HPB 7368 - Staff Report (1021-1025 Lincoln Road)

7/28/2019 HPB 7368 - Staff Report (1021-1025 Lincoln Road)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hpb-7368-staff-report-1021-1025-lincoln-road 1/15

m MIAMIBEACH

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD

STAFF REPORT

FROM: Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED AP ~ . : : : : > .Acting Planning Director W/ICr t .....'GL-

DATE: June 11, 2013 Meeting

RE: Historic Preservation File No. 7368

1021-1025 Lincoln Road -Apple Store

The applicant, 1021 Lincoln Road, LTD, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for thenear total demolition of the existing 1-story commercial building, and the construction of a new 2-story retail building.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

Lots 3 & 4, AND west 11.75 feet of Lot 5, in Block 38, Commercial Subdivision of the Alton

Beach Realty Company According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 5, of

the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

SITE DATA:

Zoning-

Future Land Use Designation -Lot Size-Existing FAR-

Proposed FAR-

applicant

Existing Height -

Proposed Height

Existing Use/Condition -Proposed Use-

EXISTING STRUCTURES:

CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)

CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)

9,262 S.F.not provided

13,845 S.F. I 1.49 (Max FAR= 2.0), as represented by the

22' -8" I 1-story

38'-0" I 2-story

Retail

Retail

Constructed in 1935 as a one-story, two-bay retail building designed by noted Miami Beach

architect, Russell T. Pancoast, the existing structure is designated "Contributing" in the Miami

Beach Historic Properties Database and is located in the Flamingo Park Local Historic Districtand National Register Architectural District.

As indicated in the Historic Resources Report submitted with the application, the existing

structure and subject site has a complex history of development commencing with the

construction of the two-bay retail building for the Auburn-Duesenberg-Cord auto salon at 1023

Lincoln Road, and Nippon Art Company (a Japanese gift shop) at 1021 Lincoln Road, in 1935.

Two years later, the Reed Furniture Company had replaced the auto salon, and ten years later

the address of the Reed Furniture Company was changed to 1023-1027 Lincoln Road,

indicating that one of the previous storefronts was split into two by that time and that the



Page 2 of 15

HPB File No. 7368

Meeting Date: June 11, 2013

addresses that comprise the 1021-1025 Lincoln Road building today had been established in

the 1940s. Building Department records indicate major renovations occurred in 1956 and 1966

for storefront modifications and remodeling.

In 2007 the north half of the property, which had been used as a parking area since the 1950s,was almost entirely built out as an extension of the retail space at 1023 Lincoln Road.

For further history and analysis of the existing structure as well as the subject site, please see

the Historic Resources Report included with the application as well as the Staff Analysissection of this Report.

THE PROJECT:The applicant has submitted plans entitled "1 021 - 1025 Lincoln Road", as prepared by Touzet

Studio Design & Architecture, dated 11 June 2013.

The applicant is proposing the near total demolition of the existing single story building located

on the subject site and the construction of a new retail building for an Apple retail store. The

proposed retail building is a two-story structure which will occupy the entire site from Lincoln

Road through to Lincoln Lane North. The design of the store is comprised of a continuous glass

wall along the south facade with a substantial masonry proscenium-like surround.

Additionally the applicant is proposing a second story set back 50' from Lincoln Road,

minimizing its impact on the established scale of this section of the road.

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:A preliminary review of the project indicates that the application, as proposed, appears

consistent with the City Code

The above noted comments shall not be considered final zoning review or approval. These andall zoning matters shall require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prior to

the issuance of a Building Permit.

ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE:Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida

Building Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction.)The above noted comments shall not be considered final accessibility review or approval.

These and all accessibility matters shall require final review and verification by the Building

Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:

In accordance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportation andConcurrency Management Division has conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and

determined that the project does not meet the City's concurrency requirements and level-of

service standards. However, the City's concurrency requirements can be achieved and

satisfied through payment of mitigation fees or by entering into an enforceable development

agreement with the City. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will make

the determination of the project's fair-share mitigation cost.

A final concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiving



Page 3 of 15HPB File No. 7368


any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuanceof a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy.

