Design Review Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We are live in the chambers. Can you hear us? We hear you. Thank you very much. We have Mr. Christian Rodriguez, Mr. Rick Urban, Mr. Danny Guetta, and Mr. Mariano Corral. We do have a quorum. Whenever the board is ready, we can proceed. I do not see Javier Baena, who is our chair, but Danny Guerra is vice chair.

Thank you very much. As I'm traveling on remote in rural areas, I think it's best served that somebody else act as chair today in case I have to come in and out of the meeting.

Please note that we need a quorum as four members, and we only have four people. So if Danny Guerra leaves, we can't hear the remainder of the items.

Danny Guerra won't leave. What I'm saying is that Danny may go mute for a moment or have technical difficulty. Therefore, I need someone else to run the meeting.

OK. Any board member can make a motion to appoint somebody to be the chair for today's meeting only.

I'll make a motion for Mariano Corral to run the meeting.

OK, done. Any second? I second. OK. Anybody opposed? OK. Mr. Temporary Chair, I think we can start with roll call Pledge of Allegiance.

actually we should start by saying i want to close this meeting see if the next week everybody's approved so it's been a while so bear with me let's start with the uh the motion well not the motion the introduction of staff uh marcus i believe we can start with the pledge of allegiance Thank you, Danny. Appreciate that. So if we can start with a presentation, please all stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So by the way, happy 4th to everybody. It was a great 4th of July. um and now we can do the introduction let's start let's start with board members uh christian you want to start off christian rodriguez rick urban danny he's muted but he's still connected okay with the city attorney's office

And Marcus Lightfoot is here for Planning and Zoning. I have Chen-Ben Hu and Mr. Mark Alvarez for Planning Department as well.

The only thing that I'm going to ask for the moment, Marcus, is for you to read the items. I do not have the items before me. I'm having issues with my computer at the moment. But you all can hear me, correct? Yes, that's fine.

And before we start, I'm going to ask everybody who's going to present today, anybody who's going to present today or provide testimony, please turn your cameras on and unmute yourself so that I can swear you in.

Can we please have them raise their hands because I have to give them co-host abilities.

Please raise your hands if you would like to speak. I see Jennifer Salmon, Alex Garcia. Valentina, Brennan Howard. Please let them unmute themselves, please.

OK. Mitchell Corte, also.

And we're gonna ask and Jane storms and we're gonna ask please everybody turn your cameras on and unmute yourselves Okay, I see everybody unmuted and and Almost everybody with their camera on Jane can I get you to please turn your camera on?

I'm trying to figure that out. I'm not real good at this. So, am I on now?

Not yet.

I'm trying.

It should be down on the bottom left.

Bottom left. Oh, there it is. Okay, I got it. Thank you.

And George Fernandez as well, please. Let's let George unmute and turn on his video as well. Okay, all right. Will all of you please raise your right hand? Do 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.

I do.

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Corral. Well, I guess, Marcus, please, I think we can begin with the first application.

Yes, first application is DRB-2026-011. The applicant has subtext acquisitions for the property located at 644-6504 Southwest 57th Avenue. Request is for architectural conditions review. This will be presented by Ms. Chen Lin Hu of staff. Thank you.

Okay, before we get underway here, I want to make a quick note about this application specifically. This application has been here before you before. What is happening with this application is there were slight revisions to the exterior and the commission requested that this application come back just to review the exterior changes to this application. So I want to make sure that we're all aware that the scope of this review is not for the entirety of the building. It's not to revisit what we've already seen. It's just for portions of the exterior facade. And I want to make sure that our review is limited to that because this already came through. This already was approved the first time we saw it. So I just want to lay those ground rules out there. And all we're doing is a review for the changes that the commission saw and wanted this board to have input on. Thank you very much.

Good morning, board members, training crew, planning staff. I want to add to the introduction about the project. Today we're going to review the architecture condition. In addition, the staff have communicated with the applicant team. They're ready to also talk about the late stage site coordination review, which is also part of the approval conditions. I will introduce the project, a quick summary, the approval history, and a quick intro of the condition for review. And then I will hand it to the applicant team to present their design and any utility coordination they want to update the board to adjust these conditions for today. The project located at 6404 and 6504 Southwest 57th Street is bound on the east by Red Road to the west by Southwest 57th Court to the north-southwest 66th Street to the south-southwest 64th Street. The total size is 2.73 acres. The existing use is 48 apartments built under RM18 zoning. The current future land use destination is TSD, Transit Supported District. The zoning is TSDD, Transit Supported Development District, TSNA Subzone, Transit Supported Neighborhood Area. To the north of the property is unincorporated Miami County, zoned for high-density residential with a maximum height of nine stories. To the south is the existing Red Road Commons with a future land use TSD zoning PUDM, maximum height five stories. To the east is the University of Miami property. To the west is existing single-family homes. The proposal is a six-story off-campus student housing development with 240 residential units, a total of 760 bedrooms. The proposal will include residential amenity spaces located at the ground level and a rooftop amenity deck above the third floor. It will provide over 14,000 square feet of public open space provided throughout the development and also 373 vehicular parking spaces within an internalized and screened parking structure. The vehicular access will be from Red Road to reduce traffic impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Here's approval background on the property. On March 31st, 2025, the future land use and zoning were amended to TSD flume and TSDD zoning. On December 2nd, 2025, student housing approved as a permitted use within TSDD. On January 6th, 2026, DRIB reviewed a large-scale development special reception for this proposed project. ON MARCH 10 AND APRIL 14, 2026, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. ON MAY 5 AND 19, 2026, CITY COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVE VARIANCE SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS. Two conditions we're going to review and discuss today is this. The first is the architecture conditions. We want the DRB to review and confirm that each portion of the east-facing facade is satisfactorily distinguished and differentiated through the use of coloring, finishing, materials, and detail. Second is the late-stage site coordination. As stated in the Land Development Code Section 20-5.11 , prior to building permit issuance, the DRB shall review to ensure that from conceptual design to construction documents, utility coordination and location of other building utility or public infrastructure that could adversely impact the right-of-way or the project's integration with the right-of-way are reviewed to safeguard the relationship between the building and pedestrian realm. DRB shall make recommendation to planning staff within 30 days of the presentation and planning shall condition the building permit as necessary based on such recommendation. For architecture review here is a short summary from the staff The mixed-use building along red road with north and south residential on either side of a centrally located parking structure screened by perforate metal panels Elevation and rendering illustrate the overall building massing architecture character and facade articulation The east elevation incorporates recessed balcony, varied fenestration, vertical elements, facade modulation, and ground floor glazing Exterior's finishes include textured stucco, metal panels, aluminum frame windows and storefront, tinted glazing, balcony railings, and living green wall The color palettes consist primarily of neutral tone with contemporary accent colors For the late-stage site coordination, the purpose of this condition is to confirm construction document coordination with the city, county, FDOT, and any other utility providers. And for DRB to verify that utility and infrastructure placement, along with any design refinements, do not adversely affect the previous approved building design, public right-of-way, pedestrian environment, or streetscape. The outcome is for DRB to confirm the approved design is maintained through the construction documents or provide recommendation to planning staff prior to building permit issues. Staff recommend DRB to review and make recommendation to de-set conditions. I will now hand it to the applicant to present their design and adjust any conditions.

