Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Understory Home topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves two-story understory home at 521 W. 30th St.; staff conditions aim to reduce roof massing and add fenestration
Summary
The Design Review Board approved a new two-story home with an understory at 521 West 30th Street, asking the applicant to modify roof lines and provide additional fenestration or blind recesses on the west elevation while noting broad neighborhood support.
The Miami Beach Design Review Board on May 2 approved design review for a new two-story home with an understory at 521 West 30th Street, subject to staff conditions intended to break up large roof masses and add fenestration or recesses to the west elevation.
The board voted 6-0 to approve the application, with the motion moved by board member Agopian and seconded by board member Sheldon. Staff recommended approval while suggesting additional refinements to roof composition and the west facade; the board adopted those recommendations as conditions of approval.
The application was presented by attorney Mickey Marrero of the law firm that represents the applicant; Jose Vidal of B3 Architectural Group reviewed the plans. The owner, Arthur Bartholomew, participated with the design team and submitted neighbor outreach materials showing several letters of support. Marrero and Vidal said the family intends this to be their home and emphasized resilience: the understory approach raises living space above regular flood levels and preserves open green area on the lot.
Plans show a compact footprint on a 50-foot-wide lot, with the dwelling occupying about 25.3 percent of the lot and a total conditioned area the team described as roughly 3,500 square feet. Vidal said the proposed building height is 28 feet and conforms to recent code changes so no height waiver is required. The design places an emphasis on landscape, shaded ground-level space beneath the house and minimal paving between street and yard.
Staff’s written recommendations and board comments focused on three areas: breaking up the large roof form (suggesting opportunities to vary roof heights and introduce flat-roofed parapet sections), adding openings or blind recesses on the west elevation to reduce planar massing without compromising neighbor privacy, and refining moldings or surrounds to help scale the form. Michael (city staff) clarified that staff’s roof suggestions are intended to achieve variation without altering the building footprint or undermining the understory program.
Board members praised the thorough application package and the understory approach. Board member Jason called the design “a really good example” of combining historic character with resilient construction. Board member Sarah suggested exploring traditional details such as arches or gate materials to reinforce the architectural character, while others recommended a less modern gate and careful selection of front-yard trees so mature canopies do not overwhelm the house’s composition.
The applicant agreed to work with staff on the west elevation treatments, roof modulation and material decisions. The board also asked the applicant to consider a blind recess where a window would be inappropriate for privacy, as well as to coordinate with staff on final landscape and gate details.
Motion and vote: the board approved the application as conditioned (motion by Agopian; second by Sheldon), and the motion carried 6-0.
Staff and applicant said final permit drawings will address the board’s conditions, including roof modulation details, fenestration or blind-recess options on the west elevation, door/gate material refinements, continued landscape detailing and compliance with visibility-triangle requirements.
