206 workforce housing units. That's 37.5 percent of the total project, three times the required 12.5 percent. And we're also working with the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Department to provide improvements to the park to the north. The application will be creating significant fiscal and economic benefits over 1,600 permanent and construction jobs, about $6.5 million worth of permit and impact fees, and a 22-time increase in ad valorem tax revenues when built. We have several support letters in the record. Mr. Heavy is here on behalf of the project immediately to the south of us. We request that you transmit this application to the State with the applicant's proposed version of the text amendment. That's what the PAB recommended with an acceptance of the proffered covenant. The request promotes the county's planning objectives, as you can see from the screen, provides meaningful public fiscal and economic benefits, and ensures the compatible redevelopment of a long vacant property in the urban infill area and the rapid transit zone, and will result in the much-needed revitalization of this area of Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. So just for clarification, the folks that I called up earlier are for another application. It's for AB1. So we have all those that waived in support, and then I have one that signed up a little late, which I'll call up in a moment when the time comes. But either way, I have no one registered to speak on this item, so same applies. Public hearing was open and closed. Commissioner from District 3, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burkow, can you describe better why it is that you would like to have your version of the application submitted to the State versus what the Planning Department has recommended? Yes. Our version of the text amendment applies to six properties. We significantly narrowed it down because we didn't want to make this available on a widespread basis. We wanted it to be tailored with narrow impacts. And we specifically excluded the urban centers. Staff expanded the application. The most significant expansion to the text amendment was to include the urban centers theoretically opening this application and this text amendment to hundreds, if not thousands, of properties. We're not objecting to that. We're just concerned that by opening it up that much, it's going to create concerns from additional stakeholders and potential objection to this application. We're happy to support staff's recommendation if it's a separate application, but we don't want it to somehow impact or slow down our application. So, obviously, I mean, I just stepped into the meeting, but I engaged directly into the conversation because I was listening as I was driving on my way here. Of course. I've heard other applications as well, and this is the particular part that I'm of concern about because what I don't want to happen is for everyone's district to be affected and not necessarily know because it's been disguised in an application that's particularly for my district. And so I want to hear from staff about why you will make that particular recommendation. And after I hear that, then maybe I'll make some changes that would make this more palatable just for the district that I represent versus a conversation that we need to be having countywide. Through the Chair, Jerry Bell Planning Director, the reason that staff recommended that change is because, as Mr. Burkow pointed out, any application that would want to avail themselves of this would first have to go and redesignate the property to high density residential. So they would still have to go through that process. So it's not that they would automatically be able to tap into it. They would still have to go through that process, and we just made some recommendations that we thought provided some more flexibility. So then you would agree, then, that the change that you made is more, I guess, will be more efficient for future applicants, not necessarily something that you've deemed to be something that we should do. Correct, because they would still have to go through the process, which would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as they go in to redesignate their property to high density residential. So we were just trying to provide some additional flexibility. I understood. I just wanted to be clear for my colleagues. So if I made the recommendation to transmit to the state what the applicant requested, which is just specific to the properties that he's representing, how would you feel about that? We would still recommend, our recommendation would remain to adopt with a proper declaration of restrictions. To be clear, so you would still recommend to adopt it, even if it was with the recommendations that the applicant provided? I understand what your recommendation is today. Your recommendation is to adopt it the way that you've written it, because you think that it would be, it makes sense. It's more efficient for everyone across Marmaday County, because you still will have the particular time to look at each and every applicant. But in this particular case, if this body is unwilling to do that, because they have not done the research on the entirety of it, and I just wanted to focus specifically on this, on these particular properties. Would your recommendation still be in favor of these particular properties? Our recommendation would, yes, our recommendation would. It's going to be the same. Okay. Are we clear on that? So what I would do then is I would, and you can clear the language as best as you would like, I would recommend that we adopt the language or the application or the specific, what would you call it? The text amendment that