The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB- 04-21-04 t • AGENDA r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING - CITY OF DELRAY BEACH '4y Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. ***REVISED*** 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 • March 3, 2004 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Sheehan Residence, 214 NE 5th Street, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Thomas Carney, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated variance for the reduction of a side interior setback from 7.5' to 4' for a contributing historic building. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Ascot, 8 NE 2' Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent—Continued from March 3, 2004. 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. V. DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS ITEMS A. Make a Recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board Regarding an Amendment to the Land Development Regulations Sections 2.2.3(B) and 2.2.6(B) Regarding the Composition and Special Qualifications for the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board. B. Selection of 2004 Historic Preservation Awards. A April 21,2004 HPB Meeting • Page 2 VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VII. ADJOURN Wendy Shay, Hist is Preserva n Planner POSTED ON: April 15,2004 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, Randee Schatz, Jeffrey Silberstein, and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: John Miller, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:07 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Silberstein and passed 6 to 0 to approve the March 3, 2004 Minutes as written. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. Ms. Valek swore in individuals for testimony. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Sheehan Residence, 214 NE 5th Street, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Thomas Carney, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated variance for the reduction of the side interior setback from 7.5' to 4' for a contributing historic building. 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. Ms. Shay stated that the applicant is interested in segregating the lots in order to build a new single family home at a later date while retaining the historic dwelling. Historic Preservation Board Meeting April 21,2004 The extant building is considered a contributing historic house. Ms. Shay presented pictures of the house to the Board. Staff is requesting that the variance be considered based on the fact that they are retaining a historic dwelling and that that design elements for a compatible single family home will be brought back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Carney was present to represent the project. He stated his support for staffs recommendations. He also stated that the house is four feet (4') from the property line. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Tony Keller, 200 NE Fifth Street, advised that he owns the 25' of the west portion of lot 17 (the adjacent lot), and that he has concerns that if this variance is granted, it would create another non-conforming situation, and he inquired as to the applicant's intentions for the lot. The applicant re-iterated his interest in constructing a home on the lot at a later date. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez advised that the four foot (4') variance pertains only to the historic house, and the new lot would have to comply with the setback as well as be reviewed by the Board. Ms. Shay advised that the approval of the division of the O'Neal property (910 NE 2"d Avenue) set a precedent in which the Board approved both waivers and variances prior to review and approval of the new construction. Ms. Schatz inquired as to the legal description and the Unity of Title. Ms. Shay stated that there will eventually be two different owners; one for the existing home and one for the newly constructed home. Prior to the owner's reconfiguration of the lots, a Unity of Title would be required for Lot 16 and the east portion of Lot 17. After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 6 to 0 to approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 7.5' to 4' for an existing contributing dwelling located at 214 NE 5th Street, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1(J), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the variance, reducing the side interior setback from 7.5' to 4' be limited to the existing historic dwelling and not applicable for new construction; 2. That the walkway surrounding the historic residence that extends into Lot 15 is removed; and, 3. That a Unity of Title is recorded for Lot 16 and the east 25' of Lot 17. 2 Historic Preservation Board.Minutes April 21,2004 r IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Ascot, 8 NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent. (Continued from March 3, 2004) 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. Mr. Silberstein stepped down at this time. 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 into the record. Ms. Shay advised that the Board previously reviewed this on March 3, 2004. At that time the Board mandated that the applicant return with revisions based on their direction. The applicant's initial proposal was to construct a 3,200 sq. ft. office building with six (6) on-site parking spaces, seven (7) on street, and three (3) in-lieu spaces. At that time the Board reviewed the waivers that were requested and approved the waivers which included: (1) a reduction of the required stacking distance on NE 1st Street from five feet (5') to two and a half feet (2' 6"); (2) to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property line from the five feet (5') to two feet (2');, and (3) to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent east property line from five feet (5') to one a half feet (1'6"). The Board tabled the site plan with the direction that the building be reduced in height by 18" to 35' based upon the Planning and Zoning Director's interpretation of the height requirement as stated in LDR 4.3.4(J)(1). Further, the Board directed