here. I don't think she >> Hello. Good evening. Is this one? My wife's birthday is >> not yet. >> Not yet. >> Bring him up. Okay. I I think we're ready. No, not yet. Huh?
>> Can you hear me? Can you hear me? >> Hello. Good evening. >> No, the general here has to activate it. He doesn't activate it. >> That's great. That is really great. Now, all right. Good evening. We're ready to start. I'm going call the
meeting to order. If you all could please silence all your phones. Good evening. This board comprises of seven members. Four members of the board should constitute a quorum and an affirmative vote of four members should be necessary to for any adoption of any
motion. If only four members of the board are present, an applicant may request and be entitled to a continuence to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. If a matter is continued due to a lack of quorum, the chairperson or secretary of the board may set a
special meeting to consider such matter. In the event that four votes are not obtained, an applicant accept in cases of a comprehensive plan amendment may request a continuence or allow the application to proceed to city
commission without a recommendation. Pursuant to resolution 2021-118, the city of Corables has returned to traditional in-person meeting. However, the planning zoning board has established the ability for the public
to provide comments virtually. For those members of the public who are appearing on Zoom and wish to testify, you must be visible to the court reporter to be sworn in. Otherwise, if you speak without being sworn in, your comments
may not be value. Lobist registration disclosure. Any person who acts as a lobbyist must register with the city clerk pursuant to the city of Corable's code. As acting chair, I now officially call the city of
Corable's planning and zoning board meeting of February 11, 2026 to order. The time is 603. Jill, can you please call the role? >> Ignasio Alvarez. >> Alice Bravo.
>> Do we have any requests for absence waiver? >> Have not received any email, sir? >> Okay. Alex Melo >> here. >> Nester Mendez >> here. >> Felix Partardo
>> here. >> Gonzalo Sanabria >> here. >> Robert Behar >> here. Thank you. Notice regarding export communication. Please be advised that this board is a quasi judicial board which requires board members to disclose all expporte
communication and site visits. An exported communication is defined as any contact communication, conversation, correspondent, memorandum, or any other written or verbal communication that takes place outside a public hearing between a member of the public and a
member of the Quasai Judicial Board regarding matter to be heard by the board. If anyone made any contact with a board member regarding an issue before the board, the board member must state on the record the existence of the export communication and the party who
originated the communication. Also, if a board member conducted a site visit specifically related to the case before the board, the board member must also disclose such visit. In either case, the board member must state on the record
whether the export to communication or site visit will affect the board's member ability to impartially consider evidence to be presented regarding the matter. Board members should also state his or her decision will be based on
substantial competent and evident in testimony presented on the record today. Does any board member have such communication or sad visit to disclose at this time? Anybody? Seeing none, we move on.
Sarin, anyone who speaks at this evening must complete the roster on the podium. We ask that you print clearly so that the official record of your name and address will be correct. Now, with the exception of the attorney, all person
physically in the chambers who wish to speak on the any agenda item tonight, please uh this evening, please rise to be sworn in. Just one. Okay. Soon plan participant, I will ask any person wishing to speak on tonight's
agenda item to please open your chat and send a direct message to Jill Menendez stating you would like to speak before the board and include your full name an address. Jill will call you when it's your turn to speak. I ask that you be
concise for the interest of time. Same thing for the pl uh phone platform. After the Zoom platform participants, I will ask the Zoom the forum participant to comment on tonight's agenda. I will also ask to be concise for the interest
of time. At this time, I will ask for the approval of the minutes of December 10, 2025. >> So move call the role, please. Allello, >> yes. >> Lester Mendez, >> yes. Felix,
>> yes. >> Yes. >> Ignasio Alvarez, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. Thank you. The procedure we will use for tonight's agenda, we will first identify the item by M. City attorney. Uh it will be followed by a presentation
by the applicant or agent, presentation by staff. We will open to public comments. first in the chamber, second soup platform, and lastly the phone platform. We will close the public comments. We will have board discussion.
After that, we will entertain a motion and a second. We will have board final comments and then we will take the vote. Before we start, because we're ready to start on the item, before we start, I I already file with the city clerk, Mr.
Attorney. Um I have a conflict for item one and I believe item two. Okay. Which is the for the record it will be it'll be E1
uh E1 E3 and E4. So what I will do is I will recuse myself. I will pass the goble to Mr. Bello so he could share the the meeting tonight >> and I think in in in to in the
transparency that's the best possible scenario. >> Do uh Mr. Chairman do you wish to handle the items that you don't have a conflict? >> Yes. If we could move that forward up to the front would be obviously up to the board but that would be the most
>> make the most sense. Well, do we have a motion? >> I would move that. Yes, sir. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right, let's do that. Then let's bring up item E2. Item E2, an ordinance of the city
commission of Carl Gables, Florida, providing for a text amendment to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending appendix A sight specific zoning regulation section to amend section A-36 craft section to modify building height standards for
bungalow type duplexes by removing the one-story limitation and providing that the maximum building height shall be consistent with the underlying zoning district. providing for repealer provision servability clause codification providing for an effective date I did we swear in witnesses
>> we did yeah >> we did okay we only had one just want to make sure >> item E2 public [clears throat] >> the other Craig I believe is at the podium you Mr. caller, if we could please have the uh PowerPoint uh
presentation brought up. Thank you. All right. The first item tonight is a text amendment. It's uh for a site development or it's a [clears throat] let me go ahead and start over here real quick. It's basically we we did a
detailed analysis of um multiple uh singlestory bungalow duplexes within the code as you can see on the the map here. And uh we just did a detailed analysis and we
found a couple inconsistencies and the one text amendment that we are proposing tonight is for section 8-36 craft section. Could we please go to the next slide? Fortunately, I don't have the clicker here. Thank you. So, if you
take a look at the the slide up above, you'll see these are all of the onestory duplex sections um that are currently within the site specific section of uh appendix A of our zoning code. These are
the sections that we took a look at. Um three of them we found actually had an inconsistency with what was developed there. Now you'll see briefly um A36 the craft section we found that there was
actually a twotory structure that was constructed in 1981 that exceeded Oh appreciate it that exceeded the one-story limit um section or site specific section A-9
Riviera part two uh coincidentally um back in 2003 three. Um an ordinance was passed and it um we actually amended the code there. If I remember correctly, I think it's called Bahama Village is
there now um on the corner of Loretta and Riviera. So, it's multi-story condos. So, those are obviously no longer relevant as well either. And then the third section that we found was A28
uh Coral Bay uh subsection D. It references uh one block, block 28 and two lots and those are actually uh non-existent. So what we're doing, we just we're trying to clean up the code. We're just
trying to clean uh components up and that's that's what this uh exercise has been about. Let me go back here real quick. I'm sorry. We can pull this up. For some reason,
our our point is not working correctly. All right. Well, if you look take a look in the staff report, you'll see that there's a map. That's what I was trying to pull up, a map of actual uh section A36, the craft
section. Um, [clears throat] basically what we did in our analysis is like I stated, we had found out that there's actually two lots right now that have um a multifamily uh development that's currently two stories and is not consistent with the current site
specific of one story. Um to the north side of um the street there, we've got uh Coral Bay uh sorry, Coral Gables uh District Court. We've got a bakery. We've got a cafe uh which are within the
MX uh one and MX3 zoning districts. Over on the east side along Ponadelon uh corridor, we have dental offices, fitness center, uh kitchen and bath retail stores. Over on the west side we have San Sebastian Apartments uh to the
west and then to the south we have single family. So what we're trying to uh do is basically just be consistent with the code. I don't know why our PowerPoint is not working if that'll
I don't know why this is [clears throat] it assistant. Can you guys can everybody read this or no? They probably so simplistically this is what the proposed text amendment is that what we have right here for uh section A-36
craft section uh height of buildings you'll see the crossed out section we want to be consistent with the underlining zoning district which is multifamily MF1 which is currently 25 ft um if you're a
budding any single family district and if you're not a budding single family MF1 has a maximum height of uh 30 ft. [clears throat] So the thing is within this area with the surrounding context of the
neighborhood uh given the list of you know the cardinal directions uh staff feels that since we found a development that was built in 1981 we're going to just try to clean this up and just be consistent with the zoning district.
>> So I'm sorry that we've had a couple problems here with the the PowerPoint tonight, but if you have any questions, staff is here to to discuss. I mean if any board member has a question now or want to wait for a board discussion. >> I have a question.
>> Go ahead >> Craig. I see on the uh craft section graphic that you posted. >> Yes. A on San Sebastian University Drive, a triangle-shaped property that is under the green color
of the proposed change >> and that's the area that has that twostory structure. >> Now see on the south side of San Sebastian and South Seo the single family residence. >> That's correct. >> In yellow.
>> However, if you go eastward parallel to the south side of S Then you see a yellow of single family. It's not consistently drawn. In other words, it's an it's an
irregular looking kind of drawing if you ask me. I don't see the consistency of this. Uh what was the reasoning for not including the north side of San Sebastian and Sal? >> Well, you do that. Can you put it up on the screen what he's talking about?
