Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e recording in progress recording

stopped e e e e

i'mna keep it Joz yeah e e no

well this GNA cost me money FR running for commission let's go uh let's go ahead and get started I'd like to call the meeting to order I'd like to ask everybody to please silence your phone and beepers if you have any uh good evening this board is comprised of seven members four members of the board shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of four members shall be necessary for the adoption of any motion if only four members of the board are present and applicant May request to be entitled to a continuance to a 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 for votes are not obtained an applicant except in the case of a comprehensive plan Amendment May request a continuance or allow the application to proceed to the city commission without a recommendation pursuant to resolution number 2012-18 the City of Coral Gables has returned to traditional in-person meetings however the Planning and Zoning Board has established the ability for the public to provide comments virtually for those members of the public who are appearing on Zoom uh actually we do not need swearing in because this is legislative uh lobus registration recording in progress person who acts as

a lobbyist must register with the city clerk as required pursuant to city code as chair I now officially call the City of Coral Gables planning and zoning board meeting of March 12th 2025 to order the time is 6:02 if you please call the role rer bear here Julio gabia here Suki here Felix par here supervisor maybe as instead here uh we don't have any swearing in tonight and we also don't have the EXP parte Communications tonight some water be right back uh Zoom platform participants I I will ask any person wishing to speak on tonight's agenda item to please open your chat and send a direct message to Grace Chen stating you would like to speak before the board and include your full name Grace will call you when it's your turn I ask you to be concise for the interest of Time phone platform participants after Zoom platform participants are done I will ask phone participants to comment on tonight's agenda item I also ask you to be concise for the interest of time first we have the approval of the minutes of February 12 2025 did everybody get a chance to take a look at those anybody like to make a motion motion to approve second we have a motion we have a second by Julio call the r please hul Gia yes soavi yes Felix Faro he's coming right now let's just wait one second sure we want we're uh approving the minutes if you're okay yes fix parto said

yes some is not here yet uh chip weather uh ABS I'll obstain uh Robert be I'm sorry Robert beer yes thank you procedure that we'll use for tonight first we'll have the identification of the agenda item by Mr caller uh then we'll go ahead and have the presentation by the applicant or the agent uh in this case a lot of it will be the presentation by staff then we'll go ahead and open it for public comment first in chamber Zoom platform and then the phone line we'll go ahead and close it for public comment any board discussion motion further discussion if needed and second of motion then we'll have the board's final comments and a vote Mr carer if you please uh read the first item into the agenda it item E1 an ordinance of the city Commission of Carl Gables Florida provid proving for text amendments to the city of Carl Gables official zoning code Article 2 zoning District section 2-101 single F family residential district and section 2-12 multifam one duplex district and article 16 definitions to provide exceptions to the separation of accessory structures from the main structure under certain requirements and provide for open a accessory structures with ground area coverage requirements providing for repealer provision cability clause codification and providing an effective date item E1 public hearing good evening Jennifer Garcia Planning and Zoning director if I could have the PowerPoint please should be just a few slides thank you um before we proceed uh let's take note that Javier San has joined us and

is present you mean the late Havier no the current not the late theate party possibly that was bad so no worries I haven't you hav missed anything yet um so as you know our single family and duplex zoning um has uh lot building lot coverage uh maximums uh 35% for the principal building and then extra 10% for accessory structures and right now our zoning code is not very clear as far as as what separation you would have for an accessory structure um so so right now um there's two issues happening the first issue is that um properties that have detached um garages from their principal building is not easily accessible from their house or vice versa so whenever they come forward and ask zoning can I have a Breezeway to access my garage I don't get wet when it's raining zonan says sure but the whole thing would have to count against your 35% once it touches each other and is attached it becomes part of 35% the other issue is there's not very um it's not very clear as far as what separation means so sometimes it's structurally separated it's counting as the 35 and additional 10% which of course leaves kind of unusable areas and doesn't really make much sense to have a one inch separation for example and so we're getting in in return are are um not the best uh building type Oles in our neighborhoods also in duplexes you're getting kind of boxy um not very um Innovative um creative um U building types so what we're proposing today uh sponsored by a member of the commission is to look at the current code as far as building lot coverage and how we can encourage open air spaces so this has two parts to it the first part is that

anything that's attached to the main structure that's open air would count um as part of the 45% and not penalize the 35% if that makes any sense and in addition to that there's a 5- foot separation so you can have an actual separation a walkway between an attached structure of an accessory structure and the main structure so this of course is most um usable for these smaller properties with the setback requirements open space requirements those are not touching I should also specify that 45% 35 Plus 10% is not changing in this is just allowing some flexibility as far as having a more creative usable property so you can see in the larger uh example here if you have enough space you can actually create a nice Courtyard whereas today you probably can't just because you can't attach them once you attach them today has to count against 35% level more leme so this is a way to encourage more outdoor space um in our single family duplex properties and here are some images of the idea behind this of what we could try and um encourage single family duplexes to do to have Courtyards to have those Open Spaces those loas to be able to make more um um usability of the people's properties so you can see in the courtyard um again some of this is taken from uh Ali's Beach which is in the Panhandle all of our open space requirements would still be required is not going beyond the 45% maximum ground coverage that we have today and so I have our esteemed City architect here Juan rco um he discusses with the board of Architects in general they're was well very well received they're very excited about the flexibility to be able to do better site planning for our properties so if any questions as as relates to architecture he's here to answer that thank you thank you Juan would you like to come up and give a little bit of an overview in your discussion with the board of Architects absolutely uh Juan

reesco City architect any questions specifically for me or would you like me to just my question just to be clear we're not changing the overall 35 + 10 lck coverage allow we still keeping that the maximum lock coverage is going to stay at 45% the only thing we're doing is giving the applicant the ability to connect with a roof from roof structure open air in South Florida Outdoor Living is a must and a lot of projects are coming to us asking for this and we can't Grant it because right now the code actually penalizes you when you attach it because then you it reverts back to the 35% and so people start making the houses smaller and people complain the residents don't want that so we thought this made a lot of sense from the architectural perspective because again we're not increasing lock coverage the maximum is always going to be 45% we're just allowing the applicants or The Architects to do a nicer scenario in the backyards with regard to open air structures logia perlas trellises what's what's happening is everybody's detaching everybody wants 35% and they also want the 10% so they designed the main house and they design these ancillary structures that are detached that don't make any sense a lot of times we're having issues with Aesthetics because since the element is not connected to to the house physically they change design on the accessory use and then we get into a combative discussion about Aesthetics and architectural style and I want a modern thing in the backyard it's a Folly it's not connected and so it creates a lot of controversy on our side at the board level and and we felt based on projects that we've seen that have been really successful with this concept that it's appropriate and I think it's something that's not derogatory for the city I I think we're not changing the intent of the code which is the maximum lock coverage stays at 45% we're just giving them another

Avenue to make a better backyard and and you're right at the end it's going to look much better because it's going to be more cohesive absolutely that and that's what we want that's that's the intent and again we're running into roadblocks because once people detach the structure they feel compelled sometimes to do something different aesthetically and that creates conflict and discussion and and and conflict between the board and the applicants and so we're trying to see what the answer is here and we feel that this is The Logical answer it's just how we how we calculate the square footage how we look at it but in general the big picture doesn't change just cannot be enclosed from the main structure to accessory cannot be enclosed correct only covered yeah it can't be air conditioned right but again in South Florida people love trellises gazebos peras you know covered areas where they can barbecue and not not be exposed to rain not be exposed to the hot sun but it creates a really attractive space I mean you saw the photographs that Jennifer presented uh outdoor space in South Florida is a must I mean I think everybody wants it and I think we should we should have that provision to allow the applicants to do it because it provides for in our opinion better Aesthetics does the roof does the roof line have to be continuous uh not necessarily as long as they again they integrate roof materials they can step it up down you know we leave that up to the designer or the architect okay there's no Mass increase there's no uh it allows for more flexibility and creativity in our opinion it incentivizes again these pergolas these louvers these uh uh covered spaces gazebos and uh at the end it's up to the discretion of the board in terms of design and mass

anyway uh so I I don't see a problem moving forward because they have the ability to critique the connection the look The Aesthetics the materiality the height so they still at the end of the day can input have input into into that with regards to mass so we we think again it's a positive feature we think it's a good thing moving forward the board is fully behind this uh Jennifer presented to my board I don't know several weeks ago a month ago and and everybody was very receptive to it uh we've actually had several Architects that that have discussed this openly with us and with the board and and we've had to not be able to agree to it because it wasn't feasible because it was actually impact ing the square footage of the main house because it it was considered 35% once you connect it you get zapped that 10% you lose that 10% so people were not going for that and they're and again they're they're providing the main structure the pool deck and then a little accessory Cabana building a bathroom you know 100 feet away that makes no logical sense from our perspective again architecturally and and what we want more than anything is to have the projects to be connected and cohesive and complimentary to each other not two distinct forms and unfortunately we've been getting that especially in the in the larger Lots down south uh the estate Lots you know where they end up with a lot of accessory structures dotting the backyard and it just it sometimes it becomes a hodge podge you know if it's done properly it can be designed in a fragmented sense but unfortunately a lot of Architects don't have that capability and uh we don't end up getting getting something positive we we get something that's kind of in some ways derogatory to the overall scheme can you think of any worst case scenario here no no again I don't see the downside that we we've debated this

internally we've reviewed it internally we've looked at several projects live in the board meetings where Architects and and owners have wanted this and we've had our debates and and unfortunately some of them you know wouldn't go forward because we advised them that this was going to happen you know the way the code is written right now it penalizes you the 10% when you connect and everybody wants a connection you know who in South Florida doesn't want a roof to get away from the Sun my question is that you have a minimum separation of five feet correct no no that that's that's a discussion for when you have a detached structure only the 5 foot because well another thing we were combating and and fighting with people on the concept of of detached structure is an inch and a lot of people mind and and theoretically and realistically it is an inch is of separation and based on the the definition of a detached structure they were achieving that but again think about it constructibility wise you can't build a structure an inch away you can't put a fascia an inch away from another faure because you can't paint it you can't nail it you can't maintain it you can't put a gutter there so it just created a lot of problems for us at our at our point where we review these things on a weekly basis so again we we spoke with planning director we we we came up we discussed three feet we ended up with 5 feet I think is what we agreed to that we felt that when you want a detached structure an inciler structure the minimum has to be 5T we don't want something two inches away from the main house when it's not connected CU to us that's that's arbitrary and and didn't make any sense either you connect it tie it in or you don't but they were smart they figured hey as long as I show you one in separation I get my 10% so the argument went round and round and round until we got to the point where hey we have to do something because um it just creates again more conflict for us at

the board level and we don't have the power to enforce it because the code is not reinforcing the concept of what we really want so I think idea is very narrow I'm sorry I think even five feet is very narrow for a detach structure we think it's a minimum Javier I mean I I I think that I I agree I mean maybe more but we felt again in in the code we deal with minimums that's what the the codes typically establish and then we hope that Architects take it to another level and don't do the minimums but unfortunately there's a lot of people that that you it's a prescriptive thing and and they follow the as long as they they meet the code hey you can't touch me and and that's true to a certain extent you're right maybe 10 ft or something will be more I think that would be much more mean especially if you're dealing with these overall larger Lots in the South part of the city you know a great great in the northern part of the city I mean we have a a wealth of uh single family in duplex Lots along leun right would benefit from that and they already have a credit not having any parking so that would give them the ability to then have a an exil and the duplexes it it becomes critical in the garages you know they don't have garages you're not required to have a garage for a duplex what I'd like to do before we continue do we have don't have anybody they're required before we continue we don't have anybody here in Chambers do we have anybody on Zoom for the public no anybody on phone platform no okay so let me go ahead and close it for the public what I'd like to do is go in order if that's possible so we it's hard for the court reporter to go ahead and take notes if everybody's talking together um I just had a question and I think Jennifer can you hear me no thank

