Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HPB- 07-07-04
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: July 7, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and John Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Denise Valek, and Ron Hoggard 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. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. Ms. Shay advised that the Agenda was revised relative to Item IV.B. Recommendation to the Planning &Zoning Board regarding conditional use approval for the mixed-use project known as the Linehan property. The changes that were made were strikeouts and underlined where text was added. Staff is still recommending approval. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Jamison; seconded by Ms. Schatz and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of April 7, 2004 and April 21, 2004 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Godfrey Office, 215 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Ron Godfrey, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and an associated Class III Site Plan Modification for the conversion of a single-family home to office and an associated internal adjustment and waiver request. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. JULY Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and her resume into the record. The property consists of a contributing historic building containing a 1,560 sq. ft. one- story, frame vernacular dwelling and a 612 sq. ft. garage. The development proposal involves conversion of the 1,560 sq. ft. dwelling to office space; construction of 4 parking spaces (consists of 1 space to the rear, 1 parallel space adjacent to the garage, and 2 spaces within the existing 612 sq. ft. garage). The applicant is also requesting an internal adjustment for reduction of the two—way drive aisle from 24' to 20.5', and a waiver request for the reduction of the landscape strip adjacent to the proposed parking areas from 5'to 2.5'. Originally staff was requesting that the handicap space be in the right-of-way. Based on extended discussions with the Building Department, Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist and Paul Dorling, Director of Planning & Zoning, it was decided that this could set a precedent. Planning & Zoning is looking into a long-range plan relative to handicap space parking along this street. It could be 1 space per 2 houses. However, this will have to be discussed with DCA in Tallahassee. Based on discussions we are requesting that the handicap space be located at the rear of the property adjacent to the trellis, that the 2 spaces within the garage be retained, and that the parallel space be retained. The site lighting that is proposed is modern lighting, and we would like the applicant to come up with something that is more in line with the architecture of the building. The project has been approved by the CRA and Pineapple Grove Main Street. The applicant is here with a representative. Mr. Ron Godfrey, New Urban Communities, believes it is overkill on the handicap spaces. There are four or five spaces across the street that are never used. I would like to ramp up the handicap ramp to the front door. He advised he is in agreement with all other issues relative to the project. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There was none. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Dersh commented that the light needs to match the character of the building and neighborhood. Ms. Sexton advised that if a handicap ramp costs more than 20% of the renovation cost it is not required. Ms. Shay advised that there is a provision that allows for the building to be modified minimally. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 Internal Adjustment It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for the internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), to reduce the two-way drive aisle from the required 24' width to 20.5', 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 LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5). Waiver It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the required landscape strip on the south side of the property from five feet (5') to two and half feet (2.5') for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan Modification It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 7 to 0 move approval of the request for Class III site plan modification approval for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey office, 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 2.4.5(F)(5), 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2) That accessibility modifications are noted on the site plan and elevations, where applicable; and 3) The applicant submit a new specification for the light fixture to be more compatible with the buildings architecture. Landscape Plan It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Landscape Plan for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1) Address all Landscape Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 B. Ferrara Duplex, 136 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Tony Keller, Authorized Agent—Continued from April 7, 2004 Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a duplex on a vacant lot. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. Ms. Shay advised the Board looked at this on April 7, 2004. In addition to some of the conditions that staff recommended, the Board added the following additional conditions of approval: That the building height is provided; note the railing detail and proposed materials; note the material for the columns and porch including ceiling; provide the dimensions of the roof including the overhang; that the materials for the chimney are indicated; note the material of the walkways and sidewalk; that the drawings are in '/4 inch scale; and, that any lattice or alternate material covering the crawl space below the building is noted on the plans and a detail provided. This project consists of a two-story duplex of approximately 3,780 sq. ft. The Board initially looked at the project and considered that would reduce the setback from 25' to 20' in order to accommodate a right-of-way dedication. The Board did approve the variance on April 7, 2004. However, based on the direction of some conditions of approval, the Board requested that the applicant address these issues. The applicant has addressed these issues and is back before the Board for reconsideration. The applicant has met the majority of the requirements relative to the design elements. A few of the issues that were not addressed include the variation of material. The Design Guidelines state that new construction and infill should be differentiated from the historic material. If possible the material on the second floor should be differentiated with something like a smooth stucco. We have not received a muntin profile. An official color scheme needs to be submitted. The landscape plan needs to meet the intention of the landscape requirements. The Board requested that the material of the porch ceiling be noted, the dimensions of the roof including the overhang should be provided. The plan also needs to indicate location of the a/c units, pool equipment, and whatever slab would be necessary to install those. Landscaping for this area needs to be shown as well. The privacy wall does not meet the 20' sight visibility guideline. The applicant has met additional comments as well as the conditions of approval. Mr. Everett Jenner, architect, for the project advised that we covered all of the points that Ms. Shay brought up. This design is a Key West influence. Mr. Keller has built three houses that I have designed, two of which are on Swinton based on the Key West influence. Mr. Tony Keller, 200 N.E. 5th Street, advised the exterior will consist of white vinyl siding and the shutters will be liberty blue. The windows will be single hung PGT impact glass. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 Ms. Shay wanted to clarify that the wall would have to be set back about five feet (5') to the south. This is a standard requirement set by the City's Engineering Department. Chairman Perez advised that Mr. Jenner might want to consult with Engineering relative to this issue. Ms. Jamison questioned if one floor has to be different than the other. Mr. Silberstein requested a specification relative to the chimney. Mr. Keller advised the chimney is of stucco and painted white. Mr. Silberstein inquired what material the door to the stairs and fencing at the pool was going to be constructed of. Mr. Jenner advised it would be aluminum. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for Ferrara Duplex, 136 NE 1st 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 Sections 4.3.3(Q), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is noted on the site plan and the deed accepted by the City Commission, prior to issuance of a building permit; 2) That the siding can be on the entire building; 3) That window details including muntin profile be submitted; 4) That a color scheme be submitted for the body, trim, and accents with samples; 5) That a landscape plan is submitted with the building permit that meets the intent of LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f). 6) That the building height is provided; 7) Note the material for the porch including ceilings; 8) Provide the dimensions of the roof including overhang; 9) That the plan includes the notation of the a/c units, pool equipment, and their respective slabs on the site and landscape plans and allow for a hedge to be planted on the east and west sides in order to accommodate the required screening; 10)That the landscape plans indicate the location of all trees on neighboring property which overhangs into the property's yard; and, 11)That the six-foot (6') privacy wall is relocated to meet the 20' site visibility triangle unless otherwise noted by the City Engineer. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 C. Community Redevelopment Agency (Judge Knott) Building, 20 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Diane Colonna, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of impact resistant aluminum frame windows and installation of a replacement sign. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. In addition, there is an existing sign on the property that the Board had previously reviewed. The applicant is requesting a new sign five feet (5') off the North Swinton Avenue right-of-way. Staff is supporting the freestanding sign. Staff disagrees with replacing all of the windows. Staff is recommending that replacement windows be constructed of wood. Staff is not in agreement with replacing wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The CRA purchased and moved into the building in April. There was a lot of deferred maintenance. The original windows are now rotted. It is important that we have impact resistance shutters or impact resistant wood windows. As the CRA is a public agency, cost is a concern. Mr. Boyd Boggess, General Contractor, advised that they priced out about 5 or 6 different types of windows that are impact resistant. The wood windows are difficult in that they do not fit unless you go with the casement windows. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from staff. Ms. Shay advised she heard that the clad windows rot from the inside out. Mr. Silberstein mentioned that casement windows do not work with the architecture of the building. He also advised he would rather see a single hung window rather than a casement window. Ms. Schatz questioned how do we deal with the inability to pay for the wood windows. Ms. Jamison feels if we allow the CRA to use windows other than wood it will set a precedent. Ms. Sexton advised that the CRA should step up to the plate and set an example. Ms. Shay advised they should be replaced with the style of window that is on the building. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request to install wood windows on the original building and aluminum frame windows on the two-story, contemporary addition for 20 North Swinton 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)(8)(c), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 (H)(2)(a-c), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. D. Old School Bakery, 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Marina Historic District, Atlantic Sign, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: A Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a wall sign on a contributing property, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) and 2.4.7(B). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. Ms. Shay advised a wall sign was needed on this building as it was set back. The wall sign is ten feet (10') in length, one foot-three inches (1'-3") in height, and meets the requirements of the LDR. Based on the fact that there is a precedent for this type of sign, staff is recommending approval. Fay Young, Atlantic Signs, advised she concurred with the staff report. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from staff. There was none. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for Old School Bakery, 814 East Atlantic Avenue, 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 Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(a), (G)(2)(b), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c) of the LDR, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. E. Regional Diagnostics, 101 NW 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two free-standing signs on a non-contributing property, 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 items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. Ms. Shay advised that the applicant is requesting the installation of two free-standing, two-sided signs, which are constructed of sign foam. The proposed signs will replace the existing signs for Pineapple Place and Delray Diagnostic Imaging. Staff felt the design of the sign compliments the style of the building. Claudio Camilucci, Camilucci Signs, is in agreement with the staff report, and advised the sign would be repositioned. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from staff. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for Regional Diagnostics, 101 NW 1st Avenue, 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 LDR Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7) and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the sign at the corner of NW 1st Street and NW 1st Avenue is re-configured as a one-sided sign and is re-positioned to be angled at the corner. F. Atlantic Grove, North 300 &400 Blocks of West Atlantic Avenue, West Settler's Historic District, Tim Hernandez, New Urban Communities, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I site plan modification for alterations to the elevations (color changes) of the mixed use buildings fronting West Atlantic Avenue. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. • Mr. Hoggard, Senior Planner, presented the new color scheme of the east building as well as samples of the stone. Mr. Hoggard also presented the different colors that were utilized on the building to the Board. Mr. Tim Hernandez, New Urban Design, Delray Beach, advised that the color was too light as a determination could not be made between the south façade of the building and the stone. Mr. Hernandez stated that the first story of the building would be classic white (labeled no. 6), and the keystones would be green as depicted on the sample. The Board discussed what colors should be used for the building. It was determined that the paint on the building would match the green stone. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for Atlantic Grove, 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 LDR and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the exception of changing the west building, Bay 1 to have the paint match the green stone on the first level. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 IV. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. Recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board for Pineapple Grove, Ltd. (A portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75, of the Town of Delray subdivision). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Silberstein spoke to Mr. Miller, Ms. Sexton, Mr. Perez, and Ms. Jamison regarding this item. Ms. Dersh spoke to one of the owners and discussed floor plans of the building. Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. This project is proposed to be built between the NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue along NE 1st Street. This is a privately initiated text amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(B). This is regarding the OSSHAD regulations with regard to density. The applicant proposes to amend the OSSHAD zoning by allowing permitted uses in the CBD. The development proposal consists of a mixed-use project that contains 50 residential units; 8,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area; 6.540 sq. ft. of office floor area; and 2,260 sq. ft. of restaurant floor area. Lots 13 through 16 are zoned CBD and Lots 5 through 8 are zoned OSSHAD. Lots 5 and 6 contain an existing two-story, 6-unit multiple family structure and a duplex (8 total dwelling units). The portion of the new development proposed for Lots 5 and 6 consists of a three-story building that contains commercial on the first floor and residential units on the second and third floors. The development meets the height and setback requirements; however, it does not meet the density requirements, which 12 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is submitting an amendment to modify the code. The proposed change would accommodate residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre; however, the amendment does not modify the restrictions with respect to the 50% maximum for residential use nor would it modify the OSSHAD development standards relating to the requirement under LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(1) requiring a conditional use approval for more than one residential use when associated with a mixed use project. Modifications to the LDR as proposed by the applicant should not be considered. Staff is concerned about the impact in the OSSHAD district; therefore, staff is recommending denial. Michael Weiner, 102 Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, representing Pineapple Grove Limited (principal, Louis Carbone), advised the standards with respect to a text change were met. He stated 80% of the project is zoned CBD and about 20% is not. We have diverse regulations and inconsistent zoning in this area. The best fit would be for one consistent set of regulations. We did submit a sight plan at this point; however, we have things to work out. We are not considering that tonight, we are considering whether or not there should be a consistent development pattern. There was precedent for this before on block 69. We, therefore, meet the standards for a text change relative to LDR Section 2.4(5). We want to try to achieve to have a better gateway for OSSHAD. What we want to do protects the single-family nature of OSSHAD better that leaving incompatible inconsistent tacked on building. This is across from the 48' parking garage. We have OSSHAD zoning but we comply with CBD uses and regulations. It is not our intent to do 60' (depicted on map). If you want to see the project before you make a 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 decision we respect that decision. Under those circumstances I think this carries out the Future land use designation, giving us a superior project and a true gateway. Louis Carbone, owner of the property, stated that he wants to create a cohesive development. We are not looking to do 60' feet on that one particular project. We are looking to get rid of the split zoning on the property, and we would entertain your feedback. Gene Fisher, from Pineapple Grove said that OSSHAD is in our district. We decided not to take action on this. We felt we would be giving up any bargaining tool we would have in the future. We decided to see more of the project and give us an idea of where the setbacks are and give us more information so we can make an intelligent decision. OSSHAD is 35' now and 65' could be the potential in the future. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from staff. Ms. Jamison advised she would like something back before we make a text amendment decision. Chairman Perez agreed with Ms. Jamison and would be willing to consider it if we see what the project will look like and make it three stories and no higher. Mr. Miller, Ms. Schatz, Ms. Sexton, and Ms. Dersh agreed it should be tabled and brought back to the Board. Mr. Weiner advised the Board they would bring this back for approval within sixty days. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 6 to 0 (Jeffrey Silberstein stepped down) to move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to table the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses in the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). B. Recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board Conditional Use Approval for the Linehan property (Lot 6, Block 59). Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The Board approved a Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements on March 3, 2004 for the construction of a 3,583 sq. ft. two-story, mixed use building (office and residential) that includes 1,800 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor and 1,783 sq. ft. of residential space (two bedrooms) on the second floor. 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 The request before the Board is to allow the owner of the mixed-use development to lease out the residential unit and live off premises. Staff is recommending approval. Ms. Michelle Hoyland, Weiner&Aronson, 102 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, is here to represent Ms. Linehan. Ms. Hoyland stated that the applicant had an approval back on March 3, 2004. The LDR states that you can have a mixed use building in this area. Ms. Linehan requested this change to allow her to lease out the residential unit and live off premises, and the applicant is moving forward with the building permit. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the public. There were none. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 7 to 0 to move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the conditional use request for Lot 6, Block 59, Linehan Property to allow the owner of the property to live off premises and to allow the owner of a mixed use development with one residential unit the ability to lease the commercial and residential spaces to parties that are not the owner of the property nor proprietors or employees of the business 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 Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations and LDR Sections 2.4.5(E)(5)(Findings), 4.4.24(D)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8(a-k), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments - None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members - None D. Staff • Ms. Shay advised that City Commission denied zoning request for Del-Ida. Mr. David Harden, City Manager, advised he knows one way to divide the property. • Del-Ida Park and Swinton areas—moving forward with the neighborhood appreciation meeting. ■ Future Meetings: o City Hall Meeting on August 9 o Q & A Session on August 17 — there are a considerable number of non- contributing buildings. We need 60% contributing before we can include that area. o Neighborhood Appreciation Meetings will be held on September 1 and 13. The Public Hearing Date will be held the beginning of September. We received a lot of public feedback regarding the districts. Feedback from homeowners in the district regarding how they deal with insurance issues would be beneficial. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 7,2004 ■ Mr. Ron Hoggard, Senior Planner o Atlantic Grove Building — the first tenant will be coming in for a build out. Due to the space planning the walk-in cooler will be located against the front windows. Cosgrove is working on a mural on a panel that will slide to obscure the cooler. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:47 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for July 7, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on 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. 12 0,0 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING ' CITY OF DELRAY BEACH -r4y�" Meeting Date: July 7, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • April 7, 2004 • April 21, 2004 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Godfrey Office, 215 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Ron Godfrey, Owner. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and an associated Class Ill Site Plan Modification for the conversion of a single family home to office and an associated internal adjustment and waiver request. B. Ferrara Residence, 136 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Tony Keller, Authorized Agent.