Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

What are you doing?

The left are We're going to gohead. ahead and uh wait a few more minutes. That clock up there is a little fast. It's 557 and we'll start at 6:00.

Recording in progress. It's uh 6 o'clock. Let's go ahead and get started, please. At this time, I'd like to uh call the meeting to order. I'd like to ask everybody to please silence their phones and beepers if they have any. 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, an applicant may request and be entitled to a continuence to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. If a matter is continued due to lack of quorum, the chairperson or secretary of the board may set a special meeting to consider such a matter. In the event that four votes are not obtained, an applicant, except in the case of a comprehensive plan amendment, may request a continuence or allow the application to proceed to the city commission without a recommendation. Pursuant to resolution number 2021-118, the city of Coral Gables has returned to traditional in-person meetings. However, the planning and zoning board has established the ability for public to provide comments virtually. For those

members of the public who are appearing on Zoom and wish to testify, you must be visible to the court reporter to be sworn in. Otherwise, if you speak without being sworn in, your comments may not have evidentiary value. Lobbyist registration and disclosure. Any person who acts as a lobbyist must register with city clerk as required pursuant to the city code. As chair, I now officially call the city of Coral Gables planning and zoning board meeting of September 17, 2025 to order. The time is 601. Joel, if you please call the role. Robert Behar here. Alice Bravo here. Alex Bello here. Mendez here. Felix here.

AI

here. Notice regarding exparte communications. Please be advised that this board is a quai judicial board which requires board members to disclose all exparte communication and site visits. An exparte communication is defined as any contact, communication, conversation, correspondence, memorandum or other written or verbal communication that takes place outside a public hearing between a member of the public and a member of a quai judicial board regarding matters to be heard be by the board. If anyone made any contact with a board member regarding an issue before the board, the board member must state on the record the existence of the exparte communication and the party who originated the communication. Also, if a board member conducted a site visit specifically related to the case before the board, the board member must also disclose such site visit. In either case, the board member must state on the record whether the exparte communication and or site visit will affect the board member's ability to impartially consider the evidence to be presented regarding the matter. The board member should also state that his or her decision will be based on substantial competent evidence and testimony presented on the record today. Does any member of the board have such a communication and or site visit to disclose at this time?

No.

No. Swearing in. Everyone who speaks this evening must complete the roster on the podium. We ask that you print your name clearly so the official records of your name and address will be correct. Now, with the exception of attorneys, all persons physically in the city commission chambers who will speak on agenda items before us this evening, please rise to be sworn in. Thank you. Zoom platform participants. I will ask any person wishing to speak on tonight's agenda item to please open your chat and send a direct message to Jill Menendez stating you would like to speak before the board and include your full name. Joill will call you when it's your turn. I ask you to be concise for the interest of time. Then we'll go to phone phone platform participants. After the 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 August 13, 2025.

I'll make a motion to approve. We have a motion by Robert, second by Alex. Any comments? No. Call the role, please. Alex Melo, yes. Nester Mendez, yes. Felix Cardo, yes. Robert Behar. Yes. Alice Bravo. Yes. Ast.

Yes. The procedure we'll use tonight is as follows. First, we'll have the identification of the agenda item by Mr. Caller. Then the presentation by applicant or agent, then presentation by staff. I'll go ahead and open for public comment. First in chambers, then Zoom platform and the phone line platform. Go ahead and close the public comment. We'll have board discussion, motion, further discussion, and second of motion if needed. board's final comments and a vote. Um before we begin to like before we uh begin tonight, I'd like to thank both uh Javier Salman and Sue Kawarsski for serving on our board. Their time and effort they have given. Um also I'd like to welcome Alice Bra. Uh Alice, uh welcome to the board. Would you mind just telling us a little bit about yourself, please?

Well, thank you everyone for having me here. Um, I'm a native Miamiian. I've lived here my entire life. I studied civil engineering at the University of Miami. I have a master's in business administration uh from Florida International University. I have two adult children in college. Um, and I have uh worked as a civil engineer my entire career, a lot of it in transportation. Um, I served as deputy city manager at the city of Miami. I was a director at the Florida Department of Transportation. I was also the director of transportation and public works for Miami Day County and now I'm in private practice. Thank you. Welcome. We welcome your experience. Um Mr. Caller, if you like to uh

before, Mr. Chair, before we start, I'd like to propose a change to the agenda. Since I'm involved with item 3 E, E E3 through E6, I think we could propose to bring items E7 and E8 prior to my project. So when I recuse myself, uh there will be no that's fine unless anybody has an objection on the board. No, we'll go ahead and proceed that way. Let's go ahead and uh start first with items E1 and E2 which are related.

Excuse me. Item E1, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, amending future land use map of the city of Carl Gable's comprehensive plan pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-213 comprehensive plan text and map amendments and smallcale amendment procedures section 163187 Florida statutes from religious or institutional to multifamily low density for lots 15, 16, 17, and 18, block 33, Carl Gables, Builtmore section. That's 627 and 635 Anastasia Avenue, Carl Gables, Florida, providing for a repeal of provision, severability clause, and an effective date. Item E2, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, making zoning district boundary changes pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-212 zoning code text and map amendments from special uses to multif family MF3 for lots 161 17 and 18 block 33 Carl Gables Builtmore section 627 and 635 Anastasia Avenue Carl Gables Florida providing for repeal of provision severability clause and an effective date. Item E1 and E2 public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Himenez. Welcome back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And uh I know there's a slightly new composition to the board. There's a member that was absent and Alice, welcome. Uh congratulations on your appointment. Um because I've seen staff's presentation and I know how thorough it is and you've seen mine, I figured I would I would go through it very quickly in the interest of time and then let staff um have their opportunity and obviously be here for any questions. So I'm sorry for the record. Joe Jimenez JMC Group 2020 Salo Street. And so the project I mean even even though we are only here for reszoning and a future land use map amendment I am telling you something about the project that is that is proposed to go there eventually it's a small scale it will not be coming back to this board for that but it will go through eventually DRC and then and and the BOA concurrently the what we are here for today and this isn't There you go. Um, what we are here for today is to revert the zoning which was changed a few decades ago from special use because it is current it was owned by the church across the street, the Baptist church across the street to multifamily 3 which is consistent with the rest of the block and the surrounding blocks as well. The land use designation again because of the church's ownership is religious and institutional and we are asking it to be uh designated multif family low density. Next slide. Just for the history of this I wanted to show you the the commission order that actually did take that one of these properties is still I I don't know why and it was it was unclear as to why of the four lots that Mr. Coller describ that Mr. color listed one of the lots is still actually multifamily three. So it's three of one and then four of the

other. So that's more to the point of the consistency and the compatibility of the request. Next slide, please. As you can see here, the property outlined in red with the church to the to the south, the youth center, youth center there, caddy corner, and then those six, seven total blocks of multifamily as you move towards um towards Lune. This is one of those pockets. I used to actually live right off the Granada Circle and it's surrounded by single family homes. you have small threetory and twotory um multifamily that dates back to the 40s as these do. Um that's really what I wanted to bring to this board's attention. It is reverting back to a long longstanding classification both in the future land use map and the zoning designation and we ask for a positive recommendation. I'm obviously here to answer any questions you may have and I look forward to staff's presentation. I've read their recommendation and needless to say I agree with

Thank you.

Oh yeah, because you had seen these the what is there today is small four unit each multif family uh and and you can go to the next slide as well just from all angles. One more. Go ahead. And the and this is conceptual. This is preliminary. We're like I said, we're not here for site plan, so I don't want to spend too much time on it, but the unit count is eight. No, you go back. Go back. Stay just stay there, please. The unit count is eight for eight. We are we are proposing eight town homes to replace eight apartments over the two lots. And it's each lot is 10,000 feet. It's 20,000 square feet. So Craig,

thank you. That was a quick presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board. Craig Southern, Planning and Zoning Department. If we could please have the staff's PowerPoint brought up, please. All right. So, as Mr. Jimenez had just indicated we're here for both items. Um, future land use map amendments, a small scale comprehensive plan map amendment, and a zoning map amendment. Maybe the battery is dead on this. Here we go. So to reiterate the application request is for uh initially uh the future land use map amendment from the existing religious institutional to a proposed multifamily low density uh future land use map designation. And then secondly, a zoning map amendment from the existing special use to a proposed multifamily 3. Uh subject properties are located at 627 and 635 on Aasia Avenue uh within the the four lots of 15 through 18 on block 33 um in Coral Gables Builtmore section. Um as Mr. Jimenez had also indicated back in 1983 is when the reszoning actually happened and that's the hope is just to revert it back to the the MF3. If you take a quick look, you'll take a um a view at the aerial uh map that's on there. Um, as as was also indicated, there's currently two existing structures, both containing a collection of eight

dwelling units, and they were constructed in 1949. All right. So we can take a look at what the existing future land use map currently looks like on the left hand side and then what the proposed future land use map would look like as well with the existing zoning uh with special use and uh as was indicated uh looks like it's potentially a GIS error where we have uh MF3 as well and then proposing to just clean up the entire subject properties to uh to MF3. So staff's recommendation, hopefully everyone took a look at the staff report. It was pretty detailed. I know we're trying to be relatively concise with the um PowerPoint presentations tonight, but staff definitely recommends approval uh for the future land use map amendment from the existing religious institutional to the proposed multifamily low residential future land use designation and secondly um the zoning map amendment from the existing special use to a proposed multifamily MF3. Um, of course, with that approval, staff does a pretty uh detailed analysis and we have found that the findings they're uh consistent with a comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding uses that support uh housing diversity and neighborhood character. So, the review timeline last month is everyone remembers um Mr. Jimenez came and gave the conceptual planning and zoning board uh review. Right now, we're currently at uh the planning and zoning board uh for

recommendation to city commission and then there'll be two following uh city commission readings for both ordinances. Um, as always, uh, there were multiple public notifications, but we like to be transparent and let everybody know that, uh, within the 1500 radius, um, there is 703 properties that were noticed. Next, please. and you'll see a listing of all of the notifications that happened from August 13th uh to most recently uh the legal advertisement in the city web uh website posting uh earlier this month. So once again, staff recommends approval for both the future land use map change and the zoning map amendment. So if you have any questions, staff and the applicant are here.

Thank you. Um Jill, how many speakers do we have for this item? We have two in the chamber and no one's u signed up on Zoom. So one one in Zoom or nobody. Let's go ahead and first Can I ask the uh staff a question? Yes. Can you go back to the to the maps that you have the existing future land use and the proposed? Of course. If we could please bring the Thank you. Okay. So, initially here we've got the existing future land use and the proposed future land use.

Go to the next slide a second and show the green there. We're we're taking the the subject property and we're going to propose to go revert back to the MF3 zoning district.

The corner and I was looking at the Google Earth. The corner property looks to be a multif family duplex or something. Why are we keeping that? You know, I know it's not the applicant. Why is the city not trying to maybe correct and make the whole block to be consistent? From my understanding, it's it's currently a private property. So, I mean, that would be up to the property owner to approach the city and make a request. But, uh, for future reference, um, I I honestly am not familiar. I don't remember, um, the that subject property. Let me see here real quick.

Mr. Himemenz, can you answer that question? If I just to understand the question, do you mean the other green property that's also owned by the church? Okay, that's that's my understanding. And according to the property, I thought the same thing because it ruined it ruined my completeness of the block. So, it's still owned because it would be more appropriate to get the whole block to be consistent that that obviously my guys didn't buy it, but but yeah, that's why it's that way because it's still owned by the church. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jill. Let's go ahead and uh call the first individual, please. Pamela Pierce.

Hello. Hello. Can you please speak into the microphone? Thank you. I'm Pamela Pierce and I spoke at the 13th um last month.

