[E.-1. 26-2042 An Ordinance of the City Commission of Coral Gables, Florida providing for a text amendment to the City of Coral Gables Official Zoning Code by amending Appendix A, “Site Specific Zoning Regulations”, Section A-36, “Crafts Section,” by revising the height restriction to not allow additional stories or height available for architectural incentives for Block 36, Crafts Section, Coral Gables, Florida; providing for a repealer provision, severability clause, and providing for an effective date.]

[E.-4. 26-2046 An Ordinance of The City Commission of Coral Gables, Florida, providing for text amendments to The City of Coral Gables Official Zoning Code by amending Article 5, “Architecture,” Section 5-203, “Coral Gables Mediterranean architecture design,” to amend the height exclusion requirements to include enclosed areas as accessory uses; and providing for repealer provision, severability clause, codification, and providing for an effective date.]

OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES. OFFICIAL ZONING CODE BY AMENDING APPENDIX A SITE SPECIFIC ZONING REGULATIONS, SECTION A DASH 36 CRAFT SECTION BY REVISING HEIGHT RESTRICTION TO NOT ALLOW ADDITIONAL STORIES OR HEIGHT AVAILABLE FOR ARCHITECTURAL INCENTIVES FOR BLOCK 36 CRAFT SECTION. CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ITEM E ONE PUBLIC HEARING. GOOD EVENING, OUR CITY PLANNER. I'M FILLING IN FOR JENNIFER AS SHE CAN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. SO ALL THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE. SO THIS FIRST ITEM IS A TEXT AMENDMENT AMENDING THE SITE SPECIFICS. SECTION 836. THE CRAFT SECTION SPECIFICALLY BLOCK 36. SO JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND, MAY I PLEASE HAVE THE PRESENTATION? SECOND SLIDE PLEASE. JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND OF BLOCK 36. IT IS BOUNDED BY MALAGA AVENUE. IF I CAN HAVE THE SECOND SLIDE. OKAY. OKAY.

SO ON THE NORTH SIDE IS THE MALAGA AVENUE TO THE EAST IS SOUTH CEDAR STREET, TO THE WEST IS LEJEUNE AND SOUTH IS SANTANDER AVENUE. SO IN 2020 AND 2021, THE CITY CONSIDERED A SERIES OF LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE CRAFT SECTION. AS PART OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, BLOCK 27 AND 28 NORTH OF BLOCK 36, WAS IDENTIFIED TO BE OR WAS DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. NOW, BLOCK 36 WAS IDENTIFIED AS THAT TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH AND THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE SOUTH, SPECIFICALLY THE SEBASTIAN APARTMENT BUILDING. SO THE CITY COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE HEIGHT OF BLOCK 36 IN SEVERAL MEETINGS AND FINALLY ADOPTING THE CHANGES ON MARCH 23RD, 2021, CHANGING THE LAND USE TO MEDIUM DENSITY, THE ZONING TO MF TWO AND ESTABLISH A SITE SPECIFIC HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THREE STORIES OR 45FT, WHICHEVER IS LESS. NOW, AS WE ALL KNOW, SECTION FIVE 201. THE MET BONUS PROVIDES ARCHITECTURAL INCENTIVES THAT ARE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE SITE SPECIFIC. SO AS A RESULT, THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ON A 36. THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ON A 36TH MAY BE INTERPRETED AS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL STORIES THROUGH MET BONUS, SO THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY COMMISSION'S INTENT AT THAT TIME WERE LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 45FT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE AMENDING TONIGHT, REVISING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, EXPRESSLY PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL STORIES AVAILABLE THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL INCENTIVES SHALL NOT APPLY ON ALL LOTS IN BLOCK 36. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THROUGH THE CHAIR QUESTION, BECAUSE THE PROJECT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, THEY WENT UP SIX STORIES, 77FT. SO THIS WILL LIMIT IT TO FOUR STORIES, 45FT, FOUR STORIES, 45FT. NO BONUS, NO BED BONUSES.

AND IN HEIGHT. AND THEN YOU ARE. IS THIS ALSO BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM BEFORE. YOU WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO GET ONLY 12 ADDITIONAL FEET FOR AMENITIES ON ONLY 25% OF THE ROOF AREA. YEAH, RIGHT. ITEM FOUR ON THE AGENDA, WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE AMENITIES ON THE ROOFTOP SO LONG AS NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE IMMEDIATE FLOOR BELOW. YES. SORRY. WITH RESPECT TO MIGHT BE ADVISABLE SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR TO BRING UNLESS ANYBODY HAS AN OBJECTION TO BRING FOUR UP. SO WE WOULD DO ONE AND FOUR FIRST AND THEN I THINK SO BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY GO COMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER. OKAY, I'LL READ IT. LET ME READ IT OUT NOW IF I CAN.

BY ALL MEANS. ITEM E FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES. OFFICIAL ZONING CODE BY

[00:10:03]

AMENDING ARTICLE FIVE ARCHITECTURE. SECTION FIVE DASH 203 CORAL GABLES. MEDITERRANEAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN TO AMEND THE HEIGHT EXCLUSION REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE ENCLOSED AREAS AS ACCESSORY USES AND PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE CODIFICATION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON BOTH ITEMS, AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. OKAY. SO THE WAY I SEE IT, WE'RE GOING TO AND THIS IS JUST IN A VERY SIMPLE MANNER TO SEE IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW BONUSES TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT TO SIX STORY 77FT. WE'RE GOING TO CAP IT AT FOUR STORY 45FT, FOUR STORY IS 45FT. OKAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT FOUR STORIES, 45FT. BUT IF I CAN EXPLAIN THE ITEM FOR THAT, WHAT? GO AHEAD. ALREADY READ. SO THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING INTEREST IN PROMOTING VIBRANT ROOFTOPS. AND WE HAVE GOTTEN THIS A LOT. SO WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OPPORTUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO DO ACTIVATE THE ROOFTOPS. SO AS A RESULT OF THAT ITEM E FOUR, THIS IS APPLICABLE CITYWIDE FOR THOSE PROJECTS SEEKING BONUS. SO FOR THOSE PROJECTS SEEKING BONUS, THEY CAN DO AN ADDITIONAL AS LONG AS IT'S USED AS AN AMENITY NO MORE THAN 25% IN AREA OF THE IMMEDIATE FLOOR BELOW. WE HAVE ADOPTED THIS SAME IN THE DESIGN INNOVATION DISTRICT. I THINK AN ADDITIONAL STEP BACK. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WORK IN THE CITY OF MIAMI TO DO IN A T FIVE, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO ALLOW FOR THAT. IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO DO THAT. IF YOU LIMIT IT TO ONLY LIKE 25% OF THE ROOF AREA. YES. OKAY. YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE POWERPOINT FOR E FOUR BECAUSE I KIND OF SURPRISED YOU BY MOVING THE OTHER WAY. I DON'T THINK I NEED A POWERPOINT FOR ITEM FOUR.

