the if we can get Yeah. So the application is to revert the zoning from special use to multifamily 3 and to change the land use designation from religious institutional to multif
family low density. The reason we say revert in 1983 the city re and it's it's highlighted there. It's it's in your packet and I think you have the applications. The city did change it because it the property was owned by a church so that
they could use it for general church purposes. They made it a special use district. So we would just like to revert it back. Now what those special use district the use that they put on it and what is currently on there and as you can see what it's surrounded by. This is both an aerial to show you the
location just northwest of the youth center surrounded by multifamily 3. The property immediately to the south is actually the church. Um, and the other religious or institutional is also owned by by the church. So, this would pretty much complete the block. Now, what
they've been doing with this two 1949 buildings, four units each, occupying each of the addresses is a 10,000 ft parcel. So the entire project here that'll eventually go to DRC and
eventually go excuse me for site plan approval uh would be a 20,000 square foot parcel also with eight units. It would be town homes. There is no increase in density here. So these each of these buildings is freestanding each with four units.
They asked for pictures. So I wanted to show you what's there. Like I said, it's a post-war 1949 building with wall units and unfortunately some the windows are not in great shape as I saw I was out there today for a little while. Um, hey
Laur um there are I'm sure you're all familiar with the neighborhood there. This is a product what my clients intend to develop. There is a product that is consistent with the neighborhood. It's lowcale. Um, it is an improvement in in
in it's it's a higherend residential product of the different town home communities that have communities of strong word, but the different town home projects that have that have sprung up around this area for the last 10 to 12 years. This is a preliminary. We're not here to
discuss site plan because of the size of this. I don't think the site plan comes back to you, but I do want you to see it so you understand what is intended. I'd want the neighbors to see it. Um, this is very preliminary. We're not there yet, but like I said, it's eight units. It corners out on Cardana. There's a
driveway around the back. Each unit uh would have a twocar garage on the driveway and then exit back onto Anastasia from the east side of the property. some preliminary massings. They don't have any dimensions, but like I said,
it's it it's com it's about the same height as it is now. Uh completely consistent with the neighborhood and obviously not as high as the church directly across the street. Um that's really what I have. And if I know
I didn't do anything wrong because I'm the first one to do it. So you could tell you could tell the future people like don't do what Joe did or okay whatever Joe did that's what we're going to do. But I'm happy to answer any questions and I'm looking forward to hearing. I know that there's been some
um curiosity from the neighbors um from what's going to happen there. I now we've got the mailings out for a town hall. So we're my daughters are stuffing these envelopes. So they're they're very grateful to the city for for the extra money because I'm paying them to do it. So, I would I would take happily take
any questions on what we've discussed, but this is a simple revert to the flum and a simple change in zoning consistent with the with the surrounding. >> Um, since this is just a review, there is no presentation by the city on this. Correct.
>> Okay. Um, before I open it up for the public, does anybody have a brief question for Mr. Himemenz? No. Let's go ahead and open it for the public and then you reserve the right to >> I'm here I'm here for any questions from either any member of the board or any member of the public.
>> Thank you, Mr. Himenez. Um, how many speakers do we have? >> We have four. >> Could you please call? >> Sure. Pamela Pierce. >> Could Could you speak into the speaker, one of the uh microphones, please? >> My pleasure to be here uh through the
ladies. Um I'm Pamela B. Pierce and My father, >> could you state your address for the record, please? >> 724 Camilo Avenue, 704 Camilo, and 701 Ala. >> Um, >> thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'm a longtime resident of
Coral Gables, a few blocks from the um the area that we're talking about for the 8 unit, one building town home. And that gets the immediate just saying town home means what? steps right down to the sidewalk
and it'll be right beside in Kitty Corner to single family homes. It there needs to be a better step down. And the other thing is I just circled the block today like you know checking things out
and um the two um older buildings that are there now have a lot of green and open space. What is the green and open space going to be on this giant building with all the extra parking and all the amenities, which may be great, but right
next to single family homes, it's a very bad precedent. And uh let me see. I had a that was one of my Okay, let's see if anything else. Um let's see.
Um I guess that's about it. I think that you need to look carefully at the actual um more than a conceptual okay, you know, you need to see the final
um uh site plan in detail. And I'd be interested in seeing what is the equivalency of the open and green space from the old building site next to single family homes. That's really the big deal we're talking about.
um a it may be the same height as these two other buildings, but it'll be a massive looming building right next to single families. I mean, um I think Coral Gables usually prides itself on a
step down in the aesthetics from something very large to the single family home. Okay. And thank you very much. Um, I'm going to add didn't catch my last name, but my dad, William B.
Pierce, he's the Pierce of Pierce Park. So, >> thank you, ma'am. >> I I'll give myself a little for that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for taking the time to come. >> Next person, please. >> Chris.
>> Chris, you were sworn in. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Um, good evening, uh, chairs, member the members of this board. My name is Chris Codkkey. I live at 3267 Riviera. Um, I'm here tonight as an individual, not to speak for or against the merits of the application, but to raise just two
procedural questions, just in this new format. Uh, first is, um, I appreciate the intent of this review before the review. Um, however, what this now means is that the process to inform the public is misaligned. So, previously it required that a public information
meeting occur at least two weeks prior to the PCB review. Now, this comes before the PCB first, then the public meetings, then it comes back to the PCB. So, I would put it to this board to consider having the public information
meetings be required earlier in the process prior to it coming in front of the PCB for the first time rather than midway through the process. Now, um, second, and I'll defer to you all because you all know this better than I do, um, but just as this is considered
to be reverting to MF3, consider what MF3 allowed back in 1983 versus what um, MF3 allows today and how the code has changed since that time since this they're asking to be reverted back to MF3 from special use.
>> Thank you, sir. Carlos Carta. >> Uh, good evening, Carlos Carta, 7:15 Anastasia Avenue. Um, certainly appreciate the uh the drawings that you guys have provided for us to see. Um, but I would like for this committee to
give us a 30-day delay. We have a settlement agreement uh with the school uh and which is part of the church and that piece of land. So, I don't know if you're familiar with the uh restricted covenant that's on that. So, what I need is my attorney to review it. So, my ask of this board is to delay this vote or
moving it forward until we get a chance for our attorney to review. That's really it. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thor Bruce Good evening. Thor William Bruce, 3252
Rivier Drive. Been a resident there since 1970. I agree with the previous speakers. I believe that we've got excessive massing and loss of open space, which is highly desirable in Coral Gable, and we need
more of it rather than less of it. But I would like to take a historic look at this. We are in perhaps one of the most beautiful buildings in all of Florida. It is down the street from the Builtmore Hotel, which makes Anastasia a
historic street in another sense. Almost all of Anastasia single family residence, 10,000 square foot lots or larger. This particular site is across the street from a single family house which
looks like a 10,000 square foot lot. It is across another street from a house that looks like a 10,000 plus square foot lot and from a third house looks like a 10,000 square foot house. I think in keeping with the historic
sense of this beautiful city that when you change zoning from s special use you change it to single family with either two houses there or maybe
four houses there. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. Any other speakers? >> No. >> What about on Zoom platform? >> Uh no one responded. >> Nobody and phone platform either. >> No. >> I'll go ahead and close it for public
comment. Mr. >> Thank you. So to take it I can have the presentation so we can they put the presentation back up. >> There it is. >> Oh, thank you. >> So, you want to She's signing up now.
You want her to go ahead and give her comments now so that I can and I can just do this? I'm happy to defer to I I know she walked in a little bit late. Uh she's going to speak on another item. >> On another item. Okay. Um so just to put the location in perspective and I'm
happy to discuss historical use of this property. These two multifamily buildings were built in 1949. So this has been multifamily use since at least then. Um as you can see it abuts to its rear a multifamily building. Immediately
to the north there is a townhouse community on the very next block. This is a step down. As we all know, zoning does go down and there's at one point where there's always going to be that line where single family starts and
hopefully whether it's on ponds where you have the duplexes right behind or the the smaller scale multifamily buildings. That's just what we do, you know, as and that's the way the city was designed as it goes into to the east the
CBD and higher density. So this is no higher density than has been there for a pretty long time. So historically speaking, I think the project before you, not the project before you, because that's not what you're what what you're going to hopefully give me some comments
on on what you'd like to see next month, but the proposal on what they're going to do with what they're asking you is consistent with the use there from at least 1949. With respect to the process, I understand and believe me, sir. I think Chris was your name. There is nobody
that finds this more more procedurally just it's one more step in this what we're doing here. And it is a favorite of me because now I'm not coming in here when you are voting in a way that I have comments from the neighbors. I have comments from you and then the process
remains as it was before. We've added something to the beginning, not the middle. So, if there there is a town hall, a neighborhood meeting coming up the required days before the actual meeting where you'll be um making a decision and a recommendation to the city commission. So, I get it. It's one
more for me and it's one more for my clients. It's one more for you. Um the only ones, like I said, happy about it are my daughters who are doing the mailings. But other than that, it it's the process has stayed the same and it's what the commission wants to do. So, here we are. With respect to a settlement agreement, I have no idea what that's about. This has nothing to
do with the school. So, this will not be an increase of the school. This was purchased by a residential developer for residential development and that application is in um so there's there's not much I can say to that if if there is an issue between a third party church
and the residents. I I'm just not privy to it at the moment. So, I I can't speak to it. And the final comment I I think I've addressed the historical nature of this. This has never been a single family home in the last >> 70 years, 75 years. So to to to
consider that now would actually make it inconsistent with the rest of the block because the rest of the block is multifamily. The green space, I appreciate that it is a small building on a 10,000 foot lot, but it's private property. It's not a park. So if the
code allows what has been allowed in that neighborhood, I appreciate that. And what you give up in green space, it's not right up to the sidewalk. There are setbacks. There are landscaping requirements. There's the trees will remain. The swailes will likely be improved from what they are right now because they're not in great shape.
Excuse me. So, I get the give and take there, but this is a little concrete building on a big overgrown patch of grass. This is not public green space that the kids can enjoy. And that rightfully so, her dad has her name on a
park. and that's a different story. And um this is not this is not that. So this is just a question of landscaping. The current owners could could take that grass and cover it with bushes all they want and and it'd be the same effect. So I appreciate the concerns, but it is
in the years that I've been doing this, this is one of those that you like to bring because it's 8 for8. It's consistent with the neighborhood. It's consistent with the block with the exception of the other religious and institutional which is also used for residential. It's the entire block is
used for what they're proposing. Is it a modern Mediterranean design, but is it a modern use with the town homes? Absolutely. It is consistent with what else has been happening in that neighborhood. So again, I know we're not here to talk about the site plan, but you all have a lot of experience there.
if that affects your decision when it comes to the zoning. I'm happy to answer questions about it even though we won't be voting on it or you won't be voting on it. But I again I'm here to answer any questions and anything that you'd like to hear more about or less about uh
next month I'm I'm happy to listen. >> Thank you. Um Sue, would you like to start off by providing some input? >> Yeah, thank you. Um I just have uh one question, Mr. Jimenez. What is the setback? >> Uh it's 10 10 ft. It's 10 ft. >> It's 10.