Could you state your address for the record? Yes, I have three addresses. 724 Camilillo, 704 Camilillo, and 701 Aloo. Um, I spoke last time. I was concerned that there was no phase from the what I call the looming facade that's proposed to the single family homes that are on across the street and on the other west of Cardina and across the street being across Anastasia and there are two uh houses that are 70 foot but they will all be impacted I would imagine um valuewise by having a looming facade with just a step a few steps back. And I know that's the new Europe European style that may be appropriate in in apartment, you know, the pure apartment areas, but I feel that it is um there's just no phase of stepping down from something that will be looming to uh one-story uh family homes that are right there. right there. Um, and it seems to me I just drove by the property since my address, as you can see, is easy to drive here by those properties that um, we drove across Anastasia headed toward Lune. Um, and there is that um, a large set of the similar design of this this facade. And since over the summer, they seem to have put very additional um uh handrails that are I feel sort of inappropriate and again bring the facade. I mean, they're this high and they're big and they're white and it it makes it even more um urban than

I think the the final entrance toward our historic Builtmore Hotel. And I know that was brought up by another neighbor. You know, that is the the the entrance through the single family homes to the Builtmore Hotel. Um, one of our our uh proudest and most revered um buildings. Um, so that was again, I'm just reiterating what I said last time that um those are my my concerns. Although it's not right across from my properties, it it still seems that in other areas the city has made a an effort to go from multi-story to one sort duplex, something less less with more green space because there's lots of green space around the buildings that are there now. And looking at the design, where will the green space be in the beginning? No, it'll be uh something other than u planted grass and it will feel looming. And yes, um I think that the house uh that's across Anastasia right from these two um may be the um originally the church's uh pastor's house, which is often, you know, the case with a church property, but it's still a single family home. So that makes um three really four single family homes that are right against something that's a looming facade. I'm sorry to see it. Thank you very much. Bye.

Michael Pierce. Welcome, Mr. Pierce. Thank you. Uh, actually, my name is Michael Chennowith. My wife is a modern woman who didn't change her name when we got married. So, anyway, uh, yeah. So, I have the same addresses as as Pam. Could you state them, please, for the record?

Yes. Uh, one address 724 Camilo Avenue, 704 Camillo Avenue, and 701 Alo Avenue. Um, this is this I I have been out of town sort of for most of the preliminary stuff for this and I'm not exactly sure how your zoning and building approval process works, but I want to express my concern with the slow destruction of our neighborhood uh by McMansions and and buildings that take up the entire lots and and eliminate the green space that is uh that that makes the area more friendly and welcoming and and more sort of family oriented. Um, I hadn't really been aware of the buildings that are east of this property on Anastasia on the other side of of Siggoia, but uh, we drove by them just now and I was struck by how they reminded me of being in Europe in some of the towns where they don't have they don't have a society that was built on automobiles. They don't have u uh a situation where there is no public transportation to speak of. As much as we try to do it, we still don't have it. Um I I'm worried that that we're moving towards a situation where we're having house after house torn down and replaced by McMansions that virtually take up the whole lot. There there's houses two houses right now under construction on

Cardina between um uh Alo and is it Alcazar and uh Escobar and uh the house that's on on the corner of of Alo and Cardina uh on the uh northeast corner was rebuilt and takes up the whole lot. Uh there's a house at uh 740 something on uh Camilo that has four lots and takes up the whole thing. But we're we're here tonight.

It's a bit I understand that, but it's a trend and I I'm not sure what the the process is that that those of us who live in the neighborhood have the have the position to to express our concerns because it should be of concern to everybody in the city. Um the as far as changing the zoning from religious to MF3, it seems to me like that's a non-issue. That shouldn't that I don't have any objection to that that change specifically. And if that's all you're doing today, fine. But you need to be aware that there's something bigger going on here. And if this these buildings which currently are are surrounded by grassy areas and look compatible with the residential properties that are near them get replaced by something like those buildings that are east of there on on Anastasia on the north side of the street, it would be a disaster for the neighborhood. So I I thank you. That's my input and I appreciate the effort you put into it. Thank you for coming, sir.

Do we have any more speakers? No. Nothing on Zoom? No. Nothing on phone platform? No. I'll go ahead and close it at this time for public comment. Mr. Himemenz, do you want Except for a rebuttal, of course. Yes, Mr. Himenez.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I really would like to thank Miss Pierce and Mr. Chennowith because as staff pointed out, 703 notices went out and th those envelopes aren't easy to stuff. So, I actually do appreciate when there are people that come out and speak. I appreciate everything um everything you've said. The issue here is is a simple request from a it is a reasonzoning. The the next board, which you will also get notified for, will will review the design, review the site plan, review the architecture, and everything of the sort. Just a couple of things that I want to make clear. This is not a house that's being torn down and replaced with a multif family building. This is a multifamily block. The building immediately to the north of it that abuts it on its back property line is a multifamily building. Across from that are a series of town homes that stretch down the the next block. There is no house directly across Anastasia. From this it's the church. It's caddy corner over the intersection. And then there's the sideyards of the houses immediately to the uh to the west. So, as we spoke about last time, as with all things zoning, you do step up and step down as it goes. This is going from single family to the next lowest. What is being proposed here is a fee simple town home. This is not a multifamily building. These are a series of town homes identical in use as the ones to the to the north. So, just to be clear, this is not replacing a home. This is not building a McMansion. Um I understand the gentleman's point and that's not for me to pass judgment on from a policy perspective or an architectural one for that matter. So just with that clarified we we do ask for your recommendation of approval of the reasonzoning and the flament.

Mr. Chair, can I ask you a question? Sorry. Go ahead. Normally when an applicant comes before this board, they bring a site plan. In your case, you're you say there's a preliminary site plan, but you don't bring a site plan and you've stated that the site plan will be for other boards to review. Why do you feel that? Why why do you feel that?

Because of the size because of the size of this property when this board and I've come to you before with my site plan when you are recommending approval of site plan. My site plan is administratively approved for this project. So, and it is not developed. I'm not in for site plan approval yet. I'm I don't have that application developed to the extent necessary to file, but it it will go to staff the site plan and the architecture will go to the board of architects. And as I a few of you I I know you've served on the board of architects before. Um that's where that will be. those plans simply they were going to be ready and then some higherups in the project said wait a minute let me re so they're not they're not ready I chose not to slow it down because much like we discussed last month BOA doesn't talk planning policy and the I'm not here unlike I have been for other projects where this board does have jurisdiction over the site plan and a recommendation this just isn't one of them so I didn't want to confuse the issue of I I'll show show you a simple one.

Yeah, I I I understand and and to to the chairman's point, it's been a policy of this board to always look at a at a site plan. And I want to ask a question to to the attorney, our attorney, is this something that we allow to do, we should be doing, or should we be requesting a site plan? I personally don't have a problem reverting back to the original zoning. That's not an issue. And and I think I stated that in the in the in the last uh meeting with us. But I do I do feel that you know like the uh chairperson mentioned we should have a site plan.

I I put I'm more than happy to put that one up again. My only concern that and before I'm sorry and this you know Mr. Collier is this something that we should be doing without a site plan?

Well in this unique case because the ordinarily over was the 20,000 square feet. It would come to you as a conditional use, but because it doesn't meet that threshold, there isn't a site plan. I believe what the board could do in your recommendation. you can indicate that you have concerns about compatibility and an effort should be made so that the open space is um protective of surrounding homes. I think you can indicate that which would be available to the boards that have jurisdiction over the site plan. Uh but technically your jurisdiction because this is less than 20,000 square feet, you don't have the ability to require them to provide a site plan. But I think you can certainly make as part of your motion a um comments on how on how the site plan should be done. I

I'm I'm sure I'm confident that when the time comes and they're going to present a site plan, it's going to meet all the requirements. I I'm not, you know, this is not something that you're going to be able to submit something that doesn't meet. I for me is just a comfort level to to have something that we're approving and today we're just approving a zoning change essentially

and and to to use Mr. Coller's word because I think it's perfect. It's a unique situation because and the reason I want to avoid I could show a site plan but I'm going to stress it's conceptual because as I go through DRC and BOA if it changes even if it changes dramatically from what I show you today I don't want anybody to say well you showed us something that was what the approval was based on and now you've changed it and I wouldn't have to come back here but I don't want the lack of trans the lack seeming lack of Mr. Jimenez, you know, you showed us a very conceptual site plan there. Just an exhibit.

If I saw it correctly, your your parking, your garages are on the back. Yes, sir.

What? And then, you know, if I'm saying, "Okay, we're going to, you know, approve this, revert back to the original zoning, and then you come back says, you know, the garage is going to be in the front." that that to me changes my my maybe my my thinking about what I'm doing and that's the problem that I'm the only problem that I'm having and and and Mr. Beh I I completely appreciate that and like I said if this was coming back as projects that I have brought here before I will be very honest with you I've never brought a project of this size to the planning board. So, I found myself a unique position to say, well, okay, I've usually you're gonna recommend approval or denial, so I'm going to sit here and take all the comments. But if I've got to take these comments, which of course I'm happy to take, and then before it's even been presented to the board of architects and to the DRC, it it simply isn't, in my opinion, legally relevant to a reasonzoning because what you do there eventually is not one of the criteria used to judge the compatibility and the compatibility and the consistency with the site plan and everything else. Is the zoning compatible? is, which it clearly is given that it's reverted. So that's what I didn't want to freeze myself into or seem to be offering something up that isn't designed yet. I can tell you what the conceptual is. It's in the back like every other townhouse community in the area, whether off of Billmore Way, whether off of Granada and the Circle, that they have garages in the back. And so that is the the the plan. It sounds like from from Mr. Collier's comment, nothing that we could do to to request a site plan.

It's not that I don't want to come back, sir. It's just that the code doesn't do it. I I I have fun when I come here, but it just the site plan just doesn't come back to you guys. And it was it was a weird situation. It was unique situation. Alice, you had a comment.

Um, yes. And and and I want to thank everyone for and our and our staff for their due diligence in in presenting the information. Um and I and I think the the land use change that's being proposed is consistent with the rest of the block and and it seems that we have the safeguards and the procedures and the additional reviews and boards that would assure this type of um features are consistent with what are desirable in coral gables. Um so it's it would be an administrative approval and also DRC

the site plan would go through an administrative site plan approval. board of architects would approve the architecture and DRC which is a city what then it's everybody it's public works it's art and public places it's it's there are safeguards to ensure that the quality of the ultimate project are in in my experience the the process doesn't change this is the first time for me not having to be here with a site plan going forward it it the process stays the same and it is an exhaustive review in a good way

so again just for staff to reiterate What we keep saying is that the the zoning code does not require the site plan given the zoning districts and the you know the subject properties area. So of course he's going to have to go in front of the development review committee. Uh all uh different uh divisions and disciplines within the city will be reviewing it. Um and he'll also have to go in front of the the board of architects for and I'm confident that will be taken care of through that process. So, thank you. Um, Felix, do you want to start us off with some comments, please? Yeah.

Yes. Sorry, Felix.

So, I I I think it's important that we Thank you for for coming and I think it's important that we address the the residents concerns. Um, and so I think we 've done a good job of it, but just to kind of get a clearer picture, I think um it would be beneficial uh given the the the slides that you showed. Um so it it number one, I know this the gentleman's concern was that it he doesn't he he fears an overdevelopment and please correct me if I'm wrong. Um and so number one, would I would I be right in assuming that the church, which it's it's zoned for uh religious purposes right now, could rip down um the buildings and then build something existing that would be much bigger than the than the um buildings that are there today and build build out the lot. I would I I would defer to staff on what they could do as of right, but they currently use the property as a multif family. So I I don't represent them and I don't and I don't know the specifics of religious and institutional zoning to be to be honest with you. I see your point and it and it is developable. It's not like it couldn't be developed.

Mr. Chairman, I I I'd like to um be able to say something about this. the s use, which is the special use specifically for religious, it doesn't give you the ability to tear down that church and all of a sudden say, "I'm going to do whatever I want." I don't think you meant to. No, no, I'm not saying you did. I'm I'm clarifying the church because we're going I think we're going down a a different lane. We've talked about discipline. We've talked about this. We talked Now we're talking about tearing down the church. My my question and my concern.