that the proposed elevator is relocated to the southwest corner of the building and that the applicant request in-lieu spaces proportional to the previously approved Management System Site Plan. The Board also directed the applicant to review State standards relative to the accessibility requirements. Staff supported the previous recommendation. Ms. Shay stated that the applicant is back before the Board for review and that no changes have been made to the plan regarding the Board's previous direction. With respect to accessibility requirements, the City's Chief Building Official made the assessment that the space is located too far south of the property and to be more accessible it should be relocated to the southwest corner. Staff requested that the technical comments and conditions of approval as listed on page 7 and 8 of the Staff Report be approved. Michael Weiner, representative for the project, advised that the arguments made during his presentation concurred with the LDRs. The applicant agreed with most of the technical items including: burying the utility lines, that the landscaping and refuse area should be redesigned, and that the elevator is relocated. The applicant disagreed with the measurement of the proposed height of the roof, the analysis of 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 ti the development standards, and the in-lieu spaces proportional to the previous approval. He further stated that the roof was measured from the bottom of the eave to the ridge line of the roof. The interpretation being utilized for the height measurement has never been previously applied. In fact, dormers, and multi-plane roof lines, have been approved in the past. In addition, the issue of in-lieu spaces should be addressed by the Parking Management Board and the City Commission. Mr. Weiner submitted a document into the record that addressed the subject of in- lieu parking being approved 30 times. In no case was the approval based on percentages. With respect to the landscape plan, the applicant is flexible. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Ms. Shay asked Mr. Weiner if the properties he showed on Bankers Row were single-family homes. Mr. Weiner advised that they were. Ms. Shay also stated that her previous reference to how the height of the roof was measured referred to the apex of the roof and not the bottom. Mr. Weiner questioned where the term "dormer" is referred to within the LDRs. Ms. Shay stated that"dormer" is not referred to specifically as a roof form. He further asked if the percentages are referred to regarding in-lieu of parking. Ms. Shay stated that they are not. Ms. Shay advised the original proposal showed a different parking plan. The percentage should be taken based upon the certified plan. The height definition is interpreted by the Planning Director and that the LDRs cannot be waived as was previously recommended. Further, the applicant has not submitted any plans showing the relocation of the elevator. Mr. Weiner placed in the record a letter from Robert Currie, AIA stating he supported the building height and the project overall as proposed. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh advised the Board that she was aware of the letter from her employer, Robert Currie. However, the letter was written prior to her becoming a Board member. Ms. Pyburn asked Ms. Dersh if she was biased relative to any conversations prior to her being a Board member. Ms. Dersh advised she would not be biased one way or another. Ms. Sexton mentioned that Mr. Weiner brought up asphalt as a very negative point, and that the Board does not want asphalt in the historic districts. However, the applicant proposed a commercial building in a residential area, and it may be 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 necessary to have a certain amount of asphalt. Further, one of the reasons the city poses in-lieu parking as an option in the OSSHAD is not to accommodate new structures, but to accommodate conversion of historic buildings because they are on non-conforming lots. The square footage of the building is not a problem, it is the parking. Ms. Shatz asked Ms. Pyburn relating to page 4, Parking Analysis LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(5), if it is impossible to provide required parking on-site or off-site. Mr. Weiner advised that right now they are considering an in-lieu parking ordinance that states that in-lieu of parking is not an option for new construction, though it is not in place. Ms. Pyburn advised that passage of the ordinance requires City Commission approval and is not in effect at this time. Chairman Perez advised that at the last meeting the Board did support in-lieu spaces, and that the Board is trying to come to a compromise in regard to the building height and in-lieu parking. The Board cannot interpret the LDR's. To exceed the building height would require a variance. Ms. Pyburn advised they would have to seek a waiver from the City Commission. Chairman Perez advised this is not the place for a discussion regarding the height of the building. Mr. Weiner stated that the applicant would be willing to reduce the building by 200 sq. ft., therefore eliminating one in-lieu space. However, by reducing the building, the proportions would be skewed. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the building height. Chairman Perez advised that the Board does not make the decision regarding the height. Ms. Shay stated that individual dormers are considered design elements and components of the roof. However, the proposed dormer makes up the roof itself and is not a component as viewed within the floor plan. Ms. Jamison stated that the Board should determine whether the building meets the height requirement. Ms. Pyburn then advised for clarification that the purpose of the Board is to take the facts as presented and apply the guidelines and LDR's. It is not the object of the Board to interpret the LDRs. Mr. Weiner advised that the elevator will be flipped to the south side. There was a brief discussion regarding the previous concerns noted by Landscape Architect, Deborah Turner with respect to the Landscape Technical Items. The Board concurred and modified the technical items accordingly. The Board felt that the design elements compliment the surrounding buildings. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 Ms. Shatz asked Ms. Shay if a color change was a condition to the design elements. Chairman Perez stated that a trim color was discussed. Ms. Pyburn advised that the LDRs may or may not say anything about the dormers, however, it has been interpreted by the appropriate City Staff, and the interpretation may only be questioned through a review by the City Commission. Site Plan After much discussion, it was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 3 to 2 (Perez and Dersh dissented) to approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2"d 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. 3. That the building meets the 35' height requirement; and 4. That the in-lieu request be approved by the City Commission as presented. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 5 to 0 to 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 conditions: 1. That all existing and proposed trees on neighboring properties should be identified to avoid conflicts. 2. That any landscaping proposed in the landscape islands to the west of the property (directly in front of the Pineapple Podiatry Building and adjacent to the alley) be noted on the Landscape Plan and that the proposed landscaping does not interfere with the site visibility triangle. Design Elements It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Shatz, and passed 5 to 0 to approve the COA and associated Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2ndStreet, Ascot, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the elevator shaft be relocated to the southwest corner. Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 r Ms. Shay advised she will have the Planning and Zoning Department take a look at the LDRs to ensure that the text regarding the roof height and measurement is concise and to see if Mr. Dorling and Mr. Costello would like the request in writing to do so from the Board. V. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. Make a Recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding an Amendment to the Land Development Regulations Sections 2.2.3(B) and 2.2.6(B) regarding the Composition and Special Qualifications for the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board. Ms. Shay advised that the City held concerns regarding Board members appearing before the Board on which they hold a seat and the appearance of a conflict of interest. The proposed amendment is intended to address those concerns. Ms. Pyburn advised that the LDRs will be changed to make it comport with State Statutes. The proposed amendment is a compromise and will protect the City's as well as the Board's interests. Ms. Schatz expressed some concerns over the language of the amendment. Ms. Pyburn clarified the intent of the amendment. After some discussion, it was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 1 (Schatz dissented) to recommend to the City Commission approval of the amendment to LDR Sections 2.2.3(B)(2) and 2.2.5(B)(2), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). B. Selection of 2004 Historic Preservation Awards. Ms. Shay advised that ballots were previously distributed to the Board and should be submitted at this time. The Historic Preservation Awards will be presented at the next City Commission Meeting on May 4, 2004. The Poster Contest winners will also be presented at this meeting. Ms. Shay requested that all HPB members attend that meeting, if possible. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments—none B. Report from Historic District Representatives - none C. Board Members—none D. Staff — Ms. Shay requested volunteers for the special events at the Florida Trust Conference. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for April 21, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on July 7, 2004. nise 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. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 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 I. 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 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 staffs 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 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. 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. Pearl 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 22nd 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 DEIRAY BEACH DEERAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'III MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT = '( I/' 1993 19 ii Agent: Thomas Carney, Authorized Agent Project Name: Sheehan Residence Project Location: 214 NE 5th Street ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 7.5' to 4' for a contributing structure located at 214 NE 5th Street, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A). BACKGROUND The subject property is described as Lots 15 & 16 and the east 25' of Lot 17, Block 7 Del-Ida Park and contains a single family dwelling constructed in 1930. Located on the south side of NE 5th Street approximately 155' east of NE 2"d Avenue, the property contains a 1,218 sq. ft. single family home that is considered a contributing historic property within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Lot 15 is a vacant 50'x120' platted lot, which is a non-conforming lot of record. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.1.4(C), except for single family residences subject to the R-1-A (Single Family Residential) zoning district standards, if two (2) or more adjoining lots (or combination of lots and portions of lots) of record were under the same ownership as of October 18, 1994, and if the total frontage and the total area is equal to or greater than that which is required by the zoning district regulations, said property shall not be developed except in accordance with the minimum frontage and lot area requirements of the district. The property is zoned RL (Low-Medium Density Residential), however, as the project involves rehabilitation of the extant historic single family home and the construction of a new single family home, R-1-A district development standards apply to the site. On June 5, 2003, an exterior paint change was approved administratively. There are no other recent Board or administrative actions pertaining to this property. The applicant is now before the Board to request a variance to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7.5' to 4'. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing historic, single family dwelling is non-conforming with respect to the side interior setback requirements. The applicant is requesting a variance from LDR Section HPB Staff Report 214 NE 5th Street-Variance Request Page 2 4.3.4(K), to reduce the side interior setback requirement from seven and a half feet (7.5') to four feet (4') in order to enable the existing historic dwelling to be rehabilitated and not restricted to improvements per LDR Sections 1.3.4 and 1.3.6 due to its non- conformity. ANALYSIS: _ 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. The dominant development pattern of the area consists of a majority of 50' and 60' wide lots. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the variance based on the average size and configuration of the lots and the retention of the historic dwelling with this proposal. It is noted the property that contains the historic dwelling is 75' wide by 120' in depth, which exceeds the minimum area, width, and depth of an RL zoned lot, however, the building 1t HPB Staff Report 214 NE 5th Street-Variance Request Page 3 is situated on the far east side of the site and does not meet the current setback requirements. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to aid in the rehabilitation of the one-story historic dwelling in situ while facilitating adjacent construction of a single family home and retaining the residential character of the neighborhood. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. Special conditions and circumstances exist, due to the historic setting, the location of the extant historic dwelling over three lots, and the development pattern of the area. Given the conditions under which this variance is being requested, it is reasonable to believe that the variance would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Further, as the property is associated with single family dwellings, a waiver to LDR Section 4.1.4(C) is unnecessary. Based upon the above, positive findings for the granting of a variance to reduce the side interior setback can be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1 (J). While the variance is appropriate given this particular historic building, a reduced side setback of four feet (4') would be inappropriate for a new structure. Thus, the variance should be limited to the extant historic dwelling. This has been added as a condition of approval. In addition to the above, Lots 15, 16, and a portion of Lot 17 possess several site improvements including an existing driveway and internal walkways related to the historic dwelling. As the internal walkway on the east side of the extant historic building lies on Lot 15, the walkway must be eliminated once the variance is granted. This has been added as a condition of approval. Further, a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded in order to aggregate Lot 16 and the east 25' of Lot 17, as improvements exist across the property line. Recordation of a Unity of Title is also attached as a condition of approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building g setback from 7.5' to 4' for an existing contributing dwelling located at 214 NE 5t Street, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1(J). C. Deny the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building9 setback from 7.5' to 4' for an existing contributing dwelling located at 214 NE 5t Street, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1(J). RECOMMENDATION Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 7.5' to 4" for an existing contributing dwelling located at 214 NE 5th Street, HPB Staff Report 214 NE 5th Street-Variance Request Page 4 based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1(J), subject to the following condition: 1) That the variance, reducing the side interior setback from 7.5' to 4' be limited to the extant historic dwelling and not applicable for new construction; 2) That the walkway surrounding the historic residence that extends into Lot 15 is removed; and, 3) That a Unity if Title is recorded for Lot 16 and the east 25' of Lot 17. Attachments: Exhibit A, Survey Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner I HPB Staff Report 214 NE 5th Street-Variance Request Page 5 EXHIBIT,A,.;REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5), prior to granting a variance, the granting body shall make positive findings that the granting of the variance meets the following criteria: a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which are not generally applicable to other land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning (The matter of economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance); b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning; c) That special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant; d) That granting the variance will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor nonconforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, buildings, or structure;and t) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Y[ 71n S. 1 • • N1,1 T LEGAL DESCRIPTION: : L SlEi „I s ,�)�r 41.• 4,' 1 , r ;;�ds.A, ; J no Lots 15 and 16 and the east 25 feet of Lot 17, Block 7, DEL IDA PARK, t . ®�,o �� I (7_1 „ • ! i ! !' according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, page 52 of .L.,,__, 'I ' "II:y 7 . r; y Q� .,� „r., the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. `..m if. Alt MN E NE 5th STREET'®ice ��'�� _� .HofI_xrcra_ ADO 5.3).C-F •r. y#4• �0 �! E�51n�1E4a ®� IIE 65T I :pe FvUN0 3,3"aavQOA_ 1 / PDUNO 3/°/.P.O/Y.Po4. ti* � s; qIL T� ®: C a, ;I ',$G .YC..4f/.9L.Y.. ;'�ZODr :. . :-„�.` 'I © � �n f� �, E31.,: c , ;,. .f_-,.•. P ---- •, ' row' y��®��1� loth ®7 , - ,roONO j/'iaovaoo NE 5.n 5.� o; I .