Miami Beach board approves plan to retain original garage while allowing new house at 1800 Michigan Ave.

The City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board on Sept. 16 approved a certificate of appropriateness permitting the demolition of most of the house at 1800 Michigan Ave. while preserving the property’s original garage, and granted related waivers and variances tied to that retention.

Board staff recommended approval after the applicant revised earlier plans to keep and restore the garage. Staff noted the project would introduce a one‑story loggia and raised terrace and said the revisions “helped to reinforce the historic massing of the existing home and will result in a project that achieves a greater level of compatibility” with the surrounding Palm View historic district.

The change matters because keeping the garage creates code complications: the retained garage does not meet exclusion criteria for lot‑coverage calculations and forces the project to seek a waiver for a nonconforming rear setback plus two variances. Staff recommended, and the board approved, a waiver to retain the existing nonconforming rear setback, a variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage (staff said the project would need 36.1% where 30% is the limit) and a variance to reduce the required rear yard open space (staff reported the proposal would provide 51.75% where 70% is required).

Applicant Michael Larkin and project architect Jennifer Makani presented the revised design and said retaining the garage allowed the new house to step down in massing and better align with the block. Structural consultant Yousef Hasham described the technical obstacles and risks that would be created by attempting to raise the entire historic house to meet current flood plain elevation requirements, including saw‑cutting, insertion of reinforcing bar and the need for steel beams and hydraulic jacks to lift the structure. "The material of the house… the compression strength is very low," Hasham said during the presentation, and he advised that lifting the existing house would be technically challenging and risky.

Neighbors and other residents spoke during public comment. John Courtney, who lives across the street, told the board the applicants have said they intend to sell the parcels and that the detailed renderings presented may not reflect what a future buyer would build. Courtney said that raised questions the board should consider about the long‑term outcome of approving demolition tied to a conceptual design. "If we’re all openly admitting that that is not gonna be built, that there is 0 intention to be built… the code requires plans," he told the board. Another resident, Chris Glode, argued the neighborhood does not flood as routinely as the applicants suggested and opposed demolition of another historic home in Palm View.

The trustees of the estate that owns the property — represented at the meeting by co‑trustee Anthony Asada — told the board the trustees have a fiduciary duty to maximize sale proceeds for charitable purposes. Asada testified the estate had to vacate other unsafe structures and that the trustees were not intentionally allowing properties to deteriorate. "We have not intentionally done anything to deteriorate any of the buildings," Asada said.

Board members asked whether approvals could be used to enable multi‑lot redevelopment or townhomes in the future. Staff explained the property's zoning (RS‑4) allows detached single‑family homes and that any future changes in use would require separate approvals. Staff also explained the board's demolition approval would be subsumed by a building permit once issued, and that if a building permit expires any demolition authority would lapse and the board would again have jurisdiction over the site.

Before voting the board added conditions to the approval requiring that: the retained garage be restored in a way that would allow later adaptation if the garage must be raised to meet future elevation requirements; the existing fireplace be salvaged and reintroduced into the new construction, with architectural elements of the chimney considered; and that the property comply with the City’s fencing and vacant property maintenance requirements within 120 days.

The board voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness (including the waiver) and the variances. The roll call record on the certificate of appropriateness shows affirmative votes from Mr. Hollingworth, Mr. Carmarco, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Novick, Miss Lovell, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Breslin. The vote for the variances carried on the same recorded affirmative votes.

Project approvals allow total demolition of everything except the four garage walls (the approved order includes removal of the garage roof and openings to return the garage to a 4‑wall element to be preserved). Staff also included a condition addressing outstanding code violations: the owner must bring the property into compliance with the City’s vacant‑property fencing and maintenance rules within 120 days of board approval.

The approval does not guarantee the currently proposed new house will be built. Board members and staff noted permits are valid for a limited time and can be extended under certain state or local policies; a subsequent owner could seek modifications in the future.

Actions at a glance

- Certificate of Appropriateness for 1800 Michigan Ave. (partial demolition; retention of existing garage; new construction): approved. - Waiver: retain existing nonconforming rear setback: approved. - Variance 1: exceed maximum lot coverage to 36.1% (where 30% is permitted): approved. - Variance 2: reduce required rear yard open space to 51.75% (where 70% is required): approved.

Why it matters: The board’s decision balanced preservation of an original accessory structure with the reality of site constraints and flood‑elevation requirements. The retained garage drives the need for variances and the board placed conditions aimed at preserving historic fabric while reducing long‑term risk and ensuring interim property maintenance.

Ending: The board’s approvals allow the estate to move forward with restoration of the garage and preparation of construction documents for the new home. Any future owner or developer who wishes to change the approved design or use would need to return to the appropriate land‑use bodies for additional review.