>> And let me ask maybe the attorney because we have an item on our agenda today um about like 25 foot setbacks for single family houses and multif family. How does that affect a project like this? >> I know. I'm going to ask the department
if they want to address that. There's uh for this townhouse development, I assume that the 10- foot setback is what's required. I don't know what what item has a 25 foot setback that's a single
family. Is it the same size lot? Everything's the same. >> Well, it's for single family and multif family. I mean, >> if you can't talk into the mic, please. >> It's it's for single family and multif family to my understanding. When I read the county ordinance and we're trying to align with the county ordinance and the
the descriptors in uh the packet that we received it said a 25 foot frontal setback. >> Where are we aligning with the county ordinance on are you talking about the previous >> No, I'm talking about we're we're there's an agenda item today that we we're going to be discussing and voting
on. >> If I if I can add some clarity to it. Um that's the last item on the agenda tonight and that is uh in relation to text amendments for imperous structures storm water management components. >> Okay. >> So it's it's not it's not affecting any
of the existing setback requirements for our zoning districts. Okay. >> So it wouldn'tffect half a lot. >> I'm sorry I didn't >> Okay. Maybe I framed it I framed it wrong but the examples used in the packet were all 25 setbacks.
You're you're talking about the other item. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and and so that's why I asked about the setback question. How what's the setback on >> with this conceptual item? It wouldn't be related other than looking at single family residents and MF duplex uh properties.
>> Okay. >> And then the city basically amending our existing zoning code. So the Miami date county, we don't have to actually start sending reviews for uh pvious and impervious. Um, so if if we actually
implement our own text amendments, then we'll be able to keep that authority of uh reviewing imperous. And >> so what I what what I'd like to do is stick this is just conceptual. Nothing's being brought before us. >> Okay. >> And then we can tackle that item when it
comes up and just have a discussion and a vote if necessary. >> Yeah. I just wanted to give some guidance also if that was something that we were voting on later and it didn't involve setbacks. You know, that's something I think that you would want to know. >> Sure. I And of course, I don't see
um I haven't seen the ordinance. Um having an application in I don't think it would apply to us with with the application, but I I can't imagine a 25 foot setback on this property because that's half the that's half the site. So, um you know, so I think >> um so you you got my attention, but I
but I was like, "Okay, no, I must have I'm I'm misunderstanding." >> All right. What you're saying? Yeah, I think these 10 ft are are pretty much consistent with the rest of >> his zoning district is MF3 if I remember correctly. >> And I'm hoping >> yeah, that's that's the proposal. Um,
but for the last item, it's only uh with single family uh residential one and MF1 zone property. So, it wouldn't be relative to his >> All right, but basically a 10 10 foot setback is what you're proposing here. >> Yeah, there's Well, it's um it's it's
what's required best to best of my recollection. But and then it's landscaping. I think you could put some stairs, you know, some steps up. Okay. Things like that. But there is landscaping in the front. It's not right up to the sidewalk. That's not that's that's not the case. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Felix, uh Sue, do you have anything more
to add? >> Uh no. Thank you. >> Thank you, Felix. >> So, um would you be able to go back to your uh the last exhibit you had up there? There you go. >> No, >> the massing or >> the No, it was the overall where you
showed the zoning. >> There you go. So, it's um it's very interesting the way that that this has gone. Um unfortunately for the
neighbors, um all of this area was single family except for that particular area where you have eight units. You say that there's no increase in density. You're referring to the the comprehensive land
use plan. You're not referring to the amount of units that exist there now, which are only eight. >> And we're proposing eight, >> right? Except when you look at the density of the amount of square footage and the size of the units, it is
possible to understand that based on the massing that you're going to have more people living there, more cars. So the impact really is not just the numbers of the units that you have there. comparing
eight apartments to let's say eight single family mansions, it's a different animal. The second thing that you said is the consistency with the neighborhood. Can you put that back on, please? >> Maybe it timed out.
There you go. So when when you look at you say it's consistent with the neighborhood from Siggoia to the west most of what I see are single family homes. I don't see apartment buildings. I don't three I don't see uh threetory
town houses. I see single family homes that are limited to 25 ft and two stories. So right now those particular um the proposed building that you would come in in with the massing is not
necessarily compatible in my opinion with the neighborhood. Um, one of the uh neighbors said the open space, we can't ignore the open space because although those old eight little
apartments that are there, uh, they had sideyards, they had front yards, they had backyards, and they had much more green space than what you're proposing. We've seen the same example already, which is currently under construction in Siggoia. and then some of them that have
already been built abudding the north side of the uh ball fields there at the youth center. The public information meeting that will come in obviously is going to come in at
a later date but this is basically also the opportunity of a public information meeting for the neighbors. So you get two cracks at uh the ability to have discussions with the the developer.
The MX3 and the way that it has changed since 1983 again brought up by one of the neighbors is a very valid point. >> MF3 I think not MX >> MF I mean MF3. So the the validity of
how it's changed, you know, in in the last, you know, 50 years is is substantial. And the intensification that I see with these products cause two things. First of all, you have a heat
island uh issue where if you take a block and you have all these trees between these twotory apartment buildings, but you have fully mature trees on the inside. Once you develop all the way to the back, then the only
place you have to place trees is in the front or in the side. In other words, the streetscape. The biggest problem that you have there is that normally it just doesn't fit. So you lose tree canopy any way you you cut it. I just
don't think it's a wonderful idea to put money into a tree fund when really you're impacting certain areas. The settlement agreement for me it does mean something because right now we have
an issue that we have special use that was granted and bound many many years ago to a church and a church is a church use which has a certain amount of intensity. intensity that we're talking
about now is not the same comparing one housing product to another housing product. The excessive massing is really alarming because it is totally incompatible with a great majority exempting yourself from the and removing yourself from the
church. When you look at all that single family residential area, the massing is just not in keeping with the neighborhood. The special uh use that I see compared
to single family is way over the top. The 10-foot setback per code for this proposed zoning change was intended to be used in other areas. this creeping of
these areas into uh from duplex areas right on Siggoia westward into the single family residential area is changing the single family composure of that all for profit. I really have a real problem with this
application and I think it's incompatible with massing, with scale, with traffic and uses. >> Those are all my comments. >> Thank you very much, >> Chairman. I just have a few comments. >> I personally think the the project is very compatible with the the
neighborhood. I just have a few questions. In the block behind it there, and I'm I'm seeing it from my from the sheet, there are town homes, correct? and then the block immediately behind it. >> That gentleman in the corner was actually around he you're you're in the property directly to the to the north of it. Correct. He was he we saw each other
this morning and said hi to each other and I said come on down that's multif family immediately the north of that that's multif family town home this this product. So and as I said at the beginning I do not dispute that there is single family to the west. I think every
zoning district ends and then a new one begins. And as you go east from here and you see the MF3 of the historic building, the triangular building, I always forget the name of that building. And then obviously to the north, the CBD and the much higher buildings all the
way to ponds. We step down in a zoning code. This is the first block. It is my point that is consistent with the neighborhood isn't only looking to the west, Mr. Parto. It is also looking to the east. how filling out that last block with this color. That's where I
deem it consistent that you are finishing out a block with the exact same zoning as its neighbors from street edge to the rest of the block circularly. Now, yes, to the west there are, which is why we wouldn't allow an
eight-story building there like you do have in some places not far from here close to single family homes. I don't think that's the same thing. I think reverting back and the design is different. I get it. It's a smaller building just like sometimes we replace
a smaller home in Coral Gables with a much larger one and we lose green space there as well. But an old home in the North Gables on a 7500T lot that now all of a sudden they build a two-story 5,000T home is not what was replaced.
They can do it. They can do it as a right. Obviously it's a single family home under every definition. I admit this is the last street, but it is the last block or the last parcel on a block that is otherwise exactly what we're asking for. And that's why I said it's
consistent with the neighborhood, not exclusively to the west, but also to the east. And that's that's why I said what I said. >> And and there is a separation from I guess where the property line ends. There is a street before the >> It's a street. It's a street. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I can tell from the map because it's kind of blurry.
>> To the west of single family. >> Understood. But there is a street of separation. Correct. >> Yeah. That's why I put here the the similar zonings and land use. I mean, obviously you have the youth center. That's the most special use we have pretty much. And then the church. So
that's why I was saying we can't be across from three single family homes because there aren't three quarters that are that have a single family home on it. And it's a residential use, 100% residential obviously. and exactly what you have to the block to the north. I
mean, pretty much I mean, not the same design, but the exact same product. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Javier. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me. >> Thank you. We're It's You're close it to public comment. I appreciate
it. >> Thank you, sir. >> Javier, >> good evening, Mr. Himenez. How are you? >> Hello. Good. Thank you. Um I'm going to confine my comments basically to the the schematic portion of of what this is is a schematic. You're just a rough uh
massing. Uh I think it's taller than the existing buildings that are there. I think that I agree with Mr. Partardo that your actual building density as a component of square foot per acre. Your F is a bit uh higher than what was there
before. But again, what was there before was just a land bank building enough to pay the taxes. It was built in the 40s. There's a bunch of them throughout the north end of the Gables. However, you have a unique situation here where you do have single family residents across the street.
I would look at your site planning and see where you can maybe rework the entrances to so that it comes off Cardenna and then you can slide the building closer to the uh east so you create a bigger setback on the Cardona
side. I think that would go a long way to establishing a little more tree canopy along that road and set back your your property a little bit >> and would also make it more compatible with what's across the street. >> The reason the reason that I was out there today was actually specifically to
look at the trees. None of the trees in the rightway are affected by the save one which we saw some pretty bad black olives that we can move an oak over. So the tree canopy, there's no trees on the site, like not one on the site. There's
just these two buildings. So the tree canopy along the streetscape both on Anastasia and Cardana remain. Um so unless I'm misunderstanding, >> you're misunderstanding. >> Okay. >> I'm looking at setting the building back an additional 10 ft along the Cardana side and rework the entrance so that the
entrance is on Cardana. >> Um look at it. No, this is comment that is schematic. Look at it. I think it'll probably work. >> You may have to change some of the uh the parking >> portions of it. The garages may need to move in a little bit to get a little
more room to to back around and but I think you still have plenty of room. >> I'll I'll be I'm not >> look at it. I mean it's point you wanted comments. That's what this is about. >> No, no. I'm happy to >> my comment. I think that an additional 10 feet on Cardona would give you a greater setback that you'd have than 20
feet to then develop some real nice landscaping >> to set back that building from the housing that is single family across the street across Cardona and across Anastasia >> from a scale point of view >> right the across Anastasia is
exclusively the church but understand building it looks like a house okay >> I understand what you're saying about Cardina and I'm I understand now what you're saying to make It's just a >> basically saying to make the alley too. >> One of the reasons we live in this city. >> One of the reasons we all live in this city is that we all have rules. Okay.
