okay Alex because you mean that test test try this try this try this [Music] meeting hello hello hello hello okay can someone speak into the mic for
me please hello okay thank you test test testing okay can someone speak into the mic again hello
okay sorry let's give it one more test test test no hey everyone thank you for your patience we're reaching out to it now to figure out the echo situation thank you so much hey everyone can I get another mic check
please thank you mike is checking the mic gentlemen I Three cultural things all right Michael I gota All right everyone thank you again for your patience um we're trying to figure
this out anna did you mute yourself the audio on my computer is not joined hello hello hello this This is a mic check for the control room this is a mic check one
two three four five six seven eight nine 10 mic check one two one two three one two three four one two three four five six
seven eight there we go 910 this is a mic check this is No go back sorry guys all right hello this is a mic check one two three four five six seven
eight nine 10 okay maybe it's just like a slight delay too with like the captions okay yeah [Music] hello four
five six seven eight we hear the audio it's very loud no no it's It's less echoey i'm just a little loud but yeah no I don't I don't hear an
echo i think I'm just loud do you want me two here testing i got nothing here oh wait hello is this working normal normal
hello delay i don't know is this fine everybody are we okay with this close our eyes well now we hear you and the a little recording in progress
let's see what we can do it's a little delayed pretend we're in an Italian movie i'm going to call the meeting to order this is a little funky welcome to the regularly scheduled We we need
assistance this isn't working and the screen is not working either it can come down again microphone recording stopped audio check audio check two audio check three
just let him alex that sounds good on our end wolf audio check 2 3 4 Audio check five six Mr maxwell do you want to try your microphone
hello hello none of them would be on right don't worry we can check audio two three four at the other guy was the same trying the microphone again it's not on trying the microphone again
space two Audio check two audio check three four two four can you hear it i can't okay you need to bring it you need to bring up the volume in here so the folks out there can hear audio check two three
okay that's how I was going to test mi Mr maxwell did you try your microphone again i'm trying my microphone again speak up let's speak up a little bit help the
microphone work i'm speaking in a normal tone well I can yell if you want me to remember you're Anglo that's what I need the I need the Cuban out of you hello hello
audio check two three four we're getting closer excuse me audio check two three four audio three four five six
seven audio 8 and whatever they're broadcasting is also very meeting oh the cure microphone test one two microphone test one two three microphone test one two
audio check two three four audio check five six bring it up a little bit more seven 8 9 Yeah
audio check three four microphone check one two three one two three test testing test testing test one four one two three okay ladies and gentlemen let's take our
seats and uh call the meeting to order recording in progress apologize for the delay technology you know I'm I still think pin bar drafting is is just state-of-the-art
oh yeah that Okay good afternoon welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city of Coral Gable's Historic Preservation Board we are residents of Coral Gables in charge with the preservation and protection of historic or architecturally worthy buildings structures sites neighborhoods
and artifacts which impart a distinctive historical heritage of the city the board is comprised of nine members seven of whom are appointed by the commission one by the city manager and the ninth members selected by the board and confirmed by the commission five members of the board constitute a quorum and
five affirmative votes are necessary for the adoption of any motion any person who acts as a lobbyist pursuant to the city of Coral Gable's Ordinance 2006-11 must register with the city clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities or presentations before the
city staff boards committees and/or the city commission a copy of the ordinance is available in the office of the city clerk failure to register and provide proof of registration shall prohibit your ability to present to the Historic Preservation Board on applications under
consideration this afternoon lobbyist is defined as an individual corporation partnership or other legal entity employed or retained whether paid or not by a principal who seeks to encourage the approval disapproval adoption repeal passage defeat or
modification of any ordinance resolution action or decision of any city commissioner b an action decision recommendation of the city manager any city board or committee including but not limited to quasi judicial advisory
board trust authority or council or any action decision or recommendation of city personnel during the time period of the entire decision-making process on the action decision or recommendation which foreseeably will be heard or reviewed by
the city commission or a city board or committee including but not limited to Quasi Judicial Advisory Board trust authority or council presentations made to this board are subject to the city's false claim ordinance chapter 39 of the
city of Coral Gable city code i now officially call the Hang on where am I here march the 10th i now officially call the city of Coral Gable's Historic Preservation Board
meeting of April 10th to order the time is 4:40 present today are on my left Mr alejandro Silva Mrs peggy Rolando and Marlon Ever on my right are Cesar
Garcia Donna Spain Miss Anna Alvarez and Mr javier Dano the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the meeting held on uh March 13th are there any changes or corrections we did receive some corrections from um
Mr garcia Pon and those were made to the minutes uh Mr there was a an error where it said that u Mr durana had abstained from the designation but it was actually for the advorum so that was corrected and also that she um miss um Alvarez had
abstained from the designation which was accurate only because she was not present for the hearing of the report okay are there any other changes or corrections hearing none motion to approve the minutes please
i move to approve the minutes second okay motion second all in favor i got it okay let's get this done here notice regarding exparte
communications please be advised that this board is a quasi judicial board and the items on the agenda are excuse me quasi judicial in nature which requires board members to disclose all exparte communications an exparte communication is defined as any contact
communication conversation correspondence memorandum or other verbal or written communication that takes place outside a public hearing between a member of the public and a member of the quasi judicial board regarding matters to be heard by the quasi judicial board if anyone has made
any contact with a board member when the issue comes before the board the member must state on the record the existence of the exparte communication the party who originated the communication and whether the communication will affect the board member's ability to impartially consider the evidence to be
presented regarding the matter deferrals are there any deferrals yes there is a deferral um case file COA SP 2025007 for 3920 Durango Street will be
deferred to the next meeting in May so noted okay if any persons in the audience will be testifying today please rise to be sworn in in other words all those people that will be making any presentations so if either one of you wish to speak
please rise and um and so state thank you anybody on Zoom will raise i do thank you okay we're all sworn in at this time okay we're going to go to the first case
file here which um 2020 258842 is Oh I'm sorry we're on the wrong one case case file LDH 2025001 consideration of the local historic designation of the property at
320 Romano Avenue legally described as lots 12 13 and 14 block 8 Coral Gables Coconut Grove section part one according to the plat plat book 14 page 25 records Miami Dade is there anyone with any exparte
communication on the board with this item Okay hearing none staff and hello good afternoon can you hear me this is Elizabeth B guan historic preservation coordinator the following
presentation is a brief summary of the historic designation report prepared by staff you could unmute Elizabeth yeah she's not muted right now you know being hearing impaired I can still understand her because I can read lips try again does lip reading count
um for the record if we could just have Elizabeth Gwyn if you could just confirm that the presentation that's about to play is um a summary of the report provided by city staff with a nod of your head yes ma'am on the screen yes thank you and this is your it's sworn
testimony from staff so we can proceed with the presentation thank you thank you thank you Elizabeth the property at 320 Romano Avenue is before you for consideration for design as a local historic landmark the
