[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6125186,"mediaKeyId","2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2","parentId",2677625,"title","Historic Preservation Board continues review of 411 Michigan Avenue office project after neighbors press for design changes","audioSeconds",6725,"startMs",425000,"endMs",7150000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2&start=425&end=7150","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2/thumbnail_425000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125186/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Historic-Preservation-Board-continues-review-of-411-Michigan-Avenue-office-project-after-neighbors-press-for-design-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125186-13afb2b3e5291bbbc4df4e5e4843c91e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448096&Signature=cC9TCh8EWhoKhlDkpROrAzbdKi6rCv26erl5amjU55bXjoP59IDLab6Xzwfr9njly79gVsoJqX6l7jK3YqnKTuQYz1mbLhj07cFkUYCU6kqcVJxHEsBXr69Cte6YTxOTJBucK4XLctv3NOs8UZph6J~Z~SqT33ajly7rXk-8SfJ7jzbikRvQkcIC0-iNx4Zeu-ueV3y5zZzd0vMyn3KHyPeVJgAX~Ot3grOXH5nOc9-SlSIvNfPJYxoSw9aoLUU0efucaycCbHcm8aB-y9Y0MRSzofjD6JGQl3pJB-hLh47wj41UwfAKeKmbJO8qG-kH~~ISSMaYya2RcuMPUX82zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Miami Beach, FL","date","2025-03-18T16:40:04Z","article","The Historic Preservation Board continued its review of HPB 21-0486, a proposal to restore and relocate a 1934 contributing building and construct a new five‑story office building at 411 Michigan Avenue, to its June 14 meeting.

Staff and the applicant outlined a project that would relocate and elevate a modest Mediterranean‑style contributing building, demolish a rear accessory structure (previously approved for demolition in 2012), and place a new office building and a three‑level mechanized parking lift on the lot. Staff told the board it supports the project overall and the applicant's variance requests for an alternate \u00002open court\u00002 configuration and an off‑street loading waiver, but recommended bifurcating approval for the parking structure because the proposed narrower drive aisle requires a formal variance and separate public noticing.

Why it matters: The site sits on the Fifth Street corridor directly north of a lower‑scale historic district; board members and nearby residents said design details will determine whether the project creates an appropriate transition between the commercial corridor and the preserved neighborhood to the south.

Staff presentation and key issues
Staff described the proposal as a mixed‑use office development that would preserve and relocate the primary contributing building to the Michigan Avenue frontage, raise it about 4 feet to meet required future flood elevation, and construct a new five‑story office building on the existing foundation. Staff recommended approval but asked the board not to take final action on the parking lift portion until the associated driveway variance is formally noticed because moving the parking structure north to create a five‑foot setback reduced the drive aisle below the city standard.

Staff also asked the applicant to refine the design of the raised contributing building's ground‑level transition and recommended the development team explore reducing projecting balconies on the south elevation to lessen impacts on the adjacent lower‑scale buildings.

Applicant presentation and outreach
Michael Larkin, representing the applicant, and the development and design team described efforts over several months to revise the scheme in response to staff and neighbor input. The team emphasized use of an existing foundation, raising the historic building for resilience, and public benefits including landscaping and a proposed contribution to nearby Southpointe Elementary School. Larkin told the board the applicant supports bifurcation so that the portion of the project tied to the unresolved driveway variance can return after the variance is noticed.

Public comment and neighborhood reaction
Public comment showed a split among neighbors. Several immediate neighbors and neighborhood groups raised concerns about the massing and the width and projection of upper‑floor balconies facing the historic district to the south, urging greater setback and a slimmer building mass. Jean Quinn Martielli, who owns a property adjacent to the site, said the building's \u00002girth\u00002 rather than height was the issue and asked for smaller balconies.

Other neighbors and neighborhood groups, including representatives from Southpointe Elementary and the South of Fifth neighborhood association, spoke in strong support, describing the existing, partially excavated site as blighted and praising the design, public benefits and the redevelopment team's outreach.

Board deliberations and direction
Board members praised the architectural quality of the proposal but agreed there was not sufficient consensus to approve final action. Multiple members voiced a particular interest in seeing further effort to reduce the perceived impact on the south edge (balcony projection and building massing) and to reexamine whether the rear accessory structure could or should be retained as part of a gentler transition. Staff also reiterated that the parking lift portion needs separate public notice because of the drive‑aisle variance. The chair called a continuance so the applicant can address those items.

Action
The board voted on a motion to continue HPB 21-0486 to June 14, 2025, with directions that the applicant study options to reduce the building's southern impact (including balcony reduction and attention to Fifth Street as the project's principal frontage) and to explore retaining or reincorporating the rear contributing accessory structure where feasible. Roll call recorded: Miss Liebman — no; Miss Weinstein Berman — yes; Mr. Breslin — yes; Mr. Reed — yes; Mr. Klein — yes; Mr. Pascal — yes; Mr. Lopez — yes. Outcome: continued to June 14, 2025.