>> Having a problem doing >> Sure. That makes sense. having a a problem with the PowerPoint for some reason. It's skipping. >> Can we get support to uh to help out here? >> Asking what I'm asking. >> It Yeah, that one right there. >> Well, why don't you point to it? You
just had it. >> Yeah, for some reason it's >> Put it back. There it is. Touch it. >> Yeah. >> Can you guys see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Now, I was referring to a triangle in green, >> right? on and then it being out of
kilter in a way of the yellow going eastward on. >> So that is actually that is not a part of that specific section. So that's that's single family zoning and that's actually not within those lots and within that section of the craft
section. Um we're specifically looking at the bungalow duplex type. These are single family. So, this is specifically lots 1 through 4 of block 38 and lots 1 through 11 of block 39. That's all we're
looking at. And these are the only ones that actually had that onestory height limitation that were tied to them. The ones that you see identified. >> Those uh those uh one in yellow are not duplexes. >> No, those are those are single family. So, they're they're already able to go
to a twotory maximum height. >> Okay. So that's all we're trying to do is just be consistent. At the same time, the single family can already go to two stories and that's what we want to allow is to have the >> I'm satisfied with that answer. Go ahead, M.
>> I've got a couple questions though. Can you put that back up, please? [clears throat] >> Can you put the exhibit back up, please? >> There you go. There we go. Thank you. So just so I understand um bungalows basically one-story
cottages that's the bungalow >> we we don't have a definition of bungalow in our code and we actually >> but we have bung bungalows throughout the house throughout the the entire city on Madrid on I mean you name them you'll see them they're documented in your
historical department. Well, >> if I may. >> No, go ahead. >> I just want to say that we had within this analysis meetings with uh Anna and Cara in historic and also the city architect Juan Reesco
>> um about hey do we have any and I know that we have uh cottages that we have defined but we've never had bungalows defined in a historic component architectural component or within our our zoning code. So I've looked into to
potentially what would be a general definition and it's anywhere between one one and a half and two stories is what and I think I I even scribbled it down here >> there there um anyway there's a perfect example in Madrid of a bungalow and and
the bungalow that's there it's it's one story my question is when you when you get to uh protections of different types of zoning uh when you are abudding or next to certain zonings, you are not allowed
to go high-rise. >> Right. Correct. >> What What is What is the protection with the property immediately to the north of us which is [clears throat] now the courthouse today? As far as this change,
does it manipulate, change, alter any types of protection? because I'm looking at the green, but I'm concerned for the people in yellow, which are the single family, >> right? And that's already in the MF zoning district, it already indicates that if you're abudding a single family,
you can only go to the exact same height of that single family 25 per single family. Now, going to the Coral Gables, >> right, uh courthouse, that's 45, >> for example, on the June where you do have duplexes, right? And then you have
a certain distance. I think it's uh >> 100 feet. >> 100 feet. And and then you cannot go beyond 45 >> 45. >> So I just want to make sure very clear that you're still protecting the single
family homes that are budding from the back on that. >> We are. We are. And the other thing is that the triangular parcel that is there um can can this be developed into anything else but
single family? >> No. So it's multif family one family. So that's that's what this whole area that's identified in green here, right? That's all MF1 currently, >> right? Because the triangular parcel is very truncated uh based on the
>> it is already at a twotory. So that's that's the maximum height they could go at. And we tried to do some research. We found out it was constructed in 1981. But that's why we just we want to kind of get rid of some of these inconsistencies. It's a very minor one. That's really what this is.
>> And no matter where you keeping it at 25 ft, which is consistent with a single family, >> correct? Since it's a budding. >> Yeah. >> And and and my last comment is that for me um any type of alteration of Appendix
A is is always alarming to me. I understand what you're doing here, >> but appendix A was put in for a very specific reason for very specific um restrictions on specific lots. So
I am concerned about that. Making sure that for example frontages that are called out in specific uh properties like the triangular parcel they will tell you that the frontage to the particular uh structure faces this
street or that street. None of that has been changed. Correct. >> No none of that. The only thing that's being um if we could go to the next. The only thing that is being altered at all is this right here, the language. Okay. >> We're crossing out one story and we're just putting with a maximum building
height consistent with the underlining zoning district. >> That's it. City. >> That's all we're doing. >> Thank you. Uh what I'm going to do now is I'm going to open up to the public comments in the chamber. Jill, do we have anybody in the chamber?
David, come on up, please. You were not sworn in. Can we raise your Come on up. Come on forward, please. >> Take a microphone and say your name and address, please.
>> Good evening. My name is David 128 San Sebastian. The reason why I came and when I signed is because that was I couldn't understand the the project. So I'm I'm little bit like you. I was a little bit lost. So I really
want to understand we are talking about two stories. >> Yes. the the the the the way it's going to be changed is only limited to two story 25 ft the same way as a single family behind it. >> Exactly. >> That's that's the limitation. You can't do any more than that.
>> Perfect. And the triangle >> the same thing that whole >> it would be testify to be at the microphone. >> Yep. That's correct. >> Okay. So that's why I came because I
couldn't understand. And I was I didn't know what you was usually when they come they they want to put the rice and everything and then so basically what you want to do you want to clean up and come with a nice >> correct correct >> well no I mean there's existing uh multif family there now
>> so like I said earlier we found two other inconsistent uh sections in the site specifics uh one that had already been cleaned up or had an ordinance associated with it back in 2003 and another that had a block and lot that didn't even exist. So that's all we're
doing is we're going through the code right now just trying to clean up some sections. What we found is 1981 um a a twostory multifamily structure was built in that triangular area. So now it kind of makes that this sight
specific somewhat inconsistent. So we're just trying to bring it in with the existing zoning district. That's all. >> But for just for your information, it's going to be limited to two story 25 ft. That's it. No more nothing more. Well, just to clear that up through the chairman, you mentioned 25 to 30 feet.
What was the >> So, in the MF1 zoning district, if you are not ab budding >> uh single family >> single family, then >> but but in this case, you you're abing single family. You can't go any more than 25. And one one more question. You mentioned to my colleague that bungalow
isn't defined in the code. >> That's correct. >> Should we define it? If that is the direction >> that's I'm just you know would it be prudent to I mean he's he's stating that there are that it is there are examples of bungalows in
>> on the corner of Milan and and Madrid there is a perfect classic example of one of the few bung >> and and I think the board will will instruct you to to do that look into it and come back at some point with a definition. I I just say because I you
know it's a term apparently that is that is used. >> It is >> um and so I think it should be defined. >> Okay. >> And and by the way just for clarification so you understand you.
So um just for clarification um when the cottage ordinance was written to be able to promote new cottages um it was defined etc. they did research and then they wrote it and crafted it around that and then the the cottages probably uh another example
very very different type of animal but I would leave it up to historic to be able to do it and cottages by the way are everywhere in California here everywhere. uh they have very specific uh characteristics and they do exist. So >> So if that's the direction of the board,
we can work with the city architect and you know the historic division to come up with a >> again I I only bring it up is because it's it's a term that was that's used. >> Yeah. But I think it's a good idea. It would be good to to have something. So with no time limit for you to do it, but look into it and come back to us.
Agreed. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We have you post something to do it. I I think this is you you know what the the intent of the board the wish of the board so you could do it at some point. >> We can we can bring bring it up. >> Yep.
>> Thank you. Uh Joe, anybody else on in chamber? Anybody in Zoom? Anybody on phone? >> So then we're going to close the public comments and we're going to bring it back to the board. Um Mr. Sanabra, you want to start board
discussions? I have no comments right now. Okay, Alex, >> I think this clarifies the code. I'm I'm in favor of staff recommendation. >> No comments, >> Mr. Pardo. >> Right. The only the only thing is I hope it doesn't just turn out into another uh
uh road townhouse type of effect from one side of the street to the other. Sometimes they're kind of monotonous. >> Mr. Mendez, >> no comments. Clarification is good. Okay. Do we have a motion? I I have no comments. I'm I'm perfectly fine with
it. Do we have a motion? >> I'll second. >> Jill and a second. We have a motion. A second pause. >> Nester Mendez. >> Yes. >> Felix, >> yes. >> Anabria,
>> yes. >> Ignasio Alvarez, >> Robert Behar, >> yes. Before we go to the next item, uh Alice Bravo is trying to send you an email. Um she's not able to send it to
She sent it to me. She's stuck on a plane coming back from Tallahassee and she's requesting an accident waiver. >> Do we have a motion for >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> I oppose. None. See none. Motion approved. Uh Mr. Caller, can you please read item E5 now, please? Item E5, an ordinance Item E5, an ordinance of the City Commission
of Carl Gables, Florida, providing for text amendment to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending article 5 architecture section five 5-500 roofs to clarify roof design standards,
including the intent to incorporate a combination of pitched and flat roof forms and to establish that roof designs proposed as entirely flat. Require review and approval by the full board of architects to remove
sections 503 and 504 and reumber subsequent sections to delete outdated parapit height provisions in flood hazard districts and providing for repealer provision severability clause codification providing for an effective
date. Item E5 public hearing. All right. This is another text amendment uh planning and zoning board members where we worked uh extensively with the city architect and uh the board of architects on these. Um I'll just go
ahead and read briefly a little bit of the background information [snorts] pursuant to the to the staff report. So as Mr. Collier had indicated this proposed ordinance updates the city's roof design regulations to improve clarity, remove outdated provisions, and
better align this zoning code with contemporary architectural practices and the city's current architectural review process. Historically, Coral Gable's building and zoning regulations have required roof forms and materials consistent with Mediterranean and
similarly harmonious architectural styles, including pitch tile roofs and limited material options. Although flat roofs were gradually permitted over time and modern architectural styles were allowed following the 2007 zoning code
rewrite, certain roof design requirements were not comprehensively updated to reflect that policy shift. As a result, portions of the current roof regulations are outdated when applied to contemporary and modern architectural styles. Uh the proposed text amendments
address these issues by clarifying that highquality roof materials not expressly listed in the code may be approved by the city architect and were applicable. The full board of architects based on architectural style, neighborhood context, and sound structural
principles. and by clarifying paraput standards for flat roofs including the requirement that roof designs proposed as entirely flat be subject to review and approval by the full board of architects. Roof designs remain an
essential component of overall building design and visual compatibility with surrounding development. These proposed tax amendments maintain the city's architectural standards while providing clearer, more consistent guidance for property owners, design professionals,
and all the reviewing bodies. As previously stated, uh we took this ordinance uh with uh corrections from staff and it was uh reviewed and approved on Thursday, January 29th uh by
the board of architects. Um If you have any questions, we have all of the uh subsections uh with strike through and underline that have been uh changed and omitted. Um you have any particular questions, I'm here to answer
them. >> I'm going go ahead now. I'm going open up to the public comment. Anybody Jill from in the chamber? >> Anybody in Zoom? >> No. >> Phone? >> No. >> I'mma close the public comments. I'm
open up to board discussions. Uh Mr. Parter, I'm going start with you and Dan. >> Well, I have certain concerns. I don't understand what the limitations if any exist. Uh for example, single family homes.