� ,V N l✓v�AJ I y, ;i� �wp;3 �qTl I.:t': � ,N '• 'I '() , 1= i, I •' '•' I r I ILOCATION MAP' •l 32,4' : 4, +S¢,O' n 5" FOR THE BENEFIT OF: (NOT TO SCALE)I'' r, °ce PAUL F. SHEEHAN \ '�'• �14' DELRAY TITLE & ABSTRACT COMPANY p r.a' { AMERICAN PIONEER TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY X3s=► AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER, ITS SUCCESSORS ONE SYRf RE5 . '`," r Qr� • h A3lb Z/¢ :i ' AND/OR ASSIGNS AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR ' 4. •, f • •-j: - 0, : 03 ,Z` i. .. J N� /48. . , x54.0' ` LOT 14 I\ .j ' ; BOUNDARY SURVEY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SKETCH SHOWN HEREON IS A TRUE ANO CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY lV U �%5 H/GN CQ, �✓FLG 4 DIRECTION, AND THAT SAID SURVEY IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THERE ARE NO APPARENT�t7IA • •;';'.I. .�,, �I ,.• !a�/3.s•AyooO.�+✓ca I as:—--- STANDARDS GROUND FORTH B�THEMF FLORIDA BOARD OF OTHERWISE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS THAT AND MAPPERS, PURSUANT TO MINIMUM SECTION Ea72.0271, `�� y/O Z• za6, _ , FLORIDA STATUTES AND CHAPTER 61G17-6 OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE cODE. I k .. 41 0 DATE: -' /7/a4 -�� /! . yS l�I Q41 REGISTERED SURVEYOR NO. l 'P'r N @ m • N ' PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON HAS NOT BEEN ABSTRACTED BY SURVEYOR FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY,AND/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD; ELEVA- TIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE.BASED ON N.G.V. DATUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED; ALL PROPERTY CORNERS ARE IRON ROD WITH CAPS, I ® ,FAUNO s�„ UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED; FOUNDATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS LYING BELOW SURFACE NOT LOCATED, BEARINGS AND/OR ANGLES 1 w i0¢. zs' ✓ I CI ) �00C,QOq SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON RECORD PLAT OR DEED CALLS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MEASUREMENTS MADE IN ACCORDANCE // WITH UNITED STATES STANDARD. UNLESS IT BEARS THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF•A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR Z5.00�� i+ �r 25,0 �� SO.OU' r//7�' — `' AND MAPPER THIS DRAWING OR SKETCH IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT VALID. G--—-- ' �~ ��'" T` '4 f• COPYRICHT©2004 BY RICHARD L.SHEPHARD&ASSOCIATES,INC.-ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNO-�/%QO/Y ea0 `1iy l I J /ZS.00 w// ly0/9 o LB 2102 Joe Tucker LOT 5 47'000 1 LOT 6 LOT 7 LAND\ i v SURkreOR5 ADDRESS: �� I, \ SURVEY OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON 214 NE 5th STREET DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA • CALCULATED MEASUREMENT RICHARD L. SHEPHARD and Associates D.E. - DENOTES DRAINAGE EASEMENT • FLOOD ZONE "X" U.E. - DENOTES UTILITY EASEMENT Phone.. COMMUNITY: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL IR/C - DENOTES IRON ROD WITH CAP 219 S.E. 23R0 AVENGE Bow (561)391-4306 SCALE: 1° = 20' BY: H. MILHOMME DRAWING NO. COMMUNITY PANEL NO,: 125102-0002-D I.R. - DENOTES IRON ROD (NO CAP) P.O.BOX 759 Boynton (561) 737-6546 N04-03-172 MAP REVISED: JANUARY 5, 1989 • - DENOTES CENTER LINE BOYNTON BEACH,rLORIDA 33435 FAX (561) 734-7546 DATE: 3/19/04 FB: J700 PG: 51 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- • MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004-Continued from 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 Waivers for the Construction of an Office Building. CASON __ METHODIST CHURCH GENERAL DATA: - Owner/Applicant Management Systems — N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. Worldwide Agent Silberstein Architects, Inc. a Location SW corner of NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Street. CI TY Property Size 0.14 Acres ATTORNEY Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) BUILDING _ Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School ; MARTIN,u RING n. DR. N.E. 2ND ST. Square Historic Arts District) 12 r go AdjacentZoning North: OSSHAD (Old School 3 Square Historic Arts District w cS East: OSSHAD (Old School Square Z St CITY Historic Arts District HALL w W South: OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District a � N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. � 1ST ST. West: OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District Existing Land Use Vacant COMMWR L., a CENTER o o Proposed Land Use Office Water Service Existing adjacent. -- • S O OLD Sewer Service Existing adjacent. SQUARE I II ATLANTIC AVENUE /1' in 1 S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. 1 I S.W. -2ND ST_ S.E. 2ND ST. IV. A. ITEM.- BEFORETHE 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, LI Waiver Requests. The subject property is located on a corner lot on the southwest corner of NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue. 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'). These changes were made to accommodate an additional on-site parking space and to address an appeal of the Board's approval of the site plan in February by an adjacent property owner, due to the lack of sufficient parking on-site. 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. Meeting Date:April 21,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 2 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- 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. The Historic Preservation Board reviewed a new Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements, and associated waivers during their meeting of March 3, 2004 for the construction of a 3,219 sq. ft., three-story office building on the property. The Board approved the associated waivers to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6"); 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'), and 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"). However, the Board tabled the Site Plan with the direction that the building is reduced in height to meet the 35' maximum height requirement of the OSSHAD zoning district and that the proposed elevator is relocated to the southwest corner of the building. The Board also directed the applicant to request in-lieu spaces proportional to the previous Management Systems Site Plan approval (certified on October 28, 2002). Therefore, as 25% of the required parking was accommodated via the in-lieu of program with the previous Class V Site Plan for the Management Systems Building, the same percentage or ratio must be provided with this proposal. It is also noted that no formal action was taken with respect to the Landscape Plan or Design Elements. The applicant is now before the Board for the re-consideration of the original proposal of a 3,219 sq. ft., three-story office building on the vacant lot. No modification shave been made regarding the height of the building or the location of the elevator. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Construction of a 3,219 sq. ft. three-story, office building; o 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 3 SITE PTL A N: A NA L Y S [ S` 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/" Rear (south) 10' 50'-5 5/16" 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)(1), building height is defined as the vertical distance from grade to the highest finished roof surface of a flat roof or to the mean level between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, or gambrel roofs. Pursuant to.LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(2)(b), 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 third floor (designed as a shed dormer), 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 4 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 with 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 2nd 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 [OSSHADJ 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 or an agreement entered into per LDR Section 4.6.9(E). The applicant proposes to construct seven (7) on-street parking spaces (two along NE 1st Avenue and five along NE 2nd Street) and will seek reimbursement of a portion of the in-lieu parking fee. 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 two (2) in-lieu spaces and the construction of 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. The Historic Preservation Board provided direction during its meeting of March 3, 2004, where they directed the applicant to request in-lieu spaces proportional to the previous certified Site Plan for the Management Systems project. The previous Site Plan for the 2,400 sq. ft. Management Systems Building was modified from its original proposal of five (5) on-site spaces and three (3) in-lieu requests based on concerns that the ratio of parking spaces provided to in-lieu requested was too the excessive for the site and the use. Based on these concerns, the site plan was modified to provide six (6) on-site and two (2) in-lieu spaces. As the percentage of the two (2) previously approved in-lieu request of two (2) spaces constitutes 25% of the required parking, the same percentage must be applied to the current proposal. Based on the current proposal, which requires 11 spaces, the applicant must provide a total of eight (8) spaces on-site and may request no more than three (3) in-lieu spaces in order to meet the ratio previously established with the certification of the Management Systems proposal. As the applicant has not modified the HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 5 previous proposal of providing six (6) spaces on-site and five (5) in-lieu spaces requested, the proposal, as presented, does not meet the direction proposed by the Board and must be modified in order to meet the 25% in-lieu requirement. Otherwise, the current proposal should be denied. 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. 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, HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 6 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(B)(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 2"d Street on NE 1st Avenue. These have been added as technical items. 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2"d Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 7 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 2"d 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 2na 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 2"d Street is adequate. Accessibility Requirements Pursuant to Section 4.6.2 of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, accessible parking spaces serving 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. 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 8 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)lndicate 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. 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 9 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 the 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. 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 10 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 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 11 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. 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. As the height has not been modified from the original proposal, it is recommended that the proposal be denied until such time as the building is reduced in height to meet the 35' maximum height requirement. In addition, although 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- HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 12 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 PursuantPursuant 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 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. HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 13 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. PREVIEW BYOTHERSj: 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. 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 CONCLUSIO 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 required 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 HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 14 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. ALTERNAT_IVE ACTIONS. A. Continue with direction. B. 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). Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the office at 8 NE 2"d 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; 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: HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2"d Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 15 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. 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). 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, HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 16 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 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • 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. Attachments: Survey, Site Plan,Landscape Plan,Elevations, Floor Plan Report prepared by: Wendy Shay,Historic Preservation Planner HPB Staff Report 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration Page 17 A;PP_ENDIX - A s 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 Re-consideration 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 Re-consideration Page 19 APPENDIX B -- STANDARDS FOR SITEPLAN 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 8 NE 2nd Street-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Re-consideration 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 OEIRAY BEACH ,`,,,. -: _ c_C;, DELRAIBEACH F�� HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD' iliar MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT II MEETING OF: APRIL 21, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: V.A. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 2.2.3(B) AND 2.2.6(B) REGARDING THE COMPOSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to recommend to the City Commission the amendment of Sections 2.2.3(B)(2) and 2.2.6(B)(2) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) regarding the composition and qualification requirements for members of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and Historic Preservation Board, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS This LDR amendment is being processed to ensure adequate representation by members with a discipline determined to be critical to the conduct of the Board's business. Members of various boards need to appear in front of their respective boards from time to time, as their business requires that they seek approval from these boards. It appears that there may be a conflict with board members representing their items before the board they currently serve on. If these members are unable to present or represent their items, it will be difficult to retain qualified applicants for the City's various land development boards. However, if there is a requirement for a board member to have a certain background and experience, those members appointed to meet that requirement are exempted per State Statutes and thus, the potential conflict removed. Current board members that meet these qualifications shall assume one of the five designated seats. If there are more than five members that currently meet the qualifications, then the most senior members shall assume one of the five designated seats. The specific changes are provided in the attached ordinance. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is being initiated more for"housekeeping" purposes than to fulfill any specific Comprehensive Plan policy. While the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, it is not inconsistent with them. RECOMMENDATION By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the amendment to LDR Sections 2.2.3(B)(2) and 2.2.6(B)(2), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5 (M). V.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Meeting of April 21, 2004 11 LDR Text Amendment: -Board Qualifications Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. -04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 2.2.3(B), "COMPOSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS" AND SUBSECTION 2.2.6(B), "COMPOSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS"; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A VALIDITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to retain qualified applicants for its various land development boards; and WHEREAS, the Commission realizes that members of its various boards need to appear in front of their respective boards from time to time as their business requires that they seek approval from these boards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on , and voted to to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Current board members that meet these qualifications shall assume one of the five designated seats. If there are more than five members that currently meet the qualifications then the most senior members shall assume one of the five designated seats. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 2.2.3, "The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board," Subsection 2.2.3(B), "Composition", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.2.3 The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (B) Composition and Special Qualifications: (1) The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board shall consist of seven regular members. (2) professional civil engineer. Each of five seats on the board must be filled with either an architect, landscape architect, realtor/real estate broker, civil engineer, general contractor, sign contractor, land planner or interior designer. The remaining two seats shall be at large. The appointing body shall endeavor to appoint as many disciplines as possible to the board. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Meeting of April 21, 2004 LDR Text Amendment:-Board Qualifications Page 3 Section 2. That Section 2.2.6, "The Historic Preservation Board," Subsection 2.2.6(B), "Composition and Special Qualifications", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.2.6 The Historic Preservation Board (B) Composition and Special Qualifications: (1) The Historic Preservation Board shall consist of seven members. (2) To the extent that such persons apply, the City Commission shall appoint professional members from the disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, history, architectural history, licensed contractor familiar with restoration, planning, archaeology, or other historic preservation related disciplinos such as design, urban Each of five seats on the board must be filled with either an architect, landscape architect, realtor/real estate broker, civil engineer, general contractor, architectural historian, preservationist, land planner or interior designer. The appointing body shall endeavor to appoint as many disciplines as possible to the board. Lay persons of knowledge, experience and judgment who have an interest in historic preservation shall make up the balance of the Board. Preference should be given to professional and lay persons who own property within historic districts or whose property is individually listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not operate to invalidate the remainder hereof. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2004. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: July 21, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez 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. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. Ms. Valek swore in individuals for testimony. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Echols Residence, 1181/2 SE 7th Avenue, Marina District, Adriana Finnvold, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 605 sq. ft. addition on a contributing garage and cottage and associated variance. 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. Ms. Adriana Finnvold, Authorized Agent, presented a new rendering of the proposal. The applicant supported staff's presentation and conditions of approval. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Alieda Riley, 65 Palm Square, Delray Beach, supported the project and commended the applicant for retaining the historic buildings. Historic Preservation Board Meeting July 21,2004 } • Dan and Donnamarie Sloan (who reside to the north of the property involved with the request) submitted an e-mail, as stated by Ms. Shay, in support of the project. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh inquired if the setback of five (5) feet would pertain only to this property. Ms. Shay advised it would only pertain to this project not with the west property line for future modifications. Demolition It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for demolition of the 293 sq. ft. portion of the contributing cottage at 118'/z SE 7th Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(F). Variance It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the request for a variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the rear building setback from 10' to 5' for an existing addition to a contributing structure and dwelling located at 118'/Z SE 7th Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.7(A) and 4.5.1(J), subject to the following condition: 1) That the variance to reduce the rear setback pertains only to the extant 226 sq. ft. accessory structure at the northwest corner of the property. Certificate of Appropriateness It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 118'/2 SE 7th Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the variance to reduce the rear setback pertains only to the extant 226 sq. ft. accessory structure at the northwest corner of the property; 2) That repairs/replacement made to the extant portions of the single family dwelling are made with in-kind materials; and, 3) That the color scheme for the building is as follows: "Sage" for the body of the building, "Hirsch Red" for the trim, and white for the accents. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 21,2004 c III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Anderson/Buckley Residence, 14 NE 5th Street, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Customline Remodelers, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of removable storm panels on a non-contributing residence at 14 NE 5th Street, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). 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 into the record. The applicant was not present. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments 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. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 14 NE 5th Street by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the LDRs and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1. That the tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments—none B. Report from Historic District Representatives - none C. Board Members Ms. Jamison mentioned that the home at 118 NE 5th Street had an eight (8) foot fence on their property, and asked Ms. Shay if they came into Planning & Zoning for approval of installation of French doors. Ms. Shay advised she would research the issue. D. Staff A public informational meeting is set for August 9, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers regarding the proposed Dell Park & NW Swinton Avenue Historic Districts. The Lake Ida Park Home Owner's Association (HOA) meeting is scheduled for September 1, 2004 and the Dell Park HOA meeting is scheduled for 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 21,2004 September 13, 2004. Staff will request that the Board set a public hearing date for September 15, 2004. V. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:35 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for July 21, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 18, 2004. a . Pao( D ise 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. 8/12/04 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 21,2004 September 13, 2004. Staff will request that the Board set a public hearing date for September 15, 2004. V. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:35 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for July 21, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 18, 2004. 0%)74--,,e . /US 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 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 21,2004 MAY qt. AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING �`4, P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH The MAY 5, 2004 Historic Preservation Board's Regular Meeting has been CANCELED. The next Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Board is May 19, 2004. Wendy Shay Historic Preservation Plan r POSTED ON: APRIL 28, 2004