the applicant proposed with any and other considerations that the department believes necessary. And not necessarily adopt the one that you recommended, which affects the entirety of Marmaday County. That would be my recommendation. That's my motion. Thank you. And that is his motion, but before, do I have a second, first of all? I have a second. But we don't, now we have questions. So staff, you're going to craft that language specifically the way he asked for it based on the conversation he's had with you, is that correct? Yes, the language is already crafted. So basically at this point we're at transmittal. So the application will be transmitted to the state for review, and then it will come back for the final hearing. So yes, we. According to the applicant's language, not your language. Correct. Okay, Commissioner Regalado, you're next, and followed by Commissioner Gilbert. Thank you. So first of all, I want to thank the maker for clarifying those points. I have an urban center. Not all of us have urban centers. So there's just a few of us that have urban centers. And we've been making changes to our urban centers. And I think one of the things that I've talked to staff about is the need to kind of reset the rules for urban centers. Not just in what exists, but in how long it takes to make them because they were really premised on a board that didn't have term limits. Now you couldn't even create an urban center in the eight years that you have here. And we have been struggling with allowing them to have compatibility with new vehicles, right? So at the last meeting we were talking about like live local and RTZ. So we're seeing urban centers and inside RTZs kind of what the conflicts are and then live local. And once you start throwing all these things in, it gets a little complicated. I would be, I'm going to support either way. If we take the, if we take staff's recommendation out of this application, I would request to draft on that and to send it to the state. Because what I don't want is for this application to move forward and be accepted and then it be an outlier compared to the rest of the urban centers. So because what happens is same thing that happens to us, you know, with tax amendments, then someone's going to come and say, well, I want what they had. And then we get into who gets it and who doesn't get it. Now, granted, we're, it's, we're still going to decide on the actual application when we receive it. But I agree with staff and that we should clarify the language and allow everyone to avail themselves of this opportunity. So I think staff's idea is, well, they're already going to the state, we're already doing this, so let's just do it all together so that there's consistency in the comp plan. Um, but if you want to separate it, I'm happy to support. I would just ask for the ability to draft something with staff and bring it as soon as possible. So those things can run together and this doesn't kind of run ahead of a larger change to the entire comp plan. Commissioner Hardeman, can you respond? Yeah. So, um, if they're drafted separately, obviously it's a separate item. You can do that, you know, and we can address those items. What I wanted to just avoid was the coupling of it because just in case, just in case everyone didn't agree on what parameters were for everyone. And they will draw more, more opposition from other districts. It's particularly patently unfair to this applicant in this space where he has support. And so that's the only difference. I don't, I don't mind that. It doesn't have to be done right now. I don't want to confuse the issues. I want to stick particularly to this application and say the way that I proposed the motion. So that's, that's it. Yep. Just, just. And also just to just the last thing I'll say is that because also one thing I want to, I want to recognize, and which is why I tried to bust my butt to be here is that I want the commission to have an opportunity to understand what's happening. And sometimes when you're not, it's not your district, it doesn't particularly affect you until there's like this little nuance thing, right? So I don't want you all to be fooled by a little nuance and not have learned about the issue the way that you would have had it been particularly for your district. That's what that's it. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado briefly. Yeah, no, and then I'm happy if I could, if I could request to draft on it, if we decouple it. And then what we'll do is we'll list the existing urban centers. I mean, I know them, but just so that everybody's aware of who would be impacted by this and we'll try to get it done as soon as possible. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah. Commissioner Hardeman, thank you for bringing this to our attention. To staff, I think this was just inappropriate. I mean, I don't know how to say it any other way. I think it's inappropriate. We have the ability to actually file applications. We can do that. If we want to change the nature of an area, let's do that. But if you tack it onto somebody else's application and you make it a lot more likely that that application gets objections and how it's rated, you are placing their project and their money at peril. They're paying for this. We have the ability to actually file applications to change things. We can do that. Commissioner through staff, we can do that. If we're going to do that, let's do that. But let's not tack it onto people's things because it's something, oh yeah, we don't use a private entity's application as a vehicle to make a general change that we want to see. I disagree with that. And I don't necessarily think it's appropriate for us to be having broader conversations about our land