I mean, come on. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. What do you want? What do you want to do? And let me see if I agree. >> Okay. You want to defer the minutes? >> All right. We'll we'll call for the minutes, but then we'll just say they're deferred. Okay.
>> Okay. on here. We have deferrals. Okay. Who's >> deferring? >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. We're having a really short meeting. So we only have three. Yes. >> Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to pull the meeting to order. If you' take your seats, please. >> I was complaining about >> All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. >> Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of Coral Gables
Historic Preservation Board. >> We're residents of Coral Gables and are charged with the preservation and protection of historic or architecturally worthy building structures, sites, neighborhoods, and artifacts which impart a distinct historical heritage to the city. The board is comprised of nine members,
seven of whom are appointed by the commission, one by the city manager, and the ninth is selected by the board and confirmed by the commission. Five members of the board constitute a quorum, and five affirmative votes are necessary for the adoption of any motion. Any person who acts as a
lobbyist pursuant to the city of Coral Gable's ordinance 2006-11 must register with the city clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities or presentations before city staff, boards, committees, and/or theor commission. A copy of the ordinance is available in
the office of the city clerk. Failure to register and provide proof of registration shall prohibit your ability to present to the historic preservation board on applications under consideration this afternoon. A lobbyist is is defined as an individual, corporation, partnership, or other legal
entity, employed or retained, whether paid or not, by a principle who seeks to engage and encourage the approval, disapproval, adoption, repeal, passage, defeat, or modifications of any ordinance, resolution, action, or decision of any city commissioner. Any
action, decision, recommendation of the city manager or any city board or committee including but not limited to quasi judicial advisory board trust authority or council or any action decision or recommendation of city
personnel during the time period of the entire decision-making process on the action. A decision or recommendation which foreseeably will be heard or reviewed by the city commission or a city board or committee including but not limited to
quasi judicial advisory board trust authority or council. Presentations made to this board are subject to the city's false claim ordinance chapter 39 of the city of Coral Gable city code. I now officially call the city of Coral Gable's historic preservation board
meeting of what is today? the 19th >> 15th, I'm sorry, of January 15th order. The time is 4:07 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Today on my left, we have Miss Shield. Um, we have
Miss Ed, Miss Rolando, and Miss D. Gett getting along here. Miss Alvarez is on the left, Miss Spain, Mr. Silva and Mr. Garcia Pond are here today as well as our staff, Miss Peris, and her
associate um Miss Cal. Approval of the minutes. We have a deferral. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes held on >> December whatever is deferred.
>> Yes. So, staff is requesting to defer the minutes so we can make some corrections that were pointed out to us. We'll get there. Thank you. Exparte communications. Please be advised that this board is a quasi judicial board and the items on the agenda are quasi judicial in nature
which requires board members to disclose all exparte communications. An exparte communication is defined as any contact, communication, conversation, correspondence, memorandum, or other written or verbal communication that takes place outside a public hearing between a member of the public and a
member of the quasi judicial board regarding matters to be heard by the quasi judicial board. If anyone has made any contact with a board member when the issue comes before the board the the member must state on the record the existence of the exparte communication
the party who originated the communication and whether the communication will affect the board member's ability to impartially consider the evidence to be presented regarding the matter. We we have some deferrals in the agenda and those are for item number
two HE file COA SPO 2025-023 and case file COA SP2025-00001. Okay. Uh just to be clear of the for SP 2020, it's actually 2026001 1341 Oispo Avenue. The special
certificates of appropriateness will be deferred to the February 12th hearing. So just to make sure the date certain of February 12th. >> Thank you. Much appreciated. >> At this time, if any persons in the audience uh are will be testifying
today, please rise and be sworn in. That includes anyone who's going to be speaking today. Please raise your right hand. >> Thank you very much. Okay. All right. So, the next the next item on
the agenda we're going to be coming in is case file COA SP 2020. I'm sorry. >> Apologies. Um the the applicant for the the architect for 814 Santiago, the next COA, hasn't arrived yet. So, we the the
architect for the case file you're about to read hasn't arrived yet. So, we're going to if we can go a little out of order to allow for um the next item uh 111 116 Oispo Avenue to go ahead >> of them.
>> Number five. >> Number five. Okay. Very good. Okay. >> Number five. >> You had mentioned that the one of the cases was deferred and you mentioned it as 20261. You changed the number. >> Yes. Yes. >> The next item is 20261.
>> Oh, wait. I apologize. That's my mistake. So 13 to41 Obispo Avenue that was deferred to the February 12th, 2026 meeting is 2025001. This is the other Obispo Avenue is 1116. >> All right. And it is a 2026 file. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay.
>> We're going to the new >> I was trying to access the agenda and all the attachments, the links, and everything. was incomplete. So on on Monday afternoon we had some technical difficulties with that and they were available all within the evening hours
but everything was published >> I mean I was not around and they ordered to do it I typically do it on the weekends >> and it wasn't nothing was working >> right everything was >> a lot of things were missing staff reports were missing the links weren't working
>> so my my question is are these all legally before us I mean the property owners notified. They sent the staff reports in a timely fashion so that we can do this. >> They received the reports on Tuesday afternoon. Typically, the the agendas need to be published 3 days in advance.
Monday is legally the 3-day advance um publishing date. >> They didn't get it till Tuesday. >> They didn't get it till Tuesday. >> And was it And was it published in the paper? >> Yes, the advertising was published in the paper. The notices that had for variances were issued and the postings
were all put in place in timely manner. Uh >> well the IT issue I couldn't that's we were having the same frustration at the same time BOA's agendas were having the same problem because they were publishing at the same day and I was touching base with their team because I was wondering why our agenda actually
kept disappearing and then showing back up because at one point when I was talking to Caesar he had emailed and I said hold on because I went in it was completely gone when I had published it. Um, so it was just I'll talk to the clerk about these issues because it's happened in the past and then usually we get them up because we typically we get
them on Friday. We try to do everything by Friday with the with the holidays this week and then our meeting being the last meeting right before the holidays. We just didn't have time to kind of get everything together. But >> next time something like this happens if you could >> Yeah, we'll send an email to everybody >> to everyone. Yeah. So I don't spend
>> Sorry. An inordinate amount of time thinking it's my fault that I couldn't get anything to work. >> Oh no. Well, I have we'll send an email when there's a technical difficulty. I know that Caesar had reached out, so we had sent told him like to hold off a second, but we figured it out, but everything was published on Monday um as
required by the code and now we already told them they could. >> Do we have the architect here behind you? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We want to go in order. >> Yes. Go ahead and have him sworn in, please. And then we'll just go ahead and
and go back to uh item number 4 um 26 1014 >> which is at the 814 Santiago Street. >> Thank you very much. Would you like to do the presentation on this please?
Okay. Okay. We've got case file COA SP 2026001, an application for the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness for the property at 8:14 Santiago Street, a contributing resource within the Santiago Street Historic District. Legally described as the South 1/2 lot 6
and all of lot 7 and 8 block 2, Mariana Place. According to platbook 9, page 111, Miami Dade County application request design approval for the additions and alterations and site work. A variance has also been requested from
section 2-101D4 C of the city of Coral Gable's code for minimum rear setback. >> Mr. Thank you. Good afternoon board. Um Anna Peris is our preservation officer. should have started there earlier. Um,
this is an application before you for 814 Santiago Street. Um, the Santiago Street Historic District is a collection of five homes located along Santiago Street between Southwest 8th Street and Mariana Avenue on the um on the south.
This residence typifies the eclectic Mediterranean revival style of cottage which was featured and promoted in the early stages of the city's development. As mentioned by the chair, this is an approval a request for an approval for a second story addition at top an existing
garage an existing original garage and a 2014 addition. Um alterations and site work to the existing residence. A variance has also been requested for the minimum rear setback of the addition. Um staff is comfortable with the addition occurring over the 2014 garage
bay, but would like the applicant to restudy the addition to minimize the impact of the addition to the original one-story garage structure. Um this might involve reconfiguring the program or over the 2014 garage and or studying the roof type of the two-story addition. We staff is concerned as mentioned that
the addition would um should be subordinate to the historic structure and that the prop pros project meets the secretary of interior standard for planning an addition on on a secondary elevation but that the addition overwhelms the remaining original uh one-story garage and would not be easily
reversible. Um staff is recommending approval of the COA with the conditions noted and approval of the um variance, but would like first um the applicant to work with staff on um how to mitigate some of the impact on the one-story structure.
Hi, good afternoon. Uh, Georgio Antoni. I'm the, uh, architect for this edition here and I'm representing Hung. He's the owner and here's he's with us today. Uh, it's always uh, a pleasure for me to uh, be here presenting a historic
project. uh anytime a historic um element or historic uh portion of a project comes through our doors, we take it very seriously and I think if we've come this far, it's something that we can stand behind and that we're uh happy to be presenting to you.
Uh Hung came to me and he asked u you know we could look at his site and find any opportunities to add additional square footage at the time. He was awaiting his newborn and was expecting not only to have a new person in the house, but many people to come visit him
and likely stay more than one night at a time. Uh as we began to study the lot uh and look for opportunities on the ground floor to practically add uh more square footage to the structure, we found very quickly that uh anything or any space
that we could actually find where we could add space that would not be consequential and likely would uh create more challenges with the historic structure. uh it would likely end up more towards the front of the property. So, we kind
of changed our approach and we and we set our eyes on something that I think is more common place. Uh adding a second story to the semi- detached garage in the rear of the property. Uh there's a great benefit to this. Uh they could likely build this while they still
remain in the home. uh the larger portion of the addition is over the new addition of the home uh and not the original portion of the home uh you know having that space. So
actually this is what it looks like now. So you see the two garages here. This left one is the original garage that we saw in the historic portion before and this right hand side is the
uh new garage that was added a few years ago. So our idea is to add uh above that portion mostly on this side and have an extension over the original
part of the garage uh to create a space that would work both as a home office and like the a suite that guests could use to stay overnight or multiple nights. U the board of architects had a suggestion to
to add to thicken the front wall of the garage here. So that's that double wall element that you see there. >> Currently these two uh garage the garage and the new uh the new
garage and the old uh wall both sit on the same plane. And to me, I don't think that does anything for the addition or for the historic home. I actually agree that thickening that wall uh allows for the
historic portion for the historic portion of the uh house and the new element to be set apart, more easily be told apart. Uh you also see that the rear portion of the addition has been set back and this
allows for that uh existing original volume of the garage to act as a transitional element from the historic structure to the new construction part of the home. Um I really think this is an appropriate
approach for this uh for this uh house. I think it enhances the building and it's not an uncommon story line for uh even a Mediterranean revival building in Florida and even other states. Uh from
the street you'll see that the addition actually doesn't take away from the primary structure. Uh so likely the the on street character of the building remains about the same and actually
creates a a beautiful uh vista towards the end of the driveway instead of sort of a dead end like it is. So uh I look forward to your comments. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you.