COMPLIANCE WITH CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA:

A decision on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be based upon thefollowing:

I. Evaluation of the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surroundingproperties and where applicable, compliance with the following criteria pursuant to

Section 118-564(a)(1) of the Miami Beach Code (it is recommended that the listedcriteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfied, or Not Applicable, as so noted):

a. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines forRehabilitating Historic Buildings as revised from time to time.Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis

b. Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by Resolution or Ordinance bythe City Commission.Satisfied

II. In determining whether a particular application is compatible with surrounding properties,the Board shall consider the following criteria pursuant to Section 118-564(a)(2) of theMiami Beach Code (i t is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied,Not Satisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted):

a. Exterior architectural features.Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Concern No.1

The design of the Lincoln Road (south) first floor elevation of the Apple Store shall

be further developed and refined in a manner that better recalls the original visionof Russell T. Pancoast of a one-story retail building composed of two distinct

storefronts, one being double the width of the other, as clearly delineated bymasonry piers or other appropr iate means. Further, the large continuousproscenium-like masonry frame proposed to surround the storefront results in adesign typology inconsis tent with the more articulated original architecture.

b. General design, scale, massing and arrangement.Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.1

Seell.a.above

c. Texture and material and color.

SatisfiedThe applicant is proposing to use high quality local materials that are consistent

with materials found within building on Lincoln Road and the surrounding historicdistrict.

d. The relationship of a, b, c, above, to other structures and features of the district.Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No. 1See ll.a. above

e. The purpose for which the district was created.



Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No. 1

See ll.a. above



f. The relationship of the size, design and siting of any new or reconstructed structure to

the landscape of the district.Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.1

See ll.a. above

g. An historic resources report, containing all available data and historic documentationregarding the building, site or feature.

Satisfied

h. The original architectural design or any subsequent modifications that have acquiredsignificance.

Satisfied

Ill. The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria pursuant toSection 118-564(a)(3) of the Miami Beach Code and stated below, with regard to theaesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, publicinterior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacentstructures and properties, and surrounding community. The criteria referenced aboveare as follows (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not

Satisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted):

a. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways,means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, landscaping structures,signs, and lighting and screening devices.

Satisfied

b. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio,height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to

determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and anyapplicable overlays, for a particular application or project.

Satisfied

c. The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials andarchitectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primary publicinterior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the city identified in

section 118-503.


See ll.a. above

d. The proposed structure, and/or additions to an existing structure is appropriate to andcompatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhances the appearanceof the surrounding properties, or the purposes for which the district was created.


See ll.a. above

e. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildingsand public interior spaces shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of



Page 5 of 15

HPB File No. 7368Meeting Date: June 11, 2013

land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fireprotection, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on preserving historic

character of the neighborhood and district, contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands,pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.

Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No. 1Seell.a.above

f. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be

reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and all

buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safelyand conveniently arranged and have a minimal impact on pedestrian circulationthroughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as tointerfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrianmovement onto and within the site, as well as permit both pedestrians and vehicles a

safe ingress and egress to the site.

Satisfied

g. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles andreflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on

adjacent properties and consistent with a City master plan, where applicable.

Not Satisfied;A lighting plan has not been submitted

h. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationshipwith and enhancement of the overall site plan design.

Satisfied

i. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and

light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties andpedestrian areas.

Not Applicable

j. Any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is sensitive to

and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and which creates or

maintains important view corridor(s).

Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.1

See ll.a. above

k. All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part of the groundfloor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied for residential or

commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposedbuilding fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall have residential or commercialspaces, or shall have the appearance of being a residential or commercial space or shallhave an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of a parking structurefrom the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project.

Satisfied

I. All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatmentwhich substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers.

Not Satisfied; A mechanical plan has not been submitted.





m. Any addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and massed in a manner which is

sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).

Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and ll.a above

n. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an amount oftransparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility.

Satisfied

o. The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays,

trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have aminimal impact on adjacent properties.