use policy while that court reporter is typing on this record. I don't necessarily think that's appropriate. So no, I would encourage you not to do it like this again. If we have something we want to do, I think Commissioner Regalado generally on the principle is right. Let's do that. But we need to have that conversation. And this would affect other districts. This would affect Mickey Steinberg's district enormously, which is right across the street. So, I'm just saying. Let's do that, Commissioner Regalado. I'll support that. But let's not do that on anyone else's application. Let's just us file an application. Thank you. Are there any other concerns from the commissioners? Commissioner Hardiman, would you like for staff to read the exact language to you? Or are you okay with the representation you heard? I do trust in the representation and professionalism of that organization. All right, seeing that it was already moved and second, staff, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes, for TransMiddle, thank you. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Cohen Higgins. Four. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Just a quick question. This does come back in front of us, correct? Yes, it does. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Looks like the next item we have up is AB1. Mr. Attorney, let's take that one up. And does the director need to read anything on the record? Yes. Application AB1. This is an appeal from the Communities on the Appeals Board. Miami-Dade SNF Holding. Application Z2025000106. We've had no protest and no way of support for this application. Thank you. Seeing that there are five individuals who are speaking in favor of this, would you like to stand and wave your hand in support? Would you like to speak? No. Okay. Thank you. Give me one second. So I'm going to open up public hearing at this particular moment. Ma'am, please come down and state your name and address for the record. Yes, ma'am, please. Hi, good morning. Good morning. My name is Paula Beltran. My address is 16545 Southwest 98 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33196. Thank you. You also have one minute to speak. Thank you. Okay. So today I'm in opposition at this moment in time for the zoning change. The proposed plan presented seems like a good development with only 11 of impact of 11 cars for the traffic, which sounds great, you know, in the bubble. But when you place it in an already in an area of Kendall that can't support or is having trouble supporting the existing homes and traffic situation just creates a problem. We already have a six story apartment building that has been approved and all this because of the specific area that it is flows into this one residential street. We're now the community is using our residential street to get through. And when this was brought up to the client, their team, they said, well, you know, the only other option would be for us to go north and then to go south. So they acknowledged that there is a problem and that their improvements wouldn't necessarily completely remedy or offset the situation. Originally, it was presented as a skilled nursing facility, which they claimed would create more of a traffic flow. But in reality, skilled nursing facilities are like short term, short term care. Right. There wouldn't be ambulances at all hours of the day and you would be coming in like seven. The hours would be off the normal traffic hours. So I'm just asking that they kind of maybe do a study. I requested a traffic study for our area and maybe come up with numbers that reflect what's going on in our area so that, you know, we can find a compromise. And if it is going to be a residential area that it works and it doesn't go against or affect it too negatively with all the building that is happening right now with Kendall. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You did a great job, by the way. You didn't look nervous at all. All right. To the applicant, how much time do you need to present to the district commissioner? How would you like to go forward with this one also? I would love to see the presentation. OK, perfect. Good morning. Alessandra Sanderman with law offices located 701 Burkle Avenue. With me this morning are several members of our development team and ownership, including Ezra Katz. Our presentation is about nine minutes. I will try to cut where possible. I promise. It's to address some of these comments as part of the rebuttal. So on the screen, the property is located just north of Southwest 88th Street or North Kendall Drive between Southwest 165th Avenue and Southwest 167th Avenue. It consists of a parcel of land, approximately 4.65 acres. This is part of a larger tract of land. Part of it is commercial and the other part of it is residential. This is that missing piece of part of that mixed-use project. The property is found in an area that already has a mix of both residential and commercial uses. Now the property is located within a quarter mile of the Kendall Corridor, one of the Smart Plan Corridors. Properties within a quarter mile of the Smart Plan Corridor are eligible for a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units an acre. That would permit 316 units on this property. Without utilizing the Smart Plan bonuses, the current business and office designation would permit up to 13 dwelling units an acre, or a total of 68 units. Instead of pursuing a much denser and much taller project under the Smart Plan or the Live Local Act, the applicant made the decision to pursue a very modest 57 attached single family home project on the property, which is far less than permitted under the CDMP. So as mentioned, the property is part of a larger commercial