Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Design Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board defers Coral Gables roof‑design amendment over concerns about flat‑roof criteria
Summary
Board members raised strong concerns about removing contextual criteria for flat‑roof approvals and voted to defer a proposed amendment to roof‑design standards so staff can return with neighborhood‑context guardrails and clearer review criteria.
A proposal to update Coral Gables’ roof‑design regulations to clarify allowed combinations of pitched and flat roof forms and to require Board of Architects review for entirely flat roofs was deferred by the Planning & Zoning Board on Feb. 11 after members raised concerns about contextual protections.
Staff described the ordinance as an update to align roof design rules with contemporary architectural practice and to allow high‑quality materials not expressly listed in the code to be approved by the city architect or Board of Architects. The staff report noted prior review by the Board of Architects on Jan. 29.
Board members, led by Felix Pardo, argued the ordinance as written lacked explicit neighborhood context criteria and guardrails for Board of Architects review, risking a gradual erosion of Coral Gables’ architectural character. Pardo said, "I think this is a huge mistake... I have a real problem with this particular way," urging the inclusion of contextual analysis and criteria that compare several neighboring properties rather than a single parcel evaluation.
Several board members asked specific questions about metal roofs and whether the ordinance would permit them; staff pointed to existing sections that allow standing seam metal on pitched roofs but prohibit certain metal roof treatments in historic districts. After extensive discussion the board voted to defer the item and directed staff to work with the Board of Architects and the city architect to draft explicit contextual criteria and illustrative block‑level exhibits.
Next steps: staff will return with refined language, additional criteria for neighborhood context, and suggested guardrails for Board of Architects review before the board considers the item again.