designation application was submitted elizabeth is speaking but we cannot hear her cgtv we need your help with Elizabeth's audio okay are we though the property at 320 Romano Avenue was
before you for consideration for designation as a local historic landmark the designation application was submitted by the owner as per article 8 section 8-103 of the Coral Gable zoning code criteria for designation a local historic landmark
must have significant character interest or value as part of the historical cultural archaeological aesthetic or architectural heritage of the city state or nation for designation a property must meet one of the criteria outlined in the code 320 Romano Avenue is
eligible as a local historic landmark based on three criteria historical cultural significance criteria four it exemplifies the historical cultural political economic or social trends of the community architectural significance
criteria one it portrays the environment and era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural style in criteria two it embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period or method of
construction 320 Romano Avenue is in the Coral Gables Coconut Grove section south of the San Sebastian between Saledo Street and Pon Dillion Boulevard it sits on an interior 75 ft by 100 ft lot the property contains a single family
residence and a detached singlecar garage constructed in 1925 both have had no additions and have retained their original massing style and character for the past 100 years coral Gables was originally conceived as
a Miami suburb and attracted investors from across the nation during the South Florida real estate boom of the 1920s founder George Merrick drew from the garden city and city beautiful movements of the 19th and early 20th century to create his vision for a fully
conceived Mediterraneanpired city coral Gables is recognized as one of the first modern plan communities in the United States coral Gable's developmental history is divided into three major historical periods the construction of the home at
320 Romano Avenue occurred during this initial phase simultaneous to the incorporation of the city and it is representative of Merrick's vision nationally acclaimed landscape architect Frank Button drew for the first comprehensive maps of Coral Gables in
1921 and 22 one of which is on the left of this slide throughout the early 1920s Merritt continued to reinvest earnings in public amenities and land acquisition by late 1924 he had acquired large amounts of land to the north and
east and was expanding to the south as seen here in the 1925 map on the right 320 Romano Avenue was constructed in the newly acquired Coconut Grove section whose location is pointed out in the bottom corner of the 1925
map the unbridled Florida land boom with its influx of new residents and winter visitors resulted in a dire housing shortage in South Florida by the mid1 1920s as Coral Gables grew exponentially so did its workforce and the construction
of homes in Coral Gables could not keep pace this coupled with the acute housing shortage in the region presented a challenge which by 1925 Merrick tried to meet head on in planning Coral Gables merrick was particularly dedicated to the Garden
City precept of building a socially mixed community where people of various socioeconomic levels could live side by side as part of a whole in 1925 Merrick determinally sought to address the housing shortage and provide workingclass families with well-
constructed aesthetically pleasing options he started by providing temporary housing for his employees in the form of the tent city as seen in the photo in the upper right he then went on to solicit 10 apartment buildings in the Douglas section to
provide housing for 128 families he commissioned the San Sebastian Apartment Hotel to provide apartments for his employees merrick also wanted to provide the option of single family homes he platted the Coconut Grove section just south of the San Sebastian site with
smaller lots as seen here on the right for residences affordable to working families the home at 320 Romano Avenue whose location is shown here by the red arrow was amongst the homes built in accordance with Merrick's vision merrick and his team felt that
Mediterranean architecture harmonized with South Florida's climate and lifestyle the architecture constructed during the initial period of development combined elements commonly used in Spanish Morris and Italian architecture and has come to be known as the Mediterranean Revival
Style during the 1920s structures and amenities in Coral Gables were built almost exclusively in this style the home at 320 Romano Avenue exemplifies the Mediterranean ideals championed by Merik it was designed by H george Frink a member of Merik's
original design team who was in large part responsible for how the Mediterranean revival style evolved in Coral Gables the home at 320 Romano Avenue has numerous character-defining features of the style notably the varied roofs with
barrel tile and parapits the textured stuckco cladding the squat entry tower the belfry inspired chimney the arch front porch bay wing walls grouped round vents and
the applied decorative features of the rondelle door surround and raised molding the single family residence is construct of masonry units over a crawl space and is clad with textured stucco finish the one-story home is rectangular in plan
with approximately 1530 ft of living space architect H george Frink designed this in Mediterranean Revival style with two bedrooms a rear sleeping porch a small screened back porch and a screened front entry porch that ran the full
length of the street facade the screen porches are now all enclosed for living space the primary living space is under a flat roof with simple parapits the street facing pitched roofs of the original front porch are clad in
two-piece barrel tile the fenistration of the home varies in size and configuration centered above most openings are decoratively arranged round vents the windows are recessed with protecting sills and were originally
casement in type the current single hung windows were installed in 2008 some of the window openings were slightly reduced in size at unknown date however the original sizes are obvious as the sills remained extant and the stucco textures are different and the
infills attempted to retain the original recess hence the original overall fenestration pattern of the home is retained the symmetrical front facade is comprised of a protruding bay at the center rises a squat one and a halfstory rectangular entry tower with the
pyramidal roof flanking the entry tower are one-story bays under matching shed roofs each with a large front-facing and side-facing shallow segmental arched openings wing walls extend from the front quarters giving the small home a
larger street presence the wing walls of differing design flare out in a buttresslike manner the ornamentation of the front facade is restrained and focuses attention on the entry tower a raised string course molding wraps around the
tower at the height of the parapit coping behind it above the molding are a line of three decoratively arranged round vents centered on each tower face below the molding on the front facade is an applied masonry rondelle
the front entry arch is framed by a simple smooth face surround originally the front bay was a fulllength screen porch the circa 1940 historic photo shows the spindle railing and the spindle post ensembles found in
each of the arched openings as well as the unique screen and spindle entry door historic photos indicate that by 1980 the spindle features were removed and the porch enclosed by 2008 the height of the arched openings was reduced but the
projecting sills are retained so the original size is still easily discerned as seen in this 1926 historic photo the home was built with the vehicular arch feature as documented in the 1940 historic photo this feature did
not last long it may have been damaged in the fierce September 1926 hurricane or by one of the two substantial hurricanes that occurred in 1930 when the feature was removed a portion was left in place and repurposed
as another buttress inspired wing wall one of the hallmark features of the home is the distinctive bell tower inspired chimney that rises along the west facade of the home the gently narrowing protruding chimney stack with its rectangular opening and barrel tile
cap are reminiscent of a Spanish mission belfry like the entry tower the chimney is capped by a pyramidal roof the 1926 historic photo shows that originally this feature also had a protruding molding wrapping around the
stack just below the openings the east and west side facads maintain the original penistration openings with their associated protruding sills and decorative round vents above the parapit height steps down slightly at approximately the center of the
facade the recess bay at the southwest corner of the home was originally a small screen back porch windows on the rear facade in this area were enclosed post 2008 their locations are evident due to the difference between the infill and the
original stucco textures at the southeast corner of the home was the original screen sleeping porch a 1937 rental ad mentions the sleeping porch but by 1957 the home is advertised as a three-bedroom home which