Now you can have 100% flat roofs. >> Well, that's not correct. I mean, they they would have to put >> I'm asking I'm not >> They would have to put a proposal in front of the board of architects, >> right? and the board of architects would have to approve that the whole board
>> I I have seen in uh other municipalities um I have seen where there was a theme for the particular um municipality and then all of a sudden
uh these particular type of u incompatible styles started to crop Uh it's it's really a stark um it's a stark contrast and and again I say compatibility
because the use is not the issue. It's it's the variation. You can have variations. You're not copying where it's a cookie cutter type of thing. I think this is um going to
continue to degrade uh the city's architecture. Um, I see it where um in other buildings such as commercial buildings where uh Mediterranean bonuses are awarded to things that are obviously
not Mediterranean in style, look or feel. So I am very concerned. I I think that this is a huge mistake. uh people are going to be uh looking at this in such a way that what were they thinking
kind of uh uh question. So I'm particularly concerned. I think it's a very bad idea. I don't care if it's unanimous depending on who you have on the board. Um and and it's just not
right. So I [snorts] have a real problem with this particular way. There are no limitations. There are no restrictions. It's basically, you know, a full board approval and that's it. >> There are some restrictions, but >> such this was such as, for example, you
don't have a provision of context of the blocks in there that is crucial in just about every city. Miami Beach has it. You name them, many places have them. the the contextual type of differences of design uh have to do with it. It's
not even mentioned in this proposed resolution. >> Well, I I just want to add that in section 5-502, we do actually call out multiple lots and blocks, uh Riviera section, uh the French village, multiple other where
flat fruit flat roofs without a parapit. I mean, there there's multiple components. If you take take a look at the staff report and go through section 5-502. Now granted, I'm in planning and zoning. This has been inspired by the city
architect and the board of architects. That's why we're bringing it in front of you because it is inside of our uh planning and zoning code. But they do actually have quite a few things that aren't being touched uh that talk about different components in here. They call
out certain lots and blocks. Um but um there there is quite a few of existing regulations already there. >> I I think maybe I'm not explaining myself uh correctly. U contextual uh type of presentation to the board
means several homes to the left, several homes to the right across the street. So you understand from scale and and and detail standpoint. It it's not a cookie cutter approach, but many times what I have seen with some of these flat
designs, the incompatibility, it just sticks out like an eyesore. It looks more like a sculpture than than, you know, a particular home. I have a real problem because I don't think it's been addressed properly. Uh, as far as
the contextual type of comparisons that should be written into the code, but right now it's just too willy-nilly. Uh, with all due respect to the city architect, uh, I disagree and and I disagree vehemently, >> Felix. But I mean, I've seen I I don't
do single family, so I have never come across neither. But I've seen at the bore where you have to demonstrate contextually you are compatible. Okay. I mean you're right depending who's the bore.
>> Exactly. And Robert. Okay. The biggest problem I see is that it gets back to the restrictions of the board. I see where the board gets into
uh let's say a particular detail, but they're not looking at the entire vernacular that is being used. And unfortunately, most of what you're talking about here uh tonight staff is is that the binoc the vernacular is
being stripped of a lot of the vocabulary that could be used in a positive way. >> Well, that's there today. Am I not correct? >> That's correct. >> You you you unfortunately in 2007 that was modified where today you
allowed to do it. >> Right. Well, the way that it's being done now is you're freeing that even more. And and I have a real problem with you won't you won't have my support the way it's presented now. if staff would go back and research and do something
different where it becomes more >> limited. >> No, not that's I I don't think that's the right word. the that the criteria for the presentation for the compatibility within the neighborhood and the neighborhoods can change from one to the
other. But sometimes, you know, you you just you just can't think that you're in a in a vacuum. you have to be looking at. I mean, I would [clears throat] I would be very upset if if someone put something that just
didn't go along with the rest of my neighborhood because when I bought there, I was buying into the neighborhood. Now, if you're saying, "Well, this neighborhood is more modern. It has flat roofs. It has this." And I could understand that. In fact, um the
one that we just changed the the height onto the second story, I could see it working there. Why? because it's directly across the street from commercial. It's directly across the street from from flat areas. Do you understand what what I'm saying now? I
think that is a perfect example and it's right in our face. I would like staff to go back basically to the drawing board and and and come up with something that reflects that as an example where people
know what they're getting because it's easy to go in and tear down and then you've just changed that. And it's very sad in the places that I've seen where they all look like an eyesore. And I I'm not saying that is bad architecture. I'm
just saying it just doesn't fit. >> Before then, before we we take that, let let's get other board members to the solver. >> So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's no criteria. So, I could go in front of a board of architect.
>> They say make changes A and B. There's an election, there's a new board, and then they can tell me, no, I'm throwing this out. We're going to go a different. >> So, we have a section five architecture within the zoning code. It's filled with all different kinds of forms of criteria. You want to get specific about
flat roofs, flat roofs, if that's the area that we want to talk about specifically, it's all in front of you in in inside of the staff report and within the ordinance there. It's section 5-502 flat roofs. And like I said, I mean,
it's in the planning and zoning code. we have to bring it in front of you, but this was a recommendation from not only the city architect, but the entirety of the board of architects. So, if there's recommendations or whatever, we can definitely take it back to that board.
And if that's if you have specific recommendations, I I I think my concerns were very specific. We haven't addressed them yet, but I would like staff to be able to address them with the board of architects and and and the city architect because again, it depends on
where you are. There's certain areas that are very different and and it's um very concerning that we're changing many things where these are existing neighborhoods. This is not
a a brand new development here. These are existing neighborhoods with existing homes. And unfortunately, some people, you know, it's it would be great if you're living on certain parts of Miami Beach and and you're using flat
and and you have art deco and you have this and that. I could see that all day. >> I'm I'm just saying that protecting the neighborhoods and the contextual relationship is important. >> And Felix, you're right. I mean to your point some street like Columbus >> 100%.
>> You know I I I could see it there but I any other comments? >> Nester go ahead. >> No no no go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> I'll come to you. Go ahead Nester. So um what's the city's stance right now on
flat roots? I mean what are we really addressing here? side. Are we trying to define >> further define >> further define further define and give more authority and power to not only the city architect but also the board of architects where if it is proposed to be
a flat roof, they know that there is no administrative approvals whatsoever. Any proposed flat roof would have to go in front of the board of architects. >> Is that is that how it is now? >> No. No. Right now, if I remember correctly, I think it's if you have like
a six or eight inch uh slope, that could be considered non-flat. Now, granted, there's other components in here, but we are actually trying to give more authority to the board of architects when they make these decisions. [clears throat]
>> So, ju just to echo Felix's uh concern, I I'm I kind of wholeheartedly support that like it's it's a slippery slope, I think. Um [clears throat] I I I think uh that we you know when looking at somebody's applying to have a
flat roof, you should look at the neighborhood and we don't want to destroy the neighborhood. Um even though you're technically allowed to do it if the board of architects and the city architects give you a thumbs up. Um so that is concern. Um is there any way to
add guard rails? Um, and I I would I'm not an architect, so and I've never served on the board of architects. I think two of my colleagues have. Um, is there any type of guardrails that could be added to maybe uh assuage some of Mr.