I'm trying I'm trying to to complete you know the the the answer to that specifically if that building were torn down under the special use specifically for that site you could only build what would be allowed under the S use of that time. And in fact when you go to the comprehensive land use plan then you have additional issues that you have to deal with because in the comprehensive land use plan that is not removed from that particular site. So therefore you have to be very careful when when you know it can't just be developed. You have to go through quite the process to be able to develop it into something other than the S use. S use by the way is not just religious special use. That's what the S stands for. And specifically the S use is because of institutional because of all sorts of things. In fact, the Coral Gable's War Memorial Youth Center is an S use. Again, you can't just tear it down and say we're going to build whatever.

I I think my question was more to address the concern of the resident in saying there's something that's there now, but there there's nothing stopping the church who owns the property if they needed to to build out a bigger No. And Mr. Partardo, I want to make sure that that we're talking about the same thing. I took his question to mean 627 and 635, not the church, right? I I was talking if they were to want housing for their pastor or for Mr. Himenez, the only the only thing I could say is that

there's more than one s use including the church. There are two of them, one on Segoia and one on the your application right now. Those are suses. And also there were s uses across the street across Segoia at the war memorial youth center.

And there is a reason for that because the special use that was created back then was specifically for institutions that were going to serve the community. And I think that the residents that came up were more concerned about incompatibility with the single family use with whatever gets built there, not specifically the sus or what could happen. Let me segue that into the my second question or concern which I hope addresses the citizens uh the residents um questions and concerns which is as I understand it we're reverting back to MF3 correct from from 19 1983 okay

is what so it was and so the rest of the block is MF3 those buildings had those buildings were built in 1949 and they were reszoneed for the church in 198 83, but they've been those two multif family buildings have been there since 1949. Um, what I what I'd like to do is I'd like to go in order. I'd like to ask uh Felix if you would continue with your comments and pardon me for jumping in.

Sorry. So the city's 100 years old and zoning did not start on that particular parcel in 1946. It started in 1926. Can you show us the same um uh slide if you will that you showed Mr. That's for Mr. Behart's request that showed the zoning, the present, and the other. Would that possible? It'd be on staff's uh PowerPoint would be the existing and proposed. Yeah, please. Can you please do that?

So, what you can't quite see where the black line is on the north side there is you could see that the existing zoning is single family. just you can't see it there because it's cut off just a little. You could see it clearly down below. You can't see it up above, but that's yellow. That's single family home. I think that what the residents were concerned with clearly is, you know, what do you put right up against that? When you look at single family uh zoning, the front setback is 25 ft. The side street setback is normally 25 feet unless it was done way way back and it could be 15 feet. But what their concern with is that and based on what the lady expressed was that well you have this very big building there and it looks like it's like you know right on top of the single family uses clearly when you look at the zoning between Siggoia and Leune Road there you see the multi-use buildings apartment buildings one of blocks is being developed as we speak and they have duplexes as the buffer from Siggoia inward on both the east side and the west side. It goes back again to the con very simple concepts of planning where you have buffering from major streets and major traffic and major speed. That's planning 101. You have the same thing on Lun Road and you have it throughout the city corridors on on Pon uh south of the big commercial projects

and north of Bird Road. My concern really when I look at the staff recommendation which all of us read and we weigh is that and the comprehensive plan amendment. Keep in mind that there was no comprehensive plan here until the mid or late 80s. In fact, we were one of the first ones that came up with a master plan and then ba based on the growth management act by Governor Graham. Then all of a sudden we had to look at compatibility for all the infrastructure, water, sewer, traffic, etc., etc., etc. So when that was done, it was set as a a limit. But before that, historically before the 80s none of that existed as far as a comprehensive land use plan. It's become in this city that it's almost interchangeable comprehensive land use plan with zoning and it's not necessarily that way. One is the ceiling, the the other one's the ultimate limit to support the infrastructure. So this is where I'm concerned. So when I'm reading the analysis, it says the this is staff speaking. The requested amendment would restore the residential designation historically associated with the site and align it with the adjacent multifamily properties to the north and east. I'm sorry, but the north and east that is not recent. It's not historical. You're talking about the mid 80s and those areas there were single family and then they morphed into these little apartment buildings on both sides of Siggoia. They're still all the way up to the

north there. It's all single family except for the duplex strip. When you take the duplex strip and you say we're going to make it into multif family, it's not duplexes anymore. duplexes are limited to height to F to setbacks that are completely foreign to the the proposed zoning for this area. I'm sorry. Would it be helpful if we um please change the slide to the future land use but but but if I can if you go back one go back to the zoning one. This is the one that I was talking about that of the four lots, one of them is still MF3. So it I'd like to be able to finish my comments.

Okay. No, no. I just I just wanted to point that out before he changed the slide. Sorry, Mr. Because I'm just starting. Go ahead.

So the point was that this was single family and this would not restore anything to this multi- family use at all. Then when we get into the future land use plan, the Flume amendment, it advances according to staff. that advances the objections and policies for reinvestment in underutilized sites maintaining residential neighborhoods. Well, we have two people that live there and they're saying you're not going to maintain. You're destroying the neighborhood. This is what the people that live there are saying. But there's a difference of opinion between staff and the people that are here that live in the area. So, the compatible mix of housing types. Well, let's talk about that. Right now, those little apartment buildings are basically affordable housing when the Sorry, is this on?

Perfect. Thank you.

You sorry about that. So what I'm saying is that as far as as far as the housing types, the compatible mix of housing types, you're taking basically affordable housing away and now you're going to build a project that you know those units are probably go, you know, multi multi-million dollar project. So you know, you are and you're not. And then you have the single family homes where there's an encroachment as you could see going now toward the west into the single family area or the potential not this applicant but the potential of someone else. Why? Because everybody then says well there's more of the same product in the same area. So the question is, do single family homes count? And the infill argument, which is also part of the staff recommendation, this is not an infill area. All of Coral Gables is not infill. Single family areas are not infill areas. I consider infill areas areas that have been designated legally throughout the city. Yes, just staff wants to reiterate again that this subject the two subject properties since 1949 have been

the use has actually been multi. Right. The difference is the size of the units and the amount of green space. the the the the apartments that are there. If you looked at the photographs that the applicant brought in, it's all green, right?

But when you build the new product, you have a 10-ft setback in the front. You have a 10-ft setback on the side street. It doesn't even It's less than half of the single family homes that are directly across the street. My opinion only my opinion is that I don't think that's right and I think it's not compatible. Now the other thing is that again I read the words because words mean things and it says staff redevelopment at multi- family scale would not exceed adopted level of service standards. Well, road traffic is an exception within the L of the Palmetto Expressway that was determined by Miami Day County's commission years ago. So, you have someone saying, you know, the roads, the congestion, the traffic, that's all part of the infrastructure. So, and I know by the way that the applicant eventually will have to pay impact fees and will receive credits for some of the areas that are already built there. That's fine. But that drop in the bucket doesn't come back in a onetoone dollar back to the community. I'm sorry, but that seems to be a point or an argument for for for an individual such as yourself to make to the city or to staff or to commission. In other words, for the dollar for dollar and so forth.

Yes. And I opposed to what what's being presented. Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm bringing this up is is because this is a future land use man plant amendment and all of these components are in the recommendations that staff gave us. I think it's fair for me to be able to question and ask these questions. May I continue,

please? So one of the things is that it has to comply with landscaping open space and sustainability standards. The new open space requirements are a fraction of what was required back in the day because that's how they built these particular buildings. So now you go from areas that had large trees on the lot to developments where h they have to place the trees on the public rightway because they don't fit. I think that's wrong and I have a conceptual disagreement with staff's recommendation on the loss of the diversity. we discussed and the property size is not the issue. The applicant is correct in saying that it's consistent with the property size that was there for those two apartments that have the eight units. That's absolutely 100% right. What is not being said is that the property does not have because of the square footage does not have the massing that anything that gets built there to the maximum that is going to be proposed and it will be I'm sure the maximum without any type of separation from the zoning and the comp plan change of the single family right next door. So the last thing which really um I found amazing was that it said that the requested zoning change supports the comprehensive objectives for maintaining residential neighborhood and promoting compatible redevelopment.

In my opinion and the two people that spoke here today that are neighbors, they disagree with staff's statement that it's compatible. Those are all my comments, sir. Thank you, Felix. Netor. So, I think uh it's important to to discuss some of the points that Felix made um in that yes, the the lots are zoned s right now, but it's and I'm sorry there I will interrupt. Three of the three one of them multif family and I believe the gentleman said he had no problem with the zoning.

Right. I think that's what I think that's what you said. You have design concerns which are addressed by other boards, but his exact words were so I just I I I do want to Mr. Jimenez is I heard Yeah, I think that's I and I think that's very clear, but and looking at the at the map, it looks like the rest of the most of the rest if not 90% of the rest of the city block is uh multifamily 3 already. Correct. With the exception of that last part. last part used for residential purposes but owned by the church. So it is religious in it. So in essence it's just a contin continuity or a reversion back to the rest of the city block

from from what was done to the property in 1983 by ordinance of city council. And theoretically, if the rest of the city block uh taking out the three lots that you are here uh to discuss and the one on the corner, everybody could do a project, anybody, any owner could do a project that's proposed right now. That that's my answer. Nester, I would just my suggestion would be to address the questions to city staff as opposed to the applicant or clarify. Same question. The same questions. Sure. Same question. Exactly. if if an applicant came and proposed, they would have to go through the exact same process.

So, um staff just wants to reiterate once again, traffic, infrastructure, uh landscaping, site design, all of that comes through the development review committee, um a different board, and they are public hearings. So, anyone from the public is more than welcome. But we still haven't even got a DRC application. Um, as we all know, last month we came in for the conceptual component and discussed that at at length, but in addition to when it comes to uh the architectural component, the massing so forth, that's why we've got that board of architects. So, um, when it comes to the map amendment components of both the future land use and the zoning, and that's how we're looking at it with this very specific staff report. We do believe there's already eight dwelling units there. Now, they're proposing eight units. Again, they're not going to increase the density. They're actually just requesting that

the only the only thing is that staff said would not exceed. In other words, they've already determined that it does not exceed the level of service standard. It's it says it specifically. Let's let's go ahead. Let's continue. Yeah. I just I and I'm sorry if my questions earlier uh caused any confusion and I'm sorry that I addressed them to you Mr. Emenz and not to staff. So go ahead. Yeah. Are you done master? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank Alex.

Thank you chairman. Um my I as a personal opinion I think it's compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. I mean to your point three of the four or one of the four is already multif family. Correct. From right. My only question is, and I was pretty clear on the last meeting, my thoughts, was there any followup as to the litigation that one resident brought up? Did was there any follow-up to that? That there was a litigation on the property? We I know that's has nothing to do with the zoning. I'm just curious as to any follow-up concerns as to that. We met with um I have not read any of the documents. I'm obviously not their lawyer, so I

And we're and there's no relation. The the issue is it's been told to me by the residents and the residents came. We had four four come to a town hall, you know, the the neighborhood meeting that that you have to have. We invited them to the office. Four people showed up mainly discussing that. That's an issue that they're having with the church and their student count at the school. Does it affect your client or

Oh, no. There will be no no students being taught at our property. We're not building a school. So, they have there's a long history of of issues as has been told to me. I haven't read it. Uh but as was told to me by the residents, the president of the neighborhood association, there's an issue with the cap of the number of students that are allowed at that charter school that is in the church, our property. It has, as I said, when I first heard of it, it's just got nothing to do with us. So, it doesn't affect as far as I'm concerned. Thank you, M. Alice. I know you made some comments already. Any further comments? Um I I just wanted to clarify the the applicants that you represent are the current owners of the property. Yes, they are.

Yes. And they are not any type of uh institution institutional use. So No, no, no, no, no. I mean, no. This is this is proposed eight town homes right now. They're fine-tuning architecture, which is why we can't submit to BOA or DRC, but it's it's what I showed you the last time in in essence is what we'll take. My my point is in essence by they acquiring the property and not being any type of institution, even if they left the properties that were there, the multif family zoning is more appropriate than the SU.