may indicate the enclosing of this porch occurred pre957 as you can see here in the photo at the top the large screened openings on both the rear and the east side facade were slightly reduced to accommodate
windows the recess projecting sills were retained and hence the size of the original opening is evident centered along the rear property line is the original detached garage the one-story structure like the house has a flat roof with
parapits the texture stuckle cladding matches that of the home a screen porch is currently attached to the east facade of the garage in the Coconut Grove section there were very few homes built after 1928 until the early 1940s
the blue boxes mark the sites of the pre-1935 single family homes most of these were permitted prior to the September 1926 hurricane this image coupled with the 1938 aerial photograph provides a sense
of how quickly Merrick developed the Coconut Grove section most of these homes were built over the 18month period prior to the hurricane it should be noted that when the construction of single family homes resumed in Coral Gables after the depression era there was a distinct
departure from the ornamented and picturesque Mediterranean revival style that had dominated the city's landscape since its inception the newer homes embrace contemporary modern styles the home at 320 Romano Avenue is one of the remaining single family
residences built during the 1920s per Merrick's vision hence the property at 320 Romano Avenue exemplifies the historical cultural political economic and social trends of the initial developmental history of the community
in conclusion constructed in 1925 the single family home at 320 Romano Avenue has retained its historic integrity and context for 100 years and it significantly contributes to the historic fabric of the city of Coral Gables it was one of the earliest homes
built in the city and it stands as a testament to founder George Merrick's vision for Coral Gables designed in the Mediterranean Revival style by architect H george Frink a member of Merrick's original design team it exemplifies the early development of
the history and the Mediterranean inspired archetype upon which Coral Gables was founded it also represents Merrick's use of the Garden City precepts and his dedication to providing affordable highquality and aesthetically pleasing housing
this home was one of a series of moderately affordable homes built in the Coconut Grove section merrick platted this section in March 1925 with the intention of it being an area in which his employees and other working families could build their
homes 320 Romano Avenue was one of the first of these homes the property at 320 Romano Avenue is part of a collection of quality buildings that serves as a visible reminder of the history and the cultural heritage of the city and staff
recommends approval of the local historic designation of the property at 320 Romano Avenue based on its historical cultural and architectural significance thank you is there anyone in the audience wishes
to speak in favor of this at this time or make a presentation okay anybody any questions of staff hearing none okay we'll then close anybody on Zoom uhhuh there you are hi um I don't think anyone's on Zoom the
owner might be on Zoom we're not sure um but I just wanted to say as this property is celebrating its centennial um this was brought to us by the owner just to ask for the designation and so we want to thank them for for bringing it forward to us to bring to you yes thank you owner for bringing this
property forward it's beautiful okay if there's nobody else we'll close the public portion of the hearing and any discussion hearing none i'd like to um move for a motion please for acceptance
mr silva sure um I I believe that this complies completely with the with the requirements for designation um before I make my motion I just have a quick question for staff the the uh I noticed that the original permit drawings were were mirrored do we know when it I mean
it got flipped before it got built but do we know why or how or No it's actually not uncommon um that's happened multiple times before that we just find that that while they were before they started construction they just decided to do it the other way
okay um so I will then make a motion one second thank you i'll make a motion to approve the local historic designation of the property at 320 Romano
Avenue based on its historical cultural and architectural significance as listed in the staff report uh specifically historical cultural significance criterion four and architectural significance criteria one and two thank you we have a motion do I
have a second second second by Miss Don i'm good i'm good today uh Ms rolando okay call the RO please miss Albertus yes mr
durana yes mr garcia Pon yes miss Spain this is a great house yes miss Eert yes okay i'm sorry miss Rolando yes mr silva yes and Mr maxwell
yes motion passes unanimously 9 Z okay next item please case file COA SP 2025007 application oh I'm sorry that's deferred uh here we go
case file COA SP 2025008 application for the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness for the property at 1234 Country Club Praau legally described as lot 171819 block 77 Coral Gable's Granada section
platbook 8 page 113 Miami Dade application request design approval for additions and alterations to the residence and site work thank you are there any deferrals ladies and gentlemen i mean um I know
any expert communications none okay i I interviewed for this project but I didn't um but I'm I remain unbiased a few years ago i'm not involved in the project can you go to the next
So the single family residence is a noteworthy example of the colonial revival style um that honors uh the past with new interpretations using modern materials signed by architect William Shanklin Jr in 1936 it was one of the earliest residences in this style in the
city it was designated as a local historic landmark in August of 2021 this is a 1940s photo uh showing you the property you can't see the garage but it is tucked off to the right of this uh of the of the main residence the application requests design approval for
one and twotory additions to the rear of the residence and attached garage and alterations to residents a later addition at the northwest corner of the home will be removed to accommodate the one-story addition and site work is also proposed um there are no variances that were associated with this application uh
it was uh reviewed by the board of architects multiple times and was approved ultimately on uh December 14th 2023 um staff has uh a couple of conditions that we'd like incorporated into the motion um the applicant is aware of them and actually provided us
corrected drawings already um in an effort not to confuse you uh we're going to go with what's with what was presented to you and we will work with them to incorporate our comments into their final set of drawings so I'm going to turn it over to the architects thank you
okay is thisations no you need you need to tell them about the project just like kind of like your whole So they have they have seen it they have this set of drawings and so up here so if you want to she'll scroll through as you as you want them to and
then um perfect thank you just describe it okay okay hello everyone how are you well introduce yourself with your please introduce yourself with your name and your address carlos Hernandez uh I am the president of Nandanda Design Studio which is the architects in charge of the
project um we have well first of all thank you for being here and for trying to help us with this um we have been trying to get this project approved for quite a while since 2021 I believe uh which we started working on the project
2022 we actually submitted it and since then we've gone through every single department you can think of um I'm sure you you know what I'm talking about the board everything um somehow uh we are here today and we never go we never went
through you guys so I don't know what happened but we're here to fix it um the project um basically it's a historic home like you all know uh we're not touching the historic home at all um the
what we're trying to do is just create more area for the family uh and we're creating uh two wings uh towards the back it's a supporting lot um so one side of the one wing of the house is going to go um around the corner on on
the other street and the other uh wing is going to be on the There you go so um what you see on the on the bottom is the the east facing house uh which is the existing house uh and then the right hand side top right and top left are the
two wings that we're creating to um increase the area of the home um the the right hand side uh part of it was existing so we're we're keeping that uh also is a garage that was originally from the the house from
1936 um and then we're building um or proposing extra area behind that and then the top left um it's a it's a whole new wing that it's connected um through a hyphen uh and um basically the the
design is just um keeping the the original uh intention of the the original design uh however we're not uh trying to mimic or replicate the original finishes in any way i mean it's not something that we're trying to do um