Part's concerns or and mine as well? Because again, I I do I do get it that there is that there's there's there's, you know, there's a a certain look and feel to a neighborhood and then somebody comes in, they buy the property, and they put a flat roof, >> and maybe not now, but 20, 30 years, you
have a row of flat roofs because everybody just came in and and bought houses and changed them. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I I do I do share the same concerns and sentiment. Mr. >> I I do agree with Mr. I do think there
should be some sort of criteria. My question is if if this were to pass and they present to the to the board, does the board itself look at the neighboring properties? Is that something that they >> Yes, of course. >> Yeah, they look at every case case by case proposed.
>> Thank you. >> I find something funny here. Fake but variegated. >> Where are you at? I'm sorry. >> I see that under ED. But anyway, it's just uh just a funny phrase.
Someday you'll translate for me. But in the meantime, Craig, what about metal roof? >> What about what? I'm sorry. >> What about metal roofs? >> Metal roof. >> Metal roofs. So, >> yeah, metal roof. >> What? How we treating metal roofs? Yeah, I see some u illusions to copper
materials, but what about metal roofs per se? I mean, I don't understand where >> if you go to section I read it. >> Troops and materials. >> You'll see we have standing scene metal may be used. This is what would be
proposed as the relettered number. K. It's already existing. But all of that >> Well, I'm trying I'm trying to ask a question. >> I don't do architectural reviews for single family houses. >> But I'm trying to ask you a question. What about metal roofs? Are they
approved under this ordinance? Are they have metal rules approved on this ordinance? Yes. >> Like I said, there's already existing within the code now some components standing. >> Some components. Which components? >> Like I said, it's uh section five-
503 pitched roof materials. If you look at this, you'll see a variety of different pitched roof material types A through L. And if if you go through subsection K, standing seam metal may be used on single family homes. This is
already existing. Metal roofs are prohibited within historic districts and shall require the additional approval from the historic preservation board. I mean, there's metal roofs shall not uh imitate other materials and may not be painted. There's there's some
information already here when it's a pitched roof. So, >> my comment is this. Unless there's an extreme urgency to approve this item today for some unforeseen reason that I don't grasp at this time, I think we
should defer it and have it come back to the board. I I I will my comments are the same as as you heard and I think maybe it's prudent that we defer this and come back with a little bit on the metal roof is very specific. I don't think that gets affected because you
cannot put a a metal roof on a flat surface. So that's already pretty much but I think you heard enough from us that I I think that if anybody wants any board member wants to make a motion to like to make a motion to defer the item
today and have and direct staff to please go back and express the very specific uh comments by this uh by the board. >> A second. >> Can can staff just ask clarification real quick? district district analysis
and contextual neighborhood context and then additional criteria is pretty much what I'm hearing. >> I would say pretty much that's that's it and developing a mechanism a mechanism contextual drawings that that provide
maybe the entire blocks on both sides not just on the side of the property but also across the street. And and the other and the other thing is that um in the f in the flat roof component you know this is all encompassing including
commercial building correct highrise >> oh I don't think commercial this is for single family yeah >> only single this is only for single family okay >> now question for city attorney do we have to put a time certain do we need to sense we're going to you know defer it
>> well I think that the this isn't a general general ordinance. So, I don't think we did mailed notice for this. Did we? >> Okay. So, okay. >> I don't think we need a time certain because the the city's going to re. >> So, whenever whenever you're ready, you
could bring it back to us. [snorts] >> Okay. We have a motion, a second. Jill, can you please call the role? >> Felix Partardo? >> Yes. >> Sabria? >> Yes. >> Nasu Alvarez? >> Yes. >> Robert Behar? >> Yes.
>> Alex Bello? Yes, >> Mr. Menendez. >> Yes. Thank you. Now, Mr. Chairman, there was one issue before you leave. Getting back to um the Alice Bravo and the board voting on it. There's been changes to
attendance and there's I don't recall I have this in my head that the board doesn't have the authority to to wave her attendance although she has a very justified reason. She's stuck on a plane. I've tried to reach uh Christina
to see what the position is. So, I know the sentiment of the board has been expressed. I need to get back to Christina how how the process works for things of that nature. So, I just want to advise the board that I'm looking into that.
>> No problem. >> Okay. At this time again, I will recuse myself. Mr. Pel, please. >> Thank you. Mr. Caller, I guess if we could have the next item. >> Okay, so I just want to make sure. Are we on
>> We're on E1. >> E1, right? >> Okay. E1. >> Hang on for just a sec. >> Okay. Item E1, an ordinance of the city commissioner Carl Gables, Florida, approving the vacation of a public alleyway pursuant to zoning code,
article 14, process section 14- 211, abandonment and vacation and city code chapter 62, article 8, vacation abandonment and closure of streets, easements, and alleys by private owners and the city application process
providing for the vacation of the 45 foot wide alley which is approximately 125 ft in length lying between track A and lots 27 through 31 book 156 Rivera section part 8 1250 South
Dixie Highway Carl Gables Florida providing for repealer provision serability clause and providing for an effective date I E1 public hearing >> good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the record, Laura Russo
with offices at 2334 Pon DeLeon Boulevard. I am here this evening representing LCD Acquisitions, Inc., the contract purchaser of the property that most of you will recognize as the University Shopping Center
where Fridays used to be located in the Bagel Emporium. Um that property is bounded by US1 on sort of the northwest side by uh Mariposa Court Mariposa Court and on the south side by Madruga. Uh Madruga being
a very narrow street that for many many years most people were convinced that Madruga was actually an alley behind the the building but it's actually a platted street. Um we are here this evening requesting uh uh to vacate the alley
that is 75 ft wide by 100 no 45 ft wide by 125 ft deep and that it actually starts right at one of the entrances access points into the property and goes
into the property about 125 ft. This mess got created back in 1950. Riv the original Riviera section 8 plat um was replplatted to vacate the alley
that bifurcated um this block as it did in other blocks that abuted US1. the common scenario of of an alley bifurcating and they replanted in 1950 and they vacated what they thought was I guess the whole alley
but there was a portion the upper uh northwest corner of the property was not included in that replant. Um and so the alley is located just south of that portion that was not part of the replant
and um so we are here the shopping center was built in the early 1950s. The alley has not been used by the city for any public purpose. It actually is part of the access way and part of a landscaping median inside the shopping
center surface parking lot. Um, this property will be uh developed under the new city's rapid transit uh overlay ordinance that was created uh in order to combat the rapid transit zone of
Miami Dade County. So, we are here this evening um requesting that this alley be vacated. we meet all the requirements of article 14 uh uh in terms of process and I think if you've taken a look at Miss
Garcia's staff report you will see that it's quite comprehensive and we meet all the public policy uh concerns in the comprehensive plan and um all the requirements of the zoning code. I'm happy to an answer any questions you may
have. Thank you. Um I guess we'll hear from the city staff. >> So we all know where the property is at Mikosa in Madruga in US1. The alley actually sits like stated before um on
parking spaces in a drive by. Um as you remember this board deferred the previous application which consisted of many more requests. Um today we're looking at just one of those requests which is the vacation of this alleyway. As you can see here the alley is just uh
45 ft in in depth and 125 ft wide. And you can see over overlaying a survey. So you can see it mostly is parking as well as part of a drive aisle. This was reviewed many years ago um starting in the DRC back in 2023. This
board deferred this request um with many other requests in um April of 2024. And here we are again with just the request of the alley vacation. Um there's been four no assistance to the property owners. Um property was posted, website was posted,
advertisement was also uh published. Um these this is a map that shows the 1,00 ft radius from the property and staff has reviewed this. I have book works here as well. um to to talk and um answer any questions specifically about
the alley. Um we do recommend approval with conditions, two conditions basically. One um linking this approval to a site plan as approved by the commission at a future date. The second um commission would be um that they would have to start um construction of
the city permitted project within two years of the site plan approval. I said thank you. >> Thank you. Any public comment here in the chamber? >> Not for this item, sir. >> Any on Zoom? >> No. >> And any on the phone? >> No.
>> Let's close public comment. Let's open up to board discussion. Bard, I'll start with you. Um, one question. Has the alley, the area of the alley ever u paid taxes by the president, owner of the
>> Yes, they it's included in their legal description and they pay taxes on the parcel. Yes. That was it. >> Nice to see you, Miss Russo. >> And as the um applicant's attorney, you feel comfortable with this agreement?
>> Excuse me. Do I feel comfortable with >> the agreement that we're doing >> the the two conditions? Yes. We've agreed to the condition. >> Good. Well, it's nice to have you agree and nice to have you in the fold of the Coral Gables as versus the county. So,
welcome home, Miss Russo. Thank you very much for >> No, I have I had nothing to do with the county project in the city as you >> I know that. I know that. I know that. But anyway, I still welcome you and embrace you here in the Gables where you belong. So, thank you, Muso.
>> To the chairman, I have just one question. Um, Mr. Truso what happens if um if your client doesn't comply with one of the two um the >> it reverts I think it revers well if the the application um the vacation becomes
null and void and that is if construction is not started within uh two years from the date this is approved. So this still goes to the commission for two readings. So the approval then takes place like 30 days after that. But in the meantime, the
applicant is working with city staff and the uh site plan is being reviewed by city staff and will go before the city commission. So I am very hopeful that >> I'm sure your plan. >> I have no comments. So let's close board discussion. Have a motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion to uh approve staff recommendations. Did we indicate was there anybody in the room that's >> Yes, >> we did. There was no there was no >> Thank you. >> I'll second please.