IT'S BASICALLY EXPLAIN THE SAME THING FOR THOSE PROJECTS. SEEKING BONUS IS APPLICABLE TO AND MF AND NO MORE THAN 25% STEP BACK TEN FEET. OVER. SO HISTORICALLY, HISTORICALLY, THE REASON THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOT BLOCK WAS SET TO BE REDUCED WAS SPECIFICALLY TO TRANSITION DOWNWARD TOWARD THE THE SAN SEBASTIAN, THE SAN SEBASTIAN APARTMENT BUILDING. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND, AND THE AREAS THERE. BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU HAVE ALREADY AN EXISTING. THE ALEXON PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT. THEY ADDED AN ADDITIONAL. I THINK IT WAS TWO FLOORS AT THAT TIME FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN BONUSES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ACTUALLY ADDED SOME MORE HEIGHT. THE POINT IS THAT YOU SEE NOW WHAT IS BUILT THERE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH A LINER OF DUPLEXES, WHICH IS, I THINK, AMAZING. THE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE T FIVE THAT ROBERT MADE MOST OF THE TIMES THEY'RE APARTMENTS. AND MOST OF THE TIME THOSE APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ARE FACING OTHER APARTMENT BUILDINGS ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO AND THERE'S I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT I AGREE WITH STAFF 100% AS FAR AS KEEPING THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROMISED TO THE RESIDENTS AT THAT TIME. THE APPROVAL WAS BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THAT. NOW, THE ACTIVATION OF THE 25%, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK THAT YOU'RE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES. WHY? BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE ADDING THE 25% OF AN ACTIVITY, IT'S NOT JUST THE 25%, BUT IT IS THE ACTIVITY OF WHAT YOU GET ON THOSE 25%. IS THERE GOING TO BE A NOISE LEVEL? RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE PROJECTS ON LEJEUNE ROAD AND EAST OF LEJEUNE ROAD AND SOUTH OF BIRD ROAD THAT HAVE ACTIVITIES THAT GO ON THERE WHERE YOU HAVE LOUD MUSIC, WHERE POLICE ARE CALLED ALL THE TIME, OR SOMETIMES NOT ALL THE TIME, SOMETIMES. AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ACTIVITIES ARE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE

[00:15:01]

ACTIVITIES UP ON THAT ROOFTOP WHERE SOMEONE IS HAVING, LET'S SAY, A COCKTAIL, THAT'S ONE THING, QUIET, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF YOU HAVE A PICKLEBALL COURT UP THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE THOSE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF THEIR MINDS. THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE SOUTH OF US, ONE TO THE WEST OF LEJEUNE ROAD, AND YOU SEE IT FROM THE TREE CANOPY ON DOWN. SO FOR ME, THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS THERE ON THE BLOCK IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, IT IS JUST TOO MUCH IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. THEY ACCEPTED IT, BUT THEY ACCEPTED IT WITH ONE CONDITION SUPPOSEDLY TO LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND BRING THE HEIGHT DOWN. SO THERE WOULD BE A SOFTER TRANSITION DOWNWARD. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE 25% RULE SHOULD BE USED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. FELIX, JUST TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, AND THE CONDITION THAT I BROUGHT UP IS A PROJECT ON BRICKELL AVENUE THAT IS THE T FIVE ON THE BACK SIDE OF SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE.

THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY. SO JUST TO CORRECT THE RECORD, THAT IS THE ACTUAL IT'S NOT APARTMENTS IN THE BACK. THERE ARE BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY. SO IN THIS CASE, SINGLE FAMILY IS ACROSS THE STREET, NOT NOT ABUTTING, JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT SAID IS, IS, IS CORRECT AND IT'S ACCURATE. THE CURRENTLY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHENEVER YOU ARE, BUT A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DESIGNATION, YOU FOR THE FIRST 100FT OF THE PROPERTY, YOU GOT TO KEEP 45FT. SO THIS SUSTAIN REMAINS THE SAME. BASICALLY SINGLE FAMILY AND MF1 DUPLEX RIGHT IN LEGION ROAD ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S DUPLEXES, WHATEVER. RIGHT. SO 45 LIMITATION APPLIES TO DUPLEX. AND OKAY, SO IT DOES APPLY FOR BOTH. RIGHT. AND THAT THAT IS THE CONSISTENCY OF THE 45FT. WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, THAT PARTICULAR BLOCK WAS SET AT 45FT, NOT 45FT, -25% OF IT. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE REASON THAT THIS IS A LITTLE MUDDIED, I THINK RIGHT NOW BY BRINGING IT IN TO THIS CONVERSATION, IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS IN THAT OTHER LEGISLATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE 2525 FOOT AREA, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A HEIGHT LIMITATION. DID YOU SEE A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THE 25? BUT YOU DO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. NO, NO. WHAT I'M ASKING. NO DIFFERENT. YEAH. NO, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THERE'S NO LIMITATION WHATSOEVER. IT'S IF LEFT COMPLETELY UP TO THE THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS, THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO BRING THE OTHER ONE IN. IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED, I THINK, BY ITSELF. AND, AND THE 45 FOOT LIMITATION THAT WAS SET BY THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WAS SPECIFIC 45FT. AND THE REASON WAS EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THAT 45 FOOT DIMENSION, WHICH WAS WHICH WAS THE LIMITATION ON THE FIRST 100FT AND ALSO ON THE DUPLEXES, WHICH LINE BOTH SIDES OF LEJEUNE ROAD IN THAT AREA. I, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU ON CONTROLLING THE NOISE LEVEL.

OKAY. WHAT COULD BE THERE? YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS EXCESSIVE.

AND THE NOISE BECOMES NUISANCE TO THE TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY THAT IS WHATEVER 50FT OR IN THIS CASE, IT'S MORE, BUT I DO I DO AGREE WITH STAFF TO ALLOW A PERCENTAGE. WHAT I WOULD PROBABLY DO IS THAT 25%. KEEP IT AWAY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THE THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION, RIGHT. BUT THE THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO SITE PLAN WITH THIS. THIS IS LEGISLATIVE, ONLY THAT CONDITION, ROBERT, WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, IS NOT WRITTEN IN THERE. YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A THIS BLOCK IS A COMPLETE EXCEPTION TO THE OTHER THREE BLOCKS THAT WERE. OR THE OTHER TWO BLOCKS THAT WERE APPROVED WAS A. IT WAS A TOTAL OF, I THINK TWO AND A HALF BLOCKS MAYBE THAT WERE APPROVED.

