Design Review Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We are live and recording in the chambers. Can you hear us?

We can.

Yes, we can. Thank you very much. We do have Mariano Corral, Daniel Guetta, Rick Urban, and Angel Lopez. We have 4-4 quorum. I don't see the applicant online. I was out of the office yesterday, but this morning I sent the Zoom link to her, plus the email that I sent her on Friday had the meeting ID in it already. But I don't see her or anybody from her team online.

It's up to the acting chair if he wants to give some time or wants to proceed as is.

At this moment, I'm having challenges. Now my camera stopped working. But I guess that's not relevant to the meeting. So we can give some time for the applicant to appear is what you're saying or we just proceed without the applicant?

We can do either, up to you. If you'd like to give them a few minutes, that's fine, to see if they show up. If not, there's nothing that says that we can't go ahead and do this without the applicant.

Okay, well, I imagine they were made aware that we have this meeting, and so let's go ahead and proceed. And if they happen to appear, then we'll give them their opportunity. With that said, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Excellent. Thank you.

If we could go ahead and start with roll call with staff, please. Marcus Lightfoot and I see the Development Services Director, Sarami Kabir, in the room, in the Zoom room.

And Alex Uribe from the city attorney's office. Excellent.

And if we could have roll call for board members.

Mariano Corral.

Angel Lopez, architect.

I believe one of our board members needs access to... There we go.

Someone just gave it to me. Rick Urban.

Rick Urban and Daniel Guerra. Okay. Okay, if we could read the first item.

Nope, I got to swear.

I'm sorry. Yes, since the applicant wasn't here, I was going to skip the swearing in but go ahead.

Staff's got to be truthful about the applications too. So I would ask staff, please raise your right hand. I see Marcus there. You swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I do.

Thank you very much, Marcus.

Very good. Now, Marcus, if we could read the first item, please.

Sure. The first item is DRB-2026-018. The applicant is Christian and Mariana Perfit. Location is 5730 Southwest 49th Street. This request is a new construction, two-story addition. I don't have a PowerPoint for it, so if somebody could share their screen to share their plans, that would be magnificent. I can do it once I finish my brief presentation, if you want. So the property that we're talking about is a historically designated property where they want to add 2,470 square foot two-story addition to the existing already two-story home. Because the property is historic, the project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board at its March 30th, 2026 meeting. There, the board voted to unanimously approve the certificate of appropriateness application with the following conditions. The mullion on the second floor window facing the front facade to match the mullions on the rest of the property. The garage door to match the wood grain in the existing windows on the first floor. In response to these conditions from the HPV, the applicant revised the rendering to show that the mulling and the second floor match and the garage will be wood grain matching existing windows on the first floor. So regarding the dimension requirements, it mostly complies with the code. There are some that are insufficient. Staff found that there were some criteria that just wasn't provided. That includes the second floor setback for the addition, the side setbacks for the swimming pool and the swimming pool walk space. The diagrams that they provided show that there would be a setback, but they didn't provide it. And Cove, because of the size of the slot being 100 feet wide, requires that they have a second floor setback of 15 feet. Staff reviewed the elevations, and found that the height measurement for the columns for the gate wasn't taken to the top. TO THE TOP OF THE POST WHICH WAS REQUIRED. ALL OTHER ELEVATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT IS PRESENT HERE IN THE CHAMBERS HE JUST SHOWED UP. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO PUT THE SCREEN BACK ON SO HE CAN BE SWORN IN. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO FINISH? YES, PLEASE. SURE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. MR. TREAS, PLEASE STEP TO THE MIC FOR BEING SWORN IN.