>> Yes. >> Alvarez, >> yes. >> Mendez, >> yes. >> Felix, >> Alex, >> yes. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Mr. Cer, can we have the last
item? I think >> Mr. Chairman, I believe that item E3 and E4 are related. >> Is that I just want to confirm that with [clears throat] so um I'm going to read them both in, but I want everybody to
relax because it's going to take me some time to read these. So bear with me. Item E3, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, approving amendments to the text and maps of the city of Carl Gables comprehensive plan pursuant to smallcale
amend procedures section 163.3187 Florida statutes and zoning code article 14 process section 14-213 comprehensive plan Texas and MAC amendments to one modify the required
multif family densities and height to allow higher intensities within the University Station rapid transit district overlay and to allow multifamily high density within the mixeduse overlay districts located within within the University Station
rapid transit district overlay. Two, include additional property 6100 Cavayo Boulevard within the University Station Rapid Transit District overlay on the mixeduse overlay district map. and three, amend the future land use map
from commercial lowrise intensity to multif family high density for lots one and two block five and lots one through three block six river waterway section track K addition to riverier waterway section and lot 8 block 208
river section 14 from multif family low density to multif family high density for lots three and four block five River waterways section from multif family duplex density to multif family low density for lot five block five
and the southern portion of lot 5 block six singer subdivision division from commercial lowrise intensity to multif family medium density for lot 4 block six river waterway section and from
multif family duplex density to multif family medium density for Lot 5- A in the northern portion of block five block six singer sum subdivision providing for a peeler provision providing for servability cost and providing for an
effective date item E4 an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables Florida providing for map and text amendments to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-212
zoning code text and map amendments by one amending article 2 zoning districts section 2-408 University Station rapid transit district overlay to A include amendment excuse me include requirements for multifamily development and provide
regulations for modification and development agreements within the district. B additional property 6100 Caviierro Boulevard to the boundary of the University Station rapid transit district overlay. Two, amending appendix
A, sight specific zoning regulations to remove inconsistent site specifics. Three, amending article 14 process section 14-204 transfer of development rights to expand transfer of development rights TDRs receiving sites within the University
Station rapid transit district o overlay. and four, amend the zoning map from mixeduse 1, MX1 to multifamily 4, MF4 for lots one and two, block five and and lots one through three, block six,
river waterways section track, addition to river Riviera waterways section and lot 8, block 208, Riviera section 14 from multifamily 3 MF3 to multif family 4 MF4. Four for lots three and four,
block five, river area waterway section from multif family one, MF1 to multif family 3 subdivision from mixeduse one MX1 to multif family 2 M MF2 for lots four block six river waterways section and
from multifamily one MF1 to multifamily 2 MF2 for lot 5- and the northern portion of lot five lot Singer subdivision providing for repeal of provision, severability clause, codification, and providing for an
effective date. Items E3 and E4 public hearing. I think in 10 years that I've been with this board, I think those are the longest titles I've ever read. [laughter] >> So, we have a record. >> Good job. So, I have a PowerPoint. Thank
you. Um, so here we are amending the approved university station rapid transit overlay district. So as you know what was adopted uh last month was the university um rapid transit overlay district which was north of Cabayto and
south of of Turin I believe um this is going to is proposed to amend that and to add on uh what's known as the Gables waterway um property um to to cross across the the Mahi Canal over into Salvah.
This is um a quarter of a mile from the University Station and is a view looking north. Um you can see in the yellow is the the property that will be added into the overlay district. So today the future land use map as we
just heard is comprised of many different land uses including commercial lowrise intensity, multif family loan low density and multif family duplex. and the zoning is MX1, MF3 and MF1. So there are four requests uh two uh
first requests are dealing with the comprehensive plan and the last two requests deal with the zoning map and zoning code. The first request is to change the future land use map to amend it to change land uses to be multif family
high density multif family low density and to amend the mixeduse overlay district map to include this as part of the university station or a transit district overlay. The comprehensive plan is proposed to be amended for the multif family medium
density and multif family high density to be a maximum of 125 units per acre. Again, to mimic the uh county's maximum um density for the RTZ. As we all know, this is an attempt to u provide options
for the property owner to stay within the city and not go to the county. So a lot of what we're seeing today is similar substantial um conformance with um the RTZ of the county. So the zonings is the zoning proposed to
change to MF4, MF3 and MF2. And the zoning code text amendments involve many um new standards um related just to multif family development limiting the height to 120 or 150 um with the 10% additional open space which
is consistent with was adopted for the mixeduse standards. The density would be the same at 125 units an acre for the MF4 and MF2 properties. a 10- foot setback on the waterway for all buildings, both multif
family and mixed use. Um, an upper story step back along the waterway across from single family of 25 ft. A 50oot step back when you're budding single family with of course landscape there. >> Um, and then some minor changes
involving um architectural uh changes, landscape and design um to be consistent um with the site plan approval process. um development agreement would be uh reviewed by city staff and then to commission as part of the expedited review process um as allowed with um
this overlay and then some various clarifications. Um the university station as proposed today um would be designated all entirely as a TVR receiving area. I'll get to that in a second. And then um some removal of inconsistent size requirements is also part of the spec amendment the zoning
code. So to compare, we have the RTZ of the county on the left column. The middle column is the overlay mixed use zoning that you should be familiar with. And then on the right side is the proposed as far as the multifamily zoning all within the overlay district.
So it would be the same um expedite review of city staff and city commission. um similar heights of 120 as a maximum height with no additional med bonus just the 150 if they provide an extra 10% of of additional open space
the density will be matched at 125 units an acre F would be capped at 3.5 F with the option to receive TDRs for maximum 4.375 F um the open space will remain the same
at 25% of the blot area would have to be um open space. And then the setbacks would be 10 feet remain the same as any other multif family on the front and on the waterway side as well with the 50 foot landscape um requirement of a setback um when
you're budding single family and duplex. And then additional step back for waterways if you're budding the waterway um if you're across the waterway from single family or duplex. And the uses for multif family would just be residential. It wouldn't include
any commercial uses. The design would remain the same as Median style um would be required. And as we know um the county would if if a project went to a county um the city would not see those impact fees, those building permit fees,
our public places payments. Um, so that would be a difference with the overlay mixeduse zoning and the overlay multif family zoning compared to the county on the left. So this is um kind of showing what we're
trying to avoid which on the left side is the existing RTZ project that's in the station. I believe it's called the cascade. Um not a lot of windows um kind of a harsh um public um realm. And on the on the right side is Coral Gables.
um more landscape um bumpouts, windows and doors facing the streets um more carved buildings. So this is the first hearing for this expansion of the RTS of the rapid transit um overlay district. It has to
go for the first reading and a second reading with the city commission. There was no sent out within 1500 ft of the entire overlay district. Um staff has reviewed this and we believe it to be consistent um with the
comp plan as far as encouraging development near um metro rail and near transit uh corridors. I recommend approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can you go back two slides real fast? >> What is that? >> This is a map that's showing the radius
of the mailing. >> All the properties are >> sorry. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Let's open up the public comment. Anyone in the chamber? >> No one in the chamber, but we do have um
someone on Zoom. One >> I'm I'm trying to. It says I cannot open it because it's disabled by host. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Can you try again, ma'am? >> Okay. Okay. Now, okay, you can see me and
probably my kitty cat who just walked right by the screen. Good evening. I'm Robera Niway. I live at 1236 Apple. Robera, can you wait a moment, please? Can you wait your name? She should be sworn in.
>> Yes, she should be sworn in. Hold on. >> Ma'am, will you please raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give should be the truth or truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I'm Robera Nway, 1236 South
Hamburg Circle 33146. I live less than two blocks from the proposed overlay and I walk mostly. I bike, I drive by um the South Alhamra side on an almost daily basis, us sometimes more than once
a day. And to me, this overlay is the best way to ensure that development harmonizes with the established neighborhood and also to ensure that impact fees are used in such a way that we the residents benefit from the
development in some way. Um please vote yes on these two items and thank you for your time. That's it. >> Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Just sent a message confirming there's no one else wishing to speak.
>> No, no one's raised their hand or sent a message >> and no one on the phone line. >> No. >> Let's close public comment and let's open up the board discussion. Mr. Bard, can I go with you again? >> Sure. >> Thank you. So, if you could go back to the uh
exhibit that shows the overlay distance, how is the overlay distance related to the metro station itself? Did you take the radius from the doors that open or from the furthest point?