Members of the board questions my question my question to you is what's the um square footage of the original how much and how much are you adding? We're only adding about 600 square feet. 650. >> Wow. Yeah,
>> it just looks so much larger. >> Uh but let's look at and maybe we can pull up the the PowerPoint again. I think there's a great diagram that we can look at. So, if you look at this top diagram, that's the existing conditions as they
are today. And this little uh gable roof garage that you see here was added on a few years ago. Um, I don't I really don't think that addition does anything for the house. Um, if anything, it takes away from from the original garage. Uh, and here's what
we're proposing. So, it's really just L that's on top of the two garages. >> It is a big home overall though. So Marlin, I had the same question that the house is about 3,000 plus square
feet and it just because of the roof, the tile roof, it looks like it's a lot more percentage wise, but in reality it is an extension of the garage, which I appreciate the the way that you've found square footage that is
meaningful and yet maybe a little tall. I agree with staff, but not intrusive to the front of the house. It is way in the back. So um any do you have any thoughts on the um city staff's
thoughts on the height of the addition? >> So I'll say that um I think we agreed to all the conditions except u I I like the idea of thickening the wall uh of the GNU garage. I think that again that allows us to better differentiate the
new structure versus the original and also allows us to when we create those windows on the second floor to have more dimensional architectural elements there. When you're only working with an 8 in wall, suddenly now we have some some thickness to work with up there. Um
I I do agree that we could look at different options for the roof that extends over uh this portion here. I don't know if you guys can see that, but the the portion of the extension that is over the original garage, I'm happy to
look at different ways of maybe not having a slope roof there, maybe having a flat roof there, uh, so that it looks less massive in elevation. However, I think from a design intent standpoint, I think programmatically this is largely what we want to do. But I'm happy to
look at fenistration. I'm happy to look at the roof treatment for the rear portion of the addition with staff. We're happy to make it better. >> What are the inside spaces height on the
floor to ceilings or do you have that that hole? >> They're going to be uh the front we haven't delved too much into that portion, but they should be uh about 86 or 9 ft at the lowest and we plan to have some bullet ceilings. Thank you. Y
>> and through the chair I did have a question for staff. So for the comment on the CO report is I think a little bit vague. If you can clarify what alreadyed into the record. The applicant is continue to work with
staff to minimize the impact of the addition to the original one-story building. Yeah, we wanted to be able to give some flexibility to the pro to the architect to give options of either rearranging some of the program to either use some of the ground floor space of the garage to pull some of the mass of the second floor down into that
space and make the second floor smaller or look at options for like the roof or the height or putting in that flat roof for how you can minimize the the overwhelming feel because right now as you could see from the from if you go back to sorry >> you want to look this one.
>> Yeah. So that um that elevation it's kind of being surrounded on all three sides. So and that's I think part of the reason like having that the 2014 edition now come forward of it doesn't help the condition of you know it's just only >> reducing the the hierarchy from that
building. >> Um okay. Well I'm I I think it's probably okay but I appreciate the thought of the architect if they're interested in maybe changing the roof that's over the the connected roof. that way the gable and the front
has more separation from the flat roofs. There may be a visual difference, but >> I appreciate staff's comment. >> Yeah, I think in terms of that concern, not to keep rehashing the same thing, but I feel like right now it doesn't have hierarchy and this creates a little
bit of that. Um, it's still a second the that garage was always sort of a secondary character. The main character here is the front of the house. that garage was always kind of hidden, you know. >> Um, and now I think we're just telling another beautiful chapter in the story
of this home by creating like a a vista, something a termination uh to that driveway. Um, so but I'm always happy to look at the penistration and the and the roof. >> Yeah, I I would echo those comments. Um,
especially at the rear. So, so that that rear we are asking for a variance here, right, from from uh the existing. So, it's it's an existing non-conforming use on the ground floor, but we're adding to it, right? Um, so again, in concept, I don't have a problem with it. Uh, I
think it respects the existing house, but that rear elevation, the west elevation is pretty massive, right? It's getting massive. And I think maybe maybe doing something with the roof over over the rest of or the kind of the right side of it.
may may help, right? >> Yeah, I agree. If that was gone >> and we even articulate, you know, this air bed somehow. >> Yeah. So, maybe going to a flat roof there or something to alleviate kind of that that rear elevation, which which is
>> I agree with that comment. >> Questions, Miss Alvarez. >> No, I agree with Alex's comments. I have a question that doesn't affect the the application too much, but um I was just curious. So, it seems like the house and the garage just touch in the corner like
that. Is it for zoning purposes? Is that still considered detached >> as your when you did the zoning? >> No, I think we would have to ask zoning. Uh I consider it attached. >> You consider it attached? >> Yeah. >> So, then the numbers work out when you
consider it attached. >> Yes, >> we have all the And I know it's very tricky to build a second story over an existing especially older one story because the foundations, you know, usually not designed to hold a twotory. Have you?
>> Uh, it's never um >> looked into. >> It's never too clean, but we've done multiple second story editions. So what you end up doing is sort of creating columns and in that portion of the structure or that portion of the wall you kind of demo >> and in that portion of the floor you
have to cut out a little bit of the slab and create a footing there. >> So these walls are loadbearing so they have a continuous load. Uh we're going to have to create point loads
>> along that wall and create footings. So the slab will be cut and where we're bring creating adding columns, we will have footings in those locations. It's uh it's something that's done uh whenever you do a second story addition.
>> Okay? >> It's not the cleanest. Some some contractors will tell you demolish the whole thing and do it from scratch. Uh but I've seen it done both ways. We could, you know, if when we look at those wall conditions, we can try to
work with a steel element which may be less intrusive than having a concrete column there. So, we have options to try and u not affect the originality of the of the garage. >> I don't bother me at all. I think it
helps it help. >> Are there any other questions to the board? Okay. If not, Miss M. Rolando, >> I I want to disclose that the applicant is a good friend of mine and a
colleague. So uh but I can be um dispassionate and objective in my decision making. >> Are there any other questions of the board at this time? If not, we'll open this to the public. Is there any public
comment? Anyone on Zoom? Anyone wish to speak for or against this? >> Okay. There there's no one on Zoom or anything. Okay, great. Then we'll close the public hearing and we'll come back to the
board. Is there any final um comments, suggestions, recommendations, or motions? >> Just as a an item, I agree with with Donna. I don't think the thickening of the wall detracts. I think it's a good recommendation by the board of architects and I agree with the
conversations that we've had particular what Alex just mentioned is the extension of the the pitch of that back roof on the existing. if you could consider perhaps flattening it out. Um, I think it would be interesting. >> Absolutely. I think it's a great point.
>> Mr. Silva, a motion. >> I'd be happy to make a motion. >> Love for you to >> I'm going to combine the special certificate and the variance in one motion. That's okay. Um, so I will make a motion to approve with the conditions
noted above by staff with the following exceptions or changes. Um so condition um number one is going to be edited to add specifically to investigate using a flat
roof on the on that dog leg and striking condition six which is the thickened uh wall in the garage. So that's my motion um and I'll I'll complete it. Um so the conditions as we just discussed
um additional alterations to the residence and site work on the property located 814 Santiago to approve the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with the conditions just discussed. In addition, um we would approve a variance to allow
the addition to the auxiliary structure to the rear to have a rear setback of approximately 5T versus the required minimum rear setback in single family residential districts of 10 ft. All right, we have a motion on the table.
>> Second. >> We have a second by Mrs. Spain. >> We call the role, please. >> Miss Alvarez, >> yes. >> Miss Shield, >> yes. >> Miss Rando,
>> yes. Miss Ever, >> yes. >> Mr. Garcia. >> Yes. >> Mr. S. Uh, Mr. Silva. >> Yes. >> Miss Be. >> Yes. >> Miss Dine. >> Yes.
>> And Mr. Maxwell. >> Yes. Motion passes unanimously. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. And good luck on continuing forward. It's a always an interesting process. So, thank you for a good presentation. Love your graphic.
Okay. We're going to Move on to the next item, please, which is going to be or which is case file COA SP 2026-00002, an application for the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness
for the property located at 1116 Abyispo Avenue. A contributing resource within the Abyispo Avenue Historic District, legally described as lot eight and east one half of lot seven and lot nine. Block 16, Coral Gable. Section C, Plat
Book 8, page 26, Miami Dade County Public Records. The application request design approval for additions and alterations and site work. >> Thank you. >> Is there any um >> there are there any recusals or
anything? Any Okay, good show. Thank you, Peggy, for bringing that up. >> Um Okay. Uh good afternoon. Um in May of 2008, the Obispo Avenue Historic District was listed in the Coral Gable's Register of Historic Places. It is comprised of residences abuing Obispo
Avenue. 1116 Obispo Avenue is considered a contributing resource within the district. The home was designed by William H. Miam in 1941, assigned permit number 6362. Although alterations to the property have occurred, most of them have happened at the rear. Um the
overall historic integrity of the home has been maintained. Um as mentioned, design approval for a one and two story addition at the rear um is being requested and a new driveway, interior renovations and site work are also included within the
application. Um the application uh the proposed alterations to the residents are in keeping with the secretary of interior standards and that the essential form and integrity of the historic structure are being respected and the new addition is located at the rear. Um staff recommends recessing the addition away
from the original Loia to create a clear distinction between the new addition and the original house on the east elevation and to study um reducing the height of the addition. Uh staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted. >> Good afternoon and happy new year. Good
to see everybody again. Uh back with William H. Miam. Um I'm joined by uh my clients and actually nextdoor neighbors. They fell in love with the neighborhood, with the street and with their next door
neighbor. Um the clients earlier on in the year had approached um this project with a different team and they were they were not satisfied with the results and headed in a different direction and and
sub subsequently I got involved and now we're here in front of you in front of you once again. Um again this is 11 16 Oispo, my neighbor to the west. It's an existing home.
