The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB- 08-04-04 • MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: August 4, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeffrey Silberstein, Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: Francisco Perez-Azua STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay and Denise Valek CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Silberstein at 6:10 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. Vice Chairman Silberstein read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. A. Vice Chairman Silberstein made a request to modify the Agenda as follows: • Add Item IV. B. Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding LDR Text Amendment to allow multiple family structures in the RO (Residential Office Zoning District). Motion made by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 6 to 0. • Postpone Item III. A. Saraga & Lipshy Office, 203 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District — Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and associated waivers and variance for the conversion of a one-story contributing building to office. Motion made by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6 to 0 to approve the Minutes of June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 as written. AUGUST Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 4, 2004 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent. Vice Chairman Silberstein stepped down. Item Before the Board: 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 variance and waiver request. Vice Chairman Schatz 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. Mr. Shay advised this was before the Board on December 4, 2002 meeting, and was approved with the following conditions: 1. Eliminate the full-length shutters on either side of the entry doors and install sidelights and a transom as indicated on the original plan. 2. Install shutters on the second floor of the west elevation to match those proposed along the remaining facades. 3. That the existing six foot (6') wide fence be replaced and painted white to match the proposed picket fence. 4. That additional design elements be added to the north elevation (for example; continuing the porch element to create a faux porch with not more than a three foot (3') projection, adding a gable vent, and/or adding a decorative entrance gate on the first floor of the north elevation). Revised plans were submitted addressing these conditions of approval, and construction of the project is nearly complete. The applicant is now before the Board for review of a COA and associated Class I site plan modification for the elimination of the decorative entrance gate on the north elevation as proposed in the condition of approval (No. 4) as stated above. The proposal involves the installation of a white wood gate that measures three and a half feet (3.5') in height is designed to mimic the pickets installed on the second floor balcony. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Jeffrey Silberstein, Architect, 524 NE 2nd Street, Delray Beach, FL, representing the project, advised that the building is almost complete and he would like to put the shutters on the building. As there were no members from the public present, Vice Chairman Schatz inquired if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh advised there is parking off the alley, and if the gate is there someone will walk around the gate. Ms. Dersh inquired if there is there something that shows an entryway. Mr. Silberstein advised there is a pathway and picket fence along the property lines. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 4, 2004 Ms. Schatz closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2nd Street, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND ACTION ITEMS Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. A. Consider approval of the proposed "Rooftop Lighting Program" for Atlantic Avenue. Item Before the Board: Consideration of approval of the proposed "Rooftop Lighting Program" developed by the Downtown Joint Venture in collaboration with the Downtown Merchant and Business Association. The program incorporates all properties along Atlantic Avenue from 1-95 to Ocean Boulevard and along Pineapple Grove Way. Ms. Shay advised that this was brought before the Board about a year ago and proposed by the Joint Venture as a tool to bring more people downtown. Based on the success of several lighting programs that Ms. Ferrer did research on she would like to propose that the Downtown Rooftop Lighting Program be implemented. The lighting as depicted in the pictures would be attached to the roofline of the buildings. The only concern we had is that some of these buildings are historic, and we do not know how these lights would be affixed to the buildings. Therefore, I would welcome a motion by the Board as to how the lights are being affixed be reviewed prior to implementing. Staff is supporting the installation of the lights. This item is going to various Boards for approval. The lights would be installed between September and October 2004 and would be remain up year-round for other City or Joint Venture sponsored activities throughout the year, Art & Jazz on the Avenue and July 4. Ms. Jamison inquired if the owner of the building would pay for installation of the lights. Ms. Shay advised she was not sure who would be paying for the installation. Board discussion ensued and their main concerns were: 1. That the program should be voluntary and not mandatory for the owner. 2. The cost to the individual property owner would be exorbitant. 3. There are enough lights during the Holiday Season, and adding lights on every building would be garish. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and denied 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the "Rooftop Lighting Program" as proposed by the 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • August 4, 2004 Downtown Joint Venture and Merchant & Business Association, establishing the number and frequency of use for the same. B. Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding LDR Text Amendment to allow multiple family structures in the RO (Residential Office Zoning District). Ms. Shay advised this proposed text amendment was City initiated and would allow multiple family structures with a density limitation of ten (10) units per acre, a minimum development lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. with each unit requiring a minimum of 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area. In addition, proposals, which exceed 6 units per acre, would be subject to performance standards consistent with those that currently exist in the RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to LDR Section 4.4.17. Ms. Schatz inquired if there were any comments from staff. Mr. Miller questioned if town houses were permitted. Ms. Shay advised town houses would not be permitted, however duplexes are permitted. Mr. Silberstein inquired if this was initiated by staff. Ms. Shay advised the redevelop- ment initiatives originally put in place for the RO district was designated only for residential in order to phase out the old duplexes. However, this has not occurred. They are trying to encourage an additional use in order to encourage redevelopment in the area. Ms. Shay advised the public would have an opportunity to speak at the Planning & Zoning meeting on August 16, 2004. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6 to 0 to recommend denial to the Planning & Zoning Board of LDR Text Amendment to allow multiple family structures in the RO (Residential Office) zoning district. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments. None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives. None C. Board Members Ms. Jamison inquired if Ms. Shay followed-up on the fence and door issues with the home on NE 5`h Street. Ms. Shay advised that Code Enforcement is following-up on this issue. Mr. Silberstein thanked Ms. Jamison for her dedication over the years as a Board member, and wished her success in the future. 4 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 4, 2004 D. Staff Ms. Shay advised that the Gleason Street café buildings will be demolished shortly. There will be a public meeting on August 9, 2004 regarding discussion on the new historic districts. Homeowners meetings are scheduled on September 1 and September 13. On August.3, 2004 the City Commission elected two new Board members: Ms. Linda Lake and Ms. Michelle Reich. They will be attending the meeting on September 1, 2004. The Lake Ida Park District will have their homeowner's meeting at the Community Center on September 1, 2004. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for August 4, 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. 5 I MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: August 18, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, Jr., Rhonda Sexton, Randee Schatz and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Lou Jamison STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Robert Tefft, Brian Shutt, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:10 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Schatz and passed 6 to 0 to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Saraga & Lipshy, 203 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Roger Cope, Authorized Agent. Continued from August 4, 2004 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 variance and waiver request. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and his resume into record. The property is located at 203 NE 1st Avenue, and is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Historic Arts District), and is considered a contributing property. This property contains a 1,206 sq. ft. one-story, frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1937. The development proposal is to convert the dwelling to an office building, and construct a seven (7) space parking lot at the rear of the property adjacent to the Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 ti alleyway, and one (1) handicapped space at the front of the property backing out to onto NE 1st Avenue. The applicant has requested that a variance be granted to allow for the construction of that space to back-out onto 1st Avenue as well as waivers to allow the parking space within the front building setback, and an additional waiver to allow elimination of the required 24' by 6' maneuvering area within the seven-space parking lot at the rear. Pursuant to the Banker's Row Parking Plan the development requires only four parking spaces to convert from the residential dwelling to an office building. However, it would be possible to eliminate the proposed parking space at the front of the property, relocate the handicapped parking space towards the rear and thus eliminate two parking spaces and eliminate the third space at the southwest corner of the parking lot area to provide a maneuvering area. This would eliminate the need for both waivers and variance as well. There is adequate space and would still allow for 5 parking spaces which is in excess necessary for the conversion. Eliminating this space in the front would allow the building to retain its residential character within the Banker's Row neighborhood. The creation of that parking space in the front is in conflict with the Banker's Row Master Plan. Regarding the landscape plan the cocoplum hedging at the alley access point must not exceed 36" in order to meet the 20' site visibility triangle. The vertical landscape elements are added along the front of the property upon elimination of the parking space and removal of the paver blocks, as well as increasing foundation plantings and ground cover. There are no issues relative to design elements. The only note is that 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 parking lot. Staff's recommendation is to deny the variance pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(2) to allow the back-out parking space at 203 NE 1st Avenue, as well as moving to deny both the waiver requests to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3) to construct a parking space within the front building setback, and to deny the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c) eliminating the 24' x 6' maneuvering area. As to the Site Plan and Landscape Plan, Staff recommends approval with certain conditions as stated in the Staff Report. Roger Cope, Cope Architects, 80, Northeast 4th Avenue, Delray Beach, advised the single spot in front of the house off Banker's Row is existing, it is not an improvement. The spot is extra wide and an improvement that was done in years past. The goal is to find some way to have this client not have to move the space to the back of the property, as it is a hardship to get a person from the back of the property into the building and into the handicapped restroom that we made improvements to. It is a two or two and a half foot elevation to gain access to the house, and it would mean an architectural ramp on the back of this house. We worked to see if we could put a ramp to the side of the house, however, this was not feasible. It is a convoluted exercise to get a handicapped person into the house. My clients want to provide an adequate number of parking spots. We are in agreement with the landscape conditions and are 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 making significant improvements to the alley itself. We are not making any architectural changes to the building. In closing, the client is the owner of the property to the south and that particular property has two structures: a house and a secondary house off the alley. You can get a quick feel for what an encumbrance a handicapped ramp is on that house. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the staff. Ms. Shay asked Mr. Cope if he and his client were aware that the Banker's Row Master Plan states upon conversion from residential to commercial that the front parking space needs to be eliminated, Mr. Cope advised that was pointed out to him. Ms. Schatz requested to see the portion of the Master Plan that refers to elimination of the front parking space upon conversion. As a copy of the plan was not on hand, Mr. Shay left the meeting temporarily. Upon returning Ms. Shay read the subject portion of the Plan and circulated the Plan for the Board to review. Chairman Perez inquired about the difference in height. Mr. Cope advised there is a wooden deck in the back southeast corner of the plan that is three steps above finished grade, and then there is a step from the deck up into the back room. The back room was an old Florida room (as depicted on the plan) and that floor is lower by 6" or 8" from the main body of the house. You have to get up to the deck you then have to get from the deck inside the back of the house then you have from the back of the house up to the main floor of the house. It is interior and exterior ramping. Mr. Silberstein mentioned that the existing driveway is 10' wide. Mr. Cope advised there was a walkway adjacent to the driveway and they are now one. Mr. Cope asked the Board to look over the floor plans in regard to the walkway, driveway and back of the house. Board discussion ensued relative to the walkway, driveway, and back of the house. Mr. Silberstein advised the handicapped parking space would have to be stripped. Ms. Shay advised that Chapter 34 of the Building Code states that 20% of the improvement costs of the building are going to be incurred making the building accessible, and then there is an opportunity for a waiver at the State level. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 Mr. Cope inquired if we could speak with Tallahassee regarding that option, and would this Board be willing to consider that, and if it was feasible to have a handicapped parallel parking spot off Banker's Row. Because the front of this property has two or three spots. Ms. Shay advised that 215 NE 1st Avenue was trying to utilize the existing parallel spaces. The issue is there were handicapped parking spaces across the street that were provided, and supposedly for conversion of the houses along Banker's Row. However, since the handicapped codes have changed and the accessibility codes do not allow you to park across the street. Mr. Scott Aronson, our Parking Management Specialist will be going Tallahassee with a request to designate a certain number of spaces in those parallel spaces as handicapped specifically for conversion. Unfortunately, the request will not go until November, and he has to go to the DCA before this can be implemented. Mr. Aronson is getting information from Engineering so he can move forward with the DCA to find out if they can establish these spaces as handicapped. Based on the fact that this was an assessment of the property owners they can't just move forward with certain spaces be for the handicapped and not allowing the public to utilize the spaces. Mr. Silberstein advised that parallel spaces are allowed, however they have to be twelve feet (12')wide. Ms. Shay advised these spaces were in the public right-of-way and the property owners paid for those spaces to be public spaces. If the spaces need to be modified to be 22' long we would move forward with doing that. Until we know DCA will allow that, we cannot move forward with that. We are waiting for the decision. Chairman Perez asked the Board how they felt about the maneuvering area and the reduction of additional spaces in the back. Mr. Tefft described to the Board a means by which the required maneuvering area and required parking spaces could be accommodated on site. Mr. Cope indicated a concern as to the number of compact spaces staffs suggestion would necessitate. The Board further discussed the maneuvering area. Mr. Tefft advised relative to the maneuvering area, with respect to this space, you are required to have a 24' wide by 6' deep area. The space depicted on the map does not have this. The request is to eliminate one space and then you would have the adequate maneuvering area. Mr. Tefft advised that the waiver request could be modified to permit a 24' x 5' maneuvering area. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Cope if he was in agreement with the technical items relative to the site plan and the other technical items in the staff report. Mr. Cope advised he was in agreement with them. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 Variance It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 6 to 0 to move to deny the request for a variance from LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(2), to allow a backout parking space at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office 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 4.5.1(J). Waivers Parking in Front Yard It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and approved 6 to 0 to move to deny the request for the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), to construct a parking space within the front building setback at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 2.4.7(B)(5). Maneuvering Area It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the request for the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), to permit a 24' x 5' maneuvering area for the southwest parking space at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Chairman Perez asked Mr. Cope if he was in agreement with the motion. Mr. Roger Cope advised he was in agreement with the above motion. Site Plan Modification It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 6 to 0 to move to approve the request for Class III site plan approval for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy 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), 4.4.24(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 the 24' x 5' maneuvering area is provided in the parking lot; 3) That the handicapped accessible parking space is relocated to the rear (east) of the building and the parking space in the front yard is eliminated; and, 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 4) That accessibility modifications are noted on the site plan and elevations, where applicable; and Motion amended by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the site plan modification to include the following: 5) That the pedestrian pathway between the front door and sidewalk be restored as indicated on the survey. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the request for the Landscape Plan approval for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 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. Motion amended by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the landscape plan to include the following: 2) That the vertical elements at the front of the house are symmetrical to the front walkway. IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPORIATENESS A. Willis Residence, 160 Marine Way, Marina Historic District, Francisco Perez, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the enclosure of a loggia on a single- family home. Chairman Perez stepped down. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The property consists of Lot 14, Block 126, and is located on the west side of Marine Way. The property is zoned Medium Density Residential and includes a 2,510 sq. ft. contributing dwelling constructed in 1940 (including a 1,795 sq. ft. second story addition constructed in 1955 which utilized the existing guest cottage). The dwelling is considered contributing within the Marina Historic District. The applicant is now before the Board for the enclosure of the existing 186 sq. ft. loggia on the contemporary portion of the dwelling. The applicant is proposing the enclosure of the 188 sq. ft. loggia located on the first floor of the dwelling between the living area and the previous guest cottage (presently a garage). The enclosure consists of the installation of two paired divided light French doors with stucco relief arches above. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 Decorative wood knee braces support proposed wood trellises that extend three (3) feet beyond the footprint of the building into the side setbacks. Existing wood supports are to be removed. Staff is recommending approval subject to the condition that an updated survey depicting existing site conditions is provided prior to issuance of building permit. Francisco Perez, Architect, for the project, inquired if the present survey could be used as it was done after the construction. Ms. Shay advised that Mr. Phil Etchison, Chief Building Inspector, is requiring a current survey as the property is under different ownership. Mr. Perez inquired If the motion could read "to provide the survey if required by staff and the Building Department". Ms. Shay advised they could contact the Building Department. However, as this is a very old survey and it does not show all the improvements that were done some time ago. I have spoken to the Building Department on several occasions and they are requiring an updated survey. Ms. Schatz advised the cost of a new survey is approximately $250.00. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there was any one from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 5 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the enclosure of the 188 sq. ft. loggia at 160 Marine Way, 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 4.3.4(H)(4)(I), and 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g) of the LDRs and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That an updated survey depicting the existing site conditions is provided, prior to issuance of a building permit if so deemed necessary by the Building Department, City of Delray Beach. Chairman Perez returned to the Board. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND ACTION ITEMS A. Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation. Item Before the Board: Review the Designation for the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and set a date for the Public Hearing. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 Mr. Tefft advised that staff is requesting that a public hearing date be set for September 15, 2004. Ms. Shay added one additional style on Northwest Swinton Avenue, which is Contemporary or Mid-Century Modern. We are not going to include ranch style houses. Frank Hunter - thanked the Board and the chair for giving us this opportunity, He advised he has lived in this designated area for 15 years. He advised he was on the Historical Preservation Board in Tampa for two years. I am somewhat confused, apparently there is a Designation Report, and however, the final report will not be completed till the date of the hearing. Ms. Shay advised the updated report will be available by Friday, August 27, and will be available for the Homeowner Association meetings on September 1 and September 13. Mr. Hunter advised he was not aware of the process in order to move forward. He did not understand why the entire Lake Ida and Dell Park area were not going to be included in the historic designation, as there were quite a few historical homes in these areas. He also advised this was moving too fast, as the Board changes membership September 1, Ms. Shay is leaving in a few weeks, and information has not been sent to the public, and some people have been out of town. He suggested that the hearing be set back as two and a half weeks is not enough time. Ms. Shay advised we started looking at this back in May on a staff level. We are following the same procedure that was done with other historic districts. We sent flyers out to every property owner that was affected by this so they could attend the meeting on August 9. If they were not able to attend this meeting, there were two options; they could attend the Lake Ida Park HOA meeting on September 1, by that time the designation report would be available with corrections. Secondly, we would set-up the other HOA meeting on September 13, for those who did not attend the September 1 meeting. This would then go to the Historic Preservation Board Meeting on September 15 with staff in attendance. Mr. Hunter advised that staff has been working on this since May and you are going to give the public only a few weeks to study the information, and then the public hearing is set. I feel the process is moving too fast for the neighborhood. There are about t75 addresses in this area. I personally would like to have more time to research it. Mr. Scott Christensen, President, Seacrest Neighborhood Association, advised he was one of the individuals who wrote the Seacrest Del-Ida Plan in 1997. In 1998 it was approved, and part of that was consideration of the historic district in the Seacrest neighborhood. We had meetings following that at which time we discussed with Wendy's predecessor, or predecessors. The discussion at that time with our neighborhood association was that they would do a historic assessment of the neighborhood. Upon completion of the assessment they would come back to us and then we would discuss the pros and cons of historic neighborhoods. I talked to Ms. Shay before I left on vacation and I asked and recommended to her and Mr. Costello that they hold off on this whole process because we had a considerable number of people in our neighborhood that are not here in the summer. Our neighborhood association takes the entire summer off on and we still work in September. When they 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 had the public hearing, I wasn't there, I was on vacation. I have had considerable input from the people in the neighborhood who have come over and talked, and called. It has created more questions than answers that we go at the initial meeting. The importance of this is this for the neighborhood association to understand what a historical district is. There are certain perceptions out there, some of which are true and some are not. They have to have a very strong understanding of this. Our first meeting is September 13. I'm sure that meeting is going to generate more questions than answers also. It is not the time to take this to discussion at the Historic Preservation Board level for our neighborhood until this has gone through a couple of discussions at the neighborhood level. These people are going to be directly affected by this and there seems to be significant differences of opinion of what are the pros and cons for this. Another thing that I do not understand is, what are the requirements from the neighborhood as far as them as a group indicating whether they want to have the historical designation or not? Is there a vote in the neighborhood. Ms. Shay advised they have an opportunity for public comment at both the Historic Preservation level and City Commission level. Mr. Hunter inquired as to who chose the boundaries. Mr. Perez advised that was where the concentration of historic buildings is. Ms. Shay advised updated information would be available on August 27, 2004. After Board discussion due to the fact that we will have two new Board members, and revised information needs to be sent out it was decided that the meeting would be reset to October 6, 2004. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 6 to 0 to set the Public Hearing date for October 6, 2004. B. Dell Park Historic District Designation. Item Before the Board: Review the Designation Report for the Dell Park Historic District and set a date for the Public Hearing. Ms. Shay advised for the Dell Park Historic District, homes built up to 1950 would be included. Mr. Frank Hunter, Lake Ida/Northwest Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, advised that there was confusion relative to the Designation Report. He also advised that a lot of people were not aware of this issue. Mr. Scott Christensen, President of the Seacrest Neighborhood Association, advised that it was important for the Association to have a strong understanding of what the Historic Designation means. He also advised that these people would be directly affected by this designation. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 18, 2004 Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Shay advised that in May we started the process relative to the homes that were contributing and non-contributing, we moved forward in June and July. Ms. Schatz mentioned that we had two new Board members and it would be beneficial is we had another month to review this issue. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and approved 6 to 0 to set the Public Hearing date for October 6, 2004. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments. None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives. None C. Board Members. None D. Staff Ms. Shay advised that Robert Teffi would be taking over her position until the position was filled permanently. She will be relocating to Kansas City, MO. VII. 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 August 18, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on 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. 10 f �,t o� AGENDA -'' HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH .p4y 6e Meeting Date: August 4, 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June 4, 2004 • June 16, 2004 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Saraga & Lipshy, 203 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Roger Cope, Authorized Agent. 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 variance and waiver request. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2"d Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffery Silberstein, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and an associated Class I Site Plan Modification for an elevation change. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND ACTION ITEMS A. Consider approval of the proposed "Rooftop Lighting Program" for Atlantic Avenue. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff August 4,2004 HPB Meeting 4 Page 2 VII. ADJOURN YV Wendy Shay, Hi oric Prese tion Planner POSTED ON: July 29,2004 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: June 2, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua Mary Lou Jamison, Rhonda Sexton, Randee Schatz, Jeffrey Silberstein, Maura Dersh, and John Miller, Jr. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Brian Shutt, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:07 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Nomination of Vice Chairman: It was moved by Chairman Perez, seconded by Ms. Schatz and passed 7 to 0 to appoint Jeffrey Silberstein Vice Chairman. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Silberstein and passed 7 to 0 to approve the March 17, 2004 Minutes as written. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 118 Dixie Boulevard (Lots 2-5, Block 5), Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider waivers and a variance request associated with the development of Lots 2- 5, Block 5. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any ex-parte communications. Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Ms. Sexton advised she spoke with Ms. Kim Dwyer regarding the property Ms. Dwyer was attempting to develop in the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Ms. Jamison advised she and Ms. Peart discussed the history of the house, the people living in the area, and re-platting. Chairman Perez advised he spoke with Ms. Dwyer regarding various issues relating to the Historic Preservation Board. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file and her resume into record. Staff was in favor of demolition of the garage due to its structural condition and non- contributing status as assessed during a site visit. Staff further recommended approval of the variance to reduce the setback from 10' (ten feet) to 5' (five feet) as this aided in retaining the historic dwelling in situ. Ms. Dwyer was present to represent the project and discussed the proposal for the property. She stated that three (3) new homes would be constructed. Originally this parcel was to be developed for two (2) homes. However, the re-plat was requested in order to accommodate three (3) newly constructed homes; two (2) on Dixie Boulevard and one (1) on NE 2nd Avenue. The home proposed for Lot 1 on Dixie Boulevard would be in keeping with the adjacent historic home upon creation of the 50' lot. The extant historic house would remain and an associated garage may be proposed at a later date. Ms. Dwyer showed sketches of potential elevations of the new construction. Chairman Perez inquired if any members of the public wished to address the Board. Ms. JoAnn Peart, 107 NW 91h Street, Delray Beach, advised in the mid 1980's several people had discussed starting a neighborhood association as well as a historic district association. Clemmer Mayhue conducted research and an article was published in the Delray News Journal mentioning that Del-Ida Park was the first planned subdivision in Delray Beach. Ms. Peart expressed her concerns over the creation of the 50' lot as it related to the existing development pattern. Ms. Andrea Harden, 516 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, stated that a 50' lot is too small for the neighborhood. The current lots along Dixie Boulevard do not lie on 50'wide lots and a five foot (5') setback is too small. Ms. Sara Greely, 109 Dixie Boulevard, Delray Beach, expressed concern about the reduction of the side setbacks. The dwellings would be too close together and would lose their architectural merit. Therefore, she was opposed to reducing the setback to 5' (five feet). Mr. Sandy Jamison, 515 N. Swinton Avenue, advised he was a Historic Preservation Board member from 1990-1994. He expressed concern that the historic district would disappear. He also opposed overcrowding on the lots. Further, the 10' separation between the homes would not be acceptable. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Ms. Shay advised she received two letters; one from Ames Design International, 203 Dixie Boulevard who strongly supported the project and felt it would enhance the neighborhood, the second from John Gross, 201 NE 5th Court, Delray Beach, who advised, via e-mail, that he was opposed to building larger homes in the area and did not want to see a concrete jungle. Ms. Shelly Perry, 524 NE 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, advised she supported retention of Dixie Boulevard's open space. She stated that four (4) houses on that property would ruin the look of the neighborhood and would create extreme setbacks. She was in agreement with the other homeowners. Chairman Perez asked if there was a rebuttal from staff. There was none. Ms. Dwyer stated that her request was only for one five foot (5') variance and that an alternative would support the construction of two (2) larger homes on the property. Such houses would not be in scale with the neighborhood. She attempted to create a proposal that everyone will be proud of and that will compliment the neighborhood. She asked for the Board's support in this endeavor. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez felt this project protects the historic district from what happened in the Marina Historic District with the building of large townhouses and single family dwellings. Ms. Dersh inquired about the location of the setback. Ms. Shay advised it is located on the northeast side of the existing house, adjacent to the proposed 50' lot. She also confirmed that the proposal required that the Board make a recommendation only for the waivers and plat to the City Commission. Chairman Perez stated that the setbacks are necessary in order to retain the extant dwelling in situ and it should not be relocated. Retention of the dwelling while supporting new construction was also accomplished with the O'Neal property (910 NE 2nd Avenue) as well as other homes in the area. Ms. Schatz questioned whether there would be more than one 5' (five-foot) setback requested at a later date. The Board did not wish to send the message that it is appropriate to request more than one request for a reduction of the setback. Ms. Jamison asked if the developer spoke with any of the neighbors for their input. Dixie Boulevard consists of small cottages; there are no two-story houses on 50' lots in the area. The neighbors do not want these large homes. Mr. Silberstein informed the Board that he looked at many areas that have fifty (50') lots in other neighborhoods. He inquired as to whether the LDR's supported the construction of a two-story home on the proposed lot size. He also expressed his concern about the appearance of the proposed new construction on the 50' lot and if granting the variance is appropriate. He further expressed concern over approving the variance without prior knowledge of the new elevations. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Ms. Schatz stated that individuals were too personally involved in the decision process, however, the burden has not been met by the applicant to allow the Board to grant the variance. Mr. Miller stated that as property values are not going to come down, much larger dwellings may be proposed on just two conforming lots and that should not be supported as they will be inappropriate to the scale of the neighborhood. If this project is not approved there will be much larger homes proposed on the lots. With the limited control, the threat of greater and denser construction could increase. Ms. Jamison asked Mr. Shutt about the verbiage in the staff report on page five relative to not being developed except in accordance with the minimum frontage and lot area requirements of 75'x 100' and whether the Board could recommend denial. Mr. Shutt advised based on the facts presented, it is our understanding that currently this lot does not exist. Chairman Perez felt that if the lot measured 125' the homes being built would be much larger. Fifty foot lots can be found all over town. The Board would not be taking action on any issue other than approving the creation of the 50' lot. Overall, he felt that the Board would prefer to see a 30' wide house on a 50' lot rather than a 100' wide house on a much larger lot. Ms. Sexton agreed with Chairman Perez and advised that the Board must look at the current proposal. Mr. Miller advised that there are a few larger homes on NE 71h Street, as well as two- story houses on North Swinton Avenue. Ms. Schatz inquired if the applicant was prohibited from building a two-story home. Chairman Perez advised two-story homes could be built. Ms. Dersh questioned if an adjustment could be made to the house so the setback could be larger. She recommended that a condition should be attached with respect to re-working the plat. Mr. Silberstein inquired if the five foot (5') setback was approved on the north side only and inquired if the integrity of the new plat would be protected. Chairman Perez advised the Board was voting on a 5' (five foot) setback, not the design of the home. Demolition Request After much discussion, it was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the demolition of the 286 sq. ft. garage, 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 4.5.1(F)(1). 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Variance It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of a variance to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' (ten feet) to 5' (five feet)for the contributing dwelling at 118 Dixie Boulevard 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(A). Waivers It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 6 to 1 (Jamison dissenting) to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the waivers to reduce the total lot area and lot frontage/width requirements, as described in the staff report, for Lots 2 - 5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park subdivision, 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 2.4.7(B), 4.1.4(C), and 4.3.1(D) of the Land Development Regulations and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Re-Plat It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 6 to 1 (Jamison dissenting) to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Historic Del-Ida Park Plat (118 Dixie Boulevard) by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with respect to the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. V. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. J & F Beauty Supply, 60 West Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic district, Joe Dillard, Art Sign Company, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a wall sign. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file into record. No one was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 ., It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 60 West Atlantic Avenue, J & F Beauty Supply, 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's, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. B. The Rectory, 14 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Bright Image Signs, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a wall sign and an associated waiver. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file into record. The wall sign required a waiver as there are more than two existing signs already on the parcel. Jimmy Moore, the applicant, advised the existing free-standing sign could not be seen from the street. Therefore, an additional sign is necessary for better visibility. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Sexton inquired if a canopy sign could be installed out front. Mr. Moore advised that there is not enough clearance for a canopy sign. Chairman Perez felt the Board should mention conditions that the building is set back, concerns over visibility, etc. Waiver It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(7) to permit more than two signs on one lot, parcel, or development at 14 South Swinton Avenue, The Rectory, Inc. 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 2.4.7(B)(5) of the Land Development Regulations. Certificate of Appropriateness It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 14 South Swinton Avenue, The Rectory, Inc., 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)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7) of the LDR's, 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 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 waiver to allow more than one sign per lot, parcel, or development is approved by the City Commission. The Board took a break at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. C. Donovan Residence, 144 NW 3`d Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Kim Donovan, Owner. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of decorative shutters and removable storm panels. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file into record. The applicant was not present. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Sexton questioned why fiberglass was proposed for the decorative shutters. Ms. Shay stated that wood can be used, however, aluminum or fiberglass are preferable due to lower maintenance. Wood shutters are expensive and not as durable. Mr. Silberstein did not support the use of fiberglass. The Board concurred and wished to add a condition of approval that wood must be utilized. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 144 NW 3rd 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 Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building; 2) That shutter dogs will be installed; and, 3) That the shutters are constructed of wood. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 D. Mano-A-Mano (fka Tapas), 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Castle Florida, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for the installation of removable storm panels. Chairman Perez stepped down. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file into record. The applicant was not present. Chairwoman Schatz inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. Chairwoman Schatz closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Jamison, and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA request and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Mano-a-Mano, 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, subject to the following condition: 1) That the tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. Chairman Perez returned to the Board. E. S+D Architecture, Inc., 138 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, James Downey& Keith Snider, Authorized Agents. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any-ex-parte communications. There were none. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board and entered the project file into record. James Downey, applicant representing S+D Architecture, stated that the cottage and associated main building will be leased by the company. The color of both buildings will be changed and they wished to match the sign with the new exterior colors. Mr. Downey presented "Colonial Revival Sea Green" for the body of the buildings, "Colonial White"for the trim with black shutters. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any comments from the Public. There were none. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. The Board concurred with the proposed color choices. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 138 North Swinton Avenue, S+D Architecture, Inc., 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)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7) of the LDR's, and (H)(2)(a-c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) The approved colors of the sign are: "Colonial Revival Sea Green" and "Classical White"with the S+D logo and address as proposed by the applicant; and, 2) That the color scheme of the sign or building is modified in order to compliment one another. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments—none B. Report from Historic District Representatives - none C. Board Members Ms. Shay asked the Board for direction regarding vinyl fences. Administrative approvals may be conducted for fences, however, staff is uncertain whether to permit vinyl or not. Therefore, staff requested direction from the Board. Ms. Jamison did not have a problem with vinyl fences though she would like to view samples relative to quality prior to approval. Ms. Sexton stated that individuals cannot be told what quality of vinyl can be .utilized. Ms. Dersh questioned if this would be a street fence. Ms. Shay confirmed that it was. Ms. Shay stated that vinyl will either be approved or disapproved across the board. The Board decided that they would prefer to see wood fences, however, if an applicant wished to move forward with the vinyl, it must be reviewed by the Board. D. Staff Ms. Shay thanked everyone for their support of the Florida Trust Annual Meeting in Delray Beach. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 2, 2004 Ms. Shay advised staff that the next Florida Trust Annual Meeting will be held in Pensacola. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for June 2, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 4, 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. • 10 4 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: June 16, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Mary Lou Jamison, John Miller, Jr., Rhonda Sexton (arrived 6:10 p.m.), Randee Schatz (arrived 6:16 p.m.), and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay and Denise Valek 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. II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Jonas Residence, 125 Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Dawn Jonas, Owner. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a gazebo. 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 record. The proposed project involves the relocation of a wood frame gazebo from 211 NW 1st Avenue to the property. Harold and Dawn Jonas, the owners, were present. Mrs. Jonas showed pictures to the Board regarding the placement of the gazebo on the property. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 16, 2004 Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Jamison, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 125 Dixie Boulevard 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 Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k) of the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. B. Mariposa, 48 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic Arts District, Ron Brito, Authorized Agent. Item Before The Board: Consider an extension for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class IV Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements and associated waiver for the conversion of an adult living facility to a mixed use (office/residential) building. Ms. Shay presented the project to the Board and entered the project file into the record. The project was originally approved by the Board on December 18, 2002, with conditions. At this time, the applicant is requesting an extension on this project in order to proceed with the permitting process. The applicant had previously met all the conditions of approval associated with the Class IV site plan. Ms. Sexton arrived. Mr. Brito was present to represent the applicant. Ms. Schatz arrived. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Sexton questioned the paint colors. As the original paint colors on the building were approved without obtaining Board approval. Ms. Shay advised the colors would be changed. Mr. Brito advised it would be re-painted to whatever was originally approved. Chairman Perez advised the Board attach a condition of approval that the colors correspond in some way. Ms. Shay advised that the in-lieu fee has not been addressed as yet. Therefore, staff added it in as a condition of approval. 2 i Historic Preservation Board Minutes t June 16, 2004 It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Jamison and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for an extension of the Class IV site plan modification approval, along with the associated waiver, landscape plan, and architectural elevations for Mariposa, subject to original conditions of approval as stated in the Staff Report dated December 18, 2002, 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 Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Sections 2.4.5(F)(5) (Compatibility), 4.6.16, and 4.6.18, with said approval to be valid for 18 months (expiring December 18, 2005), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the in-lieu fee of $6,000 be paid, prior to issuance of a building permit; and, 2. That per Staff approval the paint colors are coordinated between signage and the color of the building. Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: Ms. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, Delray Beach, expressed concern regarding demolition of homes in Delray Beach and questioned the types of new construction being approved. Ms. Finst also inquired about the closing of the Delray Beach Post Office downtown. The Post Office is being replaced by a retail. She also requested that the Board look at the demolition of the property where Love's Drugs is located. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison questioned where the multi-story garage would be located on SE 1st Avenue. A development sign lies on the site to the north. Ms. Shay advised the development is going in at 12 SE 1st Avenue and the garage would be adjacent to it (south). Ms. Sexton stated that she felt very strongly about development in Delray Beach, however, the Board's goals should be balanced between maintaining the status quo and progress. Although small cottages are nice, today's lifestyles often do not support retention of the buildings without modification. In addition, it is unfortunate that the downtown Post Office is leaving, however, no one can dictate to the government and it is not under the purview of the Historic Board. Chairman Perez felt there are many safeguards and guidelines in place to maintain controlled development in Delray Beach. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes June 16,2004 D. Staff: Ms. Shay proposed to schedule a workshop to review the proposed changes for the OSSHAD Zoning Regulations. Ms. Shay recommended a workshop be set up on July 12 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the regulations prior to the July 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff is also taking a look at the boundaries relative to the two proposed historic districts for Dell Park and NW Swinton. Ms. Shay requested information regarding any significant families that were in Dell Park and information pertaining to the Florida Dixie Farm Company that was platted in 1922. Ms. Jamison advised that the Clint Moore house was a local farm in the area. The Public Hearing date for discussion of the proposed districts is scheduled for the July 7, 2004 HPB meeting. Mr. Miller questioned where the borders were for the Dell Park historic district. Ms. Shay advised that the boundaries are from NE 8th Street to NE 13`h Street between North Swinton Avenue and NE 3rd Avenue for those buildings constructed up to 1950. IV. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:50 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for June 16, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 4, 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 • CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: August 4, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: III-A. ITEM: Saraga & Lipshy Office, 203 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District— Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and associated waivers and variance for the conversion of a one-story contributing building to office. POST — • CASON OFFICE — = METHODIST — MI CHURCH _ — il GENERAL DATA: N.W.3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. 1,1 Owner/Applicant Robert Saraga & Brian Lipshy p - Agent . Roger Cope Z Location NE 1st Avenue between NE > 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street. Q 1 Property Size 0.16 Acres - N.W.2ND ST. N.E. 2No ST. likuture Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) Y Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School z - —3 II i Square Historic Arts District) — co.— Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) 1 z East: OSSHAD (Old School 1n u ► ' Square Historic Arts District) _ N.W.1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. South: OSSHAD (Old School Q ■ Square Historic Arts District) West: OSSHAD (Old School a Square Historic Arts District) = "' af- z Existing Land Use Single Family Residence S OOOL Proposed Land Use Covert existing residence SQUARE I I to office with the ATLANTIC AVENUE addition of a parking lot. ,, ., . r/ 'II Water Service Existing on site. — Sewer Service Existing on site. • — a . . r—..2 U1 Z V ll r- S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. ' l _; w w III - 1 N • • ul.A. ITEM BEF-ORETHE 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 Saraga & Lipshy Office, 203 NE 1st Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): ❑ Class Ill Site Plan Modification; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Waiver Request; and, ❑ Variance 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 5.5' of Lot 10 and 11, 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 1,206 sq. ft., one-story, frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1937. 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 Ill site plan modification for the conversion of a single family home to office. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal involves the following: ❑ Demolition of a 60 sq. ft. pre-fabricated shed; ❑ Conversion of the 1,206 sq. ft. dwelling to office; o Construction of eight (8) parking spaces [seven (7) spaces to the rear (east) of the building and one (1) handicapped accessible space in front (west of) the building]; o Variance from LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(2) for the construction of a back-out parking space onto NE 1st Avenue within the front building setback; and, o Waiver request from LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), to allow a parking space within the front building setback within the OSSHAD zoning district. Meeting Date:August 4,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report 203 NE 151 Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 2 SiTE PLAN MQDIFIGATION ANAhLYS1S 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' 13' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 29.98' Side (Interior) 7.5' 5.5'** -north -south 7.5' 9.88' Rear 10' 61.5 Open Space 25% 38.1% **Existing non-conforming conditions: as no changes are proposed to the footprint of the building, a variance is not necessary for the interior side setback of 5.5'. 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 1,206 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(G)(1), parcels along NE 1st Avenue between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street (Banker's Row) shall comply with either the provisions of Article 4.6 of these Supplemental District Regulation, or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plan, whichever is more permissive. The approved Master Plan which was developed in 1991 stipulated that the required parking for conversion of all properties within Banker's Row be based upon 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. Eight (8) parking spaces are proposed, including seven spaces to the rear (east) of the building with access taken from the alley and one (1) handicapped accessible space in front (west) of the building. The existing pre-fabricated shed will be removed in order to HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 3 accommodate the parking. As the Banker's Row parking plan requires just four (4) spaces for this building's conversion to commercial use, the proposed spaces on-site meet the necessary parking requirement for the site and its proposed use. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), dead-end parking bays shall be designed so that there is a 24' wide by 6' deep maneuvering area at the end of the bay. This maneuvering area shall not encroach upon landscape areas. The parking lot design provides four perpendicular spaces and three back-out spaces (facing west). The design does not accommodate the required maneuvering area for the northwest parking spaces (facing south). As discussed above, the rear parking area must be re-designed to accommodate the handicapped accessible space as well as the maneuvering area. The applicant has requested waivers to allow the handicapped accessible space to be permitted within the front building setback and to permit the elimination of the required 24' x 6' maneuvering area for the northwest parking spaces within the proposed parking area and a variance to allow back-out parking onto NE 1st Avenue. The following is an analysis of the requests: Front Yard Parking Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), all parking, except for single family homes and duplexes, shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Where there are existing buildings or structures, the Historic Preservation Board may waive this requirement during the site plan review process, provided that it is determined that compliance is not feasible and that the character of the area will be maintained. If approved, such parking shall be substantially screened from off-premises view by a hedge or decorative fencing. Maneuvering Area Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), dead-end Parking Bays are discouraged, but when site conditions dictate that there be dead-end parking bays, they shall be designed so that there is a 24'wide by 6'deep maneuvering area at the end of the bay. This maneuvering area shall not encroach upon required landscape areas. Required Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. HPB Staff Report 203 NE 151 Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 4 Recent approvals to permit parking within the front yard in front of the building, such as a Class V site plan associated with 314 NE 1st Avenue as well as the Class V site plan associated with 123 South Swinton Avenue, were previously supported in order to meet the required parking on-site and due to site constraints affiliated with the location of the extant historic buildings. As adequate parking will be provided to the rear of the building with this proposal and since there is adequate space to accommodate the handicapped accessible parking space to the rear of the building, it is unnecessary for the handicapped accessible space to be located within the front building setback. Other conversion proposals along this section of Banker's Row have eliminated the front parking space originally associated with the residence. In order to provide the 24' x 6' maneuvering area the southwest parking space could be eliminated as the space provides excess parking per the required parking to accommodate the conversion and is therefore unnecessary. As there are no site constraints or life/safety issues which would interfere with the provision of the maneuvering area, the parking space should be eliminated and the maneuvering area provided for each parking space. Support for the waivers would be considered a special privilege to the applicant as compliance with 4.4.24(G)(3) is feasible and provision of the space in the front yard would negatively impact the residential character of the area. The creation of a parking space in front of the building is in conflict with the Banker's Row Master Plan which notes elimination of the parking within the front yard. Construction of a back- out parking space could create an unsafe situation due to possible site visibility issues related to existing on-street parking within the right-of-way. Further, there are no site constraints which limit the provision of a 24' x 6' maneuvering area or parking requirements which restrict the elimination of the southwest parking space at the rear of the building. Therefore, the waivers should not be supported based on the criteria listed above. Back-out Parking Variance Per LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(2), each required parking space shall be accessible at all times. Access which conforms with minimal aisle standards and which includes maneuvering area so that a vehicle must be able to enter and exit the parking area onto a street or alley in a forward manner shall be provided. This requirement did not apply to the previous single family residential use. 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; HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 5 (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 proposed variance would permit a back-out parking space onto NE 1st Avenue. As with the waiver analysis, adequate parking has been provided on-site with this proposal and since there is adequate space to relocate the parking space to the rear of the building, it is unnecessary for the handicapped accessible space to be located within the front building setback. Despite minimal site area, it is feasible to install a conventional parking lot and to provide the handicapped accessible space to the rear of the building. Further, construction of parking space in front of the building would diminish the residential character of the neighborhood. Thus, granting the variance should not be supported based on the fact that adequate space exists for the construction of all the required parking to the rear of the building. Further, back- out parking in front of the historic building would be contrary to the safety or general welfare of the public due to possible site visibility issues related to the on-street parking within the right-of-way. Both vehicular and pedestrian safety could be compromised. Based upon the above, the requested variance does not meet the intent of LDR Section 4.5.1(J) and should therefore be denied. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Maneuvering Area: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), dead-end Parking Bays are discouraged, but when site conditions dictate that there be dead-end parking bays, they shall be designed so that there is a 24'wide by 6'deep maneuvering area at the end of the bay. This maneuvering area shall not encroach upon required landscape areas. As stated in HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 6 the parking analysis, adequate maneuvering area has not been provided. In order to meet this requirement, a maneuvering area measuring 24' wide by 6' deep must be provided or the waiver request approved. (see additional analysis above). 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 26' wide drive aisle, while also providing a five foot (5') wide landscape strip along the north and south property lines adjacent to the parking area. Therefore, the proposal meets the drive aisle width requirement. 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 two decorative pole lights, with acorn fixtures, adjacent to the parking area. The proposed fixtures are 13' in height and appropriate to the style of the building. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this section. Refuse Container Area The proposal includes the installation of a 5' x 5' refuse container area on the north side of the property adjacent to the building to accommodate roll out containers. Proposed and existing landscaping will screen the containers from the NE 1st Avenue right-of-way. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements. Site Plan Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1) Provide drainage calculations. LANDSCAPE . ANALYS.IS. Existing and proposed landscaping is incorporated into the landscape plan. Existing landscaping consists of Dwarf Schefflera and Shrub Alamanda adjacent to the front and side (north) elevations. Variegated Liriope and Hibiscus line the front walkway on the north side of the property while a Ficus hedge lines the north and south perimeters of the property on the adjacent lots. Proposed landscaping consists of five Sabal Palms on the south side of the proposed parking area with three Live Oaks on the north side and a Silver Buttonwood Tree adjacent to the alley at the southeast corner of the parking area. The parking area will also be screened by Cocoplum hedge on the north side as well as the southeast corner, adjacent to the alley. A Triple Solitaire Palm and Glaucous Cassia with Cocoplum hedges and a mix of underplantings are also proposed by the southeast corner of the building including: Trailing Chenille and Variegated Trinette. HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 7 Two Glaucous Cassia are also shown on the northwest side of the front yard. Cocoplum hedging is proposed to screen the a/c unit. Upon relocation of the proposed handicapped parking space in front of the building and removal of the pavers, landscaping may be enhanced in front of the building with the addition of vertical landscape elements as well as an increase of foundation plantings and ground cover. This has been added as a landscape technical item. Further, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(A)(1), the proposed cocoplum hedging at the alley access point must not exceed 36" in order to meet the 20' site visibility triangle. This has been added as a landscape technical item. Upon meeting the landscape technical items, as stated above, the proposed landscape plan will be in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.16. Landscape Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 1) That the cocoplum hedging at the alley access point must not exceed 36" in order to meet the 20' site visibility triangle. 2) That vertical landscape elements as well as an increase of foundation plantings and ground cover are planted in front of the building upon elimination of the parking space and removal of the paver blocks. DESIGN 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, 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. HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 8 Conversion to Office The proposal involves the conversion of a one-story building from residential to office. The contributing, 1,206 sq. ft., frame vernacular building was constructed in 1937 and displays clapboard and lap siding, a cross gable shingle roof and flat deck. Fenestration consists of both wood and aluminum single hung sash windows. While there are no proposed elevation changes associated 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 III 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 III modification. The development proposal involves a conversion of an existing 1,206 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. 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 1,206 sq. ft. dwelling conversion will generate 27 total trips which represents 17 new daily trips (the current use is allocated at 10 trips per day). HPB Staff Report 203 NE 15`Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 9 Solid Waste Requirements The proposed 1,206 sq. ft. office conversion will generate 3.25 tons of solid waste per year [(1,206 sq.ft. x 5.4Ibs./sq.ft./year = 6,512 Ibs/2,000 lb. = 3.25 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 June 10, 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 Executive Board reviewed the project on June 14, 2004. The group collectively 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 1,206 sq.ft. residence to office space and the installation of associated site improvements including the construction of eight (8) 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, particularly those related to the parking, are addressed. The associated waiver and variance cannot be supported based on the lack of site constraints, concerns related to public safety, and the negative impact it would have on the character of the neighborhood. Given the above, positive findings can only be made with respect to 4.6.16, 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k). As proposed, there is a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR.Sections 2.4.7(6)(5), 4.5.1(J), 4.4.24(G)(3), and 4.6.9(D)(2) to permit the proposed handicapped accessible space in front of the building. Therefore, the waivers and variance request should be denied. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 10 B. Move approval of the request the COA and associated Class Ill site plan modification, landscape plan, waivers, and variance for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 2.4.5(G)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.4.24(G)(3), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(D)(2), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions. C. Move approval of the request the COA and associated Class Ill site plan modification, landscape plan and move denial of the waiver and variance request for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the site plan request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(G)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.4.24(G)(3), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(a-k), 4.6.9(D)(2), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to conditions. Move to deny the waivers and variance request by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(G)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.4.24(G)(3), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(a-k), and 4.6.9(D)(2) of the LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. D. Deny approval of the COA request and associated Class Ill site plan modification, landscape plan, waiver, and variance for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(G)(5), 4.6.16, 4.4.24(F)(2), 4.4.24(G)(3), 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(a-k), and 4.6.9(D)(2) of the LDR's and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ',._ i By Separate Motions: Variance Move to deny the request for a variance from LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(2), to allow a back- out parking space at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office 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 4.5.1(J). Waivers Move to deny the request for the waiver to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), to construct a parking space within the front building setback at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 2.4.7(B)(5). HPB Staff Report 203 NE 1st Avenue—Class Ill Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan , Page 11 Move to deny the request for the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), to permit the elimination of the 24' x 6' maneuvering area for the southwest parking space at 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan Modification Move approval of the request for Class III site plan approval for 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy 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), 4.4.24(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 the 24' x 6' maneuvering area is provided in the parking lot; 3) That the handicapped accessible parking space is relocated to the rear (east) of the building and the parking space in the front yard is eliminated; and, 4) 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 203 NE 1st Avenue, Saraga & Lipshy Office, 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 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, Landscape Plan, Survey Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • POST _ CASON OFFICE METHODIST — • CHURCH Mil _ MM. ill q_ , MI -Q a a a a_ _ - - N.W. 3RD - ST. N.E. 3RD 1 ST. L1- IIIIIIIF '{IIIU ■ r= - w �_ D z a CITY w � w ATTORNEY CV '�'i- o _o z BUILDING Q 1 Lu �' M N — MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DR. N.E. 2ND ST. z 3 I Z I- I- o a z J CITY0 HALLz ON N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. / ` _ 1ST ST. -, , Q a z COMMUNITY o CENTER _ 3 3 1.i Li Q 14 6 —z z z z CC z TENNIS OLD STADIUM SCHOOL / / ci SQUARE T , ATLANTIC AVENUE SOUTH < a > COUNTY _ COURT HOUSE a I•- I- o o I z - - N I— . 3 w w• w Lr_i Co 0 Vi co'II co vi (n • N -saw-- SARAGA & LIPSHY CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,FL PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYS7EM -- MAP REF: LM766 NO1L ALA?:OM I MGIYArM cY[xw]13 ARC INCSAC GAUSS 01lerMOSC NC= LEGEND L.WCt4 6•IOTA ft•PKaA +R•Ar IftlIfur 20 0 .10 I 20 40 25.00' W..teal wa ETC.s>NnmNruWm1 1TmaA•wFgiOuo . 1 inch = 20 ft. _ 0.50•CURB 'o, i1R.,/2 REMAINDER LOT 10, BLOCK 74 I 15' FAll. •MOO MH t t mr. I -_OM WPC No 1.0. N i rsw-1oAo tau HOLE _ 133.00' I R.1/2' Kay.A•WOW/Tmmc xA1rx ii.0P r— L.--- ,,1-.-._�, No 10. (P). Frill 3.8' nAr I z9UMW .sa_� Co)•IlICCOO as1a.(,l) ▪ 19.60' I 1 fn-sort u.rr W l S. CONC. o g I7.60'1 '" � � ,s IL-FMlrtMOM •�/ �I LIE-1iRD/ens aa1111r ORIOEWA� 7.60' 14.25' PETAL )Ulf.-va Fwnowci WW1 Z I , /._ �� / - o NO coNc. / PAL.ow aa'Ffi1 0 15'E3RIIX WALX_ �`"r� ,� 1-STORY m W1G•TOME Q 4.6 v Res/203 -O Ft •P[11wm oanFaF.MIT WPM u�-7 ,i 14.20' - PAY•P01WOf11O17DCE 1O11M a a x.rauf[lp1 7.60' � - PIE.PMIR�IL CASOIO, Z m pax 7 a wol sea(Cs) C D WA KO(WO 30.02' • 27.25i cc atm ow ru�c OW) k so'i'oo'(�) W �/Y3 n.s' i 1' ti 0 • Z7 rr noPA1rp10 ►I---' Y=---� �r�_ ..,.. .� FIR. mow ow so ,/z = 0 133.00' L t7t.1/2®�/� No 1.0. i t---- 25.00' !I ci d No 1D. 15'Miry —,-- NAM lx cal LOT 12, BLOCK 74 — aw a(Of) //— — 1om M 1nr1:(Of) PM FONT(I) iTS . FIR.,/Y I. „ fb 1.0. 1&_.- _ _ _ N.E.2nd STREET • • CERTIFIED TO: BRIAN LOUIS LIPSHY AND ROBERT S.SARAGA&LIPSITY,P.A. SARAGA&LIPSITY,P.A. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOWN OF DELRAY,SOUTH 5.5 FEET OF LOT 10,AND ALL OF LOT I I,BLOCK 74,(OLD SCHOOL HISTORIC DISTRICT),PLAT BOOK 1,PAGE 3,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM roc A I'll I`nr n,n.v r 11 nnr, -_'T MH!" OrGUUIVU NK/ ,�(JKVC r SCALE: 1".- .^0' nulc�/rc ;,rl e VI - �"^ ',o„� �� ,�, W1CA u suwws Ai.ln 1.5CRIWO T01.1 FOR OVER 10 YEARS CaVmuten r PAAEL Na: ROO9 Za1E.• BASIS Cr BE4CNC '— nee«oa MP s 0* IIN1l rr Of'zoom iO0.?a"�'LSSfl6l/SLrlrlfw5 FOUNDED /N 199J DRAW BY. Q!. - �,K fro q,�7 uslol-cqw-B �A Ay D - --- ...wmu«r.ra.rr era ��awmr am-t nac.Aa cnurrc 9ASEL/NE ENGINEERING _ aEarea er. IAN we.a«raxs.orfoucr or smear ou rosrnw.7z 7,n srA'vns AND Wit a'''°4 BASE/70. ez• �Nc7urAMY ArFEMe•TIeEs unto '°r"'rr"r�''m or LAND SURVEYING, INC. 1/fA'ro9 N/A N/A. new BOOK: POLDER PACE: N/A ••_ �'; �` vie .9lZr[aj 7400 N.W. 1st CWR I -� '— PARTY CHIEf: PABLO PERALTA > PrOdj a For PlohslrGed SV tr M Na P716 Oola BOCA.RA7GW, FLORIDA J34J? I'RCl'fATr ADDRESS'au Ale lr1 A/EMA:'-0.2RAY BEAQ(IL.utN --_'- SURVEY DATE: 9/24/O3 ri:wOgO+r cOr uc.rlar ^� manna=NNN A'�e MI'If&WM OO1.Ams•11. 1 fr EB-6510 (5617 417-0700 LB-64J9 .r•ir w.•rorllPr Iooas«rro:r*Or WW1 ,qD Na: 0,3-09-07d1 Shill'NO I _ DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARDe MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT ��II� 1993 Agent: Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent Project Name: Pineapple Podiatry Project Location: 4 NE 2nd Street = ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD ;• The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I site plan modification for an elevation change for 4 NE 2nd Street, Pineapple Podiatry, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.14 acre property consists of a portion of Lots 9 & 10, Block 67, Town of Delray. At the meeting of December 4, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved, with conditions, a COA and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for the construction of a two-story, 2.858 sq. ft. mixed-use building (office and a second floor residence) with associated parking and landscaping. The design elements were approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) Eliminate the full length shutters on either side of the entry doors and install sidelights and a transom as indicated on the original plan. 2) Install shutters on the second floor of the west elevation to match those proposed along the remaining facades. 3) That the existing 6' wood fence be replaced and painted white to match the proposed picket fence. 4) That additional design elements be added to the north elevation (for example: continuing the porch element to create a faux porch with not more than a 3' projection, adding a gable vent, and/or adding a decorative entrance gate on the first floor of the north elevation). Revised plans were submitted addressing the conditions of approval. Construction of the project is nearly complete. The applicant is now before the Board for review of a COA and associated Class I site plan modification for the elimination of the decorative entrance gate on the north elevation as proposed in the condition of approval (#4) as Meeting Date: August 4,2004 Agenda Item: III.B. 4 NE 2"d Street Pineapple Podiatry-OSSHAD Page 2 stated above. The proposal involves the installation of a white wood gate which measures 3.5' in height and is designed to mimic the pickets installed on the second floor balcony. ANALYSIS 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)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall include (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. The original proposal for the 2,858 sq. ft., two-story mixed-use building did not include a decorative gate on the first floor. The intent of the Board was to introduce a design element that would give the appearance of a front entryway from the front façade. As the gate provides no specific function and only serves to conceal the porch from the right-of-way, there is no pragmatic purpose for its retention. Further, as the porch can be viewed from NE 2nd Street as well as the parking area from the west, the gates do not truly give the appearance of a front entrance but rather a decorative balustrade as seen on the railing above. Therefore, the elimination of the decorative gates can be supported with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2nd Street, 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 Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. 