Satisfied

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION EVALUATION CRITERIA:Section 118-564 (f)(4) of the Land Development Regulations of the Miami Beach Code provides

criteria by which the Historic Preservation Board evaluates requests for a Certificate ofAppropriateness for Demolition. The following is an analysis of the request based upon thesecriteria:

1. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is designated on either a national or statelevel as a part of an Historic Preservation District or as a Historic Architectural Landmarkor Site, or is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X, Chapter 118 of the MiamiBeach Code as a Historic Building, Historic Structure or Historic Site, HistoricImprovement, Historic Landscape Feature, historic interior or the Structure is of suchhistoric/architectural interest or quality that it would reasonably meet national, state orlocal criteria for such designation.

Satisfied

The existing structure is designated on a national and local level as a part of theNational Register Miami Beach Architectural District as well as the locally

designated Flamingo Park Historic District.

2. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is of such design, craftsmanship, ormaterial that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or expense.

Not Satisfied

The existing structure would not be difficult and inordinately expensive toreproduce.

3. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is one of the last remaining examples of itskind in the neighborhood, the country, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an

architectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district.Not SatisfiedThe subject structure is not one of the last remaining examples of its kind and is

not a distinguished example of a design style which contributes to the characterof the district.

4. The building, structure, improvement, or site is a contributing building, structure,improvement, site or landscape feature rather than a noncontributing building, structure,improvement, site or landscape feature in a historic district as defined in section 114-1,





or is an architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interior of a historic or

contributing building.

SatisfiedThe subject building is designated as a contributing structure in the Miami Beach

Historic Properties Database and is located within the local Flamingo Park Historic

District.

5. Retention of the Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site promotesthe general welfare of the City by providing an opportunity for study of local history,architecture, and design or by developing an understanding of the importance and valueof a particular culture and heritage.Not Satisfied

The retention of the subject structure is not critical to developing an

understanding of an important Miami Beach architectural style as the nearly alloriginal significant architectural features have been removed.

6. If the proposed demolition is for the purpose of constructing a parking garage, the Boardshall consider it if the parking garage is designed in a manner that is consistent with theSecretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for RehabilitatingHistoric Buildings, U.S. Department of the Interior (1983), as amended, and/or thedesign review guidelines for that particular district.

Not ApplicableThe demolition proposed in the subject application is not for the purpose of

constructing a parking garage.

7. In the event an applicant or property owner proposes the total demolition of acontributing structure, historic structure or architecturally significant feature, there shallbe definite plans presented to the board for the reuse of the property if the proposed

demolition is approved and carried out.Satisfied

With the near total demolition of the existing structure, a new retail building is

proposed.

8. The Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has ordered the demolition of a Structurewithout option.

Not Applicable

The Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has not ordered the demolition of any

part of the subject building.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

In 1935, Russell T. Pancoast was commissioned to design a retail building for two separatetenants with very different programmatic requirements. The resulting design concept, as can bededuced from examining original microfilm plans, was a single-story building with two distinctstorefront designs. What the two original storefronts appear to have had in common was acontinuous height glass storefront system (of approximately 15' in height), possibly with acontinuous transom, and most probably a consistent upper fa<;ade element, the design of whichcannot be fully determined with available historical documentation. Unfortunately, no historicalphotographic documentation has been located by either the applicant or staff of the front fa<;ade

of the building at this time.





The easternmost original storefront, occupying approximately one-third of the Lincoln Roadlinear frontage, was designed for the Nippon Ar t Company, as a Japanese gift shop. Historicdocumentation reveals the entrance to the gift shop was designed in a manner similar to manyretail stores along Lincoln Road constructed during the same period. A deeply recessed single

door entrance was created to allow for customers to browse merchandise located within thedisplay windows to either side as they entered the store.

The westernmost original storefront, occupying the remaining two-thirds of the Lincoln Roadlinear frontage, was designed for theAuburn-Ouesenberg-CordAuto Salon, to showcase highend new automobiles. This portion of the building was designed in a manner very different fromthe design of the adjacent Japanese gift shop. Historical documentation reveals an expansivecontinuous glass wall storefront, a centrally located entrance and a low knee wall, all of which

was framed on both sides with masonry piers, which appear to have been approximately 2'-0" to3'-0" in width. This expansive glass storefront design afforded panoramic views of theautomobiles on display from Lincoln Road. The auto salon was designed in a similar manner tothe other numerous automobile showrooms constructed on Lincoln Road in the 1930's.