AND, AND THE POINT IS THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THE ONLY THING IS THAT IT'S NOT CUSTOMIZED TO A PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DON'T QUANTIFY CODES. BY THE WAY, I JUST WANT TO ALSO TO CLARIFY THAT FOR PROJECTS THAT ABUTS SINGLE FAMILY AND MF1, THERE'S A LIMITATION WITH THE 45FT, WHICH

[00:20:04]

ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL APPROVAL. BY THE WAY, SPECIAL LOCATION APPROVAL. THOSE. BUT I DON'T PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE. BUT WE'LL LET WE'LL CONTINUE. SORRY. CONTINUE WITH WITH THE PRESENTATION STAFF AND AND PUBLIC. YEAH, THAT WAS IT. THAT WAS MY ITEM FOUR THANK YOU. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SORRY. WE HAVE JOHN. LUCAS. LUCAS. HI. GOOD EVENING. JOHN LUCAS WITH OFFICES AT 2655 SOUTH LEJEUNE ROAD, SUITE EIGHT, TEN, CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA. I'M HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE ALL INCLUSIVE LOT 36 WITHIN THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT ITSELF, THERE IS A PROJECT THAT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS AS TO LOTS TEN THROUGH 15, WHICH WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 13TH OF 2026. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE FAVORABLY VIEWED TONIGHT AND MOVE ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WE WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR TO THIS BOARD THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH WE VIEW AS BEING VESTED, AND WE DO NOT WISH THERE TO BE ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY COMPROMISE THOSE APPROVALS. MR. LUCAS, JUST THERE IS A BRIDGE HERE. ARE YOU GOOD TO SEE? THERE'S A PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH APPROVAL. ALREADY GOT THE BOA APPROVED. YES, SIR.

OKAY. I MEAN, TO ME. TO ME, AND I WILL COME. THOSE PROJECTS SHOULD ALREADY BE VESTED IN A SENSE, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED. WELL, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF MY BEING HERE, IS JUST TO BE ENTIRELY CLEAR AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS CLARITY THAT THIS BOARD, AS YOU GO THROUGH THE THE EVALUATION OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AND ITS APPROVAL AND OR DISAPPROVAL THIS EVENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE HAVE JEANETTE MARTINEZ, AND SHE WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN. YES. HI. MY QUESTION THAT I WANT TO CONFIRM. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? JEANETTE MARTINEZ 327. SANTANDER. I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON SANTANDER AVENUE OF THE BLOCK THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I WANT TO I WANT TO CLARIFY AT THE TIME IN 2021, WHEN THE ZONING WAS DONE, THAT BLOCK MALAGA SIDE HAD ONE SITE AND THE SANTANDER HAD ANOTHER HEIGHT. IS THAT STILL IS THAT STILL THE CASE? LEST I ANSWER THAT, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS FOR THE HEIGHT ON BLOCK 36, AS CURRENTLY THE CODE ALLOWS FOR 45FT. THE SAME THING. ACTUALLY. I REMEMBER BEING ON THE BOARD, BUT I REMEMBER AND SHE IS CORRECT. THERE WERE TWO HEIGHTS. I REMEMBER THAT FACING THE SAN SEBASTIAN BUILDING, IT WAS THE FOURTH STORY OF 45FT. AND ON THE NORTH SIDE YOU COULD HAVE GONE UP TO SIX STORIES. YEAH, THERE WERE THERE WAS DISCUSSION. BUT WHAT WAS FINALLY ADOPTED IS THE THREE STORIES OF 45 PEOPLE. OKAY, THE WHOLE BLOCK, ALL OF BLOCK 30, THE WHOLE BLOCK. YES. RIGHT. ANOTHER QUESTION. HOW IT'S ZONED. COULD YOU HAVE HALF OF THE STREET ONE HEIGHT AND THE OTHER HALF ANOTHER HEIGHT? WELL, YOU. YES YOU COULD, BUT IF YOU KEEP IT UNDER 45FT, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO 25FT AND THE OTHER SIDE COULD BE 45 BUT YOU CANNOT EXCEED 45FT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SORRY. NO MORE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE ON ZOOM? NO. PHONE PARTICIPANTS. LET'S CLOSE. MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT MR. LUCAS'S COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. LUCAS IS POSITION IS HE BELIEVES HIS PROJECT IS VESTED AT THIS STAGE. THE ITEM DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR VESTING. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT COUNCIL AND OTHER COUNCIL HAVE HAD WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THERE MAY BE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD FROM THIS POINT, BUT FROM A POLICY ISSUE AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR VESTING IN THE IN THIS ITEM. YEAH. BUT EXPLAIN TO ME SOMETHING. IF THEY IF THEY STARTED A PROJECT AND IT WAS UNDER A CERTAIN APPROVAL.

RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT PROJECT WITH THAT THOSE REGULATIONS, I CANNOT CHANGE IT NOW AND SAY, OH, SORRY. WELL, MY OPINION, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED WITH THAT

[00:25:06]

YOU, YOU GET VESTED WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT I BELIEVE THAT MR. LUCAS IS MAKING. I'M JUST ADVISING THE BOARD THAT THAT AS FAR AS WHETHER THE THERE SHOULD BE VESTING IS SOMETHING THAT AT THIS POINT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ITEM. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. AND MY REQUEST IS SIMPLY TO RESPECT THE FACT THAT LOTS TEN THROUGH 15, SIX LOTS ON MALAGA, UNDER 300 MALAGA SHOULD BE CARVED OUT OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND PARTICULARLY THE OVERBREADTH OR OVERREACHING, WHICH DESCRIBES THE APPLICATION OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AS BEING APPLICABLE TO ALL OF LOT 36.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE APPROVED TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS, AS WE HAVE THE FULL DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, THE MED BONUSES, THE BOA APPROVAL, WE'RE DONE. WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD, NOT TO GO BACK, BUT YOUR PROJECT, DOES IT EXCEED 45FT? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MARIO GARCIA. SARA. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MARIO GARCIA, SARA WITH OFFICES AT 600 BRICKELL AVENUE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS AT 45FT. THERE IS AN AREA AT THE ROOFTOP THAT IS ENCLOSED, SO LET'S CALL IT A PARTIAL FIFTH LEVEL. I'LL ASK OUR ATTORNEY AGAIN WHEN THIS ENTIRE BLOCK WAS REZONED, A LIMITATION WAS SET OF 45FT ON THE ENTIRE BLOCK. RIGHT. AND THERE'S BECAUSE OF THIS, SOMEWHAT OF A CONSIDERED CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS IN THE CODE, THE IT'S THE THE DESIRE OF THE STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT THE THAT THE LIMIT WAS 45FT, NOT CONSIDERING AND NOT ARCHITECTURAL INCENTIVES WOULD NOT ADD TO THAT HEIGHT. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, RIGHT? BUT BECAUSE THE BELIEF THAT AT THAT TIME THEY THOUGHT THE FLOORS NOT. RIGHT, IT WAS NOT TO ADD ADDITIONAL FLOORS. WELL, I THINK I'M GOING TO RELY ON STAFF. I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS EXPRESSED AS IN FEET, BUT IT WAS EXPRESSED IN FEET. OKAY. SO SO IF THERE WAS NO LIMITATION OF THE 45FT, THEN THAT PROJECT COULD GO TO 72, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID NOT. AND 27FT, 72FT. AND THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION CHOSE NOT TO DO ON THE ONE AND A HALF BLOCKS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT BLOCK.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ALLOWED THEM SPECIFICALLY TO HAVE THE AMOUNT OF FLOORS AND HEIGHT AND USE THE MEDITERRANEAN BONUS THAT WAS TAKEN OFF BY THAT COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ENTIRE BLOCK, 36 THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION IS 45FT. WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW NORTH OF THIS IS RM ONE. THAT'S A DIFFERENT ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 77. CORRECT. AND THAT AND THAT WAS THE COMPROMISE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITIZENS AT THAT TIME, BLOCK 36 WAS TREATED AS A. THE ENTIRE RM AND THE SAN SEBASTIAN APARTMENT. THANK YOU. I REMEMBER CLEARLY BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I WAS ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME THAT WE SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO RESPECT SAN SEBASTIAN BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM OF 45FT. THAT WAS THAT WAS NOT SO MUCH THE RESIDENT, BUT SAN SEBASTIAN. IT BENEFITED THE THE RESIDENT AS WELL. BUT IT WAS CLEARLY TO RESPECT THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE SPEAKER MENTIONED, THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE MAYBE TOO HIGH AT ONE POINT, AND IT ENDED UP BEING THE WHOLE BLOCK AT 45. NOW WHAT I GUESS WHAT WE'RE ADDING WITH THE ITEM FOUR IS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW ONLY A PORTION OF THAT HEIGHT TO GO UP FOR AMENITIES LIMITING TO 25%, WHICH FROM THE SOUND OF MR. LUCAS PROJECT, THAT'S WHAT IT'S DOING. IS THAT CORRECT? MR.