you I thought I heard Jennifer in her presentation saying that if someone had a a home at 35% and a attached structure at 10% and they wanted to put a portica share or open garage on the side they couldn't do it but now they can do it did I misunderstand that so you can do it today but once you attach it it becomes part of 35% so you're encouraged so they can't do it if I don't have a if I have a cottage in the back and it's 10% and I have a home and it's at 35% and I wanted to put a a covered portica share on the side I you're already maxed out you're already maxed out because you already have 10% 30 I'm already maxed out okay right exactly so this doesn't help because listen No One uses those rear garages to put cars in they've either e here we go we're back so if I already have 10% and I already have 35% how does how can can I respond yeah okay so again thinking of that same concept of the detached garage in the rear of the property or on the side of the property this concept allows you to attach it and still comply with the 45% versus the code the way it is today if

the applicant attaches the rear garage to the house he gets reverted back to the 35% so nobody attaches like you say rear garages everything is detached nobody likes that because on a rainy day or a sunny day or you got groceries or whatever you park in your detached garage in the rear and you want to come to your main structure you got to go and open air what I think he's asking if you already have a detached structure 10% and a house is 35% you just going to be allowed to do a connection a cover connection you cannot do an additional structure you're done you exceed like a like like a garage on the side to park your if you already exceeded the if you using the 10% and the 35% no more done that's it you're done yeah or I could tear the cottage down and yes yeah you this is only allowing you to do the connection a cover connection from from accessory to without without counting the coverage condition as part of the F part of the U I get I get it okay I just I misunderstood Jennifer is there a limit to the size of the connection not not now I think that's up to the board's discretion and the design and the overall site plan and you know where the pool is and you know all those things are looked at and vetted by the board uh if they feel that the connection is too wide I'm sure they'll make a comment hey bring it back narrower tone it down lower it you know if we feel it's impinging on the neighbor on the the neighborhood we we'll we'll discuss it at that point chip are you done with your comments thank you Mr Paro thank you for patiently waiting so um I've been walking around a little bit around the city if you would speak up into the microphone please thank you is this on yeah okay I've been walking around the city

recently and uh different parts of the city I've got to tell you I'm very very very disappointed on many of the projects that I've seen residences that I've seen that the bulk the mass is so enormous and in fact many of the residents have told me that they are kind of taken aback by these what they called not me shoe box designs just this this enormous Mass it's not you know modern or whatever just H ABS absolutely no push and pull no interest in it I've seen it myself maybe you guys have a different opinion but it's really altering in a very negative way the city I think the residential areas in in the um Graphics that staff came up with they show this u-shape very usable very friendly you know very somewhere else kind of thing or here but one of the things about that particular proposed open air accessory structure is that although you have a swimming pool inside of this U shape let's say and it looks fantastic and all this stuff The Mask gets pushed to the outside toward the front when you have an accessory building that has that additional 10% you have a natural push pool and you have a separation where you have green space most of the time in usable areas I remember that I designed for my brother-in-law on outside gazebo which was absolutely spectacular and I turned it at an angle and it had this swimming pool and it looks fantastic like a garden much better than this and from the massing standpoint on the outside it it paid homage to the rest of the buildings and houses that were in that

neighborhood this doesn't do that what this is is simply adding more mass to the thing I personally think it's a really bad idea and and the reason I think it's a bad idea is because many of the lots are 50 by 100 in the north part of the gables this is putting 2 PBS in a one pound bag visually it looks like 2 PBS in a one pound bag I remember that this has been and people when they bought their properties the zoning code said this is it now for certain people to say I want more they could ask for anything else but the thing is now we're getting into a point where someone can't obtain a variance because it's a self-imposed type of thing and they can't go to the board of adjustment and get that so therefore now they just want to change the code this changing of the code changes the massing the breaks between these now let me give you an another example for example when you take a city block in some of the areas here in the city and let's say that a certain block is peppered with these little two-story apartment buildings they have setbacks in between them and they have trees that grow in between them some developers now can take all of those little apartments tear them down and now build one large thing under a pad planed area development you lose something it doesn't matter how nice you do the architecture you lose something which means Green Space the heat index that we get from a heat island effect which is very real and and we're just not thinking that way so the problem I have with this is that this was not halfhazard put in

there of the 35 and the 10% it was put in there by really smart people a long time ago to make sure that we kept it that way those limitations are there for a reason one of the problems that you have with the larger estate areas are these are areas that were annexed afterwards they were working under the Miami day zoning code that's not a fair comparison I think that one of the things that we have to do is be very very careful on how we change the future of just our residential areas putting two lbs in a one PB bag is never a good idea and I think visually this is one of the problems that I have with this the charm that you have even if it's a larger lot when you have that push and pull and even a separate building which used to be a garage and then it became an in-laws quarter which is allowed by code but is not allowed by code is to rent it out to somebody else that it's not part of your family that's what's not allowed I just find it distressing walking through these areas that some of the architecture the mass is so enormous the height is so enormous that it just has is transforming those neighborhoods into something else I don't think it's part of Coral Gables and I disagree with you 100% thank you sue oh sorry chair I just wanted to clarify things this is not going to decrease increase any um requirement for 40% open um um open space requirement they have in the code this is only just being able to attach accessory and I'm sorry Jennifer I understood that perfectly the thing that I'm talking about is separating masses when you separate a mass it usually looks smaller

or more compatible or more human in scale when you add and attach the mass it doesn't I don't care how many arches you put in it it's different right you could take a house on a very long lot and make it look completely different in this particular case what you do with separate buildings I mean this has been going on for a long long time Frank lyd Wright did it very successfully and he always separated things with other buildings other structures we have examples over and over very successfully done he also is very careful with the height issue to maintain that the massing didn't look as bad as possible in this particular case now we're adding more massing and we're adding more height and it almost it almost looks like your 25 foot setback in the front is less when you put these bulky buildings in front of it and it doesn't matter how much Decor decoration you put on it it's like putting lipstick on a pig sometimes right so in the way that this is written today is not um proposed as a a by right thing you can do the hands are on the board of Architects they can approve or not approve something based on the massine so we did take that into account with the language proposed thank you Sue I have an issue with size you know what to Julio's Point like how big can these things be because I can imagine a house and then a pool and then the structure on the opposite side of the pool and somebody says I want to connect to that thing on the other side of the pool and all of a sudden you have this roof structure where from above you've got no backyard anymore it's a giant roof which becomes a livable space you can you can live in an open air environment like that you put a kitchen in there all of a sudden you're expanding your living space and I know

you said well the board of Architects won't allow that to happen well you know we've heard that before too okay and then we end up with these kinds of structures that we're seeing all over so without limitation that it has to direct directly to uh directly attach to it there can't be any interference in between I mean there are all kinds of there are all kinds of options I think that if we were going to pass this need to be in there to protect it and not just leaving it to the board of Architects who with a very you know Savvy uh person in front of them can convince them that that roof over it is perfectly fine so you take a drone above it and all of a sudden it's nothing but a giant gigantic roof so I've got a I've got a real problem with with this okay thank you sue Julio well same point I was sorry I'm concerned with not having a limit to the size of the connector I mean we all see it as Architects as the the main residence the adjacent residence and a hallway Co covered walk whatever but again if it can be made as wide as the main residence then you end up with too much square footage yeah so the limitation would be the height they can't go beyond the 25 ft maximum height limitation would be the the actual um uh ground coverage right so they can't have too much of that it can be enclosed today well you're saying like if they have a open air structure that's as wide as the building they could do that today they probably wouldn't because it's not you know usable space enclosed the bedroom or whatever it's open air this is not going beyond that 45% lot coverage so that would be the limitation that they would have for the the size of any attached open air structure would be how much they can be able to cover for their property and of course balancing that

with the 40% open air landscape area so the connector is limited to the same lot coverage correct okay yes I'm fine that's still there I'm fine that that has not changed and I I I thought I explained in addition to yeah you still have that control we haven't increased any of that it's still the same parameters uh with the exception of we're allowing some flexibility in the connectors and again that the amount of flexibility is dictated by the discussion that occurs at the board level during the design review and if the board feels or is compelled to say hey this is too big too wide to imposing too massive too large I'm sure that comment will come up um it comes up now as as Jennifer stated you have the ability to take the back of your house and put a covered Terrace from one end to the other that's something that's allowed by code by right by now if if you want to use that in part of your 35% you can do that but most people are Savvy and they want air conditioned space and and so they want to try to make the air conditioned space more usable than the covered ter so that that gets reduced to a certain extent and but it's still part of the program nothing has changed with that regard I don't think um honestly that adding a the allowance of a connector piece at the rear of the property that connects an accessory structure to the rear of the property is going to impact the mass of the front of the house I I think that's already said and done during the design of the of the house and that should be addressed by the board in terms of what what you stated Mr parto the height the mass and and the board again uh looks at that vets that discusses that and uh you know at the end we we

hope that we have a design that's contextural that's within scale but we we also understand that um applicants want higher ceilings nobody wants a house with an OT beam anymore that's uh a dinosaur in today's world based on my experience of of attending these meetings on a weekly basis so a 10-ft TI beam is a no no in today's world if you if you're in real estate and you're developing your property or your home for your family your kids you want a higher ceiling so we do look at that we do allow 9- foot beams 10ft beams sometimes uh in some of these designs one of the popular themes nowadays is to have the great room the great room has been introduced back into the equation that's that started many years ago and and now is people want the large living area area kitchen as one large open space that creates massing problems for us we deal with this all the time uh and we we discuss that with the applicants hey you know it's creating a a room that's probably like size of this room you know 30 40 feet long that has a living space a dining space and a kitchen space all under one volume under one ceiling you can't have a 9t ceiling for a space this long the proportionality of the the space is is awkward so you do have to go up now again I understand the massing discussion and I think the board understands the massing discussion and we try to refine the design as much as possible to address that but we also want the applicants and the residents and and the homeowners to get the product that they expect and want and and I think that's a viable discussion that we wrestle with every week and how do we address that you know it's it's part of the B meetings on Thursdays and and sometimes we win sometimes they win and that's part of the negotiation and that's part of our

job here at the city is to try to get something that's compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass but also is productive for the homeowner that they can enjoy their space and their their their home and uh you know that's that would be my response to the the issue of your statement about this particular discussion today in connecting an accessory structure to the main house is going to trigger a larger mass in the front of the house I'm not sure I I can I can understand your your position I I get it but I don't know if that's um a direct result of this discussion and this allowance of of connecting the structures yes it's going to create more roof area in the backyard yes it's going to create maybe a little bit less green area but I think that the positive side is it creates a more Unified property for the homeowner Juan do you remember about 20 years ago when Don snik you know was championing uh against MC mcmansions you remember that I remember discussions about that yeah absolutely so the mcmansions are alive and well now because I see them all over the place in the city of Carl Gables and it's specifically in lots that are no more than a 100 by 100 and and it's it's just gotten to the point where people were verys about these Mac Mansions they're very upset about the type of architecture and messing that's going up right now and people expect or deserve this no I think they expect and deserve to play Under the rules where they when they bought changing the rules during the game isn't the right thing to do me it's four balls you walk and three strikes you're out that's the rule Felix what I'd like to do is I'd like to continue in the process and then we'll have a final discussion with with it if not it takes away time from other

