Board continues contentious Meridian Avenue redevelopment after residents raise preservation and setback concerns

The Historic Preservation Board continued consideration of a contentious application to partially demolish and substantially rebuild a two‑story 1936 property at 336 Meridian Avenue after public comment and extended board discussion about preservation of the historic facade, the massing of a proposed upper‑level addition and a requested rear‑setback variance.

The applicant, represented by attorney Matt Amster, is proposing to preserve the street‑facing character‑defining elements of a contributing Art Deco structure designed by B. Kingston Hall while demolishing a rear, nonhistoric structure and constructing a new elevated single‑family residence behind the retained walls. Staff recommended approval with modifications including reducing the height of a projecting glass‑block balcony by about 4 feet (staff suggested a 4‑foot reduction or use of a lightly reflective/matte underside) and increasing the requested rear‑setback variance from 4 feet to 5 feet, to better match prior approvals in similar alley conditions.

Board and public attention centered on two issues: how much of the original building should remain in place and whether the proposed upper‑level volume — a substantial glass‑block element that would cantilever beyond the preserved street facade — would visually overwhelm the historic frontage. Residents and condo owners who live immediately north at 344 Meridian, led by Jennifer Kaiser, said the proposal would effectively “tower” over the Dexter (the contributing building) and that reduced setbacks and the projecting balcony would harm light, air and views from existing units. The Miami Design Preservation League urged a more contextual approach and opposed the reduced rear setback.

The applicant said the building faces serious structural and flood‑risk constraints: the existing facades and courtyard sit below current base‑flood elevations, and the owner is trying to preserve the historic frontage while bringing the rest of the construction into compliance with contemporary flood‑resilience standards by elevating the new habitable floors. The project team said the design keeps the historic courtyard concept and reduces overall build‑out compared with a full redevelopment that would allow multiple units.

Board members expressed sympathy for both the owner’s resiliency constraints and neighbors’ concerns. Several members said they found the proposed projecting glass‑block balcony visually imposing and asked the applicant to consider alternatives that: (a) align the upper‑level mass more closely with the preserved facade, (b) reduce the balcony depth, or (c) employ a more transparent railing treatment so the addition reads less like a solid wall. Staff and the applicant indicated they would accept many of the staff recommendations, including modifying the balcony wall height and using a less reflective underside material. The applicant agreed in the hearing to work toward staff suggestions and to consider additional refinements, and said the owners want to be good neighbors.

After more than an hour of testimony from owners and neighbors and questions from board members, the board continued the application to the November Historic Preservation Board meeting (date set for Nov. 18 in the public record). Staff advised the applicant to submit revised drawings and supporting materials by the Monday preceding the hearing so board members can review updated renderings that depict the project with street trees and realistic sightlines from the sidewalk and nearby balconies. The board did not take a final vote on demolition, the certificate of appropriateness or the variance at this hearing.

Next steps include the applicant revising plans to show the staff‑recommended adjustments, (the applicant indicated willingness to consider a 5‑foot rear setback), clearer elevations showing existing street‑tree canopy and sidewalk sightlines, and further outreach to the immediate neighbors.