What Remains of the Original 1935 Russell T. Pancoast Building Today?Building Department records indicate that major renovations occurred in 1956 and 1966 forstorefront modifications and remodeling all across the Lincoln Road fagade, many or most ofwhich appear to have been done by local architect, D.G. Smith, not the most sensitive architectto undertake such work. During this time, it appears that the original 15' high glass storefrontsystem was dramatically lowered by more than 4' along the eastern original storefront area(where the Japanese gift shop had been located)), and lowered by 6' along the original westernstorefront area (where the auto salon was originally located). This change alone significantlyimpacted the integrity of the 1935 design. Compounding this, all of the original exteriordecorative features of the upper fagade also appear to have been entirely removed at this time,reducing the building to an undistinguished and disjointed retail fagade on Lincoln Road.

So all that appears to remain of the original Russell T. Pancoast storefront construction is thesteel structural girders (internal to the wall construction) supporting the masonry substrateconstruction as well as the roof framing system above. The westernmost of these steel girders,which spanned the double-width auto salon storefront bay with a structural span approaching40,' is at least double the size of the easternmost steel girder, which spanned the muchnarrower width of the original Japanese gift-shop bay of approximately 20'. Both girders aresupported where they meet at the one third point of the building frontage, by a single structuralcolumn, This column location still divides the original building fagade into an 'A' I 'B' bayconfiguration, where the 'A' bay (the home of the original auto salon) was double the width of the'B' bay (the home of the original Japanese gift shop). None of the storefront construction belowthese original steel girders is original nor is upper fagade original, with exception to its height.Furthermore, the design of the existing storefronts and upper facades is not architecturallysignificant in any way because it destroys rather than complements the original Pancoastdesign.

Also from staff's examination of the existing structure, nothing of the original1935 interiors of thebuilding exist today, other than for a single lonesome ceiling grille (the original location and useof which is unknown). Furthermore, more than a third of the north exterior wall of the buildingwas demolished in 2007 when the north addition was constructed. This addition substantially

filled in the original open rear courtyard, in which Reed Furniture displayed outdoor furniture.



Page 9 of 15

HPB File No. 7368


Staff is not opposed to the extent of demolition being proposed provided that the new

construction recalls and builds upon the defining original characteristics of the 1935 Russell T.Pancoast design in an appropriate and meaningful way.

Whatwere the Defining Original Characteristics of the 1935 Russell T. Pancoast Design?Staff believes that the defining original characteristics of what is known of the original building

and site are threefold:

1) The Original Store Depth and Open CourtyardThe original building is clearly defined in plan by a relatively shallow four bay store depth

of only 72', overlooking an open garden or courtyard to the rear, which extended all the

way to Lincoln Lane North. From an excellent historic photograph (found in a 1936 issue

of Architectural Record), we know that this open courtyard was fully utilized as an

outdoor display and merchandising space by the Kern Furniture Company, which

followed the auto salon in occupying the west retail space only two years after the

original construct ion. The courtyard is seen in this photograph as featuring a fourquadrant ground plan incorporating a central fountain at the intersection of two

prominent foot paths. Elegant outdoor furniture, including chairs, tables, and umbrellas,

is seen displayed in the grassy lawn areas of the quadrants, with continuous awnings

projecting from the rear of the building.

2) The Original 'A' I 'B' Storefront Configuration on Lincoln RoadRussell Pancoast designed the two original storefronts for two very different tenants,

who had differing programmatic needs. These two storefronts, which were located

below a common upper fagade, did not originally look or function alike.

The 'A' Storefront Bay (west 213 ofbuilding) - On one hand, the Duesenberg auto

salon required an expansive structural "free span" of nearly 40' to create an enormousshear wall of glass (15' high) for dramatically displaying its luxury automobiles. For its

time, this exceptional "free span" was likely unique to commercial storefronts of this size

in Miami Beach. This Duesenberg-Cord storefront is seen (on the original floor plan) as

flanked by substantial masonry piers to either side which "visually" support the grand

span in between, and with a simple central entrance.