members problem it said I'm sorry he was addressing me and therefore I yeah yeah my response was at his no I understand I understand are Julio are you uh I'm done I'm done thank you jaier is there an attachment to this item with regards to the specific wording that you're going to be using yeah yeah so it's in the St report on page three and Page four off report okay so it's under a single family I have a copy of it because I can't find it on the get the has one you have another one okay fine I'll hold my comments until I get a chance to read this properly Robert yeah I I I see this and I respectfully disagree with uh the comments my fellow board member an architect um and by the way I did I did study Frank L right pretty good and and a lot of this I it goes back to the uh more anything else the Prairie houses where he did have connectors open uh connector cover areas I I don't see this as as a m Mansion anything I I see this as a way to to go from an existing structure or an structure that is the accessory to the main house I I sue has a valid point maybe we do have some limitation on the width of these elements that do the connection um I I don't think that the width of the House of the main house is appropriate so maybe a a a limitation on how wide could this be is is the correct condition for for something like

this I don't see it as say adding anything more than a convenience to go from a detached whatever garage or whatever to the main house I I see this as a and I don't see this you know any way ship or form you know compared to some of the houses that you know uh Felix has brought up um I think this is good I think that um it's probably to where this should have been done a long time ago it's time that we do it today uh my only and I don't know at the end I'm all you know the with that we should limit these connectors for lack of a better word to have um I I I would not want to see them the width of the principal structure yeah of course not okay any anybody but but right now I don't know if there's a limitation yes it's up to the boore but I think there we need to be a little bit more uh prescriptive if we have to so typically porches or you know ores are typically eight or 10 feet deep look you know I'm thinking and I'm going thr I'm thinking maybe you you you cap it at 12 to 15 feet in width because as an accessory structure a garage let's say what used to be a garage used to be like 20t minimum I think or 22 feet I don't want it the whole width Maybe we limit to you know 60% of that and that's where I came with a number just as a connector so it doesn't look like a massive connector right we we concur with that we agree with that wholeheartedly uh I don't think that's something that's been overlooked um but again we we don't want a prescriptive code we don't want to

tell people what to do uh we'd like to I think Let The Architects present their cases and then we review it and and then we say hey this is a great idea it's beautiful or this is terrible it's too massive you need to tone it down you need to scale it down so I I don't think that's I think in a matter of helping you uh if you went and added uh the purpose for the structure the purpose for the structure it would be go a long way to helping the board basically decide whether it's an appropriate Lo uh uh connection um you know we we can get into the nitty-gritty of the width and whatnot but if you say it's primary purposes for a pedestrian connection between an auxiliary structure and the main structure and limited to one story height I don't know why you want two stories but uh that would go a long way to controlling its size and give you the power to be able to or give the board the power to be able to reject things which are obviously L not uh designed for a primary purpose of of a of a walkway connection right I I think there's two things that play here one item or one issue in the discussion is what you just said a pedestrian connector a way for me to walk from A to B and be covered and protected the other option is using that covered space as a usable space as a barbecue area as a Gaz uh a place where you can lay out like in the photographs that she showed these are living spaces that you can use Outdoors that can be used for for recreation as part of the pool that's covered that's protected so if you limit the width of the of the connector to 5et then you can't use it it's purely connected you're absolutely correct and and is that what we want do we want

little hallways in the backyard that are four or five feet wide no I think the the concept here is to promote livability and enjoyment of the backyard and to give people the ability to use the space for a an activity a function a sit down a lounge chair I want to have my drink next to the pool I I can't drink put my now I'm totally confused because I thought this was about just connecting structures well that's why I'm bringing it up because that's the way it was presented I me that's the way it came across I'm taking it to the level where I think we need to discuss because that's the reason we're here right so those diagrams remember we're we're trying to the concern we get from residents is they can't get to the garage that's the concern we hear about we also hear the concern that people can't have Courtyards that's why I had those images of of u-shaped buildings that had Courtyards and had loes and porches facing these Courtyard areas you might want to put the images again it might be helpful to look at the sketches sure if I could have that PowerPoint no I mean we saw the SK we we saw we know what you're talking about but I mean this is presented as let let me get to my garage without getting wet and that I get that's what I thought we were talking about now we're talking about oh let's put lounge chairs out there and a barbecue grill and have it all covered and you look from above and it's all a roof okay so then if if that's we want to limit it to a walkway that's why I'm there look at here's the right so these are the courtyard images mostly Ali's Beach that have right that have loes and open rooms facing these these Courtyard areas yeah well it should be presented if it's a loia it's a loia if it's a walkway a connector it's that's what it but now you're expanding the whole thing to but let's fill the whole backyard with a roof on page four of your staff report under accessory use building or structure the underlying portion is the proposed language and it goes into attached open air accessory structures and single family residential and multif family one districts may include one or

twostory breezeways loes porches and other open air structures the loes are not usually something you walk through Breezeway is porches are not so it's a it's a um variety of different open areas look I I do think and and when I see some example the the width is important too I don't have a problem with the exhibit all the way in the right which is a twostory if it's appropriate I don't have a problem with that but I do I do have some concern of how why I I see the the the middle bottom you know image and that is more than a let's say connector I I I do maybe maybe it's not 15 maybe it's a little bit more but it's not you know it got to be some type of balance in my opinion yeah it can't be the width of the buildings that it's connecting one way or the other and it should be limited to some portion of it uh whether it's half or 2/3 or and even that and that the cover be limited what yeah there's still limitation 10% that's your limitation limitation is the open air requirements the ground coverage requirement the 10% accessory open air structure limitations yeah oh because that's going to be no you but I'm then I'm getting confused here because you allow a 10% accessory and you have your main structure this is just to be able to connect from one to the other and does not count towards the accessory square footage it counts against 45% yes that's we Notre if you already have both you can't have this you gotta work with a 45 we can't guys everybody can't talk at the same time sorry for people that haven't

spoken on the record they should identify themselves I am so and so from the Department something so sorry for the record our Cel less owning administrator so really nothing changed here the only change here is that now those accessory structure that is 10% limited to 10% can now be attached but it still be limited to 10% oh this this is this is simple that's okay what what if somebody has a 35% primary and a 10% accessory they're done they can't have they can't have anything I was with's comment and that was correct you're maxed out at 45% 35 plus 10 3 is 5% so if you have that condition right now that Mr wither has brought up you can't attach sorry I thought I explained that but I guess I didn't properly but that's that's what we're doing I we're not increasing the 45% we're not increasing Mass we're working within the constraints that we have we're just allowing the connector piece so it doesn't penalize you back into the 35% that's all it's still the same at the end of the day all right have are you done I have no further questions for this witness um a couple of questions I like to ask how do you handle an open kitchen today so how do you what how do you handle an open uh an open kitchen let's say I want to do an open Kitchen in my yard an outdoor kitchen the term that that we have in our business right now and the answer is very carefully um we we again we review the the project we look at the the the location the position where it sits you know is it concealed from the neighbor is is there an issue with the the barbecue and and the smoke and I mean we look at all those things and we determine hey it's acceptable or it's not um and if it attached to the main structure it counts against your 35% if it's detached it's counting against your

extra 10% if that's what your question is how is it calculated it's calculated a it's calculated in the future this gets approved what I'd like to do is recognize and welcome commissioner Fernandez for coming in thank you welcome um let's continue okay yeah when it comes to the calculations I leave that up the zoning okay we we only look at the aesthetic aspect of this thing and again if it's a positive looking concept then we go with it what happens in Florida we have a lot of wind driven rain so if you go ahead and you want to do so there's a point to connect from point A to point B how do you handle the part where if it's too high you've got rain coming in there it defeats the whole purpose of what you're trying to do that that's a very good point that that again we discuss all the time some people want to have a 10ft 12T tiebeam and and it's only a a 5 foot wide walkway and I said guys in the driving rain you're going to get soaked here you're not protected you're not Expo you're Expo you're fully exposed because the driving rain comes in at 45 degrees we're not doing a whole lot here so again those are things that we talk about those are things that we look at in terms of the also the width of the overhang you know sometimes increases the roof Mass too much so we we work on that hey tone down the overhang bring it back in a little bit lower the beam to make get more in sync with the scale of the home you know a lot of a lot of these things happen with existing properties not new construction and so we have to deal with existing 8ft beam Heights we have to deal with existing 6inch overhangs of these old older homes that have the the the concave uh you know Stu overhangs and so you know a a lot of Architects come in with crazy ideas and dreams and and somehow it gets it gets whittel down to something that we feel is productive and acceptable from my design standard I mean Sue makes a very valid point as far as you take this area you make it 10 foot wide or

12T wide and then you start sticking furniture under there right and I understand you're limited to your 35 and your 10 but then you start creating other outdoor areas that maybe were not intended within the code to be there um if I take an area if I take a walkway and I'm 12T wide 10 foot high and I start creating a lot of arches or somehow closing that area up more and more is that allowed um again that's something we'll look at in terms of the vocabulary of what the existing house is what the proposed addition is if if they if they coincide and and it's acceptable to do arches and then we recommend that if it isn't then we'll we'll say Hey you know come up with another vocabulary that but I I think as far as percentage of enclosure is that what you're alluding to yes that that people are going to enclose these things later I mean that's that's a an ongoing battle in the city uh with everything and anything whether it's a code change or or whatever I mean we deal with this stuff with code enforcement all the time where people take existing gazebos in the backyard and and all of a sudden they're air conditioned and enclosed and they have a dance floor you know but once it's in once once it is enclosed we'll take a look at it it will be part of the F company calculation or building area calculation and now once it's enclosed it will be part of the 35 and not the 45 now so there are other you know no I know what he's he's inferring is the percentage of openings and how how enclosed the structure is it's still open air it's not air conditioned the only thing that triggers you into the 35% rule is the air conditioning now it's livable space I I think that should be up to the boore I mean because then then we're going to be very prescriptive prescriptive I I think that's kind of posture also that's why I I'm trying to

defend the idea because I think it's a good concept I think it's a beautiful space I think it's a great backyard to enjoy your home and our our temperature our climate lends itself to outdoor living and and and I think it's it's a positive feature that doesn't change anything in the code today in terms of the square footage I agree with you that it's a positive thing and and it's a connection I'm just worried about some of the abuse that will happen with it that yeah I agree can how to do that is it subjective is it not subjective when it comes is there is it written in the code that says your walkway can't be more than x amount wide period it can't be more than a percentage I think there has to be just a few more definitions in there to me um how did this how did this come about was this sponsored by commiss I just want to clarify something if they propose to enclose it with with zoning zoning will say I'm sorry you are at your maximum square footage allowed for your property if you when you go ahead and do your roof line that's going towards your 35 and your 10 if you're going to go ahead and do what sorry if you're connecting your roof your roof line if it's more than You' got a 35% and you've got a 10% now you're connecting it but yeah you can't do that right because you're beyond the 45% do it now right so existing Pro what I'm concerned about is existing properties that have this and now want to connect it if they built it at a 35 and a 10 can't do it this won't help they can do it okay cannot do it can you don't have to worry about that they're just going to tear all these little detached areas down and then add to it I mean that's what you know they're going to do the other thing is that I mean we're having the same problem when you came before us with the three story thing remember we started talking about the three story then all of a sudden had someone had a