Most of you are probably familiar with the street. The house had an uh an addition done. I think it was 2018, a large terrace addition in the rear. And the original Loia had been enclosed. I'm not sure uh what year it was enclosed, but it it had
uh been altered. So, um aside from that, I think the the majority house really stays intact and in in very good shape. We were able to get microfilm of the house. >> I think there you can see the the
original nature of the Lojo was really a porch, right? and it was enclosed into a like a sun room, family room type of a uh scenario. The railing and the skirt um roof element are intact. Anything below that
is is uh been altered and and not original. It's a large quite a large lot. Um even for Obispo, it's almost 19,000 square feet. is three. It's a 125 by 150. The
houses, the lots are obese for 150 deep. So, we we enjoy that luxury. U there is one one uh peculiar um feature of the lot is that when the pool was um was created, it was created sort of in a
unconventional location. So, that starts to drive any future work or any future additions to to the existing house. Thus well you will see that the addition kind of occurs towards my side. So I've been enjoying a park for the last 20
years but obviously you know that I do not control that. In this case I kind of control it. Um here it's here it's clear what's existing and what's new. We're uh so we're adding a twotory element to the
to the east uh well set back uh from the front of the house um and a one-story um dining room behind the garage that will stay below the garage. So it's you know the
roof will not be seen from the street. Just as a as a numbers thing, the house I counted has 12 corners. We're keeping 10 of the corners. So, we're really making an effort to uh uh preserve the
the volumetric and the integrity of the house. We're, you know, way below any zoning F lot coverage and we're not asking for any variances. There will be some uh interior
demolition and reorganization of of the of the first and second floor. So, there will be a lot of structural work here. And again, um we're adding on the on the ground floor, we're adding a family room, a dining room, uh a playroom. They have a growing family. Only one of the
children is here, but they have three. So, um and I can hear them playing in the morning, so I can tell you they use a yard. Um and uh not an office, but then that's a mis mislabeled there. We are adding a a
secondary stair to the to the new addition and we're keeping we're keeping the the front foyer raised and the front porch and and uh in that area there. And then on the second floor, it's going to be an upstairs family that will feed
the existing two bedrooms and an additional bedroom, one for each uh child and a and a master bedroom that give off to a roof deck that also comes down back into the yard with a with a rear stair that that's just an enlargement of the first
floor. second floor. We've tried to we've tried to break up the roofs to to stay as low as possible. I think in this in this uh front elevation, you can see that yes, the the addition is a bit higher than the
existing house, but it's far back enough in my opinion that you know when you look at it in perspective, it's not going to overwhelm the house. And I think that even in staff's um uh observance or conclusions or recommendations, they do say that addition is in the right place. We agree
with them and that they does not overwhelm the house. We agree with them. So um you know, I think that we work closely with staff because, you know, we had several meetings with them. So we're always grateful for their comments and
their and their uh um suggestions. west elevation. That's the view from the rear. And here I think you can see that the the essence of the house and you know really
the house itself remains intact. Um on Obispo the addition is far back enough where it feels secondary by all means. Even more on even more on a on a front shot. Not even noticeable on the coming from
the west heading east. And then of course in the back there that's where all all the the new program occurs. Again, always having to deal with the existing pool location and how how we interact between the terrace space and
the pool space and the garden space in between. This is our interpretation of of the you know the altered loa. We are bringing the railing on the second floor back to the original railing design. We are
refurbishing and you know reconstructing whatever part of the skirt roof needs uh work. And then um what we thought was a good way to approach the Loia was to to do full glass, but instead of doing the you know the the way some of the porches
are enclosed where it's just a pane of glass. I've never been a big fan of that. Um it's to you know create like a railing height and then articulate the the glass on the entire loa. And I think the corner that uh that Anna
mentioned as a suggestion is I don't know is right there, which you know, uh I will agree is a is is a good suggestion. Uh I wish we would have looked at it or saw it sooner, but
I don't think that it's a crucial um it's a crucial move that has to happen for for this uh project to really thrive and really survive. And then you get this kind of fun stair coming down from the from the deck where
you know there's uh wide walls like the garage that came before you. And uh that was a VA comment as as you know. Uh and um so we can put planters on there and just you know really give it a sculptural feel.
And again, the the renderings, but in elevation form. And um you know, we're in agreement with uh 90% of staff's comment except the two that I imagine you could you could uh uh imagine, which is the height. Our client
is 6'3. I don't think that I don't think that uh um in general just but in general aside from the from the height of the client uh it's very hard to get uh new new to get clients to refurbish
existing homes and add to them and try to uh uh remain with the heights of of the homes of the 1940s or late 30s because those homes did not have air conditioning. So that the you know the the in between floor that sandwich piece is much smaller. It's usually 12 in. You
know in this home the the floor the floor to floor is 94 minus a foot. So you have an 8t4 ceiling on the first floor and then they have an 8ft ceiling on the second floor. I mean I think that's uh that's that's really a result of the of the times. You know, if you go
back to the old Spanish homes, they would had the higher ceilings, you know, when the when the economies got in, you know, got in trouble, then, you know, they built the way they built same way that they built in the 70s with 8 foot ceilings. So, um, the trick is always or the nuance is always how to marry the
two. And in this case, you know, I think that we're in a good enough spot where we're not overwhelming the existing home, but at the same time, we're providing what a a modern home should have. So, um, except for those two comments,
um, we're, uh, uh, willing to meet with staff over any of the other suggestions. I think there was one about the penistration of the LOA. We can discuss that. Um, and the rest I think I kind of stand there as far as height high profile
mountains. Um, I don't know. There's another one that stands out. But that's it. I mean, I'm here for any questions and happy to see you guys again. >> Thank you. >> Okay, board questions,
you're queued up. I can see it. >> No, I think I think it's a good u a nice addition, a great strategy. I know with these projects, I've worked on them before, including a keynote house on a studio, which is similar. It's funny, it's a different architect, but it's very similar in design. So, I think um
just that strategy of adding towards the back. Um I've also experienced the same challenges with the heights because you want to give the house something here. You invest, you know, um you make this investment, you want it to be as pleasant as possible. So, it doesn't look out of scale to me. And you're I
mean, these uh 2D drawings obviously, you know, bring everything forward, but in reality, that's that's way far back. Um And I think there's um there's a lot of play and you know kind of very creative in the masking so it doesn't feel overwhelm
I support the project. >> Thank you >> agree with Anna. I moved from historic home uh I was fortunate that it had a great room so there's a double height ceiling in it so I I didn't feel cramped but upstairs and the bedrooms and it was
8 foot ceilings >> and then I moved into a much smaller townhouse >> with the modern ceilings and it and it feels more spacious and I can't agree with you more that you should keep those ceiling heights the way they are and I the massing is fine with me.
>> Thank you. >> Again, I don't I don't think we're going you know we're doing 10 foot ceilings. I don't think that's something that's, you know, we're not doing 12ft ceilings or 11 foot ceilings or anything outside of the, you know, we're not doing any developeresque kind of auh volumes. So,
>> but but board remember what we just voted on previously because it's the same issue feeling. >> Be fair. >> Chair, I have a question for staff if that's appropriate. You you may miss
>> um you had noted at the end of your staff observations that the paving configuration at the front should be minimized to reduce impact on the green space. However, that wasn't referred to anymore um in the comments. I was just wondering I mean I agree that the the
paving is does take away from the front yard. It's beautifully done but I I don't agree with that. That was just the way with landscaping and it didn't the the I apologize because I know that I had included in the staff report and I just hadn't really fortified it in the conditions because when you look at the
balance of the actual front yard, it wasn't taking up because of the size of the yard wasn't taking up as much it felt overwhelming. In some cases when we have the 50 foot lots and someone's trying to do that like either U-shape or the T-shape in front of the house, it's kind of creates like a parking lot in front of the actual historic home. And
in this case, since it's in the sideyard, it wasn't as um I think dominating. >> Okay. I appreciate that. I was just wondering. Thank you. >> Any further questions down here? >> Mr. Kigen.
>> Yes, Mr. C. >> Um, the height of the ground floor addition is the same as the height of the existing ground floor or is that higher? Because I saw steps on the second floor. >> No. Yeah, that's a bit a little bit higher. >> So, the ground floor addition is taller
than the existing ground floor. >> What we are doing is we are um we are maintaining the raised entry of the existing house and then we're removing the the crawl space on the existing house to lower the floor of the existing
house to get uh a more equivalent height between the two. And then the on the second floor at the extension at the new steps there's a couple of steps. >> There's a couple of steps >> that is >> that that's to accommodate a little bit the 10 ft on the first floor of the addition. So the new So the existing
house will have uh let's say like a 94 ceiling. The the addition will have a 10ft ceiling so a little bit higher. And that's to accommodate that >> because I I tend to agree with staff. I think it's I know it's behind it. I know
it's um the view that you have at from an eye level is the perfect view, right? From a human eye level. Um it there's just parts of it that do seem to be slightly more than it needs to be adjacent to an
existing structure. Now, that is I don't know if six inches will make a difference, but there is there's something to the additional height that seems um I think does affect the impact on the
existing home. Well, and if I don't know if we can go back to uh yeah, if we can go back to the presentation. So, so if you look at even at the on the front elevation, we make an effort to drop that area by the door to kind of,
you know, come uh to the level of the existing house. So, there's even movement on the roof to to uh to to um you know, work with the existing house. So, it's not an abrupt uh change. Um, again,
we feel that for this size lot and for this size house, I know that the project that came before you, you know, we saw it at the board and they did a great job, but it's a different scale. I mean, this is this is a big home. This is this is a
>> um, you know, uh, a much larger uh, endeavor, let's just say. So >> specifically on the second floor, what's the floor to ceiling of the existing versus the proposed Florida ceiling? >> The exist Yeah, the existing is eight.