Yes. As a private property owner, I'd defer to staff, but I would say so. I wouldn't want to own it. that would help it be compatible with, you know, the zoning and and I appreciate the residents coming and and I hope you make note of their comments and take that as the project is reviewed if it moves forward. Thank you, Alice. Robert,

thank you. I want to I want to clear something. Philick was right about the existing zoning to of the church. You can't just tear down and do anything. You got to go through a whole process. So, he was right about that. What I disagree with him is that I understood that this subject property has never been single family, right? Not since 1949 is all I can tell you. As far as 1949, it has always been multif family. MF3 or whatever was something

then what you see there. Those buildings were built in 1949. 1983 it was changed to the S because the the the the benefit of the church but it has always three or one out of the four lot still remains multif family and that's what we're going back it was never single family so to to it was always a a you know a multif family whether it was a twotory whatever was done at the time it was allowed to be a multif family and and that was the way it was developed

in 1949. So, I just want to put because I don't want no no implication or any idea that this was single family and we're changing it. There was one maybe lot across the street that it was single family, but this whole block, not only this block, the block in the back and the block to the east, the two other blocks had been multif family forever and a day. Correct. Since 1949. as far back as

all right that's far enough for me I I I think this is you know again I would like to have seen a site plan but it's not required so I don't have an issue going back to what this originally was zon so uh Mr. Chair, I'll let you your comment and I will make a motion. Um, for me, I I've always had a concern when projects come before this board without a site plan. While I understand it's not required, I like to see a site plan in place for what I vote for. Um, would you like to put it up? Would you like me to I have a conceptual

No, I I understand. No, I saw it and I and I like it. I have no problem with it. But to me it's a conceptual or in this case you called it a preliminary. So it's not actually a site plan to me. Um the concern for me is for example I know that the city and this board has continuously looked at doing garages in the back when there's an alley and how to bring them in and so forth. But realistically you can go ahead and change that and put the garages in the front of this. I'm not saying the board of architects or other boards would allow you to do that. I'm not saying that. But that has been always something that we have reviewed at this level. Um projects have always gone first to the board of architects and the DRC that I can recall and then come to us. This is a very unique situation because it's coming to us first. And to be honest with you, I don't I don't like that. Um, I have no issue whatsoever with reverting the zoning or the MX3. I have absolutely no issue whatsoever. I think it merits it. I'm good with it. I have a problem not having a site plan um for it. And my question would be to the city attorney, uh, can I state that I want to have a site plan to make a determination or under because we're quai judicial, am I not allowed to do that?

Well, this uh these items are unique in another way in which these are really legislative items. So, well, the problem is it's in the code is what you're concerned about. The code doesn't provide for this board to have a site plan to approve because it's less than the required amount. Now, you can as a board since your comments go to the city commission, you can approve with a comment that you would like to see site be approved with respect to all sizes of properties. I'm not suggesting that's a good idea or not a good idea, but the board has an ability to communicate your concerns through your resolution. um probably more appropriate with the zoning item than necessarily the the comprehensive plan item. But uh if you want to as a comment or alternatively, if the rest of the board doesn't want to go that way, your thoughts, they get the transcript. They're going to see what you have to say. So, not exactly what you would like, but there's a couple of alternatives to express your concern or the board's concern. I don't because for example, I don't have an issue with the way it's laid out. I don't have an issue with the green space and so forth. But if you come back and you change what you've shown us and you start putting the garages in the front and you start doing something else and what you intended and what I'm looking at then I

would then I do have an issue with um so a question which I would ask you would you be willing to say that what you're presenting to us today would be your site plan based upon the approval of the board of architects and the DRC with a minor modification if needed but not a substantial modification in concept the same way we gave you conceptual approval last month we want to have a conceptual commitment that you're going to

and and look all I can I'm obviously not in a position to buy my clients but what I can say honestly to the board is that they have never ever shown me anything But this product, when we talk about the nearby ones, when we talk about what the market is expecting now on what I'm sure will be an expensive property, it is not the ones across from city hall necessarily with the garage in the front. It is this style. So I can tell you that what is being revised now is in architecture, not in sight plan.

Right? So I now and and just to to point out one thing the reason that and I I realize the level of discomfort. It's just we're not here for this project. This project isn't coming to this board. The zoning is coming and the flum is coming but the project goes to other boards. So I also want to say that if somebody if the board of architects just changes their entire philosophy and says we're never going to approve this. Put those garages in the front. Their word is the one that counts on this one. And I'm I'm bound by that. It is not the intent of my clients, nor has it ever been brought up when we talk about the different kinds the other examples. These garages go in the back because that's that's what makes that's what makes this a little bit nicer.

But that's that's why I'm uncomfortable because it hasn't gone before the board of architects yet for for the design. So, you're coming to us for a change of views and and sorry, uh, resoning. We can go ahead and approve it and then you could do whatever you want on that site as long as the board of architects approves it or so and so forth, but it has doesn't have to be anything to do you have presented to us. Well, I mean, I will feel comfortable and I don't know if we could do this

and I know your client is They're they they do what they say and and I understand that. But for me, I have always in any of my votes throughout my tenure, I have always asked for a site. And so have I. Can do you feel like it's necessary? I don't know if we could put the the condition that the same site plan that was shown to us is what we would recommend for approval. I mean, how do we tie that site plan to my approval today? Well, the problem is this is Mr. Himenez said that he can't speak for his client.

I can't bind them. I can tell you what the intent is speaking honestly and every conversation that I've had regarding this subject, I can't bind them. And because this and I don't know and I Mr. Attorney,

well, the problem is because it's a re reszoning, you can't condition a resone. So, but this attorney has to appear before the board in the future. Your indication, his indication to you that, you know, he doesn't know what the what the board of architects is going to do, but he he's never provided a site plan that has had the garages in the front. They've all been in the back. you you can markets change

but but and if I may Mr. color if and I'd ask if you if you would confirm this. If if this was adopted, this is

if this was recommended for approval and then it went to the city commission for approval and they just did it all the way through even with a site plan. I could turn around, burn it, and apply for something else consistent with the city code. And that's I mean a zoning is and a flum is a zoning and a flum. The political reality of what Mr. color said I agree with him but it's when you have gotten these is because you've been approving a project and as part of that approval there's been a reasonzoning you've done it for me there's been a reasonzoning and there's been a reflum and a site plan approval if I had to then if I burn it the zoning would stay the same but now the you'd hold me up on that and that's a difference that's why I'm making the distinction that the code doesn't allow me to bring a project like this here. So, I could say it, but once it's reszoned, it's reszoned. And Mr. Caller,

but you but the point is that he could walk away from a site plan and say, "I can't build what I'm building." Correct. And then he wants to come back with something else. But he has to come back at that point. He's going to have to come back to the board of architects and the development review committee. If he if he seeks to change the zoning to a different zoning, then yes, he's going to have to come back. But if he walks away from a site plan, that's a good point.

If he walks away from the site plan, he's got to come back to the board of architects with a a different design and they're going to have to review it as well as the administrative reviews. That's a very good point. So, there's quite a few checks still left to go, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. And I suggest if Mr. caller thinks it it would work. Uh why not split the application where you go through the the flume separately and then you come back with the change of zoning with the site plan attached.

I don't because I just don't have to come back I at 20,000 square feet it's administrative site plan approval. It's staff's jurisdiction. Right. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to see if there's a mechanism where we might be able to add a site to be able to resolve the conundrum that the chair has. Alice, and this is a question for our director. The site plan that ultimately gets developed will have to be consistent with the zoning. Exactly. That's why there's multiple disciplines within the city that take a look at I I don't feel comfortable requiring more than is our actual legal purview. I'm I'm going do something. I'm going take his advice. At some point, you're going to come back to us.

Exactly. So, I I hope you follow through. So, okay. Look, I'm going make a motion to approve um with staff recommendations and conditions. Sorry, we need two separate motions. Yes, we're going to separate it. We're going to first uh going to do have two votes. The first vote is on item E1, which is the comprehensive plan vote. So, we need a motion and uh second approving the uh or recommending approval of the comprehensive PR plan in accordance with staff's recommendation. That may be the first.

We have a motion and we have a second from Nester. At which point could we make a recommendation to the commission that projects that come before us have a site plan attached? I I think when we get to the reszoning second. Okay. You can say that you would prefer site plans be for conditional uses for all site plans. Understood. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Any comment? No. Call the role, please. Nester Mendez, yes. Felix Partardo, no. Robert Behar, yes.

Alice Bravo, yes. Alex Bello, yes. Astat. Because it's not required under 20,000 square foot. I'm going to say yes. Thank you. on on E2. E2, it it can't be a condition, but you're you're welcome to make a comment related to this to this item if you so choose to do so, but we need a motion and a second. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to approve and I'm going welcome a friendly amendment from you at the time that you're so I'll make a motion to approve as presented by staff.

Right. It It can't be a friendly amendment. It be a friendly comment. A friendly comment. Okay, I'll take it back. A friendly comment. I'm sorry. We have a motion. Is there a second? A second. Seconds. I would ask that there be a comment in there that uh site plans be attached to all projects and resoning that comes before us. Is everybody okay with that in there? Yes, sir. Would it would it be better to really codify it. Well, that's that would be up to your your recommendation to the codify. Everybody knows what the rules of the game is. You know, four balls, you you walk and three strikes, you're out.

Well, I think that I took from the friendly comment that if you want to have site plans for all reasonzonings, it's going to require a code amendment. Correct. Right. That's that's trying to get to your That's a comment. Yes. Are you gentleman okay with that? I'm good. As a comment? Yes. Yes. Okay. Any other comments? No. Call the role please. Pardon? This is for the reasonzoning. Yes. Correct. This is E2. Item is item E2 which is the change in the in the zoning from

the S to uh MF3. Okay. I just want to say friendly no. Friendly yes. Robert, yes. Alice Bravo, yes. Alexello, yes. Lester Mendez, yes. Yes. Thank you very much for your time. And I I will repeat those comments to please. No problem. And we hold you to it. I I know I'm Thank you. We taking a break at this point. How about if we do seven and eight? Seven and eight. And then we take the break. Correct.

Okay. That's what we discussed at the beginning.

Okay. Item seven, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, amending article 16 definitions city of Carl Gable's official zoning code by amending the definition of freeboard to modify minimum and maximum freeboard requirements within special flood hazard areas amending section 2-101 single family residential SFR district subsection B height to incorporate required pre-board and flood plane management standards for residents in flood hazard areas and adding garage floor elevation standards that align with flood resistant construction requirements providing for pillar provision severability clause codification and effective date item E7 public hearing.

Thank you. This is a legislative item as well. Thank you. Greg Southern, Planning and Zoning Department. If we could please have the staff PowerPoint brought up. Tony, it sounds like a radio station every time. Kind of got a cold right now. I agree.

All right. So, item E7 is for text amendments to article 16 definitions for freeboard and section 2-108 subsection B. Um, briefly I'm just going to read a little bit of the background information from the staff report. uh gives a little more detailed information, but staff has prepared uh this proposed text amendment to article 16 uh section 2-101 for single family residential districts of the zoning code to revise the definition of freeboard, update flood elevation standards, and incorporate additional flood plane management requirements for properties located within the special flood hazard areas. The amendment establishes a maximum of five feet of freeboard above the base flood elevation in high-risk AE and VE flood zones while the three maximum freeboard height would remain in the other special flood hazard areas which is just the ponding zone of uh ah. So freeboard refers if if you take a look at the the slide with the definition for freeboard, it refers to the vertical distance added above the base flood elevation to provide an extra margin of safety against flood hazards. This buffer accounts for factors such as wave action, debris blockage, and increased runoff resulting from urbanization. The city currently applies a uniform minimum of 1 foot of freeboard with a maximum height of 3 feet. However, the citywide standard does not reflect the varying levels of flood risk across different zones. The revised definition of freeboard establishes a maximum of 5t above the base flood elevation as

previously stated in our higher uh risk flood zones which would be AE and VE zones. So, if you take a look at the map um that's on the right hand side of the slide and also within the staff report, you'll see the designated flood zones currently within the city. Maybe a little hard to read, but predominantly all these high-risk flood zones uh be which is the coastal hazard area and then AE they are all east of Old Cutler Road. So, the purpose of the definition and text amendment change is basically those that are higher risk, we're just adding two additional feet um for these properties to actually if if they want to bump up their um finished floor elevation, what we also call the design flood elevation, and that's where the habitable portion of a a house would be. So, uh, you'll see the justification component. We've actually been working on this probably since April of this year. Uh, made multiple phone calls with different municipalities, talked to the Florida Department of Emergency Management, uh, the Florida Flood Plane Management Association, and even had a couple discussions with FEMA. So once again, this may be a little difficult to read, but if you take a look at the uh underlined area within article 16 of the definition of freeboard, uh you'll see right here, that's exactly what we're doing. We're just adding that additional um 2 feet to make a maximum uh freeboard requirement of 5T. Now, however, everyone will still have to meet that one foot above the

base flood elevation. Additionally, uh section 2-101 in the single family residential, we've also added additional information that basically just kind of re iterates or references chapter 113 in our municipal code, which is the flood damage prevention section. So at least we have some kind of tying in of our of our ordinances and our our city codes. Um also if you take a look at uh the subsection here where we've also added unless elevation above grade is required to comply with flood resistant construction standards for non-habitable areas. So those non-habitable areas are traditionally a garage, a storage or access and that's that's all that would apply to. Um, if there's any specific questions, I'm more than happy to answer.