And they're all about the rules of polite behavior and you're coming in to disrupt the existing condition which everybody else bought into when they bought their property or inherited or whatever. And you're changing the the the
landscape. So you had to be attuned to those people and what you're going to be doing and the implications of what you're going to be doing as it will affect them. Uh suddenly to go from a twotory to a three-story building 10 ft from the
property line is a change. What I'm saying is if you study it perhaps your massing of it maybe the end units since you're bringing them out forward you change the shape of them a little bit so that so that you don't impact the the
sight lines as much. I'm happy to pass that along to design to design it >> and that's what we're here for when you're asking us for our comments and and hopefully and the idea of this is that you get input on it so that when you come back you don't have to do a major redesign so that you go away from
this meeting with some concrete ideas that you can take back and use in the development of your project to help it be more compatible with what's around it. And that's what we're here for. And and thank you very much and I'm I am
happy to pass along the comments to the designers and no no and now I understand now I'm picturing it. So now I can communicate it now it's not going to get lost in translation because you're an architect and I'm going to talk to an architect and it's almost well I don't want to screw it up. Um with respect to and
here's a question that I have for this board. >> We're not there yet on site plan. >> What before you do that? Why don't we finish? >> Okay. Well, you could ask >> Javier, are you done with your comments or are you like >> primarily? Yeah. >> Okay, Robert.
>> Thank you. >> That's okay. And then we'll >> in in principle I I don't have a problem and and I by the way I do agree with have yours comment >> where I have a problem and this is where I voted against this process to come for
to this board and this was back in January. I remember we go back I voted against it. Why? Because this should have gone to the BOA to determine the compatibility of the project. We're not we may be architect but I don't think we
should be deciding whether this is compatible or not. The board of architects should be doing that not us. And that's what I have the problem. My concern is that is we're we're being put the the responsibility
now to to say yes we could look into this but you know is this really compatible or not I will agree and that on the to your north you have multif family to the north of that immediately
to the north you have a very similar building type as you have here so I think the compatibility ility from that aspect is there. I just don't like to be put in a position that I am determining whether this is compatible or not. That
should be the board of architects. I think that you heard some of the comments and if I will make a re, you know, if I will, we cannot vote on anything. I do like to
see what one of the speaker asked for a uh if there's a something that is a an agreement that may affect us. I think that should be heard before you come to us. I don't want to be put in a position
that I'm making, you know, at that time that even we're making a decision with something floating out there that may impact this or not. So that's those are my comment and I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you. Um a lot of the comments were
I echo a lot of the comments that have been said. I agree with Robert in the process. Um I know there's a gentleman uh that spoke about the the request of the delay. Mr. Carlos, um, I would encourage you if you wanted
to to speak to the city attorney or representative. We can't control that. We have no voice or vote on that. Um, I know that there was a lot of discussion at the time when town homes were being looked at throughout the city
and part of that discussion was the entrances for the cars were through an alley if that was available. And a lot of the discussion was for the projects to come close to the sidewalk. Um, and that's up to uh the building
department to take a look as to what's best. And I agree. I mean, the board of architects needs to go ahead and really look at this as far as compatibility. I agree with the comment that Felix made that basically said you now have a
second review, a second comments, meaning the owners can come here and before you're going to have another meeting with the neighbors, but they already know what the project is, what's going on with the interested neighbors. >> Go ahead, please. >> And I was at the meeting where you voted
against it. I remember I was there for a different item. And that was actually going to be the question that I had. So, I'm glad you brought it up because my question to you all is I still have to go to BOA. I'm not asking you to approve the project because I'm showing you the
project because I want the neighbors to understand what we're looking to do with respect to uses. This has nothing to do with the school. This isn't a high-story building. This is it is a a town home development consisting with the zoning. I still got to go to DRC. I still like
that all is done. So, my question was going to be, wait, guys, how much of this do I have to have cooked before I zone it or before I change the flum? And and this I would I would happily bring in staff or the city attorney because
what I'm here for is a land use and a zoning code amendment. The board of architects and the city's DRC will give me my comments, the architectural comments, the setback, and everything else. Absolutely.
Now, you're still a board that I have to appear before for this. So, if you want to see more than I've given you, it it makes it a different issue because we're not cooked yet where, you know, it's like, let's get the zoning and then I know what to design. So, I agree with you, Mr. Behar, and I was at that
meeting. I remember your comments. I distinctly remember your comments. So, that's that was going to be my question. What do you want to see next time around >> from a design perspective >> through the chair? Okay. What we're here to talk about is a zoning change is the
reversion of a of a special use back to an MF3. So, that's what we're really here for. And how do we feel about it? >> I think it's consistent with the overall plan. I don't have an issue with that. And I think that whatever aesthetic u
density, design, uh placement, comments that any of us could have made or uh uh are a bit of out of turn because that's not what we're here for. But ideally, you will you're getting them whether you like it or not. You're getting >> absolutely. Which is why if you want
more of it, I'll >> The point of this whole thing is that you get another bite at the apple, both you and the residents, so that when you go to the board of Arkansas and you come back here, you have already gone through the beginnings of one cycle >> and we'll have informed your next cycles
>> so that it becomes more linear. It's less of a back and forth. We're we're we would wholly object to the project for whatever reason >> and that's what we're trying to avoid. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir. >> I'd like to u remind
the board members also the applicant of exactly what happened with the process. The process is we had the chair of the board of architects standing right there and told us that they had been directed
by the city attorney's office to look only at as if certain changes of zoning had already been approved although they weren't. >> Correct. And to be crystal clear, what this does is it gives the ability for
the applicant to listen to from a contextual standpoint what it is. In other words, if the applicant goes to the board of architects now and the board of architects understands exactly what we've been discussing and what our concerns are and what the questions are,
it gives them the ability to do what they're supposed to do, which is already in the code. And then it also gives the ability for the city attorney to understand that it's hands off. Board of architects does what they're supposed to do and they cannot be told. And you know
this clearly and that's the whole point. The point is that they were being told you must consider this like if it was already given because their first question was what is the ask? And they
were told you can't ask what is the ask. This is why this process was put in there just to remind this this board. >> Mr. Chair, I I have a question for Mr. Pardon. If they if they were to come today with a
conceptual approval, not a zoning approval from the board of architects where they went back and they came and said, "No, we don't think a a massing of three story is appropriate. We're going to come in with a massing. You only will We're only going to
approve a two story. Will you feel different than you felt today? >> Well, but keep in mind the the the the question is not quite straightforward as you said. The question here is keep in mind what the chair of the board of architects said.
On more than one occasion, in fact, numerous occasions, they were being told that they could not ask what the ask is. And that has to do with mass incompatibility, sighting, all of these issues. We we have just given some input to the
applicant to be able to get together with the neighbors and be able to discuss this. They can do whatever they want. But what I am saying is I stand by what we approved at that point because of the constraints that were being put
on the board of architects because the process was different. They were asked to do something without you know and coming to the planning zoning board for their approval recommendation before they made the decision. But I
would and and I'll stand by my point and and you voted for it. I voted against it. I I think that the process should have been the go for conceptual to the BOA says you know what this is compatible before they make a a a final
determination of a decision then it will come to us. Like I stated earlier, I am my approving am I, you know, just a conceptual change of zoning
that then goes to the BOA and then it's going to come back to us. See, we're not Yeah, Robert, I think the the clear picture here is that the city attorney's office cannot send one of their city attorneys to the board of architects and
tell them you can't ask for the ask. In fact, now what they have to ask is well, conceptually, what did the what were the comments? What what was what was the input? That's what that's what the the thing is here. >> Look, I like I said, I don't in
principle, I don't have a problem with this application. I just have a problem with the process that before it goes to the body that supposed to be making determination whether it's compatible or not is coming to us.
>> And and by the way, Robert, one of the most important things about this is that normally and the board of architects, these neighbors can't be heard by the board of architects. >> Yes, it can. >> No, look. Yes, it can. >> No, no, no. There there are certain restrictions. There's there's public comment at the beginning of the meeting
where they >> the public comment is at the beginning of the meeting before the application even comes up and it has to be and it has to be given in writing and it has to be done in a certain way etc. In this particular case they're under sworn testimony they're coming up here and
they're they're speaking their mind. I I think it's a win. You know Robert, you and I can disagree you know respectfully disagree. I don't have any problem with that. But I think that at the end of the day, the the people you have
you have a developer that's developing, which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But they will impact with their decisions and their developments. People that have lived there for many years and the value of their homes, which normally is probably the largest investment in
their life. I have a real good problem when when when people aren't given that right. And I think that this system right now is the first one that's come through here. And I don't think that
it's damaging the applicant because he's got the ability to listen, but he could choose not to listen and and that's fine. That's up to them. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Sorry taking so long, but I think being the first one out of
the shoot, I think it was important. And like I said, no no uh you know this this is just a difference of opinion. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you for being the guinea pig. >> I didn't do it on purpose, sir, so there's no need to thank me. >> Yes, sir. I
>> I just want to make one comment about what the city attorney's office position was. The city attorney's office position is you make the decisions on the zoning and land use. Board of Architects makes decisions on design.
The thought here was for you to get a for the board of architects to be informed about what your thoughts were on the zoning and the land use, but you added about design, which I don't think
is a terrible thing, and you've indicated the need for certain sensitivity given the surrounding area. So, I think it is you've accomplished what you've wanted to accomplish >> and it is nonbinding. >> We're not even voting on it.
>> Exactly. That's why >> there's no vote tonight. >> You get all this for free. >> Thank you. >> No, it wasn't free. >> I had to pay my kids. Remember, >> they could have run. >> Let's go ahead and any other conversation. >> And no, my only other question would be that because there is uncertainty. So,
I'm sorry. I I don't want to be surprised later or accidentally surprise you. I don't know if we'll have been to BOA by the time we get back here. It's not it's not required by the code, but if like I said, you guys are voting. So, if you're going to require it, then I got to factor that in.
