Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started. Everyone please stand for the Pledge of the Flag.

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.

All right, let's do a quick roll call.

Agutin Barreira. J.R. Corbison.

Daniel Alvarez.

Jay Miller.

Daniel Guerra.

Mr. Garrett, if you're going to be a voting member of the meeting, you need to actually be on your video feed. Is he there? Oh, you're live. Well, there you are. I thought I was still dealing with your picture down below. All right. We're good. Okay. So with that said, any administrative matters?

I don't have any at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Mardos, do you want to do any swearing in here at the onset?

Yes. We have a number of items on tonight's agenda that are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish, if anyone in the audience wishes to provide testimony with respect to those items, we ask that you be sworn in. And so I'll ask if anyone here is planning on speaking on any items, please stand up. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Your answer? I do. Thank you.

Chairman, it's all yours. All right. Thank you very much. Before we get started.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would imagine items one, two, and three are going to be lengthy like they were at our last meeting. So if it's okay with the board, I recommend that we take item four up first so they don't have to wait while we deliberate on those three items.

Mr. Martos? If that's the will of the board, you can take them out of order. Fine with me.

Are we okay with that? Yep. Everyone good? Okay.

I was like, you have unanimous consent.

Okay. All right, with that said, we're going to tackle item four first.

So, Marcus? Okay, the item is PB-2026-016. The applicant is Police Land Surveyors Incorporated on behalf of South Miami Real Estate Partners. The item is a resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, approving or denying an application. for a tentative plan pursuant to Section 20-4.2 of the Land Development Code, seeking to replant the entire block located on the west side of Southwest 62nd Avenue. between Southwest 68th Street and Southwest 69th Street, providing for conditions, enforcement of conditions, corrections, and an effective date. So this item is pursuant to a large-scale development application for the Med Square project. It was a mixed-use project on Southwest 62nd Avenue, where the front half of facing 62nd Avenue would be a six-story medical office building, most likely medical arts. with townhouses on the back half of the property facing southwest 62nd Court. This process is the next step in that project to replant the properties to, one, unite them into one parcel, as well as to distribute the land for the townhouses and for the office building. So staff has reviewed the regulations against Section 20-4.2 of the Land Development Code, which is the city's subdivision regulations. I'm only going to, in the interest of time, I'm going to point out some of the items so that the board is aware of certain things. So the first thing of note, Section 20, that's 4.2b3, lowercase a, states, ensure the retention of specimen treats for six years and permanently maintain 50%. EXISTING PROTECTIVE TREE CANOPY BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONDITION BE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CITIES AND COUNTIES TREE ORDINANCE. STAFF REVIEWED THE PLAT SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE FOUR TREES THAT WERE CONSIDERED TO BE SPECIMEN. THEY WERE ALL LIVE OAKS AND TREE 6A, TREE 9F, TREE 39 AND TREE 40. THREE OF THOSE TREES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED BECAUSE Our code states that specimen trees have to remain on the site for that amount of time. It's important to note that while staff was reviewing this project, we found a discrepancy in the landscape plan. There were trees that were missing from the landscape from the existing tree disposition that were shown on the survey. I contacted the applicant. They provided an updated landscape plan after publishing. And I reviewed it again today and found there were some other trees that were missing. So basically, they corrected the original issue that I had with that tree disposition plan, but ended up reviewing. I found that tree 41 through tree 46, which are the trees in the soil area along the right of way, were listed on the disposition plan. They're shown on the tree survey, the graphic, the plan for the survey, but they're not in the tree table. So they would just have to update the tree table prior to final plot approval. The next one, they have to execute and record in the public records of Miami-Dade County Restricted Covenant in a form approved by and subject to review and approval of the city manager and city attorney, which contains all commitments made and conditions imposed as part of the approval of the approved waiver plat, tentative, and final plat. Pursuant to this section of the LDC, which is section 20, that's 4.2b3, lowercase c as in Charlie, the applicant will be required to execute and record that covenant prior to, after final plat approval. The next one, Section 4.2 . A certified tree survey overlaid directly upon the site plan as required by Section 4.5. The tree survey must include the canopy measurements. Once an application for a waiver applied or tentative applied is filed, no tree may be removed until after final waiver or final platter proof is issued, considered the tree removal moratorium. The applicant may appeal to their city commission to waive the tree removal moratorium for good cause. Staff reviewed that disposition and listed a number of trees that would be affected by the redevelopment of the site. We had the project reviewed by the city's contracted arborist, Robert Curtis of Curtis Rogers, where he's recommended additional trees be relocated instead of removed. And there are several prohibited trees. Those are exempt from the tree protection ordinance. So those would potentially be free to go. There's a no-charge permit. No mitigation will be required for anything that's dead or prohibited. The next one is section 20. That's 4.2C1. Sidewalks, curves, gutters, drainage, and paving shall be installed by the owner. developer of the abutting parcel in accordance with Chapter 28 of the County Code and other applicable City requirements unless such can be and are waived or deferred by the City Commission. To comply with this subsection, the conceptual plan was sent to the City's Public Works Department for review and I'm awaiting comment back from them. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I'm available for any comments or questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, if anyone wishes to speak relative to this item, please step forward, sign in, name, address, et cetera, and we'll go from there.

And just to point out, the applicant is available, is here for comment if you have any. Okay.

Does the applicant want to comment? No? Okay. All right. Anybody online that wishes to comment about this, please raise your hand. I see no one in the audience that wishes to comment. I see no one online that wishes to comment. So with that said, I'm going to close it to public discussion and open up for any kind of questions for the committee.

Chair, the only question I have is, is the applicant willing to comply with all the recommendations made by staff?

Good evening, Alessandra San Armando. The office is located at 701 Burkle Avenue. Yes, we agree with all the conditions that staff has laid out this evening.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? If not, we have a motion.

I make a motion we approve with staff recommendations.

Do we have a second? A second. We have a second. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Danny A. Aye. Aye.

And aye. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Good night.

Thank you.

