I don't think the mics are on. You turn on that open. >> This is now. >> Now it's working. Okay, it's 6 o'clock. We're going to get
started. Um, good evening. I'm going call the meeting to order. Um, this board is comprised of seven member four members of the board should constitute a quorum. An affirmative vote of four members should
should be necessary for the abdoption of any motion. If only four members of the board are present, an applicant may request and be entitled to a continuence to the next regular scheduled meeting of the board. If the matter is continued due to the lack of a quorum, the
chairperson or secretary of the board may set a special meeting to consider such matter. In the event that four votes are not obtained, an applicant except in a case of a comprehensive land plan amendment may request a continuence
or allow the application to proceed to city commission without a recommendation. Pursuant to resolution 202118, the city of Corables has returned to traditional in-person meeting. However, the planning zoning board has
established the ability for the public to provide comments virtually. For those members of the public who are appearing on Zoom and wish to testify, you must be visible to the court reporter to be sworn in. Otherwise, if you speak
without being sworn in, your comment may not be evidentially valid. Lobby registration disclosure. Any person who acts as a lobby must register with the city clerk as required pursuant
to the city code. As chairperson, I now call the city of Cora Gable's planning zoning meeting of December 10th to order. The time is 601.
Um Jill, can you please call the role? Alice Bravo is excused. >> Did she uh she has an absent? She requested an absent waiver. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank >> Mendez >> here. >> Cardo
>> here. >> Savia >> here. >> Robert >> here. Thank you. Notice regarding experte communication. Please be advised that this board is a Judicial board which requires board member to disclose all
expert communication and site visit. An export communication is defined as any contact communication cons conversation correspondent memorandum or any other written or verbal communication that takes place outside a public hearing
between member of the public and a member of the quadside judicial board regarding matters to be heard by the board. If anyone made any contact with a board member regarding an issue before the board, the board member must state
on the record the existence of the expert communication and the party who originated the communication. Also, if a board member conducted a site visit specifically related to it to the case before the board, the board member must
dis also disclose such visit. In either case, the board member must state on the record whether the export to communication or site visit will affect the board board member ability to impartially consider the evidence to be
presented regarding the matter. The board member should also state that his or her decision will be based on substantial competent evidence and testimony presented on the record today. Does any board member have such
communication or site visit to disclose at this time? >> No. >> So in since this is not a quasi judicial matter, I don't think we need any swearing in today. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney? >> That's correct. This is a legislative
item, not quasi judicial because it's a comprehensive plan amendment. Comp plan amendments, even if they are relating to a number of properties and not to the entire city, for example, still is
determined by the courts to be legislative, not quasi judicial. So, it's a legislative item this evening. >> Thank you very much. platform participant. I will ask any person wishing to speak on tonight's agenda item to please open your chat and
send a direct message to Jill Menandez stating that you would like to speak before the board and include your full name and address. Jill will call you when it's time for you to speak. I also ask to be concise for the interest of
time. Form platform participant. After the zoom platform participant are done, I will ask for participant to comment on tonight's agenda as well. I also ask to be concise for the interest of time. At this time, I'm going ask for
an approval of the minutes of November 1920 November 19, 2025. >> I'm sorry, that was Mr. Alvarez and second by Mr. Mendez. Alex. >> Yes. >> Mendez.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Yes. Procedure we will use tonight. We were first identified on of the agenda item
by Mr. Culler. There going to be a presentation by the applicant of agent, presentation by staff. We're going to open up to the public comment first in the chamber sec followed by zoom and finalized by the phone platform. We will close the public comment. We will have
board discussion. We will at that time entertain a motion and discussion for a second and then we will have board final comment before we take the vote. Um at this time, Mr. city attorney. Um, can you please uh call the first item, but
before you do, I want to just for the record to be state for the record, we're looking at not one particular site. We're looking at an area. Is that correct on the university? >> That That's correct. And we're not
actually approving a specific development. This is the comprehensive plan, not zoning or site planning or any of that. >> And the reason I'm stating that because I have a project that is within that area,
>> we've looked at it and given the circumstances and that this is a legislative item, we don't believe you have time. >> Thank you very much. With that, we're ready to start. Can you please read the first item agenda? E1, an ordinance of
the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, granting approval of proposed amendments to the text of the city of Carl Gables comprehensive plan pursuant to expedited state review procedures section 163.3184, Florida Statutes and Zoning Code,
Article 14, Process Section 14-213, Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments to modify the required mix of uses when developed within University Station rapid transit district overlay
to allow a maximum floor area ratio F of 3.5 and to provide for policies to implement the University Station rapid transit district overlay providing for repealer provision providing for severability clause and providing for an
effective date. Item E1 is a public hearing. Garcia, finance director. Introduce myself. >> Good evening. >> Thank you. Have a PowerPoint, please. Thank you.