>> Sure. So, in GIS there's a point for each property. It's at that point a quarter mile for that point. If if you could look at your exhibit, the one that has the distance the radius distance from the station
itself. >> Mhm. This one. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. So that red point there, >> is that are those the doors going into the station or is that the furthest
southwest corner or edge of that station? >> Well, that's the center that GIS gives you as far as the center of the building. >> Okay. So that is basically where the doors are to go into the station. >> Sure. I mean it's
>> Yes or >> so if you zoom into the building I mean the doors going in there's not really doors there's the openings they >> the entrance to the building >> to the north side of the building >> right so the question then goes that I see it just make it to the
waterway >> to the south side yeah that corner >> so I need to understand the waterway that's shown dashed in the packet that We have uh that would be
I guess maybe the next exhibit on your slides your PowerPoint one more. Okay. So when you look at this after where it says mixed use, if you look at
the future land use map and and you look at the dash line, the radius just just touches the Mahi waterway. Correct. >> Well, on the south side of that where it
abuts US1. Yes. >> Right. So my my question is looking this from a master from a future land use and zoning map adopting I guess this is a compromise
with the county >> right >> okay so can you walk us through the compromise on that particular section that abuts the single family residential going down the waterway >> so as you know the county adopted the
sub zone the subzonecl includes a 30 foot setback when you're within 100 feet of single family. >> The 50 foot >> Well, we're proposing 50 feet. Yes. The county has 30 feet in their zone. >> We're, you know, an additional words are standard >> the width of a a traditional single.
>> Exactly. Yes. So my question is, you know, what what are the people that are immediately south on the Mahi waterway going to be looking at from the closest single family home? A 50ft buffer area. Correct.
>> The buffer will be a a buddy in their property. >> Correct. Or 50 ft. >> Right. >> And then after 50 ft, what do they see or what can they see based on the land use map? In other words, heightwise,
>> as far as height wise, that would be the proposed. >> So that would be the what's determined today is be 120 ft. >> I'm sorry. Can you say that again? >> 120 ft. >> So they have 50 ft of landscaping and
then 120 ft up >> on the Cavayto side. On the South Ambro side, it'd be 77 or 97 ft. >> Okay. Is there any way you don't have a laser pointer? Right. You can't.
>> That would be medium density. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Show us um Alhamra the Alhamra side. >> That's 97 ft. [clears throat] >> That's the buffer area. that little tiny little strip there. The
that's 50 ft at this scale. Okay. And then the lighter brown uh brown or tan or whatever 97 feet. Okay. So, and then after that >> how many feet? 20
>> 100 >> 20 >> and 20 foot. >> Yes. >> And then uh then it's the reverse. You have um a buffer area there which is a little bit larger than the 50 foot. >> That's on the south alhamra side.
>> Yeah. South again just 100 ft of the low density, >> right? >> And then the medium density here. And just so I understand the county comparing that now with the county, can you walk us through exactly what you did
now except saying for example instead of 50 ft it would be 30 feet >> you know and then the heights please. Yeah. The county would be would be here would be 30 feet. >> 30 ft >> as well as here, >> right? >> They don't have a cap. It would just be
um 150 >> the highest building within a quarter mile >> would be >> which is 150. >> 150 >> instead of 97 ft. >> Right. >> And then 120 >> and then 120. >> Right.
>> Through terror. Yes. I and I need to take my time to understand this to make sure we could compare it with the county option versus what uh what the city has negotiated.
>> Okay. >> So >> I have a small >> So on the back and then I'm sorry. So on the back side on the back side going up on the uh property that Miss Russo described.
Okay. There you would also have 50 ft of a buffer landscape buffer abuing the back of the residential on the other side. Correct. >> Where the
where it says commercial lowrise. >> No. That's not single family. It's multif family in the back. >> Correct. But you would have a 50 foot buffer there. Um, >> no, >> there's no buffer, >> right? They're not, it's not a budding single family. It's adjacent to single.
Sorry, it's not a budding or adjacent single family. >> This right here, >> multi family, low density, >> right? So, there's no buffer there. >> Correct. >> And is there any buffer on the corner
there? to the right. The furthest most to the right. >> No, I'm sorry. It's just because we haven't changed that. There is there is a a rear setback along Madruga >> 15 ft. Sorry.
>> Okay. Can you >> It's not part of what's being changed today. It's already adopted. >> Okay. >> So along here >> along there >> along here for these three properties here, >> right? There'll be a 15 foot setback in
the rear ona. 15 feet. 15 >> 15 feet. And what is the height there? >> Also 120. >> 120. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And if it was the county, there'd be zero >> set back there.
>> And what about the height? >> 150. >> Right. >> I say 120, but they had the ability to provide more open space to be able to have the same at 150. 120 is the first I guess base height if they provide more open space an extra
10% open space >> 10% more open space >> then they can have additional 30 ft >> 10% >> yes additional beyond their base requirement so for for multif family the base requirement is 25% they'd provide 35% open space >> okay volutrically
if you were applying the limits of >> what the city has negotiated >> versus what the county would allow allow on the rapid transit uh use.
Have you done any calculations as far as what the square footage of this uh project would be? >> Square footage volumetrically or square footage as far as the ground floor >> volumetrically as far as >> well the county has no limit of >> right. Are we talking about 300,000
square feet? >> I mean it's it's hard to say. It's whatever you can fit within >> 150 ft. They have no F cap and they had no parking requirement. So they can fill that 13 stories with square footage.
>> Okay. So the reason I ask is because you're you're before us here asking for a a >> amendment, >> right? Or an amendment and and then you know we're we're looking at a certain size of project that eventually will be
built. So let's say if it's whatever 300,000 square feet and then if we would use the county's ordinance then it could be 500,000 square ft. So the reason I
ask these questions is because Havo is a very very small street which already has impact from a tremendous amount of development that is there. Um South Alhamra
doesn't have as much as of an impact from tra from additional traffic because they're on the let's say leeward side if you will. So my question is when you look at these changes of the comp plan,
do you ever think about the possibility of requesting a wider rightway to be able to handle the traffic more? Do you ever consider the installation of traffic
signalization to be able to handle the existing issue and then the future issue of that development? >> So the comp plan usually only deals with building height. So building height we do take into account in best case scenario when we don't we're not pinned
into the corner like we are right now for this. Um, we do take in account the the width of the rideway as I'm sure you know. Um, historically George Merrick allowed to have higher bu higher heights on those more streets because you want to create that nice outdoor room with
taller buildings on wider boulevards. >> So, typically we do. This is a unique condition that we're kind of being put in a corner. >> No, I >> I understand that. But what I'm saying is
right now there may be a an opportunity to be able to widen that right away to be able to soften the impact of the additional
square footage that's going in. I understand that we always say well you know with rapid transit the rapid transit line is there and it's going to cure all these traffic issues. We know that it may not necessarily cure all the
traffic issues. So I am asking that question because that is part of the consideration of changing the master plan which is the ceiling of what you're trying to do. So if you the ceiling is based on on the infrastructure that we
provide and that infrastructure that we provide one of the components is is traffic and I understand that US1 is you know at a level F and I get that all day but my question is are are we doing anything to try to alleviate this
situation or is it just going to become um just worse. So that's a first question. So then the second question is we already discussed heights. We discussed buffers
and then we discussed the difference between what the county has. You know that has as their part of their arsenal and what we've been able to negotiate as a city. Were you part of the negotiations? >> Yes. >> Okay. And the city manager I would think
>> of course. Yeah. Was there anyone else from the city? Just the two of you negotiating with >> legal. >> I'm sorry. >> Legal city, >> right? >> Okay. So, were there any uh limitations
or restrictions or conditions that are part of this particular plan, right? and and specifically
to protect um the residents that already live around this area. Could you share that with us? >> Sure. So I mean I think they they the county would want this to uh mimic what they are allowing right now T for T as
we all know F is very important to kind of contain and and keep our development in check. Um so that wasn't as much of a concern with the county. Um, but density, as you can see, was the same. Um, we shared our concern as far as
setbacks, especially on US1, we're required 20 foot setback. um and as well as along the frontage for um multif family and then budding single family that we felt was very important to be able to retain and keep in the city because it's apart from uh any county
development that wouldn't have those kind of setbacks in those important areas along US one with all the traffic and along the the frontage for multif family >> how how many units would they be allowed now with the
Coral Gables plan, if you will, compared to the county plan. How many >> the same density? 125 units an acre. >> The same density. >> Right. >> Right. So >> So the same number of units. >> So number-wise, what what are we talking
about? Acres times 125. >> We can check how many acres there is. I can't remember what the acreage head, but we can check that. >> We talking about, >> you know, 600 units or for 500 units. I know there's a difference between the one and two and threebedroom, right?
>> Yes. If you look at this though, as soon as they went to the county, they would incorporate the entire property extent into the sub zone of the county. Um whereas we're proposing to have those uh reliefs and buffers of the uh multif
family low density next to duplex and single family. So I think the calculation is actually less for Coral Gables than it is for the county. And it's also a receiving site for the addition. But that wouldn't translate to to units >> only F. >> Correct. >> Right. And the [clears throat] amount of
cars that would fit on here would be again not necessarily as many required as normally because of the mass transit that is available within the quarter of a mile. >> Correct. Yes. Where the county has no
requirements for residential. We do have some requirements. We are reducing that substantially. Um, but still there's less requirements of course with the county with a zero requirement. >> And how how much of a commercial uh component is there from a square
footage standpoint? >> They had no minimum. >> I'm sorry. >> They have no minimum with the county. It's just two unit. Two two uses. >> Two uses. >> Right. Okay. >> But we're proposing only multif family. >> Both what you're proposing. >> We're proposing today is only multif family. But what would if they went to
the county they'd have to pro provide some kind of commercial use to meet their standards. >> So it' be a very small component. Most of it would be residential. >> Right. Yes sir. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some
comments too if you don't mind for a while. It's been >> I'm sorry. I was trying to be as thorough as possible. many of the questions. >> Yeah, I think you're asking question for that. I would like to be able. >> Yes.