— Continued from April 7, 2004 Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a duplex on a vacant lot. C. Community Redevelopment Agency (Judge Knott) Building, 20 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Diane Colonna, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of impact resistant aluminum frame windows and installation of a replacement sign. D. Old School Bread Company, 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Marina Historic District, Atlantic Signs, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign. July 7,2004 HPB Meeting Page 2 E. Regional Diagnostics, 101 NW 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign. F. Atlantic Grove, North 300 & 400 Blocks of West Atlantic Avenue, West Settler's Historic District, Tim Hernandez, New Urban Communities, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I site plan modification for alterations to the elevations (color changes) of the mixed-use buildings fronting West Atlantic Avenue. IV. DISCUSSION &ACTION ITEMS A. Recommend to the Planning & Zoning Board for Pineapple Grove, Ltd. (A portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision). B. Recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board Conditional Use Approval for the Linehan Property(Lot 6, Block 59). V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VI. ADJOURN NPQ Wendy Shaytoric Prese ation Planner POSTED ON: July 1,2004 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: April 7, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, Randee Schatz, and Jeffrey Silberstein MEMBERS ABSENT: Francisco Perez-Azua and John Miller, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Brian Shutt I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Ms. Schatz at 6:02 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. Ms. Shay requested that a motion be made to amend the Agenda to table Item IV.A., Ascot based on the fact that Mr. Silberstein would have to step down and the Board would lose its quorum. She also requested to add Item V.A., Historic Preservation Poster Contest. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 4 to 0 to table Item IV.A. until the April 21, 2004 meeting and add the Poster Contest as Item V.A. 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. Silberstein and passed 4 to 0 to approve the Minutes of February 4, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Schatz read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. A. Ferrara Residence, 136 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Tony Keller, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a duplex on a vacant lot and an associated variance. Historic Preservation Board Meeting April 7,2004 1111 Ms. Schatz asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Ms. Jamison stated she spoke with Tony Keller regarding variances. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and her resume into the record. Michael Weiner, Esquire, was present on behalf of the owners, Dr. and Mrs. Ferrara. He made a presentation and stressed his concerns regarding the right-of-way dedication, the necessity of a variance, and with differentiating the exterior material. Staff requested that a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication be recorded in order to be consistent with the development along NE 1st Avenue. Therefore, the variance was necessary. Mr. Weiner stated that the required findings pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J) and Section 2.4.7(A)(5) as listed in the Staff Report were being met. Tony Keller, 200 NE 5th Avenue, stated that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation relates to existing buildings. As the proposed building is non- contributing, the issue is not applicable. Ms. Shay stated that the Board has attributed this guideline to previous projects. She also stated that the design guidelines support the differentiating of the materials. Mr. Keller stated that a landscape plan will be provided and that the driveway and sidewalks will be brick pavers. Everett Jenner, Project Architect, stated that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards has been mentioned on three or four projects, but they do not apply to new construction. Ms. Schatz closed the Public Hearing and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Jamison asked Mr. Shutt if granting an easement for the five feet (5') of property is an option rather than dedicating five feet (5') of right-of-way to the City. Mr. Shutt advised that it is up to the City Attorney to make that decision. Ms. Jamison stated that she is opposed to the City taking property from a homeowner. Board discussion ensued regarding the open air porch and proposed materials, the five foot (5') dedication, and the reduction of the square footage of the proposed guest cottage. Mr. Shutt advised that the right-of-way dedication is a requirement noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schatz mentioned this is a Comprehensive Plan requirement as redevelopment of a property occurs and changes are made to the property. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 7,2004 The proposed guest cottage may not exceed 497.25 sq. ft. In order to be consistent with the LDR's, the square footage needs to be reduced. Therefore, the cottage should be reduced by 18.75 sq. ft. Variance After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 4 to 0 to approve the variance for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, to reduce the front setback from 25' to 20'. Certificate of Appropriateness . It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 4 to 0 to table the Certificate of Appropriateness for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex with the following direction: 1) That a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is noted on the site plan and the deed accepted by the City Commission, prior to issuance of a building permit; 2) That one floor of the exterior displays a smooth stucco finish; 3) Submit exterior lighting details and note the locations on the building elevations; 4) That window details including muntin profile are submitted; 5) That decorative wrought iron shutter dogs are installed flanking each decorative shutter; 6) That a color scheme is submitted for the body, trim, and accents with samples; 7) That the guest cottage is reduced in square footage to a maximum of 497.25 sq. ft. and that the cottage is limited to use by members of the family occupying the principal dwelling or their nonpaying guests per LDR Section 4.3.3(Q); 8) That the proposed materials for the driveway, sidewalk, and pool deck are noted on the site plan; 9) That a detail of the proposed wall and fence are submitted; and, 10) That a landscape plan is submitted with the building permit that meets the intent of LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f). 11) That the building height is provided; 12) Note the railing detail and proposed materials; 13) Note the material for the columns and porch including ceilings; 14) Provide the dimensions of the roof including overhang; 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 7,2004 15) That the materials for the chimney are indicated; 16) Note the material of the walkways and sidewalk; 17) That the drawings are in 'A inch scale; and, 18) That any lattice or alternate material covering the crawl space below the building is noted on the plans and a detail provided. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Historic Preservation Poster Contest - The Board selected Tony Milanese, 12`h Grade, American Heritage (first prize), Dawn Kelly, 9th Grade, Toussaint L'Ouverture (second place), and Frank VanAmburgh, 9th Grade, American Heritage (third place). V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments—None B. Report from Historic District Representatives— None C. Board Members— None D. Staff- Ms. Shay reminded the Board about the upcoming Preservation Conference and the need for volunteers. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for April 7, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on July 7, 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. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 7,2004 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 1. 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 1, 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 2nd 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes April 21,2004 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: July 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: III.A- ITEM: Godfrey Office, 215 NE 1s`Avenue, Old School Square Historic District—Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class III Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan for the conversion of a one-story contributing building to office. N.E. 5TH CT. 0'D N.E. 5TH ST. GENERAL DATA: N.W.4TH ST. N.E. 4TN ST. Owner/Applicant Ron Godfrey NI .. Agent Gerald Church CASON OFFICE NMI METHODIST li = Location NE 1st Avenue between NE CHURCH NI E 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street. _ um N. Nome Property Size 0.16 Acres EEL:ill = Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) MEI i NI MMI Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School I.Mil mi INN a ME Square Historic Arts District) _ N.W.,RD . N.E. 3RD !? Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD (Old School u Square Historic Arts District) IIIM East: OSSHAD (Old School Am Square Historic Arts District) "� _ South: OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) I - West: OSSHAD (Old School - ' ST. N.E.N.E 2ND St Square Historic Arts District)Existing Land Use Single Family Residence Proposed Land Use Covert existing residence 0to office with the addition of a parking lot.Water Service Existing on site. iJ4 I Sewer Service Existing on site. N.W.1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. i • Z gt OLD ., l I SCHOOL SQUARE ATLANTIC AVENUE I_ - C '4 �_-u C III.A. ITEM BEFORE The action before the Board is that of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 215 NE 1st Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): U Class III Site Plan Modification; U Landscape Plan; ❑ Internal Adjustment; and, U Waiver Request. The subject property is located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue (Banker's Row) between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street. BACKGROUND.' The subject property is the south 16.5' of Lot 8 and the north 39' of Lot 9, Block 74, Town of Delray. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and is considered a contributing property in the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a 1,560 sq. ft., one-story, frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1937 and a 612 sq. ft. garage constructed in 1995. An exterior paint change was approved administratively on March 1, 2004. There are no other recent administrative or Board actions taken with respect to this property. The applicant is now before the Board for consideration of a Class III site plan modification for the conversion of a single family home to office. P,R O J E C;T D E S C RI 13T,IO N The development proposal involves the following: o Conversion of the 1,560 sq. ft. dwelling to office; ❑ Construction of four (4) parking spaces (conversion of a parallel space within the right-of-way to a handicapped accessible space, construction of a parallel space adjacent to the garage and two spaces within the existing 6.12 sq. ft. garage); o Internal adjustment from LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(b) for the reduction of the two-way drive aisle from 24' to 20.5'; and, o Waiver request from LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), for the reduction of the landscape strip adjacent to the proposed parking area from five feet (5') to two and a half feet (2.5'). Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: Ill.A. HPB Staff Report 215 NE 151 Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 2 SITE.., PLAN ;:MO © ( FlCATION A,NALYIS ..,,, 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' 18' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 30' Side (Interior) 7.5' 5.4'** -north -south 7.5' 10.2' Rear 10' 10' Open Space 25% 48% **As no changes are proposed to the footprint of the building, a variance is unnecessary for the interior side setback of 5.4'. Previous alterations are grandfathered in. LDR Chapter 4.4.13(G)(1)(Parkinq): Parking Parking for this proposal is being assessed as it relates to the conversion of the single family home to office. The existing 1,560 sq. ft. building was previously utilized as a dwelling. The applicant proposes to convert the dwelling to office use. 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. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(F)(2), a Master Plan was developed in 1991 which stipulated that the required parking for conversion of all properties within Banker's Row be based upon the each property's lot configuration and location of the extant historic building. Therefore, the parking assessment for each property along Banker's Row varies by number and on-site location. Four (4) parking spaces are proposed, including two (2) spaces within the 612 sq. ft. garage, one (1) handicapped accessible space in front (west) of the building within the right-of-way, and one (1) parallel space perpendicular to the garage taking access off the alley. As the Banker's Row parking plan requires just four (4) spaces for this building's conversion to commercial use, the proposed four (4) spaces on-site meet the necessary parking requirement for the site and its proposed use. Placing the handicapped space within the right-of-way would set a precedent for future conversions along Banker's Row, the handicapped accessible space should be relocated to the rear HPB Staff Report 215 NE 15t Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 3 of the building adjacent to the trellis. As currently interpreted, compliance with accessibility codes requires the handicap parking spaces to be provided on the site and not within the adjacent rights-of-way. This has been added as a condition of approval. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Drive Aisle Width Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(b), the point of access to a street or alley shall not be less than 24'for a normal two-way private street or parking lot driveway aisle. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 20.5' wide drive aisle [excluding the six inch (6") curbing] in place of the current paver driveway with access from the alley, while also providing a two and a half foot (2.5') wide landscape strip along the south property line adjacent to the parking area. The applicant has requested an internal adjustment to reduce the width of the drive aisle and a waiver to reduce the landscape strip. Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. Due to the narrow width and the configuration of the existing driveway and the location of the extant garage, a maximum of 20.5' can be provided in order to provide a minimum landscape strip of two and a half feet (2.5') [excluding the six inch (6") curbing]. The City Engineer supports the reduction of the drive aisle width to 20.5' based on the current size and lot configuration as well as the footprint of the existing building. Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting is required for new development proposals. Site lighting has been provided through the use of a series of wall lighting proposed on the southeast corner of the building as well as the east and south elevations of the garage. The proposed fixture is contemporary is design and does not compliment the frame style of the building. Submittal of a complimentary light fixture is recommended and has been therefore added as a condition of approval. Refuse Container Area The proposal includes the installation of a 2.5' x 6.5' refuse container area on the north side of the property adjacent to the building provided to accommodate roll out containers. As proposed, there is no screening either with a fence enclosure or landscaping. A condition of approval has been added that the area is adequately screened via fencing (including a detail) or landscaping. ITEM„ NBEFOR.E THE_. BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 215 NE 1st Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): ❑ Class III Site Plan Modification; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Internal Adjustment; and, U Waiver Request. The subject property is located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue (Banker's Row) between NE 2nd Street and NE 3`d Street. BACKGROUN13:' , . ,.,._ The subject property is the south 16.5' of Lot 8 and the north 39' of Lot 9, Block 74, Town of Delray. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and is considered a contributing property in the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a 1,560 sq. ft., one-story, frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1937 and a 612 sq. ft. garage constructed in 1995. An exterior paint change was approved administratively on March 1, 2004. There are no other recent administrative or Board actions taken with respect to this property. The applicant is now before the Board for consideration of a Class III site plan modification for the conversion of a single family home to office. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . �.. The development proposal involves the following: ❑ Conversion of the 1,560 sq. ft. dwelling to office; ❑ Construction of four (4) parking spaces (conversion of a parallel space within the right-of-way to a handicapped accessible space, construction of a parallel space adjacent to the garage and two spaces within the existing 612 sq. ft. garage); ❑ Internal adjustment from LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(b) for the reduction of the two-way drive aisle from 24' to 20.5'; and, o Waiver request from LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), for the reduction of the landscape strip adjacent to the proposed parking area from five feet (5') to two and a half feet (2.5'). Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 2 SITE PLAN > MSO-P ION ANALYS1S 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' 18' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 30' Side (Interior) 7.5' 5.4'** -north -south 7.5' 10.2' Rear 10' 10' Open Space 25% 48% **As no changes are proposed to the footprint of the building, a variance is unnecessary for the interior side setback of 5.4'. Previous alterations are grandfathered in. LDR Chapter 4.4.13(G)(1)(Parkinq): Parking Parking for this proposal is being assessed as it relates to the conversion of the single family. home to office. The existing 1,560 sq. ft. building was previously utilized as a dwelling. The applicant proposes to convert the dwelling to office use. 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. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(F)(2), a Master Plan was developed in 1991 which stipulated that the required parking for conversion of all properties within Banker's Row be based upon the each property's lot configuration and location of the extant historic building. Therefore, the parking assessment for each property along Banker's Row varies by number and on-site location. Four (4) parking spaces are proposed, including two (2) spaces within the 612 sq. ft. garage, one (1) handicapped accessible space in front (west) of the building within the right-of-way, and one (1) parallel space perpendicular to the garage taking access off the alley. As the Banker's Row parking plan requires just four (4) spaces for this building's conversion to commercial use, the proposed four (4) spaces on-site meet the necessary parking requirement for the site and its proposed use. Placing the handicapped space within the right-of-way would set a precedent for future conversions along Banker's Row, the handicapped accessible space should be relocated to the rear HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 3 of the building adjacent to the trellis. As currently interpreted, compliance with accessibility codes requires the handicap parking spaces to be provided on the site and not within the adjacent rights-of-way. This has been added as a condition of approval. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Drive Aisle Width Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(b), the point of access to a street or alley shall not be less than 24' for a normal two-way private street or parking lot driveway aisle. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 20.5' wide drive aisle [excluding the six inch (6") curbing] in place of the current paver driveway with access from the alley, while also providing a two and a half foot (2.5') wide landscape strip along the south property line adjacent to the parking area. The applicant has requested an internal adjustment to reduce the width of the drive aisle and a waiver to reduce the landscape strip. Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. Due to the narrow width and the configuration of the existing driveway and the location of the extant garage, a maximum of 20.5' can be provided in order to provide a minimum landscape strip of two and a half feet (2.5') [excluding the six inch (6") curbing]. The City Engineer supports the reduction of the drive aisle width to 20.5' based on the current size and lot configuration as well as the footprint of the existing building. Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting is required for new development proposals. Site lighting has been provided through the use of a series of wall lighting proposed on the southeast corner of the building as well as the east and south elevations of the garage. The proposed fixture is contemporary is design and does not compliment the frame style of the building. Submittal of a complimentary light fixture is recommended and has been added as a condition of approval. Refuse Container Area The proposal includes the installation of a 2.5' x 6.5' refuse container area on the north side of the property adjacent to the building to accommodate roll out containers. As proposed, there is no screening either with a fence enclosure or landscaping. A condition of approval has been added that the area is adequately screened via fencing or landscaping. A detail of the screening is to be provided. HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 4 Site Plan Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1) That the handicapped accessible space is relocated to the rear of the building adjacent to the building. 2) 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. 3) That a complimentary lighting detail is provided. 