3741 Royal Palm AvenueMIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www. miamibeachfl.gov
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tel: 305-673-7550, Fax: 305-673-7559
November 8, 2005
Mr. George Aminov
4320 Adams Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33140
Re:
3741 Royal Palm Avenue, Miami Beach
Request for a Determination of Architectural Significance
Dear Mr. Aminov:
Pursuant to your request that was received on August 9, 2005 (see Attachment), the Planning
Department has evaluated the subject property at 3741 Royal Palm Avenue to determine
whether the single-family residence is architecturally significant. A site visit of the subject
property was conducted by staff on October 10, 2005. In accordance with Section 142-108(1) of
the Land Development Regulations of the Miami Beach City Code, the following criteria
determine whether a home constructed prior to 1942 is architecturally significant:
.
The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed in the city
prior to 1942, including, but not limited to, Vernacular, Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco,
Streamline Moderne, or variations thereof.
Not Satisfied. The subject home is no Ionger characteristic ora specific architectural style
in the city prior to 1942. Although it was originally designed by Taylor and Pope in the
Mediterranean Revival style in 1926, the structure has clearly been significantly altered and
no longer maintains a high level of its architectural integrity.
After reviewing the original 1926 architectural drawings of the two-story residence, it is
apparent that there have been numerous modifications to its original design. The original
casement windows have been removed and replaced with anodized aluminum, single-hung
and fixed windows throughout the home. On the west elevation of the residence, which
faces Royal Palm Avenue, the arched masonry openings in the original covered, front porch
have been modified and enclosed with rectangular-shaped, fixed windows. A stone veneer
has been added to the exterior walls of the enclosed porch. At the north side of the
enclosed porch, a new entrance has been added with a concrete canopy supported by
decorative railings. Above the enclosed front porch on the west elevation of the home, two
original masonry window openings have been modified into one large masonry opening with
three fixed windows.
On the south side of the home, the original porte-cochere and covered terrace above have
been infilled. A new covered front porch has been built in front (west) of the infilled porte-
cochere. It features a shed roof, square columns, and a new front entrance to the
residence. To the east of the infilled porte-cochere, a one-story addition has been built on
the south elevation. These numerous additions and alterations have almost completely
obscured the original design of the residence. In fact, there are only a few remaining traces
of the structure's original 1926 design, including the sculptural chimney top on the north
elevation and two buttress walls on the north and south elevations.
Re: 3741 Royal Palm Avenue
October 21, 2005
Page 2 of 2
2. The exterior of the structure is recognizable as an example of its style and/or period, and its
architectural design integrity hasi not been modified in a manner that cannot be reversed
without unreasonable expense.
Not Satisfied. The exterior of this residence is no longer recognizable as an example of a
specific architectural style in Miami Beach, nor does it maintain its architectural design
integrity, due to numerous additions and alterations over the years that could not be
reversed without unreasonable expense. (Refer to staff analysis in Criterion No. 1 above.)
3. Significant exterior architectural Characteristics, features, or details of the subject structure
remain intact.
Not Satisfied. Most of the structure's original exterior architectural features have been
altered or removed over time. (Refer to staff analysis in Criterion No. 1 above.)
4. The subject structure embodies the scale, character, and massing of the built context of its
immediate area.
Not Satisfied. Although the two-Story home is consistent with the scale and massing of the
surrounding neighborhood, it does not embody the historic character of the built context in
the residential area.
The Planning Department has determined that the subject building does not meet the criteria in
Section 142-108(1) and, therefore, is not architecturally significant. An application for the
demolition of the structure may therefore be approved administratively, subject to the
requirements of the Building Department. Please be advised that no demolition permit may be
issued within a ten (10) day appeal Period of the rendering of this decision.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact myself or
Shannon Anderton, Senior Planner, at 305-673-7550.
Sincerely,
AVVsi ~ ii as ~ nHt 'p?aanq/n i n g Director
C;
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Jorge G. Gomez, Planning Director
Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Preservation Manager
Shannon Anderton, Senior Pllanner
SFRRB File No. 54
Graham Penn, Esquire
JGG:WHC:TRM:SMA
F:\PLAN\$ALL\Single Family Homes\Correspondence\3741 Royal Palm Ave.sma.doc
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic
community.