we did originally uh in an in an effort to kind of like make it um look more um original call it that but um I think that's something that we have to avoid based on the comments that we have from
we got from you guys um the top left of the house is two stories just like the original house so that's it there you go uh yeah uh one do let me know where you would like me to
be in the plans i'm sorry just if you'd like to let me know where you'd want to be in the plan yeah just uh the the first level I guess so we can go through the first the ground level uh one more there you go so the top left is the new wing that I was talking about that's going to be the new kitchen and and
family room um and then behind that on top uh is the uh garage that that we're proposing proper size garage for modern vehicles um twocar garage the car the
garage is one story and then the kitchen the family room is two stories and you will see on the next floor plan before before we go to the next one uh on the top right you can see the guest bedroom um and what we're building behind the
original garage um which is also um just trying to create a little more area uh on that on that lot um on the next as you can see I'm sorry as you can see on the bottom the original house uh we're not changing anything the the hatch all
the hatch area is the original house from uh 1936 and is completely rema remaining the same interior and exterior so the second level if you don't mind um on the second level we're only building
on top of the the new kitchen and family room uh and it's also going to be connected through that hyphen that little corridor right there uh that's going to connect the original structure and the new structure and that's going to be the master suite uh with a master
bathroom and master closet uh the other volumes that we're um proposing are one story and they go along with the height and um size of the um existing garage of the house one story and pitch
roofs um so this is the roof plan nothing to go um again the front of the house uh towards Country Cra is um remaining the same it's not we're not changing
anything on the facade windows doors finish that's the one right on the one on top um it's untouched and then uh the one on the bottom is the existing uh yeah the one on the bottom is the
existing rear facade right now can you next please so uh this is also existing i think there's much to see there okay uh this is the what this is
what we're proposing um it might be easier to see in the renderings but um just to go through this a little bit um the bottom the top you can't see much because it's original facade you can see a little bit of the um of the west wing
uh on the top left uh right behind the original facade uh and then on the bottom elevation you can see um the two structures that we're proposing that are actually on the rear of the property next please um okay so
uh on the bottom it's probably the best view of the proposed area which is going to be the two-car garage um yeah right there uh two-car garage and then right next to it to the right is the proposed uh kitchen and family room and then on
top the master suite um as you can see we're trying to um we we have the same lines of the house same pitch roof uh we kind of carried the the whole um original style of the house in trying to you know in an effort to kind of like
preserve that that look um originally we thought um and based on our board presentations we thought that was the way to go so that's basically why why we went that way uh we we're under under the impression now that you actually
want the opposite or that that's what you're recommending or requesting so we have no issue and I I guess we're going to go through that in a little bit um we have no issue changing uh the new area of the house um to not look as part of
the original house but um as an addition next please um this is just more elevations i'm not sure if I need uh sections yeah I guess so that's probably
the easiest way to show everyone first page it's on the first page thank you is there any way that you can zoom in in there because I'm not sure you have the it's going to be hard to see in
those but Oh there you go thank you so the one on the left there you go so the one on the left is the original house that's exactly what it looks like right now um it's got a um a trim line right cutting right through
the middle it's got like those uh original shutters on the windows the beautiful door um and the bay windows on the bottom uh the garage on the right hand side the garage structure originally from 1936 um that's it's
going to remain untouched uh if something we're going to paint it same same color for now and um we are painting the entire house same color so it looks um you know uh the same uh the one on the right um you you can see um
right where the cursor is you can see that a little um like attachment to the original house for the chimneys um the chimney and that little attachment they're original from the from the original house in 1936 and they're in the original plans and then the yeah
that area back there is a new area that we're proposing as you can see is very close to the original house again in an effort to you know make it look as close as possible and not be an isore uh and then that on the right with a new
driveway that's the the view from the other street it's a corner lot so that's the other street um twocar garage uh also um somehow mimicking the the garage doors on the other original garage and
uh one story as opposed to two which is a a volume next door uh next to it the massing next to it um the next one is the rear side uh where we are proposing um a pool on the back um there there is
a pool right now um quite old um I'm not sure that I'm pretty sure that's not original but you know who knows when that was built uh kidney shape very poor condition and very close to the house we're proposing a pool towards the back
uh and uh pavers around the pool um the that um volume on the right hand side is the again the uh kitchen uh family room and then master suite on top and then the volume more to the right of that is
the garage the proposed garage new garage um the volume on the left is the um the other wing of the addition which is a guest room um and is that that falls right behind the U original garage
from 36 is there um I'm you're going to have to guide me through the process here because um I'm not sure if that completes your presentation then you will have the board questions um yeah if I may um all
we're trying to do here is create more area for the family um like I said originally we thought um you know keep keeping or maintaining the look of the house uh meaning uh wall textures
um windows and shutters and everything the same on the new area uh was going to be a requirement uh so that's what why we went that way uh we present to the board originally everything was approved
and um everything all our plans reflect that now I know that um after um you guys checked uh our package there are some recommendations and some requirements which we are you know we're
good with that it's not a problem uh if you want to go through those um okay so we're good with those there's no issue uh all we want is to be able to get approval thank you for your presentation no no
problem thank you okay um staff have any comments you know reply do you mind i have a couple questions actually regarding the recommendations would should I do
i I mean unless there's uh space later for questions but he's accept the recommendations you just said you accepted them do you have are you changing that statement you're talking about conditions also not recommendations these are conditions i'm sorry conditions i'm sorry because you
have to do them there's Yeah exactly no no that's fine um I have a couple questions and it's basically regarding um it it some of them are um kind of contradiction with code uh and we need
to I mean we have no problem which ones are you talking about i'm sorry which one is it for example the one with the casement windows um there is I'll tell you which one uh there is one of them that um it's Could you refer
to them by number please yes on pages six and seven uh where the stuff windows yeah number three um is asking for just keep the the double casement windows uh as opposed to single hung which is what
the house has right now um and that's what we uh included in the original board package uh it was approved and everything um but now I mean we have no problem with this the problem is technically
uh you cannot do uh are you talking about means of egress okay may then you make that window look like a double casement but it all opens up perfect so that shouldn't be an issue no it's not an issue i mean the look is going to be the
same it's just going to be right one single casement is there any other now it'll be worked out with staff once you go through the permit process so we'll work with you on any of those egress requirements for those rooms okay so like I said we have no problem with any of these um it's just technicalities that we can Okay perfect thank you thank
you i just wanted to provide to note to you guys that this was a process that was started back when Warren Adams was still here so they've been um at this for a while um and have been are now actually in permitting and we were not flagged as
