Loading...
HPB- 03-03-04 •• # .c44 AGENDA c. ; HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 y r BOARD MEETING (41- -*P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: March 3, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program,, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ■ December 17, 2003 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Baucicaut Residence, 601 NE 3`d Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, J.F. Smith, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a portion of the non-contributing dwelling and construction of an addition to the single family home and associated variance. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Ascot, 8 NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements, and waivers for the construction of an office building on a vacant lot. B. Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59, Old School Square Historic District, Jessica Linehan, Owner. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and an associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the construction of a mixed use building on a vacant lot. r March 3,2004 HPB Meeting Page 2 C. Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue, Individually Listed Property, Digby Bridges, Authorized Agent. -Continued from January 7, 2004. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class ll Site Plan Modification for the elimination of parking and installation of a garden area. D. Tapas, 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Perez Architects, Inc., Authorized Agent. -Continued from February 4, 2004. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for elevation changes. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion and Recommendation concerning the Downtown Design Guidelines B. Discussion of Potential Historic Districts in Dell Park and North Swinton Avenue C. Discussion and Review of the OSSHAD Zoning Requirements and Measures to Avoid Demolition. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VII. ADJOURN Wen y Shay, H[ toric Prese ation Planner POSTED ON: February 27,2004 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: March 3, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Mary Lou Jamison, John Miller, Jr., James Keavney, Rhonda Sexton, and Jeffrey Silberstein MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Perez called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. Chairman Perez asked Ms. Shay if there were any changes to the Agenda. Ms. Shay advised that Item V.A. Discussion and Recommendation concerning the Downtown Design Guidelines would be postponed until the next meeting in order for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the consultant to have time to prepare comments. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 5 to 0 to approve the Minutes of December 17, 2003 as presented. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Baucicaut Residence, 601 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, J.F. Smith, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a portion of the non-contributing dwelling and construction of an addition to the single family home and associated variance. The applicant was not present at the time. Therefore, it was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Silberstein and approved 6 to 0 to amend the Agenda to table this item until the applicant arrived. Historic Preservation Board Meeting March 3,2004 1 1 IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Ascot, 8 NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements, and waivers for the construction of an office building on a vacant lot. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Ms. Jamison stated she spoke with Gene Fisher twice regarding the sidewalks and the project in general. Chairman Perez stated that he attended the Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee Meeting and the project was discussed, and he spoke briefly to the applicant. Mr. Silberstein stepped down from the Board at this time. Ms. Shay entered a copy of the project file and her resume into the record and presented the item to the Board. Ms. Shay reviewed the proposed project and the related conditions of approval. She stated that staff's concerns with the project consisted of the reduction of the height of the building from the proposed 36.5' to the 35' height requirement in the Old School Square zoning district, accessibility to the building in relation to the location and layout of the parking lot, number of in-lieu parking spaces requested, and the design elements. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, interpretation of this was because the dormer made up about 50% of the roof that this was not an architectural element, the measurements were taken from the dormer rather than the gable roof. Regarding the accessibility issue, the City's building official interpreted that the location of the entrance in relation to the parking lot did not meet the accessibility code. If this was not changed, the applicant would have to get a waiver from the Department of Community Affairs. Staff recommended denial of the project based on the fact there were so many outstanding conditions of approval and technical items. Staff requested that the Board consider the project based on the Land Development Regulations (LDR) requirements as well as the building's compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Staff recommended to the Board that the building be re-designed to reduce the height per the LDR requirements and reduce the proposed square footage in order to meet more of the required parking on site. Mr. Silberstein was present to represent the project. He presented the model of the project that reflected the design elements and stated that as the building is on a corner lot, it is difficult to accommodate more parking on site. Mr. Silberstein stated that the LDR requirements were met with respect the height as his interpretation of the measurement for height is the mean height of the gable roof rather than the mean height of the apex of the roof to the eave of the shed dormer as proposed by 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 staff. Mr. Silberstein further stated he had tremendous support from surrounding neighbors. Ms. Debora Turner, Landscape Architect, commented on the Landscape Plan Technical items and disagreed with the need replace the proposed cocoplum hedging with underplantings and to provide foundation plantings adjacent to the building. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the Public. Mr. Gene Fisher, 247 NE 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, read a letter to the Historic Preservation Board dated March 3, 2004 from the Property Owners of Bankers Row supporting the project as presented. Ms. Ceclia Boone, 239 NE 1st Avenue, President, Pineapple Grove Main Street, stated that the Architect looked at this design and liked the dormers on the building. Further, they had no concerns with the parking or the number of in-lieu spaces required and that the color was fine. Mr. Fisher stated that Engineering Department has slated NE 1st Avenue for the next five year plan for streetscape improvements including brick pavers for the sidewalks. After lengthy discussion regarding height, parking, etc. by the Board, Chairman Perez closed the Public hearing. Chairman Perez stated that the Board cannot waiver LDR requirements such as building height. Ms. Pyburn advised the Board should make their decision based on what has been presented. After much discussion concerning the design elements, building height, and building accessibility, the Board proceeded with the motions for the waiver requests and moved to table the site plan with direction. Waivers It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 5 to 0 to approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'- 6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 5 to 0 to approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property line from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 5 to 0 to approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the required 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent east property line from five feet (5') to one and a half feet (1'6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan It was moved by Ms. Jamison seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 5 to 0 to table the item with the following direction: 1. To reduce the height to the 35 foot requirement to meet the LDR's, to rework the building to reduce it by 300 sq. ft. 2. That the ratio of in-lieu spaces will not exceed what the previously approved ratio was for the Management Systems project. 3. That the parking be re-designed if directed by the Department of Communtiy Affairs with respect to the accessibility requirements. The Board did not make a motion on the Landscape Plan or Design Elements. At this time, Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. B. Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59, Old School Square Historic District, Jessica Linehan, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and an associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements for the construction of a mixed use building on a vacant lot. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay entered the project file into the record and presented the project to the Board. Ms. Shay reviewed the proposed project and the related conditions of approval. She stated that the trellis and stairs do not meet the current setbacks. The trellis must be redesigned. As the applicant is proposing a balcony with this proposal, the trellis which extends beyond the balcony, cannot extend more than three feet into the setback. The notary swore in individuals not previously sworn in. Mr. Shane Ames, Project Architect, advised the Board that his interpretation was that the trellis could extend beyond the building three (3') feet. The staircases are not platforms; by definition a three (3') foot balcony is permitted. Mr. Ames then asked the Board if they could issue a waiver for a compact parking space rather than a regular parking space and that the project includes the relocation of the power pole to the south of the parking area along the alley. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. Ms. Boone inquired how much of the project was residential. Mr. Ames advised that the second floor of the structure was residential. Ms. Boone asked how many parking spaces were required. Shane Ames advised that seven (7) spaces would be provided. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. The Board discussed several issues including the material and dimensions of the proposed columns, the need for shutter dogs, the use of hardiplank and the window trim, and the material of the proposed dormer. Site Plan After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Keavney and failed 5 to 3 to table this item and request that the applicant return to the Board upon revision. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and approved 6 to 0 to approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the mixed use development at Linehan Property, (Lot 6, Block 59), based on positive findings with the following conditions: 1. That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the Staff Report. 2. That a 5' sidewalk easement be accepted by the City Commission and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That a change of use inconsistent with LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2) will require conditional use approval. 4. That the proposed trellis and stairwell are modified to comply with the building setback requirements. Landscape Plan It was moved Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 6 to 0 to approve the COA for the landscape plan for Linehan Property (Lot 6, Block 59), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1. That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2. That "D" type curbing is installed around all landscape areas and that the landscape islands are modified to meet the dimensional requirements. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 Design Elements It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Mr. Jamison and passed 4 to 2 to approve the add from report subject to the following conditions: 1. That a detail of the outlookers (rafter tails) of the building be provided. 2. That all columns throughout the building as well as the covered parking area be increased in size to 8" x 8"; 3. That the metal railing be noted on plans as being 1.5" in diameter; 4. That shutter dogs be applied to all shutters; 5. That a note being consistent on all plans that building siding is hardiplank 6. That the trim is shown on all elevations around all windows and doors; 7. That the covering over the parking area be reduced in length back to the columns shown on the plan; 8. That the beams under the balcony be shown on all elevations; 9. That the front entrance roof be shown per the rendering as a gable as well as pineapples shown above the decorative widows walk on top of the roof. C. Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue, individually Listed Property, Digby Bridges, Authorized Agent-Continued from January 7, 2004 Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class II Site Plan Modification for the elimination of parking and installation of a garden area. Ms. Shay entered the project file into the record and presented the project to the Board. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay stated that the proposal was originally review by the Board on January 7, 2004 and that the Board directed the applicant to revise the proposal and return to the Board upon revision. The applicant has returned to the Board with the original proposal and is requesting reconsideration of the original application. Staff is recommending denial. Mr. Bridges was present and introduced Mr. Burton Handelsman, owner of the building. Mr. Handelsman stated that he appeared before the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB), and it was suggested that he withdraw the application for in lieu parking as the property is grandfathered in. The property had a similar use prior 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 , to his purchasing it. Mr. Handelsman would like to go forward with the rose garden and landscaping. Ms. Shay advised that on January 20, 2004 the PMAB reviewed the in-lieu request and staff recommended that parking be constructed on the east side of the proposed garden area (approximately four spaces) while retaining the open space to the west (adjacent to SE 6th Avenue). Mr. Handelsman advised he would purchase the in-lieu spaces to satisfy the various Boards. Mr. Handelsman advised he has not added any square footage and stated his objections to removing green space for parking spaces. The rose garden is far more expensive and far more attractive than asphalt. Ms. Shay stated that the parking lot was approved was never constructed. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. Carolyn Patton, 1020 Turrand Road, Delray Beach. The house was originally known as the Blank house and requested that it be referred to as such. She supported construction of the garden. JoAnn Peart, 107 NW 9th Street. She agreed that the rose garden would be a nice addition. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. The Board had lengthy discussions relative to the in-lieu parking, removal of the building on the northeast corner of the property, the public parking lot adjacent to the site, and construction of the rose garden. Mr. Miller and Ms. Sexton conveyed their concerns over removal of the required parking spaces with in-lieu when the parking could be accommodated on site. Upon the discussion, it was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Keavney, and passed 4 to 2 (Miller and Sexton dissenting) to approve the COA and the associated Class II site plan modification the Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue and recommend to the City Commission approval of the in-lieu parking request, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.9(E)(1), (E)(3), and (E)(3)(a), subject to the following conditions: 1. That lighting is provided along the proposed walkways and that a lighting detail is submitted, and, 2. That the Landscape Technical items are addressed. The meeting broke at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 D. Tapas, 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Perez Architects, Inc. Authorized Agent- Continued from February 4, 2004. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Class I Site Plan modification for elevation changes. Chairman Perez stepped down. Vice Chairman Keavney asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay entered the project file into the record and presented the project to the Board. The applicant's previous request was for consideration of an elevation change to incorporate a hand painted Spanish tile design. Staff recommended that the border be limited to the door surround or window band. The applicant presented a new proposal with limited use of tile and new paint samples. The proposed awning was changed from the approved black to blue in order to compliment the proposed tile and paint colors. Mr. Perez advised that they are coming in with a third option to do a stucco surface on the second floor of the building and reduce the tile feature by limiting it to the bottom portion of the building, and paint the back portion of the building a blue shade in the tile. The canvas awning will be on top of the tile. Mr. Perez dispensed photos for the Board's review. Ms. Shay stated that the new design meets the intent of staff's and the Board's direction. Ms. Shay requested clarification of the shade of yellow that the building would be painted. Vice Chairman Keavney inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. Ms. Shay submitted samples of the tile and colors to the Board for final review. Vice Chairman Keavney closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. The Board supported the revision as proposed. It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 5 to 0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class I site plan modification for an elevation change to 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(E)(1), and 4.6.7(G)(7), the Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the decorative tile treatment be applied as per exhibit presented. 2. Change to the black awning to blue and utilize the blue paint as submitted and that the yellow paint color be changed to match the yellow in the tile sample submitted to be administratively approved. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 Chairman Perez returned to the Board. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Baucicaut Residence, 601 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, J.F. Smith, Authorized Agent. Continued from Item III.A. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a portion of the non-contributing dwelling and construction of an addition to the single family home and associated variance. As the applicant had not yet appeared before the Board, the Board proceeded with the COA review. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay entered the project file into the record and presented the project to the Board. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. After a brief discussion, the Board supported the project as presented. Demolition It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6 to 0 to approve the request for demolition of the 144 sq. ft., non-contributing addition at 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(F). Variance It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6 to 0 to approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 15' to 9'2" on the north side of the property for an addition to a non- contributing dwelling located at 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections and 2.4.7(A) and 4.5.1(J). Certificate of Appropriateness It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6 to 0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 346 sq. ft. addition for 601 NE 3`d Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a), (c), (g), (h), and (j), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1. That the storm panel tracks or channels be painted to match the color of the house. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of Potential Historic Districts in Dell Park and North Swinton Avenue Ms. Shay stated that the Planning & Zoning Department is looking at two possible historic districts. Ms. Shay submitted a preliminary map of the proposed Dell Park Historic District and the proposed West Swinton Historic District to the Board. She then advised that staff would like to proceed with processing the designations. The Planning & Zoning Department would like the Board's approval to proceed with these designations and notifying residents. Ms. Peart advised the Board that she is on the Lake Ida Homeowners Board and she lives in a historic home in that area two blocks off Swinton Avenue. She feels that the whole area of Lake Ida should be looked at as far as NW 22'd Street and she would also like to see how many more homes there are a few blocks to the west. Mr. Douglas Logue would like the Board to look into a moratorium relating to demolition coinciding with relocation of structures. Ms. Shay advised she could move forward with this recommendation. Mr. Perez inquired if it could be recommended to the City Commission to put a moratorium regarding the districts we are discussing. Ms. Pybrum advised they could make this recommendation. Ms. Shay advised that the problem with the moratorium is that if people hear there are designations for new areas and cannot do any changes to their property for several months, there could be a movement against support of the designations. Ms. Jamison supported researching properties up to NW 22nd Street. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Keavney and approved 6 to 0 to proceed with the designation process for Dell Park and the west side of North Swinton Avenue. B. Discussion and Review of the OSSHAD Zoning Requirements and Measures to Avoid Demolition Ms. Shay stated that Planning & Zoning Department and the CRA are concerned about the encroachment of new development and redevelopment of historic buildings in the OSSHAD. She requested ideas by the Board to aid in slowing or avoiding such encroachment such as reduction of height requirements from 35' to 28'. Mr. Perez inquired about issues other than height. Ms. Shay recommended changes to set backs, change of use, etc. 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3,2004 Ms. Shay asked the Board for recommendations relative to this issue at the next meeting. VII. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Report from Historic District Representatives Ms. Jamison discussed drafting a letter to Mr. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning & Zoning regarding demolition. Ms. Jamison had a draft of a letter relative to what other jurisdictions in Florida did in this regard. Ms. Shay advised she is not in favor of putting a fee on the demolition permit. Mr. Perez agreed with Ms. Shay that it is not feasible. Ms. Shay advised this it is consistent with what we are trying to accomplish with OSSHAD. C. Board Members D. Staff Ms. Pybrum, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Board that they need to follow the procedures. It is the Chairman's responsibility to follow such procedures. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 10:06 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for March 3, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on April 21, 2004. Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2004 DELRAY BEACH F L O R I D A 112,12: All-America City III ' ' , 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting March 3, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM ORGANIZATION ce- 1/'a9 Yco ,e. g ? foer,_ i , _4; , 1 0 _ ----p,c_pri L G,,D,,e17/4-,\n,s-fle,__T- si 1 ULQ-- &--(e;..\ erv( (1 RIbi4Cn l itf, 11, rays 6T -1)---rev per- Tu c rik J t,1 -A 5 cccr j-_a/ 917 !-I 7 ,4i1z- / s7,4c%-� _ 4-cc � i nc-c��� :-ar ''L N a s �M loixe A k,-,_ L_Rii..,^ ,_, , ' �� a- c ye f(o,,,i (`.f } S e /Dc'6 b Li ( v•idle ‘ l'ctviNKjk-K/( s ?At, ( . � .. ir -L `' . € z /yi , .. .., e l an -'-: t _,,k eeA_Af--- / 0 7 i\i_ I r4 ,_ -f ' fg-6t-4-AL• !,__S 1).e2... hAitk. L s.f- ,, �� l Pot cIA5d'€ 14' i ' 1 (5�)/-�, , -3-€4,-(cA. L1,-,-,JiNc\s,, 3% LE,,,,R,I"vsQ-. k,,4_ C.13r0,4-. � Lou 1 \Nan e_ Mew MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: December 17, 2003 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Mary Lou Jamison, John Miller, Jr., James Keavney and Jeffrey Silberstein MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz, Rhonda Sexton STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:05 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. International Materials, 710-712 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Everett Jennet, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements, Internal Adjustment, and Waiver for the conversion of a non-contributing duplex to an office. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and her resume into the record. Based on the submittal the Board had some concerns regarding the landscaping toward the rear of the building. Mr. Everett Jenner, authorized agent/applicant was present and stated that the plan shows the curbing addressing staff's concerns. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Historic Preservation Board Meeting December 17,2003 The Board discussed the landscaping in the back of the building, as well as the shutters. Mr. Jenner advised that the shutters would be the same in the front of the building as well as the sides. Waiver It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 5 to 0 to approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the landscape strip on the west, north, and south property lines, adjacent to the parking area, from the required 5' to 4', based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) Internal Adiustment It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), to reduce the one-way drive aisle along the west property line from the required 12' width to 11', based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C). Site Plan It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA for the Class V site plan for 710-712 NE 3rd Avenue based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report; and, 2) That a photometric plan is provided. Landscape Plan It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA for the landscape plan for 710-712 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff repo; and, 2) That a terminal landscape island be provided along with protective curbing at the southwest corner of the parking area. Design Elements It was moved by Mr. Keavney, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA for the design elements for 710-712 NE 3rd Avenue, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), (E)(8)(c), (d), and (g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 17,2003 B. Brisa Atlantica, 9 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Israel Torres, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of vinyl awnings, relocation of the NC units, and an exterior color change for a contributing property. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. Mr. Israel Torres, owner, was present to represent the project. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Keavney, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for 9 SE 7th Avenue, Brisa Atlantica, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. C. 325 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Stofft Architects, Inc., Authorized Agent Item before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a non-contributing building and the construction of a single-family home. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. -• Mr. Craig Valvo, Island Homes presented elevations of the pool, as well as the proposed home that depicts what changes would be incorporated into the plans. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board The Board recommended that additional architectural elements be incorporated into the side and rear elevations, such as banding, arched windows, and door 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 17,2003 surrounds. The pool needs to be set back, and the applicant must provide a true color palette Demolition It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Keavney, and passed 5 to 0 to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the non- contributing dwelling at 325 SE 7th Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(F), and it is approved administratively when the changes come in. Certificate of Appropriateness It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 4-1 (Jamison dissenting) to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 325 SE 7th Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR' Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.15(G), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That additional architectural elements be incorporated into the side and rear elevations, specifically including but not limited to: banding, arched windows and door surrounds, and variation of the exterior; 2) That the south end of the proposed pool be relocated to comply with the required minimum ten foot (10') side setback; and, 3) That the applicant submit a true color scheme. 4) That additional landscaping be added facing the intercoastal. D. Blue Anchor, 802 East Atlantic Avenue, Marina Historic District, American Awning, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of an awning. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. Mr. Joseph Mattei of American Awning submitted royal blue canvas material to the Board for review. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA associated with the Class I site plan modification for the installation of a canvass awning for 802 East Atlantic Avenue, Blue Anchor, 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 17,2003 based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), • and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the awning does not encroach more than one foot (1') into the Palm Square right-of-way (6'from the building). 2) That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City. 3) That Royal Blue canvas material be utilized and all framing is painted to match. E. Old School Square Bread Company, 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Marina Historic District, Delray Awning, Authorized Agent Item before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of an awning. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. Staff is recommending re-designing the awning to accommodate the existing landscaping at the patio. The owner was notified that if the company occupies 816 East Atlantic Avenue, additional parking will be required. Staff's concern is that the planter area can be covered and the square footage increased resulting in the additional need for parking. Mr. Donald Day, Delray Awning, stated that the awning was re-designed to cut around the planter. The posts will be painted to match the building, and the upper portion of the structure will be painted to blend with the canvas awning. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Mr. Silberstein inquired about exterior lighting. Mr. Day advised that there would more than likely be fans and lighting under the awning. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 -0 to approve the COA associated with the Class I site plan modification for the installation of an awning at 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Bread Company, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That the awning be re-designed as a gable in order to ell from the front door out to the patio area without covering the existing landscape strip adjacent to (east of) the building. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 17,2003 III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison expressed her concern that a resident on George Bush Boulevard installed wrought iron gates without approval. George Bush is a collector road and the gates do not open automatically. Therefore, they will be blocking the driveway. Ms. Shay stated that she would look into this. D. Staff Comments: Ms. Shay requested that a Board member attend the West Settlers Advisory Board meeting on the fourth Monday of each month. Several Board members expressed interest. IV. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for December 17, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on March 3, 2004. Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 17,2003 UELItAY OUCH DELRAY UEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARDe d liiP MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT ���� 1993 1093 2001 2001 Agent: J.F. Smith, Authorized Agent Project Name: Baucicaut Residence Addition Project Location: 601 NE 3rd Avenue ITEM ;BEFORE- THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to a non-contributing dwelling, demolition of a non-contributing addition to the main dwelling, and associated variance at 601 NE 3rd Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) and 2.5.1(J). BACKGROUND , The subject property consists of Lot 18, Block 13, Del-Ida Park. Located on the east side of NE 3rd Avenue, the property is zoned Residential Office (RO) and includes a non-contributing 1,254 sq. ft., one-story, Masonry Vernacular style dwelling. Constructed in 1961, the Masonry vernacular, block residence is considered non- contributing within the Del-Ida Park historic district due to its age and exterior alterations. The most recent action pertaining to this property was administrative approval on February 10, 2004 for the installation of single hung sash windows throughout the house. The improvements are pending. The applicant is now before the Board for the demolition of a non-contributing frame addition, construction of a block addition, and consideration of an associated variance to reduce the side setback (north property line). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes the following modifications to the historic dwelling: ➢ Demolition of the 144 sq. ft. non-contributing frame addition; ➢ Construction of a 346 sq. ft. one-story block addition on the rear (northeast corner) of the main dwelling to accommodate a family room which encompasses the footprint of the existing addition; Meeting Date:March 3,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. 601 NE 3`d Avenue addition COA 2004-104 Del-Ida Park Historic District Page 2 > Consideration of a variance to reduce the side interior building setback from 15' to 9'2" on the north property line; and, > Installation of removable, aluminum storm panels. DEMOLITION REQUEST . ._ Required Findings Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1), The HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings; (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. Analysis In association with the proposed addition, the applicant is requesting the demolition of a 144 sq. ft., non-contributing frame addition, which is located at the northeast corner of the main dwelling and set back 9'2" from the north property line. The frame addition displays vertical siding, a flat, built-up roof, and aluminum, awning windows. Demolition of the addition will permit the construction of a 346 sq. ft. concrete block addition. Based on the age, location, lack of craftsmanship, and non-contributing status of the addition, as well as the building, the demolition request can be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(F). VARIANCE REQUEST Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) (Development Standards Matrix) within the RO zoning district, the minimum side interior setback is 15'. The proposal involves the reduction of the side interior setback form 15' to 9'2" along the north property line. 601 NE 3`d Avenue addition COA 2004-104 Del-Ida Park Historic District Page 3 Required Findings Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), in addition to the required findings of LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5) (copy attached), the Board may also be guided by the following as an alternative to the above criteria: (1) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property through demonstrating that: (a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare; (b) Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic setting, location, nature, or character of the land, structure, appurtenances, sign, or building involved, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, appurtenances, signs, or buildings in the same zoning district, which have not been designated as historic sites or a historic district nor listed on the Local Register of Historic Places; (c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances would alter the historic site to such an extent that it would not be feasible to preserve the historic character, of the historic district or historic site; and, (d) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or a historic district. (2) Or, as an alternative to Sub-Section (J)(1), that a variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site through demonstrating that: (a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare; (b) The variance would not significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site; and, (c) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site. (3) The Board shall otherwise follow procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustments. Analysis The project includes the demolition of a 144 sq. ft., non-contributing frame addition on the northeast corner of the building to accommodate the construction of a 346 sq. ft., block addition which encompasses the footprint of the existing addition as well as extending the north elevation to meet the existing northernmost wall of the dwelling (approximately 5'10" to the north). The existing block home does not meet the current 15' side setback on either the north (9'2") or south elevations (8'6"). As the proposed 601 NE 3`d Avenue addition COA 2004-104 Del-Ida Park Historic District Page 4 addition will not further extend the footprint of the building into the side setback beyond that of the existing footprint and since the building reflects the development pattern along the east side of NE 3rd Avenue, granting the variance to reduce the side setback for the addition can be justified. The existing residence is a 1,254 sq. ft., two bedroom, two bathroom home. The addition will accommodate a family room which will increase the total square footage to 1,600 sq. ft. The variance will provide the necessary upgrading to provide adequate living space and to address current market demands while maintaining the existing character of the dwelling and the neighborhood. Further, the addition will not be contrary to the public interest, welfare, and safety of the public and the rehabilitation of the building aids in the retention of the scale and massing found throughout the historic district. Given the circumstances under which this variance is being requested and the extant location of the building on the lot, it is reasonable to believe that the variance would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). ANALYSIS:- LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(a-c), (E)(8)(g), (E)(8)(h), and (E)(8)(j) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (c) proportions of openings, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, color, (h) roof shapes, and(I) scale of a building. • 601 NE 3`d Avenue addition COA 2004-104 " Del-Ida Park Historic District Page 5 The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that: 1) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 2) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The non-contributing house displays a side facing gable with flat roof on the carport and rear addition, smooth stucco and vertical siding exterior, and aluminum frame, awning windows. The proposed addition will be constructed of block and will display a smooth stucco exterior to match that presently found on the house, a flat, built-up roof, and aluminum frame, single hung sash windows and solid panel doors. The applicant also proposes the installation of aluminum, storm panels for all the windows throughout the building. The panels consist of imbricated, corrugated aluminum panels that will attach to the dwelling via tracks or channels upon the approach of a storm. The panels will be stored when not in use. The construction of the 346 sq. ft. addition can be supported due to its inconspicuous location at the rear of the dwelling, its scale, massing, and design. Though the proposed addition encroaches into the setback, approval of the variance would permit the addition without the extending the footprint beyond the current 9'2". The installation of the proposed removable storm panels can be supported as they are the least obtrusive form of storm protection. Since the block building is non-contributing and the installation requires minimal hardware, there is little concern that the installation could irreparably damage the exterior of the building. However, the panels would require the installation of tracks or channels. In order to camouflage the tracks, a condition of approval has been added to paint the tracks to match the color of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a), (c), (g), (h), and (j), 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, once the condition of approval to paint the tracks for the storm panels has been met. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS... A. Continue with direction. 601 NE 3n'Avenue addition COA 2004-104 Del-Ida Park Historic District Page 6 B. Approve the Certificate if Appropriateness for 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based on positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a), (c), (g), (h), and (j), 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. C. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for 601 NE 3`d Avenue, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a), (c), (g), (h), and (j), 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. _ _ RECOMMENDATION Demolition Approve the request for demolition of the 144 sq. ft., non-contributing addition at 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(F). Variance Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 15' to 9'2" on the north side of the property for an addition to a non- contributing dwelling located at 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections and 2.4.7(A) and 4.5.1(J). Certificate of Appropriateness Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 346 sq. ft. addition for 601 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a), (c), (g), (h), and (j), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the storm panel tracks or channels be painted to match the color of the house. Attachments: Survey, Proposed Elevations, Floor Plan, Map, &Shutter specs Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner �. .L2002_ 15:16 5617902320 POMA GOe: PAGE 02 MIANIIDA(3£ • �: MIAM1-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA RO DADC FLAGLER BUILDING • BUILDING CODE COMPl;1ANCE OFFIC ((}CCU) • 1 f0 WEST HAGLER STREET.SUITE 1693 PRODUCT CON`r'ROL D1vISIOn ` „ '•� MIAMI.FLORIDA 33(30-1563 (305)37s-2901• FAX,(305)3 75-2_903 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE"( . : 1 Porna Corporation • • 9040 Belvedere Road • West Palm Beach, FL 33411 1 .. SCOPE: This NOA is.being issued under the applicable rules and rebulativns governing the use ofconstructioi• • a.crials. The documentation submitted has been reviewed by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division an,..accepted by the Board'of Rules and Appeals (BORA) to be used in Miaini Dade County and 3thc' it cas where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ): , This NOA shall not be valid after the expiration date•stated.below.