4 NE 2nd Street Pineapple Podiatry-OSSHAD Page 3 C. Deny approval of the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2"d Street, based upon a finding that the request and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for Pineapple Podiatry, 4 NE 2nd Street, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. Attachments: Approved & Proposed Elevations Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner 4 2 8.2 Allhii . ' 9 zr..imsi . 1 - \ 4 8.3 FIB ED 4 20'-10" Z 1E1 -71 r BEARING POINT 3 cp 0.1 N - - - coF-5-1—/f' • Co - \ z 40 1 1'-6" . U • \ SECOND FLOOR a Fs] ® 8.1 PINEAPPLE PODIATRY tf 111111111111111111MMIIIMI - illi 2 - - — 8.0 - - 0 - - I I s _. 1 Alk r LJ • 0 r W — . OFiIl'�R.SLAB \ ' I• V r R i 4 2 8.2 • 'XIV ri: 1 I I \ C Flk ED 20'-10" T IR BEARING POINT_ - - 11 0-------------- ± - _ E....," _ _ , — - ' ----.. : . -.-E F • m Z . i „ '-6" o El 1-1 SECOND FLOOR - 3 \ U 8.1 F6-1 , PINEAPPLE PODIATRY — 1 \,__ _ - l_____..- 2 - - 8.0 - - e - - 7 ems— - - - - - --Eim_mminiiii: ---(‘-i ril---- Z H1 2 -� 80 6 -- L2- ►,) E-1 FIN.FLR.SLAB HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Project Location: Atlantic Avenue, I-95 to Ocean Boulevard and Pineapple Grove Way Project Agent: Downtown Joint Venture/Merchant&Business Association ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD Consideration of approval of the proposed "Rooftop Lighting Program" developed by the Downtown Joint Venture in collaboration with the Downtown Merchant and Business Association. The program incorporates all properties along Atlantic Avenue from 1-95 to Ocean Boulevard and along Pineapple Grove Way. BACKGROUND: The Downtown Joint Venture, responsible for the marketing and development of the "Rooftop Lighting Program", is designed to attract more people to the downtown area during the holiday season creating a spectacular holiday destination point for downtown Delray. It is based on the fact that light has a special appeal to everyone, especially during the holiday season. Joint Venture will use materials purchased from Christmas Designers Inc. consisting of 14 AWG stranded wire with a thermoplastic rubber-coated plug for safe connection to the electrical outlet. Each cord has a candelabra base sealed with a rubber washer to prevent corrosion from moister and the elements. Each candelabra base holds one, 130 volt, 7 watt commercially-rated 3000 hour bulb. The lights will be installed along the top roof line architectural elevation of the buildings. Each building will be permitted in compliance with applicable building and electric codes. Some sample building photos are attached for your reference. The lights may be installed between September and October 2004 and would remain up_ year-round for other City or Joint Venture-sponsored activities throughout the year, Art & Jazz on the Avenue and July 4th Celebration. The Board is asked to consider the aesthetic appropriateness of this project for the downtown area and the proposed frequency of use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Board consider approving the "Rooftop Lighting Program" as proposed by the Downtown Joint Venture and Merchant & Business Association, establishing the number and frequency of use for the same. Attachments 7/29/04 • t,' IIIIA 11 / ?-' , ` , r Christmas \plEe July 28, 2003 ' 0 , ,, , , � � 1 ' •' ri; Dear Property Owner or Management Company: The Downtown Joint Venture in collaboration with the Downtown Merchant and • Business Association has been working on a Rooftop Lighting Program to be unveiled for the holiday festivities in December 2003. The initial approvals have been granted by city staff as well as the historic preservation staff to proceed to the next level, which is the most crucial in order for this exciting program to be implemented. This next step involves you,the property owner or property management company in some cases. Attached is the schedule of activities for the holiday season, which begin on Saturday, November 29th and will extend through New Years First Night Celebration. We have been working with Christmas Designers Inc., the firm that provided us with the 100-foot tree as well as the mechanical elves. Attached is what we think will be the most asked questions of this program as it pertains to your building. It is imperative that all of the property owners participate with this program, as the lighting must have a continuous seam from I-95 to Ocean Boulevard and along Pineapple Grove Way. We have negotiated a cost per foot based on the complexity of each roofline and have also negotiated a 3-year payoff including installation. The lights would be installed during September/October and would remain up yet-round for other City or Joint Venture sponsored activities throughout the year, such as Art & JR77 on the Avenue and July 4th Celebration. There are also attached some sample building photos, specification for the electrical materials as well as the insurance coverage verification.from Christmas Designers. • This is the Bottom line We need you to participate with this program and allow us to schedule a meeting with you and the lighting company to discuss your individual building needs and costs. Unless every property owner participates, this project will not get final approval from the City Commission. Yes! My property/properties will participate in the Rooftop Lighting Program for the 2003 Holiday Season in downtown Delray Beach. Name Property Addresses Phone number Please return completed form to Marjorie Ferrer by mail or fax: 561-278-0555 no later than August 15th. DELRAY BEACH JOINT VENTURE • Community Redevelopment Agency • Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce • Downtown Development Authority 64-A S.E.Fifth Avenue, Delray Beach,FL 3348.3 • Tel: 561-279-1380 Ext. 16 • Fax:561-278-0555 • www.delraybeachvillagebythesea.com ,� Christmas .4 THEE DELRAY BEACH'S FAMOUS 100-FOOT CHRISTMAS TREE FIRST NIGHT 2004 Office Depot International Holiday Festivities 2003...A community celebration of the Holidays, focused on the famous 100 foot Christmas Tree that represents the 100 years of Delray's history. International First Night 2004. A community celebration of the New Year through the arts. It is a visual and performing arts festival created by and for the community to welcome the New Year. History... During the month of December, Delray Beach will demonstrate its hometown All-America City harmony with weeks devoted to a series of holiday festivities,culminating with the First Night Celebration 2004. Activities include... Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony... Art & Jazz on the Avenue... Holiday Boat Parade... Holiday Parade Downtown... Breakfast with Santa... Kid's Day at the Tree... Snow! Snow! Snow!... Holiday Toy Drives...Ice Skating Rink... Holiday Carousel. All-America Family First Night 2004...and more! NEW!! Spectacular Rooftop Lighting Display on buildings along Atlantic Avenue and Pineapple Grove Way. Attendance... Last year, over 500,000 visitors shared in the festivities in downtown Delray Beach focused around the 100 foot Tree,with an additional 30,000 attending First Night. Location...The tree festivities will take place on the grounds of Old School Square, the cultural center of the downtown. Other sites throughout downtown will become venues for a variety of very special holiday and First Night 2004 activities. Participation... The uniqueness of the 100-foot Christmas Tree and the arts celebration of First Night sets the stage for innovation and public interaction through many community activities in Delray Beach,where everyone is a participant. DELRAY BEACH JOINT VENTURE • Community Redevelopment Agency • Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce • Downtown Development Authority 64-A S.E. Fifth Avenue,Delray Beach,FL 33483 • Tel:561-279-1380 Ext. 16 • Fax:561-278-0555 • www.delraybeachvillagebythesea.com , e3. :...„,, , . cr .4„, , _ - , ...., :, , ';4 1 14. •St4t . Thrigmag .7.1 piottery Witt, OVERVIEW We at CTjrfOttnao kkofgaev feel very strongly that lighting the various buildings, City, Historical and Retail, will create a very special appeal for all that come to the City of Delray Beach, especially during the Holiday Beason. With the tallest tree in Florida on display and the numerous Holiday Events that occur, it has been our experience that lights draw people_ For example, many years ago when the National Enquirer was hosting their Holiday Event, it brought thousands of people to Lantana. The same objective will happen in Downtown Delray Beach. The proposed building lighting project will bring more people to the Downtown Area and the vast retail sector, from Atlantic Avenue to the beach, that might not happen during the Holidays and special events throughout the year. The overall goal of all parties involved is to accomplish the creation of a Spectacular Holiday Destination Point for the City of Delray Beach and bring all of Atlantic Avenue together with the tree to create the Holiday Destination Point, simply being the City of Delray Beach. 3124 N.W. 16th Terrace• Pompano Beach, FL 33064 4 (954)973-4225• FL 1-800-432-5139 • FAX(954)973-0914 Christmas Designers, Inc. Light Line Installation,Takedown & Service Most Commonly Asked Questions How are the lights attached to each building? The type of attachment method varies depending on the type of material the building is made of. Materials can include,wood, concrete,stucco, styrofoam core material,tile,or various other materials that can alter the way we have to install the lights. When deciding on the type of method used to install the lights,we also have to take into account the age of the building as well as regulations by the Historical Society that might not allow us to use certain attachment methods.All methods must first be approved by the appropriate Historical Society committee. How long will the cord and bulbs last on the buildings? The life expectancy of the cord and bulbs varies greatly depending on the amount of time per year the lights are installed.Weather conditions also play a significant role in the life expectancy of the cord and bulbs. Each bulb used in our light line is factory rated for 3000 hours,however,this rating is under optimum conditions.We have found that 2000 hours seems to be a more accurate estimate, which can vary depending on various factors including;handling method, electrical service quality(i.e. high voltage, low voltage,power surges, etc.), and weather conditions. The life of the cord varies greatly depending on the amount of time each year the lights are left up. If the lights are up year round,the cord can be expected to last between two and three years, depending on weather conditions. If the lights are left up on a seasonal basis and then removed after the holiday season (September to January),the cord should last for approximately five seasons. What type of wire and components are used for the light line? Christmas Designers light line is made from the following: The cord consist of 14 AWG stranded wire with a thermoplastic rubber coated plug for safe connection to the electrical outlet. Attached to the cord are the candelabra bases (c7) sealed with a rubber washer to prevent corrosion from moisture and the elements. Each candelabra base holds one 130 volt, 7 watt commercially rated 3000 hour bulb. How much electrical do we need? The amount of electric needed for each building depends on how many feet of light line are installed on the building. The easiest way to determine the amount of electricity that you will need to have is by using the following formula: Number of feet of cord X 7 watts=total watts/115 volts=Amps needed For example,if the building requires 375 feet of cord to be installed,the total number of amps needed would be 23 amps. (375 X 7=2625/115=22.8 amps) How does the service on the lights work? During the holiday season, our complete service package is built into the price of the lights. Our standard, seasonal service goes from Thanksgiving to January 2. We have service crews in the Delray Beach area at least three nights a week to repair or replace any broken or damaged bulbs, cord, or plugs. Please note that our standard service package does not include free repair of vandalized lights or cords. After season,we have various service packages available if the lights are to be left up on a year round basis. What if I want to repaint or remodel my building? In cases of repainting or remodeling a building,the lights would have to be removed until the renovation is complete. In order to reinstall the lights, there would be an additional reinstallation charge. When would you begin installing the lights? In order to make sure the lights are completely installed and fully operational by Thanksgiving, we would need to be able to begin installing the lights as early as the first week of September. This allows us plenty of time for unknown weather conditions,possible electrical problems, or any other unknown variable that might cause the installation to take longer than anticipated. How long would it take to get all the lights installed? The amount of time it would take to install all of the lights would mainly depend on the overall size of the job. Of course the more lights there are,the longer it would take and the larger the workforce would have to be to complete the task. Another factor that plays a big role in the timeliness of installation is the weather. A closer estimate on the amount of time it would take can be calculated once we have a better idea of how many feet of light line the job would consist of. How is the pricing of the lights determined? The way we price our light line installation is determined by a couple of factors. The most important factor used to determine the pricing is what type of equipment we need to utilize to gain access to the building in order to install the light line. The other factor in determining the price is the type of structural material that we will be attaching the lights to. Some types of building material are much more difficult and much more time consuming to install light line on. As a result,this is reflected in the pricing. Now entering its seventh season, "Bright Nights at Forest Park" is New England's single most popular - holiday destination, with an enormous impact on tourism in the Pioneer Valley. Area accommodations, attractions and restaurants have been quick to recognize the value of the event, and many have partnered with event organizer, Spirit of Springfield in offering packages to tourists. In 2000, 883 tour buses and 52,047 cars came through "Bright Nights at Forest Park," with the passengers eating meals, staying in hotels, and visiting other area attractions before and after their visit to the park. Total event attendance is estimated at 1.7 million. In addition to tourism dollars generated by "Bright Nights at Forest Park," the event has paid $4.8 million to area vendors, including $521,600 to the Springfield Police Department and $385,000 to the Springfield Park Department. Economic Impact of the Spirit of Springfield The Spirit of Springfield is a private, nonprofit organization incorporated in 1989 upon the closing of the Mayor's Office of Community Affairs' Producing quality, family-friendly events that inspire pride and happiness in the community, the Spirit of Springfield is an established economic generator. In addition to exerting a positive influence on the direction of the city, the organization acts as a community resource, improves the image of the city, and enhances the quality of life here. In the organizations ten-year history, the Spirit of Springfield has grown from a staff of three producing four events to a staff of five producing nine annual events. Led by President Judith A. Matt, the Spirit- of Springfield is often called upon by city departments and community organizations to assist with special events, such as mayoral inaugurations, police academy graduations, and a visit by President William Clinton. In addition to "Bright Nights at Forest Park," the Spirit of Springfield produces a full calendar of popular and successful events, including the "World's Largest Pancake Breakfast," recently named a Local Legacy Event by the United States Library of Congress, "Peter Pan Taste of Springfield," "Star Spangled Springfield," "Parade of the Big Balloons," and more. The Spirit of Springfield has entertained some 5.7 million people with its diverse repertoire of events. The organization impacted the local economy by paying$11.6 million to area vendors over the past ten years. Corporate contributions totaled $1.6 million, and in-kind contributions amounted to more than $3.5 million. - ._. . ., . PIGEON • TENNESSU geou Forge Department Of Tourism • P.O. Box 1390 • Pigeon Forge, TN 37868 • 1-800-947-9669 • www.pigeonforgepr.com For immediate release: For more information call: April 26,2002 Kay Powell,453-8574 • PIGEON FORGE WINTERFEST CONTINUES WINNING WAYS Pigeon Forge,Tenn.