That's going to remain. Yeah, the the new is going to be 10. >> Um I I think on the issue of height, um, I would agree with with Anna. I think from the front facade that to me that step down in the roof line is is enough
to mitigate it. Um, it's more obvious on the interior, you know, on on the backyard elevation, but but to me that's okay, right? It's it's it's obviously an addition. It's to the rear. Um, so I'm okay with the height. Um, I had a question for staff though on their
condition about the the Loa separation. >> Yes. >> Um what what did you want to pull away? The the the twotory volume like to totally disengage it from there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's um one of the things that we if we could push the mass almost away
so you could still get the three sides exposed. I'm trying to find the >> H3. Can you go to A300? I think that rendering is pretty good. So Anna, are you suggesting that the master bath not have access to the lo to
the existing deck? >> You would still be able to access the Loia area through the main house like the original house still has access to that that deck and I think there's a gym maybe in plan. No, I think on the second floor, Anna, but um we're we're gonna clo we're they're going to have the the
the young children there, so they're not going to have access to >> Oh, so they're closing because right now >> we're going to have a door, but it's not going to be, you know, it's it's not uh we they don't we don't want access there now. You know, we are we are stepping back from the second floor volume. It's only touching on the first floor. So in
other words, when you when you view the you know what what is truly the you know the the whole the entire second floor volume is you know legible and and uh and uh left intact. As a matter of fact, we went through great extents to create
a flat roof area in the back to preserve the the twotory volume that's on the on the breakfast and and the bedroom upstairs, which you know, um in in some other projects I've seen come
by the board, they have not. >> So, the only access to the deck will be through the bathroom >> right now through the bathroom. And then in the f in the future in the future um you know when the kids grow and what not it could be from the bedrooms too
dangerous. >> Again the de the deck is an existing uh part of the house. So, you know, it's about as is about as much as we can do without uh creating a door in bedroom number two or or >> Yeah. bedroom number two. >> Where's the access now?
>> Bedroom number um >> the one that says existing master, >> right? >> Yeah. There was >> the master. >> Yeah. there. The master bedroom used to be at the end of that of the house right there.
>> Okay. >> So, they had a they had a door there. So, we're replacing it's the same opening but with a window rather than a door. And again, this this corner right here is remaining intact completely overhang everything. And every other corner that
you see here except for that and that are are remaining intact. So, you know, we feel that I mean, and we have made a they they love their houses. They're not trying to they're not trying to uh redefine the house or, you know, um you
know, we're just they need the program and >> board. Okay. Do we have any other questions here? >> Um there is another much larger deck with access to the master, correct? >> Yes. >> That's a 18 by 27.
>> Correct. >> Larger. And how many square feet is the addition? I couldn't find. >> The addition is about 2500 square feet. So, we're about doubling the size of the house. >> I think to go back to the Loia comment, um I think just the the the two sides
that are that are preserved basically and restored, I think it's sufficient to not take away Miss Alvarez, please speak into the microphone. >> I think the two sides that are that are
preserved and and restored are enough to um you know to make that um I guess respectful of the original architecture in my opinion. And and for me, I thought since the loa had already been altered, I mean, uh I didn't I didn't really um I
mean, it's important, but it's not uh it's not going to go, you know, it doesn't make any sense to turn it back into a porch, obviously, but um >> I didn't think that that um you know, I thought the comment, yes, you know, it's a good observation, but I don't think
it's a comment that makes or breaks u you know, the overall composition or the overall approach to, you know, the historic element of of the of the addition board. Any further questions? If not, um, I'm going to close this portion and
open the public hearing. Are there any anyone on Zoom? Is there anyone here to speak for against this? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and come back to the board here. All right,
board. Any final questions before we move to a motion? >> No questions for the architect. You're you can sit down. >> Yes. Okay, good. >> So, you you're clear on the two items that I'm not in agreement with.
>> Um, so for the board, I I the the addition is pretty far back on the on the lot. I'm still a little bit concerned at the three foot difference in the top of the beam between the front and the back one. Um I think it it just
it's it's right at the cusp of maybe being too much. Um so that's just sort of my concern is trying to work out the roof plan in a different way and I couldn't do it. Um so >> my I I like the layout. I like the way it was thought through. Um,
for me it's just that sort of that height is a little bit much for me. >> Al, you have anything in >> I'm just having a problem with the height also just to share.
I I have a problem the height. I think the the scale probably works. Um for me the um the only way I could justify it is it's set
so far back. But um I don't I don't love that it's higher than the um main structure. That's seems like it's working. >> We just we just had this issue in the last house, too. I'm the same thing.
Although this is set back a little bit further. >> Yeah. But it wasn't nearly as massive. >> Um when you think about the prior project, it was like 3500 3700 square ft
and then the addition was 600 plus. here. It's double the size and so um I don't want it to be the monster in the backyard. Uh
it beautifully designed, you know, I um I appreciate the amount of thought that went into it and the um it just seems a little bit Miss,
>> I agree with the other comments, but um it's beautiful. Very nicely done. Um >> that's enough. >> Miss Shield. >> Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion, please.
>> I can make a motion. A motion to approve um with the conditions um staff three through nine um and um not one and two
um of lowering the height or um detaching the LOIA um make sure I didn't miss Okay. So, um, with those, um, comments, um, the design proposal for an additional alterations to the residence and site work on the property located at
1116 Obisa Avenue, a contributing resource within the Obisa Avenue Historic District, legally described as lot 8 and East half lot 7 and lot 9, block 16, corable section C, according
to the flat thereof, as recorded in flat book 8, page 26 of public um and approve the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with the conditions I state. >> Okay, we have a motion on the table.
>> Could you repeat the um modifications to the conditions um >> she said um between three and nine. So that would be excluding conditions one and two. Is that correct, Ann? >> That's correct. >> Are you um
modifying you're eliminating one and entirely. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Mr. Attorney, do you have the motion? >> You have it recorded. Okay. Good. All right. Great. Just wanted Miss Alvarez
speaks very little, very, very quietly. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion on the table. We have a second. >> I'll second it. >> We have a second by Mrs. Spain. >> Would you please call the role? >> Actually, can I proper >> We have Y >> I prefer a friendly amendment.
>> Okay. >> Um would you consider lowering the height one foot? >> Um I would prefer not because I I know the struggle. >> Say no. >> Okay. No. >> Thank you.
>> Not in your nature to say no. >> Is she? No >> Mr. Silva. >> Yes, >> Mr. Garcia. >> No, >> Miss Ronaldo. >> No, >> Miss Ever.
>> Yes, >> Miss Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Miss, >> yes. >> M. >> No. >> And Mr. Maxwell? >> No. Motion fails. 53. Um,
>> okay. Uh we can do another motion. >> 54. U I would like to offer >> four >> I would like to offer a separate motion which is to approve with um the conditions above including a reduction in the height of
the overall house by one foot or the overall addition by one foot. um and maintaining and removing condition number two. Um so those conditions noted above with the condition number one being a one-
foot reduction and condition number two eliminated for the design proposal for the additional alterations at the residence of site work on the property located at 1116 Oispo Avenue and approve an issue uh the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with the
conditions noted previously. Can we have some discussion on that? >> Yes. >> Um, >> you can discuss. >> I'm just trying to think. >> Second. >> Is one foot going to be enough to make that much of a difference? I mean, three
feet seemed like a lot, but is one foot just trying to be a compromise and not really going to um achieve what the goal would be? >> Um, I three feet is too much. U the city staff is equal to or below. I don't
necessarily I don't think it has to be that because I think the architect has made an effort to drop the roof and is trying to make some efforts. Again, I couldn't work out a roof plan to do anything differently. What I think is I would propose this is a the effect of an
interior change to get a 10-ft ceiling is impacting the whole project. If you drop the inside by one foot to nine feet, I don't think it'll negatively impact the interior and it I think would substantially reduce the impact on the exterior. So
that's why I'm preferring that motion. If anybody wants to make a motion to be more, I can make it between one and three or something, but I think a minimum of one ft based on the roof line that I saw would probably be enough, but that's just my opinion. >> Thank you. Thank you for that
explanation. So, we could give directions to staff to say between a certain footage and give staff some leeway to work with the owner. Then >> I can make it greater than one foot. One foot or greater. >> Yes, that would be more comfortable for
me. >> Okay. I'm happy to make an amendment to the motion to be at least at least one foot. >> I would second that as modified. >> Okay. So the amendment's been accepted by both the amen and the amendor.
Okay. Anything else, ladies and gentlemen? We'll call the question, please. >> Ever? >> Yes. >> Miss, >> no. >> Mr. Silver, >> I'll go along with him. Yes,
>> Miss Shield. Yes, >> Miss Al. >> Yes, >> Mr. Londo. >> Yes, >> Mr. >> Yes, >> Mr. Lee. >> Yes, >> Mr.