>> Um I know we will have not been to DRC because there's one thing is the design and applying for a zoning change and a flum change is relatively easy. I can show you these 11 slides and we can talk about compatibility and that's that. The
design is not really part of this application. if you'd like to make it more so. Um, then if you have more questions or if the neighbors, like I said, we are I think it's August 25th, 6th, August 26th at the office right here on Salo. Uh, we're having the
neighborhood meeting. Like I said, 731 mailings have gone out twice. One for this one and one for that one. So, there's been I I hope to have people show up. I hope to answer their questions, but the design We're not I don't know if we're there
yet. Now, there's comments that that I understand the alley. I understand all that, but how much do you want from a design purpose next month >> for I can't speak for anybody else >> where there will be a determination made. That's why I'm asking. >> Well, I can't speak for anybody else on the board. For me, this board is not
here to look at your design and tell you how to design it. This board is is a zoning and planning board. For myself, I would rather you go before the DRC and the board of architects
prior to coming back here. >> We look what I would encourage and what one of the things we've always required is a site plan when you come back. That's what we we would look at. >> Yes, Javier. >> And if I could just make a comment, I
think this was a win-win. Truthfully, you have information that you didn't know about. Javier had great suggestions. For example, Felix had some good comments and you heard from neighbors. This is a win-win. >> No, no, no argument. No, no argument. I just I'm gonna, as much as I get
questions from you, I'm going to have to ask them myself because >> like we said, I'm I'm the first one. So, I wanted to know what u um we're we're really here to help you. And so, >> uh among the things you may want to look into is the historic nature of those
buildings. see if you can what it's going to take to get a certificate of appropriateness for their demolition. >> We have a determination letter uh request in from historic and that's a >> requ and my I agree with the children's comment what I would like to see DRC BOA
before coming back over here. That's me personally. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Himenez. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Uh, next item, please. Okay. All right. This is item F1,
an ordinance of the city commission granting conditional use approval for a building site determination pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-202.6 Six, building site determination and section 14-203
conditional uses to separate. Excuse me, >> sir. >> Excuse me, >> sir. We're still conducting a meeting. >> Excuse me. Can you guys move aside, please? >> Let's see if I can pick up where I left off.
>> Good day. He said there was no >> if sir sir >> sir please we're trying to conduct a meeting afterwards we'd be glad to listen please. >> Thank you sir. >> Go ahead. Additional uses to separate one existing building site into two
single family building sites on property zone single family residential SFR district legally described as 1/ half of lot 9 all of lots 10 and 11 and the west
25th 25 ft of lot 12 block 223 revised plat of Coral Gable's Riviera section part 13 1154 Alfonso Avenue, Carl Gables, Florida. One building site consisting of
the east 50 feet of lot 9 and all of lot 10 west parcel and the other one building site consisting of all all of lot 11 and the west 25 ft of lot 12 east parcel including required conditions providing for a repealer provision
severability clause and effective date item F1 public hearing. >> Thank you. Do we have the applicant? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Laura Russo
with offices at 2334 Pontoon Boulevard. I am here this evening representing uh Jillian uh Gajgerro Gazolo and her husband Alvaro Gazolo. Only Jillian is here this evening. They are the owners
and residents of the property at 1154 Alonso Avenue. They've lived there for 26 years, raised their family there, and they have been Coral Gable's residents for the past 35 years. For those of you that may may not be
familiar with Alonso Avenue, I know certain of you on the board are, it is located a few blocks south of Hardy Road and 1154 Alonso is located west of Mayada Street and just north of the
Mayada bridge and it is abudded by the Mahi waterway on its south side. This property measures 225 ft wide by 160 ft deep. If I could ask them to queue up the U.
There we go. So this is a view of the subject property looking at it from Alonso Avenue. And this is a view of the property from the Mahi waterway looking at it from across the waterway.
The the property, as I said, is a 36,000 square foot property. The applicants are proposing to separate the property into two building sites. One site to consist of 20,000 square feet and the other site to consist of 16,000 square feet. And
here would be the division of the property. The average building site in the immediate area uh is 12,300 square ft and within 1,000 linear feet
it increases a little bit more to 12,685 ft. The average street frontage of the surrounding properties within the perimeter is 92 feet. And here is, you can see very faintly, but you should have in your package the
map that shows the um the 1,00 linear feet. So, the zoning code allows for a new house, if this house were to be the existing house to be demolished, a new house could be built there following the zoning code of a size of 11,950
square feet would be allowed at this residence, at this property. To give you an idea, it would be way out of scale and character for the surrounding neighborhood since they are much smaller building sites.
This slide gives you a real idea. This is an actual 11,880 ft house, also located on a waterway, different portion of the waterway, and it is on a 37,000 square foot lot. And
you can see that's a rather massive uh property. Here is another example of a house that is been built way out of character for the property. It's on South Alhhamra.
Some of you may remember when Anthony Abraham did all the Christmas decorations. This is across the street um south and there is a house on six lots and it now is about let's see it's
almost a 30,000 square foot site and the house is 10,475 ft and it's about three times larger both in property and in size in square footage than all the surrounding homes in the area.
The granting of this request of our proposal for this lot separation would end up with two properties substantially larger than the majority of the homes in the area. Um 20,000 and 16,000 square
feet and also proposed homes at 5625 ft and 5948 ft. So there's a lot of discussion about the board of architect. Um the um this house
was reviewed by the board of architects. The architect Antonio Rodriguez of CAD Studio Architecture designed two homes, one for each of the building sites. And he presented these designs to the board of architects numerous times. May 1st,
June 12th, July 10th, and final approval was received on July 17th. Al Advaro and Julian had originally intended to only demolish the eastern portion of their lot, if you can see, to
bring it into conformity with the zoning code and then renovate the balance of the house. However, when the architect started reviewing the original plans, the house was built in 1948, but in 1980, it was doubled in size. And so,
the house has four different foundation slabs, two different electrical systems, two air conditioning systems, two septic systems. So, in essence, it's two houses under the cover of one house. So, a structural engineer who reviewed it
recommended that it be demolished. This is the front of the replacement home. So, this is the western parcel, 20,000 square foot parcel. This is the front of the home, and this is the the back of the home.
The residence on the eastern parcel which is the 16,000 square foot parcel is this and this is the waterway view of that parcel. So now the zoning code criteria for lot
separation are numerous as you guys probably know. One of the first things is that the lot size that are being proposed or the building sites being proposed have to be equal to or larger than the majority of the neighborhood. This application complies with that
criterion. The other criterion is unusual circumstances. It has to be a a through block, two facings, different zonings on the block. Again, this application complies. We have double facing the Mahi
waterway which is a platted waterway and Alonso Avenue on the front. The other criterion is that it maintains open space neighborhood compatibility visual attractiveness and this complies
the open space requirement for both homes that are being proposed exceeds the required um open space that the city um requires for single family homes. There will be no canopy trees that are going to be removed on the eastern
parcel. And on the western parcel that has the existing home, there are two beautiful Japanese orange blossom trees that are actually going to be moved to the front of the property. So there is no demolition of any uh or removal of
any trees. The following uh criterion requires that two of the following three be complied with. One that the street or waterfront be equal to or greater than the majority within a th00and linear feet. That
average is 92. We are proposing 100 and 125. that the building sites would not result in any existing structures becoming non-conforming as it relates to setbacks, law area with ground coverage, etc. And the voluntary demolition of any
portion of a house within the last 10 years would negate that criteria. So, we know right now we're going to propose demolition. We do not meet that criteria. The last criteria, the subject property has been owned by the current owner
continuously for a minimum of 10 years. As I stated earlier, they've owned this house for 26 years and have lived there and will continue to live on the western parcel. Julian and Alvaro held a neighborhood
meeting on May 1st and showed their neighbors the proposals for their homes. And I want to show you that they have immediate neighbor support. And I've listed the neighbors, not just told you with their permission. And some of them
had wanted to be here. Um, but Sabat is out of town. Someone else has school starting tomorrow. As you know, tomorrow is the first day of public school. So, they didn't want to spend their time here when they're trying to get their kids ready. And one of the um neighbors
is still on vacation. But as you can see, we have support on the west, immediate west, support on the immediate east, support on the north, and support across the waterway. And these are the people that are going to be impacted by
the new homes. They're going to be impacted by the construction, and we have their support. And here is a visual, a rendering of the two homes side by side. So just to be clear, the one on the
right hand side is the western parcel because they're facing north and the one on the left is the eastern parcel. So on behalf of and this is the view from the waterway. So on behalf of Jillian and Alvar, I
respectfully request your recommendation for approval for this lot separation proposal. >> Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions after you've heard from staff. >> Thank you.
Next, we'll go ahead and call uh city. [Music] >> Good evening, uh planning and zoning board. Uh Craig Southern again, planning official with city of Coral Gables. if we could please have the um staff
PowerPoint presentation brought up, please. All right, we're going to try to go through this uh and just be concise. Um as previously mentioned, the subject property is at uh 1154 Alfonso Avenue.
Uh it's a conditional use request and a building site separation. Um, if you take a look at our location map here, um, as previously indicated by the applicant's agent, um, the subject
property lies south of Alfonso Avenue and north of, uh, Mahi Waterway. Uh, the existing subject property has 36,000 uh, square feet. uh has 25 225 feet of
frontage and 160 feet of depth. It's uh cons as you can see uh on the slide it consists of the east 50 ft of lot 9, all of lots 10 and 11 and the west 25 ft of
lot 12 within block 223 of the Coral Gables Riviera section part 13. Uh the site currently contains a 3,913 square foot two-story residence that was built in 1948
along with a pool, patio, and existing boat house. If you take a look, you'll see the future land use and the zoning map designations, uh which is similar to all the surrounding properties. currently has a
single family load density uh future land use map designation and a single family residential uh zoning district. You'll take a look at the existing survey right now of how the property
currently looks. So on to the request. If you take a look at the proposed uh building site separation, the applicants request a conditional use approval under section 14-202.6F
of the zoning code for a building site determination to demolish the existing residence and to divide the subject property into two single family building sites. The west building site would consist of
20,000 square feet with 125 foot frontage and it would be the east 50 ft of lot 9 and all of lot 10. The east building site would consist of 16,000 square ft 100 ft of frontage all
of lot 11 plus the west 25 ft of lot 12. So, what is being proposed? A new 5,000 625 square foot two-story residence is proposed on the west building site along with improvements to
the existing pool, patio, and boat house. A new 5,948 ft two-story home is proposed on the east building site. The combined proposed floor area of 11,573
square ft remains under the 11,950 square ft maximum that's allowed for the existing unified lot as is in its current configuration. individually. Each proposed building site, if uh
approved, uh would still comply with the maximum allowable uh floor area ratio for both the west and east uh building sites. This may look slightly overwhelming, but this is the building site information.
Uh this table basically compares the proposed building sites with the applicable zoning code requirements for single family residents. Uh this analysis shows a subject property can be developed as proposed and meet the requirements of the zoning code.
Um once again, as previously indicated, the cumulative um floor area ratio that's permitted currently right now of uh 11,950 square ft what is being proposed would be the combined proposed floor area. If
you add uh both proposed uh west building site, east building site would equal 11,573 square ft. Um, as previously mentioned in the applicants uh applicant agents uh
PowerPoint, um it meets all of our uh zoning code requirements, our site development standards and uh is also um it's uh it meets and exceeds
the average um which the lot area within that thousand square foot area. See if I've got that here. Um, we'll get to it here in a second, but it actually um the average is between 12,685
to uh 15,000 uh 714. So, you can see that the proposed building sites are at 20,000 square ft and 16,000 square ft. We'll take a look at the proposed elevations from both the front and the
rear. Uh here's the west building site, the front uh elevation, the east building site, proposed front elevation. Um as previously mentioned, uh this has gone through the whole entirety of the
review process within the city. Um it went to the development review committee March 21st of 2025 this year. Uh the board of architects had four uh separate meetings and the board of architects approved it uh last month on
the 17th. The mandatory neighborhood participation meeting was conducted on May 1st and now tonight we are at the planning and zoning board uh looking for a recommendation to the city commission.