Good night. All right. Chair, do you want to turn to item five or do you want to turn back to number one? One, two, and three.

Okay. I'm okay. Are there a number of people here relative to item five?

I am only aware of the applicant and the owner of the property.

Why don't we tackle item five? Sure.

Do we need a motion for that one to take it out of order also?

I think a motion was just made by the chair's prerogative.

Okay.

Number five.

Number five is PB-2026-017, an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Article 3, zoning regulations, Section 20-3.3, permitted use schedule, and 20-3.4, special use conditions of the Land Development Code to provide for a physical fitness facility as a special use in the general retail district and to amend hours of operation and conditions based on an application submitted by Chemco, South Miami 634, Incorporated, Providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. This item will be handled by Mr. Mark Alvarez of the Corradino Group. Thank you.

Good evening. Mark Alvarez with the Corradino Group here on behalf of planning staff of the City of South Miami. We have reviewed this application. I want to start with it is an application by Kimco South Miami 634 Incorporated. Therefore, it is a private application. However, the zoning ordinance, it would be for the general purposes of the city. And I treat it as such. So as I go through this, the one thing we'll be talking about a special use to allow physical fitness facility in general in GR. Any action tonight would not be an action to allow that on their site. So that would be by a special use. So the analysis has been strictly to, or not strictly, but actually generally to the physical fitness as a special use in general retail zoning district. And I'm sorry, I don't have a PowerPoint, if you don't mind turning pages on the report. On page two, the actual changes that would be in the code are shown in underline and strike through. This would allow under special use to allow physical fitness facilities in GR. And you see the little S under physical fitness facilities. The quadruple asterisk is also in the uses table. And that refers to a number of conditions that have to happen for the special use to be permitted. What is being, the special use conditions have to do with the time of operation as well as noise emanation from the facility. The applicant has asked that we, that the hours of operation be part of the change. So there's two, a two-four proposal. One is to allow physical fitness as a special use in the GR category and two, to modify the hours of the special conditions for that currently. The hours would be 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. unless they're abutting a residential district, and then it would be 6. I said that the wrong way. 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. if they're abutting a residential district, and otherwise 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. All of the conditions regarding the sound emanation from any kind of facility in GR would remain as part of this. So the conditions basically mean that the structure, in other words, this is something that's enforceable. The structure would have to be fully enclosed. There would be no sound audible from outside at the edge of the property. And so GR has a range of sizes of properties. In some cases, they would be very close to their boundary. In some cases, there would be a great distance across a parking lot to get to that boundary. So this is why it has to be a special use. Each case would be analyzed on its own. And finally, it's in the conditions that the audible sound would be prima facie evidence. In other words, on the face of it, no further need to prove anything that they're not following the regulations. So in our analysis, we've looked at this, and there are eight points of the analysis on page four. We note that GR, general retail, is meant to serve a broad range of retail oriented towards the motoring public. IT'S REQUIRED, IT'S ALREADY REQUIRED THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN GENERAL RETAIL IS ENTIRELY INDOORS. AND IN THIS CASE FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE INDOORS. THE DOORS WOULD BE CLOSED AND IT WOULD BE CLIMATE CONTROLLED AC OR IF IT'S A HOT ROOM THEN A HOT ROOM BUT IT WOULD BE ALWAYS ENCLOSED. I guess I should cover a little bit of the history. And I didn't. Let me just do that for a moment. This applicant initially reached out to us back in January of this year about an opinion of use on the physical fitness facility. And we said it would not be allowed unless it was a special use. And that's not in the code right now. This application came forward in June. I want to go back to the code restrictions, the special use conditions. came about during 2019 when there was an ordinance passed for this by this commission, by the commission. There's Ordinance 3719-2350. And at the time, that ordinance was in response to residential concerns about physical fitness facilities in general. There was some concern that in the cases where physical fitness facilities are very close to residential boundaries and in the case where a physical fitness facility has coaching and activities outdoors that it would be distracting or disturbing to the quiet enjoyment of any neighborhood. At that time, that was in a different zoning district that initiated that, but it was broadened to the entire use for different zoning districts. GR was left out of that. As staff, and I'm sorry, I took a little diversion there. As staff, we find that GR is a very reasonable place to have physical education, excuse me, physical fitness facilities. It is something for the motoring public. Most people drive to gyms. wide range of service area. So it is required, the GR already requires everything to be entirely indoors. Coaching, so there is, in our staff review we find that coaching occurs with physical fitness facilities. If it's indoors, there should not be a problem. The indoors, again, we're required. The conditions are that it will be soundproof, that the doors are shut, that everything is shut. Coaching is part of it, and we even have in some of the other, in the other use called personal skills instruction, where we have yoga, dance, and martial arts, those also have vocalizations that are loud. So we had some trouble with distinguishing between the two and why the restrictions focused on physical fitness facilities in particular, and we find that there's not a good distinction and it's not a fair code between the two uses. So there's no problem for the coaching to allow vocalization as long as it doesn't leak out of the facility. Let's see. As a point of reference on times of day, we went to Murray Park, which is the city's own facility, has a physical fitness facility in it, and it is open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. This is requesting 5 a.m. To 11 the reason for this is that the applicant Explained to us that there is a need for Hospital workers who are on a 7 to 7 shift who also want to use a physical fitness facility before their shift or after their shift If you're on a 7 a.m. shift, you can't go at 6 and make it to your shift. So the particular tenant that was looking to locate in a facility in DR was looking to have something that would be a little earlier in the morning, a little later at night. Again, as long as this use is entirely enclosed, no noise emanates out of it, there's no distraction that comes outside of the boundaries of the facility, we think it's fair to allow that use as long as those conditions are met and the conditions remain in the special use. And lastly, as I mentioned before, abut and adjoining is a word that is used here to mean the property boundary. And as we look along all the GR properties, there are huge differences in where the building is displaced in the property to where the boundary is. So again, this pointed to us that this is something that should be available for special use and that in each case, the special use will determine whether it's appropriate based on the distances to those boundaries. So the geographic effect of this, there's a table on page five of your report. We look through all the properties that would have residential abutting to GR. There are 18 along Bird Road, mostly towards the 11 Road part and a little bit more towards where the CVS is and Red Road. And also along South Dixie Highway there are eight properties where there is residential abutting a GR property Residential in this case doesn't mean single-family means all residential So we have eight potential properties on South Dixie Highway and 18 properties along Bird Road that would be affected by this or could be affected this by this but again We're recommending for adoption of this amendment because we believe that there are enough protections already built into the special use, and that because of the great variety of property sizes and buildings and how they're disposed of on the property, it should be a special use that's permitted to try to address all populations that want to use physical fitness facilities, and we would just address it on a case-by-case basis. But without making this change, we can't address it at all. If there's any questions, I'm complete.