What to watch
At the June 14 meeting the board will expect revised drawings addressing balcony projections and massing, any materials or elevation studies that show how the raised contributing building will meet the sidewalk transition, and a revised plan or separate noticing packet for the parking‑lift variance and drive‑aisle reduction.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Preservation Board Meeting April 12 2022","oneSentenceSummary","The Historic Preservation Board continued its review of HPB 21-0486, a proposal to restore and relocate a 1934 contributing building and construct a new five‑story office building at 411 Michigan Avenue, to its June 14 meeting.","taxTitle","Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida","taxId",2893,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6125177,"Staff backs demolition for proposed synagogue at 255 30th Street; board hears presentation and variance rationale",634,11532000,12166000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2&start=11532&end=12166","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2/thumbnail_11532000.jpg","/articles/6125177/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Staff-backs-demolition-for-proposed-synagogue-at-255-30th-Street-board-hears-presentation-and-variance-rationale","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125177-3ff95b7cdc2742e829f948851ee133a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448096&Signature=nfVcKBK3un3NNDRNk769LoasyzcccNMqtHJCYRlskScrbubZgumJZijgOfWwn-0GzZ22ix6RzzimsLsd2qANwqYZGkrlVLiGnmhtGesU80CVb0XSs0ZbitA844CA4Om2OHoFsfyJjz5MtFBs9DQWwI55h04gugCxJ0QSCHJJbNuuCPQSrghNksRuAXJItf-bNAcoJcWCw2sowNGc~yCJnLEa~-sVaVgrpxio6ACqceSs1rro-w8GbIeBRVcDCm2rEimzLRuD-7GbUG1tPHbzcDfr0nBZDStPIbgosUeCkhbIsCv2ieRxv5WaYRq0y55Vvz5fnZO5ko5Zrb3XsBHjZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Historic Preservation staff recommended approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness application for a new three‑story synagogue at 255 30th Street (HPB 21‑0492), including staff support for demolition of the existing 1928 building because later, extensive alterations have left the structure bearing little resemblance to the original home.

Staff summary and variance rationale
Planning staff told the board the property is a substandard platted lot in the historic district and that substantial modifications in 1986 and later had changed the front facade and interiors so the earlier 1928 configuration is largely unrecognizable. Staff recommended demolition and supported the applicant's request for variances from minimum lot area and lot width (the lot was platted smaller than current code requires), from certain setbacks and from the minimum yard elevation standard. Staff noted that the Planning Board had previously granted the project a conditional use in January.

Why a three‑story building
The applicant, architect Ari Sklar, explained the team's rationale for a three‑story building: the congregation desires to avoid elevators for certain religious uses and the resulting lower height requires a slightly larger footprint to provide ritual spaces, living quarters and a partially below‑grade ritual bath (mikvah). Staff noted the site has an approximately 7‑foot elevation difference between the existing sidewalk and the proposed finished floor, and that topography constrains how the yard elevation and setbacks can be reconciled.

Design and neighborhood context
Sklar and the project team described the proposed building's religious programming — separate men's and women's temple spaces, living quarters above and a ritual bath — and showed elevations and a site plan illustrating how the massing responds to taller surrounding multifamily buildings rather than lower residential parcels. Staff said the proposed massing and materials reference some religious symbolism and are compatible with the surrounding scale.

Next steps
The board heard the staff presentation and the applicant's initial presentation during the meeting; the item did not reach a final vote in the excerpted record. Board members asked clarifying questions about lot geometry, elevation, and how the building's design meets both religious practice and the historic district guidelines. The application remains under board consideration; the applicant will return for a hearing with the variances and Certificate of Appropriateness on the normal board schedule.