>> So, as many of you know, September 3rd, the county adopted um on second reading the Gables University station sub zone. So, the county expanded their rapid transit zone to include Coral Gables um within that RTC zone. So with this was a
particular property um on the corner of Mariposa and US1 and it granted the county regulatory jurisdiction over this property right now. But as more properties would be added into the sub zone, it would also apply to those um any future properties added to the sub
zone. It also specified allowable uses that some of them are not permitted in the city of Coral Gables and also development standards and criteria and procedures of reviewing these um these projects within counties jurisdiction and the county's review and the county's
approval. So this first began in May 6 of this year. Um the board of county commissioners adopted on first reading this expansion of the RTZ creating this sub zone um in their in their code. Um
the commission city commission then um um discussed this RTZ and invited the county commissioner to come to a May 20th 25 uh commission meeting to discuss expansion, the intent of it, uh the reasons behind it. Um, as you know, July
2nd, this board, most of the board members that are still here, um, did review the maps and zoning changes related to the RTZ um, overlay district of the city is now drafting as a response to this expansion of the RTZ and the city of Coral Gables. And that
was approved um, recommend approval um, by the planning zoning board. A week after the county transportation committee did go forward and they approved on their committee um approval of their sub zone. Um thereafter the city commission then sponsored a RTS
resolution where they asked um a certain number of changes to the subzone that the county was going to adopt in the next few weeks. um including uh clarification on on open space um uses
um signage um other uh different aspects that we had strong concerns about with the way that was drafted at the time. The county then adopted uh the um RTZ um sub zone September 3rd and they did
implement some of those recommendations or requests from the city commission but not all of them. The city commission then moved forward with first reading um for a a modified version of what this board recommended approval of and also the maps changes to the comprehensive plan future land use map as well as to
the zoning code map. And here we are today to look at comprehensive plan text amendments that will accompany this. at the first reunion commission. The commission as you know was very concerned about a particular property that has been uh put into the sub zone
of the county and they um then selected the mayor along with the city manager and staff to meet with the applicants for the county um to discuss different ways of having them come back to the city and having the city then have
jurisdiction over this property. So, as many of you may remember, this overlay district is along US1 between Turan Street to the north and then Cabayto the south. This is looking northwest. You can see
US1 that long corridor. You can see the uh yellow which is the overlay district, University of Miami across US1 and then multifamily buildings along the outside edge of the uh overlay district. um duplexes and single family neighborhood
to the souththeast. This is uh looking at the area again. This is track A and block 155 of R section number eight again between Turan Street and Cabayto.
As you saw in your July meeting, the proposed map amendment to the future land use map would include changing the the land use to be commercial high-rise intensity as well as zoning map to be MX3 to be consistent with the PO project
which is already MX3 in that area. This is a a massing diagram to show the existing what MX1 allow for today and then proposed overlay which is the bottom image that shows the MX3 for the commercial high-rise intensity.
Today you're looking at three specific comprehensive plan text amendments. The first one is related to F. It would set the F be 3.5 if they're developed pursuant to the university rapid transit district overlay.
The second one is related to uses and mix of uses. As many of you know, our comprehensive plan dictates how many what percentage of of uses within a mixeduse building. And you can't have 185% of a single use. To be consistent
with the the county's uh mix of uses, this is being simplified so that you are required to have two uses in a single mixeduse building. at least you can have more than just two uses but you have to have at least two uses. So there wouldn't be a minimum or maximum uh square footage minimum maximum
percentage of those uses. And the last one is a policy that we've done for the design innovation district. we haven't done for all of our overly districts, but it is good practice to have policies in our comprehensive plan that um
you know embellishes and and describes the the reasoning and the purpose for these um for these overlay districts. And this one's about mixed use and having encouraging housing next to um the metro station, next to University Station specifically, as well as those
mix of uses along US1 and how how it's um consistent with the smart plan of the county encouraging increased ridership. A lot of these five points are mirrored in that and the intent and purpose that's already in the the proposed text
zoning code. So the the timeline is kind of stretched out as you know you reviewed the map changes and the zoning in July of of this year and then the first reading was with commission in in October.