[00:30:05]

SARA IS. YES, SIR. THE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DOES COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ON WHICH SIDE IS THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, EAST OR WEST? NORTH. REALLY? BECAUSE THE SITE IS REALLY CONFIGURED SORT OF EAST WEST. SO IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE. AND AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC PROJECT. THAT, UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE WAS A 45 FOOT LIMITATION. IT WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BY THE COMMISSION WHICH SAID 45FT, NOT WELL, YOU COULD USE BONUSES OR YOU COULD DO THIS OR YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ADD ON TOP OF THAT, WHATEVER IT IS, THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT IT WAS LIMITED TO SPECIFICALLY 45FT STRAIGHT ACROSS, AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS APPROVED. NOW, FOR ME, I MEAN, IT'S IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR. MAYBE FOR OTHERS IT ISN'T. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE ACTIVITY AND ALL THESE THINGS, AGAIN, TO ME SEEMS TO BE INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. NOW, IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALL RUNNING ON THE NORTH SIDE, GOING FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS HERE. WE'RE GETTING INTO A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND THAT HAS GONE TO CERTAIN BOARDS, BUT IT DIDN'T GO TO THE COMMISSION TO HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, CHANGED. I'M SORRY, CAN YOU PUT UP THAT THAT BLOCK WITH THE LOTS SHOWING THE LOTS? I HAVE THE POWERPOINT E ONE. I T CAN I PLEASE HAVE ONE? OKAY, THERE YOU GO. YOU THERE IS A THERE'S ANOTHER PLAN THAT HAS THE LOT NUMBERS. RIGHT. I THOUGHT LET'S SEE THE NEXT SLIDE THERE. WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE, THE PROPERTY THAT ENCOMPASS THE PROJECT. YOU SAID. MR. MORENO, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE THROUGH 15. LOOK AT THE SCREEN IN FRONT. OKAY. SO YOU. SO YOUR PROJECT IS ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST SIDE, AWAY FROM.

CAN WE HAVE. COUNCIL APPROACH THE. SO HE CAN CORRECT. IT'S THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 36. OKAY, SO YOU'RE AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH IS FELIX CONCERN BECAUSE THE THE LOTS TEN THROUGH 15 ARE ALL THE WAY TO EAST ON THE NORTH SIDE. SO YOU'RE NO MATTER WHAT, EVEN IF THE PROJECT WOULD ENCOMPASS THE WHOLE BLOCK FOR THE FIRST 100FT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EXCEED IT.

SO YOUR PROJECT IS ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST FROM WHAT I SEE. CORRECT. THAT'S TEN TO THE 15, THE EXTREME NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 36. AND YOU ONLY KEEP. AND ON THAT NORTH SIDE, ONLY 25% OF THE OF THE ROOF AREA. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I MEAN, IT DOES IN A WAY WHAT FELIX IS TRYING TO, TO, TO I MY OPINION, I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS INTO YOUR MOUTH FELIX, BUT AWAY FROM THE, FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY. RIGHT. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT.

THE LEGAL TEAM HAS SAID THAT IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE. IS IT THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE OF THAT, OF THOSE BLOCKS, OR IS IT HALF OR WHATEVER THE CALCULATION IS? AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS, IS IT 25%? I COULD JUST APPROACH THE BOARD SO AS TO SHOW THE BOARD MEMBER PART OF. THAT'S FINE.

BUT IF YOU WOULD, IF THERE'S A WAY TO GET WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THE CAMERA, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO. SEE THIS IS WHAT I DON'T LIKE, WHICH IS IF YOU GUYS ARE, IF YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN YOU, LET'S KEEP IT ON THE RECORD SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN MAYBE YOU CAN HOLD THAT UP, HOLD THAT UP SO THAT THE CAMERA CAN CAN FOCUS ON

[00:35:06]

WHAT YOU WERE POINTING TO. RESOLUTION IS GOING TO BE. BUT HERE WE'VE GOT THE FAR PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, THIRD FLOOR, FOURTH FLOOR. AND THEN THIS IS, YOU SEE SHADED THERE IN PINK, A SMALL AREA, SORT OF AMENITY AREA FOR THE ROOFTOP WHERE THE POOL IS ON THE ON THE NORTH SIDE. CORRECT. ON THE NORTH SIDE. AND IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING. NO, I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY ABOUT A THIRD, MAYBE THE MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE, 40%, LET'S CALL IT. OKAY, OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE DO WE HAVE ANY I HAVEN'T CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT. I THINK SHE HAS MY COMMENT. YES. THANK YOU. ONE LAST QUESTION. AND JUST TO KNOW, THERE'S NO ALLEY. NORMALLY THESE BUILDINGS HAVE LIKE AN ALLEY BETWEEN ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S NO ALLEY THAT. SO HOW, HOW AND I KNOW, I KNOW, I'VE SEEN THE SITE PLAN. IT'S IT'S IN FRONT OF SOME THREE TOWNHOUSES, BUT PART OF IT ALSO GOES INTO MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I'VE GOT THE BIG BUILDING, THE BUILDING, THE THREE, 3 OR 4 STORY BUILDING, BUT THERE'S NO ALLEY. LIKE HOW WILL IT BE? HOW WILL IT SEPARATE? I MEAN, THERE'S A REQUIRED SETBACK. THERE'S A REQUIRED OKAY. I MEAN, I, I CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT IT'S A SETBACK BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR, BUT THERE IS A REQUIRED SETBACK THAT THE BUILDING, THAT BUILDING HAS TO BE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

OKAY. AND THEN THIS ADDED AMENITY IS ON THE CORNER ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THE IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, TOTALLY AWAY FROM YOU TOWARDS THE BIG BUILDING. YES. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M JAVIER SAN JUAN. I DON'T THINK I HAD IT THERE, BUT I. YES.