4) That screening is provided for the refuse container. LANDSCAPE ANALYSI. Extensive landscaping currently exists on site which is dominated by the large Ficus Benjamin Tree at the southwest corner of the property and the Rubber Tree that is centered along the south property line. Other existing landscaping includes a Queen Palm and Areca Palm at the southwest corner of the building and Allamanda Vines on the fence, as well as Sword Fern and Eugenia along the south property line. Existing underplantings include Duranta, Hawaiian Ti Plants, Dwarf Chenille, Ixora, and Wart Fern in front of the building and Plumbago between the main building and garage. Two Washingtonia Palms will be relocated from their present location, adjacent to the alley, to the south side of the property adjacent to the proposed parking spaces and the existing Bougainvillea will also be relocated. A Royal Poinciana is located within the landscape island on the east side of NE 1st Avenue and a Live Oak can be found adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. Proposed landscaping consists of Travellers Palms, Dahoon Holly Trees at the northwest side of the property-with underplantings consisting of Purple Showers and Duranta Gold Mound in the front of the property and Blue Leadwort, Wart Fern, Macho Fern, Duranta Gold Mound along the perimeter. Hawaiian Ti Plants and Trailing Chenille are proposed internally between the main building and garage. The proposed landscape plan will be in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.16 with the exception of the waiver request described below, when the technical items as listed below are implemented. Waiver Request Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), a landscape strip of not less than five (5) feet in width, excluding the curbing, shall be located between the vehicular use area and abutting properties. The proposal includes a request for a waiver to reduce the landscape strip on the south property line from the required five feet (5') to two and a half feet (2.5') (excluding the required 6" curbing) in order to accommodate the construction of the handicapped accessible parking space to the rear of the building. HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 5 Required Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(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. Given the site constraints, the waiver is necessary in order to accommodate a rear parking lot with alley access. Due to the location of the extant building and garage, granting a waiver to reduce the required landscape strip on the south side of the rear parking area from five feet (5')to two and a half(2.5') can be supported. Based on the analysis above, the waiver request will neither adversely affect the neighboring area nor grant a special privilege to the property owner based on the current building configuration and lot area. No public facilities will be at risk and no unsafe situations shall be formed by the granting of this waiver. Based on this analysis, positive findings can be made to grant the requested waiver pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Landscape Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 1) That an additional Washingtonia palm is added on the west side of the two proposed palms along the south property line. • 2) That the proposed Washingtonia palm in the terminal landscape island at the southeast corner of the garage shall be changed to a triple Alexander palm. The palm must be tall enough to avoid any sight/distance concerns. The base of the triple palm cannot be planted any further out from the building than the proposed location of the palm noted currently on the landscape plan. _,LDESIGN .ELEMENTS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 6 demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front facade proportion, (c) proportion of openings (windows and doors), (d) rhythm of solids to voids: front facades, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (f) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, color, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (I) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of a front elevation. Conversion to Office The proposal involves the conversion of a one-story building from residential to office. The contributing, 1,560 sq. ft., frame vernacular building was constructed in 1931 and displays clapboard siding, a multi-plane shingle roof including hip, front and side facing gables and flat decks. All fenestration is contemporary including the bay window and fanlight on the front (west) elevation. While there are no proposed elevation changes being made with this proposal, it may be necessary to make modifications in order to meet the Florida Accessibility Requirements upon relocation of the accessible parking space to the rear of the building. Therefore, it has been added as a condition of approval that any such modifications are noted on the site plan and elevations, if applicable. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c)(Class III Site Plan Modification), a Class Ill site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which represents either a change in intensity of use, or which affects the spatial relationship among improvements on the land, requires partial review of Performance Standards found in LDR Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, as well as required findings of LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings), with a Class III site plan modification formal findings under Section 3.1.1 are not required. However, a finding that the proposed changes do not significantly affect the originally approved plan must be made concurrent with approval of a Class HI modification. The development proposal involves a conversion of an existing 1,560 sq. ft. dwelling to office space and the installation of a new parking area with associated walkways and landscaping. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5), this minor modification does not significantly impact the findings as they relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency or the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the Land Development Regulations was discussed earlier in this report. The development proposal has a minor impact on Concurrency items as discussed below. HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 7 Traffic The subject property is located within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) designation 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. Therefore, a traffic study is not required for concurrency purposes, however a traffic statement is necessary to keep a record of trips approved in the TCEA and for calculation of traffic impact fees. The applicant has submitted a statement which indicates that the 1,560 sq.ft. dwelling conversion will generate 37 total trips which represents 27 new daily trips. Solid Waste Requirements The proposed 1,560 sq. ft. office conversion will generate 4.21 tons of solid waste per year [(1,560 sq.ft. x 5.41bs./sq.ft./year = 8,424 lbs/2,000 lb. = 4.21 tons)]. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. REVIEW BY- OTHERS - Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) At its meeting of May 27, 2004, the CRA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the site plan modification as proposed. Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee The Committee reviewed the project on June 8, 2004. The Committee supported the project as proposed. Pineapple Grove Main Street The Committee reviewed the project on June 10, 2004. They supported the project with the stipulation that the handicapped accessible space is relocated to the rear of the building. ASSESSMENT_..AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the conversion of a 1,560 sq.ft. residence to office space and the installation of associated site improvements including the construction of a four (4) parking spaces, associated landscaping, internal walkway, and refuse container enclosure. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Sections 3.1.1, 2.4.5(G)(5), and 4.4.24(F)(2), and policies of the Comprehensive Plan when the conditions of approval are addressed. The associated internal adjustment and landscape waiver can be supported based on the site constraints and extant location of the building and garage. Given this, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(B)(5), 24.7(C)(5), 4.6.16, 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k). HPB Staff Report 215 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 8 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the request for Class Ill site plan approval for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 Sections 2.4.5(F)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions. C. Deny approval of the COA request and associated Class Ill Site Plan Modification for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(F)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a- k) of the LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Internal Adjustment Move approval of the request for the internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), to reduce the two-way drive aisle from the required 24' width to 20.5', 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 LDR Section 2.4.7(C)(5). Waiver • Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the required landscape strip on the south side of the property from five feet (5') to two and half feet (2.5') at 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan Modification Move approval of the request for Class Ill site plan approval for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 2.4.5(F)(5), 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: HPB Staff Report 215 NE 151 Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 9 1) Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2) That accessibility modifications are noted on the site plan and elevations, where applicable. Landscape Plan Move approval of the request for the Landscape Plan approval for 215 NE 1st Avenue, Godfrey Office, 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 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Landscape Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. Attachments:Location Map, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Survey Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner I --- jr.11 / LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. \ POST _ CASON OFFICE II tc' - METHODIST II c-i ts - CHURCH o I.: Z mmema _ -� ¢ a a IN ui a _ N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST.- - 1111 I I I I I I I I I LLIi�U a aIIIIIMIMI 11.11 MIN E =MI '= �_ CITY � = „ N Q ATTORNEY 0 N "�' o _o BUILDING n MIII N.W. 2ND ST. N.E. 2ND ST. - I- o cn z } N 3 I] Z Y' 0 0 ¢ 0 CO Z a f- — z CITY a D _ HALL w w oN E. ti — N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. _ — z iir COMMUNITY u; i o-z CENTER Z - r INF - - TENNIS OLD ( STADIUM SCHOOL F- ,a; _�v SQUARE ci1/i/i i r- (ATLANTIC AVENUE SOUTH a al a iI .I Q Q COUNTY __ COURT N I- HOUSE v; 0 vi- Vi C In - N GODFREY OFFICE BUILDING 215 NE 1ST AVE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LAIA177 • 1 ill • THESOUTHI6.SF N.E.3RD STREET. • « .. . EET OFLOT B AND THENORTH 39 FEET OF LOT.9,BLOCS 74 t• o G PP y 1. A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK • LOTS H - 74 DELRA YFLORIDA BLOQC74 N i to' �� .FDU/l?rlocL4 9/76 L.a. m FoixOt't!;K, . Lr{pF1Q 65o4 oa'I'tio WALK UNNIIf+J3ERED_ According to the plat recorded in Plat Book 11,Page 11,'"recorded in the public • PPorpaE TAN 132.60r 91�`.,. 1 1 records of Palm Beach County,Florida;said land situate,lying, and being in 339 F�ICE(rYr) d, 1 ; i o 2 Palm Beach County,Florida., • t �, t ;•IO,Z of-$ . ilI_p 1..�.3,19.9 \ z5.� -1:• -` -- 90.51'06t 0 1 • p �• i **cf.. 2a.. W \ C Ex 'f^SYOR -- I-STORY \ M `/ `o' t Sl a' +m 3 St 3, I,St `•i`s . . Ciz 1" z + ,, 51QENGE NLaA� G N ddz . .,w i+ n laE�. ft ~ 41 .to ••,` a D.5-'_'"E? T 1 * • 25;F lo,o: y. b so r�;o rn w w 1 T •� �4 .Ob. \ —T4 LOT0L' N a .L..H! xt '" I St i t t st 1GK 1 L 1• to hti \� T — BLOQf 741 �Py w ix 7 L�T� -r-- m AN°7C V 5 tit: sai' 'T 1-f�-t{I l O'-. PM — r I -1-r r '�/�1 L 5 2 6 Q N � 0 � ZZ2' H�.'p"•�.__-...--1 1'_ 'Fit 1:-.:-..�ir}",. '1- �1 .. 'ST A 1�, ., �t > E f� 1, �r O o. v cO,ac.` O Y �.. {I�4r� $ �0• St ¢ i st i Mqi — —— )l >1 r < "+ a n a> a> ¢> ¢N a A NORTH I 132.60' 1 /: �owN aOE St 2 �St in L Y Fourin.rIQ>L+nl � �1 fDunlp 1 +:I P - _ o eaV • (,up j� � o i ` Not to Scale LFC.a 0.1110 J6LK J ( lM 4thm El.`:� I�IJGL� 6Q& 6 °D St e' cV • f 3 ^�`St I 1 ' sWow.' 6N THE .. > > w •,•�`• Vicinity az6v2D60 xA4T,)' C•t 6. a>DELAY w a < W N •JI P I.R.=iron rod R=radius Q=central angle P.O.B.=point of beginning . • U/E='utility easement of LOT 10 I.P.=Iron pipe L=arc Length CL=centerline P.C.=point of curvature ©=bearing basis line Asph=asphalt Esmt=easement Gonc a concrete P.O.C.a point of commencement O/S=offset il BLOCK74 RP=radius point Typ=typical P.I.=point of intersection WPF=wood privacy fence CLF=chain link fence Renner,Burgess,Inc. . Certified To: =! 1 S.E.41h Ave.,Suite 205 PATRICIA E.SAVOR AND RONALD P.GODFREY. Delray Beach,FL 334e3 HOME FEDERAL BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, Phone 561.243.4624 Fax 243•4869 Its Successors and/or Assigns, ATIMA L\''t —- REET Land West Palm 735.7639 ' s=iey'"o West Palm Fax 735.7641 DEVITT,THISTLE 8 DEVITT,P.A. - ��� Toll Free 1-500•773.5531 ATTORNEYS'TITLE INSURANCE FUND,INC. Fex Free 1.600.954.4408Al�r l' BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO PLAT C WON Mi7C.-.,-4.'c!'jj Fi AND ARE ASSUMED. Flood Zone: "x" NO ABSTRACTOR TITLE SEARCH WAS PERFORMED ITODISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF ANY EASEMENTS Auiharl:uion Numbs(Leese t Map No: i25 102 DODO rJ • �jG,G.LE;( =20 ORRESTRICPONSOFRECORD. ,I heresy carejcicdssetfoYrthIocPapter61G17.6.ELEVAHERENRE - meets tMap Dale: I• seale wieossed CVERTCADATUM OF 1929 ivo.Code urs ant to Section 472.027, Florida UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. surveyor's Seal' Date: 2-•!yJ-D4- NO BELOW GROUND IMPROVEMENTS,FOOTERS,FOUNDATIONS OR 'Statutes //�JJ ��` UTILITIES HAVE BEEN LOCATED OR SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY, 1 1U(Iti ` � /(/ Job No: 2^D 8¢ • Harr(A. ulgess +/ P.L.S.No.5089 Revised: . J..• 1 • Ii DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD t� MEMORANDUM TAFF REPORT 1993 '. ? 1993 Agent: Tony Keller Project Name: Ferrara Duplex Project Location: 136 NE 1st Avenue '. .. ITEM .._BEFORETHE BOARD The item before the Board is a request for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new two-story duplex at 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). -BACKGROUND. ...... The subject property consists of Lot 11, Block 67, Town of Delray (previously known as Town of Linton) which is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The .24 acre property is presently vacant. During its meeting of April 7, 2004, the Board reviewed a site plan and variance request for the construction of a 3,780 sq. ft., two-story duplex. The Board approved the variance to reduce the front building setback from the required 2.5' to. 20'. Upon review of the site plan and elevations, the Board offered the following direction to the applicant in addition to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 7, 2004 (see attached): 1) That the building height is provided; 2) Note the railing detail and proposed materials; 3) Note the material for the columns and porch including ceilings; 4) Provide the dimensions of the roof including overhang; 5) That the materials for the chimney are indicated; 6) Note the material of the walkways and sidewalk; 7) That the drawings are in 1/4 inch scale; and, Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.B. 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 2 • 8) That any lattice or alternate material covering the crawl space below the building is noted on the plans and a detail provided. The applicant is now before the Board for the consideration of the revised proposal to construct the 3,780 sq. ft., two-story duplex. „PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of a 3,780 sq. ft., two-story, traditional Florida style duplex. The concrete block building consists of two units; one on the first floor and another on the second floor. Each floor consists of 1,590 sq. ft. (1,705 sq. ft. including the covered porch included on each floor). The proposal also includes the construction of a two-story accessory structure to the rear of the main dwelling. The structure has been modified from the previous submittal to include a 516 sq. ft. garage on the first floor and a 497 sq. ft. guest cottage on the second floor. A 16' x 28' pool is also proposed in the southwest corner of the property behind the main dwelling. The main dwelling consists of a two-story design with wrap-around porch and vinyl clapboard siding. Minimal exterior changes are proposed with the revision of the elevations. They include: a notation of the material for the brick fireplace and clay chimney pot; the addition of wrought iron "S" style shutter dogs proposed for each decorative shutter; and, the addition of latticework to conceal the crawlspace below the first floor of the main dwelling. No exterior changes have been proposed to the garage/guest unit structure with the exception of the addition of an interior wall which reduces the square footage of the guest unit from 516 sq. ft. to 497 sq. ft. Exterior building lighting consists of weathered brass colonial style lantern lighting that will be attached directly to the main dwelling and garage/guest cottage structure. All proposed driveway, sidewalks, as well as the pool deck shall be constructed of brick pavers. A 6' white, concrete block perimeter wall with stucco exterior separates the pool from the alley along the west property line. The wall is angled to provide site visibility between the rear parking and the alley. A 4' high white picket fence is proposed along the south property line to screen the pool, however, it does not extend beyond the footprint of the building to the east. A detail of both the privacy wall and picket fence have been provided. A color scheme of pale yellow for the body of the buildings with white trim and accents has been proposed. However, no formal submittal of a color scheme including samples has been provided. This has been added as a condition of approval. s 136 NF 15t Avenue . Old School Square Historic District Page 3 ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. Guest Cottage Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(Q), a guest cottage can be used only for members of the family occupying the principal dwelling, their nonpaying guests, or persons employed for service on the premises. The structure shall not occupy more than 1/20th of the lot area and in no case exceed a floor area of 700 sq. ft. Further, the structure shall be located to observe the setback requirements as imposed for the principal structure. A guest cottage may be affixed to an accessory structure. The proposed guest cottage, which is located on the second floor of the garage, meets the required setbacks and has been reduced in square footage from 516 sq. ft. to 497 sq. ft. in order to meet the requirement that the cottage not exceed 700 sq. ft. or 1/20 of the lot (497.25 sq. ft. total). An interior wall within the guest cottage has been added in order to reduce the square footage, therefore the intent of the requirement has been met. Landscaping Requirements for Duplex Residential Development: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f): (a) One (1) tree shall be planted for every 2,000 square feet of lot area or fraction thereof. Existing trees preserved on the site may be credited toward this tree requirement. (b) In addition, in consideration of the fact that some duplex units have back-out parking, and no direct screening can be achieved between the parking and street area, hedging and a shade tree will be required to be installed on both sides of the back-out parking area. (c) A strip of land a minimum of five (5) feet in width shall be provided around the foundation of the building where it faces the right-of-way and along the side of the building that provides entry for the units and shall be landscaped with shrubs and ground covers. All other lot areas not covered by buildings or paving will be landscaped with sod, shrubs or ground covers. (d) In addition the area between the property line and the edge of pavement of the abutting right-of-way shall be provided with sod, irrigation and maintenance. (e) All air-conditioning units and other mechanical equipment and refuse areas will be screened with shrubbery or fencing. • 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 4 (t) For duplexes that have a parking lot that does not require back-out parking, the screening specified for new multi-family units provided below shall be required. The open space requirement for OSSHAD zoning is 25%. Upon submittal of a landscape plan, the proposed open space consists of 36.9% of the site which meets the intent of the open space requirement for the OSSHAD zoning district. However, in order to meet the additional landscape requirements as stated in LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a- f), a notation must be made for the location of the a/c units, pool equipment, and their respective slabs on the site and landscape plans and a hedge must be planted on the east and west sides in order to accommodate the required screening. The landscape plans shall also indicate the location of all trees on neighboring property which overhangs into this yard. These have been added as conditions of approval. 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 right-of-way width for NE 1st Avenue is 60'. Currently 40' of right-of-way exists for NE 1st Avenue. The Development Services Management Group (DSMG) and the City Engineer approved a right-of-way reduction for NE 1st Avenue to 50'. Accordingly, five feet (5') of additional right-of-way must be dedicated by the property owner in conjunction with this project. Notation of the right-of-way dedication has been provided on the site plan however, the five foot (5') right-of-way dedication has not been approved by the City Commission or recorded. Therefore, approval and recordation of the five foot (5') right-of-way has been retained as a condition of approval. Visibility at Intersections Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), a site triangle of 20' is required. The proposed privacy wall encroaches into the site visibility triangle by four feet (4'). A condition of approval has therefore been added to relocate the privacy wall an additional four feet to the south in order to provide the 20' site visibility triangle. Duplex Parking Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit for duplexes. Tandem parking may be used provided that such parking does not result in the space for one unit impeding access to a space of the other unit. Further, curb cuts or direct access from parking areas onto a street shall not exceed 24'in width. The project includes provision of four parking spaces total for both units. Two spaces have been provided within the garage for one unit while two tandem spaces are proposed adjacent to the building on the north side of the property for the second unit. The spaces, as provided, meet the intent of the parking requirement. 136 NE 1st Avenue , Old School Square Historic District Page 5 1 Compliance with Design Elements 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 guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance of any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, (c) proportion of openings (windows and doors), (d) rhythm of solids to voids: front facades, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (t) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, color, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (j) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of a front elevation. Delray Beach Design Guidelines Infill Buildings All new construction should complement the historic architecture of the district. New construction (infill) should not create a false sense of historical development by utilizing conjectural features of stylistic elements taken from other buildings. Conclusion The proposed new, two-story duplex reflects a traditional Florida style of architecture with its wrap-around porch, exterior clapboard siding, metal roof, and single hung sash windows. While the new construction is appropriate in style, scale, and massing to the • 136 NE 151 Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 6 adjacent historic buildings, the proposed design elements do not significantly differentiate themselves from the adjacent historic buildings as stipulated in the "Infill Section" of the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. It is therefore recommended that the proposed clapboard exterior be varied with smooth stucco on one of the proposed floors. The introduction of a modern material such as a smooth stucco finish has been added as a condition of approval. No detail of the windows or muntin profile has been submitted. Submittal of a window detail, including a muntin profile, has also been added as a condition of approval. Further, as the applicant has only preliminarily chosen a color scheme for the property, formal submittal of a specific color scheme is added as a condition of approval. As the applicant was further directed by the Board, notation of the building height, material of the porch including the ceiling, and the dimension of the roof including overhang shall be noted on the elevations. Such notations have been added as conditions of approval as they were not addressed with the submittal of the revisions. In order to be consistent with LDR Section 4.6.16, location of the a/c, pool equipment and concrete pads must be noted on the site and landscape plans. In addition, the proposed privacy wall must meet the 20' site visibility triangle and must therefore be relocated to the south in order to do so. These have also been added as a conditions of approval. Based on the analysis above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.3.3(Q), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.15(G), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, once the conditions of approval have been met. REVIEW BY OTHERS; The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee reviewed the project on April 6, 2004 and supported the project as proposed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA request for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, 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 Sections 4.3.3(Q), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a- f) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. C. Deny approval of the COA request for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 136 Nir 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 7 does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.3.3(Q), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a- k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. =- -. - -- RECOMMENDATION" Move approval of the COA request for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, 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 Sections 4.3.3(Q), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is noted on the site plan and the deed accepted by the City Commission, prior to issuance of a building permit; 2) That one floor of the exterior displays a smooth stucco finish; 3) That window details including muntin profile be submitted; 4) That a color scheme be submitted for the body, trim, and accents with samples; 5) That a landscape plan is submitted with the building permit that meets the intent of LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f). 