Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coral Gables planning board approves tighter roof-design standards, 6–1
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board voted 6–1 on April 15 to approve text amendments clarifying roof-design standards in Article 5, including contextual analysis for roofing materials, clearer flat-roof rules and a ban on post-installation painting of roof tiles.
The Coral Gables Planning & Zoning Board voted 6–1 on April 15 to approve amendments to Article 5 of the city zoning code that clarify roof-design standards, including new requirements for contextual architectural analysis and limits on post-installation changes to pitched roof tiles.
City planner Craig Southern told the board the package responds to comments from the board and the city architect and focuses on three changes: requiring a contextual architectural analysis with drawings and supporting documentation for proposed roofing materials, simplifying ambiguous flat-roof provisions, and explicitly prohibiting painting or post-installation alteration of pitched roof tile colors (section 5‑503 C). "What you have before you tonight is the original staff report and an updated memo indicating basically the three key updates to the proposed ordinance," Southern said.
Board discussion centered on balancing neighborhood character with design flexibility. Board member Felix Partardo, who worked with staff and the city architect on revisions, said the changes provide safeguards for existing neighborhoods while allowing applicants a design framework. "I think those safeguards are there," Partardo said. Several members sought editorial clarifications — for example, replacing the phrase "and/or" with wording such as "and when applicable" to reflect when the city architect or the full Board of Architects should review an application.
Robert Behar cast the lone dissenting vote. "I'm not really in favor. I think there was... a lot of flexibility was taken out," Behar said, arguing the amendments may be too restrictive in some areas. Supporters countered that administrative review and the Board of Architects provide case-by-case discretion.
After amendments to the draft were approved, the board took a roll-call vote on the motion to approve as amended: Alex Bucello, Nester Mendez, Felix Partardo, Gonzalo Sanabria, Ignasio Alvarez and Alice Bravo voted yes; Robert Behar voted no.
The measure, described by staff as consistent with the comprehensive plan and intended to protect the city’s architectural character while allowing appropriate modern materials, was approved by the board and will proceed through the city's normal processes.