I I have a question. In in single family, you have a maximum height to to the structure. Correct. Right. By by adding the two additional feet, which I'm I'm in favor because unfortunately is is the uh we're we're seeing more of the floods. Are you raising the that height by additional feet as well. Right.

So all throughout the city except for any area that's within one of our sight specific areas where it specifically indicates that um the base flight elevation or any freeboard could not maximize that height. Yes. Traditionally the height is counted from the finish the first finish floor elevation. So, but it's only one foot and the additional feet would be when you're in the AE or the VE. So, once again, right now is it's uniform. All flood zone properties and it doesn't matter if they're residential or commercial require that 1 foot of freeboard. But when we get into residential properties, um anything, and this is what it would be proposing, any residential property, single family residential property that's within the AH um ponding zone would still have to keep with that maximum of 3 ft of freeboard. The no matter what, they'll have to meet the minimum minimum requirement of one foot a bit.

But and the FEMA maps are the one that established that elevation. And then you go let's say V 15 + one 16. What this is going to allow you to do instead of going three additional feet of freeboard you could go five that's correct additional feet. Right. But don't you then lose interior height within your structure? No, it's exempt. Yeah. You would not only then only unless it is specifically stated in a sight specific district. What what I want to make sure otherwise no it doesn't happen is that you keep you benefit from the two additional feet in interiors you know right

that's that's the only thing I want to make sure that you and I'm in favor because my house in the keys I did that I went higher because I wanted to be but you cannot benefit on the interiors you have to maintain that right and and what you're basically doing is doing the same thing that Miami Beach has done for years and other other municipalities Monroe County down um the Keys as well. Yeah, they're they're already, you know, somewhat ahead of us on this

and it's it's really we we really don't have a choice because this all goes back to our insurance with FEMA, etc. And this is the reason that all of these locations have been doing this for years and years and years. We're just catching up now. Plus the fact that we have most of our territory is very very high. Um, the FEMA flood maps, the firm maps are consistently being revised anywhere from, you know, 5 to 10 years, and it just seems like there's more and more flood zone properties. Did you discuss it also with Miami Dade County, specifically, Mr. Jose? No, I did not. You should.

He is a wealth of knowledge that goes back. What's his last name? Jose. T O R M. Okay. Um Jill, do we have any members of the public for this item? No. On Zoom? No. On the phone platform? No. All right, I'll go ahead and close it for uh public comment. Alice, you start us off. And and I imagine this is the city has history with the properties that are in those zones experiencing flooding during different storm events, right?

Yeah, definitely. Definitely. I don't know how many um FEMA usually provides uh every municipality and every county with um substantial uh damaged properties every year. I unfortunately don't know what that number is, but the lower that we keep it down, the higher and this would definitely assist with that. The higher our a community rating system goes up, which actually benefits all the citizens and actually lowers the insurance rates. So, and this is consistent with what I happen to know all other municipalities in Date County are doing. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. You said Miami Beach and Monroe County are probably on the forefront of that.

Mr. Chairman, whenever you'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation. Uh, anybody else on the board would like to make any comments before we have a motion? No. Mr. Cardo like to make a motion to adopt staff's recommendation. Second. We have a second by Alex. Second. I want to withdraw my second. No, you can't. I'll second it. So we we have a second by Alex. Friendly friendly friendly withdrawal. Put that in the record. So we have item E7. So on E7. So we have Alex a second and uh no other comments. Call the role, please. Robert Behar, yes. Alice Bravo, yes.

Alex Bello, yes. Esther Mendez, yes. Cardo, yes. Yes. Uh, moving on to E8. Item E8, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, providing for text amendments to the city of Carl Gables, official zoning code, article 5 architecture section 5-510 truss rafters to provide requirements for metal trusses, provide for repealer provision, sellability clause, codification, enforcability, and effective date. Item E8, public hearing.

Right. Thank you, Craig. Southern Planning and Zoning Department. Again, so item E8 is um a relatively uh simple text amendment. Uh it's basically within the past um we've we've had a predominant um requirement of trusses and um I think a lot of these trusses um needed a little more um structural and engineering requirement. So that's really what we're trying to do is differentiate between wood trusses and then the requirement predominantly in uh commercial properties for um a more heavy gauge um steel metal uh truss. And that's that's all we're really putting in here is um differentiating between the wood truss uh component and metal trusses. And these metal trusses uh being a heavy gauge would have to consist of hot rolled steel. Now um I wish I could um adequately uh talk about this, but we had our director, we had structural engineers um within the city take a look at these. And this is this is the most simplistic um text amendment that we've come up with just to differentiate between wood trusses and metal trusses if one chooses to install them.

You still have both options. Right. But if you use wood, it still has to be 2 by6 if you use wood. And from I heard from old-timers, the reason that it was put in there was simply really not because of structural, but really mostly because of termites and and carpenter ants and things like that that can chew right through anything. And also that was date pine. The the pine that was available back then was a 2 by six. Well, you could still get the 2x6. That's that's not But I think this is more really applicable to commercial projects. Exactly. when it comes to the metal component, a heavy gauge, and that way that we know structurally, you know,

just given our our last text amendment and the, you know, just where we live in South Florida, you know, it's But but you're still keeping the 2x6 res available. Yes. Um, do we have anybody on the in the chambers? No. Zoom or phone? No. I'll go ahead and close it for public comment. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Second, Mr. Partardo, President, you're on a roll. We have a first. We have a second. Any uh comments? No. Call the role, please. Alice Bravo, yes. Alex, yes. Lester Mendez, yes.

Cardo, yes. Robert, yes. Yes. Um, let's m Mr. Behar, you're going to recuse yourself? I am. At this time, I will recuse myself. Thank you. Let the record show that uh Mr. Behar is recusing himself. And sir, you filed the proper For the record, I submitted the conflict form today to uh to the city. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are we taking a break? Would you like to take a break? I wouldn't mind a break. She wants a break.

Let's take a five minute break, please. Thank you. On behalf of course. [Music]

He says to me, says to the other guy, he says, "My god, it's so cold. My eyeballs, my eyeballs hurt. I'm from Florida. My eyeballs fall out. I did. I

Okay, if everybody is ready, let's go ahead and get started, please. Um, what I'd like to ask is everybody that's in chambers, uh, want to make sure that we're sworn in. Has anybody that's going to be speaking tonight not been sworn in?

Thank you. Thank you. Um, has everybody been sworn in that's going to be speaking tonight? No. Can Can everybody please stand up again just so we make sure everybody's sworn in?

Thank you, Mr. C. Yes, this is going to take me a while. All right, so we have um a number of related items. So this is E3, E4, E5, E6, E, and E6.

So I'm going to my suggestion is we read them all in. We have one public hearing since they're all related and then we'll vote separately on each item. So item E3, an ordinance of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, amending the future land use map of the city of Carl Gable's comprehensive plan pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-213 comprehensive plan text and map amendments and smallcale amendments procedures section 163.3187 Florida statutes from commercial lowrise intensity and single family low density to multifamily low density for the western 36 feet of lots 1 and 13 through 17 and from single family low density to commercial lowrise intensity for the remaining eastern portion of lots 1 and 15 through 17 and all of lots 2 through 4 block 18 Carl Gable's flaggler street section 760 Pon Boulevard and 120 A of Villa Court, Carl Gables, Florida, providing for repealer provision, serability clause, and effective date. Item E4, an ordinance of the city commission, Carl Gables, Florida, making zoning district boundary changes pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-212 zoning code text and map amendments for mixed use one and single family residential to multifamily 3 for the western 36 ft of lots 1 and 13 through 17 and from single family residential to mixeduse one for the remaining eastern portion of lots 1 and 15 through in all of lots 2 through 4, block 18, Carl Gable's Flaggler Street, section 6, 760

Pon Leon Boulevard and 120 of Villa Court, Carl Gables, Florida, providing for repeal of provision, servability clause, and an effective date. Item E5, a resolution of the city commission of Carl Gables, Florida, granting approval of plan area development pursuant to zoning code article 14 process section 14-206 general procedures for plan area development for a mixeduse project referred to as 760 PON on properties legally described as block 18 Carl Gables Flagler Street section 760 Pon Boulevard 112 and 120 A Villa Court. call gables Florida including required conditions providing for repealer provision servability clause and providing for an effective date six a resolution of the city commission Carl Gables Florida granting approval of the following conditional uses one special location site plan review pursuant to zoning code article 5 architecture section 5-201 Carl Gable's Mediterranean style design standards for properties adjacent to or cross public rights away or water arrays from a SFR district or MF1 district to allow Mediterranean architectural bonuses and two conditional use approval pursuant to article 14 process section 14-203 conditional uses for mixeduse project referred to as 760 ponds on properties legally described as block 18 Carl Gables Flaggler Street section 760 Pon Leon Boulevard 112 and 120 Availa Court Carl Gables Florida including required conditions providing for provision servability clause and providing for an effective date

items E let's see E3 E4 E5 and E6 public hearing. Thank you. Could you repeat that? Did we get that right? That was really You want me to repeat it? Oh, thank you very much. I need a rest now. Give this man a break.

Um, good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh, board members, my name is George Navaro with offices at 333 Southeast Second Avenue. I think we're going to be uploading our presentation for you here shortly. Um, we're here to present the 760 project. I'm here this evening with my colleague Devin Vickers and GMO Fuentes from our design team. Um we could get the presentation working. Uh I think uh one of the things that you will see is that this is a project that has been the result of over two years of closely working with area residents and planning this project in a way that we believe uh fits well into the context of the neighborhood. uh we've had the pleasure particularly of working with those residents that live uh immediately west and north of this project. So just to orient you to where this property is at, you go to the next slide. Um this property is comprised of an entire block uh at the intersection of Pon and Boadia, which I've gotten very good at saying that that street name now after many years. uh just north of Southwest 8th Street and it's currently improved today with an outdated medical office building has a substandard surface parking lot. Um and it really today if you could go to the next slide. Um it what's there today really doesn't match the quality and the charm of this neighborhood. Um and the medical office building is uh currently grandfathered it in terms of parking but also doesn't have any dedicated drop offs. So, one of the things that has happened over the years, it's been subject of a nuisance action in the past, is that patients and visitors often load and unload directly onto the street, which has created a lot of disruption for the neighborhood. Uh, this project will address many of those long-standing issues. Uh it's going to

replace these outdated medical office uses. If you could go to the next slide, uh with a new high quality, beautifully designed mixeduse project that really incorporates a lot of the feedback, as you'll see, that we received uh from neighborhoods over the last couple of years. Uh the project includes, as you can see here, a very large plaza. It's an 8,500 square foot plaza. Uh in addition to other landscape green spaces that I'll show you, it has uh groundf flooror residential and commercial uses. We envision cafes and restaurants and other neighborhood uh friendly uses that would provide a service to the area. And we have two levels of class A medical office space that will be fully parked, plenty of parking, and fully dedicated internal uh service and drop off lanes. So, this property is unique because I think you saw uh it serves as a transition between the commercial uses on 8th Street and the single family neighborhood to the north. Um, and it's also unique because it has currently today two different zoning classifications. You have uh MX1 that comprises, you know, slightly more than half of this property and you have um existing single family zoning, but that single family zoning today is not used as single family zoning. It is a current the surface parking lot has been traditionally done uh to serve um the medical office use that's there. Um and what we are requesting today, if we go next slide, is to basically rearrange the zoning, the residential and commercial zoning on this property in order uh to create a true residential buffer along Boadia and leaving the remainder as MX1. Uh and we believe this approach uh we've looked at multiple different options to develop this property, whether it's under its existing zoning or live local. uh and this solution really we think provides