Here we are today for the conference of plan text amendments that will go to first reading most likely in January at at which point it will be transmitted to the Florida Department of Commerce. It's a requirement. Anytime you change a comprehensive plan has to be transmitted to the state and upon receipt of that
review, it will be then be uh reviewed with the city commission for second reading along with the map and zoning changes. Those have not been adopted yet. So, properties were mailed and notified for 1500 ft of the mixeduse overlay
district. Um that's beyond the 1,00 ft requirement and that was done one time for this meeting in addition to the meetings of July and October as well. Um website was posted once for today's meeting as well as fever advertisement.
staff does determine this is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it is encouraging that mixeduse um and development redevelopment near multimodal uh stations and transit corridors in our city and comply to the buying effect which you can see that in your staff report and recommend
approval. Thank you. >> Jennifer, I have a couple question for you. go back to the go back to the exhibit that shows the uh the properties starting being the area that that we're looking at. >> Sure.
>> This goes up to Cababayo. It doesn't go south of Yeah. The yellow Yeah. Put the yellow exhibit. It goes up to Cababayo to the to the existing building that is there. It does not go beyond doesn't go It doesn't encompass anything to related
to the Gables waterway property. >> No, not no doubt. >> Okay. So, what will happen to that property? Can they go themselves to the county? >> They could today. Yes, >> they could do and they could do whatever
the county will allow them to do, which is my concern for that. And then the other question, we are capping at 125 units per acre. Yes. >> Right. 125 minutes because the RTC in
the county really doesn't have any >> Yeah. CDMP which is 125 units an acre as well. >> The same as the county. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> Right. >> All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Um I guess and now we
could open up to since we have no public input. >> Oh, we may have >> We do have We do. We have people from the public. I don't know if they've signed up to speak. >> Then we'll open up to the public. Jill, do we have members of the public that would like to? >> Yes. Come up, please.
>> Can I just before? >> Sure. >> Just to clarify, um the county an applicant can already go to the county and I believe has gone to the county and they can develop under the
counties because the county essentially has taken jurisdiction over this in based on their um their transit justification.
Their proposal is a little bit more aggressive than what Carl Gables would want. Carl Gables is hoping that it there is
an option that may not completely be what the county has but would be an offer to them that they will choose to develop in accordance with the
city and the city has control of all the decisions. There's no guarantee obviously, but if you don't have these things in place, then they don't even have the option to go to the city. So, have I
>> accurately portrayed that? >> We went through that couple. We talked about we talked about it. >> Yes. >> Well, Mr. Chair, I I wasn't here. I would love these explanations so I could better understand it as well. >> Yes. And there's a benefit to the new people that they know. So because the
county took the jurisdiction, developers in this area can just simply go to the county and say, "Now, we do have a couple seats at the table." The um
the city does, but we're not the majority. So we would not have the kind of control that we would have if they were going to apply to this to the city through the
chair. True specifically when I look at the timeline which is you know this started back when it was the mark project which was quite some time ago. At no
point did staff ever say that this was an option or even a threat. The only thing that was said in passing was the Live Local Act. That was all. I don't think staff to be fair, I don't think
staff was aware that the that >> neither were the board members >> of course >> including me where I have been brought up by name by several people saying specifically that
that this was an option and we should have known better. So I take exception to that. The second if if I may finish. >> Understood. The second thing is because of that now we all know what can
happen because it had to be legisl legislatively adopted by the state county commission which it was and getting a seat at the table to limit certain things to and if you look at the
staff report specifically for example normally the impact fees for this area would go back to the county. But in this particular case, the impact fees are staying in Coral Gables. Correct. >> That's a request and the county can
determine that as they see fit. But the request from the city is yes, those impact fees that we're providing come to the city. So, so this was part I mean you I would imagine you were there during the negotiations because there were there were there were two designated people from the from the
county administration and I would imagine you being the planning director you would have been there also during these negotiations correct >> were you there at that >> negotiations with the applicant with the county as part of their pre-lication conference yes >> right >> but no negotiation as far as I think
what you're >> with with the county in certain in in setting certain limitations. I just want to be clear. >> I I don't think that's accurate. >> It's not setting limitations. It's reviewing their proposed project that's going to the county as we speak. >> The enabling legislation,
>> Mr. Chair, the county, the reason I'm bringing this up is because now you asked a very important question. What about the other project down US1 across the way? Where where does this rapid transit component
where does it end within 1500? >> Mr. Chairman, I can answer that myself. >> I can answer that myself if you allow me to answer. >> Can I I'll give you one second. There is a limit of I believe it's 250 ft. That kind of
>> 1320 ft >> a quarter of a mile. >> 1320 ft to be exact. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, what you brought up, what you brought up is a very important question. So if it's a quarter of a mile, as Mr. Dabria said, then
physically where's the quarter of a mile going south and where's the quarter of a mile going north and is it from the exact center point of the rapid transit station at University Station? In other words, I'd like to know is is is this
just a little bit and it's going to go this way and go that way? And I think it's important to understand what those design constructs are because the impact is going to be much greater than what
we're discussing tonight because it seems like it if you're saying this is the area. We're not going past Cavo. We're not going past this other street. That's great. But right now, if it's a quarter of a mile, I don't know where the quarter of a mile is.