a reviewer until almost the very end so this is coming to you all as a as a cleanup for that process um with their they don't have a permit right no not yet but they are very close wow poor guys i know what a horrible thing to
have happen okay okay well let we we'll deal with that secondarily are there any uh questions for staff or the applicant by the board i have one question i think item number eight is that a typo because it says the new house is not to be restocked shouldn't that be the existing
then well yes and then Yes okay yep just so they're clear so yes thank you so we correct the scrier's error in number seven to the new the not to the um so you understand that like the original house don't mess with the stuckle there
right sorry the existing house don't like leave the stuckle as is and then the new house will obviously have new stuckle Mr i just have a quick question the the drawings graphically show the new
addition is going to have a stone cladding um but the notes say it's going to be stuckle i'm assuming it's going to be stuckle yeah so that was one of the there were a couple notes um on the drawings that were uh cross referencing each other that were kind of messed up so that's
one of them and and the intent is not to match what's on the house i don't know if any if you had the chance to look at the designation report but the actual texture of the the lower below the string course of the house is actually um a concrete block in lots of different
No it's not scored but it's concrete block of different sizes and shapes to look like stone so we we do not want to match that it's a very unique texture so so just to clarify the new addition will be smooth
stock thank you are there any other questions of the staff or the applicant by the board miss Alvarez I'm okay with the um the massing the placement the composition um in general
um so I think that's u I mean that's helpful in the sense um since you already have a permit um set but if you have a permit set it would have been helpful to see some of the detailing because from the renderings you get a sense that that it's lacking detail in the eve and um you know certain things
that would be important to a house like this um so my question is for staff if you've had a chance to see some of the detailing um did I review the permit drawings well I mean I looked at them and but I didn't go delve deeply into it because we hadn't reviewed it yet but I can make
sure that they're they are there and this this house does the existing house has a has a really interesting um e condition so you know how that's matched on the on the addition how the string course is being carried over is going to be important too so we will look at all
those things i agree with all the staff comments thank you are there any other questions or comments by the board mr garcia um so I have a comment not really a question for staff um it's a comment for
the board members but it's relating to the the massing of the project and Miss Alvarez has said that I think she's okay with the massing of it i understand um the intent and the layout um what seems a little bit problematic to me is
the scale of the addition in relation to the existing house and if Anna you could pull up the renderings again um I think the first page the second and fourth rendering um there's something
about it just it almost seems as if you repeated the house again right it's almost like you got the existing house and then you made a copy of it and put it 10 feet away um the massing is incredibly similar uh and it looks
like if it was just doubled over um it feels a bit crowding to me of the existing historic house uh the third image which is the one uh that shows the
addition in the garage almost seems like a house in itself um the difficulty I think is I think the fourth image shows it pretty well but that's more internal i think the second image
is important um and it might have to do I believe with the orientation of the gable on the addition and I there is I will I will ask a question
so you get a chance to answer it um is if it were facing in the same direction as a garage it would be clear that the addition was of one mind and then the existing house was of another uh I think you can probably work out the detail
with that really nice little connection piece that you have but there's to me there's a um the the massing and scale of the addition is too similar and too close to the existing so my question to
you if you can come up would be is what alternatives or what are some reasons why you chose to go that route um actually the original design we proposed Oh sorry actually the original um design
that we proposed to the board back in 2022 board of architects yeah sorry board of Architects um was uh with the roof the other way and we were forced to uh
switch orientation of it and mimic the the other house that was part of the recommendations uh recommendations if you know uh but yes uh it was the other way thank you so as far as the design is
concerned you would be okay if it was oriented in either direction i know you're in permit drawings now and you have what you have i think they're done with permit drawings except everything you're in for permit now uh yeah well everything absolutely everything is
approved right now uh the only thing that was flagged was historical so uh yeah border has been approved structural everything everything building department thank you for the answer oh no problem
um so it's still uh I appreciate the comment and um I I still think it's I think it's too close to the existing and I I don't
think um it is complimentary to the existing home i think it is crowding of the existing home and I think it is specifically because of the orientation of that gable roof
i see that Mr silva i mean I I see your point Caesar um I I get that it feels a little crowded um but at the same time if you're looking at the at it as kind of a street elevation if you're rotating that
that volume then you're kind of replicating the street the street elevation on both streets whereas now it's a little bit different um I don't to me that that makes a difference I guess um and and I
mean I I get that and and we also I think we also have to sort of recognize where we are in the process right like I mean it's it's Anna can you pull up sheet 204 i I know that that our responsibility is to is to look at this clean right as if as if you know in a
vacuum um and even looking at it like that I think my personal opinion is that it I I would approve this no matter where we were in the process i think um but you know we're not in a vacuum and and through no fault of their own right
we're we're in this position now where we're kind of getting a last crack at it when it's all approved so it's unfortunate um and and I do think we should look at this on its on its merits but on its merits I think that that this is this is
an acceptable design thank you are there any other comments Rolando i don't I don't have amplification hello
hello okay um please move it closer to I I can get I I don't disagree with Cesar um but I can get past the um concern because they're
not identical facades uh also I think we have to um be somewhat sympathetic to the applicant here because what you're suggesting would
involve a pretty significant change plus going through I think the board of architects again uh so I'm uh I I don't object to what um is
here and I will vote to approve it thank you Miss Rolando anyone else i would suggest the garage doors be handled differently so that the pattern reflects the the segmented arch right now it looks like there's a a
rectangular door slide sliding behind the the segmented arch openings yes please so the two two uh garage doors that we have right now are uh very similar to
the original garage door that that we had on the other street um and one of the not recommendations conditions one of the conditions one of the conditions was to uh change the uh the brick work
on the arch which we're doing it's it's not a problem um but I'm not sure I understand your your point like you're you're saying like the pattern of the door the actual door yes
okay so is that something that we should just consider changing is that with a you could do that in a shop drawing review or um we can do it as a shop drawing what are you suggesting so
you'd have to work with a manufacturer that would mimic that arch right now it looks like a rectangular door that's sliding behind the the arch opening that's what it is right so you're not asking them to do an arch
door you want the pattern on the door to be an arch to match the arch right do you understand so it's it's a regular rectangle it's just the way the panels are laid out so that it's an arch to to match so when it's closed yeah if you look kind of where the cursor is so you see how you have like kind of a line tucked in here because it's a
rectangular pattern she's just mentioning that the pattern should also have an arch like the door the door will do this something when you pick out the actual garage door should also have that arch yes like it'll like it'll do something
you know as as a point does that need to be made as a condition of the Okay so make sure you write that down please so that it can be a condition in terms of the um motion mr garcia Mr garcia a question for staff u Mr rando mentioned that it may have to