SORRY. YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN. CAN YOU STAND BY THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? OH, YOU CAN'T HEAR.

OKAY. OKAY. I DO. PERFECT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'M JAVIER SAN JUAN. I LIVE AT 305 SANTANDER AVENUE, WHICH WOULD BE. I'LL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU THERE BEFORE BEFORE THE THE ZONING LAWS CHANGED. THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT DUPLEXES WITH SIX FAMILIES BUILT TWO FLOORS ON SANTANDER. THEY WEREN'T THE 1950S HOMES THAT ARE MAINLY IN THAT BLOCK. THEY WERE BRAND NEW HOMES, PRETTY, PRETTY NEW. IF YOU COME TO SEE ONE, YOU'RE ALL INVITED TO SEE MINE. THE LAST ONE AT THE CORNER, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE SIX SOLD A MONTH AGO FOR 2.5 MILLION. AND IT WASN'T THE LAND THEY WERE AFTER. IT WAS THE HOME TWO STORY DUPLEX MINE TWO. SO LET'S SAY THIS IS MY BACKYARD. OKAY, FROM MY DUPLEX FROM HERE TO THERE. AND I HAVE A LITTLE POOL AND SO DO THE OTHER FIVE FAMILIES. SO WE'RE SIX FAMILIES WITH DUPLEXES AND POOLS. THE LAW SAYS THAT THE BUILDING, THE NEW ONE THAT WILL BE BUILT IS TEN FEET AFTER OUR LINE OF OUR BACKYARD. SO WHERE THE CURTAINS ARE IS WHERE THE FOUR STORIES OR FIVE OR WHATEVER. RIGHT NOW IT'S 445FT WILL COME UP RELATIVE TO WHERE MY BACK DOOR IS AND MY POOL. SO I WILL HAVE ALL OF A SUDDEN FOUR STORIES, NOT ONLY ME, FIVE OTHER FAMILIES, BECAUSE THERE ARE SIX OF US WITH DUPLEXES AND THEIR NEW. NOW, IF THEY HAD ALL BEEN BUILT IN THE 1950S, ONE STORY BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. BUT HERE YOU HAVE BRAND NEW DUPLEXES THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THAT HEIGHT. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 45, BUT NOT MORE. NOW, WHAT IS IT YOU ASKED AND I HEARD YOU. IS IT MORE THAN 45? WELL, THE REASON IT'S MORE THAN 45 IS IT'S GOING TO GO TO 65 BECAUSE THE ELEVATOR WILL GO TO 65. AND THEY'RE BUILDING A POOL AND CABANAS ALL AROUND THAT AND A WORKOUT SECTION AND ALL OF THAT. SO YOU'VE GOT TO THINK OF THOSE

[00:40:03]

THINGS. ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF WINDOWS LOOKING AT OUR POOLS, OUR BEDROOMS, OUR LIVING ROOMS, OUR DINING ROOMS. AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH THE ELECTION CRAFTS. IT WAS THE WHOLE BLOCK WENT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO NEW HOMES, TWO STORY HOMES BUILT. THIS IS THIS IS A DIFFERENT STORY ALTOGETHER. AND I'M JUST SAYING I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 45. THAT'S MY COMMENT. CAN WE, MR. CRAIG, CAN WE LIMIT THE LOCATION OF WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL 25% COULD BE INCORPORATED? I THINK AS PART OF YOUR MOTION, YOU CAN RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE ITEM SHOULD BE MODIFIED SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR THE 25% BE LOCATED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE TO AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR DESIRE IS, BECAUSE THAT THAT WILL ADDRESS HIS CONCERN, IN MY OPINION, YES, YES. YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR MIC ON. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE GENTLEMAN, I THINK YOU ALL BUILT TWO DUPLEXES THERE. THREE. SORRY, THREE WHITE. THEY'RE WHITE DUPLEXES. OKAY. CORRECT. THE ONE IN THE CORNER. RIGHT. VERY NICELY DONE. VERY NICELY DONE. RIGHT. AND MINE I BOUGHT FROM A GENTLEMAN CALLED BERNIE NAVARRO, WHO'S NOW THE AMBASSADOR OF THE US TO PERU. AND HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THESE THIS NEW ZONING WAS GOING TO BE.

AND THAT'S WHY HE BUILT IT. HE INVESTED THERE AND THE OTHERS DID TOO. AND SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WITH THE NEW ZONING, IT HASN'T AFFECTED AS MUCH THE ONE STORY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 1950S. BUT WE'RE GETTING SCREWED IN A WAY. BUT BUT BUT YOUR ZONING WAS IN PLACE. THEY COULD DO THIS ZONING. NO, BUT THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THEIR PLAN OR NOT, I HAVE. OKAY. THE THE PLAN CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE NORTH SIDE, YOUR CURTAIN. OKAY. NO, NO, NO, THE NORTH, YOUR NORTH SIDE IS THEY'RE BUILDING THEY'RE BUILDING FACES. THE, THE THE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS AWAY FROM YOU. IT'S IT'S HERE STEPS DOWN 45FT. THERE'S GOING TO BE A POOL WHICH IS ON OUR SIDE. I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE POOL, THERE'S AN ELEVATOR WHICH IS AWAY FROM US. BUT I AGREE. I'VE SEEN THAT. RIGHT. AND THEN THERE ARE CABANAS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ELEVATOR, WHICH WILL BE FACING MORE. THE ALEXON, THE THESE THESE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, ARE LIMITED TO 25%. THE 25% THEY HAVE LOCATED TOWARD THE. THE ELECTION PROJECT. SO THAT I DON'T KNOW. YES. NO, NO, IT.

THAT'S WHAT I SAW. THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOWED. YEAH. AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS YOU HAVE THIS HEIGHT. YOU'RE HERE ON THIS SIDE. THEY'RE THEY'RE ON THAT SIDE. THE ADDITIONAL 25% IS AWAY FROM YOU. THE, THE ACTUAL POOL. AND THERE'S PEOPLE WALKING AROUND THERE DIVING AND ALL THAT. AND THE WORKOUT AREA IS ON MY SIDE. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THEORETICALLY, WE TAKE YOUR PROPERTY, WE KNOCK IT DOWN. WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO FOUR STORIES. NO, BECAUSE IT'S A DUPLEX. NO NO NO NO NO. THEORETICALLY I BITE YOU AND THE OTHER THREE SEAT FIVE FAMILY. I COULD KNOCK IT DOWN. I'M ALLOWED TO DO FOUR STORIES AND DO THE SAME THING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWS. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHY I SAID I WAS IN FAVOR AND FINE WITH.