>> Mr. Chair, let me give ahead. Thank you very much. My firm has actively been involved with three RTC's specifically but outside of the gable. So I'm very knowledgeable about RTC's.
So the 1320 ft is basically an arbitrary number. It's not a specific number. It's a it's a number they put out there that I could maybe apply to some other properties other than the one we're talking about. I feel very comfortable
with what the staff has prepared in terms of this uh comprehensive development master plan from the from the concept that we're bringing the horse back into our stable in the sense that we can retain some control over
this and we can retain some other fees and permitting uh issues and processes. If if the if the developer options not to go this route, they can they can do that. But I don't think they will because this one is a pretty nice setup
that they have offered the developer and I would if I was a developer at this point I would uh propose that they adopt it but that's up to them of course. So this is a semantic play about what it could be but I feel very comfortable
what's written at this point. Thank you. >> Also, if we don't mind hearing from the public, please. >> I'm gonna do that. >> Let me go ahead and hear for Can you come up and state your name and address for the record, please? >> I'm Susan Guyer, 1136 Manatee Avenue. I
live in the neighborhood a few blocks away, and I just had some questions about um what's happening with the project. And uh I guess you know I'm wondering do we have any input legal input into
what D county wants to do or what they do? I mean we don't even have two members other than to negotiate some side agreement I guess. And then the other thing I'm concerned about is this rapid transit zone and the fact that you
know they have a quarter of a mile now. What's keeping the county doing a half a mile at some point in the future. I mean, it seems to me a real overreach by the county. Um, the other issue I had was I'm
looking um has there been any citizen input on this other than you know these meetings here? I know there were many meetings when the original developer for this site came in came into the neighborhood. I heard
them. Their plan sound pretty good. Um, I would have changed some setbacks or whatever, but it sounded good. So, what's the difference between what they had originally proposed and if in fact Carl Gables could end up,
you know, changing what day county wants to do? Is this going to be a whole different project than what it had initially been structured as? I'm gonna let the city attorney answer the question. What what what possibilities we have? What options we
have with the county? >> Well, we don't have a lot of options with regard to the county assuming the authority for the for the zoning. the when this when this was first when
the ordinance of the county was first done I don't believe there was no represent formal representation on a board by uh representatives of the county the ordinance provided for that
two members of the city would sit with the rest of the RTZ board and making the recommendation to the county commission. But the original uh language of the ordinance which provided the uses which provided that
there'd be um no setbacks all the things that are a little bit more extreme than what the city would do was already decided. The hope is as it was I
Mr. Sinabria explained is the hope is that the developer will see that it's worth going to the city to get this done and there may be some advantages of getting to the city that you know the city tends to be and hurts me to say
this because I was a county employee for 36 years tends to be a little bit more efficient than the county on certain things. The developer may find that attractive. You're right. There could be an
expansion by the county and in order for the county to expand it, they'd have to change they'd have to modify their ordinance to do that. Um, they are very quick to
add properties to their uh their RTZ zones. Um, hopefully we get notice of it. Um, we could potentially express some concerns if the expansion is into areas that are,
for example, single family homes, it might not be appropriate. But what we have before us is that the county could steamroll us or or more likely I think the county will take
into consideration the concerns of of the city. But I think we have much more control if the city if they apply to the city for their for their zoning. That's that's what we're
hoping for a developer to do because yes, we're going to have a little bit more control than the county. The truth of the matter is to answer your question, no. Unfortunately, we have no jurisdiction or or or influence, you know, other than what the commissioner
of the district, uh, Commissioner Regalado, try to work with us. >> Yeah. It's very concerning that we have like one representative of nine commissioners. >> 13. >> 13. That's when we went to single member districts
>> and most of them I'm I'm sorry Mr. Chair >> most of them >> don't even have a rapid transit uh location in their district which is which is absurd and and the other thing as a clarification Mr. Aabria
the the quarter of a mile is that a radius or linear only on US1 >> clue on that I have no clue. No, it's is it's only affect applies to us when it doesn't go into the residential neighborhood. >> But you see why I
>> in the commercial. So you know and it's measured from the entrance of the station, not the platform. >> Correct. >> Okay. It's measured from >> and and and this is this is something I mean we we have there may be very few