go back to the board of architects if there's a change let's say for example of switching the gable over is that something that has to happen or no am I understanding it doesn't make it a condition of your approval the board of architects will respect that it doesn't
require it but um it was already I haven't seen the design that went that was rejected so I don't know if they've already said no to that have we ever done that before kind of you all have power over their recommendations okay so we can make a condition and they can
make a recommendation but they can't overrule our condition okay you have the But but I but I think if I may I think your question Caesar was do they have to go back right physic they don't have to they don't get reviewed again no by the by BOA no matter what changes do they
get reviewed again by building by the so what will happen is that if there's a a major change like that all of the disciplines are going to have to re-review so because it's a structural change there may be other mechanical window I don't know what's going to happen when they flip that or how they
flip it so then all disciplines that have already approved will restart again it'll be they have to go through the building unfortunately have to go through the process again for review and it could be quick but we don't know oh thank you
okay speaking of someone who worked for the city for close to 25 years it's not going to be quick so the project was never brought to the historic department at all even the design process When Warren was here it was started with Warren yeah they worked
with Warren through the BOA process and had been part of the reviews with you all working on these conditions and everything what happened was that because there was a delay of when they applied for permitting they submitted for the permit kind of skipping the COA process and so when we got flagged by um
I can't even remember how it ended up happening they're on the ninth review we're already on their ninth cycle of reviews and um we our comment was you need HPB approval and a special certificate of appropriateness that must have gone over well yes so they're been
very patient with us to bring them to the meeting to bring them before you all today and um but they do have they were working with Warren on this and back and forth and they went to BOA multiple times too it wasn't just a simple BOA meeting i think they were rejected the
first time and then went back after that a few times a few a few times yeah yeah just because of the fact that it was historical they were very picky about like for us keeping the the like the essence of the house the same so we we were rejected at
least four four times yeah but I but I think with the conditions that staff is listing for the massing we're trying to make those changes so that there's subtle changes that are going to differentiate it from the original to kind of help I think maybe not I can't
we're not changing masking it with our conditions but to kind of tone down that addition so that it feels like that you know there's a differentiation between the original and the new okay are there any other questions to staff or the applicant if not I want to close the public hearing uh I don't
believe there's anybody on Zoom is there this or and did we receive any comments you know from their public notice i do not see anyone on Zoom that would like to speak and then we did not receive any comments in it okay all
right so we have nothing on Zoom so the public hearing is closed and we're back to board discussion is there I'd like to make a motion miss Spain you may make a motion i'd like to make a motion to approve with the condition not the 15
conditions noted in the staff report um the design proposal for the addition and alterations to the residence and site work at the property located at 1234 Country Club Prada um and add a condition which is about the
garage doors um looking as if the uh the segmented on are also curved to match the uh arch which would be a much prettier look um and approve the issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with the conditions
we have a motion on the table i'd like to hear a second please second we have a second from Miss Rolando okay are there any further discussion if not please move the motion miss Alberus yes mr mr durana yes mr
garcia Pon unfortunately no for the reasons stated earlier miss Ever yes miss uh Miss Rolando yes miss Spain yes mr silva yes and Mr maxwell yes it is uh
8 to one the motion passes and carries thank you very much for coming i It's actually seven to one because we're missing a person so there's only eight people here who are we missing seven okay any seven we're counting size
twice we're moving let's let her get there okay old business other than me i'm sorry i said old business we do not have old business but if you want to go down I guess the city lights
is kind of old business city commission items so if you want to give an update or do you want me to kind of summarize how do you feel about it mr maxwell let's deal with the discussion item last and and um so you can go to the city commission item
so um we did get a request from Mr garcia Pon to include just a discussion item on the um house bill that is going undergoing now in legislation for Tallahassee um this is for the unlawful demolition of historic buildings could
you speak a little louder into the Yes is that better much thank you um so there is legislation right now being reviewed for the unlawful demolition of historic buildings um I did speak with our governor government affairs manager
who monitors all of that and we are monitoring the the legislation and in support of it so this will allow the city to increase fines for illegal demolitions of historic buildings um which works for us you know does it
include Well hopefully there's no illegal demolitions does it include demolition by neglect okay so Anna thank you for bringing it uh I had Thank you for reviewing it as well when I read it it I read that as well but it just seemed like there was a
second part that may not be favorable and it I wasn't exactly clear if it was if it was good for the city of Coral Gables which is why I asked for you guys to take a look at it because I'm not sure if we should support it or support
it with a recommendation or or something so was there a particular question so there's there's two versions the Senate bill is the one that's in me in messages I believe is the term of art that's being passed to the House and um I'm just reading the Senate version here that's it's for the demolition of a
building or structure that is individually listed in the National Register or is a contributing resource to a national register listed district a code enforcement board or special magistrate may impose a fine that exceeds the limits of this subsection which is a code enforcement subsection um if they find based on substantial
competent evidence that the demolition was knowing and willful and the fine may not exceed 20% of the fair market value of the property before demolition um so that's my understanding of the version that's in messages over to the house from the senate um I don't know if you had a particular question about that it
was specifically that is 20% the right number is it limiting is it I don't know if 20% is good or bad so generally code enforcement fines are capped at at $10,000 for a onetime fine or there may be running fines that exceed that but um so I think it would depend on the
situation and the value of the home but I I would Sorry oh sorry in the discussion that I had with um Fernando our government affairs manager he mentioned that it gives us actual more power to give bigger fines than what's
allowed now but is this only for those properties that are on the National Register the way that it's worded yes so wouldn't we object to that i mean on the n if you're on the National Register usually it means it's not
protected uh bum demolition i don't I don't understand this so so this would this would allow us to um to increase fines for illegal demolitions of any property on the national register pretty much it's not a very
broad applicability in the city it's those are local it's rather narrow i get that but has the um National Trust for Historic Preservation weighed in are they okay with this because if you're only on the national listing and you're
not locally designated in the past you could demolish it you don't need the owner's consent and and uh it's possible to actually demolish it it's a local ordinance that has a strength in
preservation so I'm not sure what this does i believe that yeah that has to do for um demolition that's not permitted or a result of natural disasters so to the extent you got a permit and it was not protected you are free to do that so this is so non-permitted illegal
demolition that was done willfully oh yeah so it doesn't prohibit very narrow for the city wow that doesn't really affect no it's not a broad applicability in the city but to the extent that we have a property on
the national register that illegally demolishes a portion of the property we could in theory increase fines for that demolition not we the code enforcement board so I I do have a question and sorry my my question relates to to
Caesar's concern right so this the the the penalty right like it talks about a max so what It says specifically is the a fine may not exceed 20% so city of Coral Gables has has an additional component I to in their own zoning code