August 4, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Jorge Gomez, Director
Planning Department
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re:
Request for Determination of Architectural Siqnificance, 3741 Royal Palm
Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida.
Dear Mr. Gomez:
I am the owner of the above-referenced parcel (the "Property"). Please
consider this letter my request for a determination of whether the existing
single family home on the Property is "architecturally significant." Attached to
this letter please find photographs of the exterior of the existing home as well
as the home's building card.
Description of Property. The Property is a single family lot located on
the east side of Royal Palm Avenue. The Property is zoned RS-2 and is
located within a single-family neighborhood. The Property is 11,250 square
feet in size and is developed with a single family home originally constructed in
1926. The existing home is 3,081 square feet in size and is in generally poor
condition.
Determination of Siqnificance. As you know, the City Commission
recently passed an amendment to the single family residential portions of the
City's Land Development Regulations in order to encourage the "preservation
of existing, architecturally significant single-family homes." The amendment
establishes a special review procedure for homes constructed pdor to 1942
that are located outside a historic district. Prior to seeking a permit to demolish
a home constructed prior to 1942, an applicant must first request a
determination of whether the home is "architecturally significant" from the
Planning Department. If a home is found to be architecturally significant, a
property owner may still demolish the structure but must first secure approval
of the Design Review Board for any new home on the site. We are considering
the demolition and replacement of the existing home.
Compliance with Code Criteria. As noted above, the new regulations
are intended to protect those older homes that are architecturally "significant."
We believe that the existing home lacks the requisite architectural significance
under the criteria set forth in § 142-108 that would support a conclusion that
Mr. Jorge Gomez
August 4, 2005
Page 2 of 3
the home should be retained. Specifically, the home is not architecturally
significant because it fails to meet all of the following criteria:
The subject structure is characteristic of a specific architectural style
constructed in the city prior to 1942, including, but not limited to
Vernacular, Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, or
variations thereof;
The existing home is a modest example of a modified Mediterranean
Revival structure. A good portion of the front facade consists of brick, a design
element that is not among those typically associated with pre-war architecture
on Miami Beach. It appears that the brick fa(;ade was added to the home at
the time an addition was made in 1989. We therefore believe that the home's
structure is not characteristic of a specific architectural style constructed in the
city prior to 1942.
(2)
The exterior of the structure is recognizable as an example of its style
and/or period, and its architectural design integrity has not been
modified in a manner that cannot be reversed without unreasonable
expense.
The existing home has been significantly modified from its original
condition. As indicated on the parcel's building card, an addition consisting of
a family room, study, and terrace was made in 1989. This addition, which
appears to have been made to the western facade, significantly reduced the
home's architectural design integrity. The home also has new windows. The
Property contains what appears to be a garage that has been significantly
modified. It appears that the original garage doors have been sealed and
replaced by modem windows and a door. Therefore, we believe that the
architectural design integrity of the home has been modified so significantly
that it cannot be reversed without unreasonable expense.
(3)
Significant exterior architectural characteristics, features, or details of
the subject structure remain intact.
For the same reasons cited in (2) above, we believe that the exterior
characteristics and features of the home are not intact.
(4)
The subject structure embodies the scale, character and massing of the
built context of its immediate area.
While the existing home is larger than the neighborhood homes in the
immediate area, we agree that the subject home appears to be of similar
character to the surrounding neighborhood.
Conclusion. We may seek a demolition permit to demolish the entire
home. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 142-108 we respectfully request your
determination regarding the architectural significance of the existing home.
While we understand the goal of retaining architecturally significant single
Mr. Jorge Gomez
August 4, 2005
Page 3 of 3
family homes on Miami Beach, we believe that the design and condition of the
existing home on the Property do not support a conclusion that it is
"architecturally significant." If you have any questions or concerns, please
contact our attorney Graham Penn at (305) 377-6229.
Sincerely,
CC:
Alex Aminov
Mina Aminov
Michael Larkin, Esq.
Graham Penn, Esq.
George Aminov