people here but everybody gets affected in a negative way. we get aced in a negative way. And the whole point is that if you're selling, we want to use rapid transit. My concern is how are we
affecting people that have had their single family homes? How do we protect how do we get that? >> Mr. Part, unfortunately, this is we don't we cannot do that. If the county that they want to do it, we have no control. This has given us an
opportunity that if they come and try to work with the city, >> we're going to have a little bit more control that if they go directly to the county and get that factual. We have zero input with the county. I
>> I am not in disagreement with what is being done as far as having a a place at the table. My concern is that the erosion of home rule with
live local and then all of a sudden even the county now is actually trying to buffer that complete frontal attack on home rule by trying to place certain limitations that are below live local. So I understand
that clearly. My concern is that how does it affect continuing in that quarter of a mile down the road? Do we have the ability at that sitting at that table of saying no? It's >> I'm sure we do have the ability to say
no. But we got to vote. >> Yeah, we're going to be there's how many members on that committee, you know, that's going to say >> sorry. >> I'm gonna I'm gonna throw one thing out. The city of Miami has sued Date County because of the home room rule aspect
that they do not want the county to control the property around the station areas. Um Craig, I don't know if you know about that law. I'm very familiar with Coconut Grove >> and and not that I mean I am not opposed
to a good nice development at University Station but I am really not happy with Dade County controlling that site. I mean I like the PO development that was
fine. you put another development like that and I'm sure the city would control that and do a good job of it. I >> I could tell you from my experience I'm doing currently doing three projects within the city of Miami. Okay, that are
being two of them are in going for permitting and and yes, the city of Miami filed a lawsuit. It's in litigation with the county, but The reason they really did that is they
wanted more control like we're doing here. >> Yes. >> Okay. And they wanted to maintain and control the impact fees because at the end of the day the the police, the fire department are the one that going to service those
>> development. That was the main fundamental issue that they had and they they were able to get that. The three projects that I'm working on the county for permitting and everything is going through the county. Yes, they're much
larger project than what the city of Miami under the Miami 21 code allows, but this in my opinion is trying to do what Miami hoped they would have done is have more control. You know, can we
control what happens a quarter of a mile? The answer is I wish. That's why I asked the question, what's going to happen? because my concern is going further, but we have no control over that. >> That's why I asked staff. I mean, I
would like love to see where that quarter of a mile from the door of the station reaches. I just for my conscience, >> I I did a couple months ago. I I try to
do it on Google Earth to measure it and it really goes I think to the edge of Cababayto and that's why I want to make sure because when I when I went not from the platform from the entrance to the
station then we'll be we'll be okay if you you know and that's how they measure because I had a I had one other project which was uh in the in the Douglas Um, I wanted to be within 500 ft for a
reason and I try to measure from the platform and said no, you got to go to the entrance to the So that's how they measure. >> Well, if if you look, I feel comfortable if you say that it's
the quarter of a mile. >> It's going to be >> based on Google. >> Based on Google, >> but it's it's close enough, I would think. What's going on with that lawsuit in the city? >> Nothing. And and nothing's going to happen. As a
matter of fact, I uh they're going to they're going to try to litigate maybe in the next 5 10 years because nothing's happening. I was I was told go ahead and follow
uh follow with your submission to the county for permitting. We're not gonna stop it. >> So, >> you're the chair. I just want to address one of the questions that Miss Guyer asked, and you said, um, "Has there been
notice? Has there been any resident input?" >> Right. Right. >> Uh, I could tell you, I've been sitting on this board since May. Um, and we've had a number of meetings where there's been sufficient notice. Residents have definitely come in. I don't know if you
saw the July meeting. Um it was very lively um and to say the least um and and so um unfortunately I wasn't here for the August one but um those those those meetings were very lively. There was a lot of input um and and um excuse
me. I think the one common theme that at least I took away from those meetings was is um before uh we were trying to work out the the issue that we're going to vote on tonight, which is to adopt the overlay. Um you know, this was kind
of out of our hands. This was in our hands uh uh before the developer left. They went straight to to the county. they're doing RTZ and a lot of the residents I felt were here complaining or voicing their concerns to the board