parcel. In June of 2022, the department approved a modified site plan for a skilled nursing facility large enough to serve 176 patients and two out parcels to accommodate a drive-through fast food franchise and a gas station. The two commercial parcels are under development today. Now the applicant is proposing a far less intensive use that will provide a better transition between that gas station and the restaurant to the south and the adjacent residential community to the north. As mentioned, the proposed plans depict the development of the property with 57 townhomes. I want to emphasize that the applicant had previously proposed 65 units as part of a prior site plan, but in conversations with the community and staff, we did reduce it to 57 units. The approved skilled nursing facility created much more traffic than the proposed townhomes. The AM peak hour trips were 50 while the PM peak hour trips were 53. Under the proposed townhome development, you'll have 23 new trips that will be created during the AM peak hours and 29 that will be created in the PM peak hour. This will result in nearly an overall 50% trip reduction in comparison to the 316 dwelling units permitted under the Smart Plan corridor. The proposed 57 units will result in a 78.6% reduction in trips. Here are just the renderings of the proposed townhomes to the top and the existing townhomes to the north, showing they're nearly identical in every respect. In the interest of time, I'll skip through all of this. But I do want to highlight the traffic commitments in the area since that was a point that was brought up. I want to take a moment to emphasize that there will be now a southbound U-turn lane along southwest 165th Avenue. There will also be two dedicated left-turn lanes onto the property along southwest 165th Avenue. One of these will serve the townhomes directly to mitigate any impacts on the adjacent residential community. Additionally, the northbound center lane on southwest 167th Avenue will be modified to allow for through, left, and right-turn movements from that lane. This is a critical improvement to the area because we understand that people are having a very tough time going to work or getting their kids to school. So in conversations with neighbors, we heard these complaints and we've emphasized that now you will be able to have that movement and avoid the queue that exists today. Here's another image of that area. Skipping through as quickly as possible. Your county staff has reviewed this. All are recommending approval. This is expected to have $850,000 in impact fees alone to the county. And I want to do highlight outreach efforts. So in June of 2025 when the applicant was filed, the applicant sent notices informing neighbors that the application was filed. The applicant really wanted to be proactive and engage early on with the community. In addition to that mailer, we met with neighbors in October. We also met with them in November, January, March, May, and June to discuss the application. Overall, we had productive conversations. We heard neighbors discuss the need for traffic improvements and park amenities in the area. In addition to the roadway improvements, the applicant has agreed to work with Public Works to cause the installation of a three-way stop sign at the intersection of Southwest 164th Court and Southwest 84th Street. We also are committing to do a water play zone at the Sun Lakes Park as an added community benefit. To conclude, this does provide much needed housing to our county. It provides a more compatible and appropriate transition from the commercial use on Kendall Drive to the residential uses to the north. So far less intense use for the area. And we're available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you so much. And officially, just for the record, I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing at this time and recognize the District Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank everybody that came out today to express how they feel. I want to thank the young lady as well. You did a terrific job. Really appreciate your explanation. I also want to thank the attorney. That was a fantastic presentation. You did a very good job. Thank you. Well, before I start, for the record, I need to make a Jennings disclosure. Would that be appropriate at this time? Yes, Commissioner. Prior to today's hearing, my office was contacted by some neighbors in regard to the subject property. However, my staff has not shared the contents of these communications with me. Therefore, I am able to be fair in considering this application and I will base my decision only upon the evidence presented during the public hearing today. Thank you. And so I'm not completely opposed to this project. I do understand that there was a reduction made from 65 to 57. It was denied at community council. Why was it denied at community council? Were any of you folks present? Actually, I think one of the individuals here was in a prior hearing, not at the one that it was denied. The concerns from the neighbors was really traffic in the area and not wanting to see development on the site. Mr. Chair, through you, if I may, I would like to hear what she has to say. Can you approach, please? Ms. Beltran, you're recognized for a Q&A with the commissioner. Yeah, and Ms. Beltran, please, if you could be just as brief as possible, but I do want to hear what you have to say. Oh, no. I just, when you asked if anybody was here when it was denied, I was at that hearing. You were at that hearing? I was at that meeting and I have the transcripts here. Well, from your perception of what happened, do you know what the conversation was? Why was it denied? I think it was mostly due to the, well, the