Uh this would require two city commission um hearings. So public notification within the thousand foot radius. A total of 297 mailed notifications were sent out twice uh during that May neighborhood
participation meeting and then previously before the planning and zoning board. Um city staff has received a collective of 10 letters of support from residents in the surrounding neighborhood.
Briefly, we'll let you know that two times we went uh as previously uh mentioned, letters uh to the property owners for the neighborhood participation meeting and for this planning and zoning board meeting. Uh the property has been posted three times
uh for the DRC meeting, the board of architects meeting, and this planning and zoning board meeting. Uh this item has also been posted twice on the city website for the DRC. in this planning and zoning board meeting. It's been advertised once in the newspaper and has
been sent out to email subscribers for this planning and zoning board meeting. So, staff's recommendation um is approval with conditions. As previously indicated, um all conditional uses for building site determination
must satisfy at least two of three items. So the street frontage is similar to the neighborhood and the property owners have owned the property for more than 10 years. they comply with those com uh components but um due to the
voluntary demolition uh due to um the the current property it's straddling what would be the proposed lot lines u the existing structures uh not falling into non-conforming
they will have to um obviously demo the structure so they would not satisfy that but they do satisfy two of the three require requirements. So staff is attached uh three conditions of approval. These three conditions are
traditionally um attached to any u approval for a conditional use for a building site determination. This is pursuant to section 14-202.6G. I'll try to briefly read the three of them. The first one, the new single
family residents, both of them constructed on separate building sites. shall meet all applicable requirements of the zoning code and no variances shall be required or requested which is currently the case. Number two, the
plans depicting the site plans and elevations of the residents on the separated building sites and submitted as a part of the conditional use application shall be made part of the approval with any instructions or exceptions provided by
the city commission. Any changes to the plans are subject to section 14-203.10, the zoning code. And finally, the third condition, a bond shall be required as determined by the building official if
necessary to ensure that the timely removal of any nonconformities as a result of the building site separation approval. So once again, uh, city staff, planning and zoning staff is recommending approval for this conditional use building site
determination with the three conditions. If you have any questions, >> thank you. >> I do have a question for question for >> one of the condition is separate building sites. Do they require to
replplot or because the original they're putting the different lots based on part of nine and 10 11 so they don't need to replplot. >> Yeah, there's no planning uh component with the building site determine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I just have a question? What's on
the west side of lot 9 and what's on the east side of lot 12? >> See here. Oh, could we pull the uh PowerPoint back up, please? Before we go into questions, is there anybody Jill, do you have anybody for public comment?
>> One person. Sue, would you be okay if we take public comment here person and then we'll get into the questions? >> Please raise your hand. Uh, >> go ahead. >> Do you want my name first? Oh, >> yes, I do. My name is Debbie Register. I
live at 1240 Plus Adus Avenue. I was not able to attend the neighborhood, so that's why I came tonight. I am in support of dividing this property. And the only reason is it's at 100 ft and
the 125. If it was less than 100, I would not have agreed. It's a little too modern, but it's not as modern as the modern boxes were giving. So, as far as act the architectural design, I'm okay. But I know that's not part of
yours. So, I am, you know, in favor of this and it's going to be in a plus to our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any other speakers? >> Anybody on Zoom? >> No. >> On phone platform? >> No. >> I'll go ahead and close it for public
comment. Sue. >> Uh, yeah. The east side uh of Lot Nine. Who owns that? and what's there and on the west side or on the east side of lot 12. Who owns that? >> If we could put up the PowerPoint on my
PowerPoint, I had the names of the neighbors on either side on the west side of the parcel, right? Um I think it's uh no Rebecca Garcia and on the east side of the parcel are Carmen and Carlos Sabatera.
>> Okay. So, the homes on each side own I got it. Correct. Okay. >> They're owned and they know and they've written letters of support to the city. >> Well, if I can just go. I mean, I'm impressed that uh you know, you you're so organized and I had a neighborhood meeting on your own and the neighbors
are all for it. Uh and I personally think it's fantastic. So, you have a yes vote. >> Thank you, Felix. Um, I know that that um the size of the property is 225 ft by 160. You're not
splitting it down the very middle. >> Um, correct. And that's in order that the city requires that each uh building site have a platted lot. So, in order to do that, you have one one piece will
have 25 ft more than the other. So that each site has one platted lot plus sort of like Merrick used to do. If you go up in the North Gables, some houses were 50, some were 75, some were two lots at 100. Um but it's each each building site
proposed will have one platted lot. >> The proposed um the proposed houses, are they built to the very maximum of the F? No, they are not. Okay. >> So, do do you have the the number of
what they're doing? Because right now, if you if you take the maximum F of both uh of both lots, you get a total of 13,450 square ft. That if they would only build on one lot, it would be 11,950
square ft, which means it would be a 12% increase by putting two houses on there. >> Right. We um one house, the one on the 20,000 square foot lot is being proposed at 56. >> Um hold on, I have it here. I have
>> actually want you put up your presentation the city because it's clearly what they're doing is what you allowed to do in one of 11,900 the combined two square footage will be a little bit less than that. >> Well, that's right. >> It it was on the city's
>> and I'm not as young as you are. >> Thank you. Thank you for the numbers that quickly. >> But but also one of them is built a lot less than what one of them could be built to 7,000. You're right. The total could be 13 if they maxed out both houses. And so they are reducing them so
that they are both under what one could be all by itself. >> I I think it's important to understand because most people don't understand that in just an example like that, it's a 12% increase of the square footage that you're allowed and and obviously
the the homeowner is not speculating at least on one of the two houses, you know. So, so therefore by not going to the complete maximum, it it's it's more compatible with the neighborhood. Then the other qu Yes sir.
>> I I just as staff I just wanted to clarify. So is the existing site is at this very moment in time the maximum F permitted is 11,950. >> That's what I said. So we yeah and with that split they are actually going to be
less even after splitting they're going to be at 11,573 >> which is which is great. So you know the the reason is most people don't understand that but I think that's important. The other thing is that unfortunately over time the code has
been changed over and over again. And my concern and my specific question to our city attorney is um I think one of the most important components was has always been if there's something straddling the property. This board has gone over the
years has has wrestled with that and it used to be mandatory that you could not straddle let's say a fence a gazebo or anything like that >> or a barbecue pit >> a barbecue pit that was the last one and and the and the thing is that my you
know my concern if you could address it is establishing uh precedent you know >> I think the your um city council has established the president by changing the code and not requiring this as an
impediment to um separating building sites. So the >> still it's still one of the requirements if they can't meet the other two, >> right? But if they meet the other two, then they're not don't have a problem with the straddling of the site. So So
they've created the precedent. They've changed the code and they are following the code. Okay, >> those are all my questions. >> Thank you. I'll be brief. Just a few comments. I have no questions. I think it's a great great proposal. I think it's I'd rather personally see two
different properties than 11,000 foot mass. So, I'm heard your thoughts. I'm a yes vote as well. So, thank you. >> I'll let Mr. Bayard go. >> Thank you. I agree with the comments. I don't have a problem. I think I'd rather see two houses, smaller houses than one
big one. So, I'm in support of the application. >> Javier, >> uh I think that this is a perfect lot split application. I've rarely seen one and you know, I lived long enough and I was here long enough to see one. So, um I'm certainly in favor of this and I'm
ready to make a motion on that. >> Oh, I'd like to ask a few questions if I may beforehand. Um is there a covenant that exists on the property today? Can you may I ask you to come up please? >> Come up and you have to say
>> Thank you. Could you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Uh yes. Uh Jillian Gajgerro Gazolo, 1154 Alonso Avenue. I'm the owner and applicant. >> Thank you. Is there a covenant that exists? >> Yes, there is. And um prior to even
starting this going through DRC, it's my understanding and speaking to the city attorney um that there is a simultaneous procedure that when the commission votes that they vote in approval, they vote to release the covenant
>> of title >> and they've done this before and >> unity of title. >> Excuse me. >> Is the covenant a unity of title? >> No, it is not. It is a restrictive covenant for >> for when was that done or do you know what >> um my understanding um it was done in
1980 when they did the um >> lot the addition to the house and there's a whole story but I I don't have facts to back it up so I'm not going to say anymore but I understand um
>> understood Okay. Um, are you under any contract or agreement to sell the property currently? >> No. >> Okay. So, your intent is to live on one and >> absolutely. We We love Coral Gables. We We want to stay right where we are.
Thank you. Um, for me, I've always been against lots. Laura knows this. >> I know that very well. >> Um, and just as one board member, um, while I understand that the commission
can undo the covenant, the covenants were put in place um, for a reason. Um, as far as the unusual circumstance such as multifamily facing, >> multifacing, >> um, sorry, multiple facing,
>> multiple facing, >> correct? >> I'm not so sure the intent was if it's waterway as one of the facing. Um, I'm not sure. I can't tell you that. But to me, it doesn't meet that requirement.
uh because of that um and the fact that there is a house built across it as Felix had stated before um I understand it's not one of the determinations um you have the votes you have the
support but for me a lot split it's a nice design don't get me wrong it's a very nice design I have no issues with it um my only comment would be to Laura that when the project goes to the BFA for four times and then it stated that the
BFA approved it with no comments. I think there were a lot of comments along the way to get it to point. >> There actually were a lot of comments, but they had to do with um the architecture and trying to get one to be more Florida vernacular, which is that
the western parcel, which is the parcel that Jillian and her husband will live in, and the other parcel to make sure that they were different enough and that they particularly wanted the Florida vernacular. They had a different style. And so the architect and Jillian very
willingly worked with the board of architects to come up with the style that the board felt was more compatible with the neighborhood. So it wasn't that they didn't have comments. They, you know, they did. I'm sorry. >> Understood. Um >> it doesn't it doesn't look like a development where you have model A,
model B next to it >> or they're both not the same. >> Yeah, >> that's what it is. I I appreciate it. Um, if anybody uh would like to make a motion to the >> chair. Yes, sir. >> Uh, I'd like to make a motion that we
approve this item in conformance with the staff recommendation and the conditions set forth by staff be adopted as part of this approval. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion?