Okay.

Thank you, Chen Lin.

So having said that, let me start with Christian. Oh, first of all, does the applicant need to make any kind of presentation, please?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mario Garcia-Segra with offices at 600 Brickell Avenue here today representing the applicant. Indeed, we have a relatively short presentation, but I do think it'll be helpful for your discussion.

Very good.

So as Chen Lin already mentioned, this board previously reviewed the project back in January when it was going through its entitlement process. Since then, the project was reviewed by planning board and approved by the city commission. The use and program has remained the same. It is still a student housing project with 240 units. The shape of the building has changed a bit in that there are more recesses now in the east and west facades. The aesthetics and look of the building has also changed somewhat as a result of the review of the additional boards. We will show you how the project is looking at present and we'll then ask you for your input on two particular points which were already touched upon but I'll bring them back up here again on the screen. The City Commission specifically wanted the DRB's input on the facade, on the east facade of the building facing 57th Avenue, in particular on details, materials, and color palette. And then secondly, we're also here for the late stage site coordination, which is basically ensuring coordination between utility and public infrastructure and design in particular so that public spaces meet the intent of what the previous approval was. With that said, I'm going to hand it over now to the Architectonica team. Sherry Gutierrez and Bernardo Fortbrecher are both here to talk about design. And then Mr. Jamil Pierre with Kimberly Horn will talk about the site infrastructure and utilities.

Good morning. I'm Bernardo Fortbrecher from Architectonica.

I'm going to take you through the plans.

From the plans, you can see that we have added a series of recesses in addition to the large courtyard at the center of the building on the bottom of the page. You can see where the big break is with that park. But in addition to that, we've added two other recesses, and in the front, an additional one. that the building really looks like a series of buildings by virtue of those shadow lines that are created by those recesses. You will see that this shows you all the upper levels. You've seen this already, but I'm sort of repeating just for recall, that we have the garage concealed within the heart of the building, and that there's a lower building on the south side, as you can see from that view. Here you can see the new design, where instead of a white building, we have not only introduced the recesses, but also introduced tonalities that change along the length of the street so that there's the appearance of a series of volumes that are projecting forward and backward and creating a series of shadow lines and a breakup of the facade rather than a linear facade. You can see this view all the way around where you can actually see here the differences between the different volumes that are creating the effect on the building. You can see here where those recesses are occurring and creating a series of events that separate the volumes, not only by virtue of color, but by virtue of volume. You can see here the view of the artwork that will occur in the screen that is folding. It's three-dimensional, it's not flat, that occurs over the arrival into the into the drop-off area and marks the arrival to the whole building and conceals the garage but creates an art statement along the street. And you can also see the density of the landscaping that is being created along the sidewalks, including places for bicycles to be parked and other street furniture that will mark the walkways surrounding the building. You can see the foliage that would occur at the ground plane. You can see here the view from the corner where you can see the different tones of the buildings that are breaking up the facades and creating a series of vertical zones almost like a series of row houses or row buildings that are occurring along the street on this block. And here you can see, I'm taking you all around the building, where the same effect is carried all the way around. You can see here the difference of height between the portion to the right versus the left that is descending gradually towards the residential neighborhood. Here you can see the overall view of how That facade towards the neighborhood is broken up almost to appear like a series of row houses that are occurring along the street. You can see their scale with respect to the series of residential buildings across the street. And here you can see some other views. We're taking you all the way around the building through all the effect that we're talking about. You see the landscaping, the planting, and the buildings along that street. These are views of daytime and nighttime that we thought would be interesting for you to see. But here you can see the park that is at the center of the street, is a centerpiece of that street, and all the way to the other corner. The park, of course, is in the middle of the street, so it's the biggest interruption in the building facade that creates that open space. And here's the frontal view of the mural along the street, along the main street, the main arrival, and with the buildings on either side where we added the recesses on both sides of the mural, plus another one to the left. And these are other options where we discussed maybe lighter tones. This is something that we are leaning towards. But it's the same idea. It's simply that generally we do the paint samples on the spot with the sun hitting the stucco, of course, where we finalize the coloring. But here you can see the softer colors that we also are considering. I think this gives you the general overview of the design and the progress of the design that has happened over this time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bernardo. Mr. Chair, since there are two separate sort of scopes of review, I think it might be appropriate now to sort of discuss the first scope of review, which is the details, coloring, and materials of the Southwest 57th Road eastern elevation, especially since I know Mr. Bernardo Forbrecha sort of has a time constraint, and so we'd like to have him here for that discussion.

Okay. Any board member want to begin? Or should I just start with either Christian or Danny or Rick?

Which one you guys want to start? Through the chair, I think, would you open public comment and close public comment? Thank you.

Do we have any public comment?

I have applicants in the chambers. Would anybody like to speak on public comment? Anybody here? I have no one in the chambers that wants to speak.

OK. You go ahead with board comments.

Mr. Christian, would you like to start?

Yeah. So I unfortunately wasn't here for the original design, but I do, I did see the kind of indenting and different layering of the building that was done. And I'm not opposed to any of that. As far as the finishes and materials as well, I have no comment. You know, I think everything is done very modern. My only comment and suggestion would be definitely not to go with the palace accent color. I think the demonstrative size of this building and where it's going to be, I think that the darker color palette, I think it stands out way too much. I didn't see when our guests in our documents didn't have the different color options that they just presented us, but definitely the lighter colors were much more appealing for my eye. So that would be my comment. My comment would be just to try to stay away from that darker palette. I think it's going to stand out too much and to definitely move forward with one of the lighter options that was presented. Okay.

Rick, Mr. Urban. Not much. Same for me. I was not here when this was originally presented. I have read through all the documents. I agree that the color palette, I think, would be much better suited than one of the lighter color palettes. And I will also just comment that I do really enjoy the artwork of the parking garage screen. I think that is a welcome change and will continue bring a nice look to that area. But I would also second that choosing a lighter color palette might help with this design in that area.

Okay. Mr. Guerra.

Well, thank you very much for the improvements. I appreciate the applicant's efforts and the design team effort to appease and help the city and the neighbors. I have no further comment. Thank you for the improvements.

Okay. I do have a couple of comments, and it goes from this wayside. Bernardo, I've known you since, well, I've never met you personally, but I will tell you this, what architectonica means to me. Going back to 1977, back when you changed the skyline of Brickell Avenue, and what I saw was, I call it, thinking out of the box and forcing architects to start saying, hey, enough is enough of just creating boxes. Let's make architecture an art form. Let's make it fun and let it blend it into the natural environment, obviously. But let's make this into a really interesting kind of urban environment from that aspect. You also had an influence on me back then. I graduated from LSU in 71 and 77, but you helped me think out of the box. I'm saying all this to you because any comments that we're making here is on a positive, constructive criticism. It's not about jealousy or anything like that because I saw it back in the 80s when that happened. So I just want to compliment you and your team. that I happen to like this building. It's going to make a statement. Listen to our architects and what they're saying in terms of the colors. Take that into consideration. Also take into consideration what I said before when you came before us about the landscape along the street and the type of streets that have been selected. I think you're using the wrong kind of species. Otherwise, sir, you're good to go. so having said that can we have what's the second part also uh mario that we got it also oh well hold on we've got it both first in the materials only correct uh alex so do we have a do we have any board work um uh can we make a motion on the on the recommendation of the materials

I thought you were going to make comments on that, but I guess.