Thank you. So, public comment. Anybody in the room here that wishes to speak on this issue, please come up to the front and sign in. Anyone online that would like to speak on this issue, please raise your hand. Seeing no one in the audience or online, we'll close the public comment and go to questions from the committee. So Mark, what this doesn't affect is we're dealing with this particular project right now. But ultimately, because of the special use designation, anybody else who wants to do this would have to come back in front of us again to talk about things like proximity to the neighbors, et cetera.

Correct. And even this application is not before you as a special use.

Not at this point. Right. So then the next question I have, which is thinking of that property, which is the old Petco property. party city, whatever else has been in there over the years. This is anticipated to be in the existing structure or a newly built structure. So let me tell you what my concern is, which would be that there's a lot of parking in the front of that property, which is great, a lot of parking in the back of the property, which is great, except maybe not at 11 p.m. And so how do we protect the neighbors from the traffic involved and people getting in and out of cars in that property, which abuts to the south side a residential, I believe it's townhouses in that area right there. How do we make sure that they're not inconvenienced by what's going on?

Just cars at 5 in the morning? Yeah, I would, if I can address that, I would suggest that, and again, we're dealing with the ordinance only, that we could add a condition about the use of parking lots adjacent to residential areas as part of the conditions for the special use so that we would address it in a general fashion.

Okay. How would you word something like that?

Well, I think we would word that when an application comes to you for the special exception. I don't think you'd put it in now.

Got it. OK. All right. Other questions or concerns from the planning board?

TO THE CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND DEFINITELY WE NEED TO KEEP THEM IN MIND. BUT THAT BACK PARKING LOT RIGHT NOW IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHERE, YOU KNOW, LARGE TRUCKS PULL IN AT ALL THE HOURS.

YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THERE'S ALREADY A PRESSURE.

YEAH.

There is. It's a different type of traffic, but I understand what you're saying.

So this use actually may be less, you know, big breaks.

Yep. Fair point. Other questions or comments? If not, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve with staff recommendations.

Is there a second? I second that. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, starting my left?

Aye. Aye.

The Dans?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right.

So for item one, two, and three, do you want me to read all the titles in at once, or do you want me to go tackle each one separately?

We were talking about this earlier. I think read them all in at once, unless Ed feels differently.

OK. Yeah. OK, so I'll read them all at once. But when we get time to do the motion, I need separate motions and votes for each item.

Correct.

FIRST ITEM IS PB-2026-012. THE APPLICANT IS BIRD 58 LLC. ITEM IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AMENDING POLICY 1.1.4 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MODIFY THE DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE TO THE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY TO ADDRESS THE TRANSITION FROM COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Item number two is PB-2026-013, applicant is Byrd 5858, LLC. Item is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending the future land use map of the future land use element of the City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan to change the designations of the properties located at 5800 Byrd Road and 5801 Southwest 41st Street. about commercial residential, I'm sorry, commercial retail and office and single-family residential to a mixed-use commercial residential. Future land use category based on an application submitted by Byrd 5.8 LLC providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. Item number three is PB-2026-014, applicant is Byrd 58, LLC. Item is an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending the zoning map of the City of South Miami. to change the zoning district applicable to the property located at 5801 Southwest 41st Street from RS4, single-family residential zoning district, to GR, general retail zoning district, based on an application submitted by Byrd 58 LLC providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. These items will be handled by Mr. Mark Alvarez. Thank you.

Good evening. Mark Alvarez with the Corradino Group on behalf of the city of South Miami planning and development staff. We want to take this. We left off on a continuance last time on policy 1.1.4, which is the third item on the agenda. And the chair, if you want to continue on that or go through the whole thing.

Ed, thoughts?

It really is up to you if you want all that information again, or if you want to just pick up where you left off.

Whichever you think is the most effective order you want to go in.

OK. I'm going to start with the policy, the tech policy, and finish on that, especially because as we go forward, the other two items can't become effective without the policy. Yes.

I think that's the best route. And Mark, I think a very special emphasis needs to be on looking at the various other areas that are affected by this, since it is of a broad impact, not just to one property.