change, and like you mentioned, the traffic. It's a unique situation. We know that traffic with development, it's going to increase. But this specific area, these specific homes, I believe there's 400 between the townhomes and single-family homes. Their only access to go west, to go east, I'm sorry, is to come down and make a U-turn at the 167. And that's where we're having issues and we express like, you know, how are we, how is, there is no way to kind of offset that. And I think that's where the opposition went and the council heard us and they're like, you know, because of that, I think we can't approve it just yet. Or we can't move forward because we have concerns. Concerns. Do you know approximately how many people were present at that hearing? In favor or? Both. About, that spoke on this, about 20. Thank you so much. So I do have a few questions on the history. Because like I said, I'm not generally opposed, but I would like to understand the history of the property. So to the county attorney's office, in 2001, there was a site plan proffered on this property. What was the contemplated use of the subject property at that time? And I'm referring to the 2001 site plan. You're recognized. Commissioner was for commercial use. For 107,000 square feet shopping center. Is that correct? Correct. Now to staff in 2004, there was a revised site plan for this property. What was the contemplated use of the subject property at that time? I'm still commercial use. For 50,934 square feet for a shopping center. Five one story high retail buildings. Is that correct? Correct. And I promise you I have a point and I'd like to discuss. Now lastly, in 2022, there was another revised site plan prepared for the property. What was the contemplated use? To staff please. It was a skilled nursing facility with 176 beds. And that's the one that we were discussing now, right? So here's why I asked those questions. The residents have expected almost 25 years now that the property would be developed for business, office, or commercial use. And I think that that's kind of what the young lady that spoke was saying as well. So this is significant because as the young lady pointed out, District 11 is very, very different when it comes to traffic because of how it was built. So I'm not saying I'm against it, but I want to have this intellectual conversation if I do support it because I've written op-eds on this. The issue that we have is that we have a tremendous amount of homes and apartments, but folks can't work there. And so what happens is, you know, specifically in Kendall Drive, I know the chairman has had this issue before. We have what we call the Kendall Drive caravan where it's just thousands of cars every day at 8 a.m. going one way and then thousands of cars at 5 p.m. going the other way. And so that causes a tremendous amount of traffic that otherwise, according to traffic studies, would not be an issue. So my hesitancy with this application, and I want to see how we can fix this, is that the infrastructure to support the traffic, I'm not seeing it right now. And specifically because I do appreciate the fact that it was reduced from 65 to 57. I appreciate that tremendously. But even at 57, you know, we're talking about, let's say, best case scenario, two cars per townhome. And by the way, they're beautiful townhomes. But we're talking two cars per townhome. That's about 114 more cars on the street. Now, when you consider, as was pointed out in the presentation, that directly across the street, you have 576 apartments that were constructed and 224, which were previously approved under a previous administration. Those 800 apartments, you're talking about 1600 more cars in the area. If we stick to the math of, you know, two cars per. And so I'm not seeing the feasibility because of the infrastructure. And specifically because, you know, we just, we were just recently informed that the Kendall Parkway will only be extended to 8th Street and 157, at least for the foreseeable future. And the lanes in that area would not allow for more cars without congestion. If we can see to the congestion and we can see to more traffic, then they would. So what can be done about the infrastructure and the traffic issue specifically? I know that there was a traffic study done. And I've looked through the traffic study. But the traffic study is not contemplating the unfortunate circumstance of just a, for lack of a better word, a congestion of homes that at two specific times in the day, unlike many other districts, you just have everybody going one way and everybody going the other way. So how would we be able to tackle that? If I may, through the chair. Of course. Through the chair. I have a flowing conversation. Thanks. Thank you. So in this area, we recognize particularly 167. That has been the area of concern that we have heard from neighbors that queues significantly further back close to the site. That road is going to be widened as part of this project. So as I, I could probably pull it up so you can visualize on the slide. Let's go back. Okay. We can use this. So right now you're looking at one way northbound and one way southbound. That road is going to be, this is 167. That is going to be widened. We are dedicating on our property, the commercial parcel as well, to widen that road so that you'll be now able to make a left, go through and turn right. Right now you only have, if you have that first person that's making a left, they're holding everybody back. That should help alleviate some of that congestion in the area and create that flow. We'll also make sure that the traffic signal is modified so that it all, sorry, all works in sync and helps relieve that queue. From our traffic analysis, and we have our