I am done with my comments. I don't have anything else to say. I respect my architects on the board and they said what they said.

If that's the case, I think that's fine. I think we can move on to the presentation about the coordination of the utilities. And then we can do one, since this is one application, we can do one vote at the end for, you know, incorporating all of board comments. Okay. Okay. So applicant, I think all the comments on the first part of your application have been presented, and I think they're there on the record.

Exactly. I think now we'll proceed to the late stage review. Perfect. And just quickly, because I believe this might be, if not the first time, one of the first times that you are undertaking this sort of review, but I'll read directly from the code what the task is here with regards to this late stage site coordination review. And it provides that planning staff shall present to the DRB for review. Each permit package prior to building permit issuance to ensure that from conceptual design to construction documents, utility coordination and location of other building utility or public infrastructure that could adversely impact the right-of-way or the project's integration with the right-of-way are reviewed to safeguard the relationship between the buildings and pedestrian realm. So what we're looking at here is coordination of public infrastructure and utilities with public realm. And I'm going to ask Mr. Jamil Pierre, our civil, to give a brief presentation on where that utility and public infrastructure is located.

Hello. Good morning, everybody. My name is Jamil Pierre. I work with Kimley Horn, located at 2 Alhambra Plaza in Coral Gables. I'm here to talk about the overall utility plan that we have for the VRV project here in South Miami. On the screen, what you'll see is our overall utility plan, which will depict 12-inch water mains that we are proposing over on 57th Court and also a 16-inch water main over on 57th Avenue to provide fire hydrant coverage around the building. We are also proposing new utilities for servicing of the development over on 66th Street with a 6-inch turbine meter and also a 8-inch fire services to the project. On this screen what you'll see is the location of all the new fire hydrants being proposed as part of the project. There's about six fire hydrants you'll see and then also an existing fire hydrant on the south side of 66th Street. On this page, what you'll find is the sanitary sewer services being proposed for the project, which includes four sanitary sewer laterals being connected to on Southwest 57th Court to an existing eight-inch gravity sewer line that is on Southwest 57th Court. What you'll also notice is that there is a additional service program by Miami-Dade Water and Sewer providing new water meters to the properties on 57th Court as well. On the screen, what you'll find is the FPL services that are being proposed to the building with two transformers and a generator on concrete pads adjacent to the park on the west side of the building on 57th Court. And overall, this is the overall site plan with the loading and service to the back of house. As you can see, the access is on 57th Avenue with loading trucks, auto turn simulation seen on the screen. And this is the current status of our overall approvals with Miami-Dade County processes. So up front is Durham. We have received approval for surface water general management permit and the permitting of six drainage wells on the property. FOR MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES AND ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS WITH THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN WITH THE CONCURRENT PLAN REVIEW INCLUDING MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER, MIAMI-DADE FIRE RESCUE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ALSO DERM AS WELL. FDOT has an updated design with bike lane and turn lane modifications have been submitted to FDOT for conceptual approval. There is also a continuous process with the FDOT for a construction agreement for the improvements on 57th Avenue. THE DEMO PERMIT HAS ALSO BEEN RESUMMITTED AS OF 6-26. FOUNDATION PERMITS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AS OF LAST WEEK ON JULY 1ST. AND BUILDING PERMIT COMMON RESPONSES INCLUDING REVISIONS REQUESTED FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ARE EXPECTED TO BE SUBMITTED BY TOMORROW. FPL POWER AND GAS ARE EXPECTING PERMANENT DESIGN BY THE END OF THIS WEEK. AND APPROVAL OF THE GAS SERVICE IS EXPECTED BY THE FOLLOWING WEEK. And that's the end of my presentation.

OK. So do we have any board members with any additional comments on this?

No comments from me.

No comments from me either. Danny, nothing from you.

OK, none from me either. So Mr.

Chair, Mr. Chair, can we just to make sure that anybody want to provide any public comment on this portion of it, let's make sure they have an opportunity.

OK, sir. Do we have anyone from the public, the general public, that would like to make any comments based on the presentation, what they saw?

There's nobody in the chambers.

OK. The only comment I'm going to make is to make sure that the landscape and the utilities do not create a problem or an issue that that's coordinated properly from that perspective. Otherwise, I would like to ask the board members to make a motion for approval for both presentations. Correct, Mr. Riebig?

Yes, just for approval of this application as presented. Correct.

OK. Gentlemen? Motion approval for application as presented with board comments.

OK. Rick, want to second it? I will second that, yes. OK. Can we have a vote now, please? Christian?

Yes.

Rick? Yes. Danny? I don't think Danny can hear me or cannot speak. Is that going to be an issue?

No, it's not an issue.

Okay. And I vote yes also. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope everyone has a good day. They weren't letting me unmute. I wasn't allowed to unmute, but I voted yes.

Okay. Wonderful. Good. Wonderful. Mario, good to see you again also, sir.

Likewise. Always good seeing you, Mariano. Hopefully I see you again soon.

Take care, gentlemen.

Have a good day, guys.

Okay, the next item is DRB-2026-014. The applicant is Alta Development LLC. The property is 5959 Southwest 61st Street and 7090 Southwest 59th Place. The request is large stage coordinated review. This project will be presented by Mr. Mark Alvarez of the Cordino Group. Thank you.

Good morning. This is Mark Alvarez with the Corradino Group, serving as planning staff for the City of South Miami. I have a short presentation about this. We have the late-stage site coordination review for the large-scale special exception that we call SOMI Walk. The proposal is by Altas Development, and we have the applicant here in the chambers.

I lost the presentation. Thank you.

