Miami Beach DRB approves paver and elevator variances but rejects aluminum trellis; air‑conditioning request withdrawn

The Miami Beach Design Review Board on Nov. 20 approved two of four variances sought for a revised large residence at 94 Palm Avenue, rejected one and accepted the applicant’s withdrawal of a fourth after prolonged questioning over code intent and precedent.

Staff introduced the continued application for the two‑story waterfront home, which included requests to enclose a mechanical/storage area in the understory, to install a reinforced perforated concrete grid under pervious pavers, to use an aluminum retractable trellis rather than canvas, and to increase the elevator bulkhead height by three feet. The board heard technical presentations from the applicant’s team, including attorney Matt Amster and architect Reynaldo Borgens, who said the understory area would house equipment such as a 35,000‑gallon cistern, water‑filtration systems and HVAC air‑handlers elevated above FEMA+1 to protect them during flood events.

Borgens told the board the project team proposed a reinforced concrete grid that maintains permeability while stabilizing pavers, and argued that limited air conditioning for equipment storage was necessary to prevent mold and corrosion in South Florida’s humid climate. “The only way to control the humidity in these spaces is to really air condition them,” he said during the presentation. Staff advised the board that the Florida building code allows equipment rooms in understory areas but that the longstanding local interpretation limits enclosed, conditioned understory spaces to avoid creating habitable floor area.

Board members pressed on policy and precedent: several members said understories were intended to remain non‑habitable, that granting air‑conditioning in this case could create a template for smaller homes to enclose and condition understory space, and that applicants building large houses should not create self‑inflicted hardships. After discussion the applicant withdrew the air‑conditioning variance rather than proceed to a likely failed vote. According to the transcript, counsel Matt Amster stated the team would “withdraw variance number 1” (air conditioning).

The board then considered the perforated paver variance (variance 2). After a motion and second to approve, the board voted to grant the variance, with the transcript recording “motion passes.” The board debated and then rejected the variance to allow an aluminum trellis in place of canvas (variance 3); the motion to approve failed after at least one member voted against it. Finally, the board approved variance 4 to allow a three‑foot elevator bulkhead increase, which the applicant described as necessary to accommodate a larger residential elevator cab.

The board and staff repeatedly stressed that code clarity on understory conditioning, trellis materials and lot‑coverage calculations would help avoid repeated variance requests in the future. Several board members urged staff to pursue code amendments addressing modern materials and performance‑based solutions so projects like this are handled consistently.

The board approved the revised design review application consistent with the variances that remained in play. The transcript records motions and outcomes for each variance but does not provide a roll‑call tally in numeric form.

What’s next: The applicant can proceed with permits for the aspects of the project that do not require the withdrawn variance; staff and the applicant noted continued coordination on final permit documentation and the potential for future code amendments that address the issues raised.