NOW WHAT, 45 WHAT MR. PRADO IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU, WHICH I THINK IS THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT THEY WANT TO DO IS AWAY FROM YOU. TOTALLY. IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FACING THE ELECTION. IT'S NOT. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO SEE A FOUR STORY FROM YOUR BACKYARD. I DON'T I'M NOT SURE. BUT ANYWAY, IT'LL BE AN EXTRA ELEVATOR GOING TO 65FT.

NO. YOU KNOW THESE ELEVATORS, THEY MAY GO UP MAXIMUM OF 12 TO 13FT. THE PLAN. THE PLAN SAYS 45 IN THE BUILDING. I'VE SEEN IT. IT'S ABOUT 98 PAGES LONG. I HAVE IT IN MY COMPUTER. IT'S 45FT. AND I'M. I'M SAYING I ACCEPT THAT. I MEAN, WE'RE ACCEPTING THAT. THAT'S GOOD.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. BUT ABOVE THE 45FT IS THE ELEVATOR THAT GOES TO 65FT, THE CABANAS. AND THEN THERE'S A POOL ON OUR SIDE, WHICH AND A WORKOUT AREA.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE, OKAY. AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT. IT'S NOBODY'S

[00:45:04]

GOING TO HIDE IT UNLESS THEY PUT A LOT OF TREES UP THERE AND PALM TREES. ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT IT'S AS IF MY HOUSE IS HERE AND THE 45 FOOT BUILDING STARTS WHERE YOU'RE YOU SAW THE PLAN. I MEAN, WE SAW VAGUELY HOW FAR IS THE AMENITY, MARIO? MAYBE.

MAYBE YOU COULD. YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T. I CAN'T SEE IT. I MEAN, I SAW IT ON THE SCREEN.

HOW FAR IS THE AMENITIES FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING THAT IS TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY? THAT AMENITY LEVEL THAT I SHOWED YOU ON THE ROOFTOP IS OVER 47FT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, 47.5. SO THE IT'S DEFINITELY IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. YES. OKAY. THE POOL. THE POOL IS HOW FAR AWAY THE EDGE OF THE POOL. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. THE CHAIR I WOULD I WOULD FIRST OF ALL, WE GOT TO TAKE ONE AT A TIME. I WOULD TAKE ITEM NUMBER ONE FIRST. OKAY. AND AND AND THEN GO FROM THERE. I'M I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NUMBER ONE. I'LL SECOND. JILL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. JOE. CALL ROLL. WELL, I'M. AND UNLESS UNLESS ALICE AND AND IGNACIO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. NO. FINE. OKAY. ALICE. BRAVO.

YES. YES. IGNACIO. ALVAREZ. YES. ROBERT. YES. ALEX. YES. ONLY FOR. I'M. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. AND THIS IS WHERE MR. CALI, YOU MAY HAVE TO HELP ME. I'M WILLING TO SAY THAT THAT THAT THAT ADDITIONAL 25% HAS TO BE TOTALLY AWAY FROM THE WHATEVER. WELL, IN THIS CASE, IT'S ONLY THIS SINGLE FAMILY, BUT AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THROUGH CHAIR. ROBERT, I THINK WE DON'T HAVE THEIR SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US. I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD DO IS, IS CONSIDER THE, THE, THE LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT OF IT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN AMEND LEGISLATION OR RECOMMEND AMEND LEGISLATION TO TO SPECIFY WHERE THE 25% SHOULD BE LOCATED IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO LOCATE. I THINK IF THE 25% IS IS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, THEN IT BECOMES A MATTER OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS AND LOCATION. IT BECOMES A MATTER OF OF HAVING A TOOL TO BE ABLE TO USE. AND I, I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT. AND STILL FROM, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER WHETHER THEY CAN GO FURTHER UP THAN 45FT ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. SO I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD KEEP IT SIMPLE AND, AND NOT TRY TO RECRAFT THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT GIVES THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE. WOULD YOU AGREE, JOHN? ON THE ON THE.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING. I WOULD AGREE THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR CASE. BUT AS I MENTIONED, I THINK TWICE BEFORE AND I HATE TO BE REDUNDANT. WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, WE HAVE ENTITLEMENTS. WE'RE READY TO GO FORWARD. THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND I DIDN'T INTEND FOR TONIGHT TO BE AN INVITATION TO RECONFIGURE OR RENEGOTIATE WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE PROJECT AS WE HAVE DEFINED IT.

SO WE'RE READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A TEXT AMENDMENTS E ONE AND E FOUR THAT GO HAND IN HAND. WE SIMPLY WANT OUR LOTS TEN THROUGH 15 TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THAT DISCUSSION. AS YOU APPLY THIS ON A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE GOING FORWARD, NOT BACKWARDS AND CLAWING BACK WHAT WE'VE ALREADY ACHIEVED. BUT JOHN, I BASED ON WHAT WHAT FELIX IS SAYING, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LIBERAL THAN WHAT I'M IMPOSING. I'M SAYING BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS ABUTTING THE THE THREE DUPLEXES. I'M SAYING THAT THAT ONE SHOULD KEEP THE THIS AMENITIES EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE DESIGNED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER BATTLE FOR BECAUSE I'M HERE REPRESENTING

[00:50:02]

THE OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES AT A DIFFERENT TIME. AND I, I THINK THAT REALLY THE, THE LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET FOR THE 25% HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THIS BOARD. I DON'T THINK IT IS WISE TO SAY IT HAS TO BE HERE OR THERE. OKAY. SO BECAUSE BECAUSE IN WHAT IN WHAT STAFF HAS DONE IS THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED THAT THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS WILL WEIGH IN AS FAR AS THE LOCATION AND THE COMPLEXITY AND THE INTENSITY AND, AND THEY'RE NOT WAIVING, I THINK, THE NOISE ORDINANCES EITHER. OKAY. THEN WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE E4 AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND JOE CALL ROLL PLEASE.

CAN CAN I BEFORE I WANT TO HOW DO WE GET. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR PROJECTS AND IN MY OPINION IT HAS GONE THROUGH DRC HAS GONE TO BOA. THE PROCESS ALREADY HAS BEEN INITIATED. I YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO BACK. IT'S NOT FAIR FOR FOR THIS APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH. YEAH. ROBERT. BUT YEAH, THAT'S IT WAS INITIATED, BUT THE RULES WEREN'T IN PLACE. SO WERE WE CHANGING THE RULES TODAY AFTER EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY APPROVED. SO WHAT AM I MISSING HERE. SO WE'RE BASICALLY CHANGING THE RULES FOR THEM. LET'S SAY NO NO NO. LET'S SAY THAT WE WE DON'T TAKE THIS ITEM TODAY. THEY'RE GOING THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING FORWARD WITH IT. SEE IF WE IF THIS IF THIS ITEMS ARE NOT HERE TODAY AND THEY COME IN SIX MONTHS, THEIR PROJECT IS GOING THROUGH THE APPROVAL. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. UNLESS I, YOU KNOW, I WAS TOLD A LITTLE WHILE AGO, I'M NOT THIS GENTLEMAN SAYING THAT. BUT THEN, ROBERT, I'M SAYING IT DOESN'T MATTER. SO I'M CONFUSED.

THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU YOU STATED WE'RE OKAY WITH THESE CHANGES. NOT AS IT APPLIES TO OUR PROJECT. WE'VE ALREADY GOT OUR APPROVALS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS I DON'T WANT THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. IF IT HAS A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MR. KOLLER CAN CAN ADDRESS. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE GLOSS ON IT, THAT IT'S THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS BEING APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. THAT'S NOT THE THAT'S NOT VIEW. AND THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S WORDED. IT'S, IT'S THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR GRANDFATHERING OF CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ULTIMATELY IT SOME RELIEF MAY BE GIVEN IN THE LEGISLATION, BUT THE WAY THE LEGISLATION IS WORDED, THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR RETROACTIVITY. NOW, THERE MAY BE A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT COUNCIL MAY BE MAKING THAT HE FEELS EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE, WE FEEL WE'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. ALL I'M TELLING YOU IS THE POSITION OF THE CITY AT THIS POINT IS THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES FOR GRANDFATHERING. LET ME ASK YOU A. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE IN THE FUTURE AS THIS PROJECT NOT PROJECT, BUT AS THIS ORDINANCE GOES TO COMMISSION, THERE MAY BE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL AND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER ON ON ALTERING THIS. BUT AT THIS POINT, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR GRANDFATHERING. WELL, I'VE HEARD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO I WANT TO CLARIFY. I HEARD HIM SAY PERMITS ISSUED AND VESTED. AND I HEAR YOU SAYING IN PROCESS.

SO I THINK YOU'RE NOT IN PROCESS. YOU'RE PAST THE PROCESS. WE'RE PAST THE PROCESS.

WE ARE APPROVED. BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED. WE ARE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR BOARD OF ARCHITECTS APPROVED. YES, WE ARE CORRECT.

WHICH IS WHAT YOU NEED TO GO INTO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT COUNSEL IS SAYING AND THE REASON WHY THERE ARE 120,000 LAWYERS IN FLORIDA IS NOT EVERYBODY TAKES THE SAME POINT OF VIEW ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO I PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT. ONE, TWO, THREE SO I PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THE POSITION THAT WE THE POSITION THAT THE CITY HAS AT THIS POINT, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT HAVE AN EXPRESS GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE. WE RECOMMEND ONE. YOU. WELL, WE'RE WE'VE ACTUALLY YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THIS, AND WE'RE TECHNICALLY ON THE SECOND ITEM, BUT WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON IT IF YOU WANT TO. BUT. WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS CALLED ON THE FIRST ITEM AND IT WAS A

[00:55:05]

MOTION, A SECOND ON THE SECOND ON THE SECOND ITEM. AND THERE'S A MOTION ALREADY ON THE SECOND ITEM. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE'VE REALLY WE'RE NOW ON TO ITEM E FOR. BUT I HAVE A FEELING THAT THIS WILL NOT BE THE LAST WORD ON THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I. BUT YOU'RE YOU'RE TECHNICALLY NOW ON E FOR CALL THE SECOND. PART OF THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. SORRY. REPEAT THAT. IT'S ON. I SAID I THERE'S A MOTION AND IT WAS SECONDED. AND I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION MR. CHAIR.

YES. IGNACIO ALVAREZ. YES. YES. RUBBER. YES. WITH THE AS COMMENT. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT MOTION 81 WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. ITEM E4 IS AN IMPORTANT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION. RIGHT. THAT'S THE MOTION I MADE. RIGHT. AND AND I TO MY MOTION WHETHER MR. PARDO WHO. SECONDED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I COULD PUT IN IT GOING BACK PROJECTS THAT HAS BEEN INITIATED THROUGH THE PROCESS. DON'T GET AFFECTED BY BY THIS, ROBERT. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE LAWYERS. I THINK THEY THEY COULD FIGURE THAT ONE OUT. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO CRAFT THAT INTO AN ORDINANCE THAT GOES INTO THE ZONING CODE ONCE IT'S CODIFIED. WELL, ACTUALLY, I THINK I'M VIEWING IT AS A COMMENT BECAUSE IT REALLY APPLIED TO E1, WHICH WAS ALREADY ADOPTED, I BELIEVE, FOR THE RECORD, SINCE THE COMMISSION DOES SEE THE TRANSCRIPT. MR. BEJAR WAS SAYING HE FEELS THAT IF SOMETHING IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS, THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE COMPLETED. AND I THINK THAT WAS JUST A GENERAL COMMENT HE WAS MAKING, NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ITEM E4. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, OKAY. ROBERT BEJAR YES. ALICE. BRAVO. YES. YES. AND FOR THE RECORD, I ECHO BEJAR'S COMMENTS.

SO THANK YOU. THE NEXT CALLER, THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM ITEM E3E2. I'M SORRY. ITEM E TWO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES.

OFFICIAL ZONING CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 11 SINE SECTION 11-109 TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS TO AMEND THE NUMBER AND PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS, ELIMINATING FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL BONUS SIGNS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE ITEM E TWO PUBLIC HEARING. GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, OUR CITY PLANNER. I DON'T NEED A PRESENTATION FOR THIS ONE. THIS SHOULD BE EASY. AND THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY SIGN PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR TEMPORARY, NONCONFORMING, TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNAGE.

SO THE FIRST ONE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE THE EXISTING FRONT SETBACK LIKE THE RIGHT OF WAY, ELIMINATING THE FIVE FEET BUT STILL MAINTAINING THE SIDE FIVE, FIVE, FIVE ON THE SIDE. THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO ALLOW SIGNS TO BE PLACED ON DOORS, WINDOWS, WALLS AND FENCES. AND THEN THE THIRD ONE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BONUS SIGNS INCREASING BY ONE FROM 2 TO 3, THEREBY ALLOWING FOR DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE.

SO SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING WE CANNOT DO ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND WE CAN ADD MULTIPLE SIGNS THAT WE CAN PUT ON THE WINDOW AND PUT IT IN FENCES. OKAY. CURRENTLY, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR NON NONCOMMERCIAL SIGN. YEAH. YOU STILL CAN'T DO IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. BUT THERE'S NO MORE FIVE FEET SETBACK. IF I REMEMBER IGNACIO, IN SOME CASES WHERE YOU HAD A STOREFRONT, RIGHT, YOU HAD TO PUT A FIVE FEET BEHIND YOU. YOU HAVE A STOREFRONT THAT SAID THE PROPERTY IN A COMMERCIAL, BUT THE SIGN HAD TO BE FIVE FEET IN THE BACK OF THAT. SO YOU YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, NOW WITH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS PUT THE SIGN ON THE GLASS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT'S GOING TO GO CRAZY WITH THESE POLITICAL SIGNS, ESPECIALLY NOW I'M AGAINST IT. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERY EVERY STOREFRONT NOW HAS WINDOWS ON THE SIDE, AT LEAST WHERE I LIVE.