Is it going? Okay. There we go. The late stage site coordination review is a, the scope is right here. This is going to be a little different from the prior application. The prior application there were some, the commission had directed this board to review some of the aesthetic considerations. That is not within the scope of this. This is strictly a late stage site coordination review per section 20.5.11 . The scope here is to ensure the conceptual design for the construction documents do not have any utility coordination issues and location of other building or public infrastructure that would adversely affect the impact on the right-of-way or the project integration with the right-of-way or the public space basically on the sidewalk and the urban space of the building and also the relationship of the building to the urban environment. The DRB recommendations would be to the planning staff within 30 days we would record them. We'll do that in less time than that. And we would condition the building permit on any necessary recommendations from the board. A quick reminder of the project. It is an off-campus student housing structure. It is sitting on 1.01 acres. It includes 173 residential units, 585 bedrooms. There's 6,563 square feet of open space, 197 parking spaces. All of them are valet. All of them are internal. There was a 33% reduction in parking that was permitted by the commission. That is in exchange for an on-site transit lounge, for its proximity to the metro rail, for the fact that it will be supported by, and it was supported by the traffic study that The proximity within, literally, this one is five minutes from Metro Rail. Because of all those things, we could discount not only the trip generation, but the number of cars that would be parked in the building. Also, the number of cars that would be parked in the building are controlled by the management of the building. So, in other words, they rent the spaces separately. There are still 146 internal bicycle stations as part of the idea of discounting the number of parking spaces, 12 outdoor spaces for the bicycles. There are 17 street trees. There are 24 on-site ground-level trees, and then that's, in other words, not on the sidewalk. And then there are more trees and landscaping on the third-floor terrace and on the roof as well. The first floor of the building is all amenities, but the amenities are all for the residents of the building and they're not for external use. I think I forgot to mention it's a 16-story building. The location is right across from basically the Vox building. It's between 70th Street, 71st Street, and 59th Place. It takes up about half the block. It takes the place of the Roadway Hotel, which is currently in demolition, and the commercial building, the one-story commercial building across the street from the Vox building. It is, the designation is TSD, the flume designation is TSD, and the zoning designation is TSDD TODA. This is the most intense sub-district of the downtown TSDD zoning district. And this is, of course, a very urban project. It has been found through the process and also by commission to be compatible with the surroundings. This is a mass diagram looking more or less northwest on the building, and volumetrically it is compatible. It is taller, but it's still in a very urban environment, and it sits as a very urban building. There are no single-family homes anywhere near this. it is consistent with and again through the planning board through the drb the planning board and the commission process it's been found consistent with all the zoning requirements in the tsdd it is approved for the large-scale special exception on february 3rd 2026 that included an approval for waivers for building coverage and an approval for waivers for the upper story floor heights. They're a little lower than the 10 feet that we require. And it has been approved for bonus development applications or bonus development. Going through the history just a little bit, it's been through the process. The staff reviewed it and recommended approval of the building. The staff also recommended approval of the bonus floors as well as to grant the waivers for the building coverage of 85%. And for the upper story floors are 9 foot 4 inches floor to ceiling. It's been to this committee, to the DRC before. It was approved by this committee. And there were some comments mostly having to do, I believe, with the landscape. There were some comments about the parking and the circulation. Those have been addressed. I believe the landscaping was changed before it went to planning board. I'm sorry, that's duplicated. There's DRB on November 4th, 2025, and then went to Planning Board on December 9th, 2025. The Planning Board also voted to accept the building and recommend it to the Commission, also to recommend to the Commission for the bonus development as well as the waivers. It went to commission on February 3rd, and it went with the resolution for the large-scale special exception was adopted 4 to 1 for approval. The development agreement was approved 5 to 5 unanimously for the project as well, and those included the waivers and the development bonuses as well that allow it to go to 16 stories. So we have, this has been submitted for permitting, and we have compared all of the sheets. It's right now on hold, waiting for its review by this board. I'm going to go through a few of them. I think that because we are focused on the utilities and the ground floor aspects of this building, we have, not that you can read it, but we have compared the site plan that was approved by the commission, it's sheet A, The plan was dated January, or I should say we received that plan on January 26th, 2026, and it was approved by the commission on February 3rd, 2026. That is exactly the same as the permitting plan, which is now in our system. February 17th is that date. It is exactly the same. There's no change on it. Same with the ground floor plan, which again I think is a little more in the details of what is going on outside the building as well. Again, comparing the plans from the commission approved set, sheet A101, to the plans for the permitting plan, which is now sheet A200. You'll notice some changes on the sheet numbers. That's because approximately 40 sheets go to the commission and we have literally 400 sheets in permitting right now. So there are some changes on the numbers. But again, this is exactly the same plan. Again, with ground-level planting, this is the commission-approved plan. It was sheet L200 from December. The date was December 25, 2025. It was approved on February 3, 2026. the same sheet appears to us in the permitting plan sheet l02 february 17th 2026. so we have reviewed uh on a staff level and we're prepared to present to you that we are looking at the same plan if there are any differences they are they're microscopic and they're below the level of this review um but they are substantially and materially the same almost exactly as far as i've seen There are no deviations. It's currently in our system on hold waiting for the latest HDRB coordination recommendations. And we are also, it's not in the scope of this review, but it's also on hold because we have to wait for the final transfer development certificate of transfer requiring the donor property to provide an acceptance for the certificate of eligibility. In other words, the applicant has elected to In in lieu of one of the bonus awards to use a TDR process and that process requires the donor property another building which I believe is the Crossroads building to have its certificate of eligibility Accepted by the city that's not part of this review. It is just to give you complete information about where the holds are on this project and For utility coordination, and the applicant is here with his team and they will present a little more on this, but on utilities, we have a minor change regarding the fire hydrant locations from what we saw before. The applicant also reports that they're awaiting final water main extension east of or along 70th Street and connecting to the water main under 59th place. So the staff has found that those changes don't substantially impact or impact at all the relationship between the building and the public realm such that it would materially affect the public safety and enjoyment that has been presented to the commission for this project. So we recommend that, well, it's for you to recommend, so we will coordinate with the recommendations of this board and condition the building permit as necessary based on your comments. We do have one additional recommendation. Because of where this building is located and it is pretty much in the heart of our downtown, we also are working on the streetscape master plan, which we're not going to ask that that's coordinated We have the design that's approved, but for the sidewalk materials, we would ask that the projects work with the sidewalk material that we will have for the streetscape master plan. And that material is basically an aggregate with some blue glass chips in it. We would like this area, since it's so close to downtown, to have matching concrete on the sidewalks as well. And that's it. Thank you very much. The applicant can make a presentation now.

Do you want to just go over?

Okay. Okay. Okay.

So do, first of all, does the, I'm sorry, I cannot, I'm having issues also with my computer. So the question is now, can the applicant make a presentation, please?

They're available for questions. They don't have a presentation.

Okay. So in that case, do the public have any comments?

Nobody in the chambers, but staff and the applicant.

All right. So getting to the board members, let's begin with the board members. Christian, you want to begin? I have no comments on this one. Okay. Mr. Urban.

No comments. My only question was addressed with regards to the material being used for the sidewalk in relation to the city's master plan on that. So I am satisfied. Okay.

Danny. Can you hear me? Thank you.

I think somehow I didn't become a host. So it's not letting me on when I try. Yeah, it's okay. I have no comments. Thank you.