uh the best solution in terms of compatibility uh than what could otherwise be developed under the existing zoning. So let me walk you through the current version of the plan. Um this is um this is the current version of the plan that incorporates all of the changes that we have made since summer of 2023. Uh so as you can see this building has been designed and a lot of these good ideas came from the residents. So, uh, I don't want to take those as we came up with these on our own. This is really a lot of feedback from a lot of different people that played a big role in this. Uh, but we've designed the building to look like a four-story building. It's a five-story building actually, but we've designed it so that optically and appearance-wise it looks like a four-story building. Also, architecturally, we completely revamped uh revamped and redesigned this project into a Mediterranean style. uh even though we are only asking for Mediterranean one bonus and we're not required to do so. That was something that we worked very hard and we went back to BOA in order to get this new architectural uh design approved and the medit and the board of architects was very complimentary of the revised design. Uh let me walk you through how the building is laid out. Um it has one level of underground parking. If you go to the next slide, you can see that we have completely removed a whole level of parking. It's one of the changes that we did and we committed to provide it underground. Um we have on the ground level and I'll walk you through this in detail. We have active commercial space. Uh you could see the internal uh loading areas and then we also have a residential buffer that I'll walk you through in detail. Uh which we worked closely with the residents that are immediately across the street on Boadia. That is a street that's uh to the top of this uh exhibit that you see here today. Uh above this floor we have two levels of additional parking. Parking was important. We made sure to provide plenty of it. And then we only have now

two levels of medical office space. We completely removed an entire level uh since we originally started. So um this if you go back Devin sorry my apologies. So these are the new upper levels of the building. I want to highlight some of the things that we've done. Um, I'm going to say to the top of the page, but that is uh there's there's single family directly across the street from there. There's also to the to your left or to your to your right, my apologies. Uh we also have single family of this uh Anna City Park. We have two homes on that side. So uh along Boabadia, which is to the top of this exhibit, we have incorporated uh over a 50-foot setback from our property line to the top of those residential uh to the top of those uh office floors. Uh we've also incorporated an upper level terrace uh right at the u right at the beginning of the fourth floor which we are going to plant with large um trees in order to create an additional green buffer. So from the ground, you're going to have this building set back 50 feet and in front of that you're going to have large trees in front of it as an additional way to screen create like a green screen to these office floors. Um we did something similar on on Avia. Um what we did is we we incorporated there a 23 to 41 foot step back. You can see the building carve out that we did all the way on the bottom of the page and also um towards the middle that will additionally be planted as well uh right in front of the single family home that's there and that was one of the requests that we received uh from the resident that lives right across from this project on that side. Uh so let me walk you through the site plan. These are the upper levels and things we've done. These are the things we've done at the ground level uh along Boadia. We've included the large 8,500 foot public plaza. It's going to be a public open space, a

community uh benefit that the community can enjoy. Um and then we have lined Boabadia with four residential town home style units. These have been redesigned um to have large front yards. They have individual driveways uh and they have private garages. And the idea was to mimic the residential character of that street, which right now that's where you have the surface parking lot for the medical office. So we've converted that really created a transition now that doesn't exist today between the commercial uses and the single family uses uh along Avila what we did is we previously had as traditional mixeduse projects do we had commercial uses we had an access point on there um and what we've done in working with the residents of this area we have completely removed all active uses on this we've stepped the building further back and the reason we did that is to have a 10 to 13 foot landscape strip that we will heavily landscape which is what they wanted to see and we've removed the access point from there. Um and uh as you could see now with the yellow to orange circles we have completely limited all of our ingress and eress into this project directly onto ponds. There's no more access onto the residential streets. Everything will circulate through ponds. Uh so uh I'll show you um also just one last item on the corner. There's a green square. We used to have a building footprint there. We have completely carved out the building in that area. There is a um a very nice oak tree that is important to the neighborhood and we've committed to preserve it. And in order to do that, we have eliminated uh the building footprint that was going to impact that tree. So these are all things that we've done. Uh I'll walk you through some of the rendering showing how this looks. Now uh here you could see a rendering of the public plaza

right at the corner of Pon and Boadia. Um you can see also in this image the stepback but also the residential liner that we've created. Uh those are one of the homes there. Um as we go forward you'll get a um a ground level view of some of the gardens that we've created along Boa Boadia. you go to the next slide. So here you see the ground level uh streetscape improvements that we're proposing which I'll get into which are all the ballouts that we've committed to provide but also you see a large front yards. We have pushed since the time of BOA and the time we're before you today we've pushed those homes further back uh from Boabadia to create additional green space. And then the next rendering you'll see that is the carveout on the building right at the intersection of um of sorry if I get this right ponavila thank you pon aa that we've carved out uh really reduces the building massing too because that building went straight up and now you have some really nice uh building stepbacks uh really breaks down the massing of the building. So in terms of circulation, I think one of the most important things and we spent a long time redesigning this. If you see it, uh Devon, if you could go next slide, we have a completely fully internalized dedicated pickup and drop off area for all visitors to use. This is right, uh conveniently located at the ground level. Um and people can come in, we can stack up to five cars at a time. People will come in, be able to then uh enter on ponds and most importantly exit back onto ponds or drop off um their relative, their neighbor, their friend uh and then easily go back into the ramp and enter the parking garage either up into the upper levels or go into the basement. Um and lastly, this is one of the things that we really worked um very

hard on during the last couple of weeks is we have committed to complete several streetscape improvements. This is a view of Boabadia and what it will look like. I know a lot of neighbors in the area have been looking for streetscape improvements for many years and we are happy to provide those um and to try to you know beautify this street. We've also committed to provide traffic calming in the area. Uh so we continue to look forward to work with the residents and and your staff in order to implement these. This is a view of what Boabadia will look like uh upon completion of the project. So um I want to show you how we got here because I think it's important and we put a lot of work not just our team but the neighbors as well. Uh this project has significantly evolved since we first started working on this uh two years ago. Uh the original plan that we submitted to DRC in 2023, just to give you a highlight, was a sevenstory building, had no residential liner. The accesses were coming off of Pon Avula. Um and if you go to the site plan, you can see we had a very small plaza. Um and this is just kind of the the original DRC plan. Since then, I think you've seen we've doubled the size of that plaza, eliminated the access. Uh the project continued to evolve even, you know, um that was the original uh elevation, which as you could tell the neighbors were not happy about, but um we went ahead and added five residential units and continuing to work with the neighbors, we reduced those units down to four, created the additional um uh front yards. And the building, as you could see here in these images, started we started carving portions of the building out of the upper levels in order to create some better transitions. These have grown since the since the uh time that this was submitted. Uh this was the final BOA approval uh that was completed in August 2024. And since then, the most important item that

remained out there was the entrance off of Avia, which we reduced to an exit only. but we've been able to figure out a way to make this project work getting all of the traffic uh getting out to ponds. So, um just kind of walk you through all the changes this project has made. Um as I said, this has really been a collaborative process, one that I've been very proud to be a part. Um, I want to personally thank on behalf of not only myself but our entire team, all the neighbors, particularly uh, Evelyn, Anamaria, Zulie, Vicki, Odalis, Mario, Stephen, Frank, and so many others that, uh, were part of this process, but for taking the time to meet with us, uh, for being so involved throughout this process, and most importantly for pushing, uh, us to refine our design because I really believe, uh, their input made this project better. Uh, I know you have your staff coming up, uh, but we're very happy to have a positive staff recommendation as well with all the changes that we've made. Um, and I know there's several residents here that want to speak and you've had a lengthy agenda. So, I'll conclude my presentation and I'll be here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Jennifer Garcia, planning and zoning director. If I could have a PowerPoint, please. Thank you. So, as we know, this is an entire block, block 18 in the Flagler Street section. Um, it's bounded by Avala Boadia and then Pon Leon kind of curves on two sides of the site. Here's an aerial looking down. You can see the service parking lot on the west side. Uh, the current office building, medical clinic building, um, that encroaches over the existing single family right now. Um, zoning. Um and that's what's occupying the site right now. There's a view looking south east. Um you can see um H Street in the in the back with the taller buildings across H on the south side um in the North Ponds neighborhood. So looking at this um section of the city, the flower section has gone through a lot of changes over the last 100 years. So the original 1924 plat is on the left side of the slide. You can see the the triangular almost block 18 um outlined in black. Um the earliest map that we have is 1930 use map that shows it as commercial use for the entire area which makes sense because there are um very narrow platted lots um in this section of Coral Gables which usually George Merrick would plat these to be 25 ft wide uh for commercial uses. Um, and then in 1939, um, I believe in response to, um, you know, mid-century and and post-war housing, uh, that most of the area was zoned to be single family to allow for smaller, um, houses to be built there. And then 1946, a portion of that of that area, including this block, was changed to be commercial. So 1946 map, you can see that it's pretty much the same. this block especially as it is today with the

current zoning map. So the map on the left side is a 1946 map. You can see with zone C2 um for that section that's facing pawns with CF3 and a half which is single family um to the west side of that block. So there's a lot of requests for this um project just because our zoning code um require a lot of requests for more or less simple project in this location. And this location is very unique because it is um near a single family neighborhood. It's also fronting Pon Leon which is one of our major corridors. So they're requesting a change in land use map in the conference of plan uh zoning code map amendment as well as a pad a planned area development designation and then a conditional use request. So the first request is a change of land use. It's a comp plan change. So they're changing um the single family um to replace it with a multif family low density to transition from uh the commercial low-rise intensity to the single family and then growing that commercial um low-rise intensity to for the remaining of the block. The zoning mimics the uh conference supply and land use map um with MF3 as a transition between single family and the commercial uses of MX1 and MX1 again is taking up the reminder of that block. So the PAD the plannary development as you're familiar um does provide some flexibility with the zoning code as long as they meet one acre um qualify and they also they provide some public benefit. So they are providing a lot of streetscape improvements that you've seen with the renderings. Um bump bounce and traffic calming especially on Bobadia and street improvements on Avala um street sorry intersection improvements um where Avala and Bobadia meet. Right now it's a oneway not one way but it's a through street Bobia encourages a lot of speeding. So they'll be looking working with the county to

have a three-way stop there and include and sorry and improve that intersection. They're also going to have a landscape buffer on the north side of their property along Avala as well as preservation of some trees and prudent intersection at pawns where Avala wait sorry and the other street meet. So the conditional use site plan review. So the site plan you saw was that large public plazas on the south side uh town houses that are introducing a transition between the commercial uses and the single family across the street on Bobadia. Commercial spaces will be only on Pon Leon facing that uh more commercial corridor and then only the drop offs um sorry the entrances and exits of that off of the the building will be on Pon Leon. um all of their pickup and drop off of patrons is all internal. Um which is a a benefit I hear from the neighbors just because they they have to deal with a lot of the current issues with patrons and pickup and drop offs of the current use there is today. So this is a very um informationheavy uh slide. So that the existing area of the whole entire uh block is a little more than two acres. the F they could have if for MX1 as you know is 3.5 um they're a little bit more for a little less sorry for MX1 at just less than 1.5 1.49 or nine. The building height if they um were to go for metrane bonus two would be 77 feet. However, they're requesting only metran bonus one um and below that at 61 ft and 8 in. Again, the stories um they could have six stories through metran bonus level two, but they're only requesting to have five stories with that metran bonus level one.