Good morning. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

Staff also reviewed the landscaping for the project and found that it complies with the city requirements, but it's important to note that per that landscape plan, they're proposing to remove one live oak tree, which is a street tree, a solitary palm, which is a site tree, The solitary palm wouldn't be a problem because if it's confirmed to be a solitary, that's a tree that's prohibited by our landscape requirements. So that would be a no charge, no mitigation permit because we require that all invasive and prohibited trees be removed during construction. However, the live oak was reviewed by the city's consulting arborist where he stated that the live oak exhibits an asymmetrical canopy resulting from competition with a large tree. Adjacent rural points and despite its unbalanced form, the tree is in overall good health and should be preserved. I want to point out the existing specimen trees, which this is. A specimen size tree shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Removals are to be prohibited to the maximum extent possible per section 20-4.5 of the city code. The city shall require that such trees are to be retained in place without a compelling rationale provided by A licensed arborist relating to the landscape plan or public safety applicant has provided an arborist report for that tree and the required letter from the arborist to address the rationale for removal pursuant to that section of the code. Last, regarding the driveway vehicular access, they're requesting to remove that tree to accommodate a circular driveway for this property. Staff found that the setbacks for that proposed vehicular access were not provided, and they would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, and that driver would also have to comply with, be consistent with the city's requirements for the RS3 zoning district, as well as we have driveway in Section 20-4.4 of the LDC. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with conditions that are outlined in the staff report, and I'm available for any comments or questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marcus. So do we have a presentation from the applicant, or are we still...

No, the application is, we believe, very clear and I'm here to take any comments.

Okay, if there's no presentation from the applicant, we can open this to public comment. Is there anybody online or in chambers that would like to comment on this item?

There's no one in the chambers but the applicant and myself.

Okay, hearing none, we'll close public comment and we'll go to board members now Would Board Member Corral like to start?

Sure. There's a few discrepancies here. Because if you look at the Landscape Architects Plans and you look at the Arborist Report from the applicant, if you look at the Arborist Report from Curtis and Rogers, if you look at also the survey, they say that that tree on the right-of-way It's only 13 inches in diameter, but yet it says on the actual report that it's 17 inches from Curtis and Rogers, if I'm not mistaken. Let me go there just to make sure. And so, yep. So here's the issue. If you have a tree that is across the street that is overlapping into their property, if you want to look at it from that perspective into their right-of-way, causing that tree to obviously have that leaning effect. And then I see that they are removing it and placing three additional oak trees. How does that solve the issue of that canopy across the street coming across from creating the same problems? So that's an issue now that the right of way of that tree belongs to the city. So the question is, is the city going to go out there and cut the canopy back? Or who's responsible for cutting that canopy back? That's the question. Second thing is that I'm looking at the grading plan. And I believe that the landscape architect should remove that sheet that she has as a grading plan. Because the civil engineer proposed one that shows the actual size of the drain field.

Pardon me?

Did somebody say something?

No, no, go ahead. Continue, please.

Okay. So when you look at the grading plan, I will go more with what the civil engineer has proposed. I looked at the calculations. I looked at his plan. And let me tell you, this is the second time I've seen this guy's work, and I'm beginning to fall in love with this guy. He's accurate to the point. And so when I look at those things, I say, great. And the reason I'm saying about the landscape architect to remove their grading plan is because the biggest issue that they're going to find is going to be about collecting water within their property. And when you analyze the guys, especially you, Angel, and Rick, and Danny, look at that plan and tell me, how do they collect the water from the backside unless you have some sort of a low point? or you're going to move the water somewhere. So those are issues that really have to be looked at from that perspective. The landscape plan is fantastic. I don't have no problem with the landscape plan whatsoever. I'm looking at it from being using common sense and how can this work. So the fact that they want to remove the tree on the right-of-way and because the city landscape architect says that that tree should remain, two things are going to happen. You're going to try to relocate it, and when you do, a tree of this size, and with an amount of small space that you have on the right-of-way, their survival rate is not going to be very good. Even though an oak tree's survival rate usually is better than other types of species. Number two, is it possible that the driveway can be extended a little further out? so that they can miss that tree and keep that tree. So these are little comments that basically that's a recommendation. I mean, I'll leave that up to the designer from that aspect. As far as the house is concerned, I really love the way they came up with the design of this thing and how they marry both sides. But I'm concerned from the perspective of construction and whether this is feasible or not. in terms of what you see in terms of the swell and so forth. I have no other comments except the fact that they should go back, re-look, and see if they can, you know, make all the sheets accurate in terms of the information.