traffic engineer here if you have any specific questions, from that traffic analysis that queue should severely diminish. That shouldn't be a concern when you have these improvements in place. Some of these improvements are already underway. We expect that some of them will be completed towards the end of the year or early next year. So residents in this area should be seeing improvements pretty soon. So are these improvements happening regardless of whether this gets built or not? It's part of the commercial and part of this site too. So if this doesn't get built, then our portion that hasn't been dedicated will not be fully complete. Because you can also, I mean, going down that hypothetical, I don't know how much that would actually help. Would love to hear from the traffic engineer. But you can also arguably go down Chrome because you're so close to Chrome. However, even if you did that, you know, eventually you need to get to the 836 or you need to get to, you know, either Doral, Coral Gables, downtown, wherever it is that you work. So it would cause congestion either on Kendall Drive or on 8th Street. And so that's my concern. If I can get your traffic expert to just explain those numbers. Sure. Mr. McWilliams is here. And explain the impact. Sure. Good morning. My name is John McWilliams with Kim Lee Horn & Associates, opposite to Alhambra Plaza. Yeah, I understand your frustration. You have an existing, the area is significantly congested. The challenge with a project of this size is that really from a traffic engineering perspective, we're tasked to really address our impacts. Right. It's difficult, and I'm not sure exactly what the statute say about addressing constrained or backlogged facilities. So, I'm sorry to cut you off, and I promise I don't mean to be rude, but are you saying that, because this is what I thought, so we're not considering already existing congestion, we're only considering the congestion that would be provided should this be built? For the traffic analysis that you've done, sir. Correct. The way the county requirements are for the traffic impact studies, there are certain degrees of traffic studies. This is a level one study, because the amount of traffic it generates does not rise to the level that the county requires us to look at a larger impact, like several intersections. To be honest with you, the residential portion of this project only triggered a level one, which really only looks at the site design in the intersections in and out of the site, like the driveways. Is there enough room between the driveways and the gates? Are there turn lanes to access those driveways? These improvements specifically were developed as a part of a much larger study that was done for the commercial project to the south that required us to look at the external intersection. So that's where this improvement came from, and this improvement is actually already designed, and I believe it's well onto permitting, and it's been through the whole review process. So this is shovel-ready. Like you said, it's probably going to be completed sometime later this year. Yes, and I appreciate your answer and the fact that you're being candid, but now another concern is raised where we're not considering the amount of congestion that already exists, but we're only considering the congestion that would be caused by this project moving forward, which is kind of exactly what seems to have been the conversation at the community council, according to both the attorney and the young lady that spoke earlier. Was there any study done whatsoever, traffic study whatsoever, was there any traffic study done that considered the congestion that already is part of this area? So our analysis already takes into consideration background traffic as part of our request, and I also want to emphasize, Commissioner, that in the prior commercial development, that was far more intense in traffic, and therefore we wanted to be respectful of the area and provide something that was a little less intense. The skilled nursing facility was in around-the-clock operation, had significantly more traffic, and had ambulances to the rear abutting the residential neighbors. As a matter of fact, and I sped through the presentation, we reached out to the townhome neighbors. We walked door-to-door and received letters in support, unfortunately, travel and work in the summer. A lot of those neighbors are now more supportive of the townholes because they don't want to be abutting a skilled nursing facility that's running around the clock. And I can submit all of these petitions on the record so you have them, but essentially, yes. We have taken into consideration the background traffic as well as what the original approved plans did consider for the area. Look, I don't disagree with you that a center like that, that has incoming and outgoing ambulances, wouldn't have caused more traffic, but I don't think I would have supported that either way because of the same issues. Handedly, I'm inclined to deny, but I would be willing to defer in order to further study the traffic congestion situation to try to figure out how we can alleviate the congestion in the area that already exists while adding 57 more homes. But if there's really nothing to be done, it might just be better to move forward with the denial. Because on the other hand, I've also seen that the site plans for the last 25 years have stated that this area specifically should be for business or commercial, which if we had more areas where folks could work, it would directly affect and help with the congestion because folks can stay in the area. Um, would your client be willing to further study the traffic to see if there's a way to mitigate the existing traffic? And