Okay. I do have some confidence in how to deal with the landscape, obviously. But I think also, and it's food for thought, if there's a design for a master plan in terms of the coloring of the sidewalk and all, I'm beginning to question also when an architect is designing a building and he's carrying his material from the inside out, that's something that they're going to have to take into consideration when it comes into design. And there are times when I often question whether that's a smart thing to do from that perspective, but it is what it is. So first of all, on the tree disposition, the calculations are incorrect. Basically, when you have specimen trees, you double the size of the canopy. What I do need markers to take a look at, they're claiming that is $1.05 per square foot. I thought it was $1.05 per square inch. I'll leave that to you, plus an additional $1,000. I'm not sure how much they're paying to the pre-trust fund based on what they're removing. So check into that. I don't have a problem in terms of the design of the selection of the material. In fact, if anything, the plant material selection is pretty darn good. With the exception, I'm not sure whether the ironwood and the proximity of the curb and gutter and the distance from the tree to that, if there's sufficient space, if that's only about two feet or three feet away. If they're four feet away, great. There's no dimension. I don't know. And at the same time, I'm glad they're using Adafave, but that may change based on the design that's being proposed in the master plan. So that's something that you're going to have to take into consideration in terms of the coloring, just to match what they're providing in terms of the main master plan design. In addition, on your rooftop where you have your pool area, please, Be careful the type of palm trees that you use, especially in the perimeter. If you're using those Alexander palms, they're self-cleaning palms, and unless somebody's there very quickly to take care of them and cut them off before they fall down to somebody below. The sable palm is not a problem. They're leafless. It's not as heavy. It's not a big issue, but the Alexander palm might be, and also take into consideration the wind tunnel effect. Will that be able to take the kind of wind that will go through here and rip them apart? Otherwise, the selection of plant materials up there is very good, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you for the comments, Mariano.

Any other comments? I think everybody said it, so... Okay, so in that moment, then... Board members, can we get a motion for approval or denial or deferment?

Alex, do we need the same language as the other one for application as is?

This one can just be very simple. This one doesn't have the added scope of review that the council asked for the last one. This is just the one late stage review. COORDINATION REVIEW, SO JUST A VERY SIMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE.

I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER TO DO IT NOW, BUT IT'S TOO LATE. CHRISTIAN, HOW YOU VOTE? YES. RICK? YES. DANNY?

YES.

AND I VOTE YES AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM.

NEXT ITEM IS THIS ONE IS A PLANNING BOARD ITEM. IT'S PB-2026-016. THE APPLICANT IS POOLIS LAND SURVEYORS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6800 SOUTHWEST 62ND AVENUE. REQUEST IS FOR A TENTATIVE PLAT APPLICATION AND I WILL GIVE A BRIEF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM. FORTUNATELY I DO NOT HAVE A POWERPOINT FOR IT. SO IN ABOUT 2024 THE COMMISSION AMENDED THE RULES FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND OF THOSE CHANGES THEY REQUIRED THAT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS THAT WERE REVIEWED BY THE PLAN BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AS WELL. THIS INCLUDES PLAN APPLICATIONS, WAIVER OF PLAN APPLICATIONS, SPECIAL USES, LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS AND SO FORTH AND VARIANTS AS WELL. SO THIS ITEM IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MET SQUARE. located at 6800 Southwest 62nd Avenue. Commission adopted the resolution number 086-25-16378 for large-scale development project for the block bounded by Southwest 68th Street on the north, Southwest 69th Street on the south, Southwest 62nd Avenue on the east, and Southwest 62nd Court on the west. The project approved by the commission consisted of a six-story office building that will face Southwest 62nd Avenue, along with eight townhouses that will face the court, Southwest 62nd Court, and be about two stories high. Pursuant to that disapproval, the applicant submitted a tenant application. They're going to replant their property to accommodate the new project. Properties that would be consistent of the plot are 6800 Southwest 62nd Avenue, 6820, 62nd Avenue, 6842, 62nd Ave. The property identified by folio number 09402502200, 6825 Southwest 62nd Court, 6843 Southwest 62nd Court. LOCATED IN THE CITY'S TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THE THREE EASTERN PARCELS FRONTING ON SOUTHWEST 62nd AVENUE IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND THREE WESTERN PARCELS from the eastern border up to the line that is 75 feet from the western property boundary are within the Transit Supportive Development Area, or TSDA, sub-district. The remaining parcels that are on the west are within the Transit Supportive Neighborhood Area, or TSNA, sub-district. As required by the LDC, the applicant has provided a conceptual site plan for the board to review pursuant to Section 20, that's 4.2 of the LDC. The proposed subdivision must meet the minimum requirements for the TSDD sub-district. Additionally, the site plan must be in substantial compliance with both the development agreement and the approved large-scale development project that was approved by the city commission in October of last year. Pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations, prior to approving a tentative plat, there are certain criteria that must be met before the commission can approve the project. In the interest of time, I'm only going to go over a couple issues that involve landscaping. Section 20, that's 4.2 B3A, states that They must ensure the retention of specimen trees for six years and permanently maintain 50% of the existing protected tree canopy, but in no event shall the condition be less restrictive than what is required by the city and county's tree ordinance. Staff reviewed the plot survey that was provided by the applicant. The following trees have been identified as specimen trees that must be retained for at least six years. That's live oak tree number 6-A, which is in conflict with the proposed design. A live oak tree, tree number 9F. Live oak tree, tree number 39, which is in conflict. Live oak tree, tree number 40, which is in conflict. It is important to note, that the TPLAT survey lists trees that do not appear on the existing tree disposition plan, which includes tree 9E and tree 9F. The disposition plan will need to be corrected prior to review by the city commission so that everything matches. The applicant will be required to execute and record in the public records of Miami-Dade County a restrictive covenant that contains all commitments made and conditions imposed as part of the appropriate approval of the PLAT. and Section 20-4.2 for C as in Charlie. A certified tree survey will be laid directly upon the site plan as required by Section 20-4.5. This tree survey must include the canopy measurements. Once an application for a waiver of plat, ten of the plat is filed, no tree may be removed until after final waiver of plat or final plat approval is issued, which is considered a tree removal moratorium. The applicant may appeal to the City Commission to waive the tree removal moratorium for good cause. Per the existing tree disposition plan, proposed site plan, she LD02, provided by the applicant, I've listed the trees that are in conflict with the redevelopment. A majority of those trees are prohibited and per our land development code, once they are confirmed, they will be allowed to be removed with a no charge and no mitigation required for that permit. The landscape plan was reviewed by the city's contractor, Robert Curtis of Curtis Waters Design Studio. Per his report, he's recommending that certain trees, in addition to what they're already proposing to relocate, be relocated as well. I provided his report as part of the attachments to it. I don't know if you would like to review that. I know that's something that Mr. Corral would be able to review and opine on. The next one is section 20, that's 4.2 . Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, drainage, and paving should be installed by the owner or developer of the abutting parcel in accordance with chapter 20 of the county code and other applicable city requirements, and as such, can be and are waived or deferred by the City Commission. This condition is currently being reviewed by the Public Works Department, and I'm awaiting comment from them. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board recommend approval of the tenant so that the item can be forwarded to the Planning Board for further review and recommendation. I have placed recommended conditions in this staff report, and I'm available for comment. Thank you.

Okay, so.

The applicant is, if the applicant is here, they can make a statement.

Do we have, do we have the applicant ready to make a presentation?

Yes, we have Jane Storms of Poulos Land Surveyors.

Good morning everyone, Jane Storms, Police Land Surveyors. I'm not making a presentation for a tentative plat application because it's just kind of more administrative than anything, although I've learned by listening to all the comments that they do tie a lot of wonderful things to it for the trees, but technically we've been approved by the city surveyor had a couple little tweaky comments that they wanted us to do and change got back to them and I believe we're we've been approved with your city surveyor to allow the application to move forward thank you to city for the wonderful presentation and all the information that went with this I appreciate that okay does the architect is the architect here present

So Jane is the only member of the team that's present here, correct?

Yes, for the application for the tentative plat. They wanted the surveying team here. Right.

I believe this board already looked at the project itself. That is correct.

I don't remember this at all.

This project was reviewed by the board, I believe, in the beginning of the summer of 2025.

I don't remember.

I believe May of last year.

Okay. So do we have any board members? Comments, please.

So just to confirm what the applicant said, I mean, this is, I guess the way that I'm seeing this, this is really just an administration thing. It's basically just to get everything together so that they can meet the requirements for The zoning and all that?

This is a review of the tentative plat application to make sure that the plat meets the zoning guidelines, the minimum lot sizes, that sort of thing. But it's limited solely to the question of the plat. Is the plat conforming? And is there any questions that you have on that plat? That's it.

No, no comments from me. Okay. Danny.

I have no comments.

Okay, Rick.

No comments at this time.

And obviously, I do have a comment. And that is on the transplanting of the trees, which is shows there. I need to know or we need to know what is the procedure for such large trees to be transplanted? because the location that they're going into, I have a feeling that there may not be sufficient space and there's a lot of utilities going on there. But in the meantime, in terms of the T-Plat, It is what it is, not a problem.

Okay. And Mr. Corral, just to be clear, the questions on the trees were reviewed and those questions were at the site plan portion. So we're not really here reviewing the trees today, but you've made your comment.

But once they bring something in, I mean... It has to be reminded just in case. I don't remember this. I really don't. All right.

And then we just want to make sure that you open it up to the public as well.

Really quick, really quick before you open the public comment on Mr. Roberts reminding me, this item will come back for late stage coordination just like the other two items because it is a large-scale development. So you will have that opportunity at some point in the future to discuss these items.

Okay. Fair enough. All right, so do we have any other, do we have public comments, by the way? Nobody in chamber but staff. Okay. In that case, let's move forward. Can I get a motion for approval or deferment?

Motion for approval with board and staff comments.

Mr. Urban? Thank you. Okay, Mr. Urban. Your vote. Approve. Yes. Christian. Danny. Yes.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate your time this morning. It was nice meeting you all.

Oh. Hold on, Jane.

I'm ready.

And I also vote for approval. Now. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, next item. Next item is DRB-2026-015. The applicant is Alex Garcia. The property located at 5975 Southwest 80th Street. Request is new construction, two-story. This will be presented by Mr. Alvarez. Thank you.

Good morning again. Mark Alvarez with the Cordino Group on behalf of the City of South Miami Planning staff. This is an application for a two-story single-family home to be located at 5975 Southwest 80th Street. The applicant is Alex Garcia. The owner is Primo Investments. In the location is... is it is it 5975 southwest 80th street this is a currently vacant property one of the few left in the city um it is one lot of record the folio is um zero nine four three six zero three nine zero one three five it's a point two six acre property it's surrounded on all it's it's um flume designation is single family residential it is in the rs3 zoning district and every thing every house every property around it is also in the rs3 zoning district the site plan is uh fairly straightforward the building faces forward it faces southwest 80th street and includes a two-story home driveway and front area as well as a pool in the back and the site plans which you see i should have mentioned before on the last slide this the property Fully conforms with RS3 requirements. However, it is an irregular lot. It has this little bit of a notch on the rear right side of it. We have reviewed the application. It is fully consistent with RS3 zoning requirements, both in terms of the horizontal dimensions that are required as well as the vertical ones for the height of the building. There are no additional accessory structures. We have also evaluated the pool's location. Excuse me the pools location and it is also consistent with the requirements of rs3 zoning requirements as far as setbacks the only thing that was lacking on the plan was there was There was not a dimension for the pool deck dimension in other words require 18 feet 18 feet 18 inches at minimum and Although it's clear that That is more than 18 inches. It was not dimensioned on the plan. We would just require that perform permitting and The other thing was, let's see, there was another red item there. Again, a minor detail was on the fence. It's a very minor detail. We require it for permitting that the fence height was not shown for the front and side and rear. Again, looking at it, we sort of eyeball that it is within our six foot requirement. It's a 60% open fence. Again, we'll need that before we do the final permitting. The landscape plan has... There is actually nothing being disposed. There is a tree over there, and the landscaping plan has been provided as part of the package. There is a total of... I can't see this actually without my glasses on. We have an existing live oak at the front, which is 40 feet high and 40 foot spread, which is staying. And we have the addition of three new plantings on site and five that are already on site. The power lines are in the front right away, and two silver buttonwoods are proposed for the street trees. This is the design to the front. It presents itself in somewhat of an L shape, so there's not a large frontage. It's basically softer. What we've typically seen, there's a combination of wood or tan materials, as well as bronze finish on the windows, a grayish, sort of a warm gray roofing, and sort of softer whites and cream colors on the stucco. That's the rear on the north side. Again, it has typical, we've seen much more glazing on the rear. generally sliding glass doors floor to ceiling facing the pool and then on the sides again the fenestration is a little different and follows the interior design of the building and has less grouping and you know clear clear glass across the back um we find that um just for again for sufficiency and when we make a sufficiency comment it's just something that we need cleared up before it goes into permitting consistency is the things that we would have an objection on the design but anyway for sufficiency the pool dimension of the pool deck needs to show the 18 inches or greater we need to provide have details for the fence height at the front sides and rear PROCEDURALLY, IT WOULD BE, OF COURSE, COMPLYING WITH FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ANY COMMENTS BY THIS BOARD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. SO MOVING ON, DO WE HAVE, DOES THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? DOES THE ARCHITECT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. HI, JENNIFER.

HOW ARE YOU? GOOD TO SEE YOU.

YOU TOO, MARIO. Always great to follow Mark's presentations because there's very little left to say. We tried to build a nice tropical contemporary house here. We have an opportunity with a great lot and we've used a mix of one and two story elements so that you're not faced with, you know, very large. presence at the street, and I think we've layered the house and tried to provide a balance between openness and privacy.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Do we have anyone in the chambers or anyone in the public that would like to speak?

Nobody in the chambers but staff.

Okay. Moving on. Board members, comments? Mr. Irvin, would you like to begin?

Yeah, I'll just make a couple comments. I just wanted to make sure I know that on the coverage ratios, um the the impervious cap ratios they're all at the exact uh maximums on those i just want to make sure that all the calculation we review all the calculations on them make sure that they're uh that they're accurate same with the setbacks um they are they are all at the um maximum or minimum allowable on those let's make sure all the calculations are accurate on that um And again, I'm new to this, so I know last week I asked some questions and the ordinance had changed, but I did come across something that was required, which is called the Comprehensive Neighborhood Analysis. I want to know if that was submitted, if it's still required. on that one. And then I didn't really see anywhere where all the the texture colors and materials and everything all provided on this as well. And then someone did touch on the on the pool space. So I think we're good there. Those are my comments. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez.

No comments for me. And Mr. Guerra.

No comments for me.

And I have no comments either. So, having said that, can we have a motion for approval, please? Or deferment?

Do we need to get the question answered by Mr. Urban in regards to the neighborhood study?

I I don't think that that that that prevents you from making a motion that can be something that I I believe that was a suggestion from Mr Urban for staff unless I misheard that correct yep so that can go in as as as part of the board's commentary in the motion I think if I just with staff and board comments

Yeah, typically part of our requirement for the neighborhood study is other photographs of houses around it. And if it's not in the package, we can make sure that that's added. But I'll note that this is a two-story single-family home in an area that is predominantly or actually entirely single-family neighborhood homes that look just the same on the same type of lots. So we wouldn't find that to be something that would HOLD BACK THIS PROJECT IN THE FUTURE. WE WILL MAKE SURE IT'S INCLUDED FOR THE PERMANENT PACKAGE.

OKAY. SO MR. URBAN, DO WE GET ALSO YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SECOND, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO REALLY QUICK, THAT WAS CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ THAT MOTIONED TO APPROVE AND RICK URBAN SECONDED? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT WAS AS PRESENTED? With board and staff comments.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Guerra, let me start with you. Yes. You said yes. I could hear him very low. Mr. Urban. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. And I say yes. Thank you so much. Next one.

Last item on the agenda is DRB-2026-016. The applicant is George Fernandez. And the location is 5979 Southwest 58th Terrace. The request is for new construction, two-story as well.

Good morning again. This is Mark Alvarez of the Scoradino Group on behalf of the planning staff of City of South Miami. This is an application for new construction of a two-story single-family home on the lot at 5979 Southwest 58th Terrace, which is a lot that is currently occupied by a single-family home. The applicant is George Fernandez. The owner of the property is AJ 58th Terrace, LLC. And the folio is 0940250140040. The location of this property is facing south on 58th Terrace. It is right to the east of the intersection with 60th Avenue on 58th Terrace. It is an interior lot. It is zoned RS3. It is surrounded by homes that are also zoned RS3. The utilities do come through the back lot line of this home, so when we get to landscape, there's no issue with the front of the lot having utility lines go over it. It is a .23-acre property. It is entirely consistent. The property itself is consistent with RS3 zoning requirements. This is the site plan proposed, and it actually shows a bit of the parkway. That's why you see two site triangles. So the applicant has shown a site triangle for the edge of the property and then another site triangle for the edge of the pavement. It is a single-family home. It faces directly and perpendicular to the street and does include a pool but no accessory buildings. It's a two-story building. We've reviewed it for consistency with the RS 3 zoning district both in horizontal dimensions and in terms of the Vertical dimensions and find it to be consistent with all the requirements of the code again The only exception being there's an interior side setback on the west side. That's it's just not dimensioned properly it's in the tables, but not on the site plan we would require that before permitting but again it's the dimension was provided in the tables we just like to see it on the site plan itself the landscape plan is presented there are this is the landscape plan there is a there are several trees that are being retained in the landscaping plan And there is a tree disposition plan as well that removes or relocates a number of trees. The list is on the presentation slide as well as in your package. It's relocation of a West Indian mahogany, gumbo limbo, golden rain tree, bottle brush, a weeping fig, two strangler figs, Brazilian pepper tree, fishtail palm, coconut palm, green palm, and Alexander palm. They are the mitigation has been proposed and the we find that the relocation of trees is also Consistent with our requirements and again as I mentioned the power lines do run in the back So that the proposal for the street trees are three live oaks, which is very consistent with the rest of the street This is the tree disposition plan with all of the location all of the trees that are shown to be removed and We'll have comments on that as you wish The front of the building, again, very similar to what we last saw, and this is what we're seeing these days quite predominantly, is sort of softer cream color textures for the stucco, basically warm colors and woods and bronze tones for the trim. The front of the building, again, we note that the fenestration is well grouped. There is some hierarchy between the second and third first floors in terms of the height of the windows and of course set off by a central two-story glazing for the front of the house. Again the rear typical of what we now see is it faces the pool, more floor to ceiling height sliding doors and again grouped evenly and so there's a good presentation, a symmetrical presentation to the rear. Again, on the sides, as we typically would see, we see that the windows and the fenestration design is more focused on the interior layout of the building, although there is also a section here with a nearly floor-to-ceiling presentation of glazing on the west side. These are the applicants to apply the close-up of the materials. So again, we have a sort of cream-colored stucco, a brownish-gray kind of tiles, wood accent trims, bronze trims on the doors and glazing, and some coral rock type accent surfaces. we again we have some sufficiency issues this is something we would require for permitting but it's not something that we recommend to deny the project that we need to have the west setbacks dimensioned on the drawing and again on this one the pool dimension the deck of the pool did not show that it was greater than 18 inches again we see that it is but we need the dimension to be there No consistency approval recommendation or approval conditions. And, of course, that it should be designed to comply with Florida building code and also to any comments or suggestions from this board. Thank you.

Okay. Does the African architect want to make any kind of comments or presentation?

Hey, yeah, I'll go over the presentation. It's pretty much the same thing, but just a few insights on the design intent. I'm going to share my screen really quickly. Can you guys see? Yep. Okay. Perfect. So to quickly go over a few of the architectural concepts that were taken into consideration of the design of this project. Once again, this is a new two-story single-family residence in the RS3. It has around 4,500 square feet under AC plus a two-car garage and a semi-covered terrace. The style of the house is tropical, contemporary. It blends A clean massing with the warm materials and the extensive landscape that integrates the house into the site. The lot is approximately 120 by 84 square feet. So roughly 10,100 square feet or 0.23 acres. As you can see, it's the last property on a dead end street. And the building is placed right after the first layer to comply with the frontage requirements and also allowing for a pool deck and some open area in the back of the lot. The layout of the house in terms of the architecture is very straightforward. We decided to keep the common spaces on the ground floor and the bedrooms on the second floor for more privacy. The ground floor is mostly open areas. It integrates the living room, the kitchen, and the dining area with the exterior space. Whereas the second floor has the master suite, the three bedrooms, and a laundry room in a large covered balcony overlooking the backyard. On the exterior of the house, once again, we tried playing with the different heights and shapes of the roof to articulate the volumes in the facade. We incorporated a portico to accentuate the entrance and as well as a lot of glazing with the intent of maximizing the openings and natural light. You can see this in the area of the stair with the double height window, adding like a feature to that facade. And we also chose to incorporate some vertical wood elements as features to break the facade and add some warmer tones in line with the color palette we chose as was previously mentioned. We went for earthly, more natural tones that blend with the landscape. The body of the house will be painted stucco while the frame and the finishes for the roof tile will be a darker bronze. to contrast, shifting the protagonism to the wood and the coral stone accents. Here are a few of the renderings. These showcase how the elements that have been already mentioned add up to the overall architecture composition. Once again, the use of clean volumes, the different heights that create the depth, especially in the front of the facade. the warm materials to accentuate the feature. So the portico on the front and the wood and the overhangs and the vertical elements. And of course, the lush vegetation that integrates the house into its setting. Thank you.

Okay. So if that's the end of your presentation does the landscape architect want to make any presentation at all or no i guess mr hoyt is does can i hear me whatever all right so let's move on anyone on chambers that would like to make a comment on on the and on the application

There's nobody in chambers, and I just noticed that I heard Ahoy couldn't unmute his mic, so I just unmuted him. There's nobody in chambers. Okay. All right. Hi, good morning.

Mr. Ahoy, would you like to make a presentation, or you're good?

We're good, unless the applicant thinks it's necessary, but the architect did a fantastic job.

Okay. All right. Board members, comments? Who would like to begin?

Okay. My comments are basically I like the like the addition of the glazing above the garage door. It was a good use of that, that wall instead of just adding more stuff up to it. And I also like the the vertical phobias that were integrated. No other comment. Okay.

Danny. I thought it was a very complete presentation. I compliment the architect. It's a beautiful project.

My only concern would have been the utilities, but I think that they've been taken into account.

So I have no comment.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Urban.

No comments. I will just follow up. Great presentation. Good package. No other comments on that.

Okay. My first question is, do we have a drain field and septic tank on this site or is storm sewer and water? I'm gonna say it's by storm sewer. This is a question for the architect.

Can you repeat that one more time?

It's a house. It's going to have drain fuel and septic tank, or you have natural storm sewer already in the area?

I think Jorge or the landscape architect might be better able to answer that.

There is no storm sewer in the area, and it will be septic.

There will be septic?

Yes.

Okay. So let me just say this to you. depending on where that's going to be located it's going to affect not only the landscape but it's going to affect also your grading plan from your civil engineer and so um you're going to have to have to make some adjustments and uh mr hoyt will have to make some adjustments to the landscape in location of the trees and also if there's a large tree whether it's going to be in the front of the back or whatever um that's going to have an impact so uh that will i will leave to i guess uh staff to look at uh from that perspective but that's going to be a major issue especially with germ and mr fernandez they are completely out of control So I'm giving you a heads up on that. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Otherwise, I think the landscape reflects what the what has been designed. But I will say this to you, Valentina. All three sizes, the front, the east and the west look fantastic. I'm still feel that the rear is a little weak. It looks there's something missing in that rear. but all three sizes the way you divided the with the roof line and i normally don't talk about architecture but there's only one architect here so i'm taking a free time on this one but if you look at the rear There's something missing. I don't know if the columns need to be a little bit bigger or the side. I don't know. All I'm saying is take a look and see if it's possible from that aspect. But otherwise, I think it's a very, very nice design. And I'm very pleased with what you presented. Okay.

Thank you very much. We'll take it into consideration.

Thank you. Then in that case, I would like to have one of the board members make a motion for approval or deferment. Motion for approval with staff and board comments. Okay. Rick, I need your second.

I will second that. Sorry, I couldn't find the unmute button.

Okay. All right. So can we have a vote? Let me start again with Mr. Guerra.

I vote yes. Christian.

Yes.

I will vote yes.

And I will vote yes as well. Thank you so much for coming to the board, and good luck with your application.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.

Now for the next thing is the approval of the minutes from the last meeting.

That's correct.

I do not have any in front of me, so somebody's going to have to help me on that.

Okay. I was only able to put together the minutes for the June 2nd meeting. The June 16th was the meeting we did not have a quorum, so I don't have any minutes for that one. I'll have that for the next one, though.

Okay, so we can move on for, when's our next meeting?

Well, you can still approve the June 2nd. Those are there. Oh, I misunderstood you. Sorry. It's okay. The June 16th one. I usually put minutes there just to keep track of who was present, who wasn't, even though the items weren't heard. But I'll have that for the next meeting, that one for the next meeting. So you can vote on June 2nd.

Okay. Any comments on the June 2nd board meeting, gentlemen?

No comments.

So can I get an aye for approval?

Aye.

All those in favor for approval, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, so moving on. Can I have a motion and a second for those minutes, please?

Pardon me? May I have a motion and a second for those minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes. So motion to approve the minutes.

And second.

Second.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Do we need to vote again for you, Marcus?

No, it was a unanimous vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. So moving on, when is our next meeting, Mr. Lightfoot?

The next meeting will be Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 8.30 a.m.

Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Any comments? Any comments from board members? Anything that you want to add before we close this meeting?

Board members, I will be absent on July 21st. I have a scheduling conflict with another matter. However, my colleague, Daniela Simo, will be with you. She's more than capable. And so that'll just be for that meeting, and I will be back after that. And I'm sorry that I was off camera, but my co-counsel here... has been less than cooperative, but he appreciates that we wrapped this up.

Excellent. So in that case, gentlemen, thanks for showing up.

You had a long one today, Mariano. They stuck you with a long one.

No, that wasn't bad. An hour and a half.

I just had one quick question for staff. Just again, since I'm new, I noticed that a couple of the memos were stating that the cap for two stories was, or cap for two stories is 35%. But in the last ordinance I read, it's at 30% for two story. I was just wondering if we could get clarification on that or if there's another newer ordinance I should be referencing or not. I think the cap for first one story is 35% and two story is 30%.

Yeah, it's 30%. If you're looking at Munich code, that's still the old ordinance, but we can also make sure you have the newer ordinance that's changed it.

And I also have a quick comment. Marcus, please talk to Mrs. Cabrera and the commissioners. I think you guys are doing yourself a disservice and you're losing money on the trees that are being removed, paying $1,000 per tree. When I saw that the canopy for one particular, which was miscalculated, was 9,000 square feet. And when you divide that by 500, it comes out to about seven or eight trees or nine or 10 trees, whatever, okay? and uh i think you're you're basically you're losing money i think you're being that needs to be relooked again uh and double check so that's my comment on that and uh thank you mr corral really quick i just want to point out we are evaluating our landscape uh regulations and we're going to be looking into amending them in the meantime

I've been instructed to no longer, when we do tree mitigation, to do it by inference DBH for now, which is actually how it's supposed to be done per our current code. The issue before was that there was a conflict where we have a table that tells you what the mitigation would be based on the DBH. And then immediately following that was an example that went by canopy. So previous administration instructed staff to follow that example. Ms. Cabrera has instructed us to no longer follow that example and go for insurance DBH, which would require significantly more trees and significantly more funding to the tree trust fund.

Okay. By the way, we also have to be fair. Let's not go crazy. We also have to be fair. Some of these homes, And some of the people that are buying into this home, they're not necessarily wealthy people. And trees can really make a big difference in terms of penalties and payments. So let's see if we can be fair on that too, okay?

I understand, and I'll try to, but I have to follow the regulations that were adopted by the commission.

I got you. I understand.

All right.

Gentlemen, thank you for coming today. I hope all of you had a great Fourth of July. And we'll see you on the 21st, correct?

Good job, Chairman Burrell. I move for adjournment.

It's been a long time, pal. I forgot a lot of the things. Thank you. Have a great week. Thank you, everybody. Bye-bye.