May I respond?

Yes, sir. Absolutely. By the way, you look very handsome, Mr. Trellis, for a long time.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I can't see you, so I don't know who's talking to me.

Thank you. We've been aware of that and the possibility of maybe moving the entrance or extending the circular drive to the west a little bit. But the green area in front of the existing house, which is a historic house, beautiful cottage, is we want to maintain that green area in front of that house without any intrusion on the driveway. Believing that it would be a more reasonable and appropriate a front for that old house to maintain that green. The existing porch of the old house will become a day room for the children and that green area will then be dedicated as a garden for the playground of the children. So we wanted to try to maintain that green and that's why we located it where we did.

No, I get it. And then, you know what I, and you make perfect sense. So the question now is.

I also understand that there's a few discrepancies. We've caught them as well. It was between surveyors and arborists and I believe the true dimension is the 17 diameter. We don't take moving trees lightly and believe that with the right hands and operation, we can make that tree live in a slightly different location.

Well, here's the ideal. From my perspective, because of the way the tree looks, I have no problem that it can be removed and new trees be brought in that is proper for the space. can balance out your house the design of your home because that's the other thing i look at is how let me explain i don't like trees are all lined up if we can group them together would have been great but it is what it is so um i have no problem that that tree can be removed and they pay to the tree trust fund and they come in and place healthy trees in front of the right-of-way. But again, we will have the same issue of that Royal Poinciana coming all the way across from that aspect. So this is something that the city would have to deal with. It's not fair to the applicant that they cannot place the proper trees because the right-of-way tree on the other side is causing a problem. I have no idea. who's responsible for cutting back and making sure that tree, because what it looks like is that that tree needs to be lifted, selective pruning from that aspect, and from that perspective aspect of it. But otherwise, I happen to like your home. I think the solution you come up with, unless the architects see something that I don't see, but otherwise, that's my only comments that I have for the moment.

Okay, let's go ahead and move to Board Member Lopez.

Um, yes, thank you. Uh, Daniel, um, I, uh, you know, I, I, uh, honestly, I like the home. I, you know, I, I, I like how the, the design of the addition has complimented the existing home. Um, I, you know, some of the, the new bedroom is, is, is small, but I understand that, you know, given the circumstances and the size of the lot. That's a challenge that we architects have to deal with. I don't have other than the staff comments. I don't have any additional comments. I like the elevations. I like the proportions. I like the scale. I think it's a well thought through and articulated design.

Thank you, Board Member Lopez. Board Member Urban.

I have no comments other than, yeah, wonderful design. I think it ties into the neighborhood very well, preserves the historic feel of the home. Other than that, no comments.

Excellent. Thank you very much. I too believe my comments have been covered, so I'll go ahead and leave it at that. Can I have a motion?

I make a motion for approval with staff comments and our board member comments.

Do we have a second? I second. First and a second. Board Member Corral, how do you vote? Yes. Board Member Lopez? Yes. Board Member Urban?

Yes.

And I do vote yes. Thank you very much for your application. We look forward to your successful project.

Thank you all very much. Have a good day.

With that said, our next item is the meeting minutes of July 21st. Does anybody have any comments? Hearing none, do we have a motion? I'll approve. Motion for approval. So we have a first, do we have a second? I'll second that. We have a first and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes. Our next meeting is August 18th, same time, same station. Thank you all for your time today.