>> I have a question of the attorney, Craig. When we make a motion, is it going to be separate per E3 and E4? Is it going to be >> Yes. And the voting requirements are different, too. So the comprehensive
plan item uh there needs to be a minimum of four I think and if it's less than four in favor then it's deemed denied
but then it goes on to the board. We had a you call maybe some of you were here actually I don't know if any of you were here but we changed the code so We wanted to make sure that this board determination
even if it's a tie vote would be deemed a denial. So it moves on to the uh city commission with a recommendation of denial if that should be the case.
My question is specifically >> the second item >> the second item would be separately voted again then if it's a tie vote it goes with as a zoning item it goes as no
recommendation >> okay >> or potentially a recommendation of denial if if it >> okay now again >> the question that I pose before you is is there's two items, item E3 and item
E4. >> Yeah. >> So my question to you specifically regarding a motion is can those two items be lumped together on on a motion to approve or they have to be separate
each? >> No, it has to be a separate motion. Okay. Motion on E3 and then a motion on E4. >> Okay. Now another for for staff recommendation and for everybody here to know as far as disclosure is concerned
I see the property owner consent letters and attachment but there is no property owner's name is the attorney for the property owner and I would like this to be in the
future clarified so we know the actual name of the property owner owner or the company. So to avoid any kind of conflict that we don't know we may have, that's one of the potential uh issues that could simply be fixed. So please in
the future when you request a property owner consent letter, have the owner's name in the printed letter. Even though the attorney can still send the letter, but he has to identify who the property owner is. >> Okay.
That's fine. But in this case, I did review the letter >> the attorney who was well known to the city represent represented that he was the uh representing the owner of the property, but we can certainly ask them to include their name.
>> We need to have it and not ask them. >> Although, sorry, Mr. Collier, I I defer with you and I'm allowed to speak as well. >> I defer with you. We don't need to ask them to put it in. We need to have that name available in case there's a
conflict. Could be somebody that some of us may have done business with. So, it's very clear. >> That's a good point. >> requirement that from now on we need a property owner consent letter. It's fine that the attorney signs it on behalf the of the owner, but we need to have a name
of the actual owner and company, etc., not an LLC. That's it. >> Very fair. Thank you, chair. I remember my first meeting this issue came up and we took our rulers and we were going and we were arguing I think I
brought up the question okay and cawedo that's it right and now because it touches a little bit on the land on the corner that whole piece is now covered in RTC or is it that they're going to RTC to add that piece because if I
recall my first meeting it end in a coway >> you did right so this is a proposal to amend that the bound boundary to include that property >> for the county in the county. >> Well, the county right now is is talking with the property owner. We're trying to get ahead of that by amending them to
our RTZ district. >> And when you negotiated with the county, was the property owner part of those negotiations? >> So, he's on board with these changes. >> Yes, he has a consent letter. >> Okay. So, let me ask you this question.
Does the Live Local Act also apply to this property? They could do pretty much They could make a deal with us, go live local and build a monster or go with county RC and build and be worse. [snorts] >> Right. So the property right now is most
of it is zone MX1 which would allow for live local application to apply there. Once they're zoned to be MF4 and MF2 that would no longer today meet the qualifications for live local act application. So basically the decision
for the board is take this or else we're going to look at the pictures on the left. [clears throat] >> Uh Mr. Chair, >> one of the things during that first meeting was that
the county version, in other words, the county version was there, but it was not disclosed to the board members at that time. >> Your first meeting, I'm talking about my first I'm talking about the first meeting on this >> in this case. Now, I think we all
clearly know that we have live local at the state level, >> right? >> The county component and then now the city negotiated. >> So, you're correct. The difference is that now it's been delineated very
carefully and I'm I'm I had the same issue that's why I asked the first question was the radius component whether if it's just touching it's not written that way it's written basically worth the 1500 >> right but now they're saying that they
went back to amend RTC >> because because I think that it's more in that particular project. It's more going from this city one to live local. Is that correct?
>> Not following the >> In other words, the the one on Cabay >> Mhm. The difference there is that getting that particular property owner on board where he's barely, you know, right there
is that he could still exercise live local. >> Sure. Of course. >> And but live local has the double-edged sword that you would have to have affordability as a major component of 40% of the units. >> Yes. They have to comply with all but
without a doubt. without a doubt. >> So basically it's take this or else. >> So I think I think we've touched on a lot of concerns here. All very valid. I I share all the same
concerns that Mr. Partardo, Mr. Saria, Mr. Alvarez um more so on on on on what Mr. Roberts was saying and what I what I was going to talk about was when we were trying to figure out in that meeting how
far um you know the the RTZ would stretch. Um I remember that on the other side on I guess the South Alhamra side of the Mahi Canal it seemed like it maybe touched a point. I don't know I don't even know if it got there. Um but
now we're asked to en encompass it in in our overlay. My concern is is and and I know that that that the developers going to the county and asking for uh u an extension of the RTZ.
Are there any guardrails to stop these extensions to the RTZs? Like that's what I'm I mean like that's what I'm concerned about, right? Because you know >> that was my question, >> right? We sure we can do this one and then you know across the street there's
you know uh more commercial property and then they're we're going to just going to have keep expend expanding the overlay until all of us one in Coral Gables is over RTZ overlay Coral Gables RTZ overlay. So that's my one big
concern. Um, I guess my question is number one, does the owner of the property on the Cavayto side own the property on the South Alhamra side? Is it all one lot? Okay. >> Folio, >> right?
But half of the folio falls into the RTZ, the other half doesn't. So I guess my question is if I have a uh one square meter in the RTZ and I have a thousand square meters is that encomp
does that like just because one square meter of my property is in the RTZ is and it's one folio now it's the whole thing is >> from my understanding they don't require that the entire property be within a quarter mile >> so long as as as a piece of it
>> right and for that reason that's why they have a range within their CBD CDMP the county their comprehensive plan the county >> they have a range >> which is 50 >> which is a little less than a quarter a little bit more than a quarter mile >> but the difference is goes back to live
local >> right >> they would be able to go listen forget about the county >> I agree I agree and I think live local look I I live I live in this area and I and and you know >> hard to develop Right. It's I think it's it's just given the property values here, it's hard to
uh develop live local because of the affordability um the the the 40% affordable housing. I just you can't you can't get the money on the doors. So I you know unless they raise the abil the the amount that the that the developer
can charge per doors like so that's the only way that live local really becomes a little bit more attractive to developers. the possibility is there. >> But the possibility is there and I get it. My my my biggest concern is is is is one dispensation this time and then it's
another time and then it's another time and then the you know the RTZ coral gables overlay is to 57th Avenue, right? And it all started at Denny's so um
I guess there's not much we can do now. Is there that's my biggest concern. Um, you know, I know that the the residents have have come out and and some are against and some are for. Um, but but again, my
biggest concern is is just that that expanding, you know, we do we do it this time and then it's a next time and then it's a next time >> on the on the north on the Yeah. >> It becomes multiolation when you get to
in front of pon that's ps you got restaurants >> that's all covered by our by by the by the our overlay correct >> that's all covered and then you get to pants and then you get to single >> right so uh I'm not so concerned going
to the north but to the south I'm you know it's a commercial district and what are we doing like to safeguard from that because again I I get it this is This this one seems logical because it's it's half of the properties in the in the
overlay, half of it isn't. It's not that big of a dispensation, even though there are single family homes like like Mr. Parter was saying, you know, that that that [snorts] on the Ladywood side of uh South Alhamra, let's call it, um that are going to be less affected as a as as
opposed to the Cavayto side, which is already affected by um by the other project that's there. So, um, again, that's my one concern about just this this this overlay expanding beyond what we've approved what we approved last this year
and last year. >> Well, a couple things just to be clear. We're not ex we're not allowing a property to be taking advantage of the overlay without including their entire property within the overlay district. A quarter mile is just a rule of thumb for walk for a fiveminute walk. That's where the quarter mile comes from. That's
probably why in the in the county CDMP they have a range actual in feet and on and on quarter mile. Um and I think the board probably should expect some expansions with RTZ in the future in the next 20some years,
right? >> Things change. Um South Miami is growing intensely. Um we may need to look at that part of Coral Gables to make sure it's not going to be incorporated into something that we can't have control over. Gotcha. I I just wanted to point out that the
county has from time to time added property with other RTZs and the [snorts] process is a property owner requests a commissioner and the commissioner sponsors an ordinance.