The 'B' Storefront Bay (east 113 of building)- On the other hand, the Nippon ArtCompany Japanese gift shop needed only a narrow storefront of approximately 20' wide

in order to lure pedestrians into its intimate gallery space. This was accomplished by

recessing its single entrance door approximately 8' back from the fagade, and providing

glass display cases to either side of the narrow tapered (open) entrance foyer. This

allowed for classic intimate "window shopping" before entering the store, as was typicalof other smaller retail stores on Lincoln Road. Because of its narrow width, and delicate

proportions and details, this storefront was not flanked by large masonry piers to either

side but rather spanned from wall to wall, with a deeply recessed central entrance.

In examining the original documentation, it appears that both of the storefronts shared a

common upper fagade. This upper facade is seen in the original "section" drawings to

have incorporated a continuous horizontal band (most likely a signage band) above both

stores which registered in height and location with the structural girder that spanned the



Page 10 of 15

HPB File No. 7368


auto salon bay. Also, a decorative molding detail is seen above this continuous band,

but there is insufficient information to recreate these details.

3) The Continuous Architectural 'Reveal' along the Lincoln Road FacadeAlmost as though to allow the upper Lincoln Road fac;ade of the original1935 building to

"float" above the expansive glass storefront systems below, an architectural "reveal" (or

open separation space) was created by Pancoast separating the underside of the

masonry upper fac;ade from the top of the glass lower facade. In examining the original

cross section drawings for this area of the building, this reveal appears over both of the

original storefronts and likely ran continuously across the width of the fac;ade - a very

progressive architectural detail for a 1935 retail structure in Miami Beach.

While this reveal appears to be only between 2" to 3" in height and 4" in depth, it was a

very intentional, and well thought-out architectural detail uniquely characteristic of this

Pancoast building.

Staff believes that in order to better understand the unique character of the original 1935

Pancoast building, it is critical to preserve or appropriately recall the above three defining

characteristics as a part of the new construction. It should be borne in mind that the existing

building is proposed for near-total demolition, leaving only the "shadow" of the original Lincoln

Road upper fac;ade of the building.

How Does the Proposed Apple Store Design Preserve or Appropriately Recall the ThreeAbove Defining (known) Characteristics of this Original Russell T. Pancoast Building?

1) The Original Store Depth and Open CourtyardStaff believes the applicant has successfully recalled a substantial aspect of the original

stores' depth and proximity to the open rear courtyard by creating a major east/westlinear skylight above the rear sales area of the proposed new store. This skylight will

flood the sales area below with natural light and successfully break up the perceived

larger volume of the new store in a manner that recalls the original auto salon and

furniture showroom area, where it interfaced with the open courtyard.

2) The Original 'A' I '8 ' Storefront Configuration on Lincoln RoadStaff believes the applicant has successfully retained a significant aspect of the original

upper fac;ade of the 1935 Pancoast building by re-establishing the original height and

location of this upper fac;ade feature as well as by retaining and preserving the original

steel girders and masonry substrate that form it.

Staff does not believe, however, that the applicant has preserved or recalled in any waythe original and highly significant A I B storefront configuration that defined the distinctive

Russell T. Pancoast "two store" fac;ade design. At a minimum, staff believes that the

applicant should redefine the locations of the two original masonry piers that

flanked the Duesenberg auto salon. This could be done either by recreating the

masonry piers, or by slightly projecting or recessing the glass storefront in thelocations of the original masonry piers by 8" - 12". Either of these solutions

would help to recall the original A I B storefront configuration of the building in a

subtle way without significantly impacting the Apple Store layout behind.





Further, while staff accepts the applicant 's need and desire to have the proposedlinear storage rooms located continuously along the east and west walls of thebuilding, staff believes that these storage rooms should not extend to the front

f a ~ a d e of the building as proposed, even though this would appear to be theapplicant's justification fo r creating the large, proscenium-like picture frame thatsurrounds the Lincoln Road glass storefront. The linear storage rooms should

terminate no closer than 1 0' from the inside face of the south f a ~ a d e of thebuilding.

Staff is pleased, however, with the 15' high vertical expanse of glass that is proposed in

order to partially recall the original1935 transparency and elegancy of the south fa<;:ade.