6) That the building height is provided; 7) Note the material for the porch including ceilings; 8) Provide the dimensions of the roof including overhang; 9) That the plan includes the notation of the a/c units, pool equipment, and their respective slabs on the site and landscape plans and allow for a hedge to be planted on the east and west sides in order to accommodate the required screening; 10)That the landscape plans indicate the location of all trees on neighboring property which overhangs into the property's yard; and, 11)That the six foot (6') privacy wall is relocated to meet the 20' site visibility triangle. Attachments: Proposed Elevations, Site Plan, Survey, Landscape Plan, Floor Plan, HPB Staff Report dated 4.7.04 Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner $ DEtRAY BCAp - UEERAY BEACH imp HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD imp p MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 2001 `4 .' 001 1993 Agent: Tony Keller Project Name: Ferrara Duplex Project Location: 136 NE 1st Avenue ITEM .aBE.FOR'E ._THE BOARD ,:' The item before the Board is a request for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated variance for construction of a new two-story duplex at 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lot 11, Block 67, Town of Delray (previously known as Town of Linton) which is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The .24 acre property is presently vacant. There have been no recent Board or administrative actions pertaining to this property. The applicant is now before the Board for the construction of a 3,780 sq. ft., two-story duplex. ,....PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..__ The project consists of the construction of a 3,780 sq. ft., two-story, traditional Florida style duplex. The concrete block building consists of two units; one on the first floor and another on the second floor. Each floor consists of 1,590 sq. ft. (1,705 sq. ft. including the covered porch on both floors). The proposal also includes the construction of a two- story accessory structure to the rear of the main dwelling that includes a 516 sq. ft. garage on the first floor and a 516 sq. ft. guest cottage on the second floor. A 16'x28' pool is also proposed in the southwest corner of the property behind the main dwelling. The main dwelling consists of a two-story design with wrap-around porch and vinyl clapboard siding. The traditional Florida design inspired by French vernacular architecture displays a front facing gable and bonnet roof with gabled dormers on the south and north elevations. The roofing material is a 5-V crimp, mill finish metal. The proposed porch displays decorative woodwork with knee supports and picket railing. Fenestration consists of 6/6, single hung sash, impact resistant windows, paneled front Meeting Date:April 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 2 entrance door with transom and gable pediment, and paired, rear French doors with divided light sidelights. Decorative paneled shutters flank the windows and front entrance door on the east elevation. The front façade also displays faux triplet pedimented windows within the front facing gabled roof. The proposed shutters are ornamental only as the shutters are fixed and no windows will actually be installed. The proposed two-story garage/guest unit is connected to the main dwelling via an exterior staircase. The structure mimics the architectural features of the main dwelling including the vinyl clapboard siding, 6/6, impact resistant, single hung sash windows with paneled shutters and 5V crimp mill finish metal roof. Paneled overhead doors provide access into the garage from the alley. A driveway is also proposed along the north side of the duplex with access from NE 1st Avenue. A 6' white, concrete block perimeter wall with stucco exterior separates the pool from the alley along the west property line. The wall is angled to ensure proper site visibility between the rear parking and the alley. A 4' high white picket fence is proposed along the south property line to screen the pool, however, it does not extend beyond the footprint of the building to the east. A color scheme of pale yellow for the body of the buildings with white trim and accents. The proposal also involves a variance request from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the front building setback from the required 25' to 20'. 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. Guest Cottage Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(Q), a guest cottage can be used only for members of the family occupying the principal dwelling, their nonpaying guests, or persons employed for service on the premises. The structure shall not occupy more than 1/20th of the lot area and in no case exceed a floor area of 700 sq. ft. Further, the structure shall be located to observe the setback requirements as imposed for the principal structure. A guest cottage may be affixed to an accessory structure. The proposed guest cottage, which is located on the second floor of the garage, meets the required setbacks, however, it does exceed 1/20 of the lot (497.25 sq. ft.) as proposed. Based upon the lot size, the square footage of the guest cottage must be reduced by 18.75 sq. ft. in order to meet this requirement. This has been added as a condition of approval. 136'NE 1st Avenue • Old School Square Historic District • Page 3 Landscaping Requirements for Duplex Residential Development: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f): (a) One (1) tree shall be planted for every 2,000 square feet of lot area or fraction thereof. Existing trees preserved on the site may be credited toward this tree requirement. (b) In addition, in consideration of the fact that some duplex units have back-out parking, and no direct screening can be achieved between the parking and street area, hedging and a shade tree will be required to be installed on both sides of the back-out parking area. (c) A strip of land a minimum of five (5) feet in width shall be provided around the foundation of the building where it faces the right-of-way and along the side of the building that provides entry for the units and shall be landscaped with shrubs and ground covers. All other lot areas not covered by buildings or paving will be landscaped with sod, shrubs or ground covers. (d) In addition the area between the property line and the edge of pavement of the abutting right-of-way shall be provided with sod, irrigation and maintenance. (e) All air-conditioning units and other mechanical equipment and refuse areas will be screened with shrubbery or fencing. (f) For duplexes that have a parking lot that does not require back-out parking, the screening specified for new multi-family units provided below shall be required. The open space requirement for OSSHAD zoning is 25%. No landscaping has been proposed with this project. The proposed open space consists of 38.5% of the site which meets the requirements for the OSSHAD zoning district. However, as the proposed dwelling is a duplex, the project must be consistent with LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f) prior to submittal of the building permit, which has been attached as a condition of approval. - 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 right-of-way width for NE 1st Avenue is 60'. Currently 40' of right-of-way exists for NE 1st Avenue. The Development Services Management Group (DSMG) and the City Engineer approved a right-of-way reduction for NE 1st Avenue to 50'. Accordingly, five feet (5') of additional right-of-way must be dedicated by the property owner in conjunction with this project and the right-of-way deed accepted by the City Commission. Notation of the right-of-way dedication must also be provided on the site plan. These have been attached as conditions of approval. 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District Page 4 Duplex Parking Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit for duplexes. Tandem parking may be used provided that such parking does not result in the space for one unit impeding access to a space of the other unit. Further, curb cuts or direct access from parking areas onto a street shall not exceed 24'in width. The project includes provision of parking for both units. Two spaces have been provided adjacent to the garage for one unit while two tandem spaces are proposed adjacent to the building on the north side of the property for the second unit. The spaces, as provided, meet the intent of the parking requirement. Swimming Pool Yard Encroachment: Per LDR Section 4.6.15 (G)(1), swimming pools, the tops of which are no higher than grade level, may extend into the rear or side setback area but no closer than ten feet (10) to any property line. The proposed pool is set back seven and a half feet (7.5') from the side (south) setback, which also complies with the 7.5' side interior building setback requirement , and 13.5' from the rear (west) property line, where 10' is required. Thus, the proposal complies with the pool setback requirements. Setback Requirements: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), the applicable development standards for the OSSHAD zoning district that relates to the proposal are as follows: Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 29' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front (north) 25' 20'** Side Interior (north) 7.5' 21' Side Interior(south) 7.5 7.5' Rear (west) 10' 42' Accessory Structure Rear Setback 10' 13.5' Open Space 25% 38.5% ** A variance request to reduce the front building setback from 25' to 20' is associated with this proposal. An analysis of the request follows: • 136 NE 1st Avenue • Old School Square Historic District Page 5 VARIANCE 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 development proposal includes a request for a variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K), as it pertains to the front building setback requirement. The variance justification statement as supplied by the applicant is as follows: It has come to our attention that the City of Delray Beach is proposing to annex 5 feet of our property for sidewalk placement. We vehemently oppose the loss of this property as you propose. We mildly support an easement for sidewalk placement but do not want to lose property or have any changes to the current building setbacks. We currently have drawings 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District • Page 6 in progress for this property and the loss of 5 feet would dramatically alter our plans. Analysis: As previously noted, granting the requested variance would reduce the front building setback requirement from 25' to 20'. The variance is requested for a vacant lot, which exceeds minimum requirements, after the right-of-way dedication. The development pattern along NE 1st Avenue varies from lot to lot, however the majority of the existing structures comply with the 25' setback requirement, after the five foot (5') dedication. It is noted the garage and pool are set back 13.5' from the west property line. As the minimum building and pool setback is 10', every feature indicated on the site plan can be shifted three feet (3.5') to the west. As there is inadequate space to utilize the driveway for parking (18' required with only 13.5' provided) and given the extensive driveway with access to NE 1st Avenue, a 10' setback will not impact the ability of residents and guests to park on site. With respect to the remaining two feet (2'), the floor plan could be modified to the front and rear of the structure or the Board can find that the variance is intended to accommodate the eight foot (8') wide wrap-around porch, which adds to the historic character of the area. It is noted that the approved site plan for the proposed Management Systems property (presently known as Ascot), located at the southwest corner of NE 2nd Street and NE 1st Avenue, was approved by the HPB for the reduction of the side street setback from 15' to 10' on NE 1st Avenue. The variance was granted due to the lot size (6,809 sq. ft.) and configuration. ANALYSIS: Design Elements LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(a-c), (E)(8)(g), (E)(8)(h), and (E)(8)(j) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance of 136'NE 1st Avenue • Old School Square Historic District Page7 any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, (c) proportion of openings (windows and doors), (d) rhythm of solids to voids: front facades, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (f) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, color, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (j) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of a front elevation. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that: (a) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (b) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Conclusion The proposed new, two-story duplex reflects a traditional Florida style of architecture with its wrap-around porch, exterior clapboard siding, metal roof, and single hung sash windows. While the new construction is appropriate in style, scale, and massing to the adjacent historic buildings, the proposed design elements do not significantly differentiate themselves from the adjacent historic buildings. It is therefore recommended that the proposed clapboard exterior be varied with smooth stucco on one of the proposed floors. The introduction of a modern material such as a smooth stucco finish has been added as a condition of approval. In addition, no detail of the windows or exterior lighting details have been submitted and no shutter dogs are proposed for the decorative shutters. Submittal of a window detail, including a muntin profile, exterior lighting detail and notation of location on the elevations, and notation for shutter dogs on the elevations have been added as conditions of approval. As the applicant has only preliminarily chosen a color scheme for the property, formal submittal of a specific color scheme is also added as a condition of approval. 136 NE 1st Avenue Old School Square Historic District • Page 8 • Further, no notation of the materials for the pool deck, driveway, or the sidewalk has been noted on the site plan. Also, no detail of the proposed wall or fence has been provided. These have been added as conditions of approval. Based on the analysis above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.3.3(P)(4)(b), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.15(G), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, once the conditions of approval have been met. REVIEW BY OTHERS, The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee reviewed the project on April 6, 2004 and supported the project as proposed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the Certificate if Appropriateness and associated variance for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.3.3(P)(4)(b), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.15(G), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. C. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness and associated variance for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.3.3(P)(4)(b), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.15(G), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. _.. RECOMMENDATION .. . Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 136 NE 1st Avenue, Ferrara Duplex, based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.3.3(P)(4)(b), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(C)(2)(b), 4.6.15(G), 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) That a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is noted on the site plan and the deed accepted by the City Commission, prior to issuance of a building permit; 2) That one floor of the exterior displays a smooth stucco finish; 3) Submit exterior lighting details and note the locations on the building elevations; 136 NE 1st Avenue - Old School Square Historic District Page 9 4) That window details including muntin profile be submitted; 5) That decorative wrought iron shutter dogs be installed flanking each decorative shutter; 6) That a color scheme be submitted for the body, trim, and accents with samples; 7) That the guest cottage is reduced in square footage to a maximum of 497.25 sq. ft. and that the cottage is limited to use by members of the family occupying the principal dwelling or their nonpaying guests per LDR Section 4.3.3(Q); 8) That the proposed materials for the driveway, sidewalk, and pool deck are noted on the site plan; 9) That a detail of the proposed wall and fence are submitted; and, 10) That a landscape plan is submitted with the building permit that meets the intent of LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(2)(a-f). Attachments: Proposed Elevations, Site Plan, Survey, &Floor Plan Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner '; 1. OEUUY BEAC71 CIELHAY REACH• • • • d HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 111 MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT IIiI► 1993 2001 1993 Agent: Diane Colonna Project Name: Community Redevelopment Agency Project Location: 20 North Swinton Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD., The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows and installation of a sign, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the west side of North Swinton Avenue, approximately 140.' north of West Atlantic Avenue and consists of Lot 12, Block 60, Town of Delray. The property is located within the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district. The property contains a two-story Monterey style building approximately 2,300 square feet in size. The structure was originally built as a single-family residence in the late 1930's, and was relocated to the site from the Hillcrest neighborhood in West Palm Beach in 1994. The building is presently occupied by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). At its meeting of March 20, 2002, the HPB reviewed a proposal for the installation of a new sign. After deliberations, the Board recommended approval of the sign subject to the condition that the total height of the proposed sign be reduced from 84" (7') to 60" (5'). However, a representative for the project was not available to discuss the proposal with the Board and explain the basis for the proposed height of 7', which was due to the sign's location within the swale. Based on these circumstances, the applicant requested that the Board reconsider the condition of approval to reduce the height from 7' to 5'. The Board reconsidered the sign height during its meeting of April 3, 2002. Upon re-consideration, a height of seven feet (7') overall was approved. The applicant is now before the Board for consideration of replacement windows and for the installation of a free-standing sign. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS Project Description The project proposed is the removal of the existing, wood frame, casement and 3/3 single hung sash windows (15 casements and 22 single hung sash) and the installation of impact-resistant, 3/3 single hung sash and divided light casement, aluminum frame windows throughout the building. The windows will be retrofitted into the existing fenestration. Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.C. HPB Staff Report 20 North Swinton Avenue—CRA Building Page 2 The project also includes the installation of a free-standing sign. The applicant proposes the installation of a two-sided sign constructed of 1'/2" sign foam. The rectangular sign face and posts will be painted white with black text and the CRA logo in yellow, red, and green. The sign displays the building's address and text which reads: "CRA, Delray Beach, Community Redevelopment Agency" in caps. The proposed sign will replace the existing sign for the Judge Knott Building while the existing structural supports including sign posts will be utilized for the new sign. The previous sign measured 55" (4'7") high, 40" (3'4") wide, and 84" (7') in overall height. The sign face measured a total of approximately 15 sq. ft. in area. The proposed free-standing sign face measures 28" (2'4") high, 40" (3'4") wide and 84" (7') overall height (with posts). The sign is located approximately 5' from the North Swinton Avenue right-of-way to the east of the extant historic building. The area of the sign body measures 7.7 sq. ft. The sign does not interfere with any of the existing landscaping or sight visibility. No lighting exists or is proposed at this time... Analysis Development Standards LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g) "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)(8)(c) The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (E)(8)(g) 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. Delray Beach Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to windows: • When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always more desirable. • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window is discouraged. Further, changing the historic 1 1 ly HPB Staff Report 20 North Swinton Avenue—CRA Building Page 3 appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame is not recommended. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where th severity if deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Changing the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, material, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and muntin configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or appearance of the frame is not recommended. Stripping windows of historic material such wood, cast iron, and bronze is not recommended. SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(1)(b) addresses Sign Design Standards for "Free-standing signs" A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. Neither the pole nor the base of the monument shall be considered in calculation of the area of the sign face. A free-standing sign may not have more than two faces. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(2)(b) addresses "Conformity with Surroundings"and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7) however, as the sign is located within the 10' setback, the sign may not exceed seven feet (7), which is further discussed below. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(d) addresses Signs "Allowed in Totally in Standard Setback"and states: When considered as a part of a site plan, or modification to a site plan, a sign may be located within the ten foot setback area provided that: (1) the sign height is not greater than 7' and (2) that the sign area is less than 20 sq. ft. HPB Staff Report 20 North Swinton Avenue—CRA Building Page 4 LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(h) addresses "Sign Locations and Potential Hazards"and states: No sign shall be located in such a manner that it will become a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic nor shall any sign or lighting be placed as to obstruct the vision of the driver or any motor vehicle where vision is necessary for safety. LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(2)(a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the following aesthetic conditions must be met. Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E), prohibited sign, with respect to height and area. Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: ■ Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building façade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. ■ The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts, however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character-defining"and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old HPB Staff Report 20 North Swinton Avenue—CRA Building Page 5 and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. v, ONCLUSION `: < The proposed 3/3 single hung sash and casement windows are in keeping with the traditional window type of the Monterrey style building as well as with its traditional fenestration pattern. The condition of the current windows mandate either intensive repair or replacement. However, as wood windows are available and appropriate to the style of the building, wood is the appropriate replacement material. While impact resistant windows may not be available for wood frame, there are numerous unobtrusive alternatives to storm protection that can be utilized. Upon proper maintenance of wood windows, the life span should be comparable with that of alternative materials such as vinyl or aluminum. Further, window replacement with modern materials not viewed from the right-of-way is inappropriate as the entrance into the building is located within an interior courtyard and does not face North Swinton Avenue or the adjacent alley as is the case with many other buildings. Replacement with wood windows also meets the in-kind direction prescribed by the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. While wood is the most appropriate material for the windows, one alternative is to install aluminum frame windows on the two-story, 300 sq. ft. addition to the rear (west) of the building. This portion of the building is a contemporary addition and can therefore support the introduction of modern materials. Five windows exist on the west and south elevations of the addition. The proposed signage is appropriate in relation to style, dimensions, color scheme, and design of the two-story, contributing, frame building and the surrounding neighborhood. As the sign measures 84" (7') in total height and measures 7.7 sq. ft. in area, the sign meets the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(d). In addition, the previously approved sign location does not create a sight visibility concern and therefore complies with LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(h). Based upon the above, positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(4), (8)(c), and (8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, once the window material is changed from aluminum to wood. REVIEW,BY 9THERS-.... The Delray Beach Sign Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval the location, sign design and dimensions as proposed during its meeting on June 25, 2004. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. HPB Staff Report J r 20 North Swinton Avenue—CRA Building Page 6 B. Move approval of the COA request to install impact-resistant aluminum frame windows at 20 North Swinton 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)(8)(c), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. C. Move approval of the COA request to install wood windows on the original footprint of the building and aluminum frame windows on the two-story, contemporary addition at 20 North Swinton 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)(8)(c), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. D. Deny approval of the COA request for 20 North Swinton Avenue based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION :'_ Move approval of the COA request to install wood windows on the original footprint of the building and aluminum frame windows on the two-story, contemporary addition at 20 North Swinton 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)(8)(c), (E)(8)(g), 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Attachments: Window specs, Sign specs and detail Y MIAMFOADE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA METRO-DADE FLAGLER BUILDING BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE(BCCO) 140 WEST FLAGLER STREET,SUITE 1603 PRODUCT CONTROL DIVISION MIAMI,FLORIDA 33130-1563 (303)375-2901 FAX(305)375-2906 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE (NOA) PGT Industries 1070 Technology Drive Nokomis,FL 34274 SCOPE: This NOA is being issued under the applicable rules and regulations governing the use of construction materials. The documentation submitted has been reviewed by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division and accepted by the Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) to be used in Miami Dade County and other areas where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction(AHJ). This NOA shall not be valid after the expiration date stated below. The Miami-Dade County Product Control Division(In Miami Dade County) and/or the AHJ (in areas other than Miauu Dade County) reserve the right to have this product or material tested for quality assurance purposes. If this product or material fails to perform in the accepted manner, the manufacturer will incur the expense of such testing and the ART may immediately revoke,modify,or suspend the use of such product or material within their jurisdiction. BORA reserves the right to revoke this acceptance,if it is determined by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division that this product or material fails to meet the requirements of the applicable building code. This product is approved as described herein,and has been designed to comply with the High Velocity Hurricane Zone of the Florida Building Code. DESCRIPTION:Series C-740 Aluminum Casement Window-Impact APPROVAL DOCUMENT:Drawing No.7045-8,titled"Aluminum Casement Window,Impact",sheets 1 through 12 of 1Z dated 12/17/02 with revision C dated 7/10/03,prepared by manufacturer,signed and sealed by Lucas A.Turner,P.E.,bearing the Miami-Dade County Product Control Revision stamp with the Notice of Acceptance number and expiration date by the Miami-Dade County Product Control Division. MISSILE IMPACT RATING:Large and Small Missile Impact LABELING:Each unit shall bear a permanent label with the manufacturer's name or logo,city,state and following statement: "Miami-Dade County Product Control Approved",unless otherwise noted herein. RENEWAL of this NOA shall be considered after a renewal application has been filed and there has been no change in the applicable building code negatively affecting the performance of this product. TERMINATION of this NOA will occur after the expiration date or if there has been a revision or change in the materials,use,and/or manufacture of the product or process.Misuse of this NOA as an endorsement of any product,for sales,advertising or any other purposes shall automatically terminate this NOA.Failure to comply with any section of this NOA shall be cause for termination and removal of NOA. ADVERTISEMENT:The NOA number preceded by the words Miami-Dade County, Florida, and followed by the expiration date may be displayed in advertising literature. If any portion of the NOA is displayed,then it shall be done in its entirety. INSPECTION:A copy of this entire NOA shall be provided to the user by the manufacturer or its distributors and shall be available for inspection at the job site at the request of the Building Official. This NOA revises NOA#02-1224.02 consists of this page 1 and evidence pages E-I and E-2,as well as approval document mentioned above. The submitted documentation was reviewed by Manuel Perez,P.E. 1"i` NOA No 03-0611.02 _ R. Expiration Date: May 22,2008 L'.-.. Approval Date: October 9,2003 4: Page 1 NOTES:LA`1/11SSILE WINDOWS II II IIIIIIIIIIII NTENT� C1GURATIONS OPTIONS NOA DRAWING TABLE OF COS '1.GLAZING OPTIONS: y."' A,5/16"LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISED OF(1)LITE OF 1/8" SHEET # • ANNEALED GLASS AND(1)LITE OF 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED x x o x a x NOTES 1 x o X X o x GLAZING DETAILS 2 GLASS W/AN.090 INNER LAYER OF SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB. UNEQUAL LITES ELEVATIONS 3-4 B.5/16"LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISED OF(2)LITES OF 1/8" HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS W/AN.090 INNER LAYER OF o x o x o DESIGN PRESSURE TABLES 5-8 SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB. SECTIONS 9 C.7/18"LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISED OF(1)LITE OF 3/18" UNEQUAL LITES CORNER CONSTRUCTION 10 ANNEALED GLASS AND(1)LITE OF 3/16"HEAT STRENGTHENED x o X o x EXTRUSION PROFILES 10-11 GLASS W/AN.090 INNER LAYER OF SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB. _ PARTS LIST 11 D.7/16"LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISED OF(2)LITES OF 3/16" UNEQUAL LITES ANCHORAGE 12 HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS W/AN.090 INNER LAYER OF SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB. E.13/16"I.G.GLASS COMPRISED OF(1)LITE OF 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS AND(1)5/16"LAMINATED COMPONENT WITH A 3/8"AIR SPACE. 5/16"LAMINATED GLASS COMPRISED OF(2)LITES OF 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS WITH AN.090 SOLUTIA OR DUPONT INNER LAYER. 2, CONFIGURATIONS:X,XX,XO,OX,XOX,0 3.DESIGN PRESSURE RATINGS/COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TABLES: A.NEGATIVE DESIGN LOADS BASED ON TESTED PRESSURE AND GLASS TABLES ASTM E 1300-98(AND ASTM E 1300-94 OUTSIDE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY). B.POSITIVE DESIGN LOADS BASED ON WATER TEST PRESSURE AND GLASS TABLES ASTM E 1300-98(AND ASTM E 1300-94 OUTSIDE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY). C.DESIGN PRESSURES UNDER 40 P.S.F.NOT APPLICABLE IN MAMI-DADE COUNTY. D.FOR"X"CONFIGURATIONS SEE SHEET 4. E.FUR--"AA"uuNFlLsUKR i IONS btt SHEET 4. • F.FOR "XOX"&"0"CONFIGURATIONS SEE SHEET 5. G.FOR 44"XOX'&"XO"OR"OX"CONFIGURATIONS SEE SHEET 6. H.FOR UNEQUAL LITE"XOX,"XO"&"OX"CONFIGURATIONS SEE SHEET 7. 4.ANCHORAGE:SINGLE ROW OF FASTENERS LOCATED AS FOLL`'WS: HEAD&SILL: MAX.4"FROM CORNERS MAX.4"&7"ON EACH SIDE OF MEETING RAILS MAX. 14 1/2"SPACING ON VENTS MAX. 13"SPACING ON FIXED LITES (2)ANCHORS 3"APART AT MID-SPAN ON FIXED_ITE ONLY PRODUCT REVISED JAMBS: MAX.4"FROM CORNERS Bu dle$Code �`Fl ' MAX, 13"SPACING Acceptance No -E ration Data D$ (2)ANCHORS 3"APART AT MID-SPAN BY NOTE: 1/4"TAPCONS OR#14 SCREWS MAY BE USED AT THE ABOVE SPACING. SEE SHEETS 4,5,6 AND 7 FOR ALLOWABLE DESIGN Waal ?redact PRESSURES IF USING 3/16"TAPCONS OR#12 SCREWS. MAO 5.SHUTTER REQUIREMENT:NONE REQUIRED 6.NARROW JOINT SEALANT IS USED ON ALL FOUR CORNERS OF THE FRAME. 7. REFERENCE TEST REPORTS:FTL-3580, FTL-3582,FTL-3587 ANC FTL-3729 .7%o/3✓brad aY, or.: ".Web": • n..ew-: F.K. 3/1703 A REVISE ANCHORAGE NOTE I".H.Or 1070 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE NOTES AND TABLE OF CONTENTS F.K. 3/2503 N ADC I3✓10-I.G.A MOVE GLAZING DETAILS TO SHEET2 NOKOMIS,FL 34270 TM* '�'1�" D.O. ""'r""" — ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT C NO CHANGE THIS SHEET P.O.BOX 1529 Lunn A.Turner,P.F. er: Daft. C'.b.d"y O.w: NOKOMIS.FL 34274 Vrribly Better "'"'M~`' ee1" �"" 0'" ' "" PE Y58701 F.K. 12/17/02 CA•740 NTS 1 " 12 7046-8 Cr Mechartcal — -- .090 SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB INNER LAYER 1/8"ANNEALED GLASS —�{ • -I- j 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS 0 ,, - t 00 0 - 1 .65"NOM. -— 13/16" 0GLASS BITE 5/16"LAMINATED COMPONENT 0 (.1___Hi ?` 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS / ---,--j3 r 3/8"AIR SPACE �� .090 SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB INNER LAYER 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS --- 1/8"HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS • • ® 5/16"LAMINATED Ell 65"NOM. GLAZING DETAIL ri 0GLASS BITE r..3 L .C90 SOLUTIA QWur OR DUPONT PVB INNER LAYER 3/16"ANNEALED OR 3/16"HEAT HEAT STRENGTHENED GLASS Imo-- STRENGTHENED ®® C GLASS © 13/16"I.G. GLAZING DETAIL 41 - .65"NOM. Cj L GLASS BITE _f C, t ® / 1 , A.r-r PRODUCT REVISED as c anpbinp with Use Fs i da Balding Code Acceptance N. UZ F. Intim Date O -.;17/16"LAMINATED a a°r'°a°n GLAZING DETAL 0 BY A..W ak D.r: Ad.NbM: �,�`�� F.K. 3"111171 B REDRAW GLAZING DETAILS d ADO 1S16'LG. IQ7U TECHNOLOGY DRIVE GLAZING DETAILS r 7I1 V3 C NO CHANGE TH/9.MEET NOKOMIS,Fi.34273 p ire ... P.O.BOX 1529 ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW,IMPACT Lucas A.Til brown Or:'C..11 NE Cate. NOKOMIS.Ft 34274 Visibly J"wwe.e tlo.r: Shalt oftwo ma eft PEtISi: F.K. 03/25/03 CA-743 NTS 2 m 12 7045-8 C Motel—- II -•1 ® TES HINGE 74"MAX.WIDTH ANCHOR LOCATIONAT HEAD& 30"MAX. �` LOCATION SILL OF"X"PANELS, , ----DAYLIGHT-- ANCHOR TYPICAL.SEE HINGE OPENING 1 1/2" LOCATION TYP. DETAIL SHT.4 - ' TYP. \ --- �-T CENTERLINE"` 'hill SEE MID-SPAN - • - ANCHOR DETAIL • 1 1/21 \ I T / \ / 7" TYP.(2) 58"MAX. 3" __ / DAYLIGHT i 4"MAX. • = OPENING I •.. X i -► ---4"MAX. 13"MAX. O.C. - 1 . 63"MAX. MID-SPAN ANCHOR DETAIL t i SEE METING HEIGHT (SEE SHT. 1 NOTE 4) MEETING RAIL DETAIL RAIL fSETAIL (SEE SHT. 1 NO-E 4) rTYP.(2) 4"MAX. I , ,' ' , , 1 ;-' SEE MID-SPAN 4"MAX. 4 -I 141/2"MAX.O.C.TYP. ANCHOR DETAIL • TYP.(2) ELEVATION "B"-63"HIGH"XX" ANCHOR 134"MAX.WIDTH (SEE SHEET 5 FOR PRESSURES) LOCATIONS 30"MAX. 53"MAX. 30"MAX. (SEE SHEET 1, -"--DAYLIGHT-- DAYLIGHT --DAYLIGHT-► ® NOTE:"X"PANEL MAY SWING NOTE 4) OPENING OPENING OPENING IN EITHER DIRECTION 1 1 F-' --.�_J ' I 1 _l .• 1 L- r 1� SEE MID-SPAN ANCHOR DETAIL - • TYP.(2) • " (-' 1' - DAYLIGHT .comp lyine EVISED F7oi4 / / - Boh1mG Cadt OP/ ENiNG 13"MAX. / Eceeptanee No /, Q AX.O.C. Hon Date X / x ` • 63"MAX m�,a 'reflect HEIGHT DWI /��.7,4\ I 4"MAX. ..,.._ - 1 } 4"MAX.—,-1 h- I13"MAX.O.C. I I \—+ / I- -I 14 1/2"MAX.O.C.VENT HEAD&SILL ONLY • 37"MAX. B0"MAX. FIXED 1 VENT TYP. SEE MEETING RAIL DETAIL TYP.(4) '/ ELEVATION"A"-83"HIGH"XOX"(SEE SHEETS 6-8 FOR PRESSURES) `�L•�j' 7 ti.,.a aY• Gr.: aw+".e a.Nr.n.• 40/0 . F.X. 1/17A07 A REVISE ANCHORAGE Rowe sr "^8 °i�'-' 1070 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE T. "XX"&WOX"ELEVATIONS F.K. 3 V3 0 CHANGE SHEET NO.REFERENCES _ NOKOMIS,FL 34276 mw F.K. r 711GW C ADD HINGE LOCATION P.O.BOX 1629 "- ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT brow'Or ow. Hnmw ay a... NOKOMIS,FL 34274 °�1+' ' am.: + Lucas A Turner,P.E. F.K. 12/17/02 Visibly CA-T40 NTS 3 « 12 ro 7045-8 "C or PEk38201 Mech°nlcal 32"MAX.WIDTH -- 4 DENOTES HINGE 37"MAX.WIDTH-- 60"MAX.WIDTH - 25"MAX. LOCATION AT HEAD& 30"MAX. 53"MAX. DAYLIGHT SILL OF"X"PANELS, —DAYLIGHT— DAYLIGHT OPENING OPENING t TYPICAL.SEE HINGE OPENING __ ^ DETAIL SHT.4 ' ` ( �J �� I SEE Ii SEE SEE ! MID-SPAN MID-SPAN MID-SPAN I ANCHOR ANCHOR " ANCHOR - DETAIL DETAILI DAYLIGHT DETAIL SHT 3 56"MAX. SHT.3 IOPENING SHT.3 I i 65"MAX. DAYLIGHT NF' (4)TYP 2 DAYLIGHT TYP. (2) ( I ) /( ) i / OPENING OPENING / `. / / 63 MAX. 63"MAX. 13" I HEIGHT X 72"MAX. 13" - HEIGHT MAX. O 13" HEIGHT MAX. • O.C. MAX. I O.C. X 1 �1 4"MAX. L 4"MAX. r 4"MAX. • �I I, 14 1/2" L ---+� - 13"MAX.O.C. 4"MAX.—�I I+ 4"MAX.MAX.O.C. 4 MAX � � MAX.1/2 ELEVATION"D"-63"HIGH"X" ELEVATION"E"-63"HIGH"0" (SEE SHEET 5 FOR PRESSURES) (SEE SHEET 6 FOR PRESSURES) ELEVATION"C"-72 HIGH"X" (SEE SHEET 5 FOR PRESSURES) - 97"MAX.WIDTH - NOTE:72"HEIGHT 30"MAX' 53"MAX ® NOTE: IN EITHER PANEL AY SWING DIRECTION AVAILABLE WITH -DAYLIGHT DAYLIGHT OPENING SINGLE VENT OPENING CONFIGURATION A ® ` ' 4 ^ .11 ' t " a ' r ONLY SEE - / SEE MID SPAN MID-SPAN I ANCHOR DETAIL O G ANCHOR / SHT.3 TYP.(2) DETAIL i - 56"MAX. SHT.3 PRODUCT REVISED TYP. 2 y DAYLIGHT ascomplilugnit�t the Fluids ( ) Reiding Cod. i= - / OPENING AcrrplanceNo 2 I! _ X O E halloo Date ■ ' 63"MAX. BY HINGE LOCATED APPROX. 13" - HEIGHT SEE MEETING Miami ehvaciCoapw FLUSH AGAINST JAM, MAX. RAIL DETAIL SHT.3 theta " TYPICAL HEAD&SILL O.C. • I TYP.(2) HINGE LOCATION DETAIL I______® 4"MAX. • I/ i- 1 �- - �--13"MAX. O.C. 14 1/2"MAX.O.C.VENT 4"MAX. 1° HEAD&SILL ONLY 37"MAX.VENT-- 60"MAX. FIXED ELEVATION"F"-63"HIGH"XO"&"OX"UNEQUAL LITE(SEE SHEETS 7-8 FOR PRESSURES) '7/ID/C 3 Rawl M 0."r n..b,44 F IC .1, A REVISE ANCHORAGE 1070 TECHNOLOGYDRIVIF " PO', "XO"&"OX"ELEVATIONS w..4ey. A": 'aa.w": F. 3. 5W 9 CHARGE SHEET NO.REFERENCES _ NOKOM1S.FL 34Y75 `,- �"` '"" ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT F.K. 7/1QW C ADO DETAILS HINGE LOCATION NOTES P.O.BOX 1J1a lucaa A Tu-III Q� db F.K."" Or'o.k o".., NORMS,FL 34274 �,Visibly """"""°" sr.: "'"' u."w Par '"'" PE d5$• II 12/17/02 illCA•740 NTS 4 "' 12 7045-8 C Machin t " 0 0 REFERENCE"XO"&"XOX"FRAME CD REFERENCE"XO"&'XOX"FRAME' ASSEMBLY DETAIL,SHEET 10 CD ASSEMBLY DETAIL,SHEET 10 0 rl I . /;,1 f,;_ r. 0 .L.: ,0 mmm •-- -_ .__Lfl' I- mm MAX.VENT MAX.FIXED LITE ICD DAYLIGHT DAYLIGHT OPENING -! • OPENING 5 (SEE SHT. 3) 0 0 (SEE SHT.3) 0/ 0 - MAX.WIDTH(SEE SHT.3) - HORIZONTAL SECTION-XOX e7 REFERENCE"XX'FRAME ASSEMBLY DETAIL,SHEET 101 0 �.. (ter 0 0 I -- MAX.VENT., •-._ _ II / -- — ��� _ Imo. 0 I--DAYLIGHT OPENING--I ® •!= s (SEE SHT.3) s s s , III [ MAX.WIDTH(SEE HT.3) ® © et���,� m mmm t HORIZONTAL SECTION-XX 4 MAX.DAYLIGHT —1 •- —. MAX 0 OPENING FIXED& COC • HEIGHT OPERABLE VENT LDAYNINGJ VENT (SEE SHTS.3&4) (SEE SHTS.3&4) I r • (SEE SHT.4) - `I MAX.WIDTH(SEE SHT.4) E 0 HORIZONTAL SECTION-X• PRODUCT REVISED rzi 09 as complying with Ike FleeW Acceptance Me CDEx leaden DIM ® L i© Dr Mlam el'raduceCeuM I' MI VERTICAL SECTION VERTICAL SECTION FIXED UNIT OPERABLE UNIT - G' Rend Ix ale R..ro,c 740�O 3 F.K 3/17/3 A NO CIIO TtR3 SHEET n..op.a. • Rayed n• Na os Rmome 1070 TE_'HNOLOGY DRIVE SECTIONS -( F.K. 3/25iO3 8 ADD 1.3/10'LO.OLAZNO BEAD ITEM NO4CM414 FL 34275 T+ "'""x °'`• ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT F.K 7/10ro3 C TOP HINGE pa BOX 1529 owl mytaw: cn.. NOKJMIS.FL 34274 V,i b6 Bet a".N.et tu.: em.e awry Mr. Re, LucePE.Surry I F.K. 12/17/02 CA-740 1- NTS 9 0 12 7045-8 C hied-onli . r • I #12x1 PH TEK SMS • FRAME MBLY 13"MAX.O.C.W/(2)SCREWS NOTE:ALL A—MIUM SHALL BE OF 6063-T6 , TUBE,MAT'L:6063-T6 3"APART AT MID-SPAN "X"FRAME JAMB "X"FRAME JAMB • r. ,11g4-i 062" 2,919" • NOM, SASH FRAME TOP_ OR BOTTOM RAIL �_ll J. I I 2.784" El) FRAME HEAD,SILL,JAMB "XX"FRAME ASSEMBLY DETAIL MAIL:6063-T6 #8x1 QUAD PH SMS #12x1 PH TEK SMS (2)PER CORNER 434" DWG#7002A FRAME ASSEMBLY 13"MAX.O.C.W/(2)SCREWS 1 2.854" TUBE, MAT'L:6063-T6 3"APART AT MID-SPAN I SASH FRAME .062" "X"FRAME JAMB "O"FRAMEJAMB SIDERAILI/ NOMI'r - _T I ^\ `' 1.159" i 111D, 1 ii OSASH FRAME HEAD,SILL,JAMB 9. • , + MAT'L:8063-T6 DWG#7003A __ SASH FRAME ASSEMBLY DETAIL "XO" &"XOX"FRAME ASSEMBLY DETAIL •• #8x1 QUAD PH SMS (2)PER CORNER PRODUCT REVISED FRAME HEAD OR SILL 1FRAME JAMB 3.544" £ [01110 N with lb.Florkta .062" Bolding Co* Accept,nct N" Z L1NOM. fl lion Date (! .438" v, 11. Mir 11 t In illUB loot I I- 2.784" I E— — I 0 FIXED FRAME HEAD,SILL,JAMB -F=U II MAT'L:6063-T6 y �� DWG#7005A MAIN FRAME ASSEMBLY DETAIL / F.K. /17/0,3 A REYSED FRAME ASSY DETAIL SCREW SPACING °i"�°" // pM+Mr t'y' R.a.m. IOID 7PHNOLOGYDRIY6 EXTRUSIONS&ASSEMBLY DETAILS F.K S 2S01,7 0 NO CHANGE THIS SHEET NOM71CS,FL 342tO Ti Th. Dow """°` ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT F.k T/1 F.K (YOJ C NO CHANGE THIS SHEET P.�.Box fS28 Lucre A.Turner.P.E. "Y [aw: Grer.�br�8.e.. NOKOMIS,FL 34274 Visibly Better arwa*tee '`"" """' amoral* fur PE f682O1 F.K. 11/17/02 CA•740 NTS 10 + 12 7045-8 C nlwwriwl • PARTS LIST ITEM DWG# POT.# DESCRIPTION ITEM DWG# PGT.# DESCRIPTION 73 7023 MAXIM SINGLE LOCK 1 7002A MAIN FRAME-HEAD,S1.1.&JAMBS 74 7016 SINGLE LOCK KEEPER • 2 . 1155 78lPQA N8 X I QUAD P11 SMS 75 70834A N8 X.750 QUAD PN SMS 3 7008 FRAME CORNER KEY 80 7005A FIXED WINDOW FRAME-HEAD.SILL&JAMBS 4 II2"X1/2"XI/8" CLOSED-CELL FOAM TAPE 81 1155 78lPQA N8 X I QUAD PN SI4S 5 7003A SASH-TOP,BOTTOM&SIDE RAILS 82 7010 FIXED FRAME CORNER KEY 6 1153 78IPQA #8 X I QUAD PH SMS 83 7007 INSTALLATION HOLE COVER 7 7017 670I7K BULB WEATHERSTRIP .187X.240 85 7047 67407 GLAZING BEAD(I3/16"1.G.) 8 7009 SASH CORNER KEY 13/16"1.0.GLASS(I/8"HS3/8"AIR SPACE,5/16"LAMI) 9 7024 MAXIM MULTI-POINT LOCK 86 3/16"LAM)(2 LITES OP I/8"IIS GLASS WITH AN 10 7026 LOCK SUPPORT PLATE .090 INNER LAYER-SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB 11 N 10-24 X.562 PH.PN.TYPE F 12 7014 MULTI-LOCK KEEPER(R.H:&L.H.) 993" 13 1157 78X78PPSMS N8 X.875 PH.PN.SMS 706" 1 - - i 1 -1 ' 1-1._ 289" 14 7013 TIE BAR GUIDE IS 7015 'LIE BAR ASSEMBLY r----1� 16 7028 MAXIM DYAD OPERATOR .050" .865" .040"— 17 7027 MAXIM DUAL ARM OPERATOR C)INSTALLATION HOLE COVER 18 7030 OPERATOR GASKET + — 1 1-- .172" MAT'L:6063-T6 19 7031 BACKING PLATE 40 5/18"GLAZING BEAD 20 N8-32 X.375 P11.PN.TYPE B ,� DWG#7007 21 7032 STUD BRACKET(L.H.&R.H.) MAT'L:6083-T6 870 —L .050" 22 7858ZA N8 X 5/8"FLT.PHI.SMS DWG#7036 23 7033 OPERATOR TRACK&SLIDER(DUAL ARM) ! —►� Imo-- .569" 24 7022 SNAP-ON HANDLE 25 7023 12"HINGE(HEAVY DUTY) 85 13/16"GLAZING BEAD 26 710x12FP NI0X.500 PH.PHL 30 5/16'LAMINATED(I/8A&1/8H9GLASS) .52g MAIL:6063-T6 .090 INNER LAYER-SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB " DWG#7047 31 5/16"LAMINATED(1/8HS&I/8HS GLASS) [1: .090 INNER LAYER-SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB 05O" 865" 32 7/16"LAMINATED(3/16A&3/16HS GLASS) 090 INNER LAYER-SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB —•{ 1.124• 33 7/16"LAMINATED(3/l6HS&3/I6HS GLASS) 41 7/16"GLAZING BEAD , .090 INNER LAYER-SOLUTIA OR DUPONT PVB MAT'L:6063-T6 40 7036 GLAZING BEAD(5/16") 41 7042 GLAZING BEAD(7/16") — DWG#7042 .125" I 43 1224 611'247 VINYL BULB WSTP(TIHCK) 2.701" 44 SILICONE-DOW CORNING 899 OR 995 PRODUCT REVISED 43 PARABOND n u"nplTl"q�rhd IMs FNddra 46 1634 6I63K SETTING BLOCK .062" 1 pi Acceptant. ng Lade l Accc(,lunt.No 50 7006 SCREEN FRAME E lrrclo"Daa - 51 7040 SCREEN CORNER KEY BY 52 SCREEN CLOTH .040" 1.000" .093"J 4o do PndM C 53 1635 61635K SCREEN SPLINE•SERRATED _1 Dir6I 54 331 60976 CASEMENT SCREEN CLIP .423" I--- C)CASEMENT FRAME 55 78o12PSTWiB $3X.500 SQ.YN.'I'EKSIIISASSEMBLY TUBE 67 7004A 67004 CASEMENT FRAME ASSY.TUBE 68 712XIPPT N12 X I•PH.PHIL T'EK @CASEMENT SCREEN FRAME MAT'L:6063-T6 69 7011 ).00K SUPPORT PLATE MAT'L:6063-T6 DWG#7004A 70 7012 LOCK SPACER DWG#7006 G" / ,L_ / 71 7019 711573 SNAP-ON T-HANDLE KNOB 72 7018 1FLDIID FOLDING HANDLE 741).3 F.H. 3/I1/03 A NO CJ10 TH19 SHEET °i"o" """"" Clair "" "` 1070TE:NNOLooYDRlViNT, PARTS LIST&EXTRUSIONSF.K 32503 B ADD 13/IB-LO.GLASS d GLAZING BEAD NOLC'MIR FL 31275r�`""d°s °'" """"" ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACTFK 7/10/03 C CHANGE THIS SHEET PA.BOX 1529 LloCa6 A.TUrr= an""YY• D..: NOK1k9.9 FL 34274 7 .wrwat °`r" "'"` awing Mx "'" PE NSS2� F.K. 12/17/02 CA-l40 NTS 11 d 12 7045-8 C MahuNc P APPROVED D BUCK APPROVED WOOD BUCK ,,IIII IIII APPROVED WOOD BUCK 1 1/2"OR MORE THICK LESS THAN 1 1/2"THICK 1 l ROVED WOOD BUCK LESS THAN 1 1/2"THICK (SEE NOTE 2) (SEE NOTE 3) 1 1/2"OR MORE THICK (SEE NOTE 3) "`. • 1/4"MAX.SHIM (SEE NOTE 2) 1/4"MAX.SHIM / ,,,,,.,.....,„...:,...:, . 1/4"MAX.SHIM 3/16"OR 1/4"TAPCON 1/4"MAX.SHIM 3116'OR 1/4"TAPCON _ .,,_ (SEE NOTE 1 BELOW (SEE NOTE 1 BELOW #12 OR#14 t- #12 OR#14 SCREWS , ,,, . I AND SHEET 1, NOTE 4) ` „ AND SHEET 1,NOTE 4) SCREWS �- : . mi,„ .,,,,,,, ,,ist„,.„,.,, 1 )11 , `•,tip . T—� /1; I I • I I r „, , , � �;P.0 1'1: '( 4 it l� �� II, ; ,. , ,, . .. . • 1 1/2" I 1 1/4" __.4 1 1/2" 1 1/4 MIN. MIN. MIN. 'I MIN. EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT EMBEDMENT OPERABLE UNIT FRAME OPERABLE UNIT FRAME FIXED UNIT FRAME FIXED UNIT FRAME TO CONCRETE WI TO WOOD BUCK TO CONCRETE W/WOOD BUCK TO WOOD BUCK WOOD BUCK LESS THAN 1 1/2"THICK 1 1/2"OR MORE THICK LESS THAN 1 1/2'THICK 1 1/2"OR MORE THICK 1/4"MAX.SHIM 1/4"MAX.SHIM—y r- . 3/16"OR 1/4"TAPCON(SEE NOTE 1 • 3116"OR 1)4"TAPCON(SEE NOTE 1 BELOW AND SHEET 1, NOTE 4) • BELOW AND SHEET 1,NOTE 4) •_ • NOTE: ALL DETAILS r r -r- ,mn APPLY TO HEAD, mI - m 1' •1lul m> ! SILL, AND JAMB. A IL. ...•..... --.-I 1 1/4" PRODUCT REVISED ---I 1 1/4" as cunplylag with the Florida MIN. MIN. fielding Cola EMBEDMENT Atttptance Na EMBEDMENT E !rationllatr OPERABLE UNIT FRAME FIXED UNIT FRAME By TO CONCRETE TO CONCRETE Miami Product NOTES: al,b . 1. USE ONLY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY APPROVED ELCO OR ITW TAPCONS. 2. INSTALLATION TO THE SUBSTRATE OF WOOD BUCKS 1 1/2"OR MORE THICK TO BE ENGINEERED BY OTHERS AND TO BE REVIEWED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. 3. INSTALLATION TO THE SUBSTRATE OF WOOD BUCKS LESS THAN 1 1/2'THICK TO BE ` .� ENGINEERED BY OTHERS. "---_ A••.d►r now: Rawly*. F.K. 3/17A)3 A AOOEO 11I4 SCREW OPTION °101p1eni �7(0.