saying, "Hey, what can we do? What can we do?" And I think that the the the the common thread was this is kind of out of our hands and this isn't the venue to come and and voice your concerns. we really, you know, board members included who want who
share the same concerns should go to the county and voice our concerns there because really they're the ones who who are are calling balls and strikes right now. Um, and so I think what we're trying to do here, the way that I understand it is we're trying to the developers gone who's doing the Mark
project. I think we're just trying to get him back to come over here, make it attractive enough to where he says, "You know what? Uh, my project's going to go get expedited. It's going to probably be easier. I'll pay the impact fees will come back. But, you know, as as the city
attorney said, it was they the the RTZ or the zoning code is a little bit more aggressive. I'm assuming that um you know, we'll just trying to make it a little bit more stream streamlined for them to come back and say, you know, pretty close to what what what the
county's offering. Uh not exactly the same. And you mentioned setbacks. I think that's one of the things that we had uh uh discussed here was increasing setbacks trying to get a little bit more of that control. Um but to answer your question, I feel that there's been
enough a lot of public input on this. Um but the public input and I think that the public has felt that their inputs fallen on deaf ears, but the the the reality is is that it's out of our hands. that should be going that that that that that concern should be
directed at to the county. >> Right. And with that, I'm asking Craig, who is a longtime employee of the county attorney, who should we deal with in the county if we want to put some influence. I I
would my advice is I would definitely approach your representative on the on the board of county commissioners and say, >> you know, we have we have some concerns. We're in the neighborhood and uh we'd
like to have a conference with you, especially if there's a proposal to expand uh that and I believe that the commissioner has always been receptive from what I
understand to getting uh people that she represent to get get their input. Certainly when she was here, she came to a meeting and she was very receptive and listened to input and some of the input was kind of harsh. Yeah, I think I think
and just to just to piggy back off of the uh those comments, um I I feel that Commissioner Regalado is sympathetic to to the plight of the residents. I mean, she was here answering questions and and I'm I'm not privy to those conversations, but it seems like she's
trying to work with the city. Um >> and she you're absolutely right, she did try very much >> very I mean like she went above and be I in my view, I'm just one person. I think she went above and beyond to trying to listen to the residents and and take their concerns and and and kind of keep
keep the keep it the control a little bit uh wrangled. Um but I do have to say that I do I do share uh m uh uh Mr. part's um concerns on it would be nice to have a definitive
line a boundary um because I think it's a question as a resident as a board member where people ask where what is the RTZ how far is it going to go they're very concerned about the the Cavayto the waterway if there's any project I I think the property's been
purchased I think there's a a project coming online but I I I I do I am I would love to find out like where the um where the line is. >> I'm I'm gonna let Gonzalo say something, but I just measure again. So So okay,
from the from the center of that, if you measure, it's just under 1,400 ft to the property from the center of the entrance to the station >> to Cavayo to, you know, to the edge of the property, >> but it doesn't cross the canal
>> and No, it doesn't. Well, it is to the property. >> So, I have an exhibit. If I could have Coral Gables TV bring up the HDMI connection, you want to say something? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I understand the lady that just spoke and her concern as
as well as Felix Bardau's concern and we all share that concern. We all share a concern about where is this going to end and where is the limit to that 1320 ft. But that's not what's on our table and that's not what we're discussing today.
What we're discussing today, I'm in total agreement and in favor of this amendment, like I said before, by using euphemism, keep the horse in our barn because that way we have a little bit more control and just opposing something that is
really not even related to what we're discussing today. What we're what we're discussing today is this CDMP proposed amendment. and I feel very comfortable with it. I don't want to like just give it to the county and let them run with
it and then we all this is worthless. In other words, we're just wasting time in that regard. >> So, let's try Mr. Partardo, I'm sorry, I'm not let's try let's try. Excuse me. Let's try to finish this item up and then we can we can voice our concerns
about the right to speak. >> Yes, I so do I. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Morning taken. Thank you. >> Yes, Mr. I I I went ahead um and that that's Mr. That's what I was concerned with when
you see the rig thinking that it was bleeding in >> because it has not been explained to us. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So now when you look from a linear standpoint, >> it goes from maya to >> cavay >> and I got into bubour and I measured it.