The ordinance goes the public hearing and citizens have the right to speak at those hearings and speak either in favor or an objection and and that's the
process from the county. So unfortunately we don't have quite the control that we would like to have. It's really up to the citizens to to register their concern. >> Yeah, I I understand and I think that
that that was the the issue that we ran into last July when the citizens came here given the when when you know when this was first proposed and I think that the the miscommunication was that this was the wrong forum that this was
already beyond our control. the developer. It was on the I guess on the previous project on the mark that the the the you know this was out of our control and at that point they were dealing with the county but yet the citizen the the the residents of Coral Gables expected
Coral Gables to do something about it and at that point there was kind of a miscommunication which is why I think the board wanted to adopt this overlay but yeah I mean >> I I want to make one other comment
The application is actually by the city on this. The letter that we received from the attorney was a concern that I expressed because the department viewed
this as actually more of a restriction on that property. And in an abundance of caution, we wanted to make sure that that property owner was consenting to what the city wanted to
do. So that's why that letter appeared uh as for the record because we didn't want to do we wanted to make sure if we're doing this that we didn't have somebody come out and say wait a minute you you're making you're taking away
zoning rights from us right so that's how that letter started in the first place they're [snorts] not applicant. They're not seeking to do this. This is something that the city is doing really to try to protect us
>> somewhat. So, I just want to explain what the >> what that original rationale was for that letter, which is a little unusual. You don't typically see that. >> Mr. Based on what you just said and based on your experience in zoning
years, um, were you part of this negotiating team? >> I believe there were other people that were part of the negotiating team that were involved. I will say that this is a great thing. I'm hoping for
the city that we provide an alternative and that we make it attractive for the for the so that we get some kind of control. There's no guarantee obviously, but I think the city is trying to make
it attractive enough for the developer saying, "Hey, you know, it's a lot easier to have hearings here than at the county." So, we can we have more flexibility as far as the
timing and things of that nature. So, we're trying to provide something to encourage them come to the city and and of course with regard to neighbors, I think they're better off having all the elected representatives
actually be within within their area. Whereas, as you know, before the county commission, there's only one commissioner that represents that district. Whereas and the city all the
commissioners are I have one followup. Sorry. I have one followup on the the as far as like the if there's a gap between a property in the RTZ.
Let's say again if the if the the side of the lot is on Cabayto is in the RTZ and the other side isn't, right? Um once you're outside of the RTZ, you're you're you're outside of the RTZ. Is that fair to say
>> for the county sub zone? Very talking with the county. >> Yes. With the county, >> it's in the RTZ radius that they'll incorporate the entire property even though it's straddling the quarter mile. >> I beg to differ for one reason, right?
And that is that for example, there's spacing restrictions that exist in the county, self-s storage buildings, but 00 ft. But says to the building, specifically to the building, not if you
you have to touch the property. It's it's a very defined separation between those points. But still, I don't think that's what the argument tonight is about. This
is a game of chicken. And this is a game of chicken of What do you want it to be? And right now the 800 lb gorilla on the other property is not the rapid transit component of
it. It's the live local pack. Now there are negatives to the live local pack and that is that there's a perception that if you're trying to build apartments that are very exclusive etc. 40% of them have to have a certain thing. So they
can that investor will have to take it on the chin for 30 years and then after 30 years then then they can market it any way they want. So not only do you have to meet the the
revenue amounts or the limitation of that rent, but when you're in areas such as Coral Gables, it's extremely high, but it's still very to justify compared to you know higher end type of thing. So that's the negative. The key question
here is is this the best deal we can get basically for that. >> See I thought the 800 lb gorilla you were referencing was the county. >> Right. >> Correct. Because I I I think at the end of the day you know what you're looking at is to try to
mitigate the impact on the residential areas. I think that ship has sailed in in many respect as far as traffic and congestion and that type of thing. None of them are positive. >> So there's no plan development right
now. This is just to get ahead of it. >> Yeah. Being proactive I think at this point. So when there is a development, >> they have an op they have an option to come with the city instead of go to the >> and the and the positive and the
positive is what you're trying to do is say okay you could go live local and build this you're going to be building 40%. Or a lower thing. So there is an incentive >> and the same thing or you can come with us and deal with us instead of having to deal with the county. I have one
question. Uh I guess on uh how many live local buildings are in corables? >> Zero. I think >> how many >> live local >> live local >> how many buildings have been Jennifer? I don't think there's been a live local application within the uh city of Carl
Gables yet. Have you seen >> ever since live local was >> Oh, there's one in a street. Correct. Y >> there is one on H Street, right? >> Yeah. >> H Street and >> and Pon. >> Yeah, like Yeah. >> Yeah. between. >> Okay. And that's the only one, >> right,
>> Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> One thing that we are not haven't mentioned yet even though we have mentioned a lot of very valuable information
is that we have jurisdiction over the Mahi Canal. That's a city's purview. Would you confirm that, Jennifer? >> Yeah, we do. >> Okay. That's an important factor in the influencing of this development
for everybody to know. That is a little bit of a leverage on this. Now, darn if you do, darn if you don't. If we don't do anything and let the
county RTC take over, which it can and they will because I have worked, like I said before, that's closed on three other RTC properties outside of the city of Coral Gable. Even now, as I speak to you, I'm still working the final details on one. And I
can tell you the county likes to have total control of this development. Total control. They don't want to give anything away to any city. So, we're lucky that we are at this stage what we
have in hand. It may not be a perfect baby, but it's our baby in the sense that we have some jurisdiction on the Mahan now and we should approve this so we can go forward. If we don't do anything and
complain about density, complain about traffic, complain about this, complain about that, we're going to be powerless to do anything because the county overrules our situation because of the RTC 1500 feet diameter. So, I'd like to
move forward with this as being a viable option, an alternative even though even though it's not body's best taste, but it's the best that we can do. So, when I'm when you're ready, >> any [clears throat] more board discussion?
>> I I have another point. >> The site plan approval process, Jennifer. How how much influence can there be on the on the site plan approval process specifically
to create more of a buffer at site plan approval and making sure that you know the certain components of the site plan will
will try to uh mitigate the negative impact from the building itself or the buildings themselves. >> So the site plan approval is going to be public hearing um unlike the county. The county doesn't require public hearing for the site plan approvals for these kinds of projects. But this will go to
the straight to the commission from from staff of the commission as a public hearing with mail notice. The neighbors be able to come in and weigh in on their um concerns and and their opinions to be able to heard by the commission. >> So that goes back to what Mr.
Hussein as far as being able to >> as perview >> exactly [clears throat] which which includes all sorts of things. >> Yes, sir. >> That's correct. >> Can Can we have a fivem minute break?
>> Absolutely. >> We would just make a motion now, please. >> I'll I'll move to approve. >> I move to approve. >> Okay. >> I move to Let's I move to approve. >> No, I moved it before you and that's fine. >> Only these two items >> on E3.
>> It's got to be done one at a time. Correct. >> Right. Let's let's we need a motion to approve on E3 in accordance with the department recommendations. >> I make I make I so >> we make co motion to approve. Stop jumping the gun. Okay, Nester. Let's
let's all do the uh the proper thing. We have a motion and a second. >> Thank you. No, no, he can motion. We need a second, >> Mr. Second. >> On E3 as per the city's recommendation. >> Discussion. >> Oh, discussion. Yes, discussion.
>> I asked about the amount of units. >> Yes, I have that. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so with the county's RTZ, they would apply the same regulation to the entire property, which is 4.8 acres. um at 125 units an acre would be 600 units. The
whole property had the same zoning regulations. >> That's that's including the projects that have already been developed. >> No, no, that's that's just for the amendment that we're doing today. >> Okay. >> Right. along Cayto and Salahhamra >> 600 >> um with the city's um kind of the tier
effect of the higher intensity and density being towards US1 and then um transitioning down as you go south like single family and duplex um would total up to be 300 sorry 537 more or less units per acre sorry units total units
total >> I got a little confused >> yes >> six what >> 600 units with the RTZ Right. >> And then 537 units with the city because of the of the change in the density as it tears down.
>> So you're looking at about a 15% reduction in >> a com. >> For E1, we have a motion made by Mr. Sanavia, second by uh Mr. Fernandez. Is that correct? >> No. Mr. Alberts.
>> Mr. Albert. Sorry. Okay. Ignasio Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Alex. >> Yes. >> Nester Mendez. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gonzalo Sanabria. >> Yes. >> We have a motion on E4.
>> Five. >> I mean five. Is it four or five? >> Four. >> Oh, wait a minute. I made a mistake. Did I I said E3? It was E4 that that was right. >> Yes. >> So, we have another >> So, we No, I think we just look what it
says there. E3 and E4 are the ones that we're voting on. E5 is the another one that's unrelated. >> You're right. E3. E4. >> I'm right. >> Voted on E3. We vote on E3. We vote on E3. That was correct. >> We have a motion on E4. >> This is E4. We have >> I second the motion.
>> My confusion. Sorry. >> I'm sorry. Who made the motion for E4? made the motion and the second. Any final comments? Please. >> Nester Mendez, >> yes. >> Felix Partardo, >> yes.
>> Gonzalez, >> yes. >> Ignasio Alvarez, >> yes. >> Alex Bello, >> yes. >> Done in accordance with department regul recommendations. Correct. On that item,
correct? Mr. Chairman, whenever you're ready. >> I think we have a >> if we have a discussion item when when when that comes up, let me know. >> All we have is >> discussion items. >> Discussion items.
>> I don't There's no discussion items. >> Mr. Chairman, on the discussion item, I'd like the board uh staff and the and the attorney to clarify and specify when is the next board election for chair and vice chair.
At the next meeting, I'd like to have that information clarified for all our sakes of information. >> I think we also have a needs to restroom. So >> either we adjourn or we >> I motion. Motion.
>> I >> tried. I tried. Mr. Part [laughter]