Uh the density is relatively same would be allowed by now. Um the single family would only um allow uh six units an acre. They're proposing around seven units an acre for that single sorry for that MF3 uh portion of the site and then ground for commercial is uh 18,000 square ft and the office medical clinic would be about 88,000 square feet. They're providing uh 545 spaces and about 23% of the lot will be um open space. So part of the conditional use is also the special location. So um in our code um typically in our code uh if you're requesting a Mediterranean bonus you uh are granted through the board of architects but because they are adjacent to single family um the the code requires that recommendation comes from the board of architects recommendation from this board and then final approval by the city commission for a special location of the metrarian bonus. So this was reviewed by staff at development review committee over two years ago in 2023. Uh the board of review was in 2024 in July and August. They've had a couple of neighborhood meetings, one of last year and June and one most recently September 3rd. So we're here tonight zoning board as we move forward to city commission u for second reading. Letters were sent out um within 1500 feet of the property or 500 feet outside the property outside the city limits and letters were mailed out three times for the two neighborhood meetings as well as tonight's meeting. The property was posted four times. The website was posted four times as well and then one newspaper advertisement and staff has determined that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and objectives policies as far as uh transitions of commercial to single family neighborhood um for this block. We recommend approval with conditions.

Conditions are pretty standard but I'll run through um the highlights of them I guess. So the maximum height would not exceed five stories at 61 feet and 8 in. Even though the med bonus one would allow them to go a little bit higher, um they are we're capping them at 61 ft. Um as you know preferred by the residents, there would only be four townhouse units facing Boadia. The plaza would be publicly accessible located on pawns in Boadia. Intersection improvements would be required at Avala and Pawns and at the Pon Leon Boulevard in Oedo and Baragua. Uh pedestrian crossings [Music] across Pon Leon uh speed table or speed cushion on Boadia and then streetscapeification on those addition streets on Avala and on Boadia. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh Jennifer, just a question I had for you. Can you go back to your conditional um your approval with conditions? Yes, if I had the last slide or second last slide. Oops. Thank you. When you look at there the intersection improvements on Boulevard Oo and what are you talking about? Because I didn't see that on on the applicants.

Yeah. So that will be studied further with staff and the traffic engineer to see what's the best way to address that. Um there are some ideas. We just need to test them and make sure they'll work. What are you talking about? Of course, and working with the the county. Are you talking about bul bulbouts or what are you talking about doing? So, Oadia and and Abala. Yes. So, it' be a three-way stop. Right now, it's a through it's there's no stop on on Bobadia. So, it's a very wide street. So, it encourages a lot of speeding. Okay. So, at Avala and Bobia, the improvement would be a three-way stop to stop traffic from going straight forward. Um, as well as bumpouts at the corner to make it more crossable.

Does Does it make sense to do bumpouts at that point at at the at the T section T intersection? Yes. Usually, if you want to have um to give vis not visibility, but to kind of signal to drivers that there is an intersection that they should slow down and see the stop sign. Usually if you have those trees and the visibility is a little bit narrow, it signals to drivers to watch for signs and watch for a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk there. Um, of course, if there's driveway interruptions and we can't make it work, then that wouldn't be required. We're not going to get rid of someone's driveway.

Okay. Only because I see that's a conditional uh a condition of approval that you put in there. What if it what if it doesn't work out? If it doesn't work out working with um uh our transportation team here at the staff level, then we would probably have to not be able to do that just because the county won't let us, right? It's all kind of related to the county. They control the rights away in their of our streets and street markings and those movements. Thank you, master. I I just have one question on the Sorry. Uh actually, if I may, before we do that, let's get some speakers up.

Okay. and then we'll uh start. Jill, how many speakers do we have in chambers? Four. Go ahead and call them, please.

Good evening. My name is Evelyn Diaz. I live at 36 Montia Avenue. I'm in support of the project. The only thing that I it concerns me is the traffic flow on Pots. Um I believe we should have some sort of traffic circle on ODO. Um and I think that's about it. Um it's mostly the traffic. Oh, the other thing very important right now the uh patients and employees of the 747 Pont building are parking at the 760 uh uh parking site. I'm wondering what's going to happen once they start their construction. Where are all those 70 80 cars going to park right now?

That's about it. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Odalis Balby and I reside at 610 Buadia and right directly in front of the building. Um both my husband and I are very pleased with the project and we thank um Mr. Bear for working with us to accommodate our wants and our needs and um and we really cannot wait till this project is is completed and we see the beautiful results that um that are being presented to us. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Uh my name is Mario Paula. I live at 610 Badilla. Uh we've been having input on this project now for two or three years now. And uh we have finally been able to agree on a project that is uh um pleasant for everyone involved uh uh with uh relation to the bumpouts. I think that is uh an important part of the project because uh as you know is very wide street uh I don't see any uh traffic calming with a three-way stop. It's a very wide street very long. It's a quarter mile strip. A lot of people run down there. A lot of people raced down there. There was a couple of Ferraris running down there the other day. Uh so I think the bump house is uh a highlight. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. [Music]

Hello, my name is Steven Espinosa. I'm also a neighbor. I'm I'm across the street at 604 uh Wabadia Street uh owner and um I want to uh confirm that they've really uh met out with all these neighbors and really talked to us and get our input, you know, worked with us and we're totally support with every all the changes they made and uh we're very happy for this building to go up. And I just want to real quickly say I do support uh the project. Thank you, sir. How about Zoom phone platform?

I'll go ahead and close it for public comment. Nester, with the exception of rebuttal. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. George, did you have a rebuttal? That this speaker? Oh, I'm sorry. Were you sworn in, madam? Were you sworn in? Yeah. Were you sworn in? Yeah. If you could just

Thank you. If you please speak into the microphone. Yeah. I'm concerned about the traffic because I think Can you speak into the microphone better, please? Thank I concerned about the traffic because Can I ask you to state your name and address for the record, please? My name is Maria and Join us and I live 820 Sal Street, apartment 205. Thank you.

But the building looks so nice. Everything is so pretty, but they make they make the picture look nice. One thing when it's done is going to be different because we have to concern what the traffic and everything. AS3 is not that easy to walk over there and a lot of people sometime and because I live close to there they take the lights you have to be careful with everything you know you have to think all these appliances they going in the building the building look nice and everything but you have to concern about the people who going to live over there is a medical building over there and everything what's going to happen where everybody over there they going to disappear No, we have to think about all the requirements because all everything in life you got to second thought you know the one thing is right and one thing is not right. You have to think all the twists that happen when you making a big building make a like making over here in K when it used to be a parking space the the Mercedes you see building over there you have to think of the people the traffic the the the trash, the garbage, the everything. No, we can we're going to look like tiny. No, we we I not approve any building anymore because everything is concerned that you have to see that we get we getting the city don't get big. They get small. So many buildings, so many people, so many the more they make it, the more they coming. This is not make any sense. Don't make any sense. You have to think about it. All the appliance around only the few thing come true. It's people did not in the end going to be a lot of concern. That's my problem. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you ma'am. Thank you for coming. Sir, do you have a rebuttal you'd like to make?

Um, no. I just um with regards to traffic, I know uh and I appreciate uh her coming out. I know traffic has been a major concern. You had heard from many of the immediate residents that live directly across this project. We have worked and committed to mitigate traffic. Uh regardless of what would be required, we went over and above her and already committed to make several improvements. Uh I know she lives on the other side of 8th Street. We don't anticipate cut through traffic or anything going on through that street. So, um, with, you know, we're here to answer any questions, uh, that the board has, uh, and we hope that we can get your approval. I think you've seen, uh, from what you heard tonight how, um, much we've worked on this project.

Thank you. And you're good with the conditions, all the all the conditions. We're good with the conditions. I know we're continuing to work on several uh, traffic calming measures, and that will probably continue to evolve by the time we get now between now and first uh, and first reading at the city commission. though we are in support of all the conditions. Okay. Thank you, Nester. Yes, sir.

Please. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. If you please, yes, if you could state your name and address, please.

By all means. My name is Anna Maria Lopez. I reside in 112 Street. Um I'm also um speaking for two other owners that are out of the country. Uh, one is Vicki Bus from uh, 117 Guadada Street and the other one is Frank Lopez from 104 Wadia Street. Um, I'd like to thank Mr. Navaro and Miss Garcia for their presentation. Uh, Mr. No, I applaud you that you have been able to identify the building as in need of repair and not the neighborhood. Thank you so much. Miss Garcia, you've been very thorough in getting all of this up and running to for everybody. Um the the amazing part of all of this is that your first application that came through with Mr. Himenez um had to do with change reszoning and it happens that um the the uh commercial property that now we are mentioning was also reszoned because it used to be an adventist um church and headquarters many years ago and it was reszoned and when it was bought um the reason that why it was a parking thought was because we requested at that time in 2018 not to have the parking not to have a single family residential zoning changed. So we were promised that it would not change if we allowed the parking. I am pleased and so are many of our residents have as they have uh expressed with the change that has taken place since we started all of this.

But still I have some questions that I really don't understand. Um we asked that uh there would be a setback. Well, we didn't want the single family residential lots to change. We wanted them to build homes just like the ones right across the street from them. And they say that that that couldn't happen. So, um we said, "Okay, the town houses will okay, we'll accept them." But we asked for them to have setbacks of like to mimic the ones right across the street of 25 ft. Um we had a meeting with Mr. uh Eiglasis the city manager and we were able to come up with 23 feet because they were going to eliminate some of the 533 parking spaces that are there available. uh they were going to limit to give them to give those town homes a little more space. Well, we weren't able to get the 23 ft. We were able to get from 5 to 15. Thank you, Mr. Navajo, and thank you the team for that as well. But still, it's not mimicking what the neighborhood is all around is about. We are a single family residential neighborhood. 99% of everything around us is that uh the uh size and the density of the building. We also requested that we know that if they're single family, adjacent to single family, they should not be more than 45 ft high. Well, they went up to 77 and now they're down to 61. That's an improvement, but again, it's not really meeting the code that is required. So, to put this all in a nutshell, we need

traffic calming uh studies done because at this moment we are in dire need of slowing what's happening around us and uh we also need to have capitalist movements around us as they were promised to us. I'm sure that it will come through, but nothing has been put to the table as we speak. Um, I am happy to support the improvements that have been done for the past two years, but I think that a little more can be done to satisfy the requirements of a residential neighborhood. We have two medical buildings already, uh, 747 and 717. Right across the street from the 760. And right behind that, we have the M Jackson urgent, uh, urgent care. We really are not in need, our neighborhood, of a luxury um, medical building. what we have now is not right for what our neighborhood is. Again, we're not dilapitated. The building is

and uh that we need improvement to get something nicer as it was mentioned by the residents that are across the streets that are tired to see this. I agree. But again, we would tr I feel that we should try to mimic more of what the rules are according to the city and according to where you are setting yourself up in a residential single family home. Thank you very much for your time and um I wish you the best.

Thank you. Would you like to uh would you like to go ahead?

I don't have the exact number and I wish I did, but we did um prior to coming to planning and zoning board, we have further moved the uh residential town homes. And one of the things that we've been working with and and and trust me it's it's uh it's been a long discussion um was we had five homes that were grouped together along Boabadia and the residents right across the street wanted to try to mimic more of a um you know residential home feel. It's hard to do that when you're right next to MX1. You know when you're single family next to MX1. I know we were discussing that earlier. when you're directly adjacent, there's no alley, there's no street. So, we have created uh a home that looks and feels like a single family home, but it's attached. It's a town home. And one of the things we did was we incorporated these private garages. So, the setback actually from our property line varies between 15 to 25, but I'm not sure of that number. Um, if you see the exhibit, the front of the town homes at 15, but we have carved out portions of that town home to create a private driveway. So there's actually a variation in the in the step back and we worked as hard as we could uh to get as much set back from Boadia as we could for those homes.

Thank you. At this time I'll go ahead and close it for public comment. Um Nester us. Sure. I just have uh one question for staff on the um the traffic calming. I saw that one of the conditions was um was speed tables. Was that something that was um requested by the residents or was that something that um staff felt was uh necessary to add to on Boadia?

I believe it's both. I think it's approved um speed cushion and speed table on Boba on that 700 block of Bobadia. Um I'm assuming that got out to the residents and they were requesting it, but I have Melissa here to confirm all that's for me. Thank you. Melissa Desai is public works assistant director for transportation. So all of the if you could speak into the microphone. Sorry.