refrigerator a Jacuzzi up there I mean I I don't understand what is driving these changes you know by staff we have so many bigger fish to fry it it is amazing to me that first it's let's try to make a third story on a two-story limitation of the house I don't think it's funny I I really don't I mean I I I find it really offensive because I go through this city and I see all the these beautiful homes on North Greenway and they have exactly what you're describing except they were built in 1926 beautiful homes they have larger properties but they have these connections and all these things and they're not the gross ones that are being built today well I want a 12 story you know maybe what we should do is limit the height and if they want to have a higher height let them go to dado and build it there I mean you know there's a certain amount of character and charm and with these shoe boxes that are being built in this city we're losing that charm it's not just the big commercial buildings we're talking about now the the city and and the neighborhoods and the scale I think that when you only have 25 feet you increase another four or five feet to the height of a of a of a tiebeam it makes a big difference on the perception but Felix we're not inreasing the 25t tying height no I'm giving you that as an example oh okay okay and what I'm saying Juan and you know it I mean you live in a beautiful home you know and the whole point is you just go around the corner almost on the intersection of North and South Greenway and you have some of the most beautiful homes about four or five of them in a row and and and that's kind of my point I live in a historic house and my living

room has an 11 foot ceiling I love it it's the most beautiful space in my house everybody that gets goes there is in awe yeah because other houses next to me are eight foot ceilings nine foot ceilings maybe a 10 so the concept of a higher ceiling to us is acceptable it depends on how you carve it out and how you design it and I agree some houses that have been built in the prior years may have not addressed that properly but it's something that we look at extensively at the board level and and we try try to vet that as much as possible and I mean recently I mean these are homes that have been built recently and and it it's just you know concerning to me because we're taking away the character the other thing is we're incentivizing people to just knock down houses that really are beautiful you know so they could put up these monstrosities that don't have the charm but Felix we're here today just to talk about the connection between the 10 to the 35 I'm not disagreeing with you please I don't I don't disagree with you I agree I actually agree with you technically you're correct but it's it's it's one thing is to discuss this the usable separation all right between these things I get that all day and that's fine but we are going into a prescriptive code so if I me um this came about from a res for the record please this came about from a resident who reached out to me um their property uh they're working in addition I could I ask you to please state your name for the record just I just did oh I apologize I did not hear it no problem thank you um the resident lives in a 5,000 ft lot their house has maxed out they wanted to build a

terrorist that they can use with their family for their barbecue in the back of the house so it would fit under under their 45% however it cannot be attached to their house so they had to have it separated so on a rainy day all of a sudden that area is no longer usable because it has to be separated from the house so I reached out to staff and I said is there a way for us to find where if it is an open space it can be attached to the house so that it can be usable space at the end of the day the livelihood and the the the ability of our residents to use their properties in the best way they can should be our end goal and I agree with Mr parto we want to make sure that this also doesn't up open up for the mega mansions that we're seeing in the city that are Transforming Our historic areas into areas where you don't really recognize anymore you know that house that was built right off of Bird Road that looks like it doesn't fit in Coral Gables heard about it many times so this is just finding a way where residents now have an ability to use their backyards or whatever space they have in a way where connects to their house and they don't have to have this separation this resident ended up having to have a I think it was a 3inch separation at the end between their house and their Terrace so that it wasn't attached so all of a sudden rainy days can't walk out there so that's that's the reason this came about now I've been listening on the on the way here to the the discussion I think there's a lot that needs to be considered and potential changes that we can make to it to make it better and ensure that it doesn't doesn't open the door for additional um other ways that it can be taken advantage of and make sure that it really gets to the Grassroots of making sure that it helps the livability of our residents so I'll take any questions anybody has I actually have a question for you sure that example that you gave which was the 5,000 square foot and now

the structure in the back where they're maxed out how do they attach it if we allow this doesn't it count against their percentage they're already under construction this would no longer work for them so in their case they're already uh their their plans are approved they're moving forward the way it is I'm just looking for a solution for future residents who will be in the same situation it doesn't help that IND that they're already under construction it's not going to change things for them um so they never even asked for this I just met with staff and try to say hey let's find a solution that works for others so they don't find themselves in the same situation thank you by me Mr yes sir I'd like to address the commissioner the way this was presented to us does not address the specific issue that you came up with the point I'm making is that if this is changed the way that it's been proposed to us it will lead to the possibility of again abuses of things and and and that's you know I've said said it over and over again one thing is to write the formula but you have to test it you have to have the ability to test it under certain C circumstances before you fly it and and the problem is that hasn't been tested under that situation the way I see it right now is just going to increase massing and do all the things that aren't necessarily and it could be easily fixed and again this is not was what was presented to us where it could say for example and and I think that maybe the other board members Architects that may agree is that maybe you limited to the back 50% distance from from the front property line where these attachments would occur and then all of

a sudden your massing can change completely so it could be done that way if that seems to be but but but but what would happen if you have a corner lot the sidey yard I mean but but the reality is most of our homes the front yard is never an issue about 40% of your of your yard of of the front of your house of your house is behind the first 40% of your of your lot yeah so for the most part I that's a giving I don't think that'll be a major issue and I apologize for not having been here I wasn't aware this was on the agenda today so it wasn't until I started watching that I got in my car and I headed over here yeah if not I would have been here to for for the presentation portion see to me the key here is that no matter what you do you cannot exceed the 35 Plus the 10% you're limited the 45 so we're not given they could do today they could do today a 35% of main structure they could do 10% accessory one inch away or in the case of your three inches correct and they're fine with that all this is doing is keeping the 35 5% that 10% may be only 8% so you could have 2% whatever it is to get your your connector you're not to me you're not adding anything more than is allowed today you're making better for the resident I to me I think this is a very simple mechanism to make a better quality of home than we have today and Mr beard that was my request my request was that we not increase to the 45% that's allowed it was just let's find a way where it is more usable for the resident you see many homes where they have a detached Terrace out back all of a sudden rainy summer days you can't use your backyard whereas if it was attached you can go out there you can sit out

there you can watch your ball game you can have a barbecue with your family but if it's not it and one of the things we had talked about I'm not sure if I made it in here was ensuring that there were at least two open uh sides correct yes so if it was attached to the home and it's an L-shaped home it can be out there but at least two of the sides needed to be open right and the reason that I I just the reason I just brought up the suggestion Robert about the 50 you know pushing it back 50% is to make sure that all these projects don't get pushed forward which increases the massing issue but but but you have a minimum setback that you got to adhere to you're not changing that that's 25 that's 25 ft on 100 so I could do that I could do a house you know to my front set back this is you know the 10% that is on the back naturally I'm just going to connect it if I have you know all let's say that little structure is 8% whatever I'm just allowed to connect it with a minimum if the accessory structure is 5% I could do the cover connector a little bit bigger you're not you're not deviating from what we are allowed today to do today the only difference is that up to the only difference is that up to now okay we haven't been given the right amounts you know I'm not saying the prescriptive amounts but I haven't I haven't been given more information to be able to say I'm okay with it Felix they have I I I you know I disagree they said 35 and 10 that's it you're you're there what else you know you you can okay so so you're comfortable because it's just mathematical 35 and 10 that's that that's what they could do today exactly but the massing component is just been completely ignored no because they could

do you know what it could be worse where in the case like you know the resident approach commissioner Fernandez where they put they could do it three inches away to me that's a worst case and that's correct but you do that today that would be an easy fix by saying it has to be at least 5T or it has well but you can because now you can have your cake and eat it too and impose more regulations that you allowed to do it today I think this me I mean I feel I originally I I thought of putting a a limitation on the width but the fact that you have a percent percentages to adhere to is going to give you that that you know what if I can just jump in here for a second I mean this was presented I've got a garage over here and I have a house over here and I want to walk protected from here to there that's what it was presented as now we're talking talking about I want to extend my patio that's what it sounds like yes that's what they present okay it's not connecting to another structure it's let let me add a patio is that correct or is it attaching to structures should I show a diagrams again so there's two scenarios remember there's a scenario of the of the attached building that you can't get to without it being attached if you get attached it becomes 35 45% right there's other foret the percentages I'm trying to fit look at the visuals because I'm thinking man okay you want to get to your garage you don't want to get wet okay it's a 4 foot wide sidewalk covered to your garage and now we're talking about a patio right a courtyard right facing the courtyard with those images of the of the sup you're limited to your percentage so if you want to have a huge outdoor space that's open like the middle down below then your house is going to be much bigger air conditioned I I understand but I I thought it was connecting to structures that's how it was presented connecting two structures it it is connecting two structure there's just no

limit on the width of that connector is is is all predicated by the percentage right so I think the the the two variations one is what I had proposed regarding future construction the other one is for existing residents who have a similar situation so that they can address I guess the issue that they're having whether it's a detached garage or a detached Terrace now they can connect it as long as they don't pass that 45% gotcha but it but it has to remain open space okay but in in your scenario with your with your neighbor they just wanted to extend their patio they just wanted to create a Terrace they did not have a Terrace they just have an open backyard uh I think they were in the process of of uh having a pool out there so they wanted to have an area where they had a barbecue and some chairs to sit down and in in order for them to have that because of their being I think at 32 or 33% in order to attach it to the house it would have to be I think it was like 3 feet so in order for them to build something that was usable it had to be detached from the house and I think they came up with three uh three inches because of the separation of the roofs they just wanted to attach it to their house correct and on it right it was just basically an outdoor Terrace where they could have a barbecue and some chairs in the rear of the house if if if we're done I I feel comfortable I'll make a motion to approve uh this this item so we have a motion to approve is there a second I would like to second but with an amendment negotiation uh I would I would like to see that this type of a structure as a as a in between structure because what the what the the honored U commissioner presented was actually an addition that he's trying to get in under the

45% so that it is actually an auxiliary structure now attached to the house which then by right increases the the the size of the of the main house by 10% whereas before we had 35% for the main house and 10% for an auxiliary structure now you have 45% for the main house and no auxiliary structure that's the that's the the the right 45% overall you're just moving that 10% and attaching it but only if it's open air defining open air being open air being loes breezeways porches and other open air structures in so it has to be open on on at least two sides we can clarify that we need to clarify that that they should it should be to promote the movement of air across the space so you don't have an L necessarily sorry for your for your the commissioner's example because that may may not work but the idea is and if it's open on three sides which would the initial conversation it works out better because once you enclose two sides then you're opening up to a lot of a lot of different things I'm okay with it being open on three sides just to ensure that that is not my my my position is just at least open two sides from it has to be on two sides on two sides because three sides then you don't have a connector then it's not connecting okay so um and that's my that's my addition I'll accept your friendly Amendment and and I will second we have a motion we have a second Robert you know you know what uh discussion I think this has to be Rewritten I mean we talked I I was it has Rewritten I was going to say the same thing because I know that the intent is right I I don't have a problem I don't have a problem with the friendly Amendment component of it but I I think we got to get this right I mean I I don't want staff to use their imagination on this I think staff should

look at the transcript get it right do it the right way put in the caveats that have been discussed here and then come back and then get it approved well any other discussion no we have a motion we have a second let's go ahead and call the role please H yes no no have assignment have assignment yes chip no Robert be yes AB instead yes is what's the okay so it's uh it's recommended for approval with the amendment that it has to be open air on two sides two sides two sides two sides cor Mr Mr chairman sir point of order yes sir we have approved things before and then we don't see a followup I would like staff to give us the final resolution the one that is being that will be going to the commission for approval so we could read it and and and it's just I don't think we should be just reading our verbatim minutes I think we should actually look at how it turns out before you know and and and that's that's the importance of I agree with you but but then it doesn't come back to us for a vote on how it's going to commission at that point it's going to commission for their vote and their discussion right but what I'm trying to say is that nobody has cleaned