>> Yes. Motion passes with everybody but one. So, okay. Thank you very much. Maybe if you the ceiling gets down a little low, look at an open ceiling. So, it's a little more cathedral inside. I know your call, but >> we will work it out with you. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Next. Thank you. >> Okay. Next. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the next item is case file COA SP 2026-003, an application for the issuance of a special certificate appropriateness for
the property at 2039 Alhhamra Circle, a contributing resource within the Alhhamra Circle Historic District. Legally described as lot one, block 14, Coral Gable section E, platbook 8, page 13, Miami Dade County, Florida. The
application request design approval for additions and alterations and site work. >> Afternoon. Um, this application is for 2039 Alhhamra Circle. The Amber Circle Historic District designated in 2008
comprises of one and two story residential properties built between the 1920s and the 1950s and landscape features um that abut Alhhamra Circle. The single family home at 2039 Alhhamra Circle was designed in 1937 permit
number 5056 by architect William Miam. Uh a screened porch addition was made to the rear of the home in 1965 that has since been removed. Um, the home has undergone very minor alterations over the years since then and it retains its historic integrity and contributes to
the architectural fabric of the city. The application presented request design approval for an addition and alterations to the residence and site work. The masking and location of the addition are most appropriate for the home like this one being separated with a courtyard and extending into the rear yard. Uh, little to no modifications are being made to
the original house. Um staff does have concern that the height of the addition overwhelms the original building and should be lowered. Um staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted and we'll let the applicant present. >> You're back.
>> I'm back. I don't know. I don't think I said my name the first time. Peter Kiligian with PPKS architect >> representing William H. Miam. So, uh I don't know. I think this is number five for William H. Mariam for
me. So, uh including my house, obviously. Um yeah, I I think this um in comparison to the other to the other William H. house. My next door. The part on this one was a little
clearer um just because of the nature of the existing home and and also the nature of the lot. It's a long thin lot rather than you know this expanse uh of a lot. Um
>> so I'll just go through the the slides quickly here. It's an existing one-story home with a two-story addition that was done I think uh in the later on
in the 60s maybe. The house is on u Hamburg and Greenway. Beautiful location. That's a historic picture. We were able to get the microphones and
to note that he literally just added the second story right next to the one the f the one story volume without much uh thought to to uh integration of heights or anything like that. So I I found that kind of um
not too much finesse there. Let's just say um there were some alterations uh that were done to sorry to that area there. That whole porch
area was enclosed later on to be what it is now nowaday which is a complete twotory volume. existing pictures of the home. That's the existing site. And you can see that the addition occurs back here.
We're separating it with a courtyard and creating, you know, balcony, terrace. We're complying with all the zoning calculations. And again, it's uh on the ground floor.
We're adding a great room and a terrace and a small uh laundry room. And on the second floor, we're adding a master bedroom. with a with another another bedroom.
Trying to keep the roof as as simple as possible and clean as possible, you know, and uh to reduce again the the scale of it. Um we in in plan we've offset the second floor from the first floor element which
is u quite a bit more complicated structurally but it gives us you know it breaks down that mass um That's, you know, that's where we're at. That's the project. >> So, you're more than doubling the size
of the building. >> We're we're building to Yeah, we're are building to what's allowed on the on the site. And u um I mean we uh in in all honesty I feel this is this was a much uh more
successful project than the previous one and out of the BOA was also better received than the other one. Um it was you know it's a cleaner way to to add to it. There's much more separation.
Um again the the the question of the height back to the same to the same discussion. the interior floor to ceiling. >> This is 10 and nine. This one's the second floor is lower. So, the problem
the problem with the height is is not the ceiling heights. It's the the in between floor that you know when you have air conditioning and and uh plumbing and whatnot in that twoft space. That's what gives the the the house height.
>> You can flatten the gable. the the one thing that uh that I that I sorry the one thing that I saw that you know could help the transition here is that
we have a gable there and and I think that can become a hip to kind of lower the the scale of that you know going from the existing to the new because we do have um you know that element is a is a hip on this side.
So this if this became a hip I think that lowers the scale of you know what this is to the to the new >> it would probably help. >> Yeah >> it's just massive. >> I mean >> what's that room
that is uh So that's this right here. >> It's a whole another house on a house. >> Yeah. >> Did you put a any kind of defining line between the existing house and the new addition? >> Uh the separation joint of some kind
>> as you mean as a physical line or or >> Exactly. >> Well, the the The existing house ends there. It's there like that. >> On the outside, >> huh? >> On the outside.
>> On the outside. On the elevation. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> You have the courtyard at the ground floor >> and then at the second floor. >> Yeah. So the and he's I think the cursor is already on it, but that wall actually
sits forward of the original >> the wall comes out. Yeah. >> And so there should be a line on the second floor. So >> I mean what I'm worried about is this is all going to read the same because this is a newer house in the Stuckco smooth. And so it's going to >> Oh yeah, there is there's no co-planer.
There's no co-planer moments at all in the house. No, not anywhere. >> Yeah. Everything everything is everything is juxtaposed. There's no there's no there is no place where the walls touch if that's your concern with that.
>> Miss Alvarez, you have a question. >> Just because your question made me think of something else. Um I was wondering if there'd be an opportunity on at that kind of threshold where the new touches the existing if maybe the almost the
garden the perimeter garden changes. So the garden walls are different like I agree 100%. I was going to go there, so please go. >> Okay. No, because I thought when I see that rendering which is beautiful with the Yeah, exactly. that you have that
condition which is metal and masonry post, but maybe the portion that would enclose the historic house could be lower in nature maybe more solid and then then the wall design changes to correspond to the >> Yeah, that's that's that's a good
observation and yeah, I think that's we're open to easily. That's not and that that's also, you know, that that means the front of the house is a little bit more urban while the rear of the house is a little bit more Yeah. more pastoral or more more garden like
>> and is the edge of the house on the side setback? I mean >> the edge of the house is uh I believe so. >> Well, actually the the bay element here is on the setback. So everything everything else is further back. So
>> it's uh it's more than it's set back more than the required setback. >> Does it may give you the opportunity to start taller and then taper down. >> I'm sorry. The what? It may give you the opportunity to start taller um when you're within the buildable area and
then once you get to the setback to come down to >> a high that's why we create that's why we did this here that we we kind of created a onetory element you know along here >> right >> so that the twotory element isn't wasn't
competing with that one you know on on its Um, so yeah, I I agree with with the comments um so far. I think the wall is going to is going to help a little bit. Um, and I think you need to deal with that anyway because of the pool, right? Because we're on a side street. So, >> uh, right. Yeah. Well, yeah. The area of
the pool. Yes. >> Yeah. And that transition can happen maybe where we were talking before. Uh, I think in terms of parti um, I think it makes a lot of sense. I appreciate you're creating this little courtyard and stepping away and you're stepping away in a one-story volume except that
that link at the top, right? So that's that's a nice moment. Um on this one though, I am a little bit concerned about the height. >> Uh just because this one is a 4 foot difference, right? It's it's a it's a big difference. Um I think maybe
looking at a hip as you were suggesting on on all the the corners of that top roof may help that. Um, I think >> I would be okay actually leaving that gable at the bottom. >> Um, but maybe going to a hip on all the four four ends of that second story
edition. >> At least it speaks more to this to the to the rest of the house and >> well and and and we had designed it with a hip and I was worried that that creating another hip was going to compete with the existing hip on on the on the west. So it's it's always a balancing act of you know what you know
do you and and having done already five of these I know that you know the the the the style in the air mixed hips and gables you know at will. So it's I wasn't worried about it being a sty
stylistically wrong but I do agree with you creating hips will bring this will bring the scale down for sure. >> Yeah. and and that's something we're open to the wall. We're open to the the uh creating more hips. I think it makes
sense. >> Mana, you have a question. >> Yeah, I have a real problem with the height and the the scale. It seems to me it's almost as if the addition that ate the house.
So, and there also seems to be this tension about where is the front facade? Is it along Alexra or is it along South Greenland? So, if you're it seems to me
as if you're changing the orientation of the home, you know, and I I want to see how I'm kind of torn with that. But I I
really think that the scale is just way too high. So I um it's it's not that I object to your design at all. I frankly if it weren't an addition, it'd
be a fabulous uh you know I I like what you're doing. >> You're not going to hurt my feelings. Don't worry. >> But uh These people are getting married like the house and the addition. So, uh
that's um I I'm not comfortable >> with what it is. Um although I like the pieces. >> Right. Well, uh to address your comment of where the furnace um and I don't know if my architect colleagues would would
uh concur. I mean, I think uh um the greenway elevation is also a front. So, you have to treat it like a front. We can't treat that like a side elevation of a regular house because then you'd be uh asking me why is it so massive and why is it lacking fenestration and why
is it you know why isn't it uh you know um why aren't the volumes defined and and I do think that everything we've placed on on that um on that facade feels like a house or garden gardenesque right there's no you know there's a
courtyard even though in this elevation you see you see the the French doors uh there, but you know when you really look at it in real life, you know, those are set back inside a courtyard. So, um there you can see that, you know, the
side of the house is basically uh and in all reality, you know, we could have treated that sideyard as a sideyard and really had more access to it, you know, created, you know, I don't know, uh doors that open up onto it. But the fact that the street is although
even though it's a sideyard and whatnot, but the street does have some prominence to it and there's a little bit of formality to the street. We decided to, you know, anything that faced the street was either a courtyard or an enclosed porch, you know, rather than, you know, uh doors that open up right into the
into the space. So that that's really that was the thinking uh behind the side um side facade. The thing with this is that, you know, it I agree, you know, it's it's a large addition,
you know, but it's, you know, it's a it's a house that's right now underdeveloped. So, it's hard to it's hard to to reconcile, you know, an underdeveloped home with, you know, with with what can be, you know, and I think you guys have done an incredible job of
of uh uh kind of the nuance of how how do you get homeowners to, you know, really invest into the historic properties, but at the same time get the value for the property. Really, that's really what this board is about in my opinion. How do how do you do that in the best possible way, right? Same as a
board of architects. How do we get people to develop in our city with the best possible architecture? So, you know, for me, when when the issues of scale, the size come about, like, you know, oh, you're doubling the house, that never really when I'm at the board,
it never really affects me because what I really want is if you're going to double the house, just make sure it's the best doubling you can do, right? Because those are your rights and that's, you know, you guys have a different purview because you have to protect the existing home. And I understand that. So, um, you know, that
that issue of, you know, you're it's being it's getting so big. You know, to me, it's it signals that it's not working for you guys or it does, you know, there's things that still need to be done. But the actual size of it for me, it just make sure it's the best that it can be, right? because, you know,
that that should be the the end goal for me is how how do you preserve the front of the house, you know, the original house and and get what you can out of the out of the property. So, um, so I do I get your your point and that was our thinking behind, you know, the side
facade is, you know, we need to address greenway like if it was like it was a front. We can't treat it as a as a sideyard. >> So, I hope that's not too long. >> I hope Another comment. >> Miss Alvarez, you have another question.