You were very accurate in your assessment. So in the other direction it would be Mayada. And if you're looking at that as long as the resident had said as long as the
county doesn't change the requirement which exists today tomorrow they could make that requirement greater but going back to what you said that is correct. This is the item of limiting, but I
wanted to make sure that that was what we're talking about and not going >> and Mr. We all hope that it doesn't go beyond what we have today. But I I I what I will say is that yes, what said we're we're here for this
item tonight and and and I I personally hope that it doesn't go beyond that and like all of us I think are going to be in agreement but unfortunately one is we don't control it and two we're not dealing with that you know tonight and we cannot go beyond this. So um any
other input from the public? Seeing none, Jill, do we have any any input on Zoom? >> No. >> On phone? >> No. >> Mr. Chairman, >> we're going to close the public comments and I'm will bring it back to the board for uh for discussion. I'm going start with Alex
>> Bello. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion. >> I'd like to make a motion. >> I'm not going to entertain. I'm going to let the board speak and I'm come to you. >> Okay. If if with all due respect, >> you got to be respectful of the board
members and you're not and I'm really this is the third time that I tell you tonight. >> Okay, Mr. Bello, you have the >> I just have a quick question for staff and and to everyone's point here, I think this is an amazing amendment. I think it's an opportunity to get the developer back to us. But I just had
based on your presentation, you had mentioned that the city manager and the mayor are in negotiations. What are those negotiations? What has transcribed from that and what's going on in that? >> Well, they know the with the applicant for the county again um once or twice I
believe after the October 28 meeting and from that there were some requests for the you know I guess compromises right and two of those are the mix of uses to simplify that as well as a 3.5 F and that's why we're looking at those. >> So this amendment is in line with Okay.
And is is obviously without there's no certainty, but is there is there a notion that this if this passes that they'll come back to? >> It seemed that way. It seemed that way. >> It's also going to change some of the text amendments to the zoning code as well. >> I have no comments.
>> Two questions. >> And again, I wasn't here for the whole history since May. Does this apply to every single train station or every single? >> No, just university station. >> Just university station. In our case, it's only >> in the city of the same. >> Don't you have the one on
>> Douglas? City of Miami. >> City of Miami. >> City of Miami. Yes. >> Even >> city of Miami. Yes. >> Even even westbound. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because the the border is right there. So that one is city of Miami 100% guaranteed. >> Right.
>> And and further south you have south. >> Okay. I'm not arguing. Okay. Um, second question is that we're going to be back for the other side's postal or is this a per property change? I'm not I'm not sure if I'm explaining my question
correctly. You started in the beginning saying does it affect that building all the way on the canal? >> So, is the owner of that building going to come back and ask for similar changes or >> So, it may right now today it's only what's shown in that red dash line.
That's the district today as proposed. I'm not sure how accurate that quarter mile radius that is shown there really is. >> Phix, do you have Google Earth? >> And you measuring it. How far did it did
it go that far? >> No. The the 1400 ft went right >> to the street edge to the property. >> Right. So even if you figure the the center line or the other side of the street, it doesn't touch it. >> It doesn't touch it. That that's what I measure. So
>> but again, you you would want to survey obviously, >> right? >> We're not going to be coming back and dealing with every single building wanting special exceptions. >> No, it will. So right now the the property and there was a reason why if I remember from your previous presentation, you did not go north
because the zoning on that was different, wasn't there? something actually the size of that parcel is is complicated. It it's on very narrow lots with an alley down the middle of it. Most likely they'd have to vacate the alley and create a much larger development with the 20 foot setback
that's required on US1. So most likely if they decide to go with RTZ be part of a whole amendment of vacating the alley site plan approval and >> we don't vacate the property the alley they can >> they can't really develop it just to >> the county can trump that also I would imagine.
Um >> well I'm not so sure not so sure because those ali belong to the city of >> I'm sorry just to piggy back I'm sorry through the chairman I made a very good comment again. So the owner of the property, let's say for for
arguendo that that the the line does cross into the canal, right? So I think that the owner of the property owns one side the side on Cayto and the and the side on um I believe that's um >> Alhamra.
>> Oh. Yeah. >> Thank you. South Alhamra. Um the owner on will the owner have to come if we adopt this overlay we don't have to go through this process again if they want to do um the same type of project
of density on the Kawayto side correct because I'm assuming if it ends in the canal that ends in the halfway in the canal it doesn't uh encumber the the Alhhamra side so they won't be able to get the same. >> It does. It's because this one owner was
a contig contiguous property. They would >> we'd have to amend our map to allow them to be within our our overlay district. >> So there would we'd have to do a variance to to to amend the map. Yeah. >> To amend them. >> What? >> To be able to add them in. It happens to
allow overlays expand decrease. >> Okay. But but would they have to go through the same project uh process with the county if they wanted to go RTZ? If we didn't have this whole process, they would have to go and and the county would have to amend their map.
