The board addressed several variance requests for a residential development on Pine Tree Drive, a property that required adjustments to height and setback regulations to accommodate its architectural design. The applicant sought three key variances: an increase in the maximum allowable height, a reduction in the interior side setback, and a reduction in the sum of the side yard setbacks for a proposed two-story home. The design, referred to as “Viar,” featured two perpendicular structures necessitating independent slabs for the first and second floors, impacting the building’s height. This architectural feature led to a request for an additional two feet in height beyond the typical allowance. It was argued that this increase was essential to maintain appropriate floor-to-ceiling dimensions while preserving a significant setback for the second floor, minimizing the street’s visual impact.

The property, adjacent to a public park and a neighboring construction site at a higher elevation, presented unique challenges that the board considered. The applicants contended that the height adjustment would not detract from the surrounding area’s aesthetics or functionality. Additionally, the development plan included an accessory structure that required variances due to unique zoning regulations that resulted in practical difficulties. These variances would allow reduced side interior setbacks and a smaller sum of side yard setbacks, taking advantage of the property’s proximity to a public park to mitigate potential impacts on neighbors.

The applicant’s representative, Emily Balter, emphasized the modern design’s goal to respect the character of Pine Tree Drive while offering views of the canal. The board, after deliberating and considering the lack of public opposition, approved the variance requests, allowing the project to proceed with its intended design.

In another notable case, the board deliberated on a series of variances requested for an upscale property on Star Island, owned by Ken Griffin. The variances included a chimney height extension beyond the roof screening level, a driveway width increase from the code’s maximum allowance, and a preemptive variance concerning minimum yard elevation in anticipation of future FEMA changes. These requests highlighted the challenges developers face in balancing ambitious architectural designs with the constraints of local zoning laws and potential future regulations.

The design team, comprising architects and landscape architects, presented their case with extensive detail. The board was informed of the property’s adherence to the exclusive zoning category that allows larger single-family homes, and the team highlighted their integrated design philosophy, which included innovative roofing solutions and state-of-the-art construction materials.

The board approved most of the variances, recognizing the substantial planning and consideration that went into the proposals. However, the preemptive variance linked to potential FEMA changes faced scrutiny. This variance, designed to maintain the current yard elevation should FEMA’s anticipated reductions in base flood elevations occur, was initially met with resistance. Concerns were raised regarding the implications of setting a precedent for variances from regulations not yet in effect, which could challenge the city’s resilience strategies. Ultimately, after discussions and reconsideration, the board approved the variance, acknowledging the project’s alignment with Miami Beach’s development goals.

The meeting also included discussions on the board’s procedural handling of variances related to flood mitigation. A development project’s representative raised concerns about the timing and implications of securing variances amid changing FEMA guidelines, emphasizing the need for timely approvals to avoid construction delays. The board grappled with the intricacies of granting variances preemptively, a scenario not previously encountered, highlighting the evolving nature of flood zone regulations and their impact on urban planning.