>> Um, so just listening to the comments, I was wondering um if one option only if if the architect thinks that it's even worth entertaining. Um, so you had that that last uh slide you had up the air the bird's eye view where
you could see it um from above. So bedroom number two. Can Can we get it back up? >> Yeah, that would be good. So, bedroom number two, >> um which is I guess the the part closest to the original house.
Um if and since that the it creates like that cross roof if that one has the opportunity to come down. So, there's a transitioning in ceiling heights. >> Um >> I and I don't I don't know, but I think >> you find that too compromising. I think staff I think staff also mentioned
something about that being a connector piece. I think uh so that may yeah there's a there and that's when that's why I was reacting to that thinking of it as a proof because I did realize that that's where the most tension is where the new meets the old obviously
>> um I don't you know I'm looking thinking of uh strategies to lower to lower the the height. I I don't know that I have to check finished floors. I don't know if creating the new addition out of lower finished floor than the existing house that's you know but to me I think
that looks kind of wonky kind of strange so um because what happens is this is you know again this is unc crawl space so that grows the house two feet right were you going to were you to do a new home you would be doing it you know a foot you know whatever a foot four above
the sidewalk and that's it or whatever the FEMA is but um so in in an effort to keep the finished floor on the first floor at the same level. Then now you're you're uh you're adding, you know, another foot and a half to the to the
height of the house. So, yeah, it's it's a real it's a real issue and and I I know and I we struggle with it and I know you guys struggle with it and and it's and it's a and it's um you know, I'm confident we'll get to a place where
we're all in a good place. So, but and that's why we're here. Thank you very much. That that's always good to hear, you know, and then thank you for your flexibility. >> Okay, Mr. >> Go ahead. >> I just wanted to ask, so with the
exception of condition one, you're in agreement with all the other conditions of staff and now I think I heard you say that you'd be willing to work with staff on condition one. >> Condition one is I'm It's the height, right? >> Oh, I'm sorry. That's the height. There were several other conditions as well. >> Yeah. The only one that I wasn't clear
on is there's a um comment there about adding a window to the west. I think there is a window on the west and I'm not sure >> elevation. Oh yes. Okay. So I had a proposal that
that this wall was blank. Apologize. >> I had one option. >> You had an option without Yeah. >> Yeah. So if you want to highlight it so they could the windows already there. >> Yeah. I think she had a a condition to add a window to the west elevation. >> I don't know. She got an old file again. We
we have worked with staff. >> Ours is blank. >> Huh? Yours is fine? Yeah. I see. Okay. Good. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh yes, those are that was everything else we're we're we're fine with. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> There was something about um the curve
detail. >> Oh, I there's there's a there's a comment about >> Yeah, >> just a black slide. anything >> so Peter
>> uh I think there's a comment about >> about that those details >> so >> yeah go ahead >> can you go back to the A9 or A7 A7 >> so I think that's a good
A8. So I agree with my colleagues that the um the addition that's currently a gable. I think the one that is facing Alamra should definitely be a hip, right? That's going to bring it down.
>> The one that's actually facing >> Greenway I could be a hip or a gable. We've done it both ways, >> but I think the one that's facing Alhamra should definitely >> I agree 100%. >> If you can go back to page A5.
So, one of the concerns that I have and I've heard on the deis is and I love the drawing that says existing proposed and you have a line. You're very clear. So the hip I think would help resolve the second floor, but it's still one long
house, particularly when it's really an existing and a future. And I know that you've created the courtyard to separate them in that physical courtyard is great. >> Um, looking at this sheet though, I had an idea looking at it this morning. The
screen above Oh, you took it off. on the drawing we have in the openings of the porch, you have a sort of pattern. There's a hatching pattern. Uh it's not there anymore, but it's on our set. >> Where where >> on the existing elevation? >> Oh,
>> the rectangles on the screen porch. Ours has a hatch on our drawings and yours doesn't. It doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> To the point. The thought I was having though is what could be interesting is looking at the courtyard that you're creating it does seem kind of not as an
afterthought but not quite all the way thought through and it is accessible from all three rooms. >> Right. I wasn't sure if it was the intention that that be a front access or an exit from the building as some of my board members mentioned, but it would
seem that it's almost competing with the front. >> We Yeah, but that door we can make that uh Yeah. Go ahead. >> Greatly. So, my suggestion is the courtyard is beautiful and the three things that open up into it. Would you consider possibly removing the stair
access out and then creating a screen, a beautiful screen that connects the old house and the new house, go to the elevation A5. So that instead of seeing the back wall of the courtyard, you actually have a a
beautiful screen at the front that really creates this parcana, this sort of shutter uh thing that very clearly defines what is existing versus what is proposed. Unless you really need that access because I don't think you wanted one. It looks like you you're putting it
there. Um and or if you want to you can actually put a door in that screen. >> Yeah. >> But there's something to really physically changing the materiality. There was some question of how is you have a joint, you have a cut and I think the courtyard is great and the tree might actually do it. Peter, I'm not
sure if the landscaping will do it, but I'm sure some sort of a physical screen in the front would separate them in an interesting way. >> Oh, so you have much more privacy. >> So much more privacy >> because that's such a heavily traffic uh
pedestrian area. screen. >> You're talking like just a screen wall without a roof or screen. Yeah. Okay. >> And it wouldn't have to be full. >> We can study that. I mean, it's just so he's saying that eliminate the stairway and then put in some kind of screen does
not have to be the Yeah. to to add to the to your comments. So I think that um um the connector piece here this this >> so we can we can create a a hip roof there and we can try to lower also that so that you know like the other William
Miriam house that was the telescoping house so then this telescopes up so that's a strategy that you know that can help with this and we'd be willing to study that and and that can be a combination of lowering and even right now the the roof is an asymmetrical roof
So that we can even expand on that where one side is, you know, and that helps the architecture of the house uh uh as well. >> So I'm I'm willing to profer that or to to work with staff on that or come back,
whatever you guys want. Um the screen I'm Yeah, I'm willing to to study the screen. Huh? Yeah. And then uh if it's successful, I'm willing to leave it. If not, you guys, you know, >> and I I said screen because I think it
would be cool, but it it doesn't mean like anything that maybe changes the character of that even that back wall where the door is so that it's not the same stucco that this wraps all around. If something happens that very clearly differentiates
>> the courtyard, not just as the opening, which is fantastic. if there's something material materially. >> Yeah. >> Which would be interesting. >> Yeah. I don't know if uh you know replacing the door with windows on that back wall helps to your point of not
worrying about what's the front. You know, I don't know if when you look at that side elevation, you're thinking when you see those doors that >> kind of signals then the aspect of an entry disappears. It's um it it almost
becomes like this private enclave. >> We can we're we'll happily study that. I mean, and we'll we'll set it back so it's not flush with Yeah, obviously. >> Or and I'm looking at the floor plan. Yeah. Right. It's a hallway back there that leads to the powder room, right? So
if that back if that if if you change the character of the back wall from a double door into a hallway if that becomes more of kind of a loia or something that comes across. >> I think that's what you were alluding to like doing just windows all the way across making it more transparent so
that there's a distinction between like masonry wall masonry mall and having more >> something. We we studied that originally as well you we were back and forth. >> Maryman love circular windows. >> Yeah, I know. But do you guys love when
I repeat the circular windows from when it's a it's you know you guys always have us on the ropes. We don't know we don't know which way to turn. >> One one last thing for me it's with the courtyard. It'll be part of the solution. But the repetition of the um
half moon stairs. I I think you should do something else as opposed to redo the front front door. The great room door. >> Choose something else. >> Yeah. You mean for stepping out of the courtyard? >> Either not have it if it just >> not have it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Or just rethink the way it looks.
>> Yeah. That's that's that's not >> speaking to like to the cover steps which are more simple. >> Yeah. That that Yeah, that's for me is >> Yeah. You have to promise that there will be no tail or hump on these plans. >> No. What? I'm sorry.
>> Tail or hump on these plans. >> Made by committee. It's not a true camel. >> No, no, please, please. >> No, it's it's a good effort on a really difficult site and with a very difficult
property to add something to today by today's standards. So, you know, let let us just say that we all feel your pain up here. Yeah. And trying to come up with something that works very well. >> No, no. And I appreciate I appreciate the the attention to to um
to you know to make this you know a better so I'm I'm not u >> we we appreciate your willingness to work with us too let me tell you so that's something uh board is there any further questions here so that we can
close this portion and move to the public hearing at which time I will ask if there's anyone on Zoom If there's anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this hearing none, we're going to close the
public uh hearing and move this back to the board for >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Excellent presentation. >> There was one comment and I wish I would have done it before with number eight from staff with talking about the cur
curly cues. >> Oh, I didn't hear where that landed. So he said he'd be happy to work with people, but I was really thinking what does the board think of staff's recommendation. >> Yeah. I mean, I was thinking it's it's nice for the design. I didn't understand.
>> Number eight. Number eight. >> Number eight is the >> It felt a little out of character because there's no other curved wall or >> swirly design on the rest of the house >> or, you know, maybe it's just a little bit simpler than, you know, it adds some
thickness to it that I don't think is needed, but >> up to you all. >> Anna, is it on Paige? Is it the the little curly cues on top of the on the second floor or at the ground floor? >> On the second uh Can we get the drawings? Can you tell us what sheet it
appears on >> A5 and A6? >> Yeah. What we have is this is retro 20s. >> So there's these little elements here >> that kind of come off and right here on the second floor >> porch.