Correct. So policy 1.1.4, and again, just to refresh a little bit, it is on, this is a comprehensive plan text amendment. It's on an expedited review. The reason why it's an expedited review and not a small scale is that it is general in nature. And there's on page three of your report, there's a little bit of a chart that shows the scheduling of how all this will happen. Everything depends on this policy as part of an expedited review. After this goes to commission, then it will be transmitted to the state for review, even that one policy change. The other two applications would have to wait for that to go to a second hearing at the Commission. So there was a concern the last time that the general nature of this policy had too broad of an effect, particularly geographically. At the time, the amendment was written to allow the changes in MUCR, mixed use commercial residential, as well as residential office, as well as MUCR. I'm sorry, what did I say? MUCR, as well as CRO, which is the commercial and retail. We've changed the text of this amendment with the applicant's input to narrow it down. So the last time we had quite a number of properties that could become affected. In other words, anything that was in the future land use map designation of CRO, of MUCR, of RO, and of, I just said MUCR, excuse me. One of the things that we discussed as we discussed this last time was that almost two years ago now, as I stood at this podium, the Commission was going through a number of changes that they would like to see in the land use and in the zoning. Mostly we were talking about the downtown. But one of the things that we talked about then was having additional MUCR areas, mixed use but at a small scale, along Bird Road, along Sunset, along Red Road, and along Hardy Road. The commission did not favor Sunset Road and it did not favor Red Road, particularly for all of the residential office properties. So what this is before you now is an amended or a changed version of the amendment that would limit the effect of this strictly to MUCR properties. In other words, anything that's already MUCR or anything that would change from CRO or commercial office to MUCR. So mixed use, and I explained this last time, was something that we were looking forward to implementing on some of the corridors, but the change in the policy was too broad, as you saw last time. So as it's written now... THIS WOULD BE A POLICY TO ALLOW, IN OTHER WORDS, POLICY 1.1.4, JUST TO REFRESH, IT DOESN'T ALLOW ANY ENCROACHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL USE INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO ANYWHERE WHERE WE HAVE A CORRIDOR AND WE HAVE COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE FRONTING THE CORRIDOR, IT CANNOT GO BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK. And long before we came to this meeting, we had talked with the commission about the general effect of having a small-scale mixed-use residential category, MUCR, that could encompass the depth of a block. and address the residential side of the block, just as we have done with the downtown TSTD ordinance where we put townhouse on the other side. So that's why we have really looked forward to this as well from the staff point because we would like to implement this further. So what this now does is it takes it only to mixed-use and UCR, mixed-use commercial residential, is the only category that can go encroach one residential lot back, and that's one of the things that got put in here. You had questions before about the extent of that encroachment going into the block. So just to use the application that's here tonight following this, that's a block that's more or less sideways along Bird Road. It can only go one lot in before the trigger for this ordinance would say, no, you can't go across the street. The committee the board brought up a long hardy road There's an area where we have long blocks and we would not be able to stop stop the encroachment back into the block So we have limited to one lot and only one lot of record. So with this amendment now says is that Nowhere in the city. Can we encroach? commercial into a residential area unless it's mixed-use commercial residential and future land use map category which is a low intensity mixed use or if it's a commercial retail office that has been converted to MUCR which is something that we see we forecast wanting to do more and more because most of these corridors have CRO and we want to convert that to MUCR because again we want to have a more architectural solution to that transition instead of the backs of a residential property and the back of a commercial property facing each other on the back lot line where the headlights and the noise and so forth can affect each other. So it would be only from UCR. It would only occur on half or full section line roads. It would still not be able to cross right of way in the encroachment. It could only go one lot of record. So on the long blocks that we were speaking about last time on Hardy Road, they didn't go one block in. Excuse me, one lot in. And finally... If it's in any case where that is permitted, it would go with a declaration of restrictions prohibiting development under statutory processes. In other words, live local would not be applicable, and that would be by a declaration of restrictions. So that's what the ordinance that's before you today. I'm sorry, I keep saying ordinance. It is an ordinance, but the policy amendment says And the effect of that becomes much less. So everything that we talked about last time along Sunset, along Red Road, goes away. There's no impact. There's no possible impact to those properties.

The only properties that would be

That would be affected. There would be 22 in total. There would be properties along Bird Road, again, by the Ludlam side, on the west side of it, and then also on the Red Road side where the CVS is and going to 58th Street. There would also be impacts or potential for this along Hardy Road. This would be the area that we kind of call Madison Square or around Madison Square would now also be able to, because that is MUCR already, and it could become MUCR, again, just in the properties around it. And that's it. So instead of doing a lot of research on what we were, like 60 or so properties, we thought it was, I think, the will of this body to really restrict this geographically. Exactly to what we wanted to focus on and really target it properly, so that's what's before you those are the changes if you want to Have a discussion on that first I'll be available to answer questions. I'm sorry. I don't have a PowerPoint tonight.

I apologize for that but I Think we should probably discuss this when we get comments on this one first And probably vote this one first before we tackle the other two don't you think I?

I agree. Yeah.

So with that said, before we go to questions and so forth, is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this in the audience? Please step forward, sign in, state your name.

Yeah.

Yeah, just a reminder, as my colleague pointed out, that this is not to a specific property. This is a change of an ordinance. So it's not about one particular property in there. If you haven't been sworn in, please let us know. And you have three minutes once you start to make your comments. And likewise, I see one hand raised on line, Marcus. So just track that.

Yes, Stephanie Mendoza. We can get to her after the gentleman speaks.

Okay.

Good evening, again. My name is Alan Montesino. I have a small family, and we live directly across the street from the property in Items 2 and 3. I'm also a lieutenant for Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, serving the South Miami area. As a matter of fact, I work right here across the street in all the stations that respond into South Miami. And believe it or not, on Sundays, I'm even responsible for the entire coordination of the response to any emergency in South Miami. That's why I'm losing my hair already. Thanks for what you do. I mentioned just to explain how much I sacrificed for this community and that when I talk about items two and three later, I'm not just coming from a personal perspective, but from a professional perspective, as it is part of my job to inspect commercial structures for health, safety, pre-incident planning, and their impact on the services. So I hope we don't get that far because any respectable city like South Miami has policies in place to make sure that something like a nefarious application that we have in front of us for the other items does not happen. In South Miami it's 1.1.4. The fire department is an interesting place because there's a large age gap. When I came home from college I got hired and found myself working with guys twice my age. They would often give a lot of advice. They told me to stay at home and save money so that I could one day buy a house. And I did that. I listened to them. So when all my friends that came home from college with me went to Berkeley when we were renting and were partying and stuff, I didn't. I did just that. I stayed at home and lived with my parents for three years. I also was dating the same girl from high school, so I wasn't that interested in that whole party thing. It worked out because after three years in 2017, I was able to purchase that home on 41st Street, the one that is directly across from the property in items two and three. With the help of my dad, we ended up fixing up that property to being pretty nice. Having worked all over the county in the craziest areas imaginable, I know that the county is the wild, wild west. When I bought my house, I felt safe because I have a corner house and the other three corners are South Miami properties. So I felt protected. I felt that something like this wouldn't happen, but here we are. I feel like I did all the right things and I find myself in a boat with somebody that's suggesting we should drill a hole in it. And it's quite baffling. In front of you, there's a packet with reference material for a lot of the items, the failed criteria for items two and three, including GIS maps that I have from water and sewer showing how what they want to build is actually not possible, at least what the application's for, despite the pinky promise to not do what the application's for. The first picture, though, you'll see a picture of my son playing in the yard. And in the background, you'll see the property in items two and three. The reason that you could see that house so well is because earlier this year, we had a refrigeration truck that was trying to escape traffic on Byrd Road and cut to deliver to and ran into a 50-foot tree that served its purpose and blocked it from going into our yard. And it did fall. And thank god nobody was there to get injured. But not to mention, that's also why items two and three will fail criteria four for an amendment.