then perhaps we can get to somewhere where this would be viable. Um, and if, if not, um, then respectfully, I can, I can move to deny it. Um, not because you have not done a phenomenal job, you've done a phenomenal job. I feel like you guys are trying very hard, but I just don't, I'm not seeing light at the end of the tunnel right now. Commissioner, we would be so happy to take a deferral and study this further to address your concerns. And I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to move to defer, but I do want to be clear that I will not approve something, or move to approve something that will not take into consideration the existing congestion and existing traffic specifically for this area. And, and I will say not only are you a brilliant attorney, um, but you have a brilliant team with you as well. And you guys know that this area is very different when it comes to traffic, um, than all of Miami Dade County. Um, because there's no public transportation, because there's no places where folks can work. So just want to put that on your radar. All of these things need to be considered for this to really, really make sense. And commissioner, if we can just clarify in our traffic study, you would like us to specifically look at, at a more regional or a neighbor. Absolutely. What are the parameters that you would like us to, to address? Regional. Okay. I, I made comments, uh, at a previous hearing, um, regarding, regarding a separate project. But I, I made comments very similarly about just because this area might not seem affected, surrounding areas and surrounding traffic will affect that, will affect that area and be directly affected. So this is a more extensive traffic study. This is why I'm, I'm willing to defer it if you guys are willing to tackle, um, trying to solve the issue. Absolutely. We would be happy to. So with that, Mr. Chair, I would, I would move to defer. So on the deferral, we have a motion. We have a second by Commissioner Lopez. On the deferral, Commissioner Ricardo. Yeah. I'm happy to support the deferral. I just wanted to mention a few things. Um, and Commissioner Gonzalez, I, I appreciate your comments. Um, I actually represent a large part of Kendall Drive and yes, it is a parking lot. Um, but I, I wanted to share some information that might be useful to the applicant and to you. When I got to the board in 2020 F thought was planning on, um, a bus system on Kendall drive, which I put a pin in because they wanted to do a rapid bus system that would take up an entire lane. That's obviously impossible. Um, but I have been, um, since then meeting with F thought and talking about different options, uh, with staff. And one of the things we were looking at was if, since we know that parts of Kendall drive in my district and in yours and some, um, in, um, commissioner, uh, the chairman's district are going to be redeveloped to take the opportunity where we can create a lane. Like here, but to use that lane for transit, not necessarily for cars and to create bus stops along those lanes. So we would, we would keep the existing lanes and then, you know, create a new lane for a rapid bus, um, or a multi, um, multi use vehicle, right? So it would be similar to the commuter lanes that we have, right? The HOV lanes. Um, so that's in the work. I'm happy to have a sunshine meeting with you and talk about that option. I will say also in terms of what we're seeing in the corridor commercial, as we know, it is dying. It was, it was, it was on its deathbed pre COVID and now post COVID it's really about the experience. So we're seeing a shrinking in a lot of commercial establishments. Um, and the high prices of commercial are even leading to a lot of closings of restaurants, which were the exception to this rule. So even in my district that has transit, we're seeing the redevelopment of large commercial areas like sunset place into more residential with some commercial. So, um, I, I think, you know, the only area right now where we're seeing that office space, um, is, is heavily in demand is Dayland. And that's because Dayland is at the center of the corridor and people can come from different places. But I would, I would tell you to look at the numbers and, and how long these things are, you know, on the market, because we have a lot of hybrid work, a lot of people like not wanting to commit to office space. So I agree with you ideologically. I understand what you're saying. And I, and I don't want us to have these sprawling suburbs, but economically we're seeing something different happen. Um, so I think we have to figure out what the proper mix is in order to make it work. And more and more we're seeing along this corridor, um, a combination of 30, 35% commercial and the rest residential. So I would tell you to look at those numbers and I'm happy to have a sunshine and talk about Kendall drive, um, and the different things that we're looking at. Um, because this is something, if they're going to, if they're going to give us land to do a lane, this is something that could be used to help push that forward. Um, but we just need to decide how far we want to go and where those stops would be. But FDOT is interested in doing this. I just wasn't interested in taking a lane from Kendall drive. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh, do you have a date in mind? You would like this to be. So move to defer to no time certain. Thank you. At this time, can we go ahead and get a voice count? First of all, voice count. First of all, you move your item. I mean, you made the deferral, we got a second. All right, clerk, please call the roll for deferral. Commissioner Bastian. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Motion adjourned. Meeting adjourned.