So it kind of adds a thickness and curved element that doesn't exist in the rest of the house. So it felt out of character. >> You're going too far. >> The house the house is very angular and and this sort of transitional art this these portions here and here. >> Those are 20s
>> and then right and then it imitates it on the back. So it creates kind of like this stepped effect >> simplify. Yeah. >> I think everything else is kind of rectalinear and it would feel more in character with the house. But >> yeah, a little more step sort of more a
little more in that the architectural tradition of the original house I think would be really more appropriate for the for that particular kind of detail. >> Nothing you've said hurts me except that >> of all the things. >> Okay. >> All the things >> we're getting ready for
>> my my scrolls now. Now I will not sleep >> in all honesty. Uh thank you though. >> Okay. We've got a motion that that's percolating. coming. >> So, so I'll make a motion. >> Go for it, Alan. >> Try anyway.
>> Okay, we have a motion on the table here that's coming up. >> Uh, I will make a motion to approve with the conditions noted above with the following u additions or exemptions. Uh so condition number one which was to
work with staff to lower the overall overall height of the addition. Um that one will remain but be edited to include our discussion which meant studying possible hips uh and and still possibly lowering uh some somewhat. Um and then adding all the other
comments would remain as well and adding uh comment number 14 which is to study the the connector piece at the ground floor to possibly be loa with with kind of windows and columns or a screen or or
some sort of difference uh for our discussions. >> And you're keeping item number eight. >> Uh number eight. Um yes. Yes, I'm just checking. Yeah. >> Um so to continue the motion um
motion to approve with the conditions noted above and as just described the design proposal for an addition and alterations to the residence and site work on the property located at 2039 Hamburg Circle um as described in the document and to approve the issuance of
a special certificate of appropriateness for the conditions noted and as described. All right, we have a motion on the table, ladies and gentlemen. Like a second. >> I can second that. I'll second. >> Second by Miss. >> Is it too late for a friendly amendment?
>> Are there any amendments or anything? >> I would I would >> What is it? >> To to uh to incorporate that requirement on the low wall as well to >> So we added that in. I second. >> What was the amendment?
>> So, so we were the the exterior wall which we're looking at was a series of plasters and metal work in between. Um we asked that at the point where the house on on the um greenway elevation where the house transitions from existing to new that it becomes solid
wall which he's going to need anyway to screen the pool that that transition happens at the transition point from. So just to be clear, uh, transparent in the front, solid in the rear, or are you saying the other way? >> I would just say different. You know, >> you were saying >> work with city, work with staff
different condition to reflect the >> Would you pull the site plan up, please? Just real quick. I mean, so you can show the board where that is. >> Could we please have the the plans up again? >> Thank you.
I think it's in the >> So you you want a differentiation happening somewhere around here >> so that the front >> the original front facing Alhhamra is one condition and what comes toward the
back >> and returning to the to the house >> right right >> yeah it's only solid from there to the east >> so these this L would be one and then the extension toward the rear >> would be >> we don't want to design or you work with
but staff >> anything else? >> I accept my own amendment then. >> Perfect. >> I have a second for the for the amendment. Okay. >> Anything else, ladies and gentlemen? If
not, would you please call the role? >> Miss Alvarez. Yes, >> Miss Shield. >> Yes, >> Mr. Garcia Pon. >> Yes, >> Miss Rolando. >> Yes, >> Miss Spain. >> Yes, >> Miss Eert. >> Yes, >> Mr. Silva.
>> Yes. >> Okay, >> Miss Date. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Maxwell? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Motion passes unanimously. I want to thank you. Thank you, Mr. Architect, for great presentation. Thank you very much. We've moved that.
>> Thank you. Thank you and good >> and and thank you for working with the board. It's sincerely appreciated. And by the way, keep preserving William Marryman home >> and I like the curly. I like that. But anyway,
>> okay, Miss Paris, we have old business today. >> Um >> I mean some of us like me are old on here, but uh >> um I don't know if they're old business or they fall into the following categories. whatever we've got. >> Um I just had an update for you to let
you know that um you all recall the city commission had approved um to write a letter to the state regarding the reconstruction of the gondola building um for it to be allowed uh to be uh constructed reconstructed at the near the tennis center. Um they did receive
approval from the state historic preservation office on that light site. So they're working on um moving forward >> to the tennis center. >> Yes. is see if you can get a reconstruction of the William Marryman house that we're going to lose. >> Well, that's not it's neither here nor
there. Um and then the other item I had for you was just an update from Stephanie because I know that we had discussed at the last meeting um putting time limits on presentations and so she'll be working on that. She wasn't here today so she'll um update you all at the next meeting. >> Thank you.
>> That's all I had. >> Our next meeting will be scheduled for the fire and police building. No, it will still be at city hall as of now for February 12th. >> Okay, very good. You'll just let us know when that is. Okay. Is there anything else that any of the board members want to bring up as new business? >> Meetings are going to be
>> all done. You're both >> So, we >> can you just send us when when we're supposed to meet in the future? >> Yes. >> Because my calendar is totally messed up. >> So, the meeting dates and deadlines uh we'll I mean, sorry, the meeting dates were approved at the December hearing. There was an attachment there, but I'll
send we'll send out calendar invites specifically. So, if you have anything on your calendar, just go ahead and delete it because it might just be something that was repeating, >> right? >> Um, for like the third Wednesday or whatever it was, um, because we are going to be moving to the fire and police station, some of the meetings get
a little funky in between because we're kind of having to follow a city commission agenda rather than just being the third Wednesday or the third Thursday. So, um, Eva is going to work on sending out meet calendar invites so that everyone has them on their calendar. Um, and that's based off the
the dates that we provided to you in December. We could recirculate that easily. >> Oh, so the dates that you gave us in >> Yeah, that hasn't changed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, at some point between March and April, it will be when we move to the police station. So, we'll let you know in advance. >> And February, March are the second
Tuesday. So, they're not the third Tuesday. So, next month, the next one or excuse me, Thursdays, >> the 12th in March. One question. This I was going to ask to um the city attorney, but else wait till the next city attorney or the our regular city attorney comes back. Um and it's a
question with regards to timelines um and the process of motions that are approved here at the board once we make them what how do they get recorded? Is there a time limit? Does it go to somebody like what happens to from today
the motions that we made today? What happens next? >> Talking of the approval >> are any motion that we make approval. Yes. Any have 18 months >> full permit? >> Yeah. >> No, that's not the question. >> No, they're saying about when they get reported. >> Yeah. What happens after we make a
motion here? How does it be how does it get codified? Who reviews it? Does it go to commission? Who writes the motion? Who approves the motion? >> So, the letter triggers the uh appeal period. >> Is that the question? >> That's part two of the question.
>> Part two. So once a the board what the staff does after is that we write a a result letter and then we issue a certificate of appropriateness that has all the conditions listed. When the applicant goes to apply for the building permit, ideally they have then satisfied all of those conditions. They'll submit for the building permit, upload a copy
of that letter within the timely manner of uh two it's a it's two years with a year extension and then um it gets reviewed at the staff level and if anything isn't satisfied within those conditions we give you know a rejection of the plan review process and um and
then it comes back to us if for whatever reason none of those conditions are >> okay that's not my question but it is probably maybe >> that's where the letter comes in but you're asking about the actual reporting Ask it again. >> Yes. >> Okay. We make a motion today >> and then somebody writes it down and
then puts it in the minutes. How does how does the final motion get made? Because you heard we didn't say the words verbatim that the that what's going to get written down, >> right? >> So that's where the result letter comes. >> And the result letter, how do is there any timeline requirements on the result letter?
>> No, >> you have to do it within a certain amount of time. So the next time that we see that is in the minutes of the next meeting. >> No, the usually the minutes that you're seeing are is mostly verbatim. What you're It'll be different from what's in
the letter. Ours is kind of simplified. So sometimes if we have if the letters are issu I see what you're saying now, I think. So you want the result letter we'll be using moving forward, we'll use the result letters and the conditions that are codified in the staff's um
sorry in the discussion that we've had today as part of the minutes in the motion. So you want to see that the minutes in the motion is the same as what the COA is going to say. >> Well, I just think >> possibly I just had a question. It wasn't what I want to see is right. >> I was unclear after we make an a motion
that's approved, >> right? >> And then it leaves the board and we never see it again. >> How do we know other than the the the summary meeting summary minutes if the motion is correct? Like there was how I just >> the meeting summary minutes should reflect what your motion is,
>> right? which will be a month later. >> Right? >> My question is >> and that letter of that COA result letter and the COA will have the same language if maybe some alterations in like the verbiage because different people are writing them but it captures what you should be like we're not we
can't change the motion within the result letter. >> So that's my question is if the motion is unclear as sometimes it is up here. >> Yes. >> Somebody's making an interpretation of that motion. >> Yes. and then going forward with it. >> Right? So, >> how does the board know that the
interpretation of the motion is accurate? >> They should be the same. And if you're seeing minutes the following month and saying that's not what I said or that's not what I meant, then we can alter or you know, review the review the m the
meeting minutes and the and the video to make sure. But They should be captured in the same way. >> The what is it? The letter that you said that you wrote >> like a result letter and we issue a certificate of appropriateness has the conditions listed at the >> and the result letter is what what does
that do? Where does it go? >> That this project has been reviewed by the historic preservation board by X day. The the modifications to the building were found to be acceptable. They meet the secretary of interior standards. Um s the board made the motion to approve with the conditions noted below. And then there's a separate
sheet that has the conditions that you know reflect the ones obviously today with the amendments that we made and then they act on that. >> And where does that result letter live? >> That result letters on our drive and and with the property owner mailed to them
or emailed to them. >> Okay. And so the clarity is again sometimes our motions are >> Yep. So if you're Yes. >> And somebody has to synthesize them and they're not always 100% accurate. Right. A lot of times they're really really close and I just wasn't sure if there
was a step where the makers of the motion or the chair or somebody can look at it that's that's not the next meeting minute or excuse me >> and if it matters >> and I know in the past oh sorry finish >> and if it matters because if it if we change if there is a if we see that
there was an error the following month >> the letter that you wrote to something that you can amend >> right >> so you can go back >> yeah as long as within the actual motion that was made that day. Correct. >> If if it was a mistake. >> So the result letter isn't final and it's etched in stone and you can never
look at it again. >> Right. >> If we if we all deem that it needs to be corrected in some way, you can correct it for >> the same way we Yes. >> Thank you. I think that's um it's really important too because I remember a few meetings back I asked to defer
>> and that was because I'd seen that there was a correction that needed to be made on a motion that I had made >> and then I had the opportunity to fix it >> and we could just address it at the following meeting. So I think there's opportunities and the maker of any motion even when it fails should check
it out and just make sure that the language is what they meant. I think even today there will one of the motions was like as discussed like per the discussion had study this like okay so we tried to capture that within the next step but if you see something that you
know we didn't understand you meant a hip here and a gable there then you know we could change that as long as it was within the discussion we'll confirm it the video. >> What is the event that triggers or the the point in time where the
period starts >> today. The motion >> the day. >> Yeah. The action of the board, the day the action is taken. >> And then how long do they have to make the appeal? >> 10 days. >> They have 10 days. >> I have just one question totally off the
subject. Anything new on 1021 Hardy? Um, I have a follow-up meeting actually with the manager on Tuesday to talk about 1021 Hardy and to talk about um 1028 Cotoro which is Mrs. Schmidt that had been coming to the meeting a couple times and I've been in touch with her too. So, we're working on it together.