this up right now it's and and I don't think it's quite fair to this board or any board for that fact because you know I'm I don't want to say you voted against this and then all of a sudden it was written differently or the other way around and this is what I've been bringing up this is what I have been bringing up at every meeting for the past five meetings we have to see what it is because I don't know what this is I mean what we talked about right now is not in here but if it is it's so vague it's left to subjective interpretation and I'm not comfortable Sue isn't it then at the purview of the commission they're the elected officials to make a determination and if they see fit to bring it back to the Planning and Zoning Board then that's when it comes back to us to review it or tweak it or go further but to me if we do a vote and that vote passes how do you move forward no no I'm not saying that to come back to us I I would like like to see what it what what the sausage you know looks like at the end of the day the good thing is in this particular kitchen today we have our Su Chef next him here that could could to be able to go to a commission meeting and says this is what the board intended to be and if there's a misconception whatever it could be clarified right and I think commissioner Fernandez and he here he sees what our intent is clearly was for this cider and I think his in intent is the same to be honest with the way I see it his intent is the same and to address the concern we did hear you and we have been for every single email including a recap at the end of the email that sends links to the let us start item that has the uh cover memo that has the draft ordinance resolution what whatever it is so that you guys can see what the commission is seeing so we took that into account in

this past yes I said it on Friday okay it was there if I may Mr chair yes sir I will say being here is a different experience than what we get at the commission a lot of times we do not get the comments so all we get is there was a 70 vote there was a three a 4-3 vote and being here presents us with the opportunity of really understanding what the will of this board is and I think it's important I think this is this is the most important board in this city following the commission and the participation of each board member and the comments of each board member can really enhance the legislation that we pass on the commission to ensure that our residents are getting the best services from our city so I I agree with you um I mean I'd be open to to um deferring the item and sending it back when it comes to commission to ensure that that that it is properly vetted um you know I I appreciate the the votes in support and the the concerns that that you have all voiced today um and I'll commit to ensuring that it comes back to this board for for another uh look at the uh at the final piece of legislation commissioner for ners I just want to make a point what you said now has been my concern and and and which is hey they voted you know four to three to approve but it gets lost in the weeds because you don't have the verbatim tra uh transcripts you don't have the the discussions you could if you had enough hours in the day go through our entire you know one hour discussion on this item they do have the minutes doesn't the commiss unfortunately we don't get them on time so a lot of times things come to commission and the verbatim minutes have not been submitted on time

exactly so at times we do at times we don't and and I'll make a call to to my uh appointee to the committee to get an idea of what was actually discussed and what what came up during conversation or I'll just have to refer back to the video at least the city is doing a pretty good job of posting the YouTube videos uh it is live it is it is always available for residents to watch and for us to watch and that is extremely helpful um but the transcripts do take some time to actually come through so we sometimes if a vote is taken today and this goes up in a commission meeting next week there isn't enough time for us to to actually receive that and and that is the problem Mr chairman because you know we're assuming they have this and it it's not necessarily there and this is on this one small item sometimes it's big projects that we review and and that's not fair to them and you know it's almost like dealing with uh you know buying a used car I thank you for your time thank you Comm and I thank you all for your service to our city and for your dedication to this board thank you thank you all right let's move on the next agenda item please I item E2 in ordinance of the city Commission of Carl Gables Florida providing for text amendments to the city car Gables official zoning code article 10 parking and access section 10-19 remote off street parking and payment and L section 10-11 shared parking reduction standards section 10- 1112 miscellaneous parking standards article 14 process section 14-24 transfer development rights to address the applicability of these Provisions to projects utilizing provisions of the live local act chapter

2024-the or provision cability Clause codification providing for an effective date item E2 public hearing Jennifer Garcia Planning and Zoning director like the PowerPoint please so this is the long anticipated PowerPoint that we've been talking about for a few months now about live local so I'll be going through the Snippets of the ACT um both from 2023 and for 2024 last year glitch bill so as you know this a preemptive bill by the Florida State Legislature and they signed to law by the governor back in 2023 it was signed in March of 203 2023 and effective July 1st of 2023 and then a year later they came through the glitch bill um say Bill uh sorry Senate Bill 328 and that changed um some um elements um added some more preemptions so a preemptive bill is basically um the state's way of um preempting certain aspects of mity in County so it's throughout the whole um act mity must authorize must consider must do this so um going through the the ACT um so a city um must authorize development if it has 40 40% affordable housing and that's between 30% and 125% of Ami adjusted median income and and that is also um only in our mixed use districts that applies to Coral Gables it's also in our commercial uh industrial uh districts which we don't have in Coral Gables anymore we only have mixed use districts so looking at a map in Coral Gables all the red is our mixed use districts so you see that along H Street um you see it down Pont Leon you see a big chunk of it in our downtown as well as a couple blocks in the bore way going south the map on the

right side um is the industrial um former industrial district the design Innovation district and pockets of mixed use along US1 and then the small uh urban center that's next to south of Miami so affordability is defined by Florida State statutes um monthly rents not cing 30% of the amount which represents a percentage of the median adjusted gross annual income the Ami so our Ami is based on Mii County so looking at Florida housing.org they have some resources there to see what our Ami is and what's considered to be affordable so the median um income is $79,500 um so if you look at the Box on the right you see the rent limit by number of bedrooms and units so for example a studio which has zero number of bedrooms um could rent at 120% Ami for $2,300 just to give a a estimate that be the maximum that you could be able to rent 40% again of the whole building could have to have that um to qualify for live local preemption so moving on uh the maximum height is also preed by the by the state to be the allow highest allowed height within one mile and that's within Coral Gable That's not including South Miami not including City of Miami only within Coral Gables and the uh glitch bill of last year added some um unuseful language about single family um height um as it relates to uh being attached sorry adjacent by two or more sides and um different height um allowing so this is a map again showing the north part of Coral Gables on the left side the South part of Coral Gables on the

right side and that gray area is the 70 feet that's our our midrise height so that's that gray area you can see it expands most of our urban areas and 150 ft which is the kind of light uh yellow area and how much of that encompasses a city as you know our city is very small and compact so one mile is quite expansive so you can see it encompasses um most of H Street all of our downtown buil more way and along us one and so moving on yes they are allowed to have a bonus if they um if they satisfy our requirement for the bonus they be eligible to get the coral Gale Mediterranean Design bonus and looking at what that would what that would be the green area those four floors is kind of a a make believe m one uh lowrise zoning that pink area in the middle is the height preemption that live local Act is now allowing a affordable developer to do a Max of 150 ft that would be the max as long as MX3 is within one mile of the property um and again the the med bonus would be on top of that height and that'll be the maximum so they cannot go above in our city with Mediteranean bonus Beyond 190.5 ft and then density is analyzed um throughout the city so the highest allow density on any land in the mpal so our highest density is in our mixed use districts that's a little hard to read but the highest density is 125 units an acre and then administrative approval for density for height for land use and F if you look at this this is um kind of the the the meet of the law of the local

act for administrative approval however our zoning code does require uh building sites at 20,000 square feet or more to go through um again Board of Architects of course and planning and zoning board and City Commission Now if a property is less than 20 20,000 square feet it would just go through the typical DRC develop Review Committee and the board of Architects before spending for a building permit and then the f as I mentioned came about last year with the glitch Bill and they can have a maximum of 150% of the highest currently allowed floor area ratio in our city the highest floor area ratio is 3.0 so 100% of that would be 4.5 F so looking at this qualifying developments they must it's not just a giveaway they must be zoned in a mixed use District in our city we don't have Industrial and Commercial so it's only in the mixed use districts they have to provide at least 40% of the residential units to be affordable and that's for 30 years at least and that would be tracked by a covenant on the property and then it must contain at least 65% or more residential use as then you can't have one affordable housing unit and have a very tall office building for example so they meet those qualifications for the state then they are preempting us on again the density the height in the F so they can have the highest density in Coral Gables which is 125 units an acre the height is permitted within one mile within City Limits and then the floor area ratio would be 125 sorry 150% of the highest allowed uh which is 3.0 which total will be 4.5 F so comparing uh our typical mixed use zoning if they would follow our zoning code versus the preemption of the live

local act you can see that different heights mx1 MX2 MX3 mx1 allows for 45 ft or 77 ft with had bonus however if they are within a mile of MX3 and they're using the live local preemption um process then they could go up to 150 ft or 190.5 with met bonus same thing with MX2 70 70 ft or 97 ft with Med bonus per our zoning code but if they are within um a mile of MX3 then they could go up higher to 150 or 190 five with Med bonus f as you know is 3.0 or 3.5 with Med bonus the local act would allow for 4.5 F the density Remains the Same at 125 units an acre affordable units as we know we don't have a requirement for a minimum amount of affordable units but for them it would have to be a 40% of the residential units and the open space and other requirements setback requirements would remain the same this is a hard to see screenshot of our live local act uh web page that we have uh through the city it's a cable.com department development services is on our development services website and there you can see a description of what live local act you have links to the two State bills from 2023 and 2024 you have a link to our administrative order as well as a link to the commission's resolution as required by the state statute now moving on to what we actually have to adopt is the parking requirements so the state is mandating that we require um a consideration of parking reductions within a quarter mile of a Transit stop so this map again is the north side of Coral Gable on the left side the South Side on the right side and you can see that the bus lines are running along

H Street the try runs along Pon Leon U another bus lane runs along not bus lane bus route runs along uh Douglas Road and on the right side you can see the South Coral Gables and different um bus lines that run along there so what you can see in the white would be within a quarter mile of those bus routes and that would be um eligible for a parking reduction for a state statute for us to consider a um a parking reduction so we're proposing a 10% parking reduction that's in line with our shared parking um uh increment uh they had to fulfill um to be of course be a quarter of a mile of a Transit stop which is a metro rail or Trolley Stop I'm sorry Metro bus and Trolley Stop must be accessible by safe and pedestrian friendly infrastructure crosswalks sidewalks bike paths Etc um as well as a commission would consider the impact of any parking reduction and its compatibility with the with the area so this is again is required to be adopted by the by the mity and then the state statute also um requires like it's a 20% parking reduction if you're within a half a mile of a major Transportation Hub now looking at this um at this map you can see the major transportation hubs would be the Metro Rail stations at Douglas University in South Miami so you can see the area that are encompassing that that um those major transportation hubs and they have criteria in the state statute um that has to again within a half a mile of a transation hub as well as has to have available parking within 600 ft of the development and accessible by um safe pedestrian um means of of infrastructure so the summary the preemption is a touching height height

would be the heest allow high within one mile within Coral Gables the density with the highest density on any land in the city the f is 1 150% of the high is currently allowed the use would be allowing residential use on mixed use commercial zoning um and the parking the 20% reduction um would be required within a half a mile of major transportation hubs and then for us to consider a reduction and we're proposing to be 10% within a quarter mile of a Transit stop so in addition to the proposed um amendment required by the state for the parking reduction um we are proposing a few more um amendments to our code to better align any future live local application to be uh more consistent and compatible with our area um so prohibiting the utilization of remote parking except American Wild where it is required so any live local application would not be allowed to request a remote parking with their with their proposed development um they're also not allowed to apply or yeah apply a shared parking reduction in addition to what the reduction is already getting from the state so for example if they get 20% reduction they can't go ahead and reduce it further more with a shared parking study is one of the other and then also they be prohibited from utilizing trans transfer development rights or tdrs into their property since their Max F would be 4.5 addition of tdrs would could be much more incompatible development so that's also in the proposed uh text minute before you today and then since um we published this back in September of of last year um there has been two proposed uh bills both by the house and also by the Senate um we have reviewed that we're going