3) The Continuous Architectural 'Reveal' along the Lincoln Road FacadeStaff finds it very regrettable that the progressive 1935 "architectural reveal" detail alongthe Lincoln Road fa<;:ade, which uniquely separated the upper fa<;:ade from the glassstorefronts below, has been entirely abandoned in the proposed new construction.

Staff firmly believes that the unique and defining architectural "reveal" detail byPancoast should be reinstated in the new construction, substantially as shown onthe original cross sections of the 1935 building, from property line to property line.This would greatly help to break up the unfortunate continuous proscenium-like pictureframe proposed for the new construction, which is out of character with the more highlydetailed and richer original architecture of Russell Pancoast.

The Proposed DesignThe design of the proposed store is composed of a continuous glass wall along the southfacade with a substantial proscenium-like masonry frame surround. The architect hasendeavored to design the new store to be reminiscent of the original 'glassy' automobileshowrooms of the 1920's and 1930's, which once typified prominent sites on Lincoln Road. The

proposed design incorporates high quality local materials including keystone cladding andterrazzo flooring. Further, the architect has cleverly recalled the original northern courtyardspace by designing a large skylight in that general location which will allow welcome natural lightinto the back of the store and will serve to break down the large interior volume. Staff would liketo commend the applicant for the extensive research of the original building which included

examination of historical documentation and onsite exploratory demolition.

Set back 50' from the Lincoln Road (south) fa<;:ade, a second floor level is proposed toaccommodate office and back-of-house space. While a line-of-sight drawing has not beenprovided, it is likely that this simple second floor south fa9ade, which is distinguished by fiveequally spaced punctured windows set into a field of keystone, will not be visible from LincolnRoad. The north facade of the proposed new construction is two stories in height, and will be

set back 5' from the north property line. This simple but nicely developed north fa<;:ade is cladwith keystone. On the second floor level, five equally spaced windows are set over a centralizedrecessed storefront area on the first floor level, with a limited transparent glass storefront areaset in the center of the recessed area. Staff is generally quite pleased with this proposed northfacade design, which will help to activate Lincoln Lane North as a pedestrian-friendly lane.Further, there was no original 1935 north fa9ade in this location, so no historic fabric will be

demolished.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned quality aspects of the proposed project, staff continues to

have significant outstanding concerns with regard to the insufficient recall of the defining





characteristics of the original 1935 Russell Pancoast designed fagade on Lincoln Road, aspreviously explained above. Consequently, staff strongly recommends that the application becontinued to a later meeting of the Board in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant tofurther develop and refine the design of the Lincoln Road fagade as suggested.

RECOMMENDATION:

In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends the application be continued to a datecertain of August 13, 2013, in order to address the aforementioned inconsistencies assummarized below.

1. Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted and, at aminimum, such drawings shall incorporate the following:

a. The proposed design of the primary Lincoln Road first floor fagade shall befurther developed and refined in a manner that better recalls the original vision ofRussell Pancoast of the original1935 building composed of two storefronts, in a

manner informed by the surviving original construction documents and inconsultation with staff, for review and approval by the Historic PreservationBoard.

b. The design and details of the proposed storefront systems shall be provided, in amanner to be reviewed by staff consistent with the Certificate of AppropriatenessCriteria and/or the directions from the Board, for review and approval by theHistoric Preservation Board.

c. A museum quality historic analysis and display of the original 1935 RussellPancoast structure, inclusive of a photographic and written description of thehistory and evolution of the original building and its changes of use over time,shall be developed and submitted to and approved by staff, prior to the issuance

of a Certificate of Occupancy or a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; suchhistoric analysis shall be displayed prominently within the public area of thehistoric structure, in a location to be determined by staff.

d. A fully enclosed air conditioned trash room that is sufficiently sized to handle theentire trash load of the building at all times shall be required, located within theenvelope of the building, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff.

e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shallverify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in accordance withthe plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Permit.

f. The design details of all exterior surface materials and surface finishes, shall besubmitted in a manner to be reviewed by staff consistent with the Certificate ofAppropriateness Criteria and/or the directions from the Board.

g. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all newwindows, doors and glass shall be required in a manner to be reviewed andapproved by staff consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria and/orthe directions from the Board.