�t Rem'' Lbw ""i 4ic 1070 TECHNOLOGY DRiVE ANCHORAGE DETAILS F.K 3,2bg7 B NO CHANGE THIS SHEET NOK3MIS.FL 34275 1,...".may a "e`"'" ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, IMPACT F.K 7/10.179 NO CHANGE TNiS SHEET F C .7 DOX!S?B M+n Bro.w: cr.d.e by'D., NOKOMIS.FL 34274 Visibly Better "".wa.r e� a,.., a,.,,n ti, ,.,. Lucas PEA.Tumor Ii8201'P.E. F.K., 12117/002 CA•740 NTS 12 e 12 7045-8 C Met animi M I AM FO� M IAMi-DADE COUNTY,FLORIDA METRO-DADE FLAGLER BUILDING BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE(BCCO) 140 WEST FLAGLER STREET,SUITE i603 PRODUCT CONTROL DIVISION MIAMI,FLORIDA 33130-1563 (305)375-2901 FAX(305)375-2903 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE (NOA) PGT Industries P.O.Box 1529 Nokomis,FL 34274 SCOPE: This NOA is being issued under thc applicable rules and regulations governing thc usc of construction materials. The documentation submitted has been reviewed by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division and accepted by the Board of Rules and Appeals(BORA)to be used in Miami Dade County and other areas where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction(AHJ). This NOA shall not be valid after the expiration date stated below. The Miami-Dade County Product Control Division (In Miami Dade County)and/or the MU(in areas other than Miami Dade County) reserve the right to have this product or material tested for quality assurance purposes. If this product or material fails to perform in the accepted manner, the manufacturer will incur the expense of such testing and the AHJ may immediately revoke,modify,or suspend the use of such product or material within their jurisdiction. BORA reserves the right to revoke this acceptance,if it is determined by Miami-Dade County Product Control Division that this product or material fails to meet the requirements of the applicable building code. This product is approved as described herein,and has been designed to comply with the High Velocity Hurricane Zone of the Florida Building Code. DESCRIPTION:SII-701 Aluminum Single Hung Window Impact Resistant APPROVAL DOCUMENT:Drawing No.4040,titled"Aluminum Single Hung Window",sheets i through 4 of 4,prepared,signed and sealed by Robert L.Clark,P.L-.,dated 10/1 1/01,bearing the Miami-Dade County Product Control Revision Stamp with the Notice of Acceptance number and expiration date by the Miami-Dade County Product Control Division. MISSILE IMPACT RATING:Large and Small Missile Impact LABELING:Each unit shall bear a permanent label with the manufacturer's name or logo,city,state and following statement:"Miami-Dade County Product Control Approved"lidless otherwise noted herein. RENEWAL of this NOA shall be considered after a renewal application has been filed and there has been no change in the applicable building code negatively affecting the performance of this product. TERMINATION of this NOA will occur after the expiration date or if there has been a revision or change in the materials,use,and/or manufacture of the product or process.Misuse of this NOA as an endorsement of any product,for sales,advertising or any other purposes shall automatically terminate this NOA.Failure to comply with any section of this NOA shall be cause for termination and removal of NOA. ADVERTISEMENT:Thc NOA number preceded by the words Miami-Dade County. Florida, and followed by the expiration date may be displayed in advertising literature. If any portion of the NOA is displayed,then it shall be done in its entirety. INSPECTION:A copy of this entire NOA shall be provided to the user by the manufacturer or its distributors and shall be available for inspection at the job site at the request of the Building Official. This NOA revises NOA#01-0629.08 and,consists of this page 1 as well as approval document mentioned above. The submitted documentation was reviewed by Theodore Berman,P.E. ^`l'T( . - NOA No 02-0702.04 _ Expiration Date: November 01,2006 ��; F Approval Date: July 16,2002 ��� • Page i • ITEM DESCRIPTION V.T. N OTY. / LOCATION VENDOF VENDOR / I' 3J.125 I T NE Lf rPA►f H 0 Alum. 606J-IS 6i S I ntUMAX A S MAX. I FyN B TRAM !l AAIm. 6Qd,J 15 61 6 I nLUMAx A I� i 7N 0 RAM JAA Alum QO1J-1 L , 7 2 ALUMAX 11' 1 i411 G I RAC((( m 06J-13 1 8 I nlilunk I 3 1 Rut (Am 60*f() S ' 1I ¢ .i ALUMAX AI a H� tt II MThum. dddOa -1 ) 6I 00 I AlVuAX A - 7HB��llqq(( 4 Aim. 06J-3 61 t 7 nt.UUAX 8 ,C IFSIRIP C?CAD (Aun, 806,1-1g 6524 2i I ALUMnx - 9 W - 0 67P7e7X (I per G10Nnq 0.06) TEAM PLASTICS - 1 ,0 1 IC 69yc 00W CO NINIi ass d1�( 7 8 HIj,Or X BY¢INlEN IN1Eki�rfR 2 H.P.C. I 1 1 UP HI Pr9 rNIER(AYZR !t -N.P•C, 1 P NC. 7638PFM to 011och Oeloncet to Jdmb,1 AgUA FASTENERS 1 YCCII LATCH 1( 1.5"from end of rant fop rod)MINNIUIIC DII!CASIINd (1 r2ll.XX 201 rideh Is )• /2 13 0 Ft a.613 PHIL fa NO. 78S8MT 2 (Sweep Latch Scrert) M,EHCIIANIS /ASILHLN 4 hen uiGq 2 $•.4 `dlehetj IS MNDIOA A0AP7(*(Alm 606J-(3) 1 Ja I Iron iamb,. J tram bet.)A UMAk Ar-I2)J6 •17 IQ r 7 PHIL, PR 7EI4 Ifx ePPT 1 Mn 1ootAchN In 3 re+.) M1 NcilANf rA (NEII _le W�G TAR RIP -1'Nvi. OLne\SASH ST 249x 1 ar_VI,t Dajlom Ralf) TEAM I'IA TICS W-747 I SASH►O CU10E pet bath Oaancel MASIE• / R NNN I NNV TECH. MT 7 Ell; C01R I riot ch bslon`a) Wr04RG 3(Avl' 999 EllAi RC h C roeh tame tome) GJOwf{ W M TRIP - r!L(\TINSUL 6106J]W '0 Teat iambm ae¢r veal len rAd) SC11L. 1 COUP. T$�•T(TTL-1/ H FA 10r 71067 II/rant jgmb. f•3'Iron, bat.) NNTL I(CII, Pf11 78,000 8.000 a. HI. i'I MO. 7 XI r AW a Sh Nei v.t. scrawl!) SCHER R INO` P100, MAX, SH !O Atum, 6 1) I 11 100 IOch I,Ome!Omb A UM X Ar-171e1 27�J- IT 1 .t ., . .. ._ =1.1 S a 1 OtrM PNIL. !'1 H. 3M �xl PA 1 i0me tY vent Ai7v, icrs•s M(RCIUNIS!A$!!"Nfl1 5I'Al. SrEA(((CEEER S$M33s�Sw �S_cN_N_�fJMQNENh7 $M3501 VENT 517r• 30 I/1'x Je 1/1' 1 MND,QA?AOAPIER(PLASTIC) 6+)P7 2[d Hams iamb,, J4 bom bol. PC WCBg6-I10 /` Fn00uCE MtV1f1EI) ,� isawpI7lry wAlt MN Aerials II CMG Amplua tlo• ••71 04 • DESIGN PRESSURE RATING (P.S.F.) t,pin1ina11e1t 1114711r2 1J 1/8'ON CENTER 5 16 LAMINATED 3/16 UMINArEO W/ANdULEO CUSS W/HEAT SIRCNGTHCNE0 CUSS Mlt 1IMt *I, Mlnl WITER INPILTRAVON WATER tNF1LTRLIION(INTER INFILTRATION WATER mint TRAIION DMhf.. . --i- REQUIRED NOT RCOVIREO REOVIRED NOT REQUIRED "f• - t', 6' -30.0 +300 -30,0 +50.0 , -80.0 +66.7 -80,0 +80.0 1118Iti 3 J/d'-I 1-13.000-1 ELEVATION PRODUCT Il NICWI I u4X.ON C[MCR T11.MEAD tr SAL •• ,ccrrrnNC(rn �........,77•�I LARGE MISSLE IMPACT WINDOWS IO(t1ltA 1flN AT1. (lt�rNlyel,71 coot 'Iron: `r', /t,I h)GLAZING OPTIONS;A. 3/16'(.Jw) WAINATED GLASS hot Br: Dllr. a,.r..r - (NVI{ION (1/6'onneettd/,090 Rlm/1/6'ann.al.d) F.K. 10j1 I/O TO. TAOLE, EXTR, � NC )UL1t 0. 3/16'(.3...0) LAMINATED CLASS Atr,d 6>• De(: Aa.,•Mt: (1/8'heal WenplAenedf.090 Idm/1/8"hide ,Irtnglhenad) D.B. 8/18/98 2.) CONFIGURATIONS: OX 8r..n Pp: 6.1: J.) OCSICN PRCSSV(1C RATING:SEC TABLE �e7/� INDUSTRIES 0.8. 2/9/98 4.)ANCHORS: Of viol:.n: MAX. 5 J + 6 tJG ELEVATION FROM EACH CORNER(HEAD SILT) D, PARTS LIST MAX. 8'FROM EACH CORNER(JANOS) / / MAX. SPACING AT HUD k SILL: 11.000 Ali � rut; MAX. SPACING AT JAWS: I3.123 1072 TECHNOLOGY DRAT 3.) SHUTTER REQUIREMENT; Roherl L.Clark,P.E. YOSOM13, Et. Ja2T3 ALUMINUM SINGLE I-1 UNG WINCOW NO SHUTTERS REQUIRED I'i?b39712 P.O. Box 1379 3.41/u.ap: Steh: Shcel: 0...;ng No. jut. 6.)REFERENCE TEST REPORT:I7L-1889 Slruclurtl Y0x0M15,IL 21271 SH-701 NTS I 04 4040 8 A' +� -'1.523�1 -el 1.023 k f 2.284 \ i • 1/2" NOM, 062 062 IGLASS OITE 1 JJO — p___„r„...,__, 2 .062l' — �_�1. 737 I 2.710 © L .705 � C)ALUM. 6063-T5 .655 • i c T f 2,784 --.-I1.12J �- O OALUM. 6063-T5 O ALUM. 6063-T5 1/8" ANNEALED OR HEAT STRENTHENED--� •® CLASS 090 INTERLAYER - I/8" ANNCAI.ED Or SAFLEX BY SOLUTIA OR .�-..1{EAT STRENGTVENED • 1.'87 �- 2.325 DUPONT PVB GLASS H2.274 ---1 " . , 2.029 ---Jr T. 5/l LAMINATED - . L7�7L3 1,968 1.403 GLAZING DETAILS ® ALUM. 6063-T5 --'1 1.187 r- -� 1,350 k- OALUM. 6063-T5 © ALUN. 606J-T5 5 PRODUCT RV= e.. .ri at rrw -� 1.451� IIHI A`�°�'°*Dow.rOTu/•4-� 1.165 � 1.057 .490 . t,�.ncarta ?t'.�':1?�w� 062 1.J48 (� 8 @ ALUM. 60E3-T5 iI' V.t't7TopP.7.11w e,,LYJ7 'n• J Ly Arvid dr Dow RtMt.nl• C�1 N� 050 -�r1- • F.K. 10/11/0! TB, TABLE. EXTR. -�rR.t.r— o„ 4.rrv-J ,._ 41J I �� Rt•d e Op Atw 14.1: Iv ma,,N1%Ifni.c<401,110M ,, O.br 8/18/98 O ALUM. 6063-T5 /✓ 0..O.Br• 2�9/98 ® ALUM. 606J-T5 /77 INDUSTRIES Dett:.11 : /IV/// h EXTRUSIONS• & GLAZING OPTIONS Zile: rDNOKOMS..42Di` ALUMINUM SINGLE HUNG WINDOW Robcrl L.Clnrk.P.E. us.'/odd: Sure: S�nl: 0•e.i�q Ne. Ire+ REFERENCE TEST REPORT: FTL-1889 Sirius ur 2I NOKOMISDfl .$27� 4 4040 B SE139?el SH-701 NT$ 3 • • ., • --{ 1.250 1.250 - 2 x WOOF) I nuc)c • I x W000 ' •'• ' •S' °' ' 1,250 2 x 1'/A00 Alli• N e OUCK .,'. '. • . • ' BUCK 1/4" TAPCON ' 12 PANHEAD\ ., . I'il f I.17 J ' •. • - , — . ' 1/4" TAPCON 112 PANHEAO . 1 D BUCK MAX. • TYP, HCAD M. HEAD TYP. APO JY2"(dit0 • �) Tom.. CI "— 1/4" TAPCON rill I 112 PANH:AO I� II ►}p W GT MLVtl W W▪ ei MI 0 Tr] I� L "• __ /� tux. Lgleu•Doe lialf''I miii ' pq1�1�. r YU AM f. 1! ✓}3Ut 1 J�,�.1 1 it ry 5. •1. ,, .' . I,507 `� 500 `5 Q7-oL2 ✓.1 ,'t ,'i t/ .t.A'JT:Yxa.11l.' ..�..• . • • ��.. 711YI ::41., .•tIrm ,pw✓Crr4N10� A '••' ',dr '. 2 x W000. Arrs B wu: ar n..,: �ti I Sl. ^1 / l,n II do. ' , e. BUCK • F,,? 01:0/11/0 TB, TABLE. £XTR. -P- ,ice{*,v .L 1, TYP, SILL • a.D.Q. 8�9/99 a, IrM1: I':Tt,H1r1'^4It+(rt ..... ,... ....,. ...... INDUSTRIES D.B. 579/98 or.r.e11...: TYP, SRL ANCHORAGE /114/ 107NOKO1M.rt.N773"i ALUMINUM SINGLE 1-IUNG WINDOW REFERENCE TEST REPORT: F7L-Ie89 P.utertL.Clark,P.E. swrl/mode, 'scar•. 'S".a: O,.•"y x., p... PE II39712 NOKOtr1S,Ori 34274a sH-7or NTS 4 4 4040 8 SIruetuial Of", 3 . 9 d „tir2R, 4%i111 i F' llA_ ,.r,,- 1EACH ii IIg • LRAY 1COMMUNITYR-CrYEL' ,ate ,e. • - - �• 7` n . .. ,.� f r ,, > - wr' P -'� -.... ,�'`tti 'j -,u Qt• .�:r..,;i14. 'c`.c'ce?1F,47rp:,3 i. r : r.-5 •y !� •+yid. �h '4�xi, ,7" ,' +�;` 5r s ..-` �7' ir .fr x• �','-. t• '.. ♦-,.;,. l}' 7'1.' � F�� t'• T� Y a►2, , t , ;.e•�` r: a ,y G � .r.+'a)n}roite �i yr° t lw �'S' _ky{' - .}' - ,[f;', , �Sb` " -..-1, LIr V" !_ ` `',. .-,,� }R„. . ,.•at t g `-.,,, ` '.�" t,-,4:.,../-_0 • ' • .0-, ,, 'tt'IFI'l ' Ard,ttil)-Z-1 T`4-ir ....--1'. -ill"' - , W:.-' 41 OP :4 f a"".1 ♦ ,. 1".' ' i TrP „oviatc a r a iGl� F+ ' .._... • iti 7� $K 21, r f J w. _1 ! i L I „. . ____. .... , .1 . _ . . • ...„..4,....,„,,,_„,..„..,,,,, ,,,,,,,.....: .... t.,..„...„_,.... ,..,, ,_. , . ,..__-„, •.._.:,,,,,,w_,,,q.„,,___,_:_.,........,..,,,...,,,,:__,_.,.:„.„,....„%.,..„,..„,44„,_,, ,,,t.„:„.,:,..,..„. ..,,.• _.,„...7.,..„... .. ..„.„....„..... ,:.: . ,...,.... _ .. ...•,.„ . • ._ ._ _ ... .,:_,. ..,:;:.-,..,,-.: : : 1,,.,- •, , .... . . .:v." i - ._..._ . ,.„._,,,, .,,,...,.._.„,,•„:,,.• 4:- :•-;?.-...,,: :,,,: _„,4 Aii---;,-- __,- .:,-..-,-,-_,:.--41% :..-.„: __.-a.,.2.i.•.A,--,,_ ,.....-1 ...:- ..._ • _,•... ..,,Iy_ , 1,...„..1:„.„.., ..... ,_.,. ,r2v...:;, .cri , -,,21.,,.... it•,,,,:. ,..,.,, s.,., •.....1 _ _,.t... ..:z....._ zg,- :_2_,,y , i _ .„.., • 2.:„. .._ ,..„:;,:.„„,.::, i :; 44.1 :. . , t s/ =: D [ IRAY A,..,._ .. „, .... . G- -- COMMUNITYREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY 't p,.3 �`T.at`'^`vn '+ ""( 9 "1 ..t.^S ,p+_ ,: -:Y-c r t, e i'r ,- ` a i rY - z r 4,01,�'`. es.t� .x t ; -.K t HS s' '3e Vie.` T . +.a` r v�+fi 3 s, .: ?--i' ��MQ { ii,s�� ' i 2 >4 ,� x` jx e"u.• j-.''-. � x =•1?r i NL *i L ai - .'- / / cc) ' / D�T.,AC:rp > . 3 r r r t ri r 5 ,y i z y G I���F'r•.'_— I t,4`. a '.; P�, Y L �} t g, �' 4-I*j_iT.ar� .,r -> M1 • {Y 9 I 11 , } . �.- - ^' r�b r..,•sR S�A`-`Y'- ,cr.` •14 `4 ( .° A 4:, fg : f 4 t � � 7s • q` I G -� a; 4Ya� t �a { ^ `'Vi`� �1g4�1C.KV;�� �Z , ..,,: " a ., .f:re � .:\ s,^ }} 1R / 1 4 t l .^ .' w 4�r • ;I y,f,I , ; _ r,,, as i+�+�� - s ;• -' rry 3 .a ,,, , tL -, r;! r.:v rt. .-.Y , ,.i .. . -.-7.,-;:;r4v6., c ti t -x"`Y� -.s. fie'i tfi-� yy-lt i ss i. R - �, _� 3 1 ri.ti'R 1 Q�1• M i�iTl . ' .i r-y'F - 4r � a'Y .tom. H^ 4 b.j+ fi\\ f` 3 +Y�4• of _P �vE �.'z-,�-T�+I.: '�` t 1ri i iliOrCIA/14N 1-1..CV 0 FAC, // 1 - °e/lif . toolcie,\A qi- . ..------" - 7 ./ 1-1k-5;-6-03706tik ' PBf� -53& 6 t; uJ to sei\Alth . ,c To 6tuc= 3D -L .. 4 C.-012S. to S 0 : w t )6 TWA6 ; � iS e. W WIT-. . co izy . e etti i • c SL ' DEDWY tlFACH DELRIY BEACH xitd � HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD a MEMORANDUM STAFF:REPORT 1111/F 1993 1993 Agent: Atlantic Signs Project Name: Old School Bakery Project Location: 814 East Atlantic Avenue ITEM: BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a wall sign on a contributing property, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) and 2.4.7(B). BACKGROUND The subject property is known as the Handelsman Property (802-840 E. Atlantic Avenue) which includes three (3) existing buildings and associated parking areas. The property is located on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue just west of the Intracoastal Waterway, within the Marina Historic District, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The proposal involves the installation of signage on the building at 814 E. Atlantic Avenue. Constructed in 1931, the building is of the Mission Revival style. The contributing building is designated historic as a part of the Marina Historic District. The subject property has an extensive land use history. The following are the most recent land use actions to occur on the property. On July 24, 2002, a building permit was issued for the interior improvements associated with changing the use from retail to restaurant to accommodate a proposed restaurant, the Caribe Café. At its meeting of August 7, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board approved the installation of vinyl signage (for use on the windows) for the proposed restaurant. A Class II site plan modification was reviewed by the Board on September 18, 2002 for the change of use from retail to restaurant to ensure that proper parking was provided. The modification included conversion of the 477 sq. ft. associated with the building at 814 East Atlantic Avenue and 699 sq. ft. at 816 East Atlantic Avenue, installation of a 207 sq. ft. outdoor/courtyard dining area between the two buildings, installation of a shed and dome style canvas awnings, and installation of a 31" x 30" concrete slab to accommodate an ice machine. The building at 814 East Atlantic Avenue was converted, however, the parking was not provided. Given the fact that a permit for improvements was issued and the improvements made were prior to the finalization of parking, the site remains non-conforming with respect to parking. Any further intensification will require compliance with outstanding parking deficiencies. The remaining site plan modifications were undertaken. Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.D. Old School Bakery 814 East Atlantic Avenue The Old School Bakery has since occupied the building (814 East Atlantic Avenue) and is now before the Board for the installation of a wall sign. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal involves the installation of individual letters comprising a wall sign for a restaurant. Located on the front façade (north elevation) of the building on the cornice over the entrance door and pent roof, the wall sign measures 120"(10') in length, 15" (1'3") in height, and is 12.5 sq. ft. in area. The proposed sign will consist of plastic channel letters in forest green with text reading: "Old School Bakery." Decorative stars also flank the text. No other exterior lighting is proposed at this time. ANALYSIS; The Board shall consider: SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(1)(a) addresses Sign Design Standards for "Wall Signs" and states: A wall sign is a flush mounted sign and has one sign face. A wall sign shall not project more than eight inches from the wall upon which it is mounted. Types of wall signs are canopy signs, mansard signs, and painted signs. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(2)(b) addresses "Conformity with Surroundings"and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be placed or painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7), however, there are no such restrictions for wall signs. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(7) addresses "Wall Signs in Commercial Zoning Districts" and states: Wall signs may not exceed 15% of the building face with a maximum height of 12'and 160 sq. ft. in area. LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(2)(a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the 'following aesthetic conditions must be met. Old School Bakery 814 East Atlantic Avenue Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E), which outlines prohibited signs, with respect to height and area. Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building facade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts, however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character- defining" and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. CONCLUSION The proposed wall sign is appropriate with respect to the style, scale, dimensions, and design of the building as well as in relation to the surrounding commercial signage. The Old School Bakery 814 East Atlantic Avenue proposed contemporary signage mimics that found on the signage on the adjacent establishment within the same building and compliments the architectural features of the building. The proposed colors also compliment the terra cotta roof and cream body of the building and meets the requirements set forth in LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(7) which states that a wall sign may not exceed 15% of the building face, 12' in height, or 160 sq. ft. in area. Positive findings can therefore be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(a), (G)(2)(b), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. REVIEW BY OTHERS:, The Delray Beach Sign Review Committee reviewed and approved the location and sign design and dimensions during its meeting of June 18, 2004. ALTERNATIVE. A CT,ION.S A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA request for 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Bakery, 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 Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(a), (G)(2)(b), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c) of the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Deny approval of the COA request for 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Bakery, based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(a), (G)(2)(b), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c) of the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation with the basis stated. -RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA request for 814 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Bakery 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 Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(a), (G)(2)(b), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c) of the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Attachments:Sign Details&Renderings Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner .. LETTERSTYLE: Cooper ? COLOR: Forest Green e --t-cii,~�=' LC) ...— SIZE: 21 sq. ft. FRONTAGE LENGTH: 7 • . SIGN INSTALLATION Fifteen inch and six inch formed plastic channel letters to be installed to the facade above the overhang using 3/8"by 5"long metal studs that are attached to back of the letters. One and one quarter inch round plastic pads are threaded onto the studs leaving 4 3/4"of the stud protuding. A paper template is used to mark where to drill holes in the facade into which the studs will be inserted. Silicone adhesive is applied to the ends of the studs and on the backs of the pads to secure letters to wall. ti 'tom i' r , ow*SCHOOL�� E ti " - , t ,-4 ,..„_, ce £ � vx i=tz inY,a tig w it '� 4 . l _ ._ S � F s.-. &'' : 4d F-7— —1E OLD ,, _ ,1_, ...t..,. ,..,_m ..._. *„.._:, ,_ ..... „..._ , . _ , .._.,..._ 1 k-: t.,,, , * 15" {— S C ' '' t 1 L 1 --....4 1 10' —I x i ocrsw ouch ocuuv oucn !raid :amble!!!dauty HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD gII1, MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT gII1 19113 _ 1993 2W1 2UU1 Agent: Claudio Camilucci Project Name: Regional Diagnostics Project Location: 101 NW 1st Avenue ITEM ,BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two free-standing signs on a non-contributing property, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND; The subject property is described as the south 15.7' of Lot 6, Lot 7, and Lot 8, Block 59, Town of Delray. The office building was constructed in 1997 and is a non-contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District zoning district. The following development history applies to this property: During its meeting on April 5, 1995, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed and approved a Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the construction of a 2,000 sq. ft. MRI facility and medical offices, in addition to associated parking and landscaping. The project was completed as proposed. Administrative approval was granted on May 19, 1997 for a Class I Site Plan Modification for the addition of air conditioning compressor units and modification to the approved landscape plan. On August 20, 1997, the Board approved a free-standing sign at the corner of NW 1st Street and NW 1st Avenue. A second free-standing sign to be located on the southeast corner of the property to the east of the drive aisle was approved on April 15, 1998. The applicant is now before the Board for review of two free-standing signs. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting the installation of two free-standing, two-sided signs which are constructed of sign foam. The rectangular sign faces and square posts will be painted white with black text and border. The signs display the name of the Meeting Date:July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.E. 101 NW 1st Avenue OSSHAD Page 2 establishment, the building's address, and the doctors affiliated with the center. Sign "A" is located on the corner of NW 1st Avenue and NW 1st Street while Sign "B" is located at the southeast corner of the property at the entrance to the parking area. Both signs have two sign panels. The text for the top panel of Sign "A" reads: "Regional Diagnostics, James V. Zelch, M.D., Open MRI, X-Ray, Bone Density Testing, 101 NW 1st Ave." The bottom reads: Institute for Healthy Aging, Personalized Medical Care, Ira M. Fine, M.D., Mark A. Rosenberg, M.D." in caps. Sign "B" reads: "Regional Diagnostics, Open MRI, James V. Zelch, M.D., 101 NW 1st Avenue." The bottom sign mimics the text on the bottom of Sign "A." The proposed signs will replace the existing signs for Pineapple Place and Delray Diagnostic Imaging. The current double-faced signs are designed with three (3) panels whereas the proposed signs with have two (2) and will be larger. The new signs will have approximately 2" wider sign faces and will be 14" (1'2")taller in overall height. The current sign "A" is located approximately four feet (4') east of the NW 1st Avenue right-of-way and five feet (5') north of the NW 1st Street right-of-way and is angled in a northwest orientation. The current sign "B" is located five feet (5') to the north of the NW 1st Street right-of-way and eight feet (8') to the east of the drive aisle. Both new signs are to be placed within the same locations, however, the NW orientation of sign "A" will be changed (see late discussion). As proposed, the two panels proposed for both signs "A" & "B" measure 48" (4') wide and 42" (3.5') high and 48" (4') wide by 18" (1.5') high respectively. The signs will measure a total of 84" (7') in overall height. The area of the sign bodies for both signs measures 20 sq. ft. No lighting exists or is proposed at this time. 'ANALYSIS The Board shall consider: SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(1)(b) addresses Sign Design Standards for "Free-standing signs" A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. Neither the pole nor the base of the monument shall be considered in calculation of the area of the sign face. A free-standing sign may not have more than two faces. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(2)(b) addresses "Conformity with Surroundings"and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be placed or painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is • 101 NW 1st Avenue OSSHAD Page 3 to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7) however, as the sign is located within the 10' setback, the sign may not exceed seven feet (7). LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(d) addresses Signs "Allowed Totally in Standard Setback"and states: When considered as a part of a site plan, or modification to a site plan, a sign may be located within the ten foot setback area provided that: (1) the sign height is not greater than 7'and (2) that the sign area is less than 20 sq. ft. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(h) addresses "Sign Locations and Potential Hazards"and states: No sign shall be located in such a manner that it will become a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic nor shall any sign or lighting be placed as to obstruct the vision of the driver or any motor vehicle where vision is necessary for safety. LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(2)(a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the following aesthetic conditions must be met. Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E), prohibited sign, with respect to height and area. Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building façade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. 101 NW 1st Avenue OSSHAD Page 4 The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts, however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character- defining"and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed signage is appropriate in relation to style, dimensions, and design of the one-story, office building as well as the surrounding neighborhood; however, the location of the sign at the corner of NW 1st Avenue and NW 1st Street (Sign "A") creates a site visibility concern and should therefore be relocated. In order to be compliant with LDR Section (G)(3)(h)(Site Visibility) the sign should be relocated to face the intersection (a northwest orientation) and re-designed as a one-sided sign in order to reduce any site visibility conflicts. This has been added as a condition of approval. As the sign measures 84" (7') in total height and measures 20 sq. ft. in area, the sign meets the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(d) which restricts signs within the 10' setback from exceeding 7' in height and 20 sq. ft. in area. Based upon the above, positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards can be made once Sign "A" is relocated and re-designed as a one- sided sign. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Delray Beach Sign Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval the location, sign design and dimensions as proposed during its meeting on June 18, 2004. ALTERNATIVE -A CTI ON S A. Continue with direction. 