through that currently right now we're not prepared to have a reaction on that um just because it's moving through the process at the state level but then to just a recap you guys we have not have any applications for live local we not reviewed or processed any live local applications in the city and we haven't approved any there hasn't been any developments that have been approved to use live local within Coral Gables the closest one that's within our borders would be the Sears Redevelopment on Coral Way and Douglas Road um so just emphasize there's there's there's other large developments on our borders but those are not live local applications so we did reach out the city of Miami to see what the update is on a Sears property they haven't had any movement since last summer um when it was um first reviewed that's it yes do we have the actual what you proposing as Amendment do you have that as a slide or do you all have the actual Amendment because it's pretty small there's a lot of the conversation here about the live local act but the the actual amendments that we're doing to our code right now are limited to a couple of pages it's attached to the report on yes page three um I guess kind of starting in page two but page three of your in page four as well of your staff report has those amendments the implementation order no the the staff report from September 11 2024 but gra can pass those out well we do that can I ask the the attorney a question one is in general first uh presentation um she said that the the highest density is what is the maximum allowed in the

city she stated 125 units per acre but in fact in the CBD there's no limitation on density would that not be the case because you allow what is the maximum allow in municipality so I think that's you know from a legal point of view well we have certain thoughts about how that could be addressed I'd be happy to discuss that with you on a onetoone basis but I'd rather not um chat about our about what possible responses we would have to that that's and then the second you know to you as well is we're proposing additional restrictions such as remote parking share parking and and the uh tdrs right well I think we feel that these bonus programs that we've provided we had envisioned based upon what we thought height density would be but when the live local act came out it was determined that well wait this one thing if we're doing it under regular development but it would not be fair to do that to offer those bonuses for those particular but devel and this just me you know just trying to place Dev as advocate here are we not setting restrictions that based on the lift act lift local act the the they're entitled to do because it's are we making that interpretation no I think what it is is that there are bonus programs that we

have to do which is the uh if they offer a um Mediterranean style that they're subject to it but that but they're getting so much more in the Liv local act that where we feel that we have the right to restrict their ability to get tdrs and and the other restrictions that would even make their developments more intense so we're the belief that these Provisions thus far now we may do this and the legislature may look at this and say oh well we're not going to let you do that that's a possibility but but right now we don't see that there's a restriction on our providing this restriction so let me piggy back off of Robert since we're offering these changes why aren't we also including in there no Med bonus because this the um the law changed in the last legislative session and specifically do you want to bring that up again I I think you you have we have a better it's one thing it's one thing when we have a direct statement by the legislature you have to offer this that's not we haven't gotten it for this but you you have a better chance of restricting the Met bonuses than you have the other because my understanding and I've been trying to be very proactive and familiar with it you are not allowed to ask for any deviation variances any waivers you know to to what is allowed in a city the the

in my opinion my eyes the Met bonuses could could constitute as a waiver a a a variance from the base code what is allowed under the B you know base code I I think that we may have a better chance of limiting the med bonuses well well here's my fear so say they get the med bonus and all of a sudden they're at 190 so another live local comes in and they say well our base is going to be 190 and we want a med bonus on top of that well I think you should no you're not you're not allowed to do that because I think zoning code's very clear and if you get metab bonus this is your height it's not addition to whatever height you have it's very clear if you have Med bonus you get this height or this height doesn't go beyond that doesn't contemplate any kind of higher zoning or higher Building height to go beyond that codino building 204t that's up 190 yes so they they're in a pad so they're part of the um the within the CBD on certain streets within a limiting um density I think of 100 units an acre or something like that quote me on that um so the different different animal different legislation to go through I don't understand your explanation no I don't either can you break that down a little bit C so codin was allowed to build Beyond 190 ft because they are there's language in our pad that that allows that within the CBD limiting the height to limiting the density to 10 and something units an acre no The Limited in the pad does not allow you to put additional height on it the limit in the pad allows you all sorts of things such as of such as setbacks but not additional height yes and that and and I always you're shaking your head so I'm wrong where does it say height so there

was a there was a ordinance that by the commission to add on to the pad at the very end after I understand that what what I couldn't understand also is that all of these things that were talking about tonight right um is this B based on the zoning or is this based on the land use plan all all the everything we're talking about with live local are we are we using the height of the comprehensive land use plan or are we using the height of the existing zoning on the particular property so most of the time it's consistent each other so if you're mixxed use you are also High I'm asking a very specific question right now we have a comprehensive land use plan the comprehensive land use plan is the limit the ceiling but underneath that you have the zoning so when you're talking about live local act are you using our extended height of live local with the comprehensive land use plan for example just to to separate ated the height at 190 ft for every single property that you showed there so I think in general we're using the zoning but again our zoning our land use are usually very consistent except for areas on mirac Mile which has a land use of high rise and we're not allowed to go highrise I'm mirle mile sorry you're saying that they're very consistent so let's say a project that has a zoning that has a limitation of 60 ft and the land use plan says you can go up to 90 ft which one do you use the 60 feet for zoning or the land use PL well I think I would use a 60 feet in zoning but again I do not know many properties that are

inconsistent exactly what you're saying because what you're talking about is then you're going to say for height it's whatever the highest building is within the mile in the thing that's fine that's height but what I'm trying to say is that you're when you get into the Weeds on live local for example for for example Broward County City of Hollywood uh what's it called Margaritaville there you go you know exactly where I was going they're being sued sued right now by a developer because they said live local I want to be as high as Margaritaville Margaritaville was given all sorts of bonuses on every single one and the city determined that the bonuses were not on the table when it came to height they were not on the table when it came to height although that building measures X they said no no no no it's going to be why because that property you said it probably got waivers and additional approval that you are not allowed to seek under the live local you know you has to be what is permitted without any special approval exception so in in in the City CA you would have allowed for example 190 ft if I'm in in in the mix a mixed use District in the um by The Collection let's say all right that's a mixed use District the CBD which is one mile away you allowed to do up to that height in that area the problem is that but I cannot go

more than than the 190 and and the problem is that on Miami Beach they've already had a couple developers trying to utilize live local and they ran into into a problem the problem they ran ran into was that they could get the amount of units but they couldn't get it within the height in other words when they squeezed it one way it went the other way then they tried to get a variance and they were denied because you cannot you are not allowed to seek special variances waiver nothing and that happened in the beach in the uh Clevelander property correct because it is not a mix use propert uh zonic that this in my opinion well forget about my opinion when that particular project that you mentioned before was granted over 200 ft there was a change of the comp plan right correct and the zoning code as well yes and again here we go again we change a comp plan as easy as we change owning the comp plan theoretically was established those maximum heights were established specifically wrapping around the the idea of concurrency in other words all the different things that you need to be able to make I don't think development viable the problem I see is that we are now reaping the rewards at a state level of people now wanting to build even more without the concept of concurrency in other words we are building unsustainable projects and by the way what happens Mr CER after the 30 years does it turn magically into something

else because in 30 years now you don't have enough parking you have all this density now those people are going to be paying rent through the nose it's not affordable anymore and this is like the Trojan Horse isn't it well I I think I think that all those questions are are excellent questions that you should address to your state representatives they're the ones that adopted this thing was not it was not something that Carl gaes does what we're trying to do here I think is to do what we can and make clear that certain bonuses that we provide are not subject to a live local project and I think that it's a reasonable opportunity these are things that we're encouraging uh tdrs in certain areas of of the city but that was based upon a certain level of development now this live local project ignores really what our restrictions are really ignores our zoning and says you can build this so the least we can do is say well these bonus programs that the local government has provided I'm sorry that's not going to be available to you because you're getting a ton of development based upon the state law you don't need in our view these extra um bonuses so so why aren't we including the med bonus in this I mean these are in comparison yeah but the problem is there's certain things that the legislature has directly preempted us on and said no you've got to have if if you

offer a bonus program for Med bonus you got to offer a this bonus program to live local they did this this year maybe they saw our situation I don't know why they did it but and when you look at the the new law they're targeting municipalities trying to preempt them as as much as they can and but it's not the new law which is about 65 pages I think the house bill is we have you know we've gone through it once but there's a lot in there but at least with regard to what we can do we're doing why they're bonuses a bonus is bonus you know well I don't think it's there's bonuses and there's bonuses well let's make it a bonus let's do the big b instead of the small be I mean because the med bonus is the issue here it's not remote parking it's not TDR well I'm not sure that the med bonus is really getting you what they're really getting the big thing is that they're getting this height within a mile of the city I mean that's the huge which is how you going to achieve that height through the Met bonuses so you could get the 190 ft six inches okay and and you're going to be able to get in my opinion and based on conversation I'm having with the city of Miami in in relationship to the density you know you're going to get the maximum maximum density in the city of Miami is way up because it's a th units per acre okay here I think the density is going to go back to the CBD which there's no cap on the density okay and and Robert but Robert to your point about you know like um in the collection area they would be able to go to 190 would they be able to go to 204 we have a precedent setting no no no because

that got a special exception special approval for that no not special approval they follow criteria or zoning code and they met that criteria by limiting the density by limiting um by limiting the density being on certain streets and being within the CBD and being a pad but that got approval that got an approval special approval from us meet that criteria then yes they can have extra heat extra extra um height but they're going to limit their density to do that and provide more open space which I'm not sure that but I'm just saying if that's the tallest building in Coral Gable is that the tallest building in Coral G if they meet the well no the bmore is but if they meet that criteria they have to meet that criteria in legislation it's not we don't interpret it to be that that would apply to any own else except for me that criteria in our zoning code if they come in our right Jennifer for live local because that's the intent that you don't have to they cannot get 204 feet or whatever the height that is they're Limited at the 190 ft 6 in why because that's the way that the live local is written to get to get anything over than what is normally allowed normally allowed without going through any hearings going any approval you got to keep it at what is today allowed in that municipality yeah but are allowed how by zoning or Allowed by the comprehensive land use plan it's whatever's they don't I don't and I'm not going to say you know address exactly that because I'm not sure how they referring it but they're referring as the maximum height allowed within one mile radius of your location and the density is the maximum allow in that municipality whether it's built or not built correct wait chip you have a

question question is there a traffic and currency part to this live local I haven't seen anything about traffic I've seen parking I've seen density I've seen Heights but I haven't seen traffic I don't think they've addressed concurrency why I I thought I read it in the because we're going to be taking the metro rail the state wall they've addressed concurrency it it it mentions it it doesn't say the word concurrency but it mentions the elements of concurrency can we can we look at that maybe we can look at that I mean why not you know can I ask maybe see the problem is there certain areas of the city are uh within within the grid I think that are an exception to concurrency but I don't think South Miami no you're you're talking about only traffic concurrency Mr CER which was Exempted by Miami D County which is everything that's within well if they don't the paletto which is the sea toward the ocean that's right is exempt from traffic on currency well that's b day County in the unincorporated area no no no no that's everything there is a traffic and currency allowance for every municipality everything in the county that that that Circle or not circles it's an inverted L of the paleto expressway that runs the east to west and then South and and everything toward the bay is exempt from traffic concurrency and the County Commission addressed that for all municipalities is not if not nobody would meet traffic concurrency because leun Road has been at level f for at least 25 years well there's other concurrencies there's water and sewer if you don't have the sewer you can't hook up and that's a problem right and and that is correct and that's what I've been well well that that is not addressed in in what's

before you I I've got a question because there's a separate requirement for meeting so what about the definition of a Transportation Hub I mean the metro metro rail is that really a a serious Transportation Hub is there a number of people that has to move what's the criteria to be a Transportation Hub I'm not sure I understand the question not it's not based on logic what they what they do is they they actually do a Crosshair of an intersection of two bus routes and that's good enough for the okay thing it it is absurd yeah because it doesn't resolve anything right and and you know these guys are just painting us into a corner so let me ask you a question it said that a project has to have 65% residential units right 65% and yet it says 40% must be affordable housing is it 40% of the 100% of the project or is it 40% of the 65% residential yes of the residential unit so you can have 65% minimum you could have 85% right but 40% of whatever amount you have has to be affordable so what I'm getting at the 40% of 65 means not too many units necessarily right not too many units to qualify for this but so it's not like we're solving the affordable housing crisis here right but we're not passing on the live Lo be able to afford well that's another issue who's going to be able to that's been the whole issue with our that's been our whole issue with our affordable crisis in Carl Gables I mean we had we were 970 short when I got on the commission I think and I don't know that we've even put a dent in that because who can really afford a$ 225 or $250,000 condo on affordable I mean that's that's I agree listen at 120% of Inc commedian look at the numbers

they're not affordable units that's what I'm saying they're not going to be so they're put tell me that a two-bedroom unit is going to be paying $3,000 that's what that's not affordable housing no it's not so why aren't we arguing that well I think there's that's what they what's before you is can change it's changing all the time there's going to be another revamp of this isn't there they're now revamping this for a third time they're doing it now started about a month ago and right so we're really dealing with a moving Target what we're trying to do here but it's not for our it's not for our benefit though this is going to be all Anthony Dei is working for the developers he's the main driver behind this isn't he Robert um there's too there's many many people at the state level behind this yeah and I don't think I don't think it's Anthony to be Qui my bigger question is what has the city done they've been sitting on their hands for the past two or three years m not trying to build a Coalition with cities in Naples or Orlando or Fort Myers or anywhere in state or dur not even in our own neighborhood and we just letting where's where is the fight from the municipalities against the State of Florida I'm not that's a hypothetical that's not a question to you but I'm just saying it's it's extremely disappointing that that we as a city have not at least tried to to form a a group or Foundation to fight this it's obscene and absurd yeah it's not like we would be on our own there are a lot of municipalities in Florida that that are fighting we're doing nothing but laying laying down I mean what we're we're offering here we're not even addressing the med bonus should we put this anyway well I I think what's going on we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes legally with the city I would also think that there's a lot of discussion that's going on behind the city that they don't want to come before

an open public meeting and let everybody know what their what their action is going to be or their course to fight it is going to be that's that's what I'm feeling for this yeah but but why would der Sue why would Miami Beach Sue why would I mean there's a list but we don't know we don't know if the city of C Gables is going to sue right now well then why are we even voting I don't think Miami Beach has May has sued they may have been sued but I don't think the Miami Beach has Su only D my D and Hollywood are the only two that I'm aware of well think that they uh worked something out with the developer and derell let me ask a question before we proceed do we have anybody obviously we don't have anybody in Chambers do we have anybody on Zoom no anybody on the on platform no okay I'm going to go ahead and close it for public comment my question is what direction what direction do you need from us tonight and how do we how do we how do we proceed well I'll move staff's uh Rec recommendation I think that's what you want right that's always helpful is there well we have we do that we have a motion is there a second before we continue second for discussion second for discussion and we have a second for Mr havet so Mr chairman yes sir um I don't know how many meetings in a row when we've discussed this issue I've said it over and over and over um I suggested that we follow the track of what Miami Beach did with the live local act and write a separate a

separate par a separate chapter and in there put all the exceptions as they did I have a feeling that eventually I think the voters of Florida are going to turn on this legislature and and this is eventually going to go away once the outrage hits the right level which is a political level I believe that we should write this as a separate section because it will be easier to amend and also to bifurcate in case that happens too so the reason I'm saying this is right now we're taking these sections which staff has identif ified and we're peppering them through our zoning code which will be very difficult to retract later on alter and someone is going to Simply make a simple mistake that is why Miami Beach did it in a separate way which I think would be the right way to do it I don't mind the issue of the concepts of the different things that have been uh that have been proposed by staff I just think that the vehicle is the wrong vehicle to do it I suggest that they come back with a chapter which is specifically of live local similar to what Miami Beach did I think it's the most logical way to keep it fresh separate where it can be altered because as Mr caller said right now there is more changes coming and the same that it's going in the up direction tomorrow could be going in the down Direction my suggestion is that you should move for Denial on the basis that you want it to be a separate section and that you're not happy with it the way staff has done it it's a motion for denial and that's

your recommendation right now we have a motion for approval and we have a second for discussion right right so unless that changes right that's true but that would be an alternate if this fails that would be your your would be your motion and and as part of the discussion I totally agree with with Felix let's not integrate it this should be separate I will withdraw my motion I withdraw my second for discussion okay does anybody want to make another motion Mr Paro okay in simple terms what what Mr caller said that simple terms so so you you you're you move for recommendation of denial based upon the fact that the cities approach is not to create a separate section but rather to amend those pieces that need to be amended words he wants a separate section he wants a separate section the city wants to just amend what they feel needs to be amended and not do any more than that so we Mr Paro is that good yes we have a motion we have Mr Withers with a second any discussion what exactly are we doing so this will be a separate section to to the zoning code to the zoning code so what they're doing is addressing the live local but what intend is that going to do what purpose is that going to do I I mentioned that several things number one this is changing almost on a daily basis if we take these sections Robert like parking and remote parking and tdrs and we start peppering it all over the code every every time that there's a change from the legislature either going up or down on the thing it'll be almost impossible okay if I understand you correctly the other thing is that it

allows the city should this eventually go away which I agree with Mr parto that it will that it becomes a discrete section which then disappears okay so it will be I I admire the logic of that it is for clarity okay so you're not whatever the live local is just under completely under a different section that's how we and that's how Miami Beach has it okay I agree also okay all right any other discussion no call the role please sual yes the par yes yes chip visor yep jul gavia yes Robert beer yes AB anstead yes thank you okay we have uh one last thing and that is item E3 Mr caller item E3 in ordinance of the city Commission of Carl Gables Florida providing for a text amendments to the city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending article 14 process section 14- 202.5 building site determination to prioritize Frontage consistency with existing building sites allowing under certain circumstances the voluntary demolition of an existing structures that become non-conforming from the separation of the building sites to satisfy non-conforming structure criteria and establish size restrictions on residents in separated building sites based on the square footage permitted if developed veled as a single building site providing repealer provision cability clause codification and

providing for an effective date item E3 public hearing thank you Mr caller good evening Planning and Zoning Board final item tonight proposed text Amendment for uh section 14- 22.6 for building site determinations this is specifically for the conditional use component of building site determinations we'll break into just the meaning of building site uh separation just quickly um if you take a look at the graph on the PowerPoint right now you'll see a division of an existing building site into two smaller sites this is only applicable to single family and uh duplex or mf1 zoning districts this establishes eligibility for issuing building permits for a residence within one of those sites So currently the administra administrative approval criteria within the code indicates the following you must have at least one platted lot and a street Frontage of 50 feet you can have no more than one building of an existing previous uh building site with structures and that that includes walls fences um there's no more than one building to be rebuilt after voluntarily or involuntarily uh removing uh previous uh structure and then it must also uh meet all of the following uh no more than one building site can have 5,000 Square fet Minimum no building site shall reduce or diminish less than 50 linear feet at the street Frontage there should be no encroachments um it of avoidance of creating non-conformities that could

also mean uh having a swimming pool on the adjacent uh platted lot there must be an absence of restrictive covenants or a Unity of title uh that currently ties the property in the sense or has restrictions that would not allow any kind of building site separation um so we'll take a quick look at the kind of lots that we traditionally see currently in Coral Gables um interior Lots Corner Lots through lots and Corner through Lots um so the current conditions right now if somebody comes in for a building site determination if you take a look at the left you'll see that there are two platted Lots um it sufficiently meets the frontage the square footage requirement this would actually be uh a property that could administer administratively be approved for a building sight determination on the other hand if you take a look at the the graph for the the site plan that's on the right hand side you can see how the existing residents currently straddles the two lot lines fortunately that would not be something that could be administr administratively approved it would potentially have to go through a conditional use process which would be the development Review Committee Board of Architects your board the Planning and Zoning Board and eventually uh the city commission so right now the conditional use approval requirements are as follows um and this is for that public hearing component so proposed building site must be greater or equal to other Lots within a th000 foot perimeter uh maintains open space neighborhood compatibility and historic character exceptional or un usal

circumstances uh where it could have multiple Street frings um as we saw that uh that corner uh through through lot as well addition um as we looked at earlier as at the examples and then the fourth component within the conditional use criteria you must meet at least two of the three criteria and that's where the proposed text Amendment uh or a portion of it is being uh proposed so comparable Street Frontage there is no non-conforming setbacks or encroachments and there must be continuous ownership of the subject property for at least 10 years quickly we'll just take a look at a a case study that was previously approved by City Commission in 2023 uh this is located uh at 631 Zamora Avenue it's an interior lot it was on the north side of Zamora Avenue the original building site had 11,300 Square ft of net area and it had two platted Lots so what was proposed is that the two uh Lots be separated they met all of the criteria for that conditional use component except the cont The Continuous ownership for 10 years now if you kind of look at uh the the criteria that's mentioned there you must meet it at least two of the three criteria they met the comparable Street frontages and there was no non-conformities no setback or encroachment issues another case study is one that we just recently saw that came in front of the board is 5810 majori Street uh located uh on a corner through lot on the northwest corner of uh Draco Avenue and Major Avenue and the southwest

corner of uh maram morav so so this building site had 20, and6 Square ft it had four combined Lots together the proposal was to split it into two uh 10,3 square foot building sites as we know it's currently uh pending um it was uh denied in front of the board recently and it was also not recommended for approval from staff because it did not meet two of the three criteria it might have had comparable uh Frontage but uh when it came to encroachments and setbacks and that continuous ownership for 10 years it did not meet that criteria so once again um this is the conditional use criteria overview for when somebody comes or submits an application and they are not able to administratively approve and the applicant chooses to continue they feel like they have a opportunity to meet the criteria and go through the public hearing process so um just as the previous uh text Amendment came before you at the first item this item was also proposed by a City Commissioner so staff did a GIS analysis and a just a basic overview so as of January 2025 um within the City of Coral Gables we've got 13518 uh properties with folio numbers so the parcels that currently have 20,000 Square fet which we're just starting to whittle down the properties that's 1,747 then what we did is we took a look at the properties that didn't have any site specifics that didn't have any

historic uh determination associated with it and also any kind of um site specifics so then that took us down within the single family residential Zone properties 239 and that also gave us only two uh multif family duplex Zone properties so overall that would be 241 properties that could potentially be affected by the the proposed text amendment that that we're about to delve into here so if you take a look at the graph again uh this is a 20,000 ft building site with four uh platted lots and you can see where it could potentially be um uh separated uh into two 10,000 foot building sites know it's a little hard to read hopefully you you've got the staff uh report in front of you and the proposed draft uh ordinance but for the component um um that requires two of the three criteria you can see that what we've added in the first component now this is somewhat in the middle of the actual um language it's relatively lengthy but we added that street Frontage of building sites created shall also be equal to or larger than the majority of the existing frontages on the ab budding streets so this also plays uh a role with in that th foot perimeter as well um if you want later I can like delve into the whole subsection of a there and then subsection B what we added here is basically uh the voluntary demolition of non-conforming structures

on properties uh that have more than 20,000 square feet so currently uh the building site if it's separated or established and it has less than 10,000 sare ft it would not result in any existing structures becoming non-conforming as it relates to the setbacks lot area lot width depth ground coverage and any other applicable provisions on the zoning code um and then the next uh and the final portion of the proposed text Amendment Falls within subsection G this is actually something that was within the code previously and then it was taken out recently back in 2022 um to kind of give a balance and as staff has communicated with uh uh Council and uh with the City Commissioner that has uh requested this we thought we would try to actually add a the teeth back in so to speak of what we had so the total square footage of a residence allowed on a separated building site shall be equal to or less than the total square footage that could be constructed on the property if developed as a single building site so that's exactly what you would look at there on the on the property of the 20,000 versus the two to uh 10,000 squ foot building sites whoops forgive me so um that concludes let let me just go ahead and reiterate real quick is that really what the proposal is doing or what the proposed text amendment is we're affecting two of the U two of the three criteria that's required within the conditional use component for an approval for a building site

determination with Frontage consistency and that voluntary demolition of a non-conforming structure if the lot the original lot has got more than 20,000 Square ft and then adding that condition back into the code to where um if a if a building site determination is actually approved a resident in the residences allowed uh would not be able um to exceed they would only have to be equal or less than the total square footage of a resident on the original uh subject property so staff is here to answer questions I I have a question for you you keep mentioning two of three it's always been three of five from what I understand that was uh that was changed uh a couple years ago that was changed yes sir I um I was not familiar with that my my understanding was it was always 305 what okay so right now it's uh subsection F and then uh within F it's subsection 4 the application satisfies at least two of the following three criteria that's how the ordinance currently reads so we just had a presentation which you showed here and that presentation even staff's presentation was talking about the five requirements and not meeting so I'm a little confused I'm sorry we're yes majority requirement okay so you're we're talking about the entirety of um it's actually it's it's not numbered in the code like that so subsection F has one two three and four where we're actually putting the proposed or we're requesting the

proposed text amendments are subsection four of subsection F you honestly you're confusing me if you take a look at the ordinance or the staff report I think that'll be helpful I did okay no no I I took a look at it well I thought I thought there was a recent Amendment to the lot um split ordinance where they took out one of the requirements which which one was that de plan own director so yes there was a requirement that used to have I believe four meet three of the four the fourth one that was taken out was the Covenant or the UN need a title requirement CU it was kind of um oh I now I remember they were saying that if the commission is granting it then essentially what they're doing is modifying a previous Covenant they did right so they took that Covenant requirement out so this is what you're left with when did you when did they take that Covenant requirement when was that done last one um 2023 or 2024 I don't I'm sorry I don't I don't recall that ever being taken out what's can I ask a question to all my board members does do any of my board members recall that being taken out at all any presentation made to us or anything so out of everybody here none of us recall that or are familiar with that happening actually not all the board members that would happen in 2022 23 but presentations have come before us listing all of them since then well for any I don't think we've had a

presentation that I recall where majority they eliminated example had it in there still and the Covenant was and the Covenant was one of well we recently had that lot split that came before youori it the Covenant was not part of the presentation yes it was it that was what heartened it James hartnet I think was the neighbor yeah Robert right well James Harnet was arguing that well they did this Covenant but they but they took that that requirement out when no I remember reading that in there yeah Jennifer you're looking up the ordinance she's so good she's looking up the ordinance I mean for me I've always been against you know I've been against Lot what and in the City of Coral Gables um specifically when the requirement was whether the house was straddled between the properties or there was a pool that was between the properties or there was a wall or fence or something or anything that was straddled the other the other thing to me was a covenant to me meant a covenant to run with the land I'm not in agreement with covenants being undone because what's a covenant for then just do something and say in the future we can just remove it or in the future we can modify that's I'm not talking for the board but for me I see that as an issue going forward with properties within the city you're going to have a lot of what I see happening with this is you're going to have a lot of people coming with law splits which we never had before I think the rationale as I call was that the Covenant can be

released by the city commission it's always been that case so so the point the point was if the city commission were allowing the lot split in essence they were in effect releasing the Covenant and that's why they took that requirement out since they felt it was duplicative I'm not saying that I'm not commenting on whether it was a good idea or not a good idea I'm just explaining what was done month ago it was adopted in uh August 24th 2022 that change happened why was it an issue a month ago with magori I'm sorry what year that I I think the issue with the majority one was that they would have to demolish remember the building the building for that one was covered both Lots so they would have to demolish it the commission had it sent back here because he attempted to argue that in essence that the the structure had been so um DET had so deteriorated that essentially it was an involuntary demolition not a voluntary demolition you recall the other side brought all these pictures seeming to suggest it wasn't as bad as Council was arguing the issue was not the Covenant the issue was the demolition of the voluntary demolition of the building had this wall been adopted they would have been able to split the property because it would be they were maintaining the frontages they were keeping I believe the square footage

is uh the same but they were going to be able to volun pursuant to the code voluntarily demolish the structure that was straddling the property line so this essentially addresses that issue whether you you all are free to recommend denial if you don't think this is a good idea that's why it's come before this board to answer the sh's uh previous question by the way before you continue you should be on radio Okay because your voice is very soothing and I just think it's a good I'll take thething component it's it's out of context but I hope that was a reflection on my voice but anyway I won't take it that way sorry about that yeah go ahead okay well I think where maybe a little bit of the confusion is I'm I'm looking through um the code right now so remember we've got a standard of administrative approval and then for all the other components that do not meet the five components of administrative approval and that's within the code right here it's subsection E I don't know if anybody's got the code up 14202 14-22 6 subsection e is standards for approval and that would go for the administrative component but when we get into the conditional use use component and that's what we're talking about tonight and that's actually um as another question came up it looks like U the director has just provided me with the information uh back in June of last year of 2024 uh the Planning and Zoning Board did actually approve an ordinance to basically assist with the process for

building site determinations by removing redundant regulatory language that was already comprehensively addressed elsewhere within the zoning code so what we do have now within the conditional use component for building site determinations is that subsection F and that's where we have four components within F and what we're looking at tonight for the proposed text amendment is f4a and then f4b and then Additionally the very last one the one that we actually are talking about uh bringing back which was previously in the code back up until 2022 is for conditions of approval and that's in subsection G if if that helps at all hopefully I've actually got a copy of the code if you'd like to okay I understand I just I mean I like to I like to here everybody's actually do we have anybody on on Zoom for this no they're all went to bedo voice no one in zoom and platform phone no okay let's close it for public comment Felix what about you I want to start with you so can you disclose or is it a secret of who who brought this up on the commission um from what I understand commissioner costro is the one that so my my question my question is from what I am understanding you can

now take 250 foot by 100t platted lots that have a h a house straddled across it demolish the house and build two houses right but that would be incorrect so that's the joy of the conditional use component is each item would have to come in front of the whole process DRC Board of Architects planning and zoning and then that determination would be made by you know the without through the whole public heing process my house was originally built in 1950 and it straddled uh two lots two ploted lots and when I bought it in 1990 I applied for a permit and the City attorney Liz Hernandez at that time had me execute a Unity of title correct to make sure that forever that would be one house I could build a second story on it I could build an auxiliary building on it as long as I met all the zoning requirements that was that the lot next to me was an empty lot it had some type of title issue and they bought it uh person that built it was a Speculator and U he put two pounds in a one pound back and the the house has a rear setback of about six feet um they have a front setback which is greater than 25 feet simply because they couldn't fit the septic tank anywhere else um the incompatibility of that house exists the neighbors are wonderful very

nice people it's been sold twice since the original developer sold it and um you look at it and it just doesn't look look like it fits normally the problem that I see is that we have right now 77 pages in the back of our zoning code that have to do with uniqueness of every single site from from things such as as as uh mundane as which way the facing is on a particular Street uh to many other things there and many of them have to do with these nuances that go neighborhood to Neighborhood unfortunately what I see is that I see uh people that speculate coming in and altering uh the feel and the look you know of the of the the neighborhood that particular block I see it over and over uh the neglect issue in other words not deferred maintenance the neglect when I remember uh the attorney for that was representing his mom said that um you know this thing just a couple years ago looked like it was being rented and here are the pictures they've done that everywhere over time look at Miami Beach an iconic hotel that was uh AB absolutely abandoned and then finally it had to be demolished because it was beyond repair so I I I don't see a real advantage of this without going through

a specific know hardship and going through the process as it stands now I I don't understand you know what the great Advantage is to the great you know for the greater good that's where I'm having a difficult time with for me I just make it as as difficult as possible for people to comply with this to make sure that it doesn't actually um bring in speculators to do more of it and and that's always my concern that when you make a change to the code you know it it has a reaction somewhere else so I I I have a difficult time in justifying this particular change and also so you know uh I think the commission has the power to remove their own covenants they do not have the power to remove agreements between two parties where the city is not part of it correct Mr cin that would be correct so for me where I'm having a problem is that I think the unities of of title should be required to ensure that as it was to me 35 years ago and I think that we should keep the status quo to be able to preserve that um I understand what is trying to be done as far as limiting the square footage so basically it's the same thing but it's not the same thing when you finally develop what's what's there sta oh go ahead forgive me was it staff wholeheartedly agrees with the component of the unity of title and um the

Declaration of restrictive covenants we're not touching any of that and once again that's why any application that would come in under this conditional use component would be looked at specifically during that conditional use uh component now I've relatively recent uh employee here I've only been here about 3 months now and I will admit um we do get a relatively good amount of phone calls uh for building site determinations uh the majority of them we tell them unfortunately it's just not even a possibility but that being said the analysis that we did and you mentioned the site specifics and so forth only 241 properties within the city could potentially be affected by these proposed text amendments um and they're predominantly for those that are over that 20,000 square feet um like I said previously no matter what each one of these applications would have to come in and be looked at individually not only in front of Staff the DRC Board of Architects but it would also come in front of um the Planning and Zoning Board and City commission and really I'm I mean not only are we making it more restrictive with the um uh the street Frontage component and also bringing back the component for the restrictiveness of the residents where it could not be any bigger than the original lot um but we're just slightly creating a little bit of flexibility for larger Lots so at no point is this administrative anymore no it will always go before this board and it'll it'll

always be um uh properly advertised to public within the thousand foot radius Etc yes yes sir okay chip well I remember years ago there were probably nine or ten conditions to lot splitting I think one of them was you had to own the property before 1971 or something like that long long time ago I agree with you I would like to make it as strict as we possibly can you know I would encourage the commission if they do remove a covenant that it's a unanimous Vote or at least a four fifths as opposed to a majority um and I I know folks that have been pretty upset with the city because they were required to put a Unity of title on their property when they were doing construction on their home so anything we can do to make it stronger and more difficult I'm 100% so well if this benefits residents does this benefit residents or does it benefit speculators it could definitely uh benefit it somebody that owns that property Yeah Yeah by them getting more dollars yeah yeah it's all lot money yeah it's a whole lot more money yeah with that said uh I think I'm I'm with the chair as far as lot splitting I don't think we should split Lots I don't either um Julio pass Mr jaier one question for staff yes sir the project that we we uh denied the other day would this have any effect on that these changes would that well staff made a recommendation for not appr question I'm saying what what impact

would have it had on this project can they utilize it the only component that it could utilize is the 20,000 square foot um answer is yes they're over 20,000 square feet yeah you don't want to say yes but it's yes but okay well but there's also the frontage component um which would be added in in addition to but they met Frontage component yeah absolutely so it does have 20 over 20,000 square feet yes it does thank you any comments Robert no this is a law split I'm sorry what did you say it's a LW split it's a law split yeah I agree and to me I've already made my comments so I don't to make any further comments is anybody want to make a motion I'll make a motion to deny I'll second it we have a motion to deny we have a second by Javier any further discussion no call the RO please Felix ble yes yes toight Sher yes yes Su kavaski yes Robert Bear yes AB anen yes to deny thank you very much um is there tonight is there a motion to adjourn we have it by Robert second by Javier everybody in favor say I I right thank you very much everybody my recording

stopped e for