YOU GOTTA PUT IT ALL THE WAY IN BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY GOES IN HALF, HALF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. SO. YES. GO AHEAD. SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, LET'S SAY IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A

[01:00:05]

SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REAL ESTATE BROKER CAN ONLY PUT IN A FIVE BY SEVEN SIGN. I DON'T REMEMBER ON TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT APPROXIMATELY IT'S ABOUT THE SIZE OF AN OPEN WALLET, LET'S SAY. YEAH, BUT NOW YOU COULD PUT A FOR RENT SIGN, NOT COMMERCIAL. YOU'RE RENTING YOUR HOME IF YOU WANT ONE ONE, BUT IT COULD BE 22, LIKE THE SIZE OF A CAMPAIGN SIGN. YEAH. THAT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL SIGN DOES NOT CHANGE. OKAY.

IT'S STILL THE SAME 22 BY 28IN, RIGHT? BUT NOW A REAL ESTATE BROKER CAN NOW MAKE THAT SIGN THE SAME SIZE. THERE IS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL ESTATE SIGNS TO. SO MY QUESTION IS, IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF SIGNS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BESIDES POLITICAL SIGNS OR NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS? I DON'T REMEMBER RIGHT. WHAT ARE THE NINE NON COMMERCIAL SIGN. NON COMMERCIAL SIGN WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ. RIGHT. THERE YOU GO. THAT THAT'S THAT CAME FROM THAT CAME FROM A CASE. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T HAVE TO. SO THAT'S THAT'S A NON COMMERCIAL SIGN. YOU KNOW POINT OF VIEW SIGN. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOU KNOW VERY SIMPLE. AND YOU KNOW, A NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. BUT WHEN I, WHEN I DRIVE DOWN CORTEZ AND I LOOK TO THE LEFT AND IT'S CORAL GABLES AND I LOOK TO THE RIGHT, IT'S CORAL GABLES. AND I START SEEING SIGNS STARTING WITH POLITICAL SIGNS. IT'S LIKE A DIFFERENT WORLD, ONE IN THE OTHER. I ORIGINALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ALL COMPLY. NO. WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT THIS A DIFFERENT WAY.

BUT RIGHT NOW, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE OPINION IS, AND YOU CAN PUT A SIGN OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT'S GOT NO MORE LAWYERS. NO, NO, NO, HANG THE LAWYERS. NO, I, I'M BEGINNING TO IGGY, I'M BEGINNING TO TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DURING THE CAMPAIGN A POLITICAL SIGN THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FIVE FEET. CORRECT. NO, NO, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POLITICAL SIGN BEING RIGHT ON THE SIDEWALK. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE COMMERCIAL SIGN BEING RIGHT ON THE GLASS. GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE. BLUE ROAD, BLUE ROAD. IT'S IT'S SET UP TO BE DOUBLE LANED. SO THE THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY GOES IN TEN FEET 15. SO YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS ON THERE. WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS NOW DOWN BLUE ROAD YOU HAVE SIGNS STRAIGHT DOWN. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. ONLY YOU CANNOT HAVE SIGNS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE THAT SET BACK THAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU GOT TO DO IT ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET MORE. IT'S THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW THAT SHE'S SAYING.

AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. YOU CAN KNOW BEFORE YOU HAD TO BE FIVE FEET BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY LINE. NOW YOU COULD PUT THAT POLITICAL SIGN ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE, THE SIDEWALK IN BLUE ROAD. YOU STILL HAVE THAT HUGE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THAT RIGHT OF WAY, LINE THE FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE YOU COULD PUT THE SIGN THROUGH THE CHAIR. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS TRYING THEIR BEST TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE MORE WORK. IN MY OPINION, THE DEFINITION OF THE TYPES OF SIGNS NONCOMMERCIAL, BECAUSE I THINK, LIKE ROBERT SAID, IN THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, THERE SHOULD BE A RELIEF OF NOT HAVING THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK INSIDE. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF ENERGY CODES. YOU HAVE A TINTING ON THE GLASS. YOU CAN'T SEE THE SIGN INSIDE FIVE FOOT BEHIND. WELL, THAT WOULD BE BEYOND THE TITLE. I'M SORRY. WE YOU COULDN'T DO THIS IN THIS ITEM BECAUSE THIS ITEM ONLY ADDRESSES NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS. YOUR CONCERN IS ABOUT COMMERCIAL SIGNS SHOULD GET MORE PROMINENCE AS WELL. AND WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT WOULD BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ITEM. I LOOK, I DON'T KNOW. AND THE MORE I'M LOOKING INTO THIS, I, I PERSONALLY THINK WE NEED MAYBE A LITTLE MORE. I LIKE THE INTENT OF IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ADDRESSING THE POLITICAL SIGN, WHETHER IT'S A LOT TO BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR FIVE FEET BACK, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. IT DOESN'T. TO ME, I WAS LOOKING AT IT MORE OF A COMMERCIAL SIGN WHERE THE PLACEMENT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THIS HAS TO DO WITH POLITICAL SCIENCE. THIS IS TOTALLY AGAINST IT. I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD. THE TITLE IS TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS. YEAH. SO WE'RE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING. AND ALSO THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY OR 120, 120 DAYS. YES. THAT'S DEFINED WHEN YOU THE MAXIMUM TIME BEFORE AN ELECTION AND AFTER 90 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION PERIOD,

[01:05:03]

YOU CAN HAVE AN EXTRA, OH, I CAN SEE CODE ENFORCEMENT GOING CRAZY. NODDING. ACTUALLY, THAT'S AN EXISTING PROVISION. WE'VE HAD THAT PROVISION ABOUT THE POLITICAL SIGNS BEING SO MANY DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND I THINK FIVE DAYS AFTERWARDS, RIGHT, HAS TO BE REMOVED. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT. THAT REMAINS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS. I'D LIKE TO DEFER IT AND GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A LITTLE MORE FEEDBACK. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. LET'S CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD HAS COME UP WITH. SECOND, ANY DIRECTION ONTO THE WHAT DO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT BY STAFF? I THINK WE COULD ALL CONTACT STAFF AND EXPRESS OUR. YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, WHO. SECOND. MR. THANK YOU. FELIX. YES. IGNACIO. ALVAREZ. YES. ROBERT. BAKER.

YES. ALICE. BRAVO. YES. ALEX. BARCELLO. YES. LAST TIME, LAST ITEM, LAST ITEM. ITEM E THREE.

[E.-3. 26-2045 An Ordinance of the City Commission providing for Text Amendments to the City of Coral Gables Official Zoning Code by amending Article 2, “Zoning Districts,” and Article 3, “Uses,” to specify a driveway side setback, allow motor courts on corner lots, and adjust the rear and side setbacks for certain mechanical equipment; providing for a repealer, severability, codification, and an effective date.]