A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to discussing the comprehensive plan amendments related to the University Station rapid transit district overlay. The proposed ordinance aimed to amend the city’s comprehensive plan to incorporate modifications within this district. The finance director outlined the expansion of the rapid transit zone to include Coral Gables, noting that it had been approved by the county but with only some of the city commission’s recommendations adopted. The amendments were designed to align the city’s regulations with county requirements and encourage mixed-use development near multimodal stations. This proposal included a maximum floor area ratio of 3.5 and aimed to simplify the mix of uses required in mixed-use buildings.

Participants in the meeting expressed concerns about the county’s ability to approve more aggressive development projects than the city might prefer, which could potentially bypass city regulations. The finance director noted a comprehensive outreach effort, including notifications mailed to properties within a 1500-foot radius of the mixed-use overlay district, exceeding the standard 1,000-foot requirement. This was part of a broader communication strategy prior to the meeting.

Concerns about county influence were further echoed during the public input segment. Residents questioned the extent of the city’s power to negotiate with the county and expressed worries about potential future expansions of the rapid transit zone into residential areas. There was a consensus that community input was largely confined to city meetings, and residents sought clarity on whether the city could influence the county’s plans. A city attorney explained that the city had limited options regarding the county’s zoning authority, acknowledging that the county’s regulations were more aggressive than what the city would typically endorse.

The conversation also touched upon the measurement for the quarter-mile radius affecting the rapid transit zone, which is determined from the station entrance and focuses on commercial properties rather than residential areas. Participants expressed concerns about the perceived lack of adequate representation and the impact of these developments on local neighborhoods. There was a sentiment of frustration over the limited influence residents had on decisions made at the county level, with a shared desire to maintain the character of their neighborhoods.

A notable point of reference was a lawsuit filed by the City of Miami against Dade County, aimed at maintaining local control over property around station areas. This lawsuit was cited as an example of efforts to reclaim authority over development landscapes. The participants discussed the ongoing CDMP proposed amendment, recognizing it as a means of retaining some control over local development amidst county authority. Suggestions included increasing setbacks for new projects as a way to regain some measure of control over future developments.

The meeting closed with a proposal to amend the University Station development, emphasizing the need for county support moving forward. A motion was made to approve the proposed amendment, which received affirmative responses from several members. However, confusion about the agenda led to a discussion about the appropriateness of addressing items not listed for discussion, highlighting the need to adhere to best practices and legal requirements.