>> No. Call the role, please. >> Su Koliski. >> Yes. >> Felix Part. Yes. >> Rabio Salman. >> Yes. >> Robert Behar. >> Yes. >> Alex Bello. >> Yes. >> A. >> No. But >> thank you. That's I understand. I I
understand. I take no offense. >> It's a beautiful design. >> Very much. Thank you. >> And I wish you all the best. >> Thank you very much. Much appreciated. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next item, please. Next item. Item F2, an ordinance of the city commission
providing for text amendments to the city to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code, article 9, art and public places to mend certain provisions relating to the art and public places process,
including timing of payments, limits on art consultant fees, scope of fee waiver opportunities, and creating provisions for the regulation of private private art that is highly visible from the public right away. Providing for a
repeal of provision, severability clause, codification, enforce enforcability, and providing for an effective date. Item F2, public hearing. >> Thank you,
>> sir. >> All right. Good evening again, everyone. Um, as just uh indicated, this this text amendment is for the city of Coral Gables Art and Public Places. Is that is
that the item we're on? Is that okay? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, I was um >> state your name for the record. >> Craig Southern once again for the third time, planning official, city of Coral Gables. Um, briefly, the city of Coral Gable's art and public places program uh is
established under article 9 of the zoning code. It is a municipal initiative that integrates public art into both municipal and private development projects, reinforcing the city's identity, cultural heritage, and commitment to highquality design.
Modeled in part after the Miami Dade County's public art ordinance, the program requires eligible construction projects to contribute a percentage of construction costs toward the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of public publicly
accessible art. Um, tonight we're lucky enough to be joined by a fellow staff member here at the city of Coral Gables, Katherine Cathers. uh she's the arts and cultural specialist. She's the one that actually worked uh quite a bit on these
text amendments, but very briefly um we're going to have her actually come up here, but um I'll just give you a brief overview of some of the points of what these text amendments are proposing um within article 9. Um, one of them is to allow fee payments prior to the issuance
of certificate of completion or temporary certificate of occupancy for TCOs. Uh, refine waiver provisions to ensure they are directly tied to public art or related to public benefit. codify limits on ARC consultant fees that may
be credited toward project requirements and updates within the definition component within article 9 and procedural language for consistency and transparency. So, um if we could have uh Miss Cathers
come up, I think she could definitely do a better job than I'm doing. >> Good evening, chair, members of the board. Katherine Cather's arts and culture coordinator for the city of Coral Gables. Um so as Craig and Craig
have mentioned um we are just looking for you know refining the code a little bit. It's going to help um both from the staff side and also from the the public side. I would like to mention that um these revisions I believe they came most
of them came before this board previously about a year ago. They never went on to second reading. So they're coming back again uh with the addition of language requiring um addressing the the payment of the fee and when that is
triggered. So that's the the most significant change since the last time you saw this. This has been reviewed and recommended for approval by both the arts advisory panel and the cultural development board and we are ready to go to city commission on second reading
following your your input. Thank you. Um, do we have any speakers on this item? >> No speakers. >> No speakers in either of the three platforms. >> No. >> I'll go ahead and close it for public comment. >> Go ahead, Robert.
>> Thank you. And I think this is a great modification to to the process. I I like the fact that the payments are due at TCO, not before because until the project start getting built, there's
makes no sense for somebody to make a payment that not knowing what's going to happen. Um, so I think that was very very good. I do like to would like to see that more artwork will be
implemented in the actual projects than just a payment for the city because I think we will benefit more as as a community if we could walk around as you know and see the artwork throughout not
you know so I would like to see that to be more you know important than than just the the payment but I think this is very good. Congratulations. >> Thank you. Javier,
>> could you um talk a little bit more about the uh limitations on the value of the art that you were proposing? >> This really has to do with the percentage that goes towards consultant fees and uh um you know right now it's
10% so we were just providing more clarity on that. Is there any limitation as to um the value of the art other than that what's specified as a requirement as a percentage?
>> No, there's there's no limitation. It could be uh and sometimes this has happened where the the art has been above and beyond whatever the requirement is. Well, I would hope so, but my question is we had situations where they are less than what's required and it just simply stated at a value
that is in compliance but not necessarily of value. >> Yeah. So, um a couple a couple things at at the close of a project. For one thing, within the the uh resolutions that we put forward to the commission, part of that resolution is that if it is
under the amount that they pay that difference into the fee. So if they have chosen and received the waiver at the close out of the project, we go through um you know asking for the receipts, you know, the invoices and receipts so we know where those payments have been and
we we rectify it. >> Did that answer your question? >> Halfway. Uh we live in a city that's full of clever people and I just would hate to see somebody submit, you know, a decorated garbage can calling it art, you know, and saying, "Oh, it's worth
$150,000." So we've met our requirement. >> Sure. So we do have requirements for the the artists themselves. They go through a strict review process by the arts advisory panel to make sure that they are professional working artists. So you you couldn't just have, you know, your
your uncle that's doing art in their garage. Um they do have to meet certain qualifications. So So yes, um >> on very large projects >> and forgive the example um where you would have a
good six figure uh piece of art that you're going to have as art public places. Uh is there any determination as to that value and and whether that's commenurate with the art that's being proposed? >> So if it is a purchased uh piece then we
do require an appraisal which is covered in the in the code itself. If it is a commissioned piece, then it is the value that has gone into the the uh construction, the fabrication, the design, all of those elements. >> All right. Thank you. I was just it was
worth clarifying. >> Thank you, Alex. >> No comments. I'm to echo Mr. Behar's thoughts. I like the changes. So, >> Sue, >> just a question. Section 9106, private art on mixed use and multifamily properties. Is that a whole brand new
section? It's all underlined in here. >> Yes, it is. So that is to address um um art that is uh in the the public view but is um privately owned and is not in compliance with having to um you know so
if if a developer which has happened chooses of their own accord to purchase art or place art on their property if it is still within public view then this allows for us to have some sort of review process That's that's outside of
having to go the full way in commission. It's more of a staff review from BOA side and staff side in our department. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Felix. Um I uh look at some of these projects and the setbacks that they have especially
the larger projects have very little area to place you know artwork there where it can be substantially enjoyed by more citizens. Also the location some of the locations of some of these buildings that are going up are on a basically a
back street type of thing. And I think uh having the option of placing uh this in in a more public area uh where more people can enjoy the artwork significant artwork in fact I think would be better. The second thing is that I have noticed
at least one building and I will not name it on a major artery where they have uh artwork that was placed there that it it really looked like it belonged somewhere else. You know, it didn't have the quality of the thing. I
I know that you can't determine everything, but sometimes I I really feel that some of the artwork that has been put up is just not enjoyed. It could technically be, you know,
um in a public place, but it's not the original intent of when the county came up with the art in public places. Uh they put it in areas that, you know, whether it was off US1 where people, you know, 60 80,000 cars can go by and
actually enjoy it or in in the setting of a park. I I really think that the site location is very important. I understand what Robert is is saying, but not always when you have, let's say, a big building, it could be right up on the sidewalk, and there's absolutely no
place to do that. And then not everyone has plazas such as the plaza, you know, where they they could exhibit more of their artwork that they donated in that area. >> Yeah, we agree 100% with you. So that's
uh one of the things that the the panel especially the arts advisory panel they're the ones that definitely have a more in-depth conversation about these projects and they're coming from their professional background in it and citing is very very important uh so they're always looking at you know is this
really visible you know you're saying it's visible is it really visible um and looking at from the different angles so it's definitely important um it is a I think it is sometimes a compromise between the public developer who's doing
this um to put the the art in their on their site. They also do have the loca the option which they've taken sometimes of either commissioning or purchasing a piece and putting it on public um land you know donating it to the city. So
that has happened as well. We have I have to say one of the things that you know it's outside of it but one of the things that I love about it is that there's a lot of flexibility uh for the city and the options for the developers. >> I think the viewports are very very important. You see it everywhere from
Washington DC to any place where you have uh the viewports going specifically and accentuates and compliments the the artwork and and it just becomes more enjoyable by more people. So, I think that uh trimming some of the potential
abuse areas are important. I also agree with Robert that, you know, paying for this at the at the end is is really more uh more in keeping with being fair, but you know, it has to be done. Can you
tell me uh does in in the city's coffers or art dedicated where you've received contributions approximately, how much How many do you have available at your uh disposition now? >> Uh right now because we've had some
major um um acquisitions and decisions. So right now it's probably between three and four million. >> I'm sorry. >> Between three and four million is my my
guesstimate is a rough guesstimate. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Those are all my comments. >> I I want to address one comment that Mr. part of it because I seen a project that the artwork that was put in one of my projects that I
didn't even participate in and I think that the committee should look at more closely to make sure it's compatible. I haven't taken a picture of the project because I don't like the artwork. So I think that
please be more scrutinized the artwork. I know it's subjective >> but >> I'm just wondering it it maybe is the piece that is addressing the private part. I'm not sure but it could possibly
be which in that if it is in that case >> it was purchased outside of an approval process in keeping with their requirement. >> Thank you. Um, I echo the same sentiments that my fellow board members
I highly would like I I I would very much like to see the art be placed in the building that it's intended to as opposed to a fund. Um, I think that gives a lot of value to the city, not just the
property, but to the city as a whole when you're walking through. um I support what you're doing >> and realistically sometimes it really needs to hit a certain bar before they can have a piece that's significant enough for them to do that. So we're
still working uh with the different departments about the the collection and how that will happen. It will be easy to administer on those larger projects with the smaller projects we still want to give them that opportunity to to uh pay in advance. Um, so like I said, it
really is uh I think a benefit and I agree for these larger projects that sometimes don't have that capital in advance. >> Thank you. Um, does anybody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. We have a motion.
Alex goes ahead and second. Any discussion? Call the role, please. >> Felix Pardon? >> Yes. Robert, >> yes. >> Robert Behar, >> yes. >> Alex Bello, >> yes. >> Savalinski, >> yes.
>> Stat, >> yes. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> We have uh two more items. Item F3, an in ordance to the city commission providing for text amendments to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code amending article 14 process
to revise attendance requirements for the planning and zoning board, board of adjustments, the historic preservation board and the code enforcement board providing for repeal provisions, severability clause, codification and an
effective date. Item F3, public hearing. >> Thank you, >> sir. >> Craig Southern, Planning and Zoning Division. >> Sounds like a radio station when you come. >> You've said that before.
>> Hopefully, it's pleasurable. Hopefully, it's a pleasure. >> Um, how's the weather? So, so, so this item is basically about a board of attendance for the planning and zoning board, uh, board of adjustment, historic preservation board, and the code
enforcement board. Um, hopefully everybody's had a chance to take a look at the staff report. But briefly, um, uh, some of the items that are underlined. A board member shall be automatically terminated if they fail to attend two of three successful
successive meetings unless excused. Excused absences shall include jury duty, illness, and absent from the city when a board member is unable to attend remotely. In addition, excessive absences as defined in section 2-54 of
the city code shall constitute grounds for removal by the city manager. Um there's also additional text amendments to se section 14-104.2 two subsection D um which basically repeats
the exact same language about attending two of three success successive uh meetings unless excused. It repeats as well uh in section 14-105 for the historic preservation board
and it repeats again for the code enforcement board. So that's primarily uh the main component of the text amendment is that if a board member uh shall be automatically terminated if they failed to attend two of three
successive uh meetings unless excused. >> Thank you. Um Jill, do we have anybody for public? >> No. No comments. >> No comments. So we'll go ahead and close it for public comment. Alex, >> I'm I'm in agreement. I'm absolutely in
agreement. So I'm in a yes vote. Sue, any comments? >> Uh, I'm in agreement, uh, as well. >> Felix, >> I have a question. Um, in all of your provisions, you you mentioned section 2-54.