—Pigeon Forge Winterfcst,a three-time winner of the Southeast Tourism.Society's Festival of the Year Award,recently completed its 12th year, and tourism officials are celebrating the event's most successful year to date. Winterfest takes place over a three-and-one-half-month period,mid- November through February. The city's gross receipts for 2001-2002 . Winterfest show an increase of 177 percent over the same four-month period twelve years ago,prior to the beginning of the event. Comparing the same time periods,Pigeon Forge attractions show an increase of 553 percent in gross business receipts, while the city's lodging industry showed a 480 percent increase. "We're especially proud of this Winterfcst,"stated Ka Powell, assistant director, Pigeon Forge Department of Tourism. "Last year was particularly difficult for many in the tourism industry,and for Pigeon Forge to come through the winter months with such positive numbers speaks highly of our city and the people who work so hard to produce this outstanding event." For information about Pigeon Forge Winterfest 2002-2003, call 1-800-251-9100 or visit www.mypigeonforge.com. END Editors'note: Visit www.pigeonforgepr.com for more information about Pigeon Forge. • • . . • Vs • • • • • ' •/ . • • ,••• —c .,/ : . . •, •• .• . , . dr, ... . ••,.• •• ,•• * • ,.e,- • •+ \ • ,„ t . . ••:: . , ' ' ' rV, ; r . . ,1• • / ,. +, ' e.• •/ , '' I• , . if •:! • •• ' a.„. r'.„!.1 • ' r. tf ; • ' 4 :I• • i ‘. •• • • - • • e ' • • a • ri • • , • .• v • • • . . I • .•• • •• (0 , •• .h,=:.- ••' • "0 • • • •.• • •.**110,:e•i e' , Arrini•••,•. .:;.-.. c.. • •• • . . 'V:Id.' i•• •• • ' ./,: :., .7.44. ''414444444144,.„' ' .. 111.6 I- ••-• •' • • Jua,,IS:'Ne*St"W • •WOO..---• . . • • : o 4,..1; •, ,i.• ,, ,,, • , • ,,11(•••V. ,•• • , 4 V. : •' _ f/...'AT/ii•• • i.'• ' '" • .% • 145. ' •. '.5•11,. ....44tok.1.,C:: '1., . •. /' el..,' •j •. : • '•/. • • •'.S.Z•/'.•41 .• ' j• : _ .. • 7.41V‘0" • • :'. '.••1 • •4 :. .i'"•• . • .j..0'• . ' '''.'!4•J:°'..• . . i • • •••''' •• ,... . • .:r' • • ''''.: 1 . i^• • . , . •, /ttlk 41•• ..:••• ' ' t- .1i' •-' ./ :• si; • • I. .q.% • "10 ''.%'•...'• ' .1 • •• • • •Z.. .4 ,;',...;" . .... .• •. . • •••1•-y.,,,,,, . ,...cil; .,..4 ' • • ••• ' • .4.''. '%. ' •N' • . .0„•%; , ...71. .....•.•.. .. :•. 4 • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • 11.111m& .0 '",-- ......' ,,,,le,,•.., •;,, ••t./ • • • ' , ,,• .1. '•,,,. c,'V c ! ., .., Jr •,,,,:s.:1, .,,,, •:, •• •• •;...• "IA.2.•"---7------- --- '- — • s'.., • • 0 . .. , .*:‘,•..... • , . . ,t, .•. . .• ,. •• * •••14CIL .1.4 . . ,.. • •L:Y,',. •. '"- ! 1 • %I, .• j • • ' 4. 1 r• . - •• -I Itl• ' —- . • -- .A.. .. XI*0 t • . ito) .• ' . • . ‘ . t ,eb ' • • ',.'• •• " '-: • .i,.. . :....:.• •-•.,•• . . . . ...Ism • . 1 a • ., . : . ,. ,,, . r d ,...•• .. . .• •• ••., •••,, Alr vri----- ll - '-iik \4N.: •• *• ',.:,7".!••.., ••• • • . • • : ...• • ,I1,•, ..:U. ..... .' • .....' ..,,t "...,••••$ -• • .........J • t • • • :••• • i '1,11, ' •;•• ' . „, ' 6 1,.. - , ...:•*.: .i'r ,,v.,.1,74it*Sr.74't.':'•., .,. ' RcicIli i N.:--,• ••• •. •• •. •. . . . • • • • Atill.74'••,' i 7101 .• • . .• . . . .... . .. .. . . •d • ...- • . : • •• . ,4 .. :•.: .::::,,,:,.,2*;5,t,,,,..t.'. k • , ., • ... . - ..•• ....... :':, .' .:71%. .... .., •.... : . •• .,,i','.',:.i. 4.,• .•,‘' :;, ., f",../•-t•ror 'at • • • - •• •• I 1 ••• -. . 7:4..‘:. :'r:... •a ••••••Z' .. ••••• • •:: i ' '''.'-'41""tv; .*. ''' ; : ill .• ..,, . :• • •.:.". • . 1 1 I. 1....• •,.• 1 •• .'• •• .:• ,. . .. , . . . .•.*:•. • Atiiti.4,2,' : '•, • i-,-; 11 • • • . • . . . •• .4,,pag: willt :. . .-• 1 • .4•:.:.' I •,.., . •.• •....e, . .=:'../ — ,..t....------ ... . •. •''.• • ..•••••• • • - --__— . ...._ .. .., ....- O _.... __ ..._ . * e.- 1... • tY.,;/ • li .. ..•4* • ..•":: :',.„...„.„..,, . •-• /IV • ,....mextta-. ,,,..... ...... . -......•••-. * . • _,.........-• • • • • . ..* . • . .• • , • . . . . . . • . .- .,-___-- .., ' •' . •.• •,: „....,•.....14,4'-'•--- —.-.__ ....... — VAT. .__. .... . ... . . . • - . . . . V • , .. • • . •. ... .. . , _ ' . . . . • .. . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .. . . . , . • . • _.-._ _ • • • . • • . . . • . . ..... , , .... • • . • . - • . . . - . • . . • . . . • . eliri,5t.ntar'--.73es'igiter •Int. r ,.. . . -7 • . • . . • . . . •,.__,• , .. Yr' 5-lrT n k'j hh I�+rt A, f+iI 11"...1�'f1fp t nr f (r r ArIIA1.T � 1,14',H ,,� '^- My )' Y J'.,1, '1 Ye, Uln,ri Tei4:4', n'i ydp�a A ir . • t"o - 1. • • Ipry} oi'.,y d+ti4 �X n rYe: 1 r x • f '. y 0' • W � k 4lr hir ✓r x ++ a , .r+-• •� r"?.: wdA ^ 41x�I f �Kr � ��A4 1n tA',V d't ..'.+ .�>�K� ' F Y �7 dt,, v ,'I y�rff+�S V l KiY ii�YPA �rI a r r ♦'0+ 9�.6rr4`$V a tG Ac dl}f,i "7 � r+ rI t •``d F'a 59¢k,elq.cr`• u"Yt *## a • I * � # +ru � I IyJ:' i " c ~j VP «i ? $>Sn1 4v ##* *01„1�rx } r � ^k ' 4-;' 4d' 4 ,. . • ,r �i-n ' \\S f ' ' ¢71 +, ` • )C • • • f. p Yl • •:.,••';:,••,,,',:::,•••.• •,'•,.•''',..;',,,,,, . ,'•.. • • • • • •;`V -•t.i..,,4iVit',. •'•• ••':•••'''';'..",:..•.-,,,...71,.t-7-7-•-•-•-•-• •.-a • ''''''''''•,• - � )�• •'• y« �• • ;y •fiStljsK `. • # , — # �iM *' - .. ' • r dt�r st y r .'111• # •�}• I I * * • •d ,� n . f, r .. • { 5'. •w • e r •r �' • •: �►►• • ..• . .• .• . . ` i r �k, fnd' ;p, -1 i'`,t TJ, .o ,J ta.,, � 7R'�'1 * ` * * ! • !• t r {F.:f_ f,,4 • • t F t, p' rr ,, 4n Yy M.,, "* . '#• 7 • i :» 1 • • erjri tinzS ertcgners' 31nc. • ', .1, • •• . . • , • . • ,•• • . • , . .. ' ' , ... ......, ..• 0 ' , . . „ .• , -.,. .*.-• • 1,•••• .4 • • . . .; . . . .. . . • . . • •• • ' • k.•• . • • • '' IN" ' s.•' . '-' '-''''''''1••••-'•-,;•'''..::.'',.•..•'.44t:'''.„,..''•.:,.',..7.•;-,•-•7:777 .:•4;.....--, . . .. • • • ..,. _.,,..... • 1,,,'.'',.',411,,,%,.', , ,.,,,,.. .-.:. •,. •,... -•.. , ....,,;;),•,•••• ••,..•.',•,?;,.:•••.;,?;:,.•.;;;:-... ..,:;.,',6;1`•;•,S;iq•••••••s•..,':,:..•...:J.,:rittat.444. ta414.4 • , • . •,, .. .. .,,i,.. • • • ..,,: .,.„ ,., 1., .‘„..,,,..,.:. . ..., ...'#,,,,, ,,,,, i i' `, ,,,• ''' , . ''',,:,c7v.:",'‘."..';','i,..,-,'„',,,,,',2_:,*, 4,,,,,t,i,;,,:,,:.'i:',LI,.1,,,..$4,,,,,,,:., , ,,. : . • • •• • • • oil . . . I . , ' ,..' .,:4",•.°' '-`•;• • ,' ' ' , •... i:'',-..44; ,,,,,:,, ,,„..,,. '• . ..1 ', •• •'.:, — ''''-' Z•1.;•••,e''''...14441•C;47,.:..:i', .•.,".••...,4,4 , .':'-•-•-,,---•. . '---. ' ••4,,, 4. .e.".''''''.3'-• i.':?.':,- • ?.1 rk• r,7 : 1 - . '1.,-t' •.'-'2•.iilgti.k....t•-' :.'.e'v.tea.: • 4 • .,.. ..... •• ... • 0 • l— . t .„-.. .':,'..?'„,,',.•;••-•,..'....,•..••••.•:•••,•?•':,.r..v ." 4 - '.','. • •.•,,,,,„• '.,,' . , .., . . ' . : ..;,..,,,,,.,,,,,,1,,,,i',...e•,,,,,,,,I.,m;,,!. ,,,,,,,.,,,,,,-;,,,...1,,,,,J,;,..; t,e.,. e, qy:....1,..„•,14.1...„;;•:„,•44',,, 1, •.,.4 os ,;:-,1,:;.•'..,'11.'-'•-'..,e:4 •.4. • I • . • • ',,,•• . .^ -.'•., '.; ' . ' ' ..' ''',•:,';'•••?:,..•',' ,.'••,;•_ei-:•,e;:''..".',..:',.:••,,i',.,i•--,•••../...::',,;',,,:ii,...- '.1^,91:';, ' 'r.,•'.,,,,.. '..',,,••••41.1Y,44 ...?-.' .i.-,;i., .. .,,r,,,..,,..,-,,c1,4.,..,‘-y.:&;:it4?-.3,,,o, a' ''''4-'''''4`4"':;''•:::..' 7-;1':V.,!!(47•7.ii,',11Vit.......... . . . . .• ) • • _i 7 4 t 1 ',, .- ,';'-'7•4i '. 4 '4':' •,, -?• .,..'•49..11,i,,K.,,,'...,..,,,,f,94.•...q ‘,. ,,,,;:,,... 7. :..,,',,,,i,--',.';'4'4'..,4,4'. •"I'',.' 1.... • • i • •. , i *. ,' i . .X.,C,..1., •.`" • • • . • • .• • , • . :Z',f,At.. 0 i.....i.!, ......i'.'.;.:t • • • • • • • 4'' ' ,„. i'• :.'.',....,A.,.,..'j.,;...;,'.;,.:':'. '.• ..::'',".."..'•-';'';')...';',1::..,,' . ."•••• "1S . " 1 ••••••••.,p.„. * * * * • • • I • . —7.:;,,....:3; 1••\. - '''.''.:':''',..•,:',-;-.',.;;::••,•',•...';'......',-.;.::::'::, '. ,-•:.,.•''...,.:`•7'.••'.!.,, . ,•$.... ......,,x;,.•;,:is ..,,,:i:...,,i .,, ,... * 4.1 • - 4w,..,..%;..,..•••.;.41.,.-.••.•4:•-.:;:i.--•.:,-,i,r,..... • .' • . • . •.4. wvi-,0,..q..,;,..•, .. ,...!.... , i.. . • • ::.:•••,• ,- . ..ii, ..or ..,.:-.'•;•.-1:,,,.•.-;..,4,c,*..., . .... .;IN,,,,•..,..,-.„:,, •••;-. •••.:,...•;,•,,.,,•m -,.#•7.4.. ltrti• • ..v.• 11•••• • i.i)it.'•,l..'''-f' ‘,....• . '1-:',:' '• '''';''''''''''''''''.. ''. ,"V-;.,•'•••=;••'•:-•,-", ,v-••.•: •-••,,,,,,,. --.,,A.4,3. h n ....,4:e.,, . ...„. i..,...a . •• • • • • •• --,-77..7,:,. , g 1.i''..;•1., ,. :,,' ' ' •'"i'''. ' ' •-..c. , ' :,,,,•,,e•- • • .''- '. '4. w"glii.li • ,,' *• el - • . • ......- •••* a• .• .... . . • . •, . 4 .,. • 1 ''''.' '''''•'3‘••••'" ...••0 . t, ' ,,•/.., • ' ,,,;;•, r ti... r4 ,.. •:.. i * • r . • i‘*4** / .,„. .!,, . -1, • • , ,, .,,.., : •, • • . • •:: .44';''''''*'''''' .. . .. I. i \ .0;•F•'• •••• •'••• • : • ... *. •• • • . ..• •. .• •. . . ,, . • ... . , • , • . . . . • .• - 1 ....: ., . .. .. '• .. . . • 1. , .... i . .. •: . .* .. . ... • . .•. •• •• . ,„, •• .• ••• • •• • . , , . ,, , - .* r •. • , • ' . . . *. • . ; • •..*. ' • 1.t•.•?, i-,•‘.0....-*•.•'.• . • ... • . • •„ .. •. . , , • ,,,,,,, ,,,ti:,...•,. • • • • ,. . • - , .....„ -- .—.,... . ........._ . .._ ...... _ _ . ______ ..... _......__ --_-- ............... ... _. .. ... — -----------------------_—_--- . ...-----•----------------------- ...,,etk.60,41,,. • e1iri5tina5 Des'igiter.5 .3111r. ., • • 4'41 • • ` ' 5 W<a JAS,�DTI`LORD f°.4 ;,r �''° � �r � r ;,,, • ,...„,„,i, 'y• i1 .. MlNv . �yfyll�flD i,!:.:!i,. ( :�.� '^irr .�� - L... •• •............. ..;M.1I nf(. I. • 1C 1 1{ I I ��'".t' Qa •� • . {y( .+. IAI•• 1.•• f'• 5� �1 •' }' [.I,,a ill II ;" '�•- }'S,,' 1 ip �1i ii :'.F •• F� • r ... II JLNF:LBY F QYjrtttntas' Des'tgners' Inc. • j •� ,. .. • • • ) 1. • • ; •• 1• . .tit J1,; i . `'• .* I. fig. i! . `' • *., 4' •') . jam-.' :. "(; • • .4 4r�� • I o t f t • • • •� r U I Irk IR•�1`+ *.1k*+* • ••••• I.). se. • • • • •• `'' },,,, • , • .• . \ •, • \.•/ t 1 71,...s'`q"qN"".+L•'„-,,"y`r`"'*:'"-•,..•'M.. '.,, i• ,,'•'fir.1•�(� ..•. A. • S/l ' • • ' " r . �; M .•I itp• ''�I- ry ��aq, i :R• w.CYv,,. .Y " :• pA.*.i • • • • ,a 7 • • • • •t • *.;..., .' • -.7. :. -1.1,.:....<*•,*:.‘,- ..,., ,:.* \ : %., .,. .. .... : ..i •• ., . :,.•..-:"--;...--•*. • i v.• • • r �1 ,\ ,,.. •,rT w, • L.ti,:r.... • k• _ .'f, t , .•. .a • �• , • � .•;.• • S ' • • •• ~• 1 a � . • t ,' ',* :I W. �, �.r -r +x-k" }� i .L • $$ • • • • •' • ` t Y ��}0S .A I�.uav h yte II .• •• • .... .. .. • • v1 . .......,,fir..,...m...,.. • • ...re .,- .e.•..Mli'AMwrrn y,ynna , ? o w1° britrma g •� e f i •' •• :�.' / i *i 9P U 5.11W9 .0r91 .1113./_ s 911 1!1 1 1R IL A■* #.91991 1t 3 i l J .."ii *111IPO.9.i.3111 Q.IP!!_II JP r : �PLAL,a s ita l� #�.y.�1 i1Y y.l!. r1•.:;_:r: • r NtM•it".9K- t.it,Ut 4110*-1 4*.* -**ii4`�lk i-.4/ik 4 4 i 41 if i10� • 4M is r r• • ... • • • w • •• :11'ii'i'ri'iiiY`•i'iibiY'ii•e �i• as••lsii� `._. l••••• . ^ t • • • 1 I s 1 i• 1. • ••••••••--n• •.•---.• , .,,.xi. •'•:......,... .. ... ... -, ',1'....."7":. .T..:f:. .,, ,,. . • • . ' • • • •_ Ar. .��.......•; n.,4�rtt . .. r•, t tt t;, • . I, �1+� 5t • 4 "I rt tit • 4 \ • .t r • '• , It' ' n • l • ( 1 r.rr7r•w• r,r .►P f"• .rre C”... •s1♦ •wyf. t.wr.. • .rh•' } q rr: ' e /j i ff 4 I •• • .: ^.. '� _ ...... .µ.•. 1 t,r e t JsA?1i'r F77t7 k , rt •: `+.i I <•r . •'s' ':1,.:.:'..'.'.;:f. "..''' • • } • • ' •?• >L j . . •: • • -.:, 1It, . c, is .� _ _ _ �� 4 DELRAY BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Preliminary Estimated Light Line Costs CLASS I BUILDINGS Simple architectural lines with easy installation logistics without lift equipment $3.50 per foot to $4.25 per foot per season CLASS II BUILDINGS Simple to moderately intricate architectural lines with a more complex installation utilizing lift equipment $4.50 per foot to $7.00 per foot per season LIGHT POLE DECORATION CONCEPTS $250.00 to $500.00 per season The material contained herein is the property of CHRISTMAS DESIGNERS, INC. Reproduction, copying, or use without prior consent is strictly prohibited. \kl\delraybeach-cofc\03prop.wpd Q1 jrigtniag Begigucrg, Inc. Pompano Beach, Florida Estimated Costs of Buildings Shown A) THE COLONY HOTEL Class II building, approximately 1250' @ $6.00 per foot $7,500.00 per season for three seasons B) FROM THE COLONY HOTEL WEST TO ROTELLI'S Class I buildings, approximately 250' @ $3.50 per foot $875.00 per season for three seasons C) ATLANTIC ANTIQUE MALL Class II building, approximately 800' @ $5.00 per foot $4,000.00 per season for three season D) FROM ATLANTIC ANTIQUE MALL EAST TO JASON LORD Class I building, approximately 950' @ $3.50 per foot $3,325.00 per season for three season The material contained herein is the property of CHRISTMAS DESIGNERS, INC. Reproduction,copying, or use without prior consent is strictly prohibited. \kl\delraybeach-cofc\03prop.wpd Q!brigtmag 33egignerg, 3tnt. Pompano Beach, Florida DELRAY BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Estimated Costs of Buildings Shown A) City Hall Class I building, approximately 900' @ $3.50 per foot $3,150.00 per season for three seasons B) Police Department Class II building, approximately 475" @ $4.75 per foot $2,256.25 per season for three seasons The material contained herein is the property of CHRISTMAS DESIGNERS, INC. Reproduction, copying, or use without prior consent is strictly prohibited. \kI\delraybeach-cofc103prop.wpd Christmas Designers, Inc. Pompano Beach, Florida 07/31/2003 10:05 9549730914 CDI ENTERPRISES PAGE 02 i : .. V. COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA LIABILITY POLICY DECLARATIONS ,wid, if D BY: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ;' POLICY NUMBER I yi., Q:r: 77-CU-589-560-0004D j a': d Insured CHRISTMAS DESIGNERS INC ►nB Address, 3124 NW 16TH TERRACE POMPANO BEACH FL 33084 .4 --C, :•,s ;_-" of Business: jndlvidual []Partnership 0 Limited Liability Company 1Z1 Corporation µ• : Other: < y Period: From 06 01 2003 to 06 01 2004 At 12:01 AM,standard lima,at yaJr address as stela!herein. .+; MO DAY YR MO DAY YR ,,� dui.of Underlying Insurances: Carrier,Policy Number,Period • Coverage Limits .nwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company j, .--589-560-0001 D General Liability $2,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE 'f , -03 to OB-01-04 $1,000,000 PROD/COMP OPERATIONS ,I° $1,000,000 EACH OCCURRENCE ,,,, , . $1,000,000 PERSONAL/ADVERT INJURY Alt fix;' it of Insurance/Liability: • ,'. I Occurrence Limit $ 1,000,000 ;; : } Aggregate Limit: $ 1,000,000 a.•;:., Wined Limit: $ NONE ?`,-, nuai Premium: $ 450.00 -,E.,:;.arms and Endorsements made part of this policy. ; .: CAS 3231A-0496 CAS 2527B-0794 CAS 4105-1289 CAS 3805A-1197 CAS 3272-0188 ;- • CAS 4270-0800 GAS 4297 CAS 3299A-0B97 CAS 3243-0186 CAS 3270-0186 -:"'' • CAS 3282-0186 CAS 3277A-1289 CAS 3279 CAS 6233-1102 1Y. .:;.:is event of cancellation by you,we shall receive and retain not less than$100.00 as the Minimum Premium. ,. ',,... -le of issue: LHP 08-04-03 Issuing Office: P.O.BOX 147080 :,„; tt ry� A g LFL32 �; ,:''untersignature Date 4-al'oc Agency at � . r ,:: Agent&No. D G BRITTEN CHIC CLU,#4213719-09 A RGE1589580.CU0 •:.,;.,4, %-1-14.40264—'a" • c'.,,z .3232-A (3-00) DEERaY BEACH - DEFRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION.BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT IIIl® 2W1 2001 MEETING OF: AUGUST 4, 2004 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING LDR TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURES IN THE RO (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Background: The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding a City initiated LDR text amendment to allow multiple family structures in the RO (Residential Office) zoning district. The RO zoning district was adopted in May 1986 to encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of deteriorating structures by allowing a mix of residential and office uses in the area generally one block east and west of Swinton Avenue, between Atlantic Avenue and NE 4th Street. At that time, the designated area included the R-1-A (Single Family Residential) and RM-6 (Multi-family Dwelling District — 6 du/ac) zoning districts. The area later became a part of the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The first draft of the ordinance creating the RO district allowed multi-family developments with a base density of 7 units per acre, with an increase to 10 units per acre under special conditions. At the City Commission workshop meeting of August 6, 1985, the Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and had concerns with allowing multi-family development. The consensus was that multi-family development would not encourage office use and that the increased density would not encourage rehabilitation of existing historic structures. Thus, multi-family developments were excluded from the list of permitted uses in the RO zoning district. However, the district does allow single family and duplex development. With the Citywide rezoning and adoption of the Land Development Regulations in October, 1990, the RO zoning designation was applied to the properties located in Del — Ida Park, generally between NE 4 Street and George Bush Boulevard, and the FEC Railroad and NE 2nd Avenue. It also included properties on the north side of NE 4th Street, between Swinton Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue. Most of these properties were either converted to or were developed as offices under the previous RM-10 (Multi- Family Dwelling District) zoning designation, which allowed professional offices as a conditional use. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—Multiple Family Structures in the RO zoning district Page 2 In July 2001, a privately-initiated text amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan was requested to change the description of the Transitional land use designation to increase residential densities to 20 units per acre for properties zoned RO (Residential Office) which are adjacent to the CBD (Central Business District) and CBD-RC (Central Business District — Railroad Corridor). If approved, an amendment to the RO zoning district would have followed to allow multiple family structures. At its meeting of August 9, 2001, the CRA Board reviewed the proposed amendments and unanimously recommended denial. The Board felt it was inappropriate to increase the density over the existing maximum of 12 units per acre currently allowed in the Transitional land use designation, and that it is incompatible with the low densities to the north of the identified area. At its meeting of August 15, 2001, the HPB reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended denial. The Board felt there were already enough areas in the City that allow increased densities, that a density increase in the Del-Ida Park area would negatively affect the character of the historic district, and that it would be incompatible with the neighborhood to the north. On August 20, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the request. Subsequently, on February 5, 2002, the City Commission denied the requested text amendment to increase densities. Proposed LDR Amendment: Recently, staff has studied the RO district and is proposing to allow multiple family structures subject to density limitations and performance standards. Currently, residential units are limited to single family and duplex uses. For larger parcels, the introduction of multiple duplexes rather than townhouses with similar densities may not be appropriate. The minimum lot area for a duplex is 8,000 sq.ft. Units within a duplex are permitted to be owned separately provided each unit has a minimum 4,000 sq.ft. of lot area. Essentially, this allows development of duplexes at a density of 10 units per acre. The proposed text amendment will allow multiple family structures which will have the same density limitation of 10 units per acre, a minimum development lot size of 8,000 sq.ft. with each unit requiring a minimum of 4,000 sq.ft. of lot area. In addition, proposals which exceed 6 units per acre would be subject to performance standards consistent with those that currently exist in the RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. Thus, the proposed text amendment will allow another housing product without increasing the density beyond that which is currently permitted. The difference is that duplexes only allow two units in a detached structure with a 30' separation between structures while the multiple family structure can contain three or more dwellings in one structure. RECOMMENDED'ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the amendment to LDR Section 4.4.17 HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—Multiple Family Structures in the RO zoning district Page 3 Section 4.4.17 Residential Office (RO) District: (A) Purpose and Intent: The Residential Office (RO) District provides for mixed use of a neighborhood office and residential nature. The RO District is appropriate as: (1) A transitional land use between a commercial or industrial area and a residential area. (2) An incentive zoning in older residential areas which are in the need of redevelopment or revitalization or are in a state of transition. (3) To accommodate professional offices which will meet needs of nearby neighborhoods. (B) Principal Uses and Structures Permitted: The following types of use are allowed within the RO District as a permitted use: (1) Single family detached dwelling units. (2) Duplex structures. (3) Multiple family structures. (8 4) Business and professional offices. (45) Abused spouse residence limited to forty (40) or fewer residents. (66) Funeral parlors, funeral homes. (67) Parking lots not associated with a use, pursuant to an adopted neighborhood or redevelopment plan. (78) Group Home, Type 1, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(1). (C) Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted: The following uses are allowed when a part of, or accessory to, the principal use: (1) Parking lots. (2) Refuse and service areas. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—Multiple Family Structures in the RO zoning district Page 4 (3) Uses and structures normally associated with residences such as: bird aviaries, boat docks, dog houses and dog runs, garages, greenhouses, guest cottages, playhouses, pool houses and covers, pump houses, slat houses, storage sheds, tennis courts, workshops, swimming pools, and home occupations. (4) Family day care pursuant to restrictions set forth in 4.3.3(T) (Child care, up to five children). (5) Recreational facilities attendant to a subdivision which is operated under a bonafide homeowners association such as: tennis courts, swimming pools, exercise area, and clubhouse. (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the RO District: (1) Child care and adult day care. (2) Residential Licensed Service Provider Facilities, subject to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(D). (3) Bed and breakfast establishments. (4) Group Home, Type 2, and Community Residential Homes, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(1). (E) Review and Approval Process: (1) All residential USCG Single family and duplex uses allowed as a principal use or accessory use thereto shall be allowed upon application to and approval by the Chief Building Official for structures which require a building permit and which otherwise comply with applicable use restrictions. (2) Multiple family uses and structures must be approved by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or Historic Preservation Board, as applicable, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.4.5(F), 2.4.5(H), and (I). (23) For new development or the first time establishment of nonresidential approval must be granted by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or Historic Preservation Board, as applicable, pursuant to Sections 2.4.5(F), (H) and (I). (34) Conditional uses must be approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.4.5(E). (45) The creation of a new lot for the purpose of building a single family residence or establishing a principal use on its own parcel required platting pursuant to Section 2.4.5(J) or (K), as applicable. • HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—Multiple Family Structures in the RO zoning district Page 5 (F) Development Standards: In addition to Tthe development standards as set forth in Section 4.3.4 the following shall apply: (1) The provisions for the R-1-A District shall apply for single family detached dwellings. (2) The minimum lot area for each unit of a multiple family development shall be 4,000 sq.ft., regardless of the type of ownership. (G) Supplemental District Regulations: The supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6 shall apply except as modified and added pursuant to the following: (1) All uses shall be in completely enclosed buildings and any outdoor storage is expressly prohibited. (2) Parking required for business and professional offices shall be at the standard of one space per three hundred square feet of total floor area (1/300). However, this requirement may be reduced to 1/400, or at least by one parking space, when there is a mix of residential and office use in the same structure. (H) Special Regulations: (1) All buildings and structures shall appear to be residential in character regardless of the actual use therein, shall be kept in a sound and attractive condition, and in established neighborhoods shall be generally compatible in architectural style and scale with the surrounding area. (2) A building or structure in the RO District may contain either a residential use, an office use, or a mix of uses. (3) All parking for nonresidential principal uses and conditional uses shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No parking shall be located in the area between any street and the structure (building). Where there are existing buildings, administrative relief [Section 2.4.7(D)] may be sought from this subsection (3) provided it is determined that compliance with these provisions is not feasible and that the residential character of the area will be maintained and that such parking area shall be substantially screened from off-premises view by, at least, a four- foot high hedge. (4) A minimum density of six units per acre is established for duplex and multiple family housing projects within this district. Density may exceed the base of six (6) units per acre only after the approving body makes a finding that the project has substantially complied with performance standards as listed in 4.4.6(1). In no event shall a development's total density exceed 10 units per acre. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—Multiple Family Structures in the RO zoning district Page 6 (5) Notwithstanding the above, a duplex may be situated upon a platted lot pursuant to Section 4.3.4(I)(3)(b). (6) Recreational areas shall be required for all new rental apartment developments, and of owner occupied developments which have homeowner associations that must care for retention areas, private streets, or common areas. New developments must include recreational features that are designed to accommodate activities for children and youth of all age ranges. Tot lots are appropriate for toddlers; features such as a basketball court, volleyball court, and open playfields are appropriate for older children. A pool and clubhouse, unless specifically designed for children, is not considered to meet this requirement. Projects having fewer than twenty-five (25) units may be exempted from this standard where it is determined by the approving body that it is not practical or feasible to comply. (I) Performance Standards: (1) These standards shall apply to all site plans for duplex and multiple family housing projects within this district approved subsequent to September 21, 2004, and for modifications to existing developments which involve the creation of additional residential units. In order to increase a project density beyond six (6) units per acre, the approving body must make a finding that the development substantially complies with the performance standards listed in this section. The intent of the standards is to mitigate the impacts of the additional density both internal and external to the site. The extent to which a project meets the standards will determine the number of units per acre that will be permitted. For example, if a project meets or exceeds all of the standards, and is otherwise consistent with applicable standards and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the maximum density is permitted. Projects which only partially achieve these standards will be permitted a correspondingly lower density. The performance standards are as follows: (a) The traffic circulation system is designed to control speed and reduce volumes on the interior and exterior street network. This can be accomplished through the use of traffic calming devices; street networks consisting of loops and short segments; multiple entrances and exists into the development; and similar measures that are intended to minimize through traffic and keep speeds within the development at or below 20 m.p.h. (b) Buildings are placed throughout the development in a manner that reduces the overall massing, and provides a feeling of open space. (c) Where immediately adjacent to residential zoning districts having a lower density, building setbacks and landscape materials along those adjacent property lines are increased beyond the required minimums in order to provide a meaningful buffer to those lower density areas. Building setbacks are increased by at least 25% of the required minimum; at least one tree per 30 linear feet (or fraction thereof) is provided; trees exceed the required height at time of planting by 25% or more; and a hedge, wall or fence is provided as a visual buffer between the properties. (d) The development offers a varied streetscape and building design. For example, setbacks are staggered and offset, with varying roof heights (for multi-family buildings, the planes of the facades are offset to add interest and distinguish individual units). Building elevations incorporate diversity in window and door shapes and locations; features such as balconies, arches, porches, courtyards; and design elements such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative tiles, etc. (e) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available within the development in order to accommodate households of various ages and sizes. Multi-family housing will at a minimum have a mix of one, two and three bedroom units with varying floor plans. Single family housing (attached and detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans. (f) The development is designed to preserve and enhance existing natural areas and/or water bodies. Where no such areas exist, new areas which provide open space and native habitat are created and incorporated into the project. (g) The project provides a convenient and extensive bicycle/pedestrian network, and access to available transit. (2) It is acknowledged that some of the above referenced standards may not be entirely applicable to small, infill type residential projects. For those types of projects, the ultimate density should be based upon the attainment of those standards which are applicable, as well as the development's ability to meet or exceed other minimum code requirements. ti 7 . -w Q > N.W. 8TH ST. •R J J I 7 l_ • o• VARD _J E. •II iiiiiiiiiit 1 I - N.W. 7TH ST. EIIIIIIII ♦ ♦ . iii N.E. 7TH ST. , ♦ROOfI ...„ 0\\(5.' a *a. � CIF am I I N.E. _/w •, H A ST N.W. 6TH ST. ,♦ r 1 N.E. 6TH ST.-----. 1 dAIV I Z G� D ,, ` G O m m 3 w ` , ,_ o CC ♦ N 5T� T=R' VYN.E.tal F I 6TH ST. WOOD LANE ,♦ _ w � I > ,, � ♦` l N.E. 5TH CT. c' C ` N.E. 5TH ST. i ��Q�l' '. Z 10 TRINITY Z N.E. 5 H ST. L U THERAN It ' I � I I I I ; >-: } CF z WAL- N _ GREENS M _ LAKE IDA ROAD • �L_'J i 4TI- ST - POST - CASON OFFICE METHODIST I 3 3 7`II� CHURCH F p� _ _ L C�V I _1C II:1 P J O -L., L., ¢ a a> › w w _,. > i__ .,< < off I w ,. .- Li_ LW - L_ Z a ili N W. .3RD T. 3 N.E. p I l ST. 3RD ST. RIMIN _ le =La CF N cs,Z M� �w. �� A)ssiinor im in I CITY _ cD ATTORNEY . Ino i — BUILDING �w w - 1 w I. Iu� r III Z _z z I - z• MI In ARTIN LUTHER <ING JR. DR. I N.E. I / S I I H III I II 11 Il " N - EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS - --i! RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONED PARCELS DIRECTLY ADJACENT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CENTRAL BUSINESS PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DISTRICT-RAIL CORRIDOR ZONING DESIGNATIONS -- D/C?AL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM544