Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Deferment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board defers two narrow‑lot homes by Fausto Rivas, asks for corrected tree, grading and renderings
Summary
The City of South Miami design board deferred two new‑construction approvals for narrow lots proposed by Fausto Rivas, citing incorrect tree‑mitigation calculations, missing grading and second‑floor plans and requests for clearer material and elevation renderings.
The Design Review Board for the City of South Miami voted to defer two narrow‑lot single‑family proposals by architect/applicant Fausto Rivas so the applicant can provide corrected tree‑mitigation calculations, grading plans and clearer elevation and material renderings.
Staff introduced DRB2025‑003 (Lot 3, 6167 SW 64th Street) and DRB2025‑004 (Lot 4, 6165 SW 64th Street), noting both are nonconforming lots (about 25 feet of frontage and roughly 2,000 sq ft each) allowed under section 20‑4.8(d) provided yard setbacks and other dimensions meet code. Staff recommended approval subject to standard conditions such as a tree removal application (where applicable) and an erosion‑control plan.
Board members voiced consistent concerns about the submittals’ completeness. Board member Mariano Corral said the applicant’s tree calculations were incorrect and walked through species and mitigation math, concluding the site would need more trees than shown. “You still need to put 10 trees on this site,” Corral said, and he urged the applicant to have a landscape architect revise mitigation figures and consider smaller, more appropriate species for tight lots. Several members also noted the absence of a grading plan and a missing second‑floor plan in the materials provided.
Vice Chair Vienna and other members questioned the use of ornamental encroachments to gain interior floor area, pointing to a 3‑foot permitted encroachment for features such as stairs or stoops but noting the design appeared to use conditioned square footage within that projection. Members requested elevations in real colors and materials and clarified where roof‑mounted air‑conditioning units would be screened. Fausto Rivas responded that projections were used to improve interior circulation and that the finish palette was client‑driven.
A motion to approve DRB2025‑003 with staff comments failed on the board’s recorded vote. After discussion a motion to reconsider and then to defer passed; the board explicitly asked staff and the applicant to return with: corrected tree‑mitigation worksheets, a grading plan, complete second‑floor plans, elevations using the actual color/material palette and clear landscape plans that reflect both lots side‑by‑side.
The board treated Lots 3 and 4 as related applications because they are adjoining and because board members wanted to see coordinated landscape and elevation treatments. Staff will circulate the specific list of required revisions that applicants must provide for the next submittal. Because single‑family recommendation votes are advisory for permitting, staff noted that the files may continue through administrative review, but the board deferred formal recommendation pending a complete resubmittal.
What’s next: The applicant will return with the requested materials; the board asked staff to be explicit about required items to avoid repeat omissions.
