Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Designation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board asks staff to evaluate involuntary designation of 93 Palm Avenue (Capone house)
Summary
After extended public comment and legal argument, the Historic Preservation Board directed staff to prepare a preliminary evaluation to explore historic designation of 93 Palm Avenue, the house long associated in public memory with Al Capone.
The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board voted to ask staff to prepare a preliminary evaluation of 93 Palm Avenue — the Palm Island house long tied in local memory to Al Capone — after a daylong public discussion and competing legal arguments on whether the board may initiate involuntary designation.
Board members voted in favor of directing staff to prepare the evaluation. The discussion included legal objections from property representatives who said the hearing had a quasi‑judicial character requiring formal notice and urged the board to delay, and repeated public appeals to move quickly because of demolition threats and ongoing developer activity in the neighborhood.
The public comment period drew multiple speakers, including preservation groups, historians and neighbors. Daniel Ciraldo of the Miami Design Preservation League urged the board to advance the designation process on an accelerated path; architectural historian David McKinney and other local preservation advocates argued the house is part of the city’s historical fabric and should be preserved; owners’ counsel said structural and legal issues meant owners should be allowed a full hearing and that earlier notice requirements had not been met.
Staff said the request before the board was limited: the board may, by majority vote, direct staff to prepare a preliminary evaluation and recommendation. If the board directs staff to proceed, the earliest the matter could return to the board would be the October meeting under the code’s accelerated notice options; any subsequent designation would require additional public hearings and final action by the City Commission.
The board also discussed related process questions: whether a pending Design Review Board (DRB) application for a replacement house could proceed while designation work was underway and how jurisdiction would shift if the board ultimately transmitted a historic designation report to the commission. Staff said a preliminary evaluation would not change DRB jurisdiction immediately; if the board later directed preparation of a formal designation report, an interim demolition procedure would be triggered and the mayor and commission would be notified, potentially shifting jurisdiction.
Board members also voted to ask the Design Review Board and planning department to document buildings that are demolished or altered by at least Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards when demolition or more than 20% alteration is proposed for pre‑1950 properties. The board approved a related recommendation asking staff to explore a joint meeting with the DRB to clarify roles and procedures for historic resources in the city.
What’s next: staff will prepare the preliminary evaluation and recommendation for the board’s October meeting; any decision to move to a formal designation hearing would follow public notice and additional hearings before the board, Planning Board and ultimately the City Commission.
