The meeting’s primary focus was on proposed text amendments to Coral Gables’ zoning code concerning Mediterranean design standards. These amendments aim to clarify and update regulations on architectural features, including porch and balcony depths, window designs, and the use of high-quality materials. Board members discussed the procedural approach to reviewing the proposed amendments. One member suggested using visual aids to facilitate the discussion, while another emphasized reviewing the document page by page to ensure transparency for both the board and remote participants.

Concerns were raised about the language in the memorandum, particularly regarding prohibited window and door types. There was a focus on window and door design standards, including the appearance of sliding doors and the symmetry of Juliet balconies. The debate centered on whether these regulations should allow more flexibility or remain strictly prescriptive. Additionally, the use of high-quality materials throughout buildings, not just on the first few stories, was advocated to maintain aesthetic quality.

The discussion on zoning regulations also included the concept of sustainability bonuses. One member argued that sustainability should be a requirement rather than an optional bonus within Mediterranean architecture. The conversation then shifted to the role of the Board of Architects in ensuring architectural quality in exchange for bonuses, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and authority.

Another topic was the compatibility of different architectural styles, particularly Mediterranean versus modern glass structures. The board debated whether a Mediterranean-style project could be deemed incompatible if situated in an area dominated by glass buildings. This led to a broader discussion on zoning rights and the discretion of the Board of Architects to approve taller buildings based on contextual compatibility.

The meeting also delved into the practical aspects of architectural design, such as the depth of balconies and the prohibition of sliding doors and windows. One member highlighted a previous approval where a Juliet balcony design featured a fixed panel and a casement window, allowing for some outdoor experience while maintaining design integrity. The need for clarity in design specifications was stressed, and comparisons were made to past projects that had included sliding doors despite receiving design bonuses.

Vehicle storage and off-street parking requirements were also discussed, with a proposal to amend the language to include “where feasible” to ensure flexibility.

The conversation then moved to the integration of public spaces in multi-family housing developments. There was concern that current setbacks leave residents with insufficient green space, leading to a proposal that larger projects should provide a percentage of their area dedicated to parks or green space. The importance of enhancing the public realm with elements such as benches and fountains was emphasized to ensure these spaces serve a functional purpose for the community.

The role of the Parks and Recreation Department in determining the types of parks or open spaces included in development plans was also discussed. A point of contention was the concept of an open space fund, with concerns about the lack of transparency and direct link between financial contributions and specific architectural projects.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on architectural definitions and the term “precedent” in the zoning code. There was a consensus on the need for a clear definition that could be easily understood by architects and developers. The potential dates for the next meeting were proposed to ensure all board members could participate and finalize the definitions.