right which says that you have the right to require replication if something is is demolished illegally or by neglect or whatever so what does this do what does this do to that i know it doesn't address that expressly but somebody could say you know let's take the Builmore as an example right that's on
the National Register they did what they did on that lower lobby the city is requiring them to restore that to the original or replicate what was original they could take a look at this and say "I'll pay my fine thank you very much i'm out of here." And what about McFarland that should help us in the That's on the National Register yeah
so two things it's demolition of a building or structure so I don't know we'd have to look at the definitions to see whether that covers interior renovations right we we would have to look at that and then um secondly I wouldn't think that this supplants any
part of the zoning code that has to do with demolition by neglect or reconstruction or certificates of appropriateness that it would it would not I mean this has to do with a fine amount enforced by code enforcement board so it um code enforcement is outlined in state law code
enforcement procedures and there are max amounts of daily fines and max amount of per violation fines which is actually 5,000 and it can and in some cases be 10,000 but this would increase a code enforcement or special magistrate said "We have our code ticket hearings or our
code enforcement board's ability to impose a larger fine for willful demolition of a building or structure that is individually listed or contributing within a national district which is the one national district
so I I wouldn't think it would change to the extent that um we have properties that still need to go through the COA process whether they were demolished by neglect or otherwise um right they they would still come through our normal process it would certainly help those communities that have people on the I'm
so sorry that have people on the uh have properties on the national register that are not locally designated i mean that would be very helpful yeah um if the the I'm trying to look up the area of
the state where this came from and it looks like it came from Flaggler Putnham and St john's County so I don't know if that gives you a feel for uh what reasons it may have been introduced in the Senate by Senator Leak so my my the reason for bringing were the two reasons
one is is 20% good or bad for us i know it's narrowly targeted for the National Register i would imagine our national registered buildings are also locally registered so we should be okay um right the thought process was would we like to advocate to add local
designation to this is that something that we can ask would we be interested as a city to get the benefit for locally designated thus perhaps ask our government affairs person to ask if
the area would the the person who the senator um if they'd be interested in adding it or not and then I think it would affect us significantly and I don't know if it would affect us for the good or for the bad it sounds like it would be for the good thank you if if this board wanted to
make a motion to make that suggestion to the government affairs uh coordinator and the city lobbying team we could certainly um pass along that message i would note that um we don't have a commission meeting before the end of session so it wouldn't be an official commission direction but we could
certainly provide that feedback to the intergovernmental affairs i would like to say so moved but I I don't have it in front of me what would um to add so I understood the motion to be a suggestion that the city lobbying team internal and external explore the feasibility of
increasing those amounts andor um adding uh local designation to the proposed bill that's exactly right that's my motion okay we have a motion on the floor do I have a second i'll second it miss Spain seconds
i'd like to call the role please miss Alvarez yes mr dana yes miss Rando yes okay Miss Eert yes okay Mr garcia Pans yes spain
yes okay Mr silva yes and Mr maxwell yes motion passes unanimously thank you okay we have another item I wanted to bring everybody up to date here on our slowmoving street lights um they're
moving we had a wonderful meeting and I'm going to categorize it that way with Florida Power and Light and Can you hear me thank you i said we had a very good meeting with Florida Power and Light and for the Miss Peris was there and Mr
slesnik and myself and um the city attorney the the city manager and uh the city architect and uh a whole plethora of people from FPNL the meeting kind of went like this here's where we are this is what you
signed this is where we are this is what you signed and that went on for about an hour and 20 minutes and the the comment was "Okay great that's where we are." But that's not where we want to be what are we going to do how are you going to help how are we going to help ourselves
together get there and it was a very cooperative meeting by the way i want you all to know that everybody wanted to solve the problem so here's where we are they will they will take our consideration at this
point for the street lamp that we would like and we're going to do that and we're counting up the number of street lights that we would like to have and their other condition is in order to add it to the tariff okay and this is a big
conversation that we don't really need to have FPL charges by tariffs okay all these tariffs are set by the public service commission and so you know it's a rate process so this is not instantaneous the other is they want to know who else in the state is interested
in this so we're going to suggest because we've already tal I've I've already communicated with two other groups on the West Coast okay where they're redeveloping their downtown so we're going to suggest and reach out to other
DDAs and redevelopment agencies because those are the groups that are generally going to take decorative polls and use them okay so we're going to get with staff the manager and everybody and try to find a
poll that they will like that matches what we have so it's not guaranteed it's not a reality but it's moving and it's moving in a positive direction so Marlin
uh what are the areas on the west coast um they're over in the Coral Springs area where they're trying to develop redevelop the downtowns after the hurricanes and things to make them a little more special okay but other DDAs and things like that uh are looking for
decorative features that they don't have to pay for themselves that they can put in their rate base and what's happened is FPNL has taken out virtually all decorative polls and said "Hey here's the poll that you get." Okay so we're
trying to encourage them to add it back the public service so they have to go back to the public service commission but they also want to make it economical for themselves so we're trying to help them do towns like um Miami Winter Park
yeah miami Shores um it goes on and on just heard about a new town being built in Martin County called Newfield Florida they're just starting uh you know Miami Shores had different street lights they they were actually made by the they're metal and they were made by the cement
post company in 1925 because I had in front of my house when I lived in the shores but other communities are looking for things that will maintain their historic and you know one of the most prominent type of of
of street lights at the time that we were all developed was exactly what we have so let's just keep pushing all these communities that were developed in the 20s and 30s that seem like natural
purchasers of replacement lights that are um at least compatible with the architecture in the city it's a process and and I'm and I'm grateful to the city commission for um
taking this on and and actually stopping all the work that that's been going on in what I'm going to call the the historic core of the city in other words north of Bird Road up to um to Southwest 8 Street and from Red to Douglas we're trying to get that as as our district
where we'll do this and we'll we'll add a couple of little fingers periodically to to like the villages down in the south and um and maybe Granada all the way to Sunset i'm not sure but you know that's what we're going to talk about but the whole idea is that on if we can
get this into the rate base then we can move forward pretty quickly in terms of okay you know we have existing contracts we can change these things out so look for another two years and before we see anything mr silva first thank you very much Mr maxwell for taking the lead on
this i know that you've been pushing and pushing and pushing and gone to the commission and and it's important to all of us and and I appreciate it very much oh thank you Mr silva i our community is is is worth the effort yeah like we do today and I I did have a quick question though i know that some of this was
driven by by these existing contracts that the city has for forced replacement that are per the last presentation from public works were coming due very soon did they agree to sort of postpone that forced replacement until we get this resolved th those have been postponed