h. The final design and details of all exterior lighting shall be provided, in a mannerto be reviewed and approved by staff consistent with the directions from theBoard and/or the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria. Exterior lighting shall bedesigned in a manner to not have an adverse overwhelming impact upon the

historic hotel structures or the surrounding historic district.

i. The applicant shall submit a complete structural report for the shoring, bracing,and stabilization of the portion of the original building proposed to be retained, forstaff review prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

j. A detailed screening plan for all roof-top fixtures and mechanical devices shall berequired, as part of the building permit plans, in a manner to be reviewed andapproved by staff consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria and/orthe directions from the Board.

k. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact

location of all applicable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transformers andvault rooms, and all other related devices and fixtures, shall not be permittedwithin any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location ofany exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape materialfrom the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans, in

a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff consistent with the Certificate ofAppropriateness Criteria and/or the directions from the Board.

I. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shallverify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in accordance withthe plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Permit.

2. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered inthe State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved bystaff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of allplant material shall be clearly delineated and in a manner to be reviewed and approvedby staff consistent with the directions from the Board and/or the Certificate ofAppropriateness Criteria. At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following:

a. All exterior walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, patterned concrete orother high quality exterior paving material, in a manner to be reviewed andapproved by staff consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria and/orthe directions from the Board.

b. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rainsensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right-of-wayareas shall also be incorporated as part of the irrigation system.

c. The utilization of root barriers and/or structural soil, as applicable, shall be clearlydelineated on the revised landscape plan.

d. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exactlocation of all backflow preventers and all other related devices and fixtures; suchfixtures and devices shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area





fronting a street or sidewalk. The location of backflow preventers, siamese pipesor other related devices and fixtures, if any, and how they are screened withlandscape material from the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site andlandscape plans in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff consistent with

the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria and/or the directions from the Board.

e. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect forthe project architect shall verify, in writing, that the project is consistent with thesite and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for BuildingPermit.

3. All building signage shall be consistent in type, finish and lighting and shall be composedof flush mounted, non-plastic, individual letters and shall require a separate permit.

4. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be in a manner tobe reviewed and approved by staff consistent with the directions from the Board and/or

the Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria and shall require a separate permit.

5. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of theFlorida Accessibility Code (FAC).

6. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewerrequirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based on apreliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required by the PublicWorks Department:

a. A traffic and neighborhood impact study shall be conducted as a means to

measure a proposed development's impact on transportation and neighborhoods.

The study shall address all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies relativeto the concurrency requirements of the City Code, and if required, shall besubmitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The final building plans shallmeet all other requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the CityCode. The developer shall refer to the most recent City of Miami Beach's Trafficand Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by the Public WorksDepartment.

b. Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if applicable.Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city sidewalks is red, and thestandard curb and gutter color is gray.

c. Mill/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable.

d. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transformer location,if necessary.

e. Provide back-flow prevention devices on all water services.

f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposeddevelopment.





g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water modelanalysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined by theDepartment and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servicing thisproject.

h. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meters/services.

i. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimum slab elevation tobe at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8".

j. Right-of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.

k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed.

I. All planting/landscaping in the public right-of-way must be approved by the PublicWorks and Parks Departments.

7. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) orFinal Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and scheduling ofthe construction on site shall take this into account. All work on site must be completedin accordance with the plans approved herein, as well as by the Building, Fire, Planning,CIP and Public Works Departments, inclusive of all conditions imposed herein, and byother Development Review Boards, and any modifications required pursuant to fieldinspections, prior to the issuance of a CO or CC. This shall not prohibit the issuance of aPartial or Temporary CO, or a Partial or Temporary CC.

8. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, prior tothe issuance of a Building Permit.

9. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void orunconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall bereturned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria forapproval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify theremaining conditions or impose new conditions.

10. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property's owners,operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.

11. Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable law, norallows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code.

RGL:WHC:DJTF:\PLAN\$HPB\13HPB\Jun13\7368-r.Jun13.docx

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	none-none-none
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

HPB 7368 - Staff Report (1021-1025 Lincoln Road)

Documents