>> Yes. As well, they have to add them into the RTZ as you know that I think previous exhibit showed. >> But we w we are going to have to come back here and add them into our RTZ and have an overlay like that. >> We don't have to. They could go straight to >> No, no. saying if they come if they say I want to go to the city because I want
to expedite it >> we're going to have to go. So I think your the answer is yes we are going to have to do it again. Yeah before >> thank you. >> Anything else? So I looked at it again >> and I verified that number unless Google
Earth is off that drawing is incorrect and I know so the qu the question here is when you look at the limitations you're talking about the amount of uses
which is what's before us today the amount of uses we're talking about certain limitations on on this particular thing which includes other things. So there is an issue of setbacks etc. But that would be
coming in at the zoning component. Correct or would it be part of this legislation now? >> Setbacks and heights. Is that what you're asking for? part of the zoning the buffering component of it from the residential >> that part of the zoning not the
comprehensive plan text amendments. >> That's correct. Yes. >> So that which is you know part of your recommendations the first one and the second one is that what I'm saying is that the other bite of the apple comes
at the buffering component to to mullify the the single family residential. If the city were to add that into the the overlay. Yes. >> Correct. So we still don't have that complaint. >> Correct.
>> We have a we have a setback for >> But I think he's asking for for the condition of your expanded what would happen or are you saying what we current >> what is currently before us getting >> we do have >> No, we have what's currently I thought
there was a zoning item that provided for the setbacks >> in July. Yes. in July. So that's done. >> Yes. >> So we have the set the height of the building that origin to the front versus the back, >> right? With the 50 foot set back on the back where the residential is,
>> right? So So that's that's and and this >> that's all done. All this does >> and the the reason that that you're going in the comp plan the MX 3 for a building that's already existing
is simply to emphasize it as part of the rapid transit zone. >> Correct. >> Okay. I got whenever I'm able to make a motion I'd like to make a motion. I uh since we have no more work, listen, I'm
I'm I'm in favor. I think this is, you know, uh this going to be in the best case scenario for the city. Um I was more concerned um what happens beyond the quarter mile
and hopefully uh the county will support our request but we cannot do anything about it. I'm in favor of this and and let's hope for the best. So with that, I'm going close the public the uh board
comments. Any open it to the board member for any any motions? >> Mr. Chairman, >> I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> That's in accordance with department
recommendation. >> That's correct. >> We have a motion, a second. Mendez, can you please call Nester Mendez. >> Hi.
>> Felix. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Alexello. >> Yes. >> Robert Behar. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chairman.
from from from everybody's concern about the quarter mile or the 1320 ft radius if the motion pass if this matter is closed. >> I understand. So let's go on to
discussion item if you like. >> Let's go to discussion item. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman if you allow me. >> Do we have any other discussion item? >> Mr. Chairman, I do have one as I just told you. >> Thank you. I'm confused. What items are on the agenda for discussion?
>> I there's no there's open discussion forum, Mr. >> Well, I I'd be a little concerned about getting beyond what's on the agenda. What I might suggest we do if we want to have a discussion item, let's make a decision now and for the
next meeting, let's list the discussion item to be listed on the agenda. >> That's a proper So um >> well I don't understand. So you you mean to tell us that we cannot discuss
>> make some uh make some comments on some other things. Is that what you're saying? >> No. What I'm saying is I believe >> that's what you're saying. >> Well that's what it is. If we don't have it on the agenda we cannot bring up any item that we don't we don't notify the
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, just to just to clarify in my my very small knowledge of how these boards work, if it's not advertised, you know, it's it it's you have to be very careful
uh to to go into things that that will be discussed here, not because of the sunshine law, but because they weren't advertised and properly noticed. >> Well, that that's also part of the sunshine law, but we saw an example
recently about vagueness in a uh an item that was for sale of a property, but it didn't list what the property was. So I I the best practice is to
to ask the board to um include a um an item at the next at the next meeting and then have it listed as a discussion item. That's the best practice. If it was a discussion item like you
would like to want to talk about can we start earlier or start later and it was purely an administrative thing. Sure. But if we're going to get into a substantive thing then I think it should be something that should be at least
listed on the agenda. Even if the agenda is posted at least it's on the agenda. >> If Mr. If you want something to be discussed for next meeting, please >> send it to >> I guess the Jill, right? The the staff,
>> you could send it to staff and staff will make sure it's listed on the agenda. That would probably the best way to do it. Or if you want to suggest tonight that you would like something on the next meeting, then everybody if you want to suggest something that would be
this would be a great time. Since there's no I will call. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> All in favor? >> I >> I thank you. >> Okay.