If you need to wrap up.

Yes, sir. Real quick. One of the things that they're going to offer here is that they'll just put a parking lot there. You'll see in the other pictures that I want to address later when I have another allotted three minutes what exactly that looks like and how there's no way that that would be beneficial, like somebody suggested, to our family or to anybody's family. I have other people here that will say the same thing. And unfortunately, there's a lot of people on our block that are elderly and handicapped and not able to come here today, but are hoping that we're successful. Thank you.

Thanks very much. No problem. And thanks for what you do for us. All right. Anyone else wish to speak, please step up, sign in. It's not on the specific properties. It's the broader ordinance. I know a better way to explain it than that. The actual for the specific property involved? Yes. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Yes.

Don't forget we had the person online that went in and raised it.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BROADER ORDINANCE, NOT THE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES YET. OKAY? DO YOU WANT TO?

I'M THE APPLICANT. WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO. FIRE AWAY. OKAY, SURE. SO GOOD EVENING. MICKEY MORERO, OFFICES 200 SOUTH. WHILE WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THE SPECIFIC REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, We are also the applicant, although it's applicable to other properties, for the text amendment. And the reason we are the applicant is there is a, and by the way, just like the gentleman here, I want to be part of South Miami. I live two and a half blocks from this property in the unincorporated area. I want to be part of South Miami. I've talked to the mayor about it, hoping one day that happens. But in any event, in this area, we have what I call a mishmash of zoning. The minute I moved in, I found it bizarre. My next door neighbor is in South Miami. I am unincorporated. Across the street at South Miami, if you look at the zoning map for this neighborhood, it's like nothing I've ever seen in any other jurisdiction. Hopefully one day that gets resolved. But a function of that is this sort of messy zoning that we have along the strip of Bird Road. In this block alone, the entire block is already zoned GR, as is the Bird Road component of this property. And there's just the four lots in that almost like a donut hole that are RS4. The issue with my client's property, and he would love nothing more than to just redevelop that retail block the property he owns, doesn't want to do anything beyond that. He's asking for it. And I know it's the next application, but it gets to the point. To GR zoning, to match the zoning that's already there. He cannot redevelop his property, which if you know that building, it's very, very dated. It's a 40-year-old building that really could use an upgrade, but it doesn't meet current code. I haven't had three minutes yet, have I? It doesn't meet current code because the parking is deficient. We cannot park it even though we're not putting a building where it's currently zoned residential. The parking that we put there, we need 18 minimum spaces to meet parking for that retail space at one space for every 250 square feet. We cannot use that for parking. So we could never redevelop that property and improve it. All that my client wants to do is improve that property. We are asking for mixed use, but that's only the umbrella category. The actual zoning we're asking for is general retail. And in order to get there, we need this text amendment changed. We've worked with staff to minimize the impact of that change so that it's only one lot of record. That doesn't allow for any further expansion. It doesn't allow it to go past the street that it's in. We're happy to work. I brought plans to show the neighbors. I did give them my card last time, but nobody reached out to me. But I brought the plans here today. We're open to modifying that in a way that's palatable. But it's just a one story improvement of that existing property. But without this text amendment and all the restrictions that are in that text amendment, we can't redevelop that property. Because we cannot park it, and we're stuck with the building that's there. So we think it's necessary. We've worked with staff to find a way to make it as narrow as possible in a way that cannot intrude into the neighborhood further, that's limited to only that block. And again, in our situation, it's unified ownership. So it's already owned by the same owner. It's one parcel that my client bought as one. But because of the split zoning, he can't redevelop that property. So we think it's necessary. We're happy to agree to everything staff has further refined to make it as narrow as possible. I'll reserve my time on the more specific items for the request after this item. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So other comments on the general ordinance? Not on the specific properties. I mean, you can bring them up, but you're beating a dead horse. So your name and address, please, and you'll be limited to three minutes.

Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Floreal de la Garza. Gregorio Floreal de la Garza Suarez de Jesus is my baptized name. I'm here to object to this. This is a city of pleasant living. People love it. We don't want to turn it into the part of West Miami on 67th Avenue where you have eight-story buildings, everything's the density exploding. We're a block away from Coral Gables, so we always felt protected. I went to David Fairchild. I went to South Miami Junior High. I went to South Miami Senior High. And my neighborhood now, we're getting elderly.

Some of our residents have been there 30, 40, or like me, 60 years.

Now, if South Miami is looking to increase their tax base, Fix up the bakery center. That's been almost a flop from the beginning. You guys never got an anchor for it. And that would have generated a lot of income for South Miami. Don't do it by destroying the lifestyle of the residential area of South Miami. Keep it to downtown. Keep it to the areas that have already been developed. what's-its-name across the street. They paid $68.5 million. Walgreens is having problems. They're closing them down. Winn-Dixie's got bought by Aldi. They only need about half the space at the most. So there's some economic problems going around. So we have to figure what is going to replace that. Are we going to go high density? Or like, for example, it might not be your property anymore, the railroad tracks. It was going to be a green area. People could bike, could walk, enjoy themselves. Whoever approved those buildings, they'd come out and they'd shoot across three lanes of traffic to go 20 feet to immediately make a left turn or a U-turn on Byrd Road. Nobody went there and looked at that. One day, he's going to be called to go over there, because it's just an accident waiting. And you go to the post office, and to come out, I have to do that. I have to wait in line. These people are not going to make a right-hand turn. They're going to wait until it's completely clear to shoot across three lanes of traffic to make a U-turn. And the people going West Browningburg Road, you've got this going on. Same problem going on across the street in the Redbird Shopping Center. And I love South Miami. It's centrally located. I can get to anywhere. from South Miami, and I'm east of the Palmetto. There's such a huge difference in traffic, and you're east of the Palmetto, because you all know there's only a few roads that cut through under the Palmetto. So I'm just saying that my time is up. I'll be back for the specific. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Online, I still see...

Yes, I'd like to speak to the amendment of policy 1.1.4.

Before you start, you need to be sworn in.

Yes, I need to be sworn in. I was going to say that. It's just the video feed, I'm disabled. the video feed and the audio earlier and the chat, so I couldn't say anything about it earlier.

Okay. Is he going to be visual? Yes, you need to be on video, sir. I'm going to ask Marcus to enable that.

Yeah, Madam Clerk, can you? Oh, there you go. There you are.

Okay, sir, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your response?

I do.

Perfect. Thank you, sir.

Okay. So speaking to the change of Amendment Policy 1.1.4, my name is Michael Mendoza. Stephanie Mendoza is my wife. I live at 5806 Southwest 41st Street. I've owned this house for 11 years. Regarding the amendment, I believe it's coming forward from one applicant, and I wanted to say Even with all these restrictions and limitations that are being placed where it only encroaches one lot back and reducing it from 68 to 22. I heard 22 houses, 22 lots was the number being affected by this. The last time I checked, two was more than one. This is 22 affected. I'm not even one of those 22 lots. I'm across the street, but it still affects me deeply in the same way. Who wants to step out of their house and see a commercial structure? That's obviously going to affect more than just the 22 lots. It's affecting double that at the minimum for all the other houses that are surrounded by this. And if this has changed, this is setting a huge precedent. You're opening up Pandora's box for one applicant that affects so many others. And I just I find it ludicrous that we're in this position. And the the idea for this to better the residences and neighborhoods by this policy is I don't see how that's going to happen. Since I've been here, I have seen throughout this whole neighborhood, and I'm sure that's going to be the same case around Hardy and Sunset, where a significant number of houses have come in here and they've redeveloped their homes. And you have a lot of young families. And we walk around. If you actually come to this neighborhood, you see people walking their dogs and their families and their babies. So I just... I find it ludicrous that we're proposing this, that we're actually going to accept this for one applicant that affects so many other people. 22 lots, I heard. And just think it's at least double that for all the other houses that are on the front lines that have to stare at the commercial. Even if you say that there's restrictions and limitations that they're going to abide by, it's still a precedent that's being set. And if you amend this today, you can amend it further tomorrow. And, you know, someone can come in and you can say, hey, look, we're going to make it one story, two stories. That's great. Someone else may come in and it's going to be four stories later. So that's my position. I just wanted to speak to that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, any other, either in the audience or online? I do not see anyone in the audience or online right now, so we'll close it to public comment. Mark, do you want to make any comments relative to one applicant driving it, et cetera, versus the broader impact of what we're trying to do?

Yeah, it is a policy in the comprehensive plan, so it does have a broad impact. There are two ways that we can have amendments to the comprehensive plan. It's often something that would be brought to you by the city staff itself or by the commission directing city staff. In this case, it is an applicant who needs this policy. The policy does not does not permit anything without further discussion and debate by this board and the commission. It just allows that discussion to happen. The reason why I've spoken about it in a certain way is that this was a policy that we had talked about before because, again, about two years ago when we were talking about redeveloping certain corridors. This is something that we needed to address at that time, and we're not able to at that time either. A number of constraints happened with our comprehensive plan that we just couldn't address it from a staff level. The staff of the city does look at it in its broader context. The applicant has brought it forward because it is something that they need for their plans on the property, which will be a separate issue. And that's pretty much it.

Thank you. All right.

Thank you.

All right, questions and comments from the committee.

Third chair, I mean, my comment is I appreciate the fact that the properties on Sunset and Red Road were taken out. But this still doesn't change the fact that we're taking 22 parcels today that are single family homes and opening up the Pandora's box to them being commercial. And I, for one, don't want to be credited with supporting that. And I can understand that the majority of that parcel today is commercial. But those are the sins of the past. It doesn't mean we have to move them forward. So I could see that, and I made this statement the last time. Slowly, that block becomes to where there could be just one little house left, like what happened in Coral Gables and the plaza, where there's one little house left and everything else around it gets built up. And I for one don't wanna be in a position where I'm supporting something like that happening. I've been a resident of this city for almost 40 years. I love it here and I wanna maintain the residential quality as much as possible. If this really had been thought of as being commercial, It should have been done when the whole comp plan was revisited. It's almost like an afterthought that may have been driven by a particular applicant, in my opinion. So I for one would not support a text amendment that impacts 22 residential lots. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?

Yeah, with respect to everyone here, I agree with Gus. And I'm inviting the applicant to help me understand this because where I'm stuck is it seems like the applicant purchased a piece of property that had certain restrictions that were either known or should have been known at the time that he purchased them. And now he's looking to improve that situation at the expense of neighbors. And while I think one could make the argument that if you bought a residential property next to a commercial property, then there's a reasonable expectation that that's going to stay that way. But now we're moving the goalposts, right? And like Mr. Mendoza said, there's 22 other properties here who didn't buy property next to commercial real estate, and now that's in jeopardy. And I don't think that's fair to anybody. Again, I'm inviting you to help me understand this in a different way, if there is a different way to understand it, because that's where my position is.

