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

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 2open court2 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 2girth2 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.