since that first uh resolution that you all passed everybody's okay with that and the city commission actually is the one that had them put the pause on any future further installation so that's where that pause still stands and Feel agreed to that they have to they can't yeah they have to they still need us to
agree with the Thank you we we we learned a lot more about street lights than than I ever knew before which and I knew a lot about them because I put in a lot of street lights all over the country but uh it it's an interesting process and Florida has really changed you know how it how it uh you know the
public service commission interacts with people they're they're really reducing you know shall we say the ability of the general com community to ask something of one of the power providers and actually have it granted basically they
told us that their hands are now tied which they did themselves I'm sure but Mr maxwell you mentioned um to have perhaps staff reach out to other municipalities is that something that is happening or something that we should request of staff uh we should request
that of them would you like to make a motion uh yes i would like to have a motion for that please um can we make a motion for city staff to reach out to municipalities within the state of Florida that may be interested in adopting a similar street
light to the ones that we are pursuing yeah I I would Okay and DDAs and those things local governmental entities yes ma'am thank you local governmental agencies local governmental entities of
interest that That's kind of what what we've got can we make suggestions um yeah is that a motion that was my motion that was a motion i need a second mr silva I have a second from Mr silva i have a So Mr chair we
can just have a voice vote if all are in favor i I voice Voice vote good i I I approved unanimously and just so before that occurs we need to find the light post that will meet the criteria so that will take a little
bit of time just so you all know that like not at the next meeting you're going to hear that no we won't you know a list of municipalities that Cara has reached out to and Elizabeth have said "Let's buy these lights together." Yes and and please note that Mr please note that Mr slesnick and I very much wish to
be in you know with the staff in that process you know I I have a I have all the material from the past to bring to it so we can find that and if there's any people that can find a Coral Gables and it's actually called Coral Gables
light you know that we have so progress is moving contrary to what uh Mr farber said in the uh in the Coral Gables magazine motion to adjurnn uh okay we're
going to have one more thing here i want the board to know that u this is Anna's last meeting before she uh brings us a new person into the world and so I'd like to just let everybody know that and
and send her our best wishes and um hoping for a not too speedy return so that she can be with her child so thank you Anna for everything and Cara's going to be taking her place so you know there's it's going to be seamless we
really appreciate it and Anna we wish you all the best and all the happiness of a new child thank you all right thank you so much yeah and I and I just have one more thing too actually we all just the for the May meeting um we may wanted to get
kind of your your um sense of moving it up to the May 15th week just because um we're get we got caught on that short gap this month with between meetings we only had three to four weeks and the same thing is going to happen between May and June and staff is going to be
short we're going to be short staffed so we're just going to see with the city clerk but I wanted to kind of put it in your ear to see if it's something that would work with your schedules if we do get the opportunity to change it for May 15th everybody okay may 15th i don't I
don't have a problem with that everybody okay down here javier you good anna yes i I only want to say that my my youngest son is expecting his first child and the due date is the 20th of May so if it
happens a week earlier I may not be here well you then you wouldn't be here for that well maybe not for that i don't know when that the baby's going to come i mean he was early i get it so I understand uh and I I also just have one
comment is it possible to get the IT department in here earlier and have them test it we will make that request there's no reason that that that that should happen if they're actually or can we just go back to Well that's even better going
back to city hall i don't make that call for the city hall part but we will talk to it and CGTV and make sure that we are all coordinated but get in here i know they're busy but yes but no but this meeting was scheduled and should have been taken care of at 3:00 not testing
it at 4:30 agree yeah rock bands are familiar with sound checks um and in somebody's office who was where we're were right across from
Ultra they did soundchecking for a couple of days uh yeah whether you wanted to or not i have a question hey Miss Ebert oh go ahead no I just had one question about the there's lots of
discussion about the uh rain huts on the golf course does that come to us at all or so it will come to you all the this board was in was um reviewed the original design proposals for the rain huts and actually recommended approval
for those designs and the demolition of the existing rain huts um or what they call shelters thank you that sounds wrong um uh and so we're working now with parks public works and everyone else because there's a new design proposal that will come before you all
when that while ago yes i think I was still years ago yeah you actually worked on the designs and and loved the designs from what I heard but I remember the design but that sounds like something but it will be something that comes before you all um and the and the
demolition the the the discussion I think part of the demolition of the ones that are there now is that they were not original to the golf course uh I have a question about a historic home that we approved work on located at
524 Alhamra ah and my rec I I seem to recall that we approved it but when I drive by it it looks like they've demolished the entire house except for
walls the perimeter walls the roof the interiors everything and I don't think we approved that scope of um demolition so I'm just asking I'm raising it um I
believe it's 522 Alhamra okay okay yes and um and I actually went back and forth with the contractors and the owners because they when we did see that but also it was in the plans and before it got permitted I went back and forth with them i rewatched the video they did
um discuss that they were going to be replacing the roof structure at that time um in the video and so it was part of the meeting okay um so we went back and there was a substantial I think it looks very intense i agree we all drove
past it and went like this i think at the last meeting actually when I left is when we kind of saw how substantial it was so we just need to be clear and I think that's kind of why you're seeing a lot more of like you are not replacing stuckle on the house roof structure must
remain because sometimes they'll sneak in or they think it's part of the a regular permit and they don't realize that we want it to be discussed a little bit more so at the hearings than just oh when we're replacing the roof and the and the and the structural members and it just kind of being part of the
presentation so it was reflected in it was reflected in the in the video i did have to rewatch it so Okay thank you i have a question and one of the things that that comes up is overruling the board of architects
and I I'm really interested in knowing why we can't move our preservation review before the board of architects reviews theirs i don't think you would want that no because they recommend to us you want it to go to all
of those really good uh market you have to have 10 years as an architect no I I I know the whole deal so it's important that they see it first okay uh because like this one went multiple times to the board of architects until they were comfortable with it and that happens not
often but you know yeah there's a lot of times that we rely and work with the board members to kind of help reiterate some of our concerns and if they know because we provide comments to the board before it gets to them oh okay so they're required to get something called
like an okay for BOA right from historic before it even gets scheduled so if we have concerns in that I'll say okay for BOA but you know we think that these things should be addressed boa members will then say okay well how are you going to address these and they'll kind
of either support us or say well I don't think that one's you know sometimes they don't always agree with us but I find it to be the right op like order of operations okay yeah just just looking for a way to see if we can't streamline some things
somewhat you know because this you know there's a lot of time involved and that that costs everybody a lot of money and grief and apprehension and things like that okay so we're waiting for the very last thing i'd like to have a motion to adjurnn
so moved so moved by Mr silva seconded by all the rest of us motion carried thank you ladies and gentlemen okay recording stopped