So um the speed tables that were mentioned um are already approved. They were requested by the residents because the traffic calming elements that we have in the city so far, they're all resident driven. Uh we receive a request, we test to see if they would qualify, and if they do, we move forward with installing traffic caling. And that's in and that's in addition to the bumpouts. Yes. Okay. And uh just to follow up, the the request for the uh speed tables was made uh prior to the project. Okay. So, that they were going there regardless. Is that fair to say?

Yes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the court reporter got her name and position. Okay. It got garbled a little bit. Thank you. I I uh aside from that, it sounds like um the residents are you've there's been a lot of back and forth and um they've had a lot of input. Apparently, it's been, you know, going on for two years. So, um hats off for working with the residents and and trying to uh to really listen to them and take their concerns into account.

Thank you, Felix. um this area um historically the residents that live there have always unfortunately considered themselves the red-headed stepchild. Um the amount of speed cut through and also uh the existing buildings that have been there since the 70s that take up all the parking with their employees and also the people that get dropped off. It's a it's a nightmare off Tamiami Trail and Pon u years ago I was fortunate enough that we were able to make the improvements and dedicated the Rotary Park there which is the only park that they have and it is used by all the young families that live there. This is a very super stable single family area and it's a great area. Unfortunately, people that come off um Douglas cut through every day in the morning or in the afternoon. There's not enough police enforcement in any way, shape, or form. You start ticketing people every single day in the afternoon and in and in the evening with enough police officers, you start to make an impact. When you don't, having speed tables, speed tables do work. People slow down or they basically are going to have to be realigning their expensive cars. I would like to know, Mr. Navaro, if you can, can you tell us if there's been a certain amount of money set aside for these traffic calming um ideas that staff is going to be coming up with because they're usually

not cheap. Um there so we have not priced it out yet. Um but I could tell you how we got to the uh commitments that we made. Um we had very very very many meetings. Um and at all these meetings, one of the main issues was always traffic calming on Boadia. And we committed as part of our project that we would install the traffic calming. Um we have not priced that out, but but that's our commitment um to the neighbors and and uh and it's one of the conditions of approval. We understood that and we know it's important to a neighborhood. It's actually I think you mentioned this that neighborhood has been pushing this for many many years. Yes. um and we've committed to help them uh do so. Another item that came up was obviously we did a lot on our side of Boadia um in terms of landscape treatments and in order to kind of keep a very similar design as you go through Boadia, we committed uh and working with the homeowners that live right there uh to do bumpouts in front of their homes and install additional street series. So, um, on our end, it was a commitment that we made with the neighbors and our project, you know, as it's been proposed, includes those commitments. Um, whether they're required by a traffic study or not, we were going to provide them.

No, I think it's not going to be required by a traffic stud. It probably wouldn't. Right. It won't trigger it. But that's why I'm saying, you know, I'm I'm surprised that you're before the planning board and you haven't been discussing money yet with the city as far as the commitment.

Yeah. I mean, uh, we are going to to pay for that as part of our, um, off-site improvements for the project. So, when we go in to do our civil permitting, as part of permit design, uh, those drawings that are going to be reviewed by the city and the county will include the ballouts and the traffic calming. Uh, it's it's almost considered part of our project. We've taken on the entire width of that boa frontage. The the only thing I' I'd like you to also consider, you know, and staff is here, assistant director is here, and um look, traffic circles, traffic circles are great up to a certain point, but the amount of confusion by drivers that aren't used to traffic circles. This is not Ireland here. They're not used to traffic cir, it becomes very dangerous, including pedestrians. And and I know for a fact that there have been pedestrians hit, you know, by cars on ponds where people speed recklessly through there. And that's why I said that police additional police enforcement in that area is extremely important. Um so that that is that is the main concern right now. You did not create that. It exists there. It's been there for years. I've met with neighbors a long time ago with assistant city uh managers to actually discuss specifically these type of issues that exist there. And it's really a shame especially because of you know the neighborhood has become younger and younger and and those kids need to have safety there and you can't have safety when people are recklessly driving down streets. Now the other thing is that I know for a fact that this project has gone through a complete metamorphosis and the developer should be uh very proud of that. You've basically taken a

page out of what Alan Morris did, which was listen carefully and do a quality job listening carefully to what the neighbors are asking for. The use of the liners, the residential liners on Boadya is the right use there. It wouldn't have been the right use anywhere else. It helps co uh it helps cover the parking component and at the same time it mirrors the image on the other side of the single family homes. That's very well done. The second thing is that the height was reduced substantially. The use when this was the I think it was the 7th day Adventist that was I think at one time s as in special use. So, that's been changed over time. There is going to be an issue with the 747 building because they don't have enough parking when they built that back in the early '7s. The other thing is that you're not adding more residential. Why is that important? is because the use of the offices is normally 9 to5 kind of thing. So during the evening it slows down plus the fact that they should not be impacting on the park for example Rotary Park with the residents that are there. In other words, more residents, you need more park space. The only the only thing that may happen is people going and trying to have a nice lunch at the Rotary Park. The other thing is that you also went ahead and and saved that particular tree which is consistent with the other trees

that are full grown in that area. Also by placing the parking underground you've maintained the height of the building where it's uh realistic plus the fact that the amount of parking that you've created for the use is also a realistic one. The only the only u the only areas that are going to tax or create a burden on the parking are the existing uses that have been there since the 70s. I would hope that you can make a a better solid commitment to trying to put in. It doesn't have to be those fancy, you know, $80,000, you know, uh, stone or brick or whatever. Just the temporary ones are enough to catch people's attention to slow down. And and if you can somehow look not just at Poadada, but also the other streets that have this constant traffic issue. It's it's important. And finally, most people in this city don't know that in this area there are historic residences and on certain streets that have been preserved by those neighbors and that's part of the fabric of the city. So, Mr. Chairman, these are all my comments. At the time that u you would set a motion, I'd like to be able to make a motion.

Yes, sir. Right. Alex, I'll be brief. Um this is probably the first project I've been a part of sitting on this board that you have almost unanimous support. I mean, to see the transformation from the first project to now is incredible. It's I hope to see that moving forward on other projects. Um my my question revolves around traffic. Um, one of the residents, I think it was speaker 3 and pardon me, I didn't write your name, um, mentioned about parking issues with the other building. Is there any like record evidence of them using that parking currently? Now, is there a rental agreement? Don't know what is going on with uh, the current building, but um, we keep in contact very frequently. Uh,

Evelyn uh, and I, you know, you've worked hard on a project where you know every neighbor by first name. Um, I'm telling you there's a first.

Yeah. So, um I will find out what is going on there. I know that. So, the issue with this building in its current formation, um and the one across the street is that they're your older version of medical office, which has very little parking and the buildings are designed to have many doctors in them. So, it's not a good mix. Um I believe that they're probably the same situation as us grandfathered. Um, I don't know what is going on with there's an overflow parking that they're using, but obviously when we're under construction, you know, that that use will go away and and we're going to have a fully functional building that will be self-contained. Um, they may need to find some overflow parking and some other adjacent uh lot next door if they are having parking uh issues. And my last question is the speed table or the speed cushions is that dependent on county approval? I don't know. Right. That's not

so I think the way that it works and I know we have engineer. I think it's an issue of Yeah. I think it's an issue of the neighbors have to sign and and agree to it and and I I don't see an issue with the Boadia neighbors uh signing that. I think they just have to choose where it goes. Um you know Can I jump in here first? I'll just end I commend you with the work you've done with the resident. So, thank you. I just want to piggy back on one thing that he said. I just want to piggy back on one thing and I I echo those concerns about the parking. Is that by any chance is there like is that permit parking there on the street? The residential. Okay. So, the residents are protected from

Yeah, they are. And one of the things that we have done guys, we can't Yeah, we closed the public comment. Mr. We have uh we've all um I think applicant and neighborhood have committed to working with your great uh traffic and parking department to make to make sure that that's properly labeled and everything resident parking only. Um, we have all of the town homes have their own individual parking garage and they have parking in front in their driveway, but also we've made parking in the rear available to them as well, so that there is no use of that of those spaces and we, you know, want to work with them to make sure it's labeled as such.

No further. Thank you, Alice. Um, one of, one of the good things of going at the end is that all my questions have been addressed. Uh I I was going to ask that about the the parking and I do want to commend the team because um you know I I think it's an improvement for the residences uh around the facility in terms of not only aesthetics but um the compatible use across the street whether it's the landscaping or or the townous. So, I I think again I want to commend the team. Uh a big investment of time, but also an investment into the project in terms of pushing the parking underground and and trying to be as compatible as possible with the neighborhood. Um so, I have no further questions.

Thanks. Um this is actually to me um a really thoughtout project. I do commend the team as Alice has said especially working through all the steps that you have gone to to reduce it. Sort of like what Alan Morris did uh that was pointed out by my fellow board member. Uh you listen to the to the neighbors. It's actually really nice to have all the neighbors come and support the project which is very unusual as of late. Um I like very much the design. I think the design is very good. Um, I like the stepbacks. I like very much the way the residential has been done to mimic the other side and the cutouts. Um, I think there's a lot of thought process that has gone into this project. Not only from the developer, but from the architects to the draftsman to the attorney. You've really worked this through.

Thank you. And and I just want to mention that a lot of this design was really um responding to a lot of feedback. I mean the the neighbors did a great job of first of all telling us what they didn't like. Uh but also giving us very creative feedback that a lot of the things that we did I know our architectural team worked very hard to try to get those uh concepts and turn them into a vision. But but but really uh I got to commend the neighborhood for a continuing uh you know to work with us throughout this process and it's really a compromise. I know there's a lot of things like underground parking that we didn't want to do and I'm sure there's some things that uh we're doing that they don't like, but this has really been kind of something that I feel uh is going to really improve what's there today on that property um and be and be something really nice for the area. It just seems that the developer actually put a lot of thought in putting his team together.

Thank you. That's nice to see. It really is. Um Felix, would you I would um I know Mr. Navaro is probably not going to sleep tonight, but I'm going to make a motion to approve uh applica the application based on staff's recommendation. Um, and I would hope that staff actually um uh tries to make sure that the uh traffic mitigation is considered in a in a monetary way uh to be able to make sure that it it gets funded uh to provide relief for the neighbors. That's my motion. Sir,

Mr. Chairman, we have to do this piece by piece by piece. So, so the first item, you're correct. Sorry. Let's see if we can do this in 10 minutes. Item E3 is the comprehensive plan approval. That would be the first item. Okay. So, we need a motion on E3 in accordance with the department's recommendation. Yes. Felix made that motion. Is there a second? I second. Alice second. So, we need to call the RO. Any discussion? No. Call the RO, please. Alex Bello, yes. Nester Mendez, yes. Felix Parto, yes. Alice Bravo, yes. ABS is check.

Yes. So, the ne next item is the zone change. Um, which is item E4. We need a motion and a second on that. In accordance with department's recommendation. I'll move that based on staff recommendation. Is there a second? Second. Alex, second. Any discussion? No. Call the role, please. Lester Mendez, yes. Felix Partardo, yes. Alice Bravo? Yes. Alex Mousello? Yes. ABI staff?

Yes. E5 is the uh approval of the P A. We need in accordance with department's recommendation. We need a a motion and a second on that. Felix roll staff recommendation. Felix makes a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Master seconds. Any discussion? No. Call the role, please. Felix, yes. Alice Bravo, yes. Alex Pelo, yes. Nester Mendez, yes.

Yes. E6 is really we've combined in this one item all the conditional uses including the site plan uh and other items. I think there are four let's see additional use approval two. Did I get that right? Are there two in here? That is correct. That is correct. Right. So we need a motion and a second on that. I I recommend that we approve the combined motion based on staff recommendation. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Alice second. Any discussion? Call the role, please. Alice Bravo, yes. Alex Bello,

yes. Mr. Mendez, yes. Felix, yes. AB, yes. Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Um, there are no other items or discussion items. Is that correct, Jill? That's correct. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I'll move. Second. We have a move by Nester, second by Alex. Everybody in favor say I. I. Thank you very much for coming and putting your