This is not the specific application, which we can hear next. Well, no, I'm just speaking in general terms. Just the broader term, if you want. This affects more than just that property. I'm happy to. So speaking of my client, who bought the property, there was, and I spoke to Marcus about it back then, there was an older document that seemed to grandfather the parking that's there in the RS4. It looked like it was addressing the parking. It really wasn't. And when we reviewed it further, it was not. So we had been speaking to staff about this for a long time with the hopes that the staff was making changes to the comp plan that would address this. But my client really just wants to redevelop this property. And again, his intention, while I know that we're asking for a mixed-use commercial comp plan amendment, the specific zoning is GR. It doesn't allow residential. It doesn't allow large heights. And so we're just trying to redevelop the property that's there. To be clear, we're not asking to change the use, to make something different. All that this does is it allows us to redevelop and improve the property and bring it up to modern code to make it a safer building, a newer building. There was some confusion in title about the property.

Part of the plan is to take that existing residential property and convert that.

Right, because the parking regulations are more onerous now.

Right, but it's not just developing that commercial property. It's also rezoning and redeveloping the existing house that's there.

No, all that would be going there is parking.

Right. Yeah. Which is a commercial parking lot, correct?

Parking to serve the building that's there. Right now, there's deficient parking. So as per the code, if there's a parking along that parking on 41st Street that's being used for this use, this would eliminate or go to eliminate the parking that's being used as street parking or parking that's bothering folks around because now there's going to be sufficient parking for that retail use. Currently, the current use is under-parked. as per the zoning code. And we would be happy to covenant that the portion that's being rezoned would not have a structure on it. All he's proposing to put is parking there. The current plan that I've shared with the neighbors, and again, we can further refine it. This is very preliminary, but it's a one-story replacement of that one-story structure. And the parking, even for that, is 18 spaces. If I were to make it two or three stories, which we're not proposing, we would have enough parking. So we would covenant that we would not do anything other than what we're saying we're going to do. I know that it says mixed use, but this is not proposing a mixed use project. We're only asking for GR, which does not allow residential. It cannot go vertical. So we think that what we're asking for is very modest. Really, the only way that we can improve this property, bring it up to code. And that's really what it is. He can continue renting it. He's renting it out now. He can continue doing that. But that building has passed its life stage, and we really need it. It would be a safer building. It would be a better looking building. We think it would improve property values throughout. And that's really the logic. There was a parking document that was there in title that appeared to legalize the parking. It's arguable whether it does or not, but this is really the only way that we can improve this property and bring it to code. Because of the confused zoning that's there, it doesn't allow us to fix it without this change.

Thank you. Thank you. Other questions and comments, either of the Dannys?

No, I kind of appreciate the effort made to reduce from 66 to 22 or whatnot. But I mean, I'm in agreement with my little board members here. Whether it's 22 or 1, it's still a change that I wouldn't be willing to put my name on it as well. So that's about it.

Mr. Guerra?

And just to echo my colleagues, I mean, obviously, the neighbors here are the driver, right? If somebody came in and bought a property that needed to have modifications, this needed to be considered ahead of time. Now, I do appreciate a few comments that were made where one resident said, make it a parking lot, and the applicant just said they only want to make it a parking lot. So I thought that was a curious coincidence. And I do agree that the building is in disrepair and quite old and probably something could be done that would benefit the neighborhood in this particular application. that would make it nicer. But either there needs to be a meeting of the minds where you actually go and sit with the neighbors and, you know, meet with Mr. Mendoza and his wife and the others and say, this is what we definitely want to do and how it's going to benefit you. And if they can come to terms with that, I can see that. But the way it stands now, I have to side with my board membership.

So I think that if what I'm hearing, and I would agree, the challenge we have is taking it out of the one particular property that we all want to talk about, which everybody's showing up for, right, and realize that whatever we do impacts more than that. And the encroachment into the neighborhood with a different zoning or different treatment of that particular space, that bothers me.

It's one of the things that I think concerns all the South Miami residents, so We can eat do we vote it down or just go with I don't see anybody While you're making a recommendation emotion you could you know a recommendation if you were to Suggest denial would be we move to recommend to the Commission that this item be rejected or denied I

All right, do I have a motion motion to do it through the chair?

Yes, through the through the chair before we before we get a motion. I'd like to understand the options if I know we deferred this before. If this gets deferred again, do we do? Is there an opportunity for the neighbors and the applicant and the city understanding their long term goals? to meet and find a path forward, or does this not, with the second referral, it goes to denial?

I think that at this stage, given the ample opportunity you've had to communicate already, I don't know that that would be fruitful. My personal advice is that you make a decision today.

Yeah, I would agree. I don't feel like we've made a lot of progress. I understand.

No, I agree. Thank you.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Going from left to right here. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Mr. Alvarez?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. All right. OK. So does that eliminate the need to talk about the next two items?

It does not. You still need to have a vote on those other two items because they're just recommendations, right? But presumably this conversation will be much shorter.

Okay. Unless, okay.

So I think you should open it up for comment. If you'd like, in order to speed things up, you can open up comment on both items. If any, the applicant is here, he may want to speak to that. I know there's at least one other gentleman in the audience who wishes to.

When we get to the next things, I know you're there. I thought you were stretching it first, but after a while I got it.

Just so that the residents understand, by denying item one, item two and three are. That's fine.

So let me know just, and this is for you, from a rule of order standpoint, can the applicant withdraw this if they would like at this point in time?

They have that option, but I don't see why he would, to be frank. All right, let's go. So staff, Mr. Alvarez, do you want to say a few words in terms of presentation or no? That's okay. I think you want to open it to public comment. Give the gentleman his opportunity.

All right. Any public comment? Hey, I know somebody wants to be up there. Come on up. State your name again and address.

For the record, we're discussing items two and three now. Together. Together.