-The Miami-Dade County Product Control Division'(In Miami Dade County) and/or'the AHJ (in areas other than Miami Dade.County) reserve the right to have this.product or material tested for quality assurance purposes. If this product or material fails to perform in the accepted, manner, the Manufacturer will incur the expense'of such°.testing and.the AHJ may immediately - revoke, modify, or suspend the use of such produce or material within their jurisdiction. BORA reserves the right • • to revoke this acceptance, if it is determined by.Miami-Dade County Product Control Division that this product or material fails to meet the requirements of the applicable building code. . This product is approved as described herein,and has been designed to comply with.the High Velocity Hurricane Zone of.the Florida Building Code. • . DESCRIPTION:0.0631 Aluminum•-Storm:Panel •• . • APPROVAL DOCUMENT:.Drawing No 96-47, titled"0;063"Aluminum Storm Panel",sheets 1 through 3 of 3, prepared by Kriczevich&Associates,Inc.,dated`3I2Sl9b,'bearing,the Miami-Dade County_Produ ct Control Renewal stamp with the.Notice of Acceptance number and approval date by the Miami-Dade.County Product Control Division. MISSILE IMPACT RATING: Largo and Scnall INtssile Impact , . . •LABELING: Each unit shall bear a permanent label with the manufacturer's name or logo,city,state a. following statement:"Miami-Dade County Product Control Approved";;unless otherwise noted-herein.. • • RENEWAL of.this NOA shall be considered alter a renewal application has.been trl,cd at 1• here".has bean no • change in the applicable building code.ncgatively affecting the performance of this.product. " ' • TERMINATIOiN of this NOA:will occur after the expiration•date.or tf.there has bccn•a revision or change in the materials,.use;and/or manufacture of the product or process.Misuse of this NOA as an endorsement of any product, for sales,'advertising or any other-purposes shall automatically terminate this NOA_Failure to comply with any section of this NOA shall be cause for termination and removal:ofNOA. ADVERTISEMENTi•The NOA numbcrprcccded by the words-Miami-Dade.County Florida. and,followed.by the expiration date may be displayed in advertising literature, (fatly portion of the NOA is.displayed, then it shall be done in its entirety. INSPECTION: A copy of this entire NOA shall be provided to the.userby the manufacture'or its distributors •and shall be available for inspection atthe job site at thercOucst()lithe Building Official. . • . • -'This NOA renews NOA #99=0219.01 and,consists of this page:1 as well as approval document mentioned above. The submitted documentation was revictvtgd by Itaui Rodriguez • 41.Cpy • r rR17.06 3 pir n •at 2007 cwa • 2003 • • • • •MOufl.4"Na I\•gr(1 MI\r.q lalalOM A•}IV•l tSr.tm. 111'. ••71 t' ..+•-'•.�--{ - • E` 1 I-ltt' •rj). / •/1• I' . I .. { :� li\T•1" It/H/•//t•11II•/.IflfwII,1rt/ w1 — 7. +_ II7l' _-- .Y I+W[NC1•1'41o1v1t1( lJ lit . _ �- • \tf.11 Ia. •.1a_ ' ,7�11T; rllP(DHIV.Ot \ t /. - _ =1 ' �: L � , .�J .. .. SIPS Z w STORM PANEL "h" HEADER• —� 725 �I O "U" HEADER STUDDED' ANGLE vi^ 7 .. ' .tuu a.•'ro••l- •. - O O• ' - •, Ll Att I lit ...• ., {Galt 0/.•t'-1- ./ _... _.. • o= i :_ • Alit } — Ill-f 1• ) • �-�- ,//� Ji • 't�. • • lt..rf,.t j • 7{rinl =7_r>/•r7 a°;al: L,,` +.I • I 1N1/Wff11{ SIIl l ... CON art1r0111f(•YtI.(t•{IerIN ItM10• N3 Ili! O ANGLE • tt Ka.q{eex �./.ternw;•w 1rI M1•Nlw l►•COYKt�(tl fqw W• `j iti T. S OPTIONAL ANGLE. WINGNUT 1.•OI.tNt•re.ta•nrtot1.I•••cnwfl•lft&•.OwrN.alLft:•tvw.u• Y r1. 6 O.at(0•04NC•I,•I I(l t•H•l.•Ynw et arW l O.et ea.tunt...et !+� ScAtt.lit'••.•_I'• O,'taw 1/L••1•_1•' ..fa•1.(•Ir•OLTu\I t` 1.1KI,/w•lt•l ttft\(N1.0.1•f•tb••A7l Z{ - _ HaIC'.wu tat eaatows �� - • S. Mom• [tl lw•tt 01 If/1•wfl.tll••.N••t t 10.t H 1•TMKi•vltw •/•• ' ••k. • -- . .I11 II fll frrt•at I,•SISf I/•\I. LrlWtfn.11 twt•.r•{w•tt II••11/•11. W' ' • .tt••MW V 1 t _ •• . - • - -•• tarp{;T It.r►w{t fM•il It lnl«• M n-sr O•l 111a nr twl r.Ytt.Y1111.M.CL t . .0\•K w.•rM�t•••.tl A 7w ll.t •1 f.Neva. 4 8 - . ' MO1w urtrrrtb MVe ia•� IIDi.iM•...fc ,• • ►ew•tMr••.r.•.1 •wtl 4►.rl - 54.i I•l•.1 l 1•T.. H•.rtt 1ia�111 . '1/1I,fA7rttryn twit :- . ,' a iij ll . lft/w ' 1 •ti MIS.r�v.7Mtw't 1!t•l;\1 t•t!•!•1(a t!•1\•MIIt 11[ll'v11.1• • +7 (^+--r �����_ •..\aNr f•11 ctl N 111 = I • ; 1• Ill•L MIK IItT i•OV.w•Y 1I(ZlS .(%,w II IKlO ft.O.T.OrI �1 I 4::„.►wtU•••T rt f°...11•w•rwOrlattr;. .`,M:,.=.. `r • - `• - ' I TOO err•tl UN I►[fMKa1I1•t{••O•fr•KtfN.■f•V If Mt IN•r10YCI\ • . w 3 IIt1/0/t•w1 tf [YtIR••••IM/rwll•1.{arI••I,own 1••otMt rltwl•It•NI/41IM ult 5OV•I5•rrllt•t4•.II{III art tel • T __�.�, •tawvtiv - - .1osis c [rots, M,'_,as,,,7 ,..I - , i•1 y G • a �; - T,i ' . . • :imta1Iw Vt Oci7Gw{Mae I1 Os? _ .Y i - .. •I; t-etl WISI t++It1 e.+t't%CPT 1/•OMI No ta•1110•1cl 1.4.N . . • • - L y _ - — • 1.Ri>wucrar.Ictaa -If r./�crl/.1uKf s � •,__ - b ltOrtl,) 11AtIe PIhObUG1'ItBNkIYLll '' . � '' ■Ir1Nle e.It it tat+4 _AINTurct tlu I w '' - .I s(�r.1le.alt �ocLrtWuiw �I'OtMI•DI t•:. m • . O :TYPICAL'ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION 'DIRECT 1IOUNT - urtun iD ..01ttt�c,.lon ;T.cv _ IMII . I IK{ 3 •. OIX• ` I 1I tOI.DII'tiltyl ` JItI11Olt:6LWCBO►IrLw gUITICII V/rwpv ' �i��.riiyyyt • . n•Il�t !11 • Tc11Igr MtTrYtr ti•0[ +1IWu. . r\r'irfl t�•Yt r) !Npl • /tt alRlv\t(Mlot�ir raa . 1 Itt•IKrIv\Irw�Kt rot • ' • AYT lCa►,�1lt.,wClti\ rMl Mat. - O aM a H K Cll .ttl a NSA l MY OftR•r r a wlctt umwr•Kr[ errtere r:ii wfl"'07,.( Uriono.0 •• lc wan Dll I•i "r.t•.-1T/•Ivw TO futKrwt ..." •r.-s •s ••1uflat. 1 at.attarnsltw[•tct Sun10111 MG ME r•I` .111.M1tfo _ W: (n - • - Y•1.1.w/•Ma . Ott i is 1 "11 `^' p] r•1 turf 1144 • •.�f�/ ' a N P •AN • L VIEW • 111Mt•liC toot Mitt Witt onwt I - - ICau.{.(ft•.r.v• t�.1/ • "� _ tcarinia t+a�i5a1]1 l Qlo I - d' �.—:•v;/. '' .. 104041•1.406i ' • ({]10••f t♦/• . - • 1111•.(.W It••1001t) {M a IOt;... 10,110./411(0111 TT..*or{tar fag - • • Illt♦n/1a•1<r404\11 . _ .,It) 10•s•01 t0w.tt l f • ��• is. _� z— •�.►v J. - CD-� toll rtYO tl•V1 41104 -f.• 10• T `r .-^•_� • ..a,ta.. N: 4 .t=. PUT vw/1• , t 111\IL u•law/•OM t t W- �• at1t►•1•1"- 0 O.1.11•1.1/4--�I , O Y. � _ ; mils :. g • - OC t1' • wtort a•ll •.i Ifru•1er • 3 • �: ^•.] • • .. Y• • o/o0ot' COL I rapt•.•{{.l.a/t 4 V y i 7• • /a tOwf.,—� .W-ll wt1+•t t■tl'MIAMjL \ -- II♦•it M. • �� ' T • r»,.oTrsfuu�cal. j L or••t.tal•t' etso• • L I -.II( - .. "- /o.1 Wo0t0.wMt.O IN- NI 1 2.- forI.sartfY\VKt/II.O.t• W S • `••1/..,t•••tr••t 14! ,f 1t111 r{ -1,.•• 1lNYOM K0 Y �� Ot//w/ 1v,trNt ' COW ",ttryL1Y•( 1' Iltt•rt•aw t�rl0'Afl • . • ' /•0 tfwO4O.4rrat(•01w • • • ••i• • . %Tr 10.a• tan • . .(YH11.44 YT�wut10.L - -- :. 3 '— - L:a1.1.,/raotTl,u( _ - I - w• vacete• tr(e(4((t►l•n.\r•n .. • a Itt • • 4I4 L re W4 Kl 0t,.14 • R1 t0£HOL(0(t1.J' - - - - -. _ asnr.ri t•t■IQt a.:•t1'u vtto... - U • WALL MOUNT SECTION CEILING/INSIQC MOUNT SECTION BUILD-OUT MOI.NT SECTION a i;, .. O '1^.r.at . teal t:.r.e• - © 't<�lC �-•.`'•t- _ N .1i Q. [ . ••• LMO010•rr1• • 1,01 11••••nc•tr•ors - - - '.'.��� itmsralI•{1tM0 • • \-. .._ IfMv/1.1/twtl.VLt'a•+tt talif.w. . �••r.oa•V/•..61t,400 r r tt•Mw - • Sit.4wfw0•tP.ta11tt1 - - - t . 1 TYr,100�10//tn I {at11wO ]]]]r ♦\.0'at a.11•0( pM1 Vlf W10r • :1. • t,••Vt/V•t 1lWOVlI{/•O.6la lltl'(U •'�Ittt••tIq• �,.�` . - 0•b00w _ -Y •1t Mlaalt/00/al/t.l•t•Iti 0{r llagl - - A ' 1�f�r • _ ..O • nr 1•r,1•�Itan INODURiIflttlYQt 'o. . - \ - .1 .. Lit: • �• �•{t a 1 . Y 1• j 11hi14th• 1 •T1CId i:{i.. WI • _ f ii0aiaRENEWED. r' t `y o:'� PRODUCT' • - - , tawlt•t.ia _ Oc w AICCTTTAttC�ENa.Q� Oxiq.Q r - ;i 7 N_. Owr Cr) , �, ia�sriHa m'unottriallsaNit..is•itro . � G > i r I"t•1[It•Ilaa•II•Y•••• • .,, "OUiLoiNQ Cppc00►Vh4WltoltlCi wrt, ua.ltaty ta•a.c aaw w b IA 1 w ,. IN, • Otai. V.4rx►1nNt totr voo conk '.ri Qa1{a er sfwt - • W1100 MaM40 TOr it tar10.IWt II It••C. " NI"tdYW AS,WURTI WIUI DI V yllly rq{Kru1.M•Y�f V$(0 1 rr • -.i _ ✓V t/ wm•- �. • - ' A1IGl[TO WAIL OCTAII..' rAWL TO£IlOLC at TAO.• 01 f•PM 4O"i"s'P•a[N 4 .0Mt1W4 i1•Vtrult SOWN tlOttO*, I COO( r t • • o1JLR i Sd ` 1 .1 la • Iq 10 Oar t/tMI Ofr•�y yY•/lO.IO 1 fl r11 i - �i N!Ir�,„ Op WALL MOUNT.SECTION WALL MOUNT SECTION (GOT TOM] WALL MOUNT SECTION n ( n1_' stitlt 1 r.r.4• Q' t<Act 1 1.•••'r•t• O column oraSuM` • m. ,-;' ..(OIRECT`MOUNT I ' wncinecart-cOmiulnct Amcc ( 'te.ci • wo4444,%\i, •• ,m " .'KAIt I T .r • .. .:A000'TAIKc M0.g5'-•6(I'i.nG.'� I�'�_ 1 • • • ANC) vR SCHEDULE' 2' EDGE O STA.:a • 141a ►ASf(HER SPACING PCO WRCO,FOR Pt,a V ARiOUt DESIGN LOADS(TtLHL 11 - • ..,. • I2I • •C XIS(WG • �r S S RUC tuar( .101,' • t..I IMS I taYt rnrl . 1L�� • ''•• I I. 01/CRIPIIOH I/l•••try,TAPCilw W( Vi'•a 1AWl)ANA NA Qf.wl.,-1•I%I-MINCIA4(OMCIfT C wart•IN II C'•eR AlX-III •�- •e. W/-t•1q'MIII i11IEOnt NT W/t/e'INN tMOCONCIIT • - - tt rp■:•P«f alga' <j / �'L0.OIMILt S PSr ♦I PSA es PSf L74 P"LA.at icc IS PIP LT$PSf At P51 1SPSf. , tftc.■C"1a Kw.Ya 11 Z 1.iN� • HA%. .IIAX -.Na%.: `'MIN HAW.: MAX:' :MAX .. MA k••' •WAX., S'-E'.HAX. IL U lI 17 t7' It If U• • -tl. .1 VI• $.. ii It ..It . 17 -,t a« •• 17- 'Il (C if�i Clra4...r loll 1•w•� i Y.I•'MAN, ,I, .....2,--. 1 --. . 1 .II. Q . T 111 1 .. • 1) 'tt. II. li 1) T - • ..�:J 01..7 u. • • • ' CMS 11/10 o <Y' s YRUCIUR(j Hot LOW BLOCK• W000 i • !■a•t x.lanal'•l/a• ' ANCHOR • Ytr�. :-u' -� f■ , . , ISM j ttl�Sl _• • V'� OD q �• 1• v T. O[tCRlPt10N 1/L••if TAPCON W/ T/N'•WIN>0 OVtNMO • t• 1/a•.RAWL ranar NAIL•IN 1/L•t•PAWS ICOMCV : '1/L••W000 LAG SCP2W ala''•II MaL/ ci o. - �1 1.1/47 MN C0,4 CONCH r. V/•1.1/.•MM,co ItCOMCNt W. 1/11-MIN.'EMI COMCNe:WI 1-1/I•MAC[fief OMENT /1II"NN. �' "'t "`' "• '•'s•'L•„ I• •• I{tl� ;' O.O wI aT.S Pr► R PSP IS cc, Cls►s. •T PSI' .s PII L77 PSP •1 PSI I)PSI'4111tf I?PI/ CS PSP LT.S/S! I2./SI IS PIP I NSW FM<■t••tc tie.wt.et WIO• :• %Pon' ;teN MAX MAX HA MAX .MAXI MAX - MAX MAX. MAX:- HAX MaX • MAX. NA/. MAX. • •t aMq.altew•I P.Irtlt • Y i i • :: ::: . tt • t to - ♦ a 11- II I 11U. I7 - Ii 17 N• a tl' If 1117' 11 It /: ..n a .117WA1. M IUNT SECTION II l • • • tl a I . . L •1 1 IT I CO. ..L'.l 10 da T 1 ' ♦ •.{ .1 - 'II 1 :1 It .1 11 IT• q /_ ` 1♦ its CD KALE.1-••It,• -z,, • I • • z • • a ' fir" 'ANCHOR SCHEDULE 3"•EDGE DISTANCE ,f,a■w } �'• Ic 0 •�. 1•taa PAStCHCA SPACING PCOUIRED PQR " •- - {.. 0 - VARIOUS DCSIOH to AOS IINCHCS) . - ,: • (WISING • riot sials i�lr.•. • i E . - STPUCTUAt • CONCRCl/ • CIISCA.I f101( } . . . IIf■•�.•.I�i1 - Vt•ta I5V TAPCOW W/ t/a •RASA.CAMACNu. N 1N•V RAMC C ALP.nl .. .. lie- 1 •r 1 IIi $IN(CIA EOMINT WI 1 lIi t4(H(HOCD$I$S W/1/�•'WN CN)lIOI.H • • • r►,V a. • 0.•MA7.rPSP .42 PSP IS PS.'c1S-PSF I2 PS/.-I♦P:SP LI 14 SF Ir PS$ ;O♦PIP i.. ,• -;•,�• _..- Mo..N tratw«I esl - 1P►wR MAX.- 'HAS. -f11%.' MAX -MCI(' ',haXy .MAN. 21AY. MAX_' • • .Aral«vf•a•.1 Cea� f It 77. 'it - 1OP-0■■e.ICMv11 -.'a 7'./•NAIL 17 tY tS `R�. .'12' 17'- 4' e - - "Ial ten ♦N •e '� • ._ IZ'. Ij. �_. yt r t (, �.•e.M�t1.:`-.t7 It 1••,z • t a ►' -W , r. 1 .• • 1 t t7 tU q 17. • [ i • va_w •o•r• .1 A tal/�It••A. t - 42I1S IWo. j f 1RUtrUR4 - :-..-.. •:/roltoW eLOCIC- '. :`. . _ .; . L.6°. - � .. AHCN0O .. Ia in•� ' tIMUC4P ' N OCKNr 7101t = �04 _{ (Y7 a�P• ;:I'(l ill /T.IIATtr1 Itte Aaa.a saaa.eLtl i C»• '1Ja"•I/W'TLPCgN WI• I/I••RAML 2ANAt'Nltl-IN UC-•A.-...CALR.Af ILAY St000.....RCM' '1,( .14000••usll14a'W/ ! •- • C"•1 7.MACNINC{CACW • • • •. N ' , `I-Ill •WN.CIACOMCIIT W/1=11I•How tHeCO1/CHT W/7%1•`TMN.tHItDHLN4 Wi.1.7/1'.Iov CH410HC111 WI II'Hitt(I-PL0. .Lt12C int.."'"nw MAT../•1is . .ae lWl .1(f.l,tlN tM•a/•taL - tR -.•,>•T PSP 42 PSP OS PIE-STAPs%ft fisf es PSI. lL`PSI it2.5► 41 PP'47.S PSF'/TPeP IS PS► Lr.S PSP 42 PIP, SI PSP • 2. t- - s e.rfig, 22 • 2e ,7 -11 to - •7. -I/ 'II , II Ii 17 11 II It. 11.' • • ALT.'BUILD-OUT":MOUNT SECTION ' vr:« It 21 tl h. It I2 t7: ... .. 1T'-• `r""' w!w(taw r.•••HAX. 9 •/ s / L u r n u u • u f= 11 4 17 12 ' ..tO 17 t2 N' 12- • ♦ - T It IZ 1. ARdMIN NO(ft• _ _ tD I [H,tq CAIII USING NCOATIYC OCL•GM - - rgonuRµlr./rwrco UCTRENBW� • .71 PROA InTp .. 'ryc iRai rRE un[ww6 ANO SPAN RJ I oN K. _ -M twlPt$o wkII$Si .M. • M i %i n c.It• AxFTrAN'Ttk"ce O't.iIIg Q1• SouIN RORIb i y 000( LO I. CWIMYMCnttoectNTAND200iMSfAl¢t "Aaqumlitn02-044.OG ' l ('• ct� t ( txcluOts WALL reasf,oN sru/C4 tQipil M3+o ral , .t MNfeC LAO SCRCWL PAC Tin l0.tratotOW • LIP M�. .� Ii.)00.EMNQAT4 f ACC OP t WC►RAPNrIR,P A 1'two,!•TALC • (� I...4.1.• N It t.cano wctntcP a(voila sltt.. p �, IIR/l SIVf IAI( • lastistastlik„ . m 1. *mounts%Matt sCp/ttALLCO W • - al W/ACMat Y(M '►Mall! CT)t(IRptUl71NQV :: • • • m ACEOIIOLNCtWITHHAHUPatIunCRs tlllttlyallCDCECS)tfll/Af7CLl7'i7Cl�tlIIR1G CIto.. �UIIMA�tr1 OrtIU • r T` • RItaWCNOA nowt. ALRff2lKt llp.�r7_:�J � �••. A IilH N.W. 11TH ST. N.E. ST. EUZN Li > C > ' ` I Q w Q X �'` -1 L _ O Z N.E. 10TH ST. 0 E - 0 I- , Z _ -N.E. o N D M _ 9TH ST. MIR N.W. 9TH ST. w 11111111111111_ MEM a illi UuIIII•u;rN.W. 8TH ST. GEORGE 'I ' hiBOULEVARO— ,-�. Q a 2 -■ D pi Z N.E. 7TH ST. QUO ` I Lv = -1- 1 < w , Z ■. QI N.E. 7TH ST. N.W. 6TH ST. $97 4.1 0� Z Z N.E. 6TH ST. o= = ACURA ` ' 4• OF — 2DELRAY` , 2 u BEACH En z z N.E. 5TH TERR. M N.E. 6TH ST. WOOD LANE ` , .o zo c,,, z �`�' Publix Z,♦ � -k- N.E. 5TH CT. I 0 kii o O _ O <CC Z Z TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. I ?= j LUTHERAN 2 2 a— U 4i z 14 WAL- • - LAKE IDA ROAD GREENS�� - N.E. 4TH _ST. �__` 4TH ST. POST w— CASON < OFFICE a >— _- METHODIST 3 3 - CHURCH I- 2 2 - U z 0 z rx - _ N M- J J - Q QfY - La La 4i w -LLi— w z z z— La La i — I I I L. la- - N —aimr— 601 N.E. 3rd AVENUE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM725 - I;r,I Iv c- n is.l C_ �;. - - t F- N., L/ . • PLAT-1- 21 `r.s 5' • I� E- 3 Ro A Vim. PAvE- rt, to S0.0- a . (' / a ' a J �' 1 yk • rwi.re O'rs • �•E• 2NO 4vE. rn, Z CC:'e°/-j' -"67r' 60.3SJ �. .y • 1 z x '�so' rti ° tip_` Lai S p i! a ,2 / at r Q 7 D_i CO. • Q • ° 5.6• 7 tout. 10-0' I. - • 20 373e T: -g.s' • _ 25.05-' 1- _ • 7 • V /9 U , 1 �• n }- o. �� 1 STO Ry t- , Si- - /7 to -, O. I '-H RES_ 6.65' 1 0 io. Is W %. p - sT. No_ 6o1 gs W /7o• a z o so• O.o• ., V cY .I S/5' •' �z a A n� .is• o z \v M .'8.5 n; r!1 // 1 e F • st }; / 1 i- bi/3 b'./4 0 ..: _ - (°.7 ./ _ .. 'TSB._ =I 0 0 n b - •/ VO h0. .—F .4,'2o Leos x_n META 1_ '8-v' Coo,,, _ %'vod . o) E 0 �r, If; - _ PATIO STONES ' o` . ��\.•o rw000 FENCE . • ��b • — ---- Mortgage Survey or: Noise Beaucicaut_ - - ,_ - DESCRIPTION: Lot 18, Block 13, DEL-IDA PARK, DELRAY, FLA. , as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 52, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the plat shown hereon is a true and correct representation of a survey of the property descnted in the caption thereof, made under my direction,and is accurate to thebestof my knowledge and belief,and that there are no apparent encroachments unless shown.This plat Is not valid unless sealed with an embossed surveyors seal. / -7. r/ -NO GOP.NERS .SET O'r REQUEST •alit dt..•svroya;'Norid.C;ne No. 403 LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT ABSTRACTED FOR EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD. -. A4d:..1 fib'. nut DOUGLAS H. MILLER -�:PG 3( S Pf! *REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS JOB NO. S Li_ 35G .. n M M" P.O.BOX 3646 PHONE 566-2669 • - rANTArfA. ("min." '''edgy . It c4 •. • • • • ''^^ • • Pt.AT F. • MtiS: • 41.85' z-E PAnvQ.of ¢ �J. • 1r et ^'. F < 111 291G22.0in //7©5• 1`,_\ 3 .. • 1..210, ,so- 617. , . v2 • Y 1,.t r :(Qr`w • M... .9 2,o .1 SO' n '� M f 1 6n• 8�t Q 7' O Y - ' /'moo aI GO , • _ • P / 1 8 $ aJ lira eee-e- 1•.•••.:.!•{.. . ..6 2 s"3 • 0 •• Q� .5 : • ' .25,05E • 1-.• • . l t ? 19 •• •• ✓ ` r t % Q 3 • U. • III �.. ;, t STO Fly '. AC 4.0 - C.L .S. U /7 Li) �� p j .ri RES. 6.6.3": ; :Z 71 •7 �nb :B. �0 •Z 1.\vim , 8 5.•/'. . tom..,' • Air ; _ oe_ . v‘. _ . . ,....2....... ..;,,-',...t. -,:...ir . .. C ' Roi•Y / r1rL �rJ '�D ►�'� 1 ja 1 Mort«ar)e Survey For: Mouse Beauo .oau�-- - . HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- • MEETING DATE: March 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: IV. A. ITEM: Ascot—Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and Associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and associated Variance for the Construction of an Office Building. N.W. 3RD SI. N.E. SND ST. CITY Z GENERAL DATA: ATTORNEY BUILDING Owner/Applicant Management Systems MARTIN W7>R MC JR. � N.E. 2ND — ST. cri Worldwide - -3 Agent Silberstein Architects, Inc. W o Location SW-Corner of NE 1st Avenue n and NE 20d Street. CITY Z Property Size 0.14 Acres HALL > a • Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) a Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. ,ST ST. Square Historic Arts District) Z "'Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD (Old School COMMUNITY z Q CENTER z z o Square Historic Arts District o East: OSSHAD (Old School Square OLD g Historic Arts District 1 I I 1 l SCHOOL South: OSSHAD (Old School Square SQUARE Historic Arts District ATLANTIC AVENUE West: OSSHAD (Old School Square I Historic Arts District z 0 I Existing Land Use Vacant - 1- Proposed Land Use Office I Z I Water Service Existing adjacent. .- 3 I Sewer Service Existing adjacent. to S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. —.� z I W'— W Ii N N 41 W II 1 M■._ ■■ S.W. 2ND ST. S.E 2ND ST. IV. A. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD - , The action before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class V Site Plan; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Design Elements; and, ❑ Waiver Requests. The subject property is located on a corner lot on the southwest corner of NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue. 411 BACKGROUND The subject property incorporates Lot 9, less the west 60' thereof, and the north 26.5' of Lot 10, less the west 60' thereof, Block 67, Town of Linton. The property contains 0.167 acres and is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). At its meeting of December 5, 2001, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a one-story single-family residence built in 1978, which was demolished in January of 2002. On February 20, 2002, HPB reviewed and approved a COA and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements and variance for the construction of a two-story, 2,400 sq. ft. office building for Management Systems. The approved variance reduced the required side street building setback (east property line) from 15' to 10'. During its meeting of April 17, 2002, the Board reviewed and approved a Class II Site Plan Modification, including modifications to the landscape plan, and associated waivers for the previously approved Management Systems project. The Board approved the following three (3) waivers associated with the proposed landscape plan and site plan modification: (1) a waiver to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6"); (2) a waiver to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet (2'6"); and, (3) a waiver to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent property to the west from five feet (5') to two feet (2'). However, the actual site plan modification and landscape plan were tabled pending the applicant's return to the Board for re-consideration on an original condition of approval pertaining to the dedication of five feet (5') of right-of-way for NE 1st Avenue. The applicant returned to Board for re-consideration on May 1, 2002. The Board reviewed and approved the proposal with conditions including the dedication of five feet (5') of right- Meeting Date: March 3,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 2 of-way along NE 1st Avenue. The right-of-way was subsequently dedicated and recorded, however, the site plan approval expired on August 20, 2003 and the project was never undertaken. A new COA and Class V site plan application has been submitted and is now before the Board for the construction of a three-story office on the vacant lot. PROJECTDESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: ❑ Construction of a 3,219 sq. ft. three-story, office building; ❑ Construction of a six (6) space paver block parking lot that includes one (1) accessible space and two (2) compact parking spaces; o Request for five (5) in-lieu parking spaces and construction of seven (7) on-street parallel spaces with landscape nodes along with the construction of new 5' concrete sidewalks along NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue; o Installation of paver block internal walkways and associated landscaping; and, o Waiver requests from LDR Sections 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1) and 4.6.16(H)(3)(a) & (d) for the reduction of the five foot (5') stacking distance and the five foot (5') landscape strips. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The applicable development standards for the OSSHAD zoning district that relates to the proposal are as follows: Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 36' 6"* Building Setbacks (min.) - Front (north) 25' 25' Side Street (east) 15' 10' - 5 11/16"** Side Interior(west) 7'6" 11' 3/4" Rear (south) 10' 50'-5 5/16" HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 3 Open Space 25% 40% ** A variance to reduce the side street setback from 15' to 10' was previously approved with the original site plan. *Building Height Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(2)(b), the height is measured for buildings adjoining more than one street, the grade is established as the average of the mean elevation of the crown of the adjoining streets. When measured according to the crown of NE 2"d Street and NE 1st Avenue to the mean height of the apex of the roof and the eave of the shed dOrmers, the building measures 36'6". In order to meet the LDR requirement for height and the OSSHAD zoning regulations, the building must be reduced in height by 1'6". LDR Section 4.4.24 (OSSHAD-Special District Regulation): Parking Requirement: Pursuant to LDR 4.4.24(G)(4)(a) all non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 sq. ft. of total floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and non-residential in the same structure. Parking Analysis A single loaded parking bay is proposed on the south side of-the property with access taken off of NE 1st Avenue. The proposed use is office witll.a total of 3,219 sq. ft., which requires a total of 10.73 or 11 parking spaces. Six (6) of the/11 spaces are provided on-site including one (1) handicapped space and two (2) compact spaces. Five (5) in-lieu spaces are being requested with seven (7) proposed on-street parking spaces with landscape nodes to be constructed: two (2) spaces along NE 1st Avenue and five (5) spaces on NE 2"d Street. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(5), if it is impossible to provide required parking on-site or off-site, pursuant to Section 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E) may be collected. For the purpose of this provision, "inappropriateness" may be considered in relationship to the historic character of this (OSSHAD] zone district. LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e), states that in addition to in-lieu fees due, where adequate right-of- way exists adjacent to a proposed project the applicant must construct additional on-street parking. The applicant is seeking to purchase five (5) in-lieu parking spaces in accordance with LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(3). The cost in the OSSHAD is $6,000 per space for a total of $30,000 with respect to this proposal. If approved by the City Commission, the in-lieu fee will need to be remitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant proposes to construct seven (7) on-street parking spaces (two along NE 1st Avenue and five along NE 2"d Street) and will seek reimbursement of a portion of the in-lieu parking fee. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 4 As the previous site plan proposal permitted an in-lieu request of the three (3) spaces with two (2) on-street spaces to be constructed and since the property is presently vacant, it is reasonable to consider a similar request of three in-lieu spaces with this proposal. Further, although the construction of the seven (7) on-street parking spaces may benefit the surrounding area, the number of in-lieu spaces requested equals approximately 45% of the required parking for the project. There are also concerns regarding the location of the easternmost on-street spaces on NE 2nd Street with regard to sight visibility at the intersection. While denial of the current request is recommended, the proposal should be substantially modified and the square footage of the building should be reduced in order to meet the previously approved in-lieu request of three spaces. The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) reviewed the in-lieu request during its meeting of February 24, 2004. During the review, the PMAB recommended denial of the five (5) in-lieu space request. The Board further recommended that the square footage of the building be reduced in order to meet more of the required parking on-site as was previously approved with the Management Systems site plan (2,400 sq. ft. building) which included a request for three (3) in-lieu spaces and provided two (2) on-street parking spaces on NE 1st Avenue. Therefore, the project should incorporate a reduction in the square footage of the proposed building thus reducing the required number of in-lieu spaces requested. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Stacking Distance Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c), provisions must be made for stacking and transition of incoming traffic from a public street, such that traffic may not backup into the public street system. The minimum distance required between NE 1st Avenue and the first parking space within a parking lot containing 20 parking spaces or less is five feet (5'). Off-Street Parking Regulations: The design of the parking area does not provide for the required 5' stacking distance pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1). The applicant has requested that a waiver to this requirement be granted to reduce the stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet six inches (2'-6"). The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2"d Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 5 While the proposed on-site stacking distance is insufficient, there will be 14' 3/4" from the first parking space to the NE 1st Avenue travel lanes due to the provision of on-street parking between the travel lanes and the property. The provision of five feet (5') of stacking on local streets is primarily to take into account the five foot (5') wide perimeter landscape strip. Further, the office development will generate relatively low traffic volumes and similar waivers have been granted for parking areas adjacent to alleyways. Granting the waiver will neither negatively affect the neighboring area nor diminish the provision of public facilities or create an unsafe situation. Further, given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Therefore, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Bike Rack Pursuant to LDR 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. The TCEA includes the Old School Square Historic District. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. Provision of a bike rack is appropriate for this development and has been provided. Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has been submitted to meet this requirement as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Further, site lighting locations are reflected:on the site, landscape, and engineering plans and decorative fixture details were provided for the site and building lighting. Underground Utilities Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. All utility lines are to be buried underground and should be noted as such on the site plan. This has been listed in the technical comments. Sidewalks Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(8)(1), a 5'wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk is currently located along NE 2nd Street and a new 5' concrete sidewalk is proposed along NE 1st Avenue. If the site plan is approved and the in-lieu fee request granted, the sidewalk along NE 2nd Street will need to be reconstructed. Further, the proposed easternmost landscape node terminating the on- street parking along NE 2nd Street, prohibits access to the sidewalk north of NE 2nd Street along NE 1st Avenue. The landscape node should be re-designed in order to provide full access to the existing sidewalk to the north of NE 2nd Street on NE 1st Avenue. These have been added as technical items. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 6 It is noted that future consideration may be given to reconfigure the landscape nodes at the corner of NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue to provide a diagonal curb cut. This can be administered by the City's Engineering Department, if required. Refuse Container Area The proposed refuse area is located along the west elevation of the building. All refuse containers must be screened by decorative wood fences and gates or landscaping. The refuse containers will be screened by a ficus hedge. The hedging should surround the refuse containers to the north and south in order to screen the containers from view on NE 2nd Street and the parking area. Further, the refuse area must accommodate recyclable materials. A technical item has been added that the refuse area be screened on both the north and south sides and that the area is designed to accommodate recyclables. Right-of-Way Dedication Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), and the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the required rights-of-way widths for NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Street are 60. Fifty feet of right-of-way already exists on NE 2nd Street. Prior to approval of the previous Class V Site Plan, only 40' of right-of-way existed on NE 1st Avenue. The Development Services Management Group (DSMG) approved a right-of-way reduction for NE 1st Avenue and NE 2n Street to 50' with the previously approved site plan for Management Systems. Accordingly, only five feet (5') of additional right-of-way was dedicated for NE 1st Avenue. Therefore, no additional right-of-way for NE 1st Avenue is required with this proposal. The 50' right-of-way for NE 2nd Street is adequate. Accessibility Requirements Pursuant to Section 4.6.2 of the Florida Accessibility Code{ for Building Construction, accessible parking spaces sewing a particular building shall be located on the shortest safely accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In order to meet this requirement, the proposed lobby and elevator should be relocated from the northeast to the southwest corner of the building. Further, according to Florida Statute 316.1955(a), Parking Spaces for Persons Who Have Disabilities, all[parking] spaces must be located on an accessible route no less than 44 inches wide so that the user will not be compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. As proposed, the parking area does not meet the intent of this statute. Therefore, the parking should be flipped to provide the most direct accessible route to the building by permitting a pedestrian to maneuver to the entrance of the building (which should be located to the west side of the building) without jeopardizing personal safety by walking through the drive aisle. If the parking is not re- configured to flip the parking, the applicant will be required to obtain approval of a waiver from the Accessibility Advisory Council, Department of Community Affairs, to retain the present configuration. It is noted that the accessible space cannot be relocated to the east of the parking area as the required five foot (5') maneuvering area cannot be provided and an on-site space would be lost. If the site plan is approved, flipping the parking and relocating the lobby and elevator have been attached as conditions of approval. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2,d Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 7 Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) Scale of Engineering Plan are to be 1"=20' or 1"=30' only. 2) A SFWMD permit is required for this project. Provide copies of permit. 3) Clearly indicate the dimension of the existing site grades and proposed site grades. 4) Provide a typical cross section from building to adjacent right-of-way or adjacent property at north and east property lines. Pay particular attention to grade differential from proposed site to existing adjacent properties and show the existing `grades on adjacent property. 5) Site is required to retain 5 year 1 hour storm (3.2") in addition to meeting water quality criteria. Provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and indicate how storm water will be retained on site. 6) Provide certified exfiltration trench test results. 7) Show nearest existing drainage structures and provide rim and invert elevation. 8) Section Y-Y indicates 2.5' between property line and parking 5' is required. 9) On sections X-X and Y-Y the 5' area between parking lot and property line should be swaled not bermed. 10)Indicate on the plans the 45 degree taper of the on-street end spaces and provide only "F"type curbing in right-of-way. 11)Show nearest existing fire hydrants and add any necessary hydrants per fire department requirements. 12)Indicate rim and invert of upstream and down stream manholes of proposed sewer laterals. 13)Applicant is to field verify location, size and depth of existing City of Delray Beach utilities. 14)Indicate location of irrigation water meters. Show how meter is connected for service. 15)Provide a recorded Declaration of Unity of Title. 16)Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. For projects over one (1) acre in size, provide a copy of FDEP Notice of Intent. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements - Page 8 17)Trees within the site visibility triangle must be 6' clear trunk and hedges and ground covers maintained at 3' in height maximum. No landscaping over 36" in height at the intersection of NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Street. 18)That the refuse area is enclosed by landscaping to the north and south and that the area is designed to accommodate recyclables. 19)That the proposed sidewalk along NE 1st Avenue should be continued to connect with the existing sidewalk north of NE 2nd Street and that construction of on-street parking may facilitate reconstruction of the existing sidewalks. 20)That all utility lines are buried underground. 21)That the notation for the sign is eliminated. 22)That the mean height of the roof is noted on the elevations and measured to scale (refer to page A-3.1 cross section) . 23)That a revised traffic statement is submitted which reflects the proposed square footage. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS The proposed landscape plan includes Reullia adjacent to the building with Trinette and Green Island Ficus flanking the surrounding walkway, perpendicular to NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue. Wax Jasmine, Pink Tabebuia and assorted Annuals are provided within the landscape nodes on NE 1st Avenue. If approved the landscape plan must be modified to show all improvements and landscaping within the NE 2nd Street right-of-way. Cocoplum hedging is proposed along the perimeter of the property including a portion of the refuse container and the a/c units with Wart Fern adjacent to tthe parking area. Foundation landscaping shall be provided for building elevations that are visible from the right-of-way. These have been added as landscape technical items. The proposed landscaping complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16 with the exceptions noted below in the waiver analysis and the landscape technical items. Waiver Analysis: Required Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings that the granting of the waiver: a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. • HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 9 The waivers are requested to maximize the number of on-site parking spaces through the installation of six (6) on-site parking spaces. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), a landscape strip of not less than 5' in width, excluding curbing, shall be located between the vehicular use area and abutting properties and that one tree shall be provided and the landscape barrier shall be a minimum of 24" in height at the time of planting along the perimeter landscape barrier that separates the vehicular use area from abutting properties. The proposed landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent right-of-way to the east side of the property is only one and half feet (1'6") in width excluding curbing. The width of the landscape island is capable of supporting the hedge that is required to screen the vehicular use area from the right-of- way, however the provision of the required tree within the landscape island is not feasible, as the tree would only have two feet (2') of soil in which to take root. Further, the provision of a tree within the landscape island would interfere with the Pink Tabebuia that is to be installed within the adjacent landscape node. The proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the vehicular use area on the west side of the property varies between two feet (2') and three feet (3') in width. The buffer, while deficient in size, will still contain the landscape materials necessary to screen the parking area from the adjacent property. In addition, a six foot (6') high wood fence currently exists on the adjacent property to the west. Granting these waivers will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create an unsafe situation. Further, given the conditions under which the waivers are being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Landscape Plan Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and must be addressed prior to building permit submittal: 1) All existing and proposed trees on neighboring properties should be identified to avoid conflicts. 2) If the existing ficus hedge along the west perimeter of the property is in good condition, ground cover can be provided in lieu of the proposed cocoplum hedging. 3) Foundation landscaping shall be provided for building elevations that are visible from the right-of-way. DESIGN ELEMENTS/ANALYSIS Design Elements The applicant proposes a 3,219 sq. ft. three-story, block building for office use. The project displays a front facing gable with a mill finish, standing seam metal roof, shed dormer and flat roof with window's walk style railing accommodating the elevator shaft. The building HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 10 features a hardiplank, lap siding exterior, decorative knee braces on the gable roof, balcony, and dormers, and divided light, impact resistant fenestration. A balcony on the second floor of the north and south elevations mimics the outline of the shed roof dormer above. Both the balcony and the elevator shaft display picket railings. Fenestration includes divided light, white, aluminum frame casement windows and French doors (with impact resistant glass). Fenestration is symmetrical throughout the building with primary doors on the first floor of the east and west elevations and secondary, single French doors with fixed transoms on the first and second floors of the north and south elevations. The primary doors consist of a single, divided light entry door with sidelights on the east elevation and a single, divided light entry door on the west elevation. Both display a gable door hood with decorative knee braces. Hanging colonial style lanterns are proposed along the first floor of the north and south elevations and at the entry doors on the first floor. A three foot (3') high picket fence is proposed along the north and east property lines. An existing six foot (6')fence is located along the south property line as well as the west. A monochromatic color scheme is proposed for the building with white trim, accents, and body. Development Standards LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration; reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall-meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 11 Analysis Although the proposed style of the building compliments the architecture of the surrounding properties and differentiates itself from the historic buildings with the use of modern materials, the building height is not appropriate for the site due to the increased square footage and the subsequent increase in the required number of parking spaces as well as the scale of the building in relation to the surrounding district. Further, the height as proposed exceeds the 35' maximum height requirement for the OSSHAD zoning district. It is therefore recommended that the building be reduced in height to two-stories that would reflect the previously approved Management Systems site plan for construction of a 2,400 sq. ft. building and meet the height restriction of a maximum of 35'. Further, though the massing of the roof line is broken up by the proposed shed dormers, the extension of the elevator shaft above the gable roof appears obtrusive and incompatible with the gable roof. It is therefore recommended that the elevator shaft be re-designed to incorporate the shaft and necessary equipment into the proposed roof line. Alternately, a different elevator such as a L.U.L.A. (limited use, limited application) elevator could be utilized. The elevator could also be relocated to the southwest corner of the building which would address the handicapped accessibility concerns and be concealed with the construction of a new or alternate roofline or an architectural element befitting the style of the building, such as a faux chimney. Further, while white is historically appropriate, use of solid white is not typical of that found throughout the district. It is therefore recommended that at least one color be introduced as the body, trim, or accent of the building. Positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)4), (E)(7), and (E)(8) (a-k) can be made once the issues above have been addressed. If the site plan is approved, the items identified above should be listed as conditions of approval. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or-minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional offices are listed as permitted uses. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 12 make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is bounded by the OSSHAD zoning district with a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed office use of the subject property would be permitted on the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character and building style of the district, however, the scale and massing are inappropriate for the area. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties once the square footage and the height of the building are reduced. REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency The project proposed for Ascot was reviewed by the CRA during its meeting on February 12, 2004. The CRA Board recommended approval as proposed. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 13 Pineapple Grove Design Committee The Ascot project was reviewed by the Pineapple Grove Design Committee during its meeting on February 9, 2004. The project was accepted as proposed. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the construction of a new three-story, 3,219 sq. ft. office and the integration of perimeter landscaping and parking. The request for the in-lieu is not supported based on the increased square footage and that the property is vacant. Therefore, the parking can be accommodated on-site and with a minimum of r.,equired in- lieu spaces when the appropriate square footage is proposed. The height of the building must be reduced by 1'6" to comply with LDR Section 4.3.4(J). Further, revisions must be made to comply with the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. The applicant should therefore consider proceeding with the originally approved site plan. The proposal will be consistent with Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined above. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS_ A. Continue with direction. B. By Separate Motions: Waivers 1) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(9)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5) to two feet-six inches (2'- 6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), 2) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property line from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); and, 3) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent east property line from five feet (5') to one and a half feet (1'6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.6(J) (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: • • HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 14 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report; 2) That the lobby and elevator are relocated to the southwest corner of the building and that the parking be flipped to provide the most direct, accessible route to the building; and, 3) That the square footage and height of the building is reduced to the previously approved 2,400 sq. ft., two-story design. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for 8 NE 2"d Street, Ascot, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the landscape technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. Design Elements Approve the COA for the original of the Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8), subject to the following conditions: 1) That an additional color is added to the building's trim, accent or body colors scheme; and, , 2) That the elevator shaft be relocated and/or re-designed to'compliment the pitch of the gable roof and dormers. e; C. By Separate Motions: Waivers 1) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); 2) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property line from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); and, 3) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent east property line from five feet (5') to one and a half feet (1'6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 15 Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.6(J) (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report; 2) That the lobby and elevator are relocated to the southwest corner of the building and that the parking be flipped to provide the most direct, accessible route to the building; 3) That the building meets the 35' height requirement; and, 4) That the in-lieu request is approved by the City Commission. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the landscape technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. Design Elements Approve the COA for the original of the Class V site plan for.tle office at 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8), subject to the following conditions: 1) That an additional color is added to the building's trim, accent or body colors scheme; and, 2) That the elevator shaft be relocated and/or re-designed to compliment the pitch of the gable roof and dormers. D. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for 8 NE 2nd Street, Ascot, based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) (COA Findings), 4.3.4(J)(2)(b) (Building Height), 4.4.24(G)(4)(a) and (G)(5) (OSSHAD Parking Requirements and In-lieu), 4.5.1.(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) (Design Elements), 4.6.9(E)(3)(e) (Parking Requirements and In- lieu Requests), 4.6.16 (Landscaping), and Section 4.6.2 of the Florida Accessibility Code, with basis stated. • HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements ' Page 16 STAFFRECOMMENDATION .. _ Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for 8 NE 2"d Street, Ascot, based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) (COA Findings), 4.3.4(J)(2)(b) (Building Height), 4.4.24(G)(4)(a) and (G)(5) (OSSHAD Parking Requirements and In-lieu), 4.5.1.(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) (Design Elements), 4.6.9(E)(3)(e) (Parking Requirements and In-lieu Requests), 4.6.16 (Landscaping), and Section 4.6.2 of the Florida Accessibility Code. Attachments: Survey, Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan Report prepared by: Wendy Shay. Historic Preservation Planner fr HPB Staff Report • 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 17 APPENDIX- A _ CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water service exists via service lateral connections to the 8"water main along NE 1st Avenue. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to a 12" sewer main along NE 2nd Street. ❑ Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing a fire hydrant on the corner of NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Street. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic'Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed 3,219 sq. ft. office will generate approximately 36 additional daily trips (5 additional a.m. peak trips and 5 p.m. peak trip) which will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Schools: As the subject property is located in the City's TCEA and the applicant is not proposing any residential components, this project is exempt from School Concurrency. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Parks dedication requirements do not apply to this non-residential use. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a construction of a three-story office building on a vacant parcel. Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of office use. Trash generated each year by the proposed 3,219 sq.ft. office space will be 8.7 tons of solid waste per year (3,219 x 5.4 _ 2,000 = 8.69 or 8.7). As the property is presently vacant, the proposed use results in an increase of 8.7 tons per year. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual report that the established level of HPB Staff Report • 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 18 service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2024. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 19 • APPENDIX B STANDARDS E O.R .SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result,in a degradation of the neighborhood,the project shall not be permitted. f�r Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent • HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 20 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent CASON METHODIST -- LEGEND -- mail CHURCH IF 1 — ASCOT w — 1 w L., W— a I 8 N.E. 2ND STREET N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD I CERTIFICATE OF w APPROPRIATENESS I I I CITY p p 1 I SUBJECT AREA 1- z . I ATTORNEY cn CV " . ................. p BUILDING 1 I r ce MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.E. 2ND ST. r p N z r c' 3 -. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION w I . > PCN#:12-43-46-16-01-067-0092 Lai c • o D J z!hi. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.16 Z CITY Z a ABRIDGED LEAGAL DESCRIPTION: HALL Lir-- Z -i LOT 9&N 26.5 FT OF LT 10(LESS ET_ l� W60FT&E5FTSE 1ST AVE RW) ZONING:OSSHAD(OLD SCHOOL Q / SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT) • N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. 3 FLUM:OMU(OTHER MIXED USE) Z EX/S77NG LAND USERGE: COMMUNITY w IFI VACANT z CENTERz TENNIS OLDSTADIUM I II SCHOOLI J SQUARE ATLANTIC AVENUE �A-ZONING DEPARTMENT �o �1 1.1111 Q N _ COURT a .Z W HOUSE MOMr EN Z 1- a p r -3 LONG-RANGE DIVISION z N I - DIGITAL BASE-MAPPINC SYSTEM css �— MAP EFERENCEj:LM723 S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. -- JANUARY 2003 -- III o ? ui vi= 33 ww t:aR _ vi vi � vio`�qrj16*.:1- S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. \ —.--r-, e--. —. f"TT T TT 1---1 March 3, 2004 Historic Preservation Board: As property owners ofBanker's Row, we support the project being presented byJeffrey Silverstein on NE 2nd Street and First Avenue. We have reviewed the site plan and elevation at the Pineapple Grove Design Committee meeting and feel this project would be an asset to this area. As long as this project meets the City's regulations, we encourage HPB to approve. We also would like to remind the Board to protect the integrity of the Bankers Row parking lot and not designate any parking there, other than for general use(this is not for ten or employee use). Sincerely, ilk HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD II CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: March 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: IV. B. ITEM: Linehan Property (Lot 6, Block 59) — Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and Associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements for the Construction of a Mixed Use (Office & Residential) Building. • N W. onu SI. rv.c. Attu SI. l -W D GENERAL DATA: -Z , w CITY > 2 Owner/Applicant Jessica Linehan BULDNG a I Agent Ames Design International Location East side of NW 1st Avenue, N.W. 2ND ST. 2ND ST. approximately 76.5' north of 2 A-- .111 '111 11111 MI NI_ 3■ NW 1st Street. IN/_ _ a ,,II Property Size 0.1839 Acres ntm II►s ESE Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) MI MI IIE a■ Z CITY „':'z;.s Ill Ell- a. Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School HALL imi ill Mill 11 Square Historic Arts District) M EI ill NI 1 Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD (Old School N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. 3 Z Square Historic Arts District o East: OSSHAD (Old School Square COCENTER MMUNITY z IHistoric Arts District z South: OSSHAD (Old School Square 3 OLD Historic Arts District TENNIS SCHOOL I STADIUM SQUARE West: OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District ATLANTIC AVENUE Existing Land Use Vacant ' Proposed Land Use Mixed Use (One Residential Unit & <� 1 a < an Office) I Water Service Existing adjacent. 5 Sewer Service Existing adjacent. , N 21 N - rI S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. �. II I I I N fA VI 0 IV. B. IFF ITEM 'BEFORE -THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class V Site Plan; ❑ Landscape Plan; and ❑ Design Elements. The subject property is approximately 76.5' to the north of the northeast corner of NW 1st Street and NW 1st Avenue on the east side of NW 1st Avenue. B_AC KG'RO=.0 N„Q' The subject property includes Lot 6, less the north 1.25' and south 15.7', Block 59, Town of Delray and is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). As the property is vacant, there are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The applicant is now before the Board to review a COA and associated Class V Site Plan for the construction of a two-story mixed use (office/residential) building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Construction of a 3,583 sq. ft. two-story, mixed use building (office and residential) that includes 1,800 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor and 1,783 sq. ft. of residential space (two bedrooms) on the second floor with a sun deck/canopy at the south side of the parking area; ❑ Construction of a seven (7) space paver block parking lot that includes one compact space and one accessible space; o Installation of a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along NW 1st Avenue; and, o Installation of a paver block walkway, associated landscaping, and refuse container area. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. Meeting Date:March 3,2004 Agenda Item: IV.B. HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 2 LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The applicable development standards for the OSSHAD zoning district that relate to the proposal are as follows: Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 26'9" Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 25' Side Interior (north & south) 7'6" 4'* Rear 10' 58'8" (main building) 10' (sun deck/canopy) Open Space 25% 34.9% *Steps and Platforms The proposed staircases encroach 3'6" into the side interior setbacks on both the north and south sides. Per LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(4)(k), steps and platforms for the principal building that do not exceed 3' in height may encroach into the setback. As proposed, the exterior stairs on both the north and south sides of the building exceed 3' in height and encroach 3'6" into the setback. The stairs must therefore be re-designed to avoid encroaching into the side interior setbacks. This has been added as a condition of approval. Trellis Per LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(4), the proposed trellis cannot extend more than 3' into the front setback measured from the front of the principal structure. As proposed, the balcony is treated like an eave which cannot extend beyond 3' into the setback. Therefore, the proposed trellis must be re-designed to meet the current setbacks or be eliminated. This has been added as a condition of approval. LDR Section 4.4.24 (OSSHAD-Special District Regulation): Accessory Uses Permitted Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2)(a), on a parcel that has its principal use a non- residential use, there may be one single family residence, either within a separate structure or within a structure housing a non-residential use, provided one of the following situations exist: that the residence is occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of a business enterprise conducted on the property; the business is owned or operated by the owner; or that the residence is occupied by the owner. The owner of the mixed use building (residential and office) will be residing on the property and is therefore compliant with this requirement. If, in the future, the use of the apartment is occupied in a manner other than as the provided in LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2)(a), conditional use approval must be obtained. This has been added as a condition of approval. Further, it is noted that if the building is modified to include additional residential unit, Conditional Use approval and Site Plan HPB Staff Report Linehan Property,Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 3 Modification approval must be obtained which must address any additional parking requirements. Parking Requirement: Pursuant to LDR 4.4.24(G)(4)(a) all non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 sq. ft. of total floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and non-residential in the same structure. Two bedroom residences require two (2) parking spaces and .5 of a space for guest parking [ref. LDR 4.6.9(C)(2)]. Parking Analysis The proposed mixed use building will contain both office and a residence. The new building will contain a total of 3,583 sq. ft with 1,800 sq. ft. office space on the first floor and a 1,783 sq. ft., two bedroom residence on the second floor. Based on this analysis, 7 parking spaces total are required, which have been provided (4.5 for office and 2.5 for residential) including one compact space and one handicapped space with access taken off the alley. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Bike Rack Pursuant to LDR 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. The TCEA includes the Old School Square Historic District. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. A bike rack has been provided in front of the building on the west side of the property with access taken off the proposed walkway, however, the proposed bike rack is not indicated on the landscape or engineering plans and a detail has not been provided. Notation of the bike rack and submission of a detail has been added as technical items. Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8, site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has been submitted to meet this requirement as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8., however, site lighting locations are not reflected on the site, landscape, and engineering plans and appropriate decorative fixture and building lighting details were not provided. These have been added as technical items. If lighting fixtures are proposed underneath the parking canopy/sun deck, shielding must be provided or the lights recessed. Underground Utilities Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. The site plan reflects that the utility lines shall be • HPB Staff Report Linehan Property,Lot 6, Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements 'Page 4 relocated underground. Further, the utility pole on the east property line, adjacent to the alley, indicates that the pole shall be relocated to the south. The final location of the pole must be indicated on the engineering plans. This has been addressed in the technical comments. Right-of-Way Dedication/Sidewalk Easement Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), and the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the required right-of-way width for NW 1st Avenue is 60'. Currently, 40' of right-of-way exists for NW 1st Avenue. In order to be consistent with the commercial properties to the north and south of the proposed project, the Development Services Management Group (DSMG) approved a right-of-way reduction for NW 1st Avenue to 50' subject to the recordation of a 5' sidewalk easement rather than the further dedication of right-of-way. Therefore, an easement deed dedicating the five foot (5') sidewalk easement must be provided and accepted by the City Commission prior to site plan certification and is attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk currently runs along NW 1st Avenue south of the vacant parcel in question. The proposal includes the construction of a five foot (5') sidewalk within the proposed five foot (5') sidewalk easement, previously referenced, which will connect with the existing sidewalk to the south of the property. The Landscape and Engineering Plans must indicate the sidewalk along the west 5' of the property. Refuse Container Area: The proposed refuse area is located at the northeast corner of the building adjacent to the parking area. The refuse containers will be screened by a 4' high decorative wood fence and gate and will accommodate recyclables. Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) That site lighting locations are noted on the site, landscape, and engineering plans and the decorative fixture details of site and building lighting are submitted. If lighting is proposed underneath the canopy, lighting must be provided with shielding or the lights recessed. 2) That the notation of the sign be removed from the landscape and engineering plans. 3) That a detail of the bike rack is submitted and that the location of the bike rack is indicated on the landscape and engineering plans. 4) That the utility pole on the east property line, adjacent to the alley, is relocated and that the final location is noted on the engineering plan. 5) A SFWMD permit is required for this project. Provide copies of permit. HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 5 6) A LWDD permit is required for this project. Provide copies of permit. 7) Provide a typical cross section from building to adjacent right-of-way or adjacent property at all property lines. Pay particular attention to grade differential from proposed site to existing adjacent properties and show the existing grades on adjacent property. 8) Site is required to retain 5 year 1 hour storm (3.2") in addition to meeting water quality criteria. Provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and indicate how storm water will be retained on site. 9) Provide certified exfiltration trench test results. 10)Indicate on plans how the roof drainage is accommodated. 11)Dedication of a 5' sidewalk easement must occur along the west side of the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 12)Clearly indicate on plans the limits of all curbing. 13)Clearly indicate limits of right of way on both sides. 14)Indicate sight distances at all ingress/egress points. Sight triangles should be indicated on landscape plans. Provide copy of the revised landscape plans. Site triangles should be 5' by 13' triangles. There shall be unobstructed cross visibility between 3' and 6'. Trees shall not be located within 6' of the accessway. 15)Indicate location of irrigation water meters. 16)Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. For projects over One (1) Acre in size provide a copy of FDEP Notice of Intent. 17)Provide a Recorded Declaration of Unity of Title for the subject property. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS The proposed landscape plan includes Cabbage Palms and Silver Buttonwood around the perimeter of the property with Coconut Palms surrounding the building. Underplantings adjacent to the building and along the perimeter of the property include Bougainvillea, Trinette (Schefflera), Boston Fern, Gardenias, and assorted annuals. Cocoplum hedging surrounds the parking area as well as the a/c units to the south of the building. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(E)(3), all landscape areas must be protected with type "D" curbing. Curbing has not been indicated adjacent to the landscape islands or adjacent to the parallel parking spaces. Provision of curbing is attached as a condition of approval. Landscape islands are required to be 5' in width, excluding curbing. The islands must be increased in HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 6 width to comply with the requirement. Also, the ends of the islands must be supplied with the appropriate radius. The location of existing trees on the adjacent property and the proposed hedging in front of the bougainvillea must be indicated on the landscape plan. Further, several of the proposed trees do not meet the required dimensions; site, landscaping, and engineering plans are not consistent regarding the location of the a/c units; and all utility lines must be indicated on the plans to ensure that there is no conflict with the proposed landscaping. These issues must be addressed and have been added as technical items. The proposed landscape plan will comply with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. Landscape Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) That the existing trees on the adjacent property and the hedging in front of the Bougainvillea at the west side of the property are noted on the plans. 2) Provide the spacing for all proposed plant material. 3) Identify all existing trees and accurately show their canopies drawn to scale. There may be some conflicts between newly proposed trees and existing trees off-site. 4) Provide the location of all site lighting and utilities such as water lines and meters, sewer lines and clean-outs, cable television lines and boxes, telephone lines and boxes and all other items that may affect the proposed landscaping shown on the landscape plan. 5) The location of the proposed ground level air conditioning units are in different locations on the landscape plan, as compared to the site and engineering plans. All plans must be coordinated. • 6) The spacing of the trees surrounding the parking lot is not consistent. Some of the trees are 25 feet apart and others are as little as 10 feet. The placement of the trees may interfere with the overhead power lines and utility pole. This situation must be looked at very carefully. 7) Per 4.6.16(E) (6) palms must have an overall height of a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a minimum of six (6) feet of clear trunk at the time of planting. Some of the proposed palms do not meet this requirement. 8) There is a proposed grouping of Sabal palms with no under planting. For ease of maintenance and good design principles, the applicant shall provide a tiered planting beneath the palms. DESIGN ELEMENTS/ANALYSIS The project consists of a Florida style, vernacular building. The mixed use project features a two-story, block building with first and second story porches on the front and rear HPB Staff Report Linehan Property,Lot 6, Block 59-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 7 elevations, standing seam metal, hip roof (mill finish) with front facade, hipped dormer and widow's walk, and a combination of smooth stucco (first floor) and aluminum clapboard style siding (second floor) exterior. The front elevation is broken up by a projection of the middle bay (not beyond the porch plane) which displays a smooth stucco finish and acts as an entry feature. Trellises extend beyond the balcony proposed on the west elevation. A pent roof covers the first floor, front entrance where colonial style lighting flanks the door. The top and bottom horizontal members of the aluminum guardrails on the porch and widow's walk are bronze with the remaining cross braces white. Pineapple finials cap the widow's walk. Fenestration includes operable divided light, white aluminum frame windows (with impact resistant glass), fixed arched windows with a similar light pattern are centered on the front and rear elevations, as well as divided light doors. The operable windows and doors have decorative splade lintels. Decorative colonial shutters flank the windows centered on the front and rear elevations. The project also includes construction of a sun deck/canopy over the parking spaces to the south (covering approximately 4 '/2 spaces. The canopy displays a smooth stucco finish and a bronze and white guardrail with a pattern matching that found along the proposed balconies. The canopy measures 50' in length, 18' 1/4" in width and 17' in height (including guardrails). The proposed colors for the building include "Autumn Maize" (golden yellow) for the first floor stucco, "Corn Silk" (a complimentary, lighter yellow) for the siding, "Cloud White" for the stucco trim, fascia, and door casings, "Teaberry" (dark Sage) for the shutters, and "Melon Orange" for the smooth stucco projection on the front façade. Development Standards LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 8 (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to (a) height, (b) front facade proportion, (c) proportion of openings, (d) rhythm of solids to voids, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (f) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g) relationship of materials, texture, and color, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (j) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of front elevation. Delray Beach Desiqn Guidelines Infill Buildings/New Construction All new construction should complement the historic architecture of the district. The relationship of that new construction adjacent to the significant historic resources can either enhance or detract form the historic setting of the district. New construction (infill) should not create a false sense of historical development by utilizing conjectural features of stylistic elements taken from other buildings. Analysis The proposed new residence is similar to the adjacent new construction in materials, color scheme, scale, and massing. The Florida vernacular influence compliments the architectural styles of the surrounding district while differentiating itself from the historic building stock with the use of modern materials such as stucco, aluminum siding and guardrails, and aluminum, impact-resistant, fenestration. As stated previously in this report, the trellis cannot extend more than 3' from the principal structure, therefore, the trellises will need to be modified. Based on the analysis above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for the construction of a new two-story, mixed use building, subject to modifications to the trellis to comply with LDR Section 4.3.4(H). REQUIRED,._.FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. HPB Staff Report Linehan Property,Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 9 Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(1) and (2), within the OSSHAD zoning district, the residential use as well as business and professional offices are listed as permitted uses. As previously stated, the owner occupied unit is allowed as a permitted use. Any occupation of the residence in a manner inconsistent with LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2), will require conditional use approval. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is bounded by the OSSHAD zoning district with a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed mixed use of the subject property would be permitted on the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character, building style, scale, and massing. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties. • HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 10 REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency The project proposed for the Linehan Property was reviewed by the CRA during its meeting on February 12, 2004. The CRA Board recommended approval as proposed. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the construction of a new two-story, mixed use building for both residential (one unit) and office use and the integration of site improvements such as internal walkways, perimeter landscaping, and parking. There are modifications that will need to be made to ensure compliance with setback requirements. The proposal will be consistent with Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined as technical items and conditions of approval. ALTERN-ATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for Linehan Property, (Lot 6, Block 59), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for Linehan Property, (Lot 6, Block 59), based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), (E)(8)(a-k), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with basis stated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION _ By Separate Motions: Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the mixed use development at Linehan Property, (Lot 6, Block 59), based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 11 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a 5' sidewalk easement be accepted by the City Commission and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a change of use inconsistent with LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2) will require conditional use approval. 4) That the proposed trellis and stairwell are modified to comply with the building setback requirements. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for Linehan Property (Lot 6, Block 59), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That "D" type curbing is installed around all landscape areas and that the landscape islands are modified to meet the dimensional requirements. Design Elements Approve the COA for the Linehan Property, (Lot 6, Block 59), based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the design elements for the west elevation are modified to address the issue of the trellis. Attachments: Survey, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, & Location Map Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 12 'APPENDIX_ A; CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water service exists via service lateral connection to the 8"water main along NW 1st Avenue. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to an 8"sewer main along the alley. ❑ Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing a fire hydrant on the northeast corner of NW 1st Street and NW 1st Avenue. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed 3,583 sq. ft. office/residence will generate approximately 49 additional daily trips which will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Schools: As the subject property concerns the addition of a residential unit, a School Concurrency form and the corresponding fee was submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board. A response has been received stating the project meets Concurrency. Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed residential unit will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, a park impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit for parks and recreation purposes. HPB Staff Report • Linehan Property, Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 13 Solid Waste: The proposal calls for the construction of a mixed use office/residence. Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of mixed use of office and residential. Trash generated each year by the proposed 3,583 sq.ft. office/residential space will be 11.66 tons of solid waste per year (3,583 x 5.4 _ 2,000 = 9.67 + 1.99 = 11.66). The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. • HPB Staff Report Linehan Property, Lot 6, Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 14 APPENDIX B STANDARDS_ ..FOR.._SITE' PLAN , ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report • ' • Linehan Property,Lot 6,Block 59-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 15 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent 9 Q I BLOCK 59 % SURVEYOR'S 17,2 _ z N W_ /3/.60' signature 1. Reproduction: FND PK NAIL/WASHER and NE tat STREET — — — g surveyor and i. = 2. No Title Opini SOUTH 6.00 FEET been provided. OF LOT 4 or other instr ATLANTIC AVENUE 68.2' I affect the sub has been ma 3. The land des, T Client. �1o,eas so. Fr. 4. No undergrou 5. Angles and d LOCATION SKETCH (NOT TO SCALE) v I v plat. I LOT 5 h 2 STORY CBS BUILDING I I 6. Elevations sh F.F.EL.=2252 I National Geod BLOCK 59 7. Benchmark D. ' #D-53, Eleval 8. The entire pr Zone X, Com ^ 01/05/89. \ -- I I SET 5/e I.R. 9. Abbreviation I FND 5/8"I.R: I 68.2' I W/CAP L.B.#3300 C.B.S.= ConCFE W/CAP LB.#353VW/CAP SET S/B'I.R. Drainage Ease LB.#3300 933sourNFND 5/8"I.R. Finished Floor; In �+ W/CAP LB.#353 Rod; L.B.= LicFND 5/8"IR 131.60' 1.33'SOUTH Disk; 0/S= Of °- 0 — Palm Beach 89'09' sou H o.os LOT s Professional L / rI 90'51' FND PK NAIL/WASHER Z I � • �'. ASPHALT W ~ DRIVEWAY co W n v a J W Q LOTS P, COo -� co "I BLOCK 59 I P, G ���, ' (Co Q(0 , ` LAND DESCR a vs Lot 6, LESS th M ,/� I the South 0.0 Z ° L TOWN OF LINT( Plat zo' f90'51' / 89'09' f ^pry- of the Publicereof eI©I YO.a'EAST FND 5/B'I.R. a, ' FND N/D.L.B.N6500 5/e"I.R, 6 131.60 Said lands situc UNDER WALK i IN CURB.0.16'SOUTH SOUTH 15.7 FEET o.1s'WESr County, Florida acres) more or I. 1 STORY WOOD — BUILDING F.F.EL.=22.02 LOT 7 I I CERTIFIED TC BLOCK 59 „I 3• Jessica Linehan 1. _, CASON METHODIST - CHURCH — • a - M i N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. W a W .Mr ■a Z _ W .CITY > a ATTORNEY Q ? Csi z _ BUILDING =z ct L M MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DR. N.W. 2ND ST. N.E. 2ND ST. ii .. 5-2 , I - N giv,,,m I ft am „, z a. Z NI IIIMIa 11 CITY o HALL -- 11/z lal all • N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. z Z I o Tr § COMMUNITY I- L,; will z Z CENTER Z Z z TENNIS OLD N STADIUM I Ili SQUARE I I l b.; ATLANTIC• ( 1 AVENUE SOUTH �I IwI < II w COUNTY a >a ¢ 'a COURT Q HOUSE O F in Z u) — N M N fy/ W W N § N N In N S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1-�-� T-m-r-i rrrr-r t � 1 i i i i 1 f 1�1 1ST I--1 I-1 I i ST. N --gimp-- JESSICA LINEHAN PROPERTY • CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM724 9 -► UEULIUUCH - UEIRAY OUCH aHrrer�an ,. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 111117 MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT � '� 7991 lUU1 Agent: Digby Bridges Project Name: Handelsman Yellow Building Project Location: 85 SE 6th Avenue- Continued from January 7, 2004 ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD . The item before the Board is approval of a Class II Site Plan Modification for the Handelsman Yellow Building, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND - The subject property is comprised of Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 117, Town of Linton, and consists of 0.39 acres. The property is zoned CBD (Central Business District) and is designated as an individually listed historic property. The property contains a two-story commercial building (formerly a single family residence), an office building, (previously the garage), a carport, and a two-story apartment building with two, one bedroom apartment units and one, two bedroom apartment unit. The single family house, now a restaurant, was built in 1903, remodeled in 1918 and was designated a historic building (traditionally known as the Blank House) on June 6, 1994. In 1947, the two story apartment building (2,224 sq. ft.) containing three apartments and a garage was constructed at the southeastern portion of the site. In 1950, a garage was constructed on the northeast portion of the site and the garage associated with the southeastern apartment building was converted into additional living area. A carport, between the apartment building and garage, was built in 1954. The apartment building, carport, and garage are considered non-contributing due to their lack of architectural integrity. In 1995, the Historic Preservation Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated site plan for the conversion of the 2,137 sq. ft. single family residence to a retail establishment, conversion of the existing 1,027 sq. ft. garage to two offices, along with construction of a second floor addition accommodating a two bedroom apartment, construction of a nine space pea rock parking area at the southwest corner of the site, and installation of associated landscaping, walkways, and refuse area. The single family residence was subsequently converted to retail use and the garage was converted to offices, however neither building permits were obtained for the conversion of the garage nor was the parking area installed. Therefore, the two new offices were not considered legally established. Meeting Date: March 3, 2004 Agenda Item: IV.C. y HPB Staff Report Handelsman Yellow Building—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 2 In October 1995, the two-story historic building was converted to a restaurant, with the second floor serving as storage area. During its meeting of May 2, 2001, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and approved a Class III site plan modification for the conversion of the 1,027 sq. ft. garage into two offices, construction of a 600 sq. ft. concrete outdoor dining area on the south side of the restaurant, construction of an exterior staircase on the north side of the 2,137 sq. ft. restaurant, installation of an eight space asphalt parking area at the southwest corner of the property. The improvements included installation of one handicap accessible parking space on the north side of the property, and installation of associated landscaping, walkways and refuse container area. While the proposed project was approved by the Board, the project was not undertaken. Approval for the project expired on November 2, 2002. On March 19, 2003, the Board again reviewed and approved a new request for a Class III site plan which included the conversion of the garage into two offices, construction of a new nine (9) space asphalt parking lot, installation of a handicap accessible ramp, and installation of associated landscaping and walkways. The improvements were never undertaken. On January 7, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a COA and Class II site plan modification request for the elimination of the approved nine (9) space asphalt parking lot in order to accommodate construction of a tea garden in addition to consideration of six (6) in- lieu parking spaces. During the review, the Board suggested an alternative to the proposal that involved. the demolition of the office at the northeast corner of the property for the construction of on-site parking. The Board tabled the request to provide the applicant time to modify the proposal. As the owner was unavailable to attend the two following meetings, the applicant is now before the Board for re-consideration of the original Class II Site Plan Modification proposal for the elimination of the nine (9) space parking lot and request for consideration of construction of an English tea garden, internal walkways, and purchase of six (6) in-lieu spaces. The proposal includes retention of the office building. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL . The development proposal consists of the following: ➢ Elimination of the approved nine (9) space parking lot at the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the historic building; ➢ Construction of a circular English tea garden with extensive landscaping and circular paver walkway and associated internal walkway in lieu of the approved nine (9) space parking lot; ➢ Installation of curvilinear paver block walkway that leads from the landscaping to the office; and, • HPB Staff Report Handelsman Yellow Building—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 3 ➢ Consideration of a request for six (6) in-lieu parking spaces to meet the parking requirement for the office building. REQUIRED- FINDINGS 4 Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b), a Class II site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1, but requires action by a Board. LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5), formal findings are not required for a Class I or II modification. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall be specifically addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development proposal. LDR Section 4.4.13 Central Business District (CBD): LDR Chapter 4.4.13(G)(1) - Parking Parking for this development proposal is being assessed as it relates to the conversion of the garage to offices, relocation of the garage spaces, and provision of a handicapped accessible space. The existing 2,137 sq. ft. historic building has been utilized as a restaurant, with the first floor utilized for dining and kitchen space area while the second floor is utilized for storage only. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (G)(1)(a) within that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, NE 1st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and SE 1st Street on the south, parking requirements for all non-residential uses, except restaurants, shall be one space for each 300 sq. ft., or fraction thereof. The parking required for the creation of new floor area shall also include the replacement of any previously required parking which may be eliminated. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(c), if it is impossible or inappropriate to provide the required number of on-site or off-site parking spaces, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be applied, which must be approved by the City Commission. Further, as the property is located west of the Intracoastal Waterway and is zoned CBD, and is not included within the Pineapple Grove Main Street area, the in-lieu fee is $12,000 per space [ref: LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(2)]. Based on the information above, the two new offices (the 1,027 sq. ft. garage) require four parking spaces and the replacement of two spaces eliminated with the conversion of the garage equal six (6) spaces thus, requiring six (6) parking spaces total. The applicant is • HPB Staff Report Handelsman Yellow Building—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 4 proposing to purchase these spaces through the City's in-lieu parking program which is available within the CBD. The in-lieu fee for the 6 spaces is $72,000 total. • If approved by the City Commission, this in-lieu fee will need to be remitted prior to issuance of a building permit. However, as the previous Class II Site Plan Modification permitted the construction of nine (9) parking spaces on site, there is no data to support that it is impossible to provide on-site parking. While the adopted Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan discourages parking in the front of the properties, provision of the six (6) parking spaces is appropriate based upon the prior illegal conversion of the garage to an office building and the current parking requirements for the restaurant which results in a significant parking deficiency for the site. In addition, any future development or redevelopment of the site must consider utilizing the space (at the southwest corner) for a building (either newly constructed or relocated) along the property frontage with parking in the rear, adjacent to the alley. Per LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(1), street parking, parking located in the public right-of-way, or parking located in public parking facilities shall not be used to satisfy on-site parking requirements. While a 76 space City parking lot abuts the north side of the property, the parking lot is heavily utilized during the evenings and weekends and is a parking lot where employees of area businesses are encouraged to park. Given the significant parking deficiency of this property, and as the property contains adequate land (as illustrated by previously obtaining approval of a nine (9) space parking lot), it is neither impossible nor inappropriate to provide the required parking on site. The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) reviewed the in-lieu request during its meeting of January 20, 2004. During the review, staff recommended that parking be constructed on the east side of the proposed garden area (approximately four spaces) while retaining the open space to the west (adjacent to SE 6tn Avenue). Based on staffs recommendation, the applicant requested that the item be tabled for further consideration of staffs recommendation. The PMAB therefore tabled the item. Due to a request by the applicant to postpone the review, PMAB action is anticipated on March 23, 2004. LDR Section 4.6.8 - Site Lighting • Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. No exterior lighting has been proposed with this modification. While site lighting is not required for the proposed garden use, path lighting such as lighted bollards or other similar lighting should be provided along the pathways and within the garden area to ensure pedestrian safety. This has been added as a condition of approval. LANDSCAPEAN ANALYSIS The proposed landscaping consists of roses and orange jasmine surrounding the circular pathway at the center of the proposed garden and a Royal Poinciana at the outer edges of the garden. Existing Lady Palms and Lillies surround the historic building with Shining Jasmine, Cocoplum, Benjamin Fig, and Red Ixora proposed along the perimeter of the property and as well as the three buildings. Queen Palms and Christmas Palms will be relocated along the perimeter of the property (near the office and apartment building) with Lily of the Nile also proposed. While the proposed landscaping, as listed above, complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16, there are several issues concerning the data • HPB Staff Report Handelsman Yellow Building—Class II Site Plan Modification ill Page 5 provided on the landscape plan. Therefore, the following technical items are attached as conditions of approval. Landscape Technical Items: If the Class II Site Plan Modification is approved, the following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) That plant materials for area #10 is identified, and, 2) Consideration should be given to screening the west side of the carport with Cocoplum hedging to soften it from the garden area. _ RE.VIEW BYOTHERS ` .... . Downtown Development Authority At its meeting of December 17, 2003, the DDA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the development proposal to eliminate the nine (9) space parking area and purchase six (6) in-lieu spaces, construction of an English tea garden, and associated walkways and landscaping. ASSESSMENT AND „CON''CL=USION The elimination of the previously approved nine (9) space parking lot to accommodate the proposed English tea garden and related in-lieu request is not inappropriate or impossible for the site. Given the significant parking deficiency of this property and as the property contains adequate land, it is neither impossible nor inappropriate to provide the required parking on- site. Based on the analysis in the report, positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.9(E)(1), (E)(3), and (E)(3)(a) cannot be made. It is noted that no exterior lighting is proposed at this time. Due to the nature of the proposed landscaping, adequate lighting must be provided. If the site plan is approved, it is highly recommended that path lighting, such as lighted bollards, be installed along the proposed walkways. Further, the proposed landscaping complies with LDR Section 4.6.16, though several notations on the plans need clarification. 'ALT.ERNATIVE .-:ACTIONS . . ._' . . .` A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class II site plan modification the Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue and recommend to the City Commission approval of the in-lieu parking request, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.9(E)(1), (E)(3), and (E)(3)(a), subject to the following conditions: 1) That lighting is provided along the proposed walkways and that a lighting detail is submitted, and, HPB Staff Report • Handelsman Yellow Building—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 6 2) That the Landscape Technical Items are addressed. C. Deny the COA and associated Class II site plan modification for the Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue and recommend to the City Commission denial of the in-lieu parking request, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.9(E)(1) and (E)(3) that it is possible and/or appropriate to provide the required parking. :" RECOMMENDATION Deny the COA and associated Class II site plan modification for the Handelsman Yellow Building, 85 SE 6th Avenue based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.9(E)(1) and (E)(3) and recommend to the City Commission denial of the in- lieu parking request. Attachments: Site Plan, Landscape Plan, &Survey Staff Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • . - . . . . _ • '41 �Y£LNG PAINT AlARKING POSSIBLE GAS LINE 2� Jh CO LOT 11 �'Oa 2� ( LEGEND: Cl 2 i 'S Cl BLOCK 117 a;, i Y + + b + 300' 4 i p� PAVED +1237 PAVED O. OB I f = CENTERLINE N. �' 1 g / p �3O• �' 'S BLUE PAINT MARKING WM a WATER METER ry a i ,. + tyl + i j WATER LINE FH=FIRE HYDRANT 1.1 12-5 ,,.5.0 cs) I FIRE SPRINKLER + MM GONG = CONCRETE 0cP. CONNECTIONS ..1 m £N -� o, + J J/ --"I- I.R. = 5/8'IRON ROD WITH CAP/LB 353 O. _ v 75.7' CHIMNEY - 10.6' J W W + �054 I 3 C.A. = CENTRAL ANGLE 1 4Y.� • I 27.1 29.6' '� 32C a ? = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES h 3 0 • FLAGSTONE tiW 1yW I OS FLOOD ZONE: X Cl ,y 1& 2 STORY 2 PORCH v p ' J U LGGG1111 3Iz ti O t o= '.M BUILDING 3 �- 2t0 d aW.' �!� 1b SET BACK REOLNREMENTS: LOT 12 Li Zr' O< + L. v: CONC. Cl Cl "� Cle ,ry /B5 ''' I +U BLOCK 117 ;Q y� a a` / I 10'SIDE co=I `. f h 3 d FLOOR+74.42 .)... WOOD DECK `� ^U 2S `t! ¢ 10'FRONT PUMP 4'' ', 10'REAR z 2 + iJ HOUSE r _ I 0'INTERIOR SIDE J ., 48'HEIGHT n 15. �. .17.0'.� �, r. PARCEL / 29 5' 1,/ j� LU£PAINT MARKING AREA = 16,799 SQUARE FEET OR 0.3856 ACRE t WOOD e 'I""" _ WATER LINE PORCH ! `"�..5/ CONC. / L3' SSMH= SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ^ a ti N A\C O co STEP PAD WI NV.=NVERT 4.0'CONC. WALK / ,L +X1.89=E,41W 1AN BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC Y1 0 ///---5. LINE OF N.I/2 (� F+X T V£RIAiic CATLM 1929 SOLACE STATE ROAD DEPT. .4. <= a. -} +r� OF LOT J3 >- I Imo!MARK N C A B7DC£OVER BE + +W -- '- �- 1 < zzZZ NTRACOASTAL WATERWAY QI 2 d N- LINE OF 5.1/2 7 Q I 3Y�3 S OF LOT 13 Cl ,I c, 1` � i 3 LOT 13 - / �1 o (0 M BLOCK 117 L6 1 `x' ��STTA�AI77RS -4-1"'- x • WI IB.Z' e :S..S.. �5.3• W I -;o FLOQ4 ,�[ ``' PARCEL 1/ =' +J214 32., < Cl ---1 --RIGHT OF WAY AS :��%4" .gyp 1&Z STORY %�,i't�o b I 2a L___ SHOWN IN ROAD 1 �� APARTMEfJTS it W U PLAT BOOK 2, C 0 N C C. '4.3' j'611, 613, 675$� ,,{'zQ�.'i 32 UU PAGE 214 LOT 14 P A T I 0 �'� 2$"Id'-'^,C rnW 2 � BLOCK 117 'I�I Je ili �+ L_ k 1 = FLOOR :10oR DESCRIPT/ON: +128E ,+,L83 ' VI 32.1 PARCEL l: 30-0' ARC= 23.34 " "`�J`°""""` '¢ LOT 12 AND THE NORTH HALF(4.1/2) OF LOT 13, BLOCK 117, TOWN C.A. = 89.08'JO' < I OF UNION, A/K/A DELRAY. ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT RADIUS = 15.00' N T., �'� �,o. Y \ THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK !,PAGE 3 OF THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE INLET Clc< CT _i WATER VALVE WITH RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. POLE c,a •i- BLUE PAINT MARKING O• + sf WA TEN LINE PARCEL II: + • _- +,24 ( + SOUTH HALF(S1/2) OF LOT 13 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 117, TOWN OF �L�RAFFfCR FOUND LR. 115.22 FOLNJOJ LINTON. A/K/A DELRAY, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF LR. + �, ll W AS RECORDED W PLAT BOOK 1,PAGE 3 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SIGNALS - FH Zv2�o PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. 4 STORM J I N +71 B:hYY1 AURKgTGW N W CC LI I MANHOLE < c OF NAC A WASHER < I+IZOO - t11771 _ - S•E. 1ST S T. - E�E�AT - +*s 3 yam.+ +XL95 _ LINES FOR ` +1L82 YELLOW PAINT R1A I` I TRAFFIC I MARKING POSSIBLE +X1-B7 1 SIGNALS 34'PAVING GAS LINE I MANHOLE 6"& 18'PIPE RUN N. &S. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY TITLE NOTES: CERTIFIED TO: PARCEL SUBJECT TO CITY OF DELRAY BEACH RESOLUTION RECORDED XGBICKI DRAPER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PIS SURVEY WAS LADE UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 476, PAGE 111. CIHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MEETS THE AOML(UM T£CHWCAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA PARCEL SUBJECT TO DECLARATION OF UNITY OF TITLE RECORDED IN YELLOW BUILDING. LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND RAPPERS IV CHAPTER 61077-6,FLORIDA OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 8917, PAGE 1643. WACHO VIA BANK,A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.PURSUANT TO SECTION 472027,FLORIDA STATUTES • • T>w ram _ THOMAS E. ADAMS NOT VALD WITHOUT THE 5&WATLKE AND SURVEYOR & MAPPER 113489 THIS SURVEY SHOWS ALL EASEMENTSW AND RIGHTS OF WAY TIfE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FL ORYIA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER AS SHOWN ON CHlCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY _ OFFICE FILE NUMBER 410-0508 DATED OCTOBER 7, 2002. - • O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC. • LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION/L8353 SURVEYOR AND MAPPER N RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: PAUL D.ENGLE 2601 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY,DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA J3483 (561)276-4501 732-3279 FAX 276-2390 - DATE OF SURVEY REVISED: 6/30/0O -ADDED SCALE' _ REVISED: 3/27/03 - ADDED ELEVATIONS MA Y 20, 2000 AL TA CERTIFICATION ly - 20' REVISED: 11/18/02 - ADDEO NEW TITLE POLICY INFORMATION FIELD BOOK PACE NO. ORDER pp ©COPYRIGHT 2003 O'BRIEK SUTTER&O'BRIEN,WC. REVISED: 9/17/02 - CHANGED CERT. TO. REVISED: TIT 2/20/01 - CHANCED 0.225 5$ CERT &TO TI LE INFORAlATlDN 94-241db _ ... . . 4 J;.`/ , _ NOTE: NATIVE PLANTS �` t''; UNLESS OTHERWISE EXISTING PLANTING I KEY COMMON NAMESCIEN11RC NAME QNTY. REMARKS LOCATION r,� ' L 1 Gl Cocoplum Chrveababnus loam 88 (Na w}24"-JO"Planted 0 24'GG - 4 . GN. Coconut palm Cows nuctf.a 7 10R ��ywood PAVED I Q.V. live Oak Querws vkahbna 05 (N.Uw)Yft.GT.;81L spread.14tt.blab - 1 ± Z.C. Zsohvr Illy Zsohmthee treatWe 30 ttw 17 DIOBY I N® 0 ATI i! ® I NON-NATIVE PLANTS BRDOES, Akio' 1 KEY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME REMARKS AREA ASSSOCCIARSH TES �v _ v 0 i Adernan u.Tawm - 3 ad. 2, INC. P.A. - - - - _ �. T 3�.QQ _r A.A. Lily of the NI* A thus ofrkanpe 2 ad.itzni 2 ' I IIII.IIII I�. \�f%�'• \\f�': :\\f%tr� ••\�►�' A.R. Desert Ailamando nerBfdia -1B 3 yyd. en 8.33 ARCHITECTS �,.. •��, %� 1...,, .-,.N`:./ AR �yeen Palm At bum rq�wnxof0anum 04 Relowt ..e moat deeiwble exletha trees ,,....y r` �/ 't1� `:s :7)�, •1)%\ 1�, �,1I,.� xi'.i;_ j AZ SYtdI Flower AIo1nW zerumWt - 2 ad.Specimen 4,19 23 124 67H ' t7�/ ."/ Ill► • ` ` .:. .:-;:•;,.., Ill B.A. Y-d T-d 44 Threw Brunbhio wstrdb 02 6 ad.Specimen 28,3 OGLRAY 6GAp1, AVENIJE b / 1// ,rll'1•!#� / ��r. rq�`I. t' 1 l v�1 C.G. ^ PL.SUBS �Vd ,j' 1 /J/// , , /�� •` " 1 q C.G. Garden Canna Canna X wends ����0. 2 ad. Rad blown Doom Et �, ` ., .1'j�/ /�i��/ • �. LeAI'A :.:�:.1 •• C� : ` G°!'ds»- �.. .. ..CCam�k� �_ Crowe bloom � i �../� �\ SOU 476-1888 „ N� (L.o- fink • ., ►�f• �Q %/////////j �. s - �stKQ" 21 r`�,- D.R. Rawl Poinciana ONanbc rah 1 1 GT..Bf1.weed.1614 hldt - •. '• t "® I�lii� %�>'i�� ►•� ���0 - j F.a Benlomin Fla Row b.n amha 42 3 d.specimen. - �� �i�� '. % I. Lou a Fight. Iris=Wave htbrid) - PIm3 O 4'O.C.,Nldte bloom O.G ®I.- • "�"�'�� L Louisiana iris LW(Lpv elan hfbrtd) Plant O 4'0&,Purple bloom 26 5-'-' `` t %� N® _c.'•'1��i ���'V N ,/ LC. Red Ixoro Ixoro oocdneo 39 3 ad.Specimen - :.J Ile t;,•: 1 ► ♦t / J.C. rm.Juniper Junberus ohinensis - Existing Z : Q Btutt=A v :,"? ►�� Mk ;% ® _J.H. ShhhE Jaemhe JamkxTm nRWum - Fxletha - ' EXISTING "' '�� ♦t BUILDING# j v L UI Mum - Eldsth l.� 7 81 i t 2 STORY ► " 9ers O O BUILDING Mi r•lt .is n;;j:%' �„� / .j LY. LI s s LHoos muscorlown n - 14 knee,Plant O r-8'G.G 77:111•'�'t F" ao 1 ® Q ' E]aST. //i: en �. CFFIGE -j M.P. Orarwe Joemine Mumma oankvlata 47 3 ad. en _ m H �, .� #S WvoM :%//i=, i,.�9 P.C. Plumbaao PWmboao cao.nels 42 3 ad.Specimen,Impend Blue bloom 20.22 31 o ce / y • .•-2/ P.L Yellow Shrimp_Plant PochvetachYs brae 12 2 ad.Specimen 8 a 0 b - "�v - y. j P.V. Queen.Wreath Petrea wlubUk 04 3 d. Trans over ardned trellis 3,12,t3.24,37,36 Z 4tt U_ Mk ilk MN" �1= --�:�. I' P.X. Philodendron P dron xanabu - 3 a- gel. 1,16 ... z Ross Rosa ae - •' v 0 ..•ai. -4 (,,./ R.E. Lady Palm Rhaple excelsa _ Fxdetha - '� •Ail: Eta. :. P-. / R.S. Indtan Azalea Rhododendron Sloan _ _ _ , 3 s. wD00 �� 1'� 1':��• '- b Purple sauarrosa - 3 ad.Soeclm.n.Purok b{oorrn 38® . _%i• % /// ® R.S Shoxer RuNtia -tl-:"= .' SF. BWs Somas SdTAa fahocea Plant O 1'-0'O.G,�,.„ PaT07 ' a- �� ' '�� S.N. Bird-of-Parodies Sfrditzlo Modal Exieth ^••er + . i.. a r.• i-Tr . . . �Sf��� ._.ALB ' �,• .�`- 1 v SR Bird-of Stre(ttzb realnae 18 3 ad. en -,- a • ill( 1,1��,,, e', ,/. , a- :- a ''� ! T.G. ThrVaAis Th Ais deuce 12 3 ad.�.n (-1 'w Y� .s �►17 ea os i0�Itivi 1, Lin 'i I O t Annuals P '-v�iu�(�•�-.-- ` ehoberi toY pen t !i,4.• I CA:414, rr►�^wI(�4i".q C�42:..C�J' t i-� © C, I t O I D. �'i i ..�`S / Ili air > _ , .../ �% .&.. ter, l ► � Q 'I / :.. i- . _% �.. _ it a 4/i'le' / /�/!., O ��+ 2 r fle \YGr��1H8 >- , _ , BUILDING �j /•.::: 4d, vg. I YELLOW 1 47,' / . L A GARDEN ENTRY ARBOR //:3:1' `�I • Tvir ?: .. . , BRICK PAVERS LOCATION 91AAP oWIAV gal aCnE >:'; ::",:< .• 111111mE lon�,, ©Hann PATTERN'HAMM BWr < '"''""0.::::::::::. l,_ ,�' �, EI E PATTERN'SOLDER' " ' iff ?i {",'sic :i �:: ® % ;!Ip TIME TIER FOUNTAIN „`�` wrouA• 1. = ::. O STONE PAVERS'CRAZY PAVYNO'� � � Lr:;'._.�:�JBUILDING 42s``f ROSE WROETI_ _ _ • FJOSTWG 0. © ATU/IM AVE lip''�, 1�:: • 9%:1: ® I 1&2 STORY •.l�•, abh//.j 40%�:�:.. _ d.;. APARTMENTS =?:Vt /�. q: ..• © 0 - .. 0 ••i'- '.. ,. /fill,fits.615 >r= 0 tat.Sr. i WS10uLl'°Ett UNOBSTRUCTED % %` i►. :::: 1`41' (2460 I End.sr e .'•:".'.;I:,!;..4f /Ill 4111,pcif, p,:: .4_ i r %/-•,,;_• #----• ir.a..4'.1/4...e..,, /. 1w:7 4! ,. . �m '•.One:MG_23.34r �`% % _ _l%% i�;�. /`?� ®► s,;,- `- / 0 maw: slinN:w, xLI,l C.Lases �b, _ : _ n 'L1:. :- a,:.:,. ....p:...... i ,�.}.. •..t.w...:v::.- v,e•: :+:.. `. .. a..o.v..A.r`a.,a�rw+. Caen a,.P• IF • �N . TRIt10A Co7�PROVkEE w 1RIOaA g LANDSCAPE NOTES a .""" Mar Y M.OYlrar w 4ALL WANTED BEDS AND!EDGES 10 RECEIVE 3'SHREDDED CIO'RESS *Mom'n�a r AR 4LALTi sawinKtigs Go GIARGd by 2. ALL LO DBCAPED AREA TO RECOVE 100X AUTOMATIC IRRIGATES no wawa.arm,..A LANDSCAPE CALCULATION FORM 4. �LANG ' P TO Y PLANTS. W �noletido" 'ol 6 ALL PROHIEIIED RANT S'ECKE SHALL BE ERADICATED FRO&THE S.E. 1 ST ST. MULTIPLE FAMILY, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL 245 720D C 0E\ OPMFNi am OF BEACH 6 CCNiRAC10R Ls RIMPONSIBLE FGR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND WSJOFS PRIOR TO COWEKT]ERT OF WORK 0 112/30/03 5 A TOTAL LOT AREA 18 799.5 SF 7. NEN PLANTERS:ALL LA SELL ROCK B TO RELAXED t NOM COCO B STRUCILM PARiaN WALKWAYS,DRIVES,ETC 88,,07.2 SF Ire BOIL PUT IN TTs PLACE. ; a C TOTAL PERVIOUS LOT AREA7177.1 S.F 6 CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RlRMUS AIL MAMMA TOOLS. D AREA OF SHRUBS AND wpHD COVERS RECOUPED 4201.4 SF EOIIPLENE LABOR.AND PLANTS NECESSARY FOR THE PRB'tR PLAN1NS a 10 E AREA OF SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PROVIDED 20.8 S.F GAF ALL TRIf3 SHRUBS CRCUDCOVrRS AND GRASS AS SHORN ON 34 PAVING '„ AREcrs RAYING RAN F NAIVE VEGETATION RECQU02ED 4 SF 0. AU. 1 TREES AND PAWS TO EE STALED ND ann. `a 4 31 G NATIVE VEGETATION PRO J 184.8 SF 10. ALL PLANT MAEEBAL To LE BAOG.,m W/Sae CLEAN MUCK A 2014 ,2 H TOTAL PAVED VEHIi31 QSE AREA "(' SF SAD AND E FERTILE,AND FRIABLE. I TOTAL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA RECpUIRED 400.3 S.F tt. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY OUT ON TIE GROUND 1HE LOCATIONS FOR 0 14 y® I1-�-� J TOATAL INTERIOR LAND$CJL AREA PROVIDED 4(MBA) S.F THE PLANTS&Oa1UNES OF AREAS 10 PLANTED.TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL �..a ,g�D K TOTAL INTERIOR LANDS SHADETREES RECWptEA 3.2 lHtF CBTAN APPROVAL FROM 1HE ARO4TEEA BEFORE ID:CAVA1ION BEGINS TIE 7 14 a L TOTAL INTERIOR SHADE TREES PROVIDED 6 TREES ARCHITECT MAY ADJUST THE LOCAJMI OF SPEOFIED PLANT MATERIALS • ' C �Qa� M TOTAL UNEAR FEET SURROUNDING PARKING OR VEHICULAR USE AREAS NA LF TREESROBROT MY M.EISf PPoat W MAIMS. LJ .N TOTAL NUMBER OF PERIMETER TREES RErr i o 7.8 UT y 12 AND PAWS TO SE WARMOIXD FDR (1)TEAR SHRUBS AID 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES PRO per 13 .R� GRGONDCUERS To E GUARANTEE FOR(20)DAYS AFTER FINAL WRITTEN C2/03/03 • ALA3ACCPTANCE B PLA BY MINER OR moirreCL CONTILMOt IS( L � P TOTAL NUMBER dF TREES TO 6E SAVED OF SIZE B TREES RESPQL58E FOI PLAIfT MAMMA/a UNTIL DIE TIE GAF MITTEN OB t _Q TOTAL NUMBER OF NATIVE TREES RECQUIRED 5.4 TREES ACCEPTANCE j� t`'I`{S1�l�S �� R TOTAL NUMBER OF NAIVE TREES PROVIDED 12 titre 13. FLL HOLES WHERE E7OSINC TREES CA PUNT MAMA/14AW Ma r 1 Y, i L`���1/l S TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES OH PLAN PROVIDED 21 lTtkks MOVED 70 FROYEE LE1I2.SURFACE Y 91RIIOSRGRo AREA AID SOT OVER IF NEW PLANT BEDS ARE 157 TO BR INSTALLED. 14. DOMINO SWS 10 BL;CArDIKLY MOVED A STORED.TO E REPLACED N POS OILS SELECTED BY AIOITOCG IS SHALL CONCRETE CURBING IBAL.ATL LEAST E IS NOES N FSIAiT S REINFORCED CON R E R ALL LANDSCAPE O)NO AND AS A ED SEPARATOR BETWEEN ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO • ,'-1C-0' VEWOlARE USE AREAS UNLESS SUCH ONBNO ELL INTERFERE NTH _ • THE MANAGE. NORTH P .RAI'I ACI - OELBAY B Ap1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION -BOARD �d ;III' MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT gill, Agent:1999 199d 200! 2UU1 Agent: Perez Architects, Inc. Project Name: Tapas Project Location: 8 East Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD F. The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I site plan modification for an elevation change at 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The subject property is comprised of .22 acres described as the west 26' of Lot 4 (Less the south 14') and Lot 5, Block 69. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and is considered a contributing property in the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a two-story Masonry Vernacular commercial building constructed in 1950. The first floor contains 2,580 sq. ft. of retail space while the second floor contains a 309 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. During its meeting of August 6, 2003, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed and approved a Class Ill site plan modification for the conversion of the first floor from retail to restaurant (while retaining the residential component). The conversion is presently in progress. On January 7, 2004, the Board reviewed and approved a COA and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for elevation changes that included the installation of bi-fold doors and new entrance doors on the front facade and the removal of proposed windows on the west elevation. The project is currently in progress. On February 4, 2004, the HPB reviewed a COA and Class I Site Plan Modification for the installation of a hand-painted tile façade on the front of the building. The Board tabled the item until the applicant could provide a true color sample of the tile. The applicant is now before the Board for review of a COA and associated Class I site plan modification for re-consideration of the elevation change. Meeting Date: March 3, 2004 Agenda Item: IV.D. 8 East Atlantic Avenue Tapas-OSSHAD Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposal involves the installation of a hand painted Spanish, tile façade that will surround the existing fenestration on the front facade. The tile displays a blue, yellow, pink, and green floral design and includes a 2'x14' (28 sq. ft. area) border for the name of the establishment above the window band on the second floor (future signage). The proposal also includes an exterior paint and awning color change. The proposed colors for the building include yellow and royal blue (rear only) and a complimentary royal blue canvas for the awnings (black was previously approved). :ANALYSIS Elevation Change LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 410 8 East Atlantic Avenue Tapas -OSSHAD . Page 3 Storefronts The Rehabilitation Standards recommend identifying, retaining, and preserving storefronts-and their functional and decorative features-that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building such as display windows, signs, doors, transoms, kick plates, corner posts, and entablatures. The removal of inappropriate, non-historic cladding, false mansard roofs, and other alterations can help reveal the historic character of a storefront. The Standards do not recommend removing or radically changing storefronts-and their features-which are important in defining the overall historic character of a building so that, as a result, the character is diminished and changing the location of the storefront's main entrance. Sign Analysis The Board shall consider: SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(1) Off-Premise Signs Signs, including building signs, that advertise an establishment, merchandise, or entertainment which is sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished, at a place other than the property on which the sign is located is prohibited. LDR Section 4.6.7 (G)(1)(a) addresses Sign Design Standards for "Wall Signs" A flush mounted sign. There is one sign face for a wall sign. A wall sign shall not project more than eight inches from the wall upon which it is mounted. Types of wall signs are canopy signs, mansard signs, and painted signs. LDR Section 4.6.7 (G)(2)(b) addresses "Conformity with Surroundings" and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7). LDR Section 4.6.7 (G)(7) addresses "Wall Signs in the OSSHAD" Wall signs shall be a maximum of 30 sq. ft. in area when attached to the face of a building. LDR Section 4.6.7 (H)(2)(a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to 8 East Atlantic Avenue Tapas-OSSHAD Page 4 the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the following aesthetic conditions must be met. a) Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E) with respect to height and area. b) Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. c) Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on • the building or in the immediate vicinity. Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building facade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts, however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character- defining"and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 8 East Atlantic Avenue Tapas-OSSHAD Page 5 Analysis The proposed elevation change contrasts sharply with the facades found on the surrounding properties, particularly with the Old School Square Complex to the north (across the street). While muted variations of the proposed colors can be found throughout the district, the proposed multi-colored tile façade is too bold and busy to cover the entire façade. It is therefore recommended that the tile be placed strategically above the window band or highlighting the door surrounds as an entrance feature. As the façade, including window band and storefront fenestration, represents the original commercial development along Atlantic Avenue, the tile should be minimally applied to the façade so as to accent the building rather than conceal it's original facade. Minimal coverage also accommodates easy removal, if necessary, and is therefore considered a more reversible treatment to the contributing building. Further, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(1), any future signage proposed for the building must be located so as to denote the exact location of the establishment. Location of the sign on the first floor will also ensure that the signage pattern along Atlantic Avenue will be consistent. The proposed sign area does not exceed the maximum area of 30 sq. ft., however, the proposed sign and decorative framing should be located between the window band and the entrance door on the first floor. Consequently, the proposed border for the future signage must be relocated to the first floor, if retained in the design. The proposed color changes for both the paint and awnings compliment the proposed decorative tile, however, the use of two colors on different bays of the buildings appears disjointed considering the busy design of the tile. It is therefore recommended that the blue paint be omitted and that only the yellow paint be applied with blue awning accents. Based on this analysis, positive findings can be made regarding the proposed elevation changes with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), and 4.6.7(E)(1) and (G)(7), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, once the decorative tile treatment is reduced in area, the sign border relocated, and the blue paint omitted. Second Floor Conversion In addition, it is noted that the building (8 East Atlantic Avenue) was previously assessed for parking during the Class III site plan modification for the conversion from retail to restaurant as well as the retention of the 309 sq. ft., residential unit on the second floor. It is understood that any future conversion of the second floor to office space or storage for the restaurant will require and assessment for additional parking and will require a Class III site plan modification approval. REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) The CRA Staff reviewed the project on January 22, 2004 and recommended that the tile design for the front elevation be limited to a decorative feature only. The design should be limited to use as a surround or to highlight the name of the establishment and not conceal the entire facade. The building could then be painted a color to accent those colors found within the tile design. 8 East Atlantic Avenue Tapas-OSSHAD Page 6 ALTERNATIVE;ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), 4.5.1(E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(E)(1), and 4.6.7(G)(7), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas with the basis stated. r RECOMMENDATION Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class I site plan modification for an elevation change to 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(E)(1), and 4.6.7(G)(7), the Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the decorative tile treatment be limited to use over the window band, door surround, or as an entrance feature; 2) That the proposed frame for the sign be relocated to the first floor between the door and window band if retained in the design; and, • 3) That the blue paint proposed for the rear of the building be omitted. Attachments: Color Tile Elevation;Elevation Reductions Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • .--• V.. '- •= ''.' . . ' ,f.'. - - ''.'' -''-,.' :-...1A-' 'Aj.-21---'.• ',:-- :.'-'-' '77.''.. ''' ''''-gti ;;'- ' 71-''7":-ii :':. ' .... . 01111i.%::-. 1:-. 'a':'. .!1-a- ,10-. 146'.'r:77‘''''''' ir'-"IiritL.:24:lit'1.ki*s '1 . t.( 141e .... ;i-/Nba i;• . '.".'. • - :., -;, f-7^ ' •1• -. ' ( )••2..311W 7,..tamliiiiii 1... • .1-67,4L7:,--7:-.., Lark) . , - ',.....,r.-•-c- , -:---- --; -021011%.-c- .--,-;:,-.---- ,ci. br_lic -"-: 7.-,'- ',, N : -."-K,1",10 i*i -, ,i* . .x...-: -.•.- --- ---- - mu irig; s,,,,tiw :_„-- -• „,;,,r:,_ 1!... ..."A triret...-- ---.. , iiiim VFW . iiii . „ , alik iiii.....--7. , ,4,-,„-. r tk.1/214.111:VT'''=igii ." ' .- - • - i is • L - . • ' il"'' •- ' t':rilli, (7..7, -".- •. -.- - I i\ . 1 )1 ' ,N....., •••\ •. \IN- -TT ir-_, r r. ,iti it+AL" iii. ei" t-': ''',`_-' I. 1* ,..-'•• - , .-- r.. ..:-....,„.• -• - .-- U4.; L..1_, ...1...... _,,,,.,,,,-2- , NIL, ..:. .i _, L-i, *: - • 041 ' 41,7 116 • - r, - r. 14... lis - • ... ".-. • ?.N.if . .s! •",..-...1...Lembar.-47.,- • --..grtPr.-;711 '' -4K,.,trii .s,,it - ..7... ....„. .... ,.. _ .,.., • ... „. ..... , ... ../... F,..,,,--.14 i klitha ""I'' iii '' - ' ti'Lamt. .-14. _/": •• '-:--tiltelM.-AL-I..;,...... ......;,,-v.71t.,,,...-..../c.f.,.....- itoka ..-1".. ......*Issittati-L-,::.. #1.4_VX..iiii ar17464.- 4..1..... vis._14,- ...... ..._ W kit.00 ,,riff ni-W21116.Lg)744•71i,>,:it-ZIrio t,•,/,. .--0.r-i,,*4.,,k s;,,,,,.fra ' '41,,45,4 ---,z_._-_,,,disste,_ .:7!-, _...,-___ _-.Z.. ....1k....—:-:•:- Iti1145'41-1AVr-cf4Vat. *AVIA--C141:1 ,6%;:raVark...aq%La.'1%, roi :4..4, . __ .4 -- , -_"... -- - •. - _ ,,.,--- , r--yir"eip.. ,714 .:k•t;-- -, y.r.- kr,:At,,/#0, •",..1 W A.. tinialiik ifK, ?"----,,C,ii,";c\ . ,'. •_. 4 I t , ApliF4`>. itc- le •.- . ,. ,_.Blfr 14!T .. - -,er - -710 ,, 'd filaM-4C--1,j, .7 1,„, 53y, lg..1 ile - Y-01 '---yki* - Vitl , ri t ...4,-,',.2.,-...'V:: -T.---,.. 2 ,r,,- i*tw-N• .--:-•,-, ,-.-,'-,-, t -, ..z.. [..tri7i1,_ 1'--, ._,•Z*.^";`,-..=,e '-N... - - ,-1 , .0.4%., ,-,..,-,_,,,;.,:-,,-,.-, ,._-_. - - • - - ., 4...„,_:. ct :•-,, -,! ....',..J.,;--:i ;-...:,-4':1 elf,IN't F-i I' ...5 7.---14;,4_,-,7,-_:.--,.. .•,.,-,.., .. .. p., --.„lip a'''''''' -1.4,r,---!; i'.1,--.:i _ -:r. -_ - L. rhie--.'.."--•• ,11 .p„till"! .: .. 7.;•-•:;4,,:i•-••.,:;„_ . -,-•- _._,,,:,„ '14...)/ . -•.------' -'"" • ' ''.-• ' IN, .. i:t. '...• . ...7-,.." ...1.',' V,... ' GW41.. p. _:„.• i _,._ . .•, .. , ,- :, ,-„•,--, ..-:._,.-- --_-___„...•-.7 -, _,--, ------7.:-.-74,----. '•'' : '%• •- , - - '-•(-:h.: .*. - - - tig'')': -.4--,' 'V '•"/•--: ' -.4`..- 1-f'a l'-" -t•- ‘.•-•'' -'•77`--`••--- , - -- • .'•-1__'' ,r'-ligli. ,s-_-.(;61,3,...a.)-„," ._.,.,..;......„,,,t4.7,..„.„„,".-8,-, ,.0,, Nr.,:s_ z a ,,,,s,,,,..,.- .•kr -a5a6.1,30Firi'''''', • -"'"-av's•6.), - k:::41MFt _. -c. ,,_,-,:. : .. " ii , - ,,,,,„ : it ,• , , ... ,, . . agr, ' dr Pi %* ' WI it77‘ - ' li..., . )gi }- - -- - -MIN -,„.„.........." ..,....,.,... .,:::,,....„.._ ,, ..... .. .. „, ,-.:...„. ,......„........• ..:::::•.:.';';:'-' "".•-----,--., ---:' -, - .„ .,',r'.::", :r , ............ •••.•••••••••••••••- - ••-............ -.•••'•••.• , . _ , . „.. .1,- - 4-• t-';-•• r r .-ir: , _ 7"-- _ - ------__„.... •::::::::-__.-------1 . . . '.7A.4-',-'.`4j:t-It PF:L.y'•s.4 4.j-f.•.N.'.;.t..A AA r"i''-NP.'-.,-'.:C-.1-..4-',.1 ''''.:-'-C'.''i--4-•.-..''sl.;,•.i-7•..'_sip-i.1tWas-7i_....r...„--,.-.-_-,„,A„•,-_.,--41p,,',k,•.-'-1,_•.',' . . -,'-..---- ----------.--- .-,----.:„-—-.--,--.--_i,'. -•1,-I--•-.--,...• --,-,:-.-.,iA=---;-----i-..i-.St'-'o--•,t,i4s.- .rV:--....-..•*-• i'7_•'0A',.,--5.m.1. .r.,.,•,'(,,,;...•_.,t7''. -*-.k•4,__.-.-..7_,,_2,_,_- _.4 :.'.p..:•..'i.r.:':.-„,:.--,..-,-.;.-p,!,,,,Eir„vr-,uiitle. x'..g..;. r-',•_.-,„,.-,.-./;._s. _..--"".'..'N.'..•.'_''i.m•'_,'".._"•._^,.",.". .---,_,.--._-,,.'",. .-. _... '.''_'..•'-_v'. •..,',- ,.--•-64,7 z-,-I--,-..--_-.-:---.:-.-:.-.•-•o,--.3-,.;.1-:1_1.-- -..1_'-_-,_)':I1,l_l--,=,•.-' I i f , A .1 ,, - r7„ yr : m . --7_#1er-1t-0.:t__- •.„.'..,-.i,,n•v.i:.-t l-i.-.,-i.'.-_-,.-:---7:'-4 .i ,. e da r r. . i ••-•. i.eF`-:,.n,-:;•,•!,,-,Z,•i-et.‘,...i.r..Y..7(• ,''it,,0'.,,•-,„ •,, lizitai 'Elio -- 17. •_ : • '”4"."--7•ri 4.--- -1.-,4712c1;..13:43V:',2-: .i:. Nfto Kei- Ej-i -tlit . .••• .Pt., 1/4,z , . Ar, P 4 •,-...-3 r•-.-.6., 16.;,,-;164 151 11-.",-. • II i i - , .. t i7 I "!,:,,-;i: 1 •-.4.: _.: V,•i 1! . r 1111, :t;711111r b.. 'EMU ti: g .w ,• ttt„. pr 4 •-.r. -Et -•...,,-----Ni• -,,..0-•,,Lureo,- ....,, . ....• ,...,..,m , ..... „... .......,... . ,...m .. ...,,,,,... ...: ...... ,_; ,,. ...... . - - , ...,4. - .. .i -.. ........ ...a•ti 3 it -_,..7;-__•ro..)•wr_•ri.P . .;-'3,... '7ii.-:i'. .. 4'!Ir 7 1 ...,'N te,•=%' "1:se. •i• -71k5: ..i"` •• z• - ''ill •,..‘,,tr. . -,1"-W;•• ' •,0- !'- X:-:,14 t•-.11:,. - .f.v.,.,i, k.--,,W.PI . . c...--7.,Itx;,.. te. ifita.V°.. ) V,Vritt.,,rVg.t,41.. 7. wimiewr -4-A1913X 4 . .4°'. ,-*,e,PtISUrts.f41.414'4 4i-417i.e..4.•,47" I:0 4 iis:4tiiitawei.- -ein..71,riverior _ __ ,.............,_...............____ •, Perez Design A _ - : I A , wla woes OO1 or TAAOUO .. INC AE■5 Ka PARAPET ARCHITECTURE / �_ ■ALL TO SCHFA / (CO MEA1 - - - - BO-112 HE.2d Avenue 1'►"—'—J'1 Sum C Delray 1...11...... i111111 Wi f W IiIIH TH1lil _.._.._ _.._ _.._.._. ___.._.._ ___.._ ..___ — — �xn eon - _ - - �E C.AIfw+A3 - AaiNC fFNe7ED ABOIE At■aADr CANVAS A. DOOR rEAIOED cD AE■'EARAED SIUCCO - - F •HiniDnhi1TThTThiTTrTTinTmTrI!T - - - --- . _ —" �MNA'Et wra EAsrNc.A _. I - - _ ..- ) \ / - / o \a _ . .. AL-REPLACEDEos➢D 40GEMRW I r•00■YN - TER ALTAR.FOUL DOOR MIEN NORTH ELEVATION ' wuao WRAC Srt.EFROxr OW.RDA ice • ® NORTH ELEVATION -SURE 0-1'-0' - SCAE)•1•-0• • I0(Cm �_ PARAPET C iE oIN - - - -. - - c Q 0 ua.' to a. O) W = •U m a 0 0 .110 SCREEN ll 1 REGRECI UOahPOUIS AS RECORROcca)r' IE■51rx PARAPET Q U] 03 I .dMVAS - �"Q-CENTERED mow �Ae- mRc 51E ... 91E IEAMuoL PIIN - - / EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES Ina ,0.r a / wad fall F,aal t ONTra /'P I AIO fEPAA Ill AE■MED.DOOR M.-CLEAT SELECTED SC AE■LEVIRED sm. A 1Er WON, / F'I - 0' Q GO�r■IGNT®°' �FN191 N WIDN DEW / hSONG SILCTD-M1FlC/1 O CANVAS ARAM Y x \ Q EASING CLASS er0 1 \ OILING COW coDREW 4WURWI - - ORE■xPACr pa106 SOUTH ELEVATION O • AL CONSULTANT -REPA RFPIACC RETAE � N W PARAPET GP AS IEIIm _ KW 5 NOT PARAPET EXTERIOR /-.AE rD SIunN PANT IX RUM ALL EOaYI'I 1E)r ROW SFAwfF UDDER - ELEVATIONS £05➢4 SRICG)-i1PA'AL r,.„., V'I , =I Q. / HDPFOI OOrtNSGWrs AS iFAURFO - - Project Manager: CD a. I , PRO'�D I I Kw S¢Uat.SEE Project Mo 03-020 - SA LT PLAN Xral: TAPAS-ELEV _ n O Dag-Film TAPAS-A300 m Aso,CE 5Rm ABOE $PRAe 06 01.0J PANT AAD ROAR ALL 1 aR9i.a SEE 1E■GXIUED SAEN TO� J DOOR Cmslruclion 10/09/03 _t O SO.CW-ittCAL l se:ua5RG - 7.101 MOW / wrote II/n/o3 o _ -H�8-Eler 12/12/03 PLAN / AE■OOCR Z WEST ELEVATION SL Y= a UN 0 0 A301 s a i d 01 W N. E. 15TH ST. z alli • i w o zQ qHEATHER LANE - J N.E. 14TH ST. , \ \ \ ) • N. E. 14TH ST. HIGHLAND LN. C G AY 0 I r U J N.E. 13TH ST. ¢ L; N.W. 12TH CT. �\� ' w \ i o IuIiIII.< N.E. 12TH ST. ILHhRi• I I iIIIIIII II ■ -- � 0 N.W. 11TH ST. , N.E. 11TH ST. i \\ N.E. 10TH ST. 01 L \ ' ilLSUI • ��oo�o1 1 . 1 an N.E. 9TH ST. - N.W. 9TH ST. NM � � ? ,.Ell w \ � \ Aimli N.W. 8TH ST. GEORGE BUSH BOULEVARD G.• QP\� 0�0 iiiiifilitN N.E. 7TH ST. N. . H . I �\ N i_ PROPOSED DELL PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL \ -CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- i•. • I. �� W , j N.E. 12TH ST. _ \ 1 w D o z - M m� \\N N.W. 11TH ST_ N.E. 11TH ST. 1 \ 1 0 Z1 � 1 N 1 1 N.E. 10TH ST. II I i -- . '\\\ �\\I N.E. 9TH ST. N.W. 9TH ST 1 Mu1 ct o N.W. STH S\1 GEORGE BUSH BOULEVARD Z 1 0- , ,04 N.W. 7TH ST. 1 1 1 \ N.E. 7TH ST. 111 1 1 _.:7\ Z :TL! , N.W. 6TH 1 ST. LAKE TERR. `� „ • c__- f____— N.E. 6TH ST. w Mil (.2 O z • 1 ll •\ ,.wAi°mclA- ` ` i,j s. I w �� 1 ♦ , , - r F \ 1 , ` Q �' ¢ \\\1 % N.E. 5TH TERR. Ii 1 ♦ , z WOOD LANE 1 \\\\\ ♦ , cV KINGS LYNN j \\\\ i � m 1JAI ■ J "`"" I �� N.E. 5TH CT. r 1 ,O� LiQ \ ` Z \ , Lii.... ► ♦ �1 BEVERLY DR. G• • TRINITY kdk `- LUTHERAN N.E. 5TH ST. I I I I I 1 N PROPOSED WEST SWINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL -CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - -- DIGITAL EASE MAP SYSTEM -- MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: March 17, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, John Miller, Jr., Rhonda Sexton, and Jeffrey Silberstein MEMBERS ABSENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, James Keavney, and Randee Schatz STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay and Thuy Shutt I. CALL TO ORDER A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Silberstein and passed 4 to 0 to appoint Ms. Jamison temporary Chair of the meeting. The meeting was called to order by Ms. Jamison at 6:02 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Ms. Jamison read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 4 to 0 to approve the Minutes of January 7, 2004, with the following change: Item II. D. House of Vintage Sign, the motion should read: moved by Ms. Shatz, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 6 to 1 (Ms. Jamison dissenting). Ms. Shay noted the changes. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 4 to 0 to approve the Minutes of January 21, 2004, as written. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. S.E. O'Neal Property, 914 NE 2nd Avenue, Individually Listed Property, Andy Spengler, Authorized Agent. Historic Preservation Board Meeting March 17,2004 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 17,2004 Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a single-family home on a vacant lot. Ms. Jamison asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and her resume into the record. Andrew Spengler was present to represent the project. He stated that the color rendering did not depict the true colors as proposed. He then distributed a photo of the historic house that was between his two lots. He stated that some arches were added that are reflected in the design of the historic house in order to compliment the historic style. The applicant's proposal was also keeping with the size and style of the adjacent new construction. Ms. Jamison closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Mr. Silberstein inquired if there would be fencing around the pool. Mr. Spengler stated that a shadowbox wood fence would be installed. Ms. Sexton inquired about the balcony on the home. Mr. Spengler advised that Francisco Perez requested it. Ms. Jamison stated that the window in question was the only one proposed without a shutter and that the balcony should be removed and shutters installed in its place. After some discussion, it was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Sexton and approved 4 to 0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 914 NE 2nd Avenue, the S.E. O'Neal Property, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), Section 4.6.16, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1. That notation of the building lighting is shown on the elevations; and, 2. That window details including muntin profile be submitted; and 3. That the proposed balconet on the front façade is eliminated and that decorative shutters are added to that window; and, 4. That the roof tile used reflects the sample submitted during the meeting. B. Schwartz Residence, 609 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Marty Wallach, Authorized Agent. Item Before The Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of removable storm panels on a non-contributing dwelling. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 17,2004 Ms. Jamison asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. Mr. Wallach was present to represent the project. He stated he would advise the owner of the condition that the tracks had to be painted to match the building. Ms. Jamison inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Ms. Jamison closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Silberstein and approved 4 to 0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of removable storm panels on a non-contributing building located at 609 NE 3rd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1. That the storm panel and tracks be painted to match the exterior of the building. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion And Recommendation Concerning The Downtown Design Guidelines Ms. Thuy Shutt, CRA, presented the Downtown Delray Beach Design Guidelines - Land Development Regulations and a recap of the previous actions to date by the Board. These Guidelines should be approved by City Commission in May. Updated text and graphics, as well as letters from Pineapple Grove Main Street were included in this packet. Comments from staff and the public are also included in the Staff Report. The new ordinance has two new items including maintaining individual characteristics on the corridor and building frontages. Ms. Shutt stated that regulations for projects within the Central Business District specifically a height limitation of 35 feet within the residential districts, RO districts, and historical districts were added. The CRA's recommendation is set forth on page 29, Section 4.6.4(A)(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii). This will effect only new non-residential developments within the CBD, GC, and the projects listed in the OSSHAD Districts as noted on page 28, Section 13. (F). Ms. Shutt noted changes on the following: Page 15 (4) and page 26, line 17. Ms. Shutt stated that landscaping standards have been incorporated in the version going before the Planning &Zoning Board. Ms. Shutt stated she will advise the Commission that HPB recommends taking out the existing interior requirements. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes March 17,2004 The Board recommended adding language that requires outdoor lighting to be compatible with the architecture of the building, as well as other exterior items that would enhance the neighborhood. Ms. Shutt discussed transparency issues. She stated that there is a 75% transparency (glass) guideline for store fronts (all properties within the CBD and GC areas within the West Atlantic neighborhood). The HPB recommended going from a 75% to 50% transparency. Ms. Shutt advised the Board she would make a note of the following issues: 1. Take interior feature regulations out and add more site related items, i.e. lighting, etc. 2. 50% transparency recommended. 3. Height of a building should be 35' and measure from the eave of the structure. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments - None B. Report from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members - None D. Staff- None VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:28 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for March 17, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on June 2, 2004. )i Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 4