Hold on, Danny. I do have, I got to make a comment about something. Okay. My understanding is that we have a new ordinance that I can't believe that we have not been made aware of it so that we can review it. It has to do with points now that has to be prepared by the architect and landscape architect to meet certain criteria. My question is, how did this come about when we have, I think it's making it more complicated after I'm going through it. And my question will be is, shouldn't we first fix our existing code that has problems and issues before we start adding more issues to our code? I've always believed that simplicity always makes things a lot easier for everyone. It makes it harder for the architect. I love the fact that you eliminated the FAR issue, the calculation for FAR. But take a look, guys, at this new point system and how is that going to affect other issues coming down the line. Case in point, that house right there that just passed on. If they had to calculate for points, they would have done everything possible to preserve any trees, even if it's poor, so they can get two points. And so my question is, what kind of worms are we opening up? And so I think that we all should study this. It's an ordinance already that has been approved. But I think that us as a board member, and we have professionals here, we should look at it. and talk about them among ourselves and provide some input back to Surami to see if they can go back to the commission and say, hey, this is what we see that is a problem. Because I see the problem. So, again, I don't know if any of you have seen it or not, but I think it's worthwhile taking a look at that. I don't see the benefit of it.

That's my point of view. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm not sure if Sudami or a city attorney want to comment on this.

Good morning, Sudami here, Development Services Director. I believe if you're saying the point system, it's the sustainability ordinance, which, Marcus, could you confirm that this board actually reviewed, that that item was brought to this board?

This item was not reviewed for the sustainability because it was submitted before the adoption of the ordinance, which was June 9th. They submitted the application in May.

I don't mean this application. I mean the ordinance itself. I know we took it to the Green Task Force. I remember that very specifically. It went to Commission a few times. It went to Planning and Zoning, I believe, also. I don't know if it was required to go to DRB. But the ordinance is not mandatory. It is a voluntary system. And the intent is that we build homes that naturally by their architecture and by site conditions are more sustainable than coming in and clearing a lot, which we see every single day. People come in, clear a lot, pretend that there's nothing on there, build a very inefficient really home and then throw some solar panels on top to feel good as a feel good measure. The commission, just so you have some background, there was a solar panel requirement on single family additions and even re-roofs that the city had that in the books for years. Unfortunately, there was an issue with how it was enforced. It wasn't enforced correctly. It is convoluted. It actually promotes removing trees in order to have more sun on your solar panels. The commission was not happy with that and asked us to come up with something that was better. and that took the city in a more sustainable direction, but not something that was punitive, something that was incentive based. So that's what we gave you. Again, it is not required. You either stay with providing the solar panels that has been on the books for, I don't know, a decade or more, or you could do a level one, which in the research that we did, it was pretty simple to get a level one rating. we actually went through and looked at about four or five homes, staff went through and just without anybody knowing what was going on, we just to get an idea of, Hey, how difficult or how easy is it to get a level one? It really wasn't a, a very difficult process to get to a level one but again it's not required it is an incentive base it is voluntary if you don't want to do it you don't have to but you will have to provide the solar panels based on what's in the books that has been there for over a decade so if i get understanding correctly this was based because of the solar which i agree with you by the way

uh that code on the solar panel was really uh implemented incorrectly as you stated and you're absolutely correct um so you're saying that the new ordinance came through which we haven't seen and the only reason i'm saying also this is how as board members can we even provide input if we don't even know what has been passed by commissioners so that we can be aware and look at those issues in the future. If you follow where I'm coming from, because I wasn't even aware that that point system was on there. So you're saying that's volunteer.

So basically- So you either provide solar panels or You can do a level one. It's a tiered system, level one, two, and three, right? So the more of these items that you take care of from a checklist, the more points you get, the more the incentives add up. So it's either level one or you have to do the solar panels.

That's it. So that was the reason for the rating on the point system. It has nothing to do with design in terms of the point of view of the house, the way it looks or what's on the site. Nothing to do with that.

It has nothing to do with the architectural merits of the home. No.

Okay.