My name is Chris Jacks, and I live at 5810 Southwest 41st Street, the south side. There's my neighbor, Alan, here. And my other neighbor talked. Alan's got a one-year-old. Michael's got a three-year-old and I had my grandkids a three and a four-year-old sometimes So it's nice to see some young kids around the block I've been there since 86. So I've been there long enough to see Wells Fargo tear down two of the houses that used to be on the north side and I don't really like to see that another house get torn down for another parking lot and But I see the applicant would like to upgrade the building, which of course is industry pair. We had a fire across the street with the Chinese place and then where the old Allen's Drugs used to be. So it probably needs to be done something with, and he should be able to make some money. I understand that. But if you look around that little neighborhood we have, You see some really nice houses getting built, some older ones tore down, some beautiful homes. For me, I still want to hold on to our little neighborhood. I don't see, if you wanted to make money, I think that the solution would be to take the footprint there that's got the mixed zoning and make it so they can be single family and a nice large home gets built there, which would keep the neighborhood good. And it'll be a beautiful home, I'm sure, a lot of money. And you get tax money from that. And that would keep the neighborhood intact. So I'm not opposed to any kind of construction there. But I think it should be maybe we should think like what's been going on in the neighborhood already. Beautiful homes are getting built. Embrace that, and it brings the value up of everything in the neighborhood, which is better tax money for the city too, and everybody is happy. I don't think we need any more brick and mortars, right, at least in our area. Bird Road is already, density has gone way up. So that's it. I don't oppose the guy making some money. I just think it's just a single family.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak that don't feel like they've covered it already? It wasn't directed directly at you, but kind of.

I know this isn't necessary. I know where we're at. I know we all want to get back to our families. I actually have to get back to work. I have somebody covering for me so I could be here. I just want to say I'm usually never on the receiving end of this asking people to protect us. And I think the right thing happened here today. And I just want to say thank you. I'm not here truly just because of items two and three that affect me. We could argue over specific areas if we can improve them as variants. But a blanket policy, I came here because South Miami was in jeopardy tonight. If we take away the integrity of that policy because one applicant just wants to change it, no policy that succeeds it will have integrity anymore. Integrity doesn't waver. It's concrete. We took a jab at it today. It's over. But I think the right thing happened, and I just want to say thank you.

CHRIS RODGERS- You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Any other comments?

I want to thank everybody in the dais for your decision and your consideration for the residential, I'm sorry, my brain locks up, aspect of the town. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there some, just out of curiosity and out of compassion for the applicant, is there some other mechanism by which they can resolve their dilemma that they can't redevelop this building because of parking restrictions? Is there some other avenue that they could take besides encroaching in the residential neighborhood?

There is none. This is a comprehensive plan policy. There's no variance. There's nothing else that can be done.

There's no opportunity to affect that existing residential house. What I'm saying is the commercial property. Is there some other board, some other ordinance he can go after to try and make a change just to that property specifically to allow him to improve the property?

No, actually. The policy is pretty locked in, and that would be... We also want to avoid getting into a situation of spot zoning at this point, too. So it's a very difficult...

Chair, I have a question. Where the old Allen's Drug used to be in Delicias was completely redone, and they have no parking on site. How did that happen?

I'm sorry, what was it?

where Allen's drugstore used to be in Delicias, that whole mall got rebuilt. And they have no parking.

Yeah. Can somebody answer?

If I recall, Allen drugstore got it possibly got variances for to reduce the parking reduction. And I was going to add that if parking is the issue for this subject property for the commercial component, the option is always available to go through the variance process and request a reduction in parking also, that the commissioner would review. There you go. Planning board, this board would get reviewed just...

Yeah, but I want to pause for a second, though, because Allen's did not change their footprint, right? It was grandfathered in. It was already existing for many, many years. That commercial space was there as retail for almost certainly from before this policy was enacted. And so an event like a fire allows you to continue using that facility without coming up against any sort of policy like this one.

Without working totally off of memory, they came in front of this board, and I know that the grandfathering was part of the thing. You can certainly look it up. Right.

Because they were in front of here. I don't have that file in front of me. I wasn't involved at that time, but I'm confident that given that it was a fire and that it is a very old structure with the same footprint today as it had decades ago, it wouldn't have been a problem.

So theoretically, if they don't change their footprint, they should be able to renovate that building and bring it up to current standards?

Potentially. Potentially, I don't know the extent of the necessary improvements. The other issue is this is an optional change. I got to look at our non-conforming rules, but this is an optional change as opposed to a change brought upon them by a fire.

So they would have to burn their building down in order to be able. That doesn't make any sense. No, no, I understand what you're saying. I mean, the bottom line is you have a commercial property owner who is grandfathered in for parking, and he just wants to keep that footprint that he has today and improve it.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY MR. MARRERO IS THAT THERE'S A COVENANT ON THE PROPERTY THAT LOOKS LIKE IT PRESERVES THE PARKING RIGHTS, BUT IT DOES NOT, IN FACT, DO SO. AND SO THIS IS NOT LIKE THE ALLEN'S RUGS SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD A COMMERCIAL FACILITY WITH VERY LIMITED PARKING. HERE YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH UNCERTAIN PARKING RIGHTS.

Allen has none.

I understand. It's a condition that's existed for many, many decades, possibly from before the parking requirements existed.

As fun as this conversation is, do we need to do a motion?

I think you need a motion and a vote on each item. So let's take the second one.

Item number two, do I have a motion?

I move we deny item number two.

Second. I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

OK. All right. Item number three. Item number three. Do we have a motion?

I move we deny item number three.

I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. All right. So that concludes all the – one more.

No, that's it?

That's it. All right. Any new business? Actually, we do have some minutes from prior meeting, I believe in here somewhere, from July 14th. If anyone has taken a look at this and wants to motion for their approval.

I move we approve the July 14th meeting minutes.

I'll second. All right. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right. And then lastly, I believe, the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 8th, which is the Tuesday after Labor Day, so keep that in mind. If you have conflicts because of Labor Day weekend...

I'm sorry, it's not our commission meeting date. We moved our commission meeting to that date because it's that same date.

What was that, Madam Clerk? You moved the commission meeting to September 8th?

Yes.

Is it the commission meeting or the first budget hearing?

Both.

Both? Oh.

All right. So we'll come back to you. So to the planning board, we'll come back to you with a suggestion on a couple other dates and let us know which one doesn't work for you so we can try to find a way to get it done.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments? I thank everybody for their comments and participation and with that meetings adjourned Thanks.

Thank you