So, I actually made a copy since it wasn't in our packet. And it it's pretty much, you know, pretty close to what you're proposing. The only thing that I'm a little concerned with is for example, it's either jury duty or it's
this or it's that. And if you have the ability to be on Zoom or a phone call, let me tell you, I have a civil engineer that came down with the second case of COVID on Friday. And the first one, he was over it in a
day, no issue. The second one, fainting spells, you know, impossible for him to be on the phone, watery eyes, couldn't see a screen. I I think that the way that it's, you know, tightly defined now
is not in keeping what was there. You know, it's it's I think I understand what you're trying to do, which is, and we all do, if you make the commitment to be on the board, be there. But I I think that um the definition of the exceptions
is a little narrow right now because if you're basically incapacitated at home, you know, with COVID and you can't see a screen because of watery eyes and and you have fainting spells, you know, I think a medical condition like that,
even though you have access to Zoom, even though you have access to your phone, doesn't necessarily mean you could attend remotely in a coherent fashion. >> Staff believes that would still fall under illness. So, I mean, >> because the other >> whatever that extended amount of illness would be,
>> right? And and that I I just want to make sure that that is understandable because it says that it it's not up to this group, you know, calling into this group, it's up to someone else. I don't know if it's a city manager or or whatever. the the 254 actually went into
uh you know if if you're in the United States armed forces and you know you get called to active duty and and if you're in national state or homeland defense or something like that you can see it's dated right but the intent was you know
be there and also it says all the board all the boards that you're talking about now are monthly boards and it said here for a board that meets monthly on a regular basis more than three unexcused absences in any consecutive 12-month
period. I think that was better done. I I I would, you know, hope that you could reconsider this because I I think that that basically gives you the direction. City manager has the power to remove
anyone that doesn't comply with it. That's in here. Also, you mentioned this uh uh 2-54. Uh I I would think that maybe keeping more into that u instead of just, you know, handcuffing someone to jury duty
or something like that, the same as armed services, you know, I I I think it could have been done a little bit better. I I would I would hope that we could defer this item and have them come back just fine-tune it a little bit and make it more in keeping with 254
and and just giving uh enough latitude for that. That's those are all my comments. Mr. >> Thank you. Uh, Javier, >> um, I would like to see a better description of the adjudication of an excused absence
>> as to how it can be done, who it has to be reported to, what the process is of that, and whether or not uh, acceptance of an excuse excused absence by the majority of this board would constitute an excused absence. Okay,
we can second. I don't believe that the city manager who is not an elected official but serves at the pleasure of elected officials uh should be tasked with the removal of any board member who has been approved by the commission. I think he should
make suggestion to the board the commission to remove uh a member and let them unselect. I don't think that that that power should remain with the commission both
the removal as well as the uh the ratification of >> okay we can my thought >> yeah we can definitely consider that yes >> yes >> I'm since this is going I think has this
been the first reading already um my thinking is if you want these amendments I would make that as part of your recommendation to go to the commission and say you want
if if the board feels this way. Um how excuse absences are decided who decides them and feeling that a it should be other than this um city manager. I mean you can make that as
part of your recommendation. >> I think that the city manager is more than adequate to make the recommendation. No, but I'm sorry as far as who makes the decision. >> Right. Right. >> Um, Robert,
>> I don't have a problem if this is addressing three absence on on within the year within 12 months or >> it's two out of three. No, but consecutive consecutive consecutive you
know >> if I'm sick and it doesn't count as a valid you know absence you know listen I I I would not disagree in principle with what you're saying fix because it may be not only cover it may be something else
that might be you know >> you missed the plane in a hospital you missed the plane >> you know so uh I I do think that we need to put limitations on how many absences a board member because we don't want to be here,
you know, only five of us show up and and board members don't because it's not fair. If you commit to do it, you got to follow through. Um I don't have a problem you know the only thing that I would maybe look at is clarifying the
excuses you know excuse absences where it may be a medical condition like you said um I don't have a problem with a manager making decisions because at the end of the day who you know who's going to do it the it goes back or maybe a recommendation to to the city commission
but I don't have a problem with this if we could clarify some of the absence. >> I I would suggest that you that you send uh 254 to the board members. It's crystal clear and in fact it goes into
meetings that are monthly, meetings that are less than a month, meetings that and it tells you how many, but it's normally in any consecutive 12 month period. And like what Robert was saying, the other thing is that every board that I've sat
on, one of the first things on, you know, um, uh, before accepting the minutes of the previous meeting, the first thing is excuse absences and it's voted on by the members, >> right? And and the reason is because normally you pick up the phone and
you're going to call Jill and say, "Jill, you know, I'm sorry I broke my leg. You know, I'm in the hospital. They're taking X-rays, you know, and you're talking to someone, that's conveyed then to the chairman and then the chairman brings it up at the very
beginning and and the board votes on it. >> Now, I hear you. Look, what what I think this does is what the problem we have in the city of Miami. I sit in the urban design review board. A lot of times we don't have quorum and there's supposed to be nine members. We
don't have quorum because board member don't show up and it's not fair to the other board members. not fair to the applicant and this is going to in my opinion, you know, says a strict rule that you have to be here.
>> That's that's I think that's very reasonable and and I think uh our city attorney has been uh very helpful in saying, you know, let's let's get these suggestions in. >> I I I I'm well, I'm going to let the chair person.
>> Ju just a question. There's there's language in here about attending by Zoom or if you're not able to come or let's say you're out of town and you want to attend by Zoom, you don't want to miss a meeting, are you
able to with given the language that's here? Given the language that's here, um I think they're suggesting an excused absence if
you don't have the bandwidth or whatever to be able to attend via Zoom. that that could be considered an excuse absence if you're out of the city and you appear >> by Zoom, but the Zoom doesn't work
because either the either you don't have the Wi-Fi to be able to accomplish it. >> But if but if you do, let's assume you're sweating and you have the bandwidth, you're away for whatever
reason, are you able to attend by Zoom? It appears to me that it does. >> You must have forum. >> You must have president. >> You have to have a quorum with that person. >> That's correct. >> Agreed. >> You can't use this
zoom for purposes of >> right. But if you have quorum, let's just assume Felix is traveling somewhere. >> Yeah. >> And he wants to attend the meeting. He does his best to attend the meeting. He's very responsible and he wants to be here, >> right? So if he's traveling for work or
for whatever reason, then he has the opportunity if he's able to to attend the meeting by Zoom as long as we have quorum in place. >> And by the way, you can have a technical you could be in the heart of Boston and have um an outage and all of a sudden
you drop off. I remember one time the the mayor was on a phone call and and he his call dropped off. Technically, he couldn't uh speak or hear or contribute and and that's beyond your your scope. I
think I think that 254 really uh gives you a a better handle, more understandable. me. I don't care if it's a city manager, but normally the way I've always seen it
is uh the part of the beginning of the business is excused as absences and they've already been vetted, you know, so it becomes a non-issue, but it's recognized by the board and what staff is doing is they're taking basically the attendance of this was an excused
absence. >> Understood. Given our discussion, is there a motion that anybody would like to make? I I'm I will make a motion to approve with condition that maybe there's some clarification as what would constitute a
excuse absence maybe that that incorporates more uh precise a medical the first reading is are there two readings for this one? >> Yes, there would be two readings. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So just clarification for what would be constitute as excuse absence. >> Okay. Outside of the jury duty illness and absence from the city. >> Yeah. I I think that the example that that Felix made about you know health
>> your your example just take a look at your 254 which is part of our code in the city coral gables which you put in your >> each one of them. >> Correct. Correct. I'm I'm okay with that with that condition.
>> We have a motion. Is there a second? Second, Felix. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Accept the friendly amendment to uh to clarify the uh process of um uh excusing the absence the notification. Should it be to the
secretary of the board? >> Who excuses the absence? >> The process. What's the officiating process? Okay. if the way >> to be in writing or it can be a phone call. >> For example, at the last meeting first it was an irregular meeting because it wasn't the second Wednesday of the month
and last month I was in Europe which means that I would have had to start the meeting at midnight right so I called Jill and sent her several emails I'm going to be out of town so that she was completely aware of the fact that I was out of town she could communicate with the individually with the uh chairman
and let him know. >> Yeah. so that my absence would be excused as a uh a voted on item on the uh agenda. >> I'm not I'm not sure if the mayor being out of town is going
to con and informing Jill at least under this proposal. I'm not sure that in and of itself constitutes an excuse. Well, that's why I'm saying it should be an accepted excuse by the majority of the board.
>> So, I think decided by somebody, not just whether you're here or not, but there's always mitigating circumstances. >> What you're saying, I think, is that there needs to be a clarification as to who renders the excuse. >> Bingo.
>> And how also the notification process, I think, is what Javier's saying. So, normally what's done is Jill is the secretary to the board and anybody that's not going to be here communicates with Jill and then Jill lets the chairman know or
the board know or whatever the process is. >> Now, when you're saying that being out of town is not necessarily an excuse, what I read in here is out of the city limits is excused. Well, when a board member is
unable to attend remotely, like in the example that you just gave, >> when you because of technical reasons, you I could have attended had I wanted to begin at midnight and be here till I don't know 4:00 a.m. >> Well, that's not >> then maybe that's part of the
clarification >> because you could be in Europe, for example, and it's six hours later. So, it could well be at 4:00 a.m. that
you're signing off. >> And that's not realistic to it's not realistic. >> I I what you're asking for, as I understand, a clarification of this absence. >> Then I will accept the friendly amendment for the clarification because some of that, you know, is not fair. I
if you're in Europe, you know, it's not realistic that I'm going to be participating at midnight to 3:00 in the morning >> on a, you know, on a meeting. That's Do you >> do you accept Mr. Partardo? >> I do. I do. >> Okay, we have accept it. Thank you. Any
other comments? >> No. Call the role, please. >> Javier San, >> we're voting for yes or no. >> With amendments, right, >> I'll say yes.
>> Robert Beh. >> Yes. >> Alex Bello, >> yes. >> Carli, >> yes. Felix Bordon. >> Yes. >> A Is >> Yes. >> Next item, please. >> Next item. >> Wait a minute.
>> Item F4. In order >> the friendly amendment had to be voted on and now you vote on >> No, no. We accepted the friendly amendment in that >> the movement and the second accepted the amendment. We accepted it >> and it was rolled in. >> Okay.
>> We're all good. Good. And we all voted for it with the amendments. >> Yes. So that's it. >> Thank you. >> Correct. Item Four, an ordinance of the City Commission of Carl Gables, Florida, providing for tax amendments to the city of Carl Gables
official zoning code, article 2, zoning district section 2-101, single family residential district. Section 2-102 multif family one duplex MF1 district
and article 5 architecture section 5-71 minimum standards and article 16 definitions to align the updated Miami day county requirements regarding the storm water management for single family
and duplex properties providing for appeal of provision severability clause codification and an effective date. Item F4, public hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Culler. Um, once again, Craig Southern, planning official,
planning and zoning division. If we could please have the staff presentation pulled up. Okay. Um, just as Mr. Culler had indicated, this is a zoning code text amendment for the three following
sections. Section uh 2-101, section 2-102 and section 5701. Um, briefly, the purpose of this these text amendments are to align with um the recent Miami Dade County ordinance,
ordinance 24-92. I'm going to read a little bit from the staff report just uh so we can get clarification on the purpose of what the the text amendments are. So on September 4th of last year, Miami date county
adopted ordinance number uh 24-92, which is a comprehensive regulatory update focused on strengthening the county's environmental protection framework and enhancing the sustainability of regional storm water management.
The ordinance introduced significant amendments to environmental and zoning regulations, revises development standards and procedures related to drainage and impervious structures including paved areas and storm water infrastructure and implements a range of
technical updates. So, the new regulatory standards established by the ordinance uh adopted by Miami Dade County are um relatively progressive and will apply to new construction, redevelopment, and substantial
improvements to existing development. And this has already come into effect as of March 31st, 2025. Any increase in imperous surface area including but not limited to structures, slabs, sidewalks,
parking areas, specific types of pavers, and highly compacted ground will be subject to the updated standards outlined in the ordinance. So importantly, the ordinance provides an option for all municipalities within
Miami Dade County to retain local control over the permitting and inspection of nonstructural impervious surface improvements for individual single family and duplex properties. So, in order to do so, our municipality,
City of Coral Gables, must notify Miami Dade County of its intent to adopt local regulations meeting or exceeding the county's minimum standards by December 31st, 2024. We've already done that. The second item that Miami Dade County
requires is submit an adopted municipal ordinance for formal review by the DURM director by December 31st of this year. So that's why we're here uh tonight is to introduce um basically some text
amendments for imperous and storm water components within our zoning code. So we retain the authority instead of having to send um single family and duplex properties to Durm >> to the black hole of the county.
>> The black hole. Yeah. >> So I I think this is a creeping grab for power by the county. I can't stand it. Uh especially in a city where we probably exceed most of the county requirements anyway. So this is not really applicable to us. I think if we
just give them the code that we've got, we'll get out of it. And and that's the thing the text is that what we're doing or not. >> Yes. The text motion to approve. >> Wait. Is there >> There's a motion in a second before >> do it in English. Wait.
>> Let's do the due process. Is there anybody that wishes to speak on this item? Joe? >> No. No speakers. >> No speakers. I'll go ahead and close public comment. Mr. Behar, you wanted to make a motion. >> I make a motion to approve. I >> second. As stated. >> As stated.
>> As stated. And Mr. Sunmon. >> Yes. >> You second it. >> Yes, I did. >> Thank you, sir. Any comments? >> I have one comment. Oh, >> It's It's a very important comment. >> You like the black
>> unless I'm misunderstanding. >> Unless I'm misunderstanding. What you just explained to us is that anyone that has a project that comp that that falls into these categories do not have to go to Durm for review. They
could go to our public works department for review and approval. >> Correct. Just as we're doing right now. But we do have to meet or exceed which >> I I I got and the reason the only reason I don't know if you guys have seen it
technically the only reason that I bring this up is because that is completely the opposite of what top durm people have been explaining to my consulting civil engineers. So it is what it is.
But what I'm telling you is that right now even even for a certificate of occupancy in the city of Coral Gables, you've got to go to Durham and it's out of our control although we were told it
would be in our control. So I would like >> certificate of use but yes certificate of use is that >> oh yeah I mean it's become a nightmare >> use or occupancy >> I'm sorry >> certificate of use as an example. as an example. What I'm saying is that >> not occupancy.
>> Exactly. Okay. >> So, what I'm what I am saying is that I I would hope that staff through our public works director can get an absolute positive whatever in writing from that that we have the power because
we meet and or seed of having a review and not having to go to the county for a dual review. And you know how that goes. It never ends well. So I I just wanted to bring that point up. Thank you, sir.
>> Okay. Call the role, please. >> Robert Behar, >> yes. >> Alex Melo, >> yes. >> Davalinski, >> yes. >> Felix Part. >> Yes. >> Javier Salman. >> Felix, you just had a comment, didn't you?
>> I vote. Yes. >> APS. >> Yes. Before we adjourn, I I I want to bring something up that has been bothering me for for the last since last meeting. Um
I apologize to our the visiting um elected official, Commissioner Regalado. And I wanna I want to bring something up that and Sue I have come to like you over the last two years, but I think
that we as a board we need to be more respectful um to to guess and more to elected official. I I last meeting I felt I I
still feel that you went after a a elected official in a manner that in my opinion was disrespectful and actually berated the the the uh commissioner regal to the
point that she even brought out. I try and I wish I would have done more at the time to to stop you because we as a city look really bad as a board. We look terrible as an individual and speaking
for myself. Terrible. When I run into her two days later, it was like, you know, I felt like we failed to convey to this member of the county commission that we
were appreciative of what she was trying to do for the city. And I think that we have to be held to a higher standard and we cannot do that again. And and
I I think that unfortunately it really we we we have tarnished the city and I I hope that we as a board do better in the future. Uh that's my opinion and and and
Sue again I I've come to like you but I think that was inappropriate and I hope that somehow you could you know convey that to her because right now as we speak we are still with her not in a
good place. I and I I don't think that was the right approach and and I and I feel guilty that I did not at the time try to intervene and do and and and stop what
was happening. So >> you you did you didn't you did try to intervene and stop and I think other board members did also. Um, so don't feel that bad about it, but I do agree with you that it's that we need to be more respectful, not just to elected
officials, but to city staff also. Um, it's just to me it's inappropriate to put them on trial, per se, as opposed to just review the evidence, get everything uh before us to make our determination.
um sometimes is put in as an inquisition and I just I feel uncomfortable about that also at times. >> Uh and Robert, I appreciate your I appreciate your comments. Okay. I've come to like you too, but we have an obligation here. We have an obligation
to the residents and to this city and what we experienced as a result of that commissioner's actions was totally disrespectful of this city. She allowed She is allowing a developer who is denied by us
to jump us and go directly to the county. She's allowing that. This is and it's a carpet bagger developer from Athens, Georgia. >> It's not a It's not Listen, let let me finish. >> Can insult people.
>> Excuse me. I wasn't consulting. What I was doing was pointing evidence why the whole premises of RTZs is false. Okay? And an if an elected official doesn't have thick skin, that person
shouldn't be an elected official. I'm sorry. I am represent as a member of this board. I am representing residents. I'm not representing elected officials. I'm not representing elected officials. I'm representing what those residents in
the audience came to express. And if this board doesn't agree with residents, what are we doing here? >> So, I mean, you could you could represent the residents. You just don't going to berate a a and a person like that. You can't be disrespectful. I'm
sorry. You wear if if we're going to go further, you wear you were really screaming at her and that's not right. You can't I am not going to tolerate you do that or any member of this board again. That's not right, >> Robert. Robert, what you're doing right now is screaming. I was not screaming,
number one, but I was stating facts. Uh, what I was getting as a result of stating facts and asking questions on behalf of the residents were non-answers. Non-answers. And you know what? I'm a little disappointed in the board members
that were here because the board members here were looking at the pimple on the butt of an elephant instead of looking at the elephant. That's your opinion. >> That is my opinion. And and and that's your opinion. >> I disagree because like I said it before the reason I'm sorry something as
important as changing the complexion of a major artery in the city of Coral Gables is something that we should have all been arguing against. >> All of us should have been saying, "Wait a minute. >> We should have never gone there. We got
there because what took place last year and that was the fact. And what what what did is that the county has the authority the the to do what they're doing. So and and and and actually as a matter of fact what we're she was
allowing us to do is not even go to the maximum that the RTC would allow. >> But the alternative was she could have said no we are going to reject this. >> Okay. OB obviously the county has the authority. I'm not denying that.
>> So you're right. She could have done that. But you know what? The way we convey that message to her has to be in a proper polite manner. Not berating her like you did. >> Well, first of all, I wasn't berating her. If you look up the definition, I was not berating her. I was stating
facts. Okay? That's all I was doing. >> What? >> I was stating facts and I was asking for answers. That's all I was doing. >> That up. I'm done. >> Just one comment that I do want to make. Each one of us is an appointed individual
and our actions on this dis actually represent or show us what that person that appointed us is all about. So I think we have to
use caution and we're all we all have opinions. We all are heated and we all want the appropriate thing for what we believe in. But we must show a certain demeanor and
respect to the individuals because that goes a certain way that it personifies the individual that also appointed us. And I think I think that's important because
the way we're here um we have to listen to the residents and I agree. But at the same time, the respect that's the most important. >> Well, you know what? Respect demands respect and we were not being respected. This city was not being respected.
Sorry. We were not being respected. >> Mr. Chairman, may I change this subject for just a moment? >> Yes, sir. Um, it's come to my attention back on 2-54 that there is an amendment to it that's
proposed by the um uh city commission that's going before the city commission which says that uh for the board of adjustments, construction regulation board, historic preservation board and planning and
zoning board absence from 25% or more scheduled meetings in any consecutive 12 month uh period shall deem an excess excessive absence. So that's an amendment to 54 which I was not aware of
but it was brought to my attention. >> Yeah because it was >> Thank you. >> I looked it up. >> Oh, okay. Good. >> Because they me the staff mentioned it but we didn't have it in our package. >> Right. Because it's not coming through the uh through the board. >> I was looking at it. I was looking at it
while we were talking. >> Okay. I apologize for interrupting the previous conversation, but I just wanted to make sure that was clear. >> What happens to that vote that we took? >> Well, that doesn't really change anything. >> This is separate and apart from that.
>> Just informative just >> for information only. >> Correct. Mr. Chairman, >> I think a motion to journ is in order. >> I'd like to make a if I could just say a few words. Sure. Uh this is my last meeting. Uh I was not
selected as the member at large uh at the last meeting that I did not attend and I'm very sorry about that. I really enjoy my time here. I think it's a worthy use of my time and your time
that we do this. And with that, I'd like to say thank you for the opportunity and I'll be looking forward to seeing you around. Thank you for all your service. >> I I was gonna I was going to bring that up that this was his his last meeting and uh Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Yes. >> So moved. >> We have a motion by Felix. >> Y second. >> We have a second by Javier. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Thank you very much. >> Good night everyone. Good night.
Perfect. >> Good morning. >> Stopped. >> Good morning. I like Perfect. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. I'd like to welcome everybody to the Tuesday, July 1st, 2025
commission meeting. Uh before we get started, as I always try to mention and re-emphasize, uh first it's great to see so many people here with us today, both inside and outside. Uh please remember that you can speak here in the commission uh during during the item or
uh during the moments that we allow.