In fact, you could do a very modern home with a flat roof and you have a green roof on there, which, you know, it's probably a home that lends itself to a green roof, right? The homes with these flat roofs, very modern home.

Or you could do a very traditional, you know, old Florida home with the very deep porches, very deep overhangs.

That also gives you points. So we try to not dictate architecture, but give options so that the architect has a menu to choose from. to create the most energy efficient home before you just then put some solar panels on there to you know take care of like basically reduce energy consumption that was the idea or rain water or water consumption it's not just energy it's consumption of water or that's how we have the bioswales we have uh if you collect your rain water there are there's um You know, you get points for doing all these types of things, but again, it's not a mandatory ordinance. The commission was very clear that they didn't want it to be mandatory. They want it to be incentive-based and voluntary.

So if you don't want to do the point system, you just continue doing the same way we've been doing it and let the staff review it and basically you meet code or you don't meet code and they'll get the comments.

Yeah, well, not the same way because you're required to price solar panels and unfortunately the city wasn't Reviewing that previously, I was a, it was something that.

Get rid of the solar panel deal. I mean, it really was a nightmare 10 years ago. Trust me. 14 years. And I know what it was like. And you're absolutely correct. It did create a lot of problems.

Yeah. I trust you so much, Surami.

I trust you so much, Surami, that I also wish that you would take a look again or somewhat at the ordinance of the landscape and so forth, how we can improve it. take out the unnecessary things that is not required. You've got a great firm of Curtis and Rogers, so maybe you can hire them to take a look at that. Not the people from Western. Have them take a look at it because they're very good at it too. uh from that perspective and simplify it the simpler the code the easier it is for all of us and it gives you the ability to be creative and then we can as a board and as a staff we can look at it and be able to say yes that's a good thing to do or no that's not a good architecture or whatever i don't know if you're following where i'm coming from but yeah we're we're looking at that we're looking at our tree removal ordinance we're basically trying to incentivize

maintaining the um you know maintaining canopy because there is a study that shows that the city has lost quite a bit of canopy actually a lot of the day county cities have mostly losses on private property from people coming in on homes you know on lots that are have never been built and they clear them so the only way for us to recover some of that canopy is to incentivize people keeping canopy on private property we can't replace all the lost canopy on public We just don't have enough right of way on public land to replace the canopy loss that we're seeing. So that ordinance tries to encourage and gives you a lot of points for maintaining existing tree canopy of trees that are worth keeping. And I think there's a criteria there on the type of trees. You can't just keep anything uninvasive and get points for it. We're also working on the, we had an intern here And she worked on on the tree removal to see if there's a way of again, like, we want to respect private property rights. I think that's very important that people own the land and they do with their land what they want. But encourage people again to not remove trees through our tree ordinance also as much as we can do without being, you know, in violation of the state law, right? So we're trying to do that. We're trying to change our landscaping so that we allow fruit trees, you know, that there's an incentive to plant fruit trees, to plant pollinators, in your bushes, you know, something more similar to, and I don't know if I should even say this because some people don't like it, but what the underline did, which is trying to, you know, the perfectly manicured lawns go away and you have more of encouraging natives, where we traditionally look at them as weeds, but, you know, planted correctly and done by a good landscape architect can look very beautiful. And It's the natives and it's the best thing ecologically for our city. So we are working on it. It's just a huge undertaking. We're also trying to redo our zoning code to organize it differently so that it's easier to follow. And, you know, we still have the same staff. Oh, I hear you. As when it was a sleepy town that nobody cared to do any work in.

I understand perfectly well where you're coming from. But you're absolutely correct. You are entitled to develop a property as long as you meet all the land development code. The way it is, you are entitled to develop it. If you can't, then redesign. Redesign the home if you cannot meet all the requirements. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I really do.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay, if there's no further new business, then we'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting. Thank you very much, and we will see you next meeting. Thank you.

Thanks, everybody. Have a good one.

Take care.

Bye-bye.