>> It's next week or it just happened. >> It's it's coming up Tuesday afternoon. Yes. And I I maybe Gus has the information on the the court hearing. The >> pending that we're pending that meeting >> and the a question for you about the
house on Sevilla. >> We're going out there tomorrow at 12:30 because they >> It's a shell. >> Yes. So >> it is. >> So we're going to go meet with the structural engineer, the their structural engineer, our structural engineer, building official, all of our team. >> They've gutted it. Um there's nothing.
>> So they were gutting it. We're going to go make sure that how they've stabilized it is correct. >> Which house? >> 1129 Sevilla. >> We've looked at this for a number of years. We've all been kind of following it.
>> Uh a comment to the board. Um board, we're losing property like nobody's business. I want you to drive around particularly in the core area of the historic the main historic district. Okay. North of Bird, okay? And drive around. I want you to see how many
houses are being torn down. Okay? So, when we come up to things like the William Maryman House in a district that's a contributing structure, we need to begin to look at these and we need to look at them carefully. The vast majority of all the property ever built in Coral Gables was built in the 50s and
and early 60s. And so, we have this ubiquitous number of homes that everybody says, "Oh, that's just normal." But I want you to remember something. When I came here almost 50 years ago, it was, "Oh, those old houses, okay? And now we look at them like they're sacred treasures. So, while
we're going to be losing a lot of these 50 things, we need to be on the lookout for the best examples of what we have left, okay? And to identify them and even bring them up to the to the board, bring them up to the historic preservation officer and to see this.
We're most in danger of losing our 30s and and our 50s houses right now. So, we need to be very careful in looking at that. All right. And so I know we we've brought up a number of things. We've also every time that we've tried to designate one of these and they've gone
forward, we've lost. Okay. One of the things that I I have spoken to several of the commissioners about is we can't compare these houses or any house to any place other than Coral Gable. And that's what's happening. We had an architect
come in here and tell us that at a very historic building at the University of Miami was not historic and his comparisons are the University of Virginia this and that. We can't let that happen. What has to happen is that the designation is based on what is
here, not in the University of Virginia or New York or anywhere else. A local designation is a local designation and it's not comparable to any place else in the country. this place is unique. And so, please keep that in mind as we're going forward because we're under threat
right now. And all I got to tell you is in my neighborhood and and I'm over here by the Granada Circle, there's a dozen houses that have been torn down or are in the process of being torn down within about an eight block eight block by eight block area. It's just boom,
they're going. So, >> but that shouldn't be happening because every des every demolition has to go to the preservation. >> It's happening. that that's what prevents it in this. We have that in the code that says any demolition needs to be reviewed by the preservation center
>> on Planmo between Siggoia and my house on Gran in my apartment on Granada. There are four demolitions that have occurred. Okay. >> And they must have been approved by >> I I understand that. I mean, I'm getting
there, but and then also a large apartment complex that was done in the >> I'm not I'm not disagreeing with you, but there is a process in place that's happening. So, it's not like they're coming in overnight and demolishing things. >> It's all about us taking a look at it and then trying to be advocates for it
as well. So, because we're the advocates, okay, in addition to a quasi judicial board, we need to be talking about what it is that we need to save in our community. And so, that's important. It really is. and I appreciate all of you.
>> I think >> yes. So that's in place and has been ongoing. Um we're meeting with the consultant tomorrow actually to go over the first step. They've already done all the leg work, filled out the Florida master site files, did all the photos, everything. So now we're just talking about how to package it together. Um so
it's able to it's ready to present um hopefully soon within the next month or two. >> And that will go to >> um we'll review it here. will present it here. Um it's just a survey. So it's just you know discussing about what's what's there what's existing. Um and and
then seeing how we study it to take action if we take action how we take action >> and the north pond study is from where >> it included North Ponds and it included the Flagler section as well. So it went beyond Yeah. A street >> and that's from Coral Way all the way up.
>> Uh I believe it's from Aragon not coral way. I'll double check it. It starts behind Coralway. It doesn't start at Corway. >> It started out. >> Yes, it goes all the way across. >> So, do you think it starts on Alaz?
>> I'll I'll I'll confirm the the streets, but we already had it set from the north pond section that was studied with for the zoning. >> You identified all the the commercial buildings as well too, right? >> Yes. It's every structure. Yeah, every structure um within 50 years.
>> Got some great stuff up there, guys. >> So, that'll include some of those more modern or you know, buildings, modern 1950s,60s. I think there's unless the 50s building is in the
district, how are we going to I mean I think and you know uh I remember a time in Miami history when the 1920s buildings were considered
very So there's excuse me >> there's still that attitude towards the 1950s. you I think you're pretty correct and and Miss Peris, you know, I mean, the more that we can do larger historic
districts, we can include things and and that's really a push and speaking to the commissioner that sponsored you is important about those kinds of things. I mean, it's about coming up with money. There's a budget that's going to be coming up, you know, this spring and, you know, these things need to be looked
at. Yeah, we're already talking about they're already talking about scheduling the first budget meetings, staff internal ones beginning in February. >> Yeah. >> So, it's everything got pushed up, I think, by three weeks. >> It's important. You know, historic districts are are
expanding the number of historic districts that we have is is really important and because it captures all of these things as and identifies them in here and it makes the job much easier for the staff, makes it much easier for us and we don't have to expend the cost
of having all these individual designations which we don't necessarily need to have, you know. I mean, the code the code's pretty good. Yes, ma'am. But I also think a big burden should fall to the realtor that are selling these houses so that they know that that some
it it happens all the time that people say, "I didn't know. I didn't know that." You know, and I know you do meet with realtors, don't you? >> Oh, yeah. We get phone calls all the time. And we also call We also get phone calls from home from potential buyers saying, "Oh, so I heard that this could
be demolished." And we immediately tell them, "No, absolutely not. There's a process. I I demolitions. Like Donna said, for every single demolition in the city, the building could be built in 2020, and I'm still reviewing its demolition. So, uh, I' I've gone to there's a realtor's association that has
a yearly meeting that I've gone and that's pretty much the only thing I tell them is that you really need to understand that there's no such thing as a vacant lot in Coral Gables unless if there's a building on it because it needs to come through our office for approval. Um, but you see it all the time or you see phrasing that's a little
tricky, I guess, and they say, "Well, we didn't say it was, you know, a vacant lot, but it's a development opportunity. >> It's Miami. Everything's a development opportunity." Uh, one last thing, and this is for the board. Um, we we spoke previously about limiting the time on on
presentations. Um, is is there sort of a consensus of the board that we would like to limit most presentations a half hour. >> I I don't think that's a good idea. Just throwing it out. I think that particularly for contentious
designations that we don't want to have someone say that this board that they had a lot more to say, but the board denied them the ability to say. But you're only speaking presentation because we're not question I I thought that we had asked Miss Miss
Rockmorton to look into that. Right. >> So, Stephanie was going to be looking at um other municipalities to see if or if that exists. I think there were some concerns like what Donna was saying about limiting that especially in a pause judicial hearing and that's their their evidence for the next step if there is appeal.
>> But I think as long as they know when going going in that they only have a certain number then I'm fine with >> Right. So that's where we whether we adopt something like that that and our policy that's always going to be moving forward for any application. It's not everyone. >> That's correct. I actually did a little
bit of research on this and there are other cities that do have guidelines and do place limits. They're somewhat flexible because to Donna's point, you don't want anybody to be able to go and appeal and say, "Hey, look what they did." >> And I think what'll happen a lot is that if they're not done, they're going to
ask you all for additional time. And then it'll be on you all to say yes or no. And then you come to the place of are we limiting people's discussion when they're not done presenting. So you might have to just take it step by step. But as long as we notify them in advance,
>> that's what Stephanie was going to be returning to guidelines. >> Yeah. And following up from what Miss Brockmore had said last time, you know, it was about developing guidelines in and advising people in advance of the meeting. >> And so that's why I'm sort of, you know, bringing this to the board so that we
can we can begin to move on this and you can think about it. totally agree with you. Uh cannot limit anybody's questions. We'll go on. But we could ask them to mean to to minimize a presentation so it's fair for everybody, >> but it should be on written down in an
application so staff doesn't tell them exactly something that they know in advance. >> And it would also apply to staff. So like staff's presentation wouldn't exceed that time either. >> And it has to be on some document that's online. So it would be all be public to be accessible.
>> All right. So we'll we'll get this we'll pick this up again next month and everything like that. So um any further discussion items >> if not >> but I can't talk about that >> present we have to turn this off now. Okay motion for adjourn
>> motion granted. Okay >> thank you. Now,