What to watch
Key materials to monitor are the applicant's detailed site plan showing finished floor elevation relative to adjacent sidewalks, formal variance findings for lot area/width and setbacks, and the Planning Board's conditional use documentation.","Historic Preservation staff supported demolition of the substantially altered 1928 structure at 255 30th Street and recommended approval of a new three‑story synagogue with variances tied to lot size, setbacks and yard elevation; the applicant presented site constraints and religious practice reasons for the design.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6125181,"Historic Preservation Board asks applicant to explore saving rear contributing building at 622 15th Street; item continued to June 14",4198,7257000,11455000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2&start=7257&end=11455","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2677625-b3fd8d04bbc2dbf4a48d3360bd8cc0c2/thumbnail_7257000.jpg","/articles/6125181/Miami-Beach/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Historic-Preservation-Board-asks-applicant-to-explore-saving-rear-contributing-building-at-622-15th-Street-item-continued-to-June-14","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125181-aacc13e05465131949d88121fe4e0c09/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448096&Signature=YS~uU-C5OYg-xQAccQtOjUpWn6bYBUKaGeCQGpAYHbpgzkOQQEOUOpAWYhZipZt04DRyJeo6Jy43RzXXzY-k0NNwcJb~2vdSZko3x1tyEYx098FJeCEMMq1vRFX49SnhBft-emXgejV8gd~qWgktCEN2vnLe3SeSqcu4ZH9cZQuw07uv84CsKfWlqn9OaV~TPc8asEFGoCMvrwnjAnBI3IwGb1hvp6~jZQ7Uur2hhla1weVYiMCJwLetQ7J9Ns6i7nxiTA2W~WKL8DWElVuO934lfxG3OGjUff9xY4JTKR5pV97WGK2LvIvyk1n5uIarNB64IZyBUlWhdud4BWMaGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Preservation Board continued HPB 21-0495, a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 622 15th Street in the Flamingo Park historic district, so the applicant can present further study on whether a rear contributing accessory building can be retained or reclassified and to return with revised design options.

Staff and the architect described a constrained site and presented options the owner had considered, including rehabilitating both the front contributing building and the rear accessory structure. The architect, Neil Deputy, told the board he had assessed several development schemes and said he concluded there was no feasible development option that preserved both buildings while meeting the city's RM‑1 requirements and economic considerations; he said the project team selected an approach focused on rescuing the primary front building and proposing a new three‑story rear structure.

Why it matters: Flamingo Park's zoning and design rules are prescriptive and were crafted to preserve the neighborhood's scale and character. Several board members and neighbor representatives urged the applicant to show additional study demonstrating why the rear contributing building cannot be retained before approving demolition.

Staff analysis and applicant presentation
Staff summarized its unchanged recommendation from the previous month and said the proposed partial demolition, declassification of the rear accessory building as non‑contributing, and construction of a new detached rear addition would meet the city's standards as presented. Architect Neil Deputy outlined the property's long history of deferred maintenance, multiple unsafe‑structure citations and previous partial work by contractors, and said the owner had repeatedly attempted rehabilitation efforts and encountered setbacks.

Deputy offered three development schemes in the submitted packet, and explained why, in his view, a full rehabilitation of both buildings was not financially or logistically viable for the current owner. He described the proposal as a \u00002rescue and preservation effort\u00002 for the main front building and said the rear accessory building had been altered and is in poor condition.

Public comment and preservation concerns
Neighbors and the condominium association directly behind the site urged the board to prioritize retention. Representatives of 641 Espanola Way and other nearby residents described concerns about loss of privacy, reduced light and the building's role in the block's historic fabric. The Miami Design Preservation League said it had facilitated a meeting between the applicant and neighbors and said it continued to believe the rear accessory structure merited further study to assess rehabilitation possibilities; however, MDPL also acknowledged the owner's practical constraints and said it had moderated its earlier position.

Board discussion and legal constraints
Several board members said Flamingo Park's RM‑1 regulations are intentionally strict; one member cited the Flamingo Park code provision that limits variances and requires retention of contributing fabric where feasible. Board members who opposed demolition urged the applicant to return with specific design alternatives that would retain the rear building or to request reclassification as non‑contributing accompanied by a more slender rear volume set back from the historic building.

Action and direction to the applicant
The board voted to continue HPB 21-0495 to the June 14, 2025 meeting and directed the applicant to return with a reclassification request for the rear structure if appropriate and a revised proposal that demonstrates the feasibility of retaining the existing rear building or, if reclassification is sought, a design that minimizes impacts to the front historic building and nearby neighbors. Roll call: Miss Weinstein Berman — no; Mr. Reid — no; Mr. Pascal — no; Mr. Breslin — yes; Miss Liebman — yes; Mr. Klein — yes; Mr. Lopez — yes. Outcome: continued to June 14, 2025.

What to watch
On June 14 the board will expect either (a) documentation and justification that the rear accessory building cannot be retained, or (b) a reclassification application and a revised design that either incorporates the rear structure or shows a reduced, set‑back addition that responds to neighbors and the Flamingo Park code.","Board members told the architect and owner that demolition of the rear contributing structure in Flamingo Park requires stronger justification. The board continued HPB 21-0495 to June 14 and directed the applicant to return with a reclassification request and design revisions that explore retaining the rear structure or alternatives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Historic Preservation Board continues review of 411 Michigan Avenue office project after neighbors press for design changes

Staff backs demolition for proposed synagogue at 255 30th Street; board hears presentation and variance rationale

Historic Preservation Board asks applicant to explore saving rear contributing building at 622 15th Street; item continued to June 14