101 NW 15t Avenue OSSHAD Page 5 B. Move approval of the COA request for 101 NW 1st Avenue, Regional Diagnostics, 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 LDR Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the condition. C. Deny approval of the COA request for 101 NW 1st Avenue, Regional Diagnostics, based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION .. . Move approval of the COA request for 101 NW 1st Avenue, Regional Diagnostics, 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 LDR Sections 4.6.7.(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7) and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the sign at the corner of NW 1st Street and NW 1st Avenue is re-configured as a one-sided sign and is re-positioned to be angled at the corner. Attachments: Survey, Sign Details& Dimensions Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner -.,, •n• ... • c rim ir,i tic lc 1. j,,, , .. /' .-, .,„ '-'-fs ,•-•'-",,"•," .,•, s'' -,-;' -.04 1 a x 4)12 () )6') '. ••i •_,./.''''"„--4" ",zt.'- ,,,,-;.„,".4' ,,,..,,,,:.,-. • • ' ., -‘,, DELRAYSEACH,Ft. k..'''' - ' .1.4. :',..1,v1 '''''"i.: •.'"':',,.:"' - ,, ,„ , '' ,- .,,,i..•;:,;:l. it t;:iWt.s:,%s...-Pe4-<4.1" .--• .; _ ,. , , ,C<.".•'''''C•'''',"„..„1,''.:7-n-'1'.1.;;•.1-4'.---k.,-Z. ,rrrt‘r!".. „,',, ',..,'- ,r;'':,,,'" "' •,r,,,rir"',- - 4•"" . '''r.3.'''','" '::'1.'1.'4 r r"..:::'r-14-4*-41 ,41:,A..4:4:"4k'.19°,l''-,,,,••:,. .,,-/ ---, „,,-.7„-.•,-,:t i_,,,,, ,..,of,,,-,t,-,, P ,,,,, ,,A,, • - _---. ..;.,,, :-.,,, ',..",",:e.',,,,i,• .2.,-•ri,..-'• .itiiii51111110 !. ',,,....* FT2111ki% . ;'''' ,-4,4i - 'c,?,'t-,-.':, ' ''-''' .-,77'`e-:::; A-t'',,,).'?:, 's' ,-.'s'il• --"''''''''''4.% 100111•11 • :al '''''' ,.';'‘.:-' ,'. 7.,.<f..,..--..„4.-41. .,.•.,-!.., ',,, :,,,, 1, •,.•- „,..•c,''''' „.,A.:s''..,-•'4,,,,,,...-lt--$.t.,„,..,,, .vo" -',.r .- 4V 3 3 Ati,*-•.:.' '' k ''..,„, -." . '` 4-'1'1'...-4:-.••;.,K.„.....,/z,,,;,,c;., -,,,,, • '''- , .7-'47.4.11 REGIONALI)IAG , . .,.. ,... • ,,,,/,,,,.. •:,.,,,et: „.„,....,,, ,..,.., •,,,, ' t r 17,:....• ." '''..:,':' --,-:,-,',1.4,:'..Pillt4M.,314,Ss.'.:'' ''',1`; GNOSTIC ,tr, ,„ , ..., ,,,,",, ,,;.... ,,, .44., 4:17,,%.2,.•,,.0.1,,.x 0-:„.„:..,. -,, ,, ..... ,.. , ,.,, ; , ,,.. ,4.,,'" ,,',rM, V •; ' ..1 • -,..AfAT'-,,0 '''' '''' • AMES V ZELCH, M.D. ,,,, • 7- -,,,.- .. ' ,. - , OPEN MRI•X-RAY ,..: , -, : ' ,,' : ' yfk;:l'•''''C''i f3ON 17#EI1Y TES,TING ' - - -,-'"- t ,-.•- ,- ,-.*-1••••.,;,1 , 40). NW 1st Ave . , ..., . , , In stitutefor Healthying4 , PERSONALIZED MEDICAL CARE l , , -t• : . .,. . , •• 'I: ...,'"' -if-...' • - - `-' IRA M. FINE, M.D. „. ,,,e,------- :,.-.- ,„, ,q, ' „ • - ,,. ..-. -„, i MARK A.ROSENBERG,M.D.j— ,,,, , ,-•.,.„-' •. : - .,:-.,-*,_-_,., ,. ..„.., * • , ,, , .•' ..:-„,,,,, :',V41' , r' ..," • rr ' - ' ' . r '1,'-%1"" ' ‘,,,,',,rr,',- ' .."":,k''. , ' ..., .f 4.1".•,.- '.,.' 1 ,j:e. '..:‘.. •,t.•.--,:co- '' ' ' ., .•,.. ' ' '. ' liZ:',';'4,''' ,'' 4,,,•te,',". -;'- •''',,;::•., ., ,-...,:r t. t f•‘., ''''.4-:- -..''.-- ...;Ce'•''•• „ 4'''.frf" ',„14-lei&—..s..,5' •,...• , • .ai %;4 ..{: ,'4'-' ',' '' ''r ,- '/...t., ' e,,,ei .,K4,,,,,,,,,,?,k,-IA-2:, ...4e7Y,;,4!....sg.fi. 4,..4,004', , '., ,'‘-;'• ..,i4,;;F:sp - . ....'• ,., Cci Srciti •• -7,-'• -7.11,":.' irPr;:e7-41fe.';....,,,,..".''.'Pfitt,•1.7' •;A.-4'2'r .... _a";, ,, ..,..,5;:,, , f', SIOAN•E.4th Street :...,,..., ,,, ,,,..... ,t5 " ''''''' & -.f - -ri,IZzr' 1'.„'W' : 411.4- '' •*,., (,,,.$•JI.,14-:::•"-',,, "g, Dilly Dock FL 33444 1.-1.. .;A$.... ;" t '4,....4-1Wiiti.'; ...,. ' ..: - ' : ...-"'-:mv,It'''-*`/.....:,••• -:'.-- - S -- '-,-'-''A.- t'-' ''':, - ''''.1,.^ .'''' ''' f'''''"4 • .'-'' Me..g. . •-,,A , .-,. ik •: ,, ,,/''.4 -"v...,,:.--' .,'"A" \ v 'G ,,.4 ...,`•.-s ' -.ro“' •.,--•,.... ,,,,-..''' -•" ••• -.....ife...,s,"-a ,.:',,ipr'',410-'' , Arr-x'rairrr,7- ' ..rt-.7,7,• ,-, Art?nrk.r4r.r -*-4-,i' '''., ',,'''r i •.'L•wromoi w-..,'- •;,,i,..-',•:,-, ',, —,y o'',.:,A, 0034.-.-7,-.-6,..--,. ., ,-.., ,, ,4,..,. .....;t:Y.,. ••-•-•,--',‘-.0• ,-,:•-t ., :,•,„,-., ,,,,,,, - -•,, -3", .,'47.*11.0..4- • ...,_ ,,,_, v AM. % 411,, ,it.,....4L2„:',41/:.:::r1:1:- .. - , •e;t1,,,','4t, 4,4"-,..*.%." ‘. s." ' • ,...11, ' . , „.,thr . 4' % •'4::*:-,rc./.0. '*01,116,•,. '.4", '.'- ./...' ''1.'''''''f,P.1 ' ' ' -'-' ‘' •,.,‘ t...'.'r,,4-.4' ;-: 4 . '''''..'", ' • •,-: 4•--;::17 ':' '.''''tt' /.1 -,'`' --,,' -1•.!‘;'''''''''''''' ''''''' -4-..'',:-...".4',-.'"'-' ,:7---'-.."-*'' .. ':•;:''''''. - ". ,.•-: ' I II• ,,`.4„-••?..,. ii ,, ..:'- ,,, . -'''..; -....-...- ',7....,.F,..-:4?.;'44:1, ';,,'', ', ,...: , ,r ;•%.0 AI ,,,%rpoi 67. .. -. . •"•••'''' ,_A",, ....- ,,... - .- nil l 1 ',--'re'''. 'Lrr • rr-,1' - 'kg-,.-. - ',,......-. ,Nor-,c--r; 3.4,,....7.- ..-4.-rt,Eli,e." %I, • ,, . , ,, /, , N— ••?f,', '-'72.5137 , '' - 1- De. 2/2-906.5 DELRAY BEACH,FL -,-e- ",e - , -"0 .- ,r;,' • r- , •"- --',11:W N,•:•- ",'''',:: ,.,,, '-•'' V'''.›,e"--,,,' ,/ it.;.-1••'' - „..,,, ,),.''••• i•4',,;.. ,,,.1•7,.r,. ..f.'0, .•••,7i-c,`-,---,4;,4„,-"•"-• 4,41 -, .0.ke-•-.„.,,,„• „•,•.-•_•-. 1 . !: •„1.-.•;,41,-t. .•'-'4.,•:•:•.P-':"."' 4..."'"' ''' 1•A-1: .-'-l' . t- "•• •1' .' ',: ,'•'4•r".4'•,:-..,4p ,\?;4.••., 4, . ././ ••t"'-',",'',"' ,"-,•-,. i:;••.'4 'Oc.4..-01.1".-,r044ftlez,',.4.;. ..,..v 42 0.,,,,",..' i ;= -- ....s,.,...,,-.4,1" i ,,ki•Li:fi,•,.:.,•,--- •„. =,;•': ,:i•ixt.,41,,,,,, -.,,,,..D.,14; A• •yrx,•'"^2; " ' zoi- ':-..74,'',"r,• i . , ''''';,••"---''' - _z , ,•-•.-,',0,;,,;'•, 37 i;--0.4:` :5••:,,,r:2.21'4,1, '"fAttl:,:ir 4s- ,- ,"4"4"- - _ .,. ,, - .::::'-' ,_ l- .- -.,'':,-,4.4F,',V,Q•, JAANI011.:',-(45;''''' • -' -,"' - " -- ',":-/ ' ,-',4,7444'. 41'01.0 *r!.,5_.,e.'*''., C -.. :'i(,"<"•,*1* 2.%:%".91. ,--',i- -'•;fr ,,,.• • •• - •'' ,q,'1‘.4 r" -4-AP;t1,4M",', ,'-'1 .,,,K1. , .... ,-,..., V'''::11i1;10'. - . , , • , ; ii,,..,, • ..,,,t, „ , _ . 4,,t G .0 RE i. NAL ; ,..,,,-. . ,, .. ,-,. . ., -,,-.5c- 4ik'•••' '‘ DJIM3NOST&CS ..', . ,•A'''. If4g4 i'-',' ..-- .,' '' .' '''''•''''.frn ', OPEN MRI ,„.. ..▪ ..... . . _ - „....... ... . ., 4,.... ...... ... „:-, .. ", s' -'- •-"' ,,.. ..„-tit , t''' ','•'-- c- • . ,I,- ,i•-, JAMES 'W. ZEICII, M4). . ,. al ,• 101 NW 1st Ave r 40 i , .• ,0^--; • ,, .,, 4 1, ' • r • - .,,.- ',. 4...., x".'-'1,144a),4,•',44.4,"," • 4 't • ' '- Institute for Realt*Aging a''' J , PERSONALIZED MEDICAL CARE , IrtA M. FINE, M.D. 1 1, r.....24.'... ..4.-• •r. 41%' ' .•••• , . -.ssrne,•,....• ,, .1.1.4. . t•,ligli;V•,•.1,1'• ,-.•t'P,‘,,,,• _ , . ,,-- -4- •, -..... - MARK A.ROSENBERG,J4.D4 , 4' e• . , - ,,-.. ,.4.....,*,,....• ,i - „_,. •, , . -* ,----• ....se v -. , — 4 ',1.4 4,,,., 4i , . ” .,,,,';',."; :17r457401:7,r; ,,*.,,iirrp.,, ,4,,,-:-o'',.., f „,„.•t;1.tr 41; l'.' "1,..,,,• - '," ',s., 4 . ".•,;:',•:::.••4.',,,,,;:•;,.7ihr 7.,,, t,.,rts,., •....44.1W 4,' l'-';;;;),;i.,.t.::',,,,:, ,T f-4...4" Z„`.r.A-,..--0-0. -• - ,,--- ,- - , - ultitatiNtici*ir,,,NS ; ...'":4,,„":17.fg-. ..- .,.••-,,,' ''''''''." ,•• ••-..k -,,'.'.".."''''7•.4 ... ' 7.4 ' 'AO ' .-11,4144.f.'V!.;..,.--:!=', ":-. l';,. ,- 3GAN.E.4th Street ,,,,,,,. i•, .:,...,- .•,,,....-•,,.• ..,...„ , , ,„10,.-..,,,- ,- . ,1- „,-,;,1, I ,...". !..f'''...:44, ,,.' '_. - .**.••`-,„f•' - ,I T ,Mareeach FL 33444 . --"-....„7., cr„,, ...,lito., -,,,-1 -, w4.14,,,...-e!, 'f-,„,-,•!4„*_,.,-•"2„.'",-4,';`%••E._...e.1, -•,,- 170,-,".1,-,-4 ,,t30-,631.-1 •.:"..' '-,?"• ;'4 ,,` ' -' :.ir'o' ''' e•'4'.,,,g--7,1,- -"1". ' ,,,,•• ,::4,1.".r`", ;,.>,''.., 0.4,,,.• .i.:_it , . - .,-,•;-, 4,s ,„.,?, : • ,,,, ..,. . ,,,. „,..t ..,... . ., ,,,_ ,,-,,,,,,,_-, , ,,,. ,,,,, f„,,,,,,,,,.....e., ._-_ , ";pi - ,, •"v„I,--•:',. ,...1....,.--:1-"'"' ;::44, .-4,1t ..'. • ,- -4.,,,,,,= ..,., ..-,-; .....„.,. -,c.„ .,„ -, , • _„ , , -4.- ,.-_,, .. A,-,....445.-T-9--'''-"1"?.. 04., . ,,,,„,,,, -,;.,....,,,,,,,,-„,,,,,, r,,,a(-4•-•:':.:2,,,,:,,4. ', •' - ir.'"':. 0-21-ir- -,;t1:14-7_,,t4-vi„.:..-,,c,,1:-Irs-'.- ..., r.,-44,-, .. • ' S \ LK. . try+.-,f; ''''' „.„,4g4,-„,--••, -.,..••.••• ., •,•.•-,;,,,,.g ,••,,,,:-..... •, ••,, '‘...r.e.,:.. 4..4.2 1".• -• - '.7- ' - .1-4. e„ r 4 • , . - • '4" #'tlia".1 ,•• • • r.,,,,, ,, . ••',',••.°''''''',..-,-J,iP--e',,•e-;" •,• ,2:44''Irr'4"-"''',.. ,,,, • •" ,,••• •411F• ''`ft0" ift0t1 f 40.0-4P4 •••••.' 4' ' 'Z''. -''- "' '.."- '4•4^'''.. 1",,'''' 'el. '"kr" rodop„,.....•" 4 ,,'. .— • w,t,,;,- .'"• .•. ,,,.. • '4'"`•"" , ' -• '''..4"V"' ,t.,,••••i,,,,.''', • b• 'I• ,Ai `ZAIIIIIttp. , "'air' , •,5e.,•,•'"• ' , •f. "{-,.•AIM-Mirt,V.,j40,A40„,0: rr -,,,,,v,z ,3,140--';.,-rr...P,It'•,,e'r,,,1•,, .., - - e , . ,. ..-0,..a.- a„.f.f.'•, .,.,„ .., . ... _.......,. , - '''',,,,. .,,,.., -.4... . s.. ,,..ifoic• *-,,,,,,,.;'., ""'.;.:.t.f..i.„ef.,,i3. .4,A:t0 •,' '.,4 4,4..„464...n.ittiVi'Au..e,,„,0,,":„.,.:','.r.' .,...."•Si.."003P,4'......';‘}',igl,f,:ia,S.,,,>....;,",':„.14..',. ,.....f,•,'''''. • ,''''' ,. ; , . ,..,,,,r,, ',,t ' ,,•• '4.'t . :,4 ''', ,r'•-1. ''',:..7,....,,,,A, ',ft ,0t.,',,,,,51.0C 'Ii. ..7. .::'5:,A;:be ...... •r.^!-, .a.:''' ,....V.0.- 44017....4, 4,f...„;,. ....„,.,,,,w-,,, ' -.44-e'k-/ - • , -. •,•• • •'• ••'••••';'ff,•' ,, • - e,,, ,...- ,,,1-;•,;i5-y,41it':-;-,1, .,. 'ciphr, -`,..r*-1,.,r4--?---,'Wo, 11".,4v .'"'''- --.1 ",.;-;,•- ,„ . r i'''' ' ,," " ''.010 ,,-,,••,'.,, - "' ".,,,...,.,•e,••••'•'•"°' ".' ,'"' ,',..-••,,••'',,„., A"1 ,l''','1 2f,-•:.,-4;,",i'''' ::`',,'- .1',.„,.t..,,t-4 ••••"•`^"',,d• ,•....,'1,; 4.":,-;.t"..t-&•,-.,-,•,,."..;J',-".°."',40 " f ir ..4"•,5,(1,,'•••;.A--1,.,•,.;R.”4,'A;o+l`e' ', • ..‘-'"'......•..?" ••'"V.k•''' ' , ...--,,Ilki,',ir‘-i.,. ''. •,i, -.:-.':-' "--L, . N a)1e...t:i RG,--- . 4-1-6 E , .. ,,,i,;- ' ' `t,'' .z.c07off . — 44 t ..--) , ',/. iA f 'J 7.4 • 11u." USTr .. . , - , c.. PkVt.ik•-(r- 11=1,itil 1 N ......„,... , ,,-;:pwalis .... 4t. + 4 441 .--ci (-oc4i i oh) 4 r,51 S Ox.wty r fAs7 Yk.• w 411 n � a rxe i-164)/Cpet. 614utiaNIZE. L.A66 , o I0 2" . i(oiv 'Fopt v� > GO rvtr►h ciw6c. c-: A6 pq t-kr 613 c, 4P r may, R•b Ltoy3q "- z..07. QJ 5; H'CCK 59 ucm—An w.ur 1 SOUTH:LINE LOT 5 BLOCK 99 : u .- + w,.ircu„rD GRAPHIC SCALE ova.., "°_"�" 131 60 `:, „ ' -i� • et .wae.e pltrt. . •, .."■ .. W.to rS adm ,t.Y,•a .a.� v' vv... .evwmv wOa rn °u"i...en i�e•� (a rm f• -m vo,t .a'r',®- •<• a+p}A°eann r«r'•. ' - ,1 mel,:>D•.'a 'oae:ta.,au rai"Qirn s er�'cw.e ' $ L Or c BLOCK 59 1, 1 t-°°A"m..""•m^ �, i r+�0ivocrew, ace a ai tea. n aw�Oi°,o ) ^ • eoear.n.. - I I AueR Deaf•on..x _ B9 07 S0'E. 7b '- 131 60( /( ��' LP .m 10�i°imen t.R ej G ay mat _ l'7,..:: , /) v a.-,.e ® we—an• ti Nt TN LIN[�T 7 0 Oct on ' T/ ) I l r m •rrtrrw.wr ' • d•,� MLAT L,Nf L017 BtOta,e9.0 d ,•. r 1 1 7 `. t pp-w .oeeanN'riR+w. : ,C• I �1 I 5 YL 'S e y P4-a war r--a.wa•.a....+--. e BL ">. u0 to".,� , ^ 1. Reprlductien.',ot'thla ditch au not valid unlua easl.a Witt, . :2 I a "' e�F ..F f 1 �.° o l an•mboac•d aurtaYor4 aui. ,:I .. V ~ YI 1 �y+,L' y t ( ';'2.-:Conch..here'h.taon or.net.abstracted for Right•-et-B•y FJa-y. G ,, � la a as 6,0a f1, sa,y"eA'2 opiue.u�r ^t f i I) + I]•�.:VEEoa1r.s.trmaitcn.gniolt 0.amhne m,.ot t-rhh;.ie1opr9t2,o9.oen rr a.on'rt.h' ane r tiiIovnt.airtr•umtao nctIa oNf aRt.itoonaral Goa tie(. e; to auum•a as tuns. _ Z ,A ttv,6'. �` �(•' S. The•LD DESCRIPTION.hereon is in accord with the 1' AN W - ltd 000tlon 0 odati Ey tAe'C31•nt. 4 .'�G W' ',8°w l II ':6.. Undet9touna fouedatiens Pen net loeaeed ' Sa -' s a •,.8 1 " 7. flood 200 X 1:'CC®unity Pan.1 No. 125102 00of 0)'Dat., e .. I STORY O.B.S. - Janmry 0 10t9 ; O t ; �' .COMMERCIAL r ' ^ B. Proparty Adar ea,' 19 N.N. 1st Annua, 0.1ny poach, Plerlda !\ fvi\ ' ' 9.''�'e]elnaach4 u. !' am, ) 1 7:6rtRtT27;:30.59 1.e257 5 � , u .G X-candYa6 fhee.leeersoetlun cfuDeanrdyoNeacteAweaata eNr:efelnten I Annua. E1.ratfon•20.]S] v ). m:. /-CT-2 tat + d'a CrtratntnB, m+ • Y 1n" us•BLOCK 5S o vG s ;}.�.v ` M w r 'UU y The South 15.70 feat and a11 of Lets 7 and B, Block 59, 'MAP Or - i I- O'•' �' Irrrtnil ic R THE TONS Of LINTON ILORIM', according to tho plat thereof, •s b „ ntorded in Plat Boot 1, Page 3 of the Public Records of Poll v o ,. a \��\ O b ", $ B.aen eeuney, rlorle/i 4I V ='• ''°'' ': Bald 1ana..uu.e.in en.City of Delray Bath, Palm Beach t 1.69' r!� a „q ounty, rlorlda. , ai ' 4 w•,1•,�R < Containing 22,199 Square Poet/0.5096 Arras,mor.or leas. ' �\ ♦i s) I Subject to Comment., Restrictions, Reaarvations, Covenants, and S _.SSB' op / Rights-of-Na of Raeord. N ,1t0'Yr H 7 }i, il' Der� ',�ip�, a.5' y f jAN ,•.e!' •`y,P rrRT?rtrarr, 3h O d dp,f .- IJ \ P„p `` I hereby certify that the attached Bcundary Survey of the hereon wade; fir c 6o0a (� d.setlb.d prp.rty is en.•nd cornet to CM b.st of my 4a I •� ••'/ '; S',eONC:.,, �• ',�;F!•',, „, knowled9.and bdlai a survey.d undo my dlrecelen on March 32, .0�'• i�el6I NB9.OT60'W. 0 I. , 131.6Dr` \ � 1997. 2 further eectlty that this Bouna.ry Burry moots the toot s'rues " ` \\l� Minimum Technical Standards sec forth in Chapter 61617-6 adopted by the Florida Board of SA A. no and Mappers pursuant to florid. Statutes 472.027. That.are no above ground encroecAmenn h 12, her (TNT.) N. W. ST, STREET ( SIGN) than tho.e shown hereon, subject to the qualifications noted (5 S R/W I _ h.non. o MILLER STREET(PLAT) tgl•,fr„„) e( y RtVne , P f eg. Lan Sotvoyot 1 302 n of Florida LB LB 11591 ` MAP OF THE TOWN OF LINTON,FLORIDA,A , P. 3/f2/97 3/32 PENSIONS "FLEA - CAULFIELD do 1THEELER, INC, bail JOB NO. C•nsu tMq[ngh•a9 M•nnara-SuMyan PORTION OF LOT 8,AND ALL OF LOTS 7 j 8, Mee J,etv ( 7701A haul►dnr.It.Po h Rend-Salt.t00A BLOCK 69 ORARN or APPRON:D BY j loco 407t 392!1991�5S /" ` BCUNDARY SURVEYrimy 2f 336 r 20' — �.a. d ?• SCI¢ ��e� ... • • .1 Camtlucct SIGNS . ,.,,„, , -,,,,, 3. 561-272-5137 ,, Fax 272-9065 DELRAY BEACH,FL 11 •-•0.• 41ti:I.* . , - , ,„'".• REGIONAL DIAGNOSTICS JAMES V. ZELCH, M.D. --........... OPEN MRI •X-RAY BONE DENSITY TESTING MIONIMMINVIMM, 411/116.0.69-40.1.11M1 1 101 NW 1st Ave i ) Institute for Healthy Aging PERSONALIZED MEDICAL CARE IRA M. FINE, M.D. MARK A. ROSENBERG,M.D. 7 -, .,..,,ke....•••4,.., • ,,,,-0-• ----,„ ..-0-- . , , , „.„, •- - ,..,,„`,44 .i,.,-4,• ,,,, - ., . , - s.' • • „-,".''',•••, ,..-.4-... I I iii;1.,,,„''1."ritr-4Pli- '1,1''..,'.• 47?''',..1.'V..,e•-t,,i':*0.'44' .., . ,,,N, ... ,c, ,,_ •'-'' ,,-'4Slio.,"'r .,..-,- __ ,,,, 1.-, T.,--'''4.;;-, ..ti-* ... - . ' ' ' - 1-• ...„,--- - .,,-.0$51,... „,...,,,,e1.-; . .. ,,, - 4-4-',- ' , - - 0-7------•-‘ -,..,, ,{14,,c04;:.;000-4,t34$4964001,- ---,, 4. ..,, ,„,r ,.,-• i „. ..i.,-.), 41,f4r J r, ...itr--- .4_.,..•v- .1,'---.'... -I (Ult. ,...2 1 1;1HISTORIC PRESERVATION .BOARD STAFF_._RE,P;O,R? :;. Project Name: 2004-319-COA—Atlantic Grove Project Location: North 300 & 400 Block, West Atlantic Avenue Avenue, West Settlers Historic District I;T E M L B E F O,R E T.H.E.._. BOARD „ __. The action requested of the Board is that of granting approval of a COA and associated Class I Site Plan modification for elevation changes to the mixed use buildings of the previously approved Atlantic Grove project, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(a). B A C K At its meeting of August 15, 2002, the HPB approved the Class V site plan for the Atlantic Grove mixed-use development. The residential component of the project includes eight 3- story buildings containing a total of 55 townhouses with two-car garages. The two 3-story buildings, fronting on Atlantic Avenue contain retail/office/restaurant uses on the ground (1st) and 2nd floors and 20 residential condominium units on the 3rd floor. On February 6, 2002, the Board approved the Landscape Plan and final Building Elevations and Design Elements for the project. On November 20, 2002, the Board approved revisions to the building elevations for the townhouses. On February 19, 2003, the Board approved revisions to the building elevations of the two mixed use buildings fronting on West Atlantic Avenue. On November 5, 2003, the Board approved revisions to the elevations of the western building to differentiate it from the eastern building. The basic architectural styles and details are consistent on both buildings but elements have been rearranged so that they are not symmetrical. Both buildings are currently under construction. The action currently before the Board concerns exterior color changes for both buildings, including awning colors. P<R:OJECT DESCRIPTIO..N As approved, the two mixed-use buildings, fronting on West Atlantic Avenue, utilize different architectural styles, color and varying rooflines to make the buildings appear to be made up of smaller individual buildings. Architectural detailing includes raised banding, decorative metal railings, decorative outriggers, faux columns, simulated stone panels and decorative metal grillwork. Variations in window treatments have been provided with a mixture of different sizes, shapes and types. Variation is also provided by adding different treatments around the windows such raised stucco banding and canvas awnings. Decorative and functional balconies are provided on the front façade of the 3rd floor for the residential units. An exterior walkway is provide on the rear façade of the 2nd and 3rd floors. A central gallery is provided through the building on the first floor for access to the rear. Meeting Date: July 7,2004 Agenda Item: III.F. HPB Staff Report Atlantic Grove: COA-2004-319—Mixed-Use Building Elevations Page 2 DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(8)(g) 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. When the approved exterior paint colors were tested on the buildings, the developer felt that they were too light and washed out. The proposed building colors are generally in the same family as those originally approved but are slightly darker and provide more contrast with the off-white trim color. They are complimentary to each other on the overall building and to the awning and stone colors. There are four sets of awnings on each building, three in the front and one in the back. Although the location and shapes of the awnings have remained the same as on the previously approved plan, the colors are being changed to better coordinate with the exterior paint and stone colors. The proposed awning color changes are as follows: East Building Location Approved Proposed Bay 1 (west bay) Navy Sunbrella Firesist plus 9703 Crimson Red/Natural (striped) Sunbrella Firesist plus 9608 Bay 3 (front and rear center bay) Forrest Green Black(solid) Sunbrella Firesist plus 9739 Bay 5 (east bay) Burgundy Hemlock Tweed/Crimson Fancy (striped) West Building Location Approved Proposed Bay 1 (west bay) Forrest Green Sunbrella Firesist plus 9737 Forest Green/Natural (striped) Bay 3 (front and rear center bay) Navy Sunbrella Firesist plus 9608 Black(solid) Bay 5 (east bay) Terra Cotta Sunbrella Firesist plus 9622 Terra Cotta (solid) Overall, the proposed exterior paint and awning colors are complimentary to the color pallet used for the rest of the Atlantic Grove project as well as along the West Atlantic Avenue corridor. Based on the analysis above, positive findings can be made with respect to Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g). HPB Staff Report Atlantic Grove: COA-2004-319—Mixed-Use Building Elevations Page 3 m ... ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA request and associated Class I site plan modification for Atlantic Grove, 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 LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. C. Deny approval of the COA request and associated Class I site plan modification for Atlantic Grove, based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA request and associated Class l Site Plan Modification for Atlantic Grove, 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 LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. Attachments: Building Photographs and applicant's proposed color change sheet s:\planning &zoning\boards\hpb\atlantic grove\atlantic grove commercial elevations modification3.doc N- ATLANTIC GROVE COMMERCIAL PAINT SCHEME EAST Revised Paint colors for east mixed use building. 4/21/04 1.SW2165 Rococo Beige to 1. SW 6094 Sensational Sand 2. SW2088 Paris White to 2. SW 6150 Universal Khaki V 3. SW2102 Lattice to 3. SW 6178 Clary Sage 4. SW2346 Heraldic Ivory to 4. SW 6129 Restrained Gold I/ 6. SW2448 Summer White to 6. same Ironwork SW2739 Charcoal Blue to Ironwork same WEST Revised Paint colors for west mixed use building. Rev. 4/21/04 1.-Westin Flax HC-5 to 1. SW 2857 Peace Yellow 2.-Hawthorne Yellow HC-4 to 2. SW 2853 New Colonial Yellow 3.-Henderson Buff HC-15 to 3. SW 6422 Shagreen t/ 4.-Toffee Orange 2167-40 to 4. SW 6353 Chivalry Copper 5.-Acadia White AC-41 to 5. SW 2448 Summer White 6.-Jumel Peachtone HC-54 to 6. same 7.-Daiquiri Ice 2034-70 to 7. SW 6471 Hazel 8.-Crown Point Sand HC-90 to 8. SW 6121 Whole Wheat v 9.-Golden Mist 2158-40 to 9. SW 6394 Sequin s� Ironwork SW2739 Charcoal Blue to Ironwork same '� Atlantic Grove East Building r 1 IIIA 1' 1■ e MI II II III r■ II t II L-' r y�., '� � ? a 4 t a r if II II ,ram _ 1 — n s ■ I, i I *,\ ,f$,:r.I__ , re.1 r-f,'. f,' 74, t [ it r fit. 1 . V S It k. - II i NI is. `,' :I!! t, I -'0 I �� r: I q_ Lill , _ ,4 I,„, ui ka iX is W ' - ` . -- r y� DELRAT BEACH " '. DEFRAY BEACH 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD STAFF MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING A PRIVATELY INITIATED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE PINEAPPLE GROVE LIMITED MIXED-USE PROJECT. ITEA/ $BEFORETHE...B0A.RD._. The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.24(B). The applicant proposes to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) by allowing the permitted uses in the Central Business District (CBD)[LDR Section 4.4.13(B)] to apply to the southern portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. These lots are located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163' north of NE 1st Street. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS.. An application for conditional use and site plan approval has been submitted for Lots 5 through 8 and 13 through 16, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. The development proposal consists of a mixed-use project that contains 50 residential units; 8,000 square feet of retail floor area; 6,540 square feet of office floor area; and, 2,260 square feet of restaurant floor area. Lots 13 through 16 are zoned CBD and Lots 5 through 8 are zoned OSSHAD. Lots 5 and 6 contain an existing two-story 6-unit multiple family structure and a duplex (8 total dwelling units). The duplex was constructed in 1950 and the 6-unit structure was constructed in 1972. The existing density for these two lots is approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. Lots 7 and 8 are currently vacant and was the site of Neal's Market and Jo's Back Room buildings built in 1925, 1954, and 1960. All of these buildings were demolished in 2001. Lots 13 through 16 contains a 4,854 square foot building for an auto parts business that was constructed in 1985 and a 8,556 square foot building for a retailer that was constructed in 1965. That portion of the new development proposed for Lots 5 and 6 consists of a three story (35' high) building that contains commercial on the first floor and residential units on the second and third floors. This portion of the development meets the setbacks and height requirements of the OSSHAD district. However, the proposed number of residential units exceeds the maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre and the maximum percentage of residential use of 50%. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(H)(1), residential units within a structure containing permitted non-residential use(s) shall not use more than 50% of the gross floor area of the structure within which they are located. Further, that portion of the proposed Meeting Date: July 7,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 2 development located on Lots 5 and 6 consists of 6 dwelling units, resulting in a density of 17 dwelling units per acre while maximum density in the OSSHAD is 12 dwelling units per acre. These deficiencies were conveyed to the applicant and rather than modify the development proposal to meet the LDR's the applicant has submitted this LDR amendment to modify the code. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(1), amendments to the Land Development Regulations may be initiated by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board or City Administration; or an individual may request an amendment. The proposed amendment is a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations. The amendment as submitted modifies LDR Section 4.4.24(B), to allow uses pursuant to the CBD District which will accommodate residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre. This amendment does not, however, modify the restrictions with respect to the 50% maximum for residential use nor would it modify the OSSHAD development standards relating to the requirement under LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(1) requiring a conditional use approval for more than one residential use when associated with a mixed use project. The amendment would permit similar uses as allowed on the adjacent Lots 7 and 8 which are also part of this overall development. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(11), special consideration was given to Lots 7 and 8 given the commercial development history (Neal's Market) of these lots prior to the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district. Lots 5 and 6 have a history of residential use and were not, and should not, be considered for similar standards. In 1990 with the Citywide rezonings, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic district, including Lots 5 through 8. Lots 5 and 6 were rezoned from RO (Residential Office) to OSSHAD. Lots 7 and 8 were rezoned from GC (General Commercial) to OSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning was, and continues to be, a district that provides for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, and promotes the restoration and reuse of existing structures. Permitted uses include single family and duplex dwellings, offices, retail shops, restaurants, arts related businesses, training and vocational schools, libraries and museums, barber and beauty shops, and bed and breakfast inns. Allowed as conditional uses are multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure, outdoor dining, various types of residential care facilities (i.e. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities, nursing homes), parking lots not associated with a use (i.e. public parking), and residential inns. Structures within the district are permitted to a height of 35', and building setbacks are as follows: 25' front, 15' side street, 7.5' interior side, and 10' rear. There are several lots located within OSSHAD that may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD. These lots, which are identified in Exhibit B, include the blocks fronting on Atlantic Avenue on either side of Swinton Avenue (excluding the Old School Square complex), the Neal's Market property, and the east half of Block 76 across from Old School Square. These lots were so identified because their existing or potential uses and/or development pattern were more typical of the CBD than HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 3 OSSHAD zoning. It is noted that this development pattern did not apply to the proposed Lots 5 and 6 currently under consideration when the OSSHAD district was established. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add the subject lots, Lots 5 and 6, Block 75, to this list. The proposed changes would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established in the district to allow for a wider range of retail, service, and office uses, as well as more dense multi-family residential. It is anticipated further LDR modifications will be proposed to LDR Section 4.4.24(F) relating to applicable Development Standards for these lots which would allow greater height limits, relax setbacks, and changes to the mix of uses. However, as these additional LDR amendments have not been submitted, the impact of this LDR Amendment will be limited to the appropriateness of introducing additional uses and increased density to these properties in the OSSHAD district. Comprehensive Plan Policies: • A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. As noted above, the proposed amendment will allow a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre. The text change would also allow office space on the first floor, which currently requires conditional use approval under the existing OSSHAD district requirements. The adjacent uses to the north and west are zoned OSSHAD and are developed with single family homes, single family homes converted to non-residential uses, and include historically contributing structures. The introduction of densities consistent with the CBD District are inconsistent with the scale of development envisioned for the OSSHAD District are and is not an appropriate intensity nor complementary to adjacent land uses. While the applicant may argue that this should.be applied given the site location adjacent to Lots 7 and 8, these lots were previously occupied by Neal's Market. The City allowed the cross-reference to the uses in the CBD for these properties given its commercial history. Further intrusion of these uses into the OSSHAD is not compatible with the character of the historic district and does not further the preservation of this area with respect to scale and intensity. Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1 — Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines". The proposed amendment will allow the increase of the intensity of development to the subject property. As noted in the background section of this report, it was identified at the time of the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district that the development pattern of Lots • HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 4 7 and 8 was more consistent with the CBD zoning district. The existing residential development of Lots 5 and 6 was, and continues to be, more consistent with the OSSHAD district. The OSSHAD District was established as a lower intensity mixed use district. To this end, the City is currently exploring LDR Text Amendments to further limit the intensity not to further intensify them within the OSSHAD district. Therefore, a modification to the LDR's of this type should not be considered. Housing Objective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, 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. The increase of density within this historically designated area will increase the traffic volumes and with this particular development proposal negatively modify circulation patterns. Further, it will allow development at densities inconsistent with the desired development pattern of the OSSHAD district. This desired development pattern is explained in the "Purpose and Intent" section of the LDR's which calls for encouraging the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, maintaining and enhancing the historic and pedestrian scale of the area. Uses and development densities that are currently allowed promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. Increase in the intensity of use of the property available under these changes will have an adverse impact on the stability of this area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remainder of the district. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) in addition to provisions of 1.1.6(A) the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Given the discussion above positive findings with respect to this amendment can not be made and the amendment should be denied. ASSESSMENTAND ;CONCLUSION As noted in the background section of this report, it was recognized that at the time of the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district that the development pattern of Lots 7 and 8 (Neill's Market) was more consistent with the CBD district. Consequently, the Land Development Regulations allowed the permitted uses in the CBD district to be included for these lots. However, it was never envisioned that Lots 5 and 6 should be allowed to have a greater intensity. These lots have historically been residential in character. The OSSHAD district is typified as a low intensity mixed use district that allows single family residential, HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 5 professional offices, boutiques, etc. The intensity allowed as principal uses in the CBD zoning district proposed for Lots 5 and 6 is incompatible with the historic district. This LDR amendment does not meet the required findings of LDR section 2.4.5(M)(5) and therefore should be denied. RECOMMENDED ACTION Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses in the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachments: • Proposed Amendment • Conceptual Plan • Location Map • Applicant's Justification Statement • Exhibit A: OSSHAD Lots Subject to CBD Regulations HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 6 PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENT FOR BLOCK 75 (11) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: [Amd. Ord. 23-01 5/1/01]; [Amd. Ord. 5-00 3/21/00] (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (c) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, Block 69 [Amd. Ord. 47-99 1/4/00] (d) The South 38 feet and 3 inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8, Block 75 (f) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 Jeffrey Silberstein ik. . Nctilfmt&Aisocista,Inc. , E,5151..M_ALL,EfINAY el i e 6666 I • • , END or Pi,,1' 1 04.11NALLI 6'Hro.H o.• ..) cIA,INALL END Or Wei_ 8 1514-7°‘ 3' 14' 1 22' 22' I. 22' , 22' i. 2(23 IL ‘....="..."' "'" P" 7. 1, 11 4- #, 4.• I ''''ile'" —41."44:.4 " • b..”4::?IA'Z1:: ...4., 25,2' ,E't • ' , , ,,,4, . t „,•,,,,, ,,,,,z,.. ,,,,..,‘„,,,.,.,,t,."'-r-9---.•,,, fl,),.gr-r..,,,-..,,,,,,,'IL,',,,,,,, t ,,,,A,;,,,,•;,.:•7,••:,,,t,,,,,,,,.$,,."4,„7.,:‘,...,.-,i.*:,:.,-: 1--\ b IN Arimu.Irv!....mi...dm Penweit el•••111:p•nleln A•11,11AIs• f,,• , -., / VP LA_ ""'"'"'' ""'." ...11. -- —,..(Y-1...i),„.....1 ' ':1:A.''' • ..1:'.4f.it ,/,' \. PINEAPPLE GROVE,LTD.••,•:,?,,. J.-121_,. "".`,"1 11.,:71.1 iNc------LI .0 E 0 OE_ =. `-- ,:i.....:.:„..„).....,— :1- Ln -"-L4. IIr .,.....'<i el ....., **. ..r. DELRAY BEACH, 1 C/ ".''+‘.." i14•1 )<Lf..11 ."'—.."—. . 1><M; - .--. , ' •'' V' I wor. • • E ,40,.. tat.Km::::::::::::...:° 1:::::::,: .__, . 0 ri 1 -- 'N‘,•''' 1 • — .................. .................... 1 . . j...'.001 4 4 . 11 ,.., RETAIL • ---., 2500&CPT 1 . 111% Loe• ---N: 0 VW — ..... _1:50 bort ... ,..............,......,..... ,..,...,,....,,,.. I.•ii:;:IM , : .I.;., i!77-17'.:.':.:;:...••••:.:,:..'...:,:.:::.'.::,:,:::.firol 4, tT1 1 , t ,0,.,j ... .... „,...:7"1. ......,,H.. . ,....i.,:.a.., A':1;;B:......:.:.:;,.::.:•:..,,:•:,':..:.;I .. I i ,..„,,,1 -- -—----I I I ___ U-I 1 ILI .4,:7 ,',4777;7. ------ ------I 'oul :,,-,-.1 or r.o.w. D — a 1111111111-::::.•.:*::::::Z.;:: -- - ,.'.E:Mg::;• 1 0 Ntli:EirlifiERE ..4,6„ :.9 ISSN I Li. z , ... """I I -- 11-1 OF i.O.H. tiiiiii MEL Inigin II -...1 -----, I I —I 1 < TOTAL PARKING LEVEL A > 0 . < 1 ' °"ICIE __ ,I.1111 SEMA ,......,11 °MEE Z REGULAR SPACES:54 I i al 115,°a"""•II•0-11..::::=7:.III':.) '''. , '777.-,- f- 114562Fr I Cl COMPACT SPACES:20 I- 04:10:4Al II 1 _ --- :1-'''.".-1 I H.C. :2 -' ,.1::::::,::',:::::::.1::,::.;:.; PIPM1.. :,; , I - I --. '--.71f 5 Z 76 ..„„„„ ;.:2:.,.,....!7n _ t........, ..„„„„..1.,::::,::::,::::„:::4,,; . , otom II -:-.-..,T I • i i _ ___ . .._ .,„., 4.., . .. ..,, . , f, ,.-14.,----N, t:ovg, f 4,,..,1„,.....firmg:gx: 4, t 4, 1, . 1 0 . :::„;.,,::,,,,:o:,...1,,,,a,:d;:: •••• 1 0 —.1 0 .. r, 120050.5T !,..::::: •:' ., II -- 57 I wer..., r _ -..,-...-.1 1:,:ii:iJ0,1 ,..,.. PMers.w., ; 1 1 ill.; 1114 tr., :0 .,,..',- - .t L''''''''N''`.%N.,''', 21 . ' ' !'. ' '•-- 1 ' ,..-.':;,.: '114— .gr-7. 11---'1 , \ ' lEgr'"-::,i,:i . ..r . .,;. 4,.....• -11P'41 `"‘I ' " „! :,,... _ o i Ge. IfiE . • ' ,..6/ -nit. .: lit -:-' • ; . •,, .4 -----) -7,,.,-.1 ,., , ••,,,,,,. • I Ai II .. ..,. C) .- •., A .., RETAIL * IIIIIiI)1C4. ; • ''ETAII'It.:•': . VI 1 g.:21=T ''' '.''...: IiiiiiiIIIIII , . , , 221505OPT I iaMm_ . , . 9010 5Orrk",'-•in 111114 Mg.W. (=-1111 • 1,1:4',, g • ''.'..i.,:.::,-..! ' 4.4., ' L4 , ..• 7 1.0.• 1.11/IWO I OP 1,... A P ,t3.7., .4.7.iiV .4......r. • PARKING STANDARDS ‘ SCALE:NTS REVISIONS • L___ 5' l'i'llg. Nir •4Ve 0I,Ii. ,. 19 OF R.O.N. 5T STREET . APR , PARKING LOWER LEVEL A AND FIRST FLOOR OFFICE RETAIL&11 ,.,YRANT IL • A-1302004.0 LDran br BP I ..... ... . ... . . . Jeffrey Silberstein AIMRM R AuOduM,Ina $34 ND and 111•01 061,0 look I10111. T•11 111•111•till 1 Ron 1.1•ITO•01.1 • 1.4.11t11111011.10410118011.801 {7'y,,-°'-J II 'i t 1 1 I • ' ,L II MARN1 A1MR.•M1NY mon. I , I II n. 1A N nr tit • n,-0__o_- __ __u_I __•�y__ __ end nbe N«. �M•:•�aia ', •li'a:�a. M3•tl l�4a 1 :,, .: 44 �- •It ntM 1�hNNe in:nul - IIIIIII 'lik 111I111 4 .. n. 1.1.1 . al OHD Y1 I I 'II.I I I ____ n•.•,1 to 1•W 4:mg.' •NRR.�.,:�N.W ' 4 ti i'B R um'. IIIIIII IIIIII 111111 1111111 11111 ■. /, .� 111111 IIIIIII un 11111 IIIIII min IIIIII glum um, IIIIIIIi '' mi.' VMr.. PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD 1 II 11 ■■ 11 11 11 U M■ 11 ■■ j 11 I DELRAY BEACH • 7t1t �11C11k iiu Y11 114: :kit 11111t ,111G 111111E min wins 'me uWl 1 Dull Inul ullul Gnu 1LUI1 1ig51-� �;,.'..., 1 0 I1 ■■ w 11 !1 w 0. NI II a� ■■ ° II s■ I II,: 212 Mt= U WIC 1 I 302 a t I rl a itit :Wt11t �I 7tit_ 1' mini inns uuu nine i I Ul mum a:R:e l UUlt+pnu mill Iqn Iliil ❑Filli 1.��¢M;;;, ��.1,---, I '� ° :II IIII€ IIIII 1 i i• M I 37.I5• :- :: • LEGEND OF MATERIALS O WE•ST ELEVATION 0 CANVAS SULBRILU AWNING-BLUE t WHITE STRIPES GLAEID ILLVYINIV4 SPIDER ANO/OR WINDOW XURRICANI l4PACT OAR:BRONEC sr"i4 SCALE;1/10*.V-0• pi 4IS310N BARREL nu 01 DECORATIVE ALLUUINIUTA RAIUNO-BUCK pi STUCCO FINISH 01 WINDOW VENTS-.BUCK GRILL ALLU41NIU4 I - 0 CANVAS SU41RELU BLUE.AT TOWER ONLY • I 0 OVERHEAD DOOR-WOOD TYO.STAINED ........7... I I I„' - n 0DECORATIVE STUCCO 40111R • 4J 1 • ,, .^ R4 0_ d _ W000 COW4N AND W000 RAIVNGS-STAINED ......`Y ` T•�:i1'a1�1•k•III I II II IIIIIII mu.. IIIIII Hum Rum limit h Mill 1111111 111111 1111111 iiIN 1111111 ■■ macHim� �� Him v� r � I �0 7 '-•- 111 1 1111111 . 11111t 1111111 111111 111111: MO IIIIIII null ` • I 1y1 I , ■■ II ■■ III: I■ W.pi.■■ W • 11 f uF UT U■ M1.,•� i1 I SEIUO .001 71l'ilu: 1141 1410I11111 MU kb I;';� H IN I.I IIIIIII 111111 11111u' uuu uuu I - 11 I • ■■ II a ■■ 'W Ili. �I m� � ��i� 1'`11 l l 1 + au I 7ISIIC. :IktC MY IL II 7L.1/1t �It4C f rill iLWI1U=1/0/91187111YIG8t111,1111 Pau iNIai ,, I - ' IIIIN 11111 1 inn IIIIIII ?:R:% II�I�IIIIN IIIIN IIIIN II II u_- .*� �� I'�� ill:° II uuu ,—:ao.rLIND • ;' RO] EAST ELEVATION REVISIONS G SCALE:VW 1,00• • APRIL 30,2004 A-2.1 Oriwn by:BP • CWontegw P l\roleql'Ro,ld.nc,iWlatt Market •lo✓,•.• . WEINER &ARONSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ' ED The Clark House MAY 2 8 2004 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 .11' L Uttitty Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: mweiner@zonelaw.com MICHAEL S. WEINER OF COUNSEL CAROLE J.ARONSON ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, P.A. JASON S. MANKOFF Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer MICHAEL R.HARRIS LLM.(In taxation) May 28, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning & Zoning City Hall Planning & Zoning 100 N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Amendment to Land Development Regulations Our File No: CARB002 Dear Diane: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(M)of the Land Development Regulations of Delray Beach, Florida,this is a formal letter of request to amend LDR Section 4.4.24 (B) (11)along with a rational for the requested amendment. Enclosed is a check in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)payable to the City of Delray Beach for the cost of the text amendment request. Attached is a draft of the proposed ordinance in which the language to be amended is underlined. The analysis of the amendment and its potential impacts are as follows. Presently,the Land Development Regulations allow for CBD types of development within certain areas of the OSSHAD District. This amendment adds some additional properties to this already enacted concept because the classification of the properties is presently inappropriate. The area that would be added to the other areas which presently allow CBD development is adjacent to lots 7 and 8 of Block 75. Lots 7 and 8 of Block 75 are under the same ownership as the lots proposed to be added pursuant to this amendment. This change fits within the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Delray Beach,Florida and are in keeping with good land planning principles which are to do awaywith split zoning. Even though the zoning would remain OSSHAD,the developmentwould be consistent with the CBD regulations. The Mr. Paul Dorling May 28, 2004 Page 2 amendment would also allow for the redevelopment of an important area that presently remains underutilized. Pleas advise me of all respective dates. Very y ou Mi h I S. eine 3)J\i\M ` MSW:vc cc: Louis Carbone, Esquire (via regular mail) O:ICARB0021Text Amendment May 26 2004.wpd Section 4.4. (24) (B) (11) Within the following described areas,the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B)pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: [Amd. Ord. 23-01 5/1/01]; [Amd. Ord. 5-00 3/21/00] (I) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (m) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (n) Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69 [Amd. Ord. 47-99 1/4/00] (o) The South 38 feet and 3 inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8, Block 75 (p) Lots 1-6, Block 76 O:\CARB00214.4.24(B)(11).wpd I I II 2ND ST. AA,' 9 1 9 10 11 IA � 4 ¢ 0 r / 80 Aio12 0 . Ag . i• •-•• /-4p4,4 • • - N MI A A�AAAt+.*Ati�*AAAAAAAAAA� *A , • 4.141 0 , c\i '0 t ei*....„," $ : • ��A4AAAAA^lAAA`eAAA8 AA 16 • 1ST ST. 1 7 1 1 z 3 / 7 6 8 4 / , , 2 ■ N arrOP D .RAYSEAM PL PLAMaa s 2314013 DlART7 1 -- QQTAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- IMP REF LY186 DR AY BEACH t'U. BEACH " 'i ' _ HIST RICt PR'� ER ATt BC A D. r=ra, hY MEMORANDUM STAFF REDOR v z r ,: 'If 1993 N 2"' s 'is .''* T 'j a�. 3,. v.- 2°"1 ..a, .�..... ,.._.,._..a. .d.,,.... � 2001 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE MIXED USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE LINEHAN PROPERTY. iITEM BEFOR'E� The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding approval of a Conditional Use request to allow the owner of a mixed use development with one residential unit the ability to lease the commercial and residential spaces to parties that are not the owner of the property nor proprietors or employees of the business for the project known as the Linehan Building. The Historic Preservation Board approved a Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for the construction of a two-story, 3,583, mixed use building (office and residential) on March 3, 2004. As the owner will not be residing in the proposed residential unit associated with the mixed use development, a Conditional Use approval is necessary. Therefore, the HPB will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board who will take action on the Conditional Use request. K`G BACKGROUND The subject property is presently vacant and is Lot 6, less the north 1.25' and south 15.7', Block 59, Town of Delray. The property is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) and is considered non-contributing within the Old School Square Historic District. The development proposal includes the following: o Construction of a 3,583 sq. ft. two-story, mixed use building (office and residential) that includes 1,800 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor and 1,783 sq. ft. of residential space (two bedrooms) on the second floor with a sun deck/canopy at the south side of the parking area; o Construction of a seven (7) space paver block parking lot that includes one compact space and one accessible space; o Installation of a five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk along NW 1st Avenue; and, Meeting Date: July 7,2004 Agenda Item:IV. B. Linehan Property HPB Page 2 of 4 o Installation of a paver block walkway, associated landscaping, and refuse container area. The mixed-use development plans are currently being reviewed for certification. Therefore, any outstanding conditions of approval affiliated with the Class V site plan approval by the Historic Preservation Board are being addressed. No additional department review comments or conditions of approval have been generated with the Conditional Use request. ANALYSIS Compliance with the Land Development Regulations LDR Section 2.4.5(E)(5) relating to Conditional Use Findings states: In addition to provisions of Chapter Three (Performance Standards), the City Commission must make findings that establishing the conditional use will not: (a) Have a;significantly detrimental effect upon the stability of the neighborhood within which it will be located; (b) Hinder development or redevelopment of nearby properties. LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2)(a) relating to Conditional Use within the OSSHAD zoning districts states: On a parcel that has its principal use a non-residential use, there may be one single family residence, either within a separate structure or within a structure housing a non- residential use, provided one of the following situations exist: that the residence is occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of a business enterprise conducted on the property; the business is owned or operated by the owner; or that the residence is occupied by the owner. 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 Linehan Property HPB Page 3 of 4 standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance of any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, (c) proportion of openings, (d) rhythm of solids to voids, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (t) rhythm of entrance and /or porch projections, (g) relationship of materials, texture, and color, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (j) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of front elevation. As stated in LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2)(a), the OSSHAD zoning district originally established that the residence within a mixed use development is occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of a business enterprise conducted on the property; the business is owned or operated by the owner; or that the residence is occupied by the owner in order to reduce the number of absentee landlords within the district. As this concern is minimal at present, conditional use approval to support the owner living off premises can be supported. Further, the approved Class V site plan for the construction of the 3,583 sq. ft. two-story, mixed use building meets the findings for new construction as stated in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8(a-k) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. Further, the building and associated site plan will neither be detrimental to the neighborhood not hinder or impose upon adjacent development or redevelopment proposals as required by the findings as stated in LDR Section 2.4.5(E)(5). Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(2)to support the approval of the conditional use request. ALTERNATIVE ACT_ O A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the conditional use request for Lot 6, Block 59, Linehan Property to allow the owner of the property to live off premises and to allow the owner of a mixed use development with one residential unit the ability to lease the commercial and residential spaces to parties that are not the owner of the property nor proprietors or employees of the business 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 Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations and LDR Sections 2.4.5(E)(5)(Findings), '1.'.2'1(C)(2)(a), 4.4.24(D)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8(a-k), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. Linehan Property HPB Page 4 of 4 C. Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the conditional use request for Lot 6, Block 59, Linehan Property to allow the owner of the property to live off premises and to allow the owner of a mixed use development with one residential unit the ability to lease the commercial and residential spaces to parties that are not the owner of the property nor proprietors or employees of the business based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations and LDR Sections 2.4.5(E)(5)(Findings), .21(C)(2)(a), 4.4.24(D)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8(a-k), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the basis stated. Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the conditional use request for Lot 6, Block 59, Linehan Property to allow the owner of the property to live off premises and to allow the owner of a mixed use development with one residential unit the ability to lease the commercial and residential spaces to parties that are not the owner of the property nor proprietors or employees of the business 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 Chapter Three of the Land Development Regulations and LDR Sections 2.4.5(E)(5)(Findings), 4.1.21(C)(2)(a), 4.4.24(D)(2), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8(a-k), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. Attachments:Survey, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Engineering Plans, &Elevations Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner DELLROAYR 1 D A BEACH F klaka11 All-America City 11111! 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting July 7, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION (mot fi j� /b 1/(k1Lf &41'( fC.x-4 )(?/1/ c` z‘> E- . ?iie'r 7 JE NN i Agdif(rec .tom l4)( Z-b--y G / J AA./ a g g Pr)(/ .)/r,n7 l -))a� 5 �f / � ik / ( iWd/ < oc f 7iq-q _/„,,,, AJK- ( //./-_D yr- r Z_.zy6yr,, ,..., i m. ' P17 2-- DELR l OAYR BEACH F D All-America City 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting July 7, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION ///f I �l� (Ce xe.14ee