The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB-03-20-02 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: MARCH 20, 2002 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:03 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Mary Lou Jamison, Gloria Elliott, Mike Simon, Donnamarie Sloan, Jim Keavney (did not vote). MEMBERS ABSENT: Gail Lee McDermott, Rhonda Sexton, STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Debra Garcia II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Cason Cottage Complex, 5 NE 1st Street, Old School Square Historic District, Mary Swinford, Delray Beach Historical Society. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is that of approval of a COA which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Cason Cottage Property, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): • Class III Site Plan Modification; and • Landscape Plan. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Mary Swinford, Executive Director of the Delray Beach Historical Society, and Andy Owen, architect, were present to represent the project. Ms. Shay stated that color and elevation changes will return to the Board. Ms. Jamison inquired about relocating the Bungalow 10' to the north in order not to obscure the view of Cason Cottage from N. Swinton Avenue. Mr. Owen discussed the existing and proposed landscaping. Site Plan Modification After a detailed discussion, it was moved by Ms. Sloan, seconded by Mr. Simon and passed 4-0 to approve the COA for the Class IN site plan modification for the Cason Cottage Property, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That a bike rack be provided. 2) That the building be moved 10' to the north if there is no interference with the existing tree. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. Sloan, seconded by Mr. Simon and passed 4- 0 to approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Cason Cottage Property, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16. B. Fischer Properties, 27-43 S. Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michelle Balfoort, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board The item before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Fischer Properties, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): • Class V Site Plan; • Landscape Plan; • Design Elements; and, • Demolition of noncontributing outbuildings. Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Michelle Balfoort, architect and authorized agent, and John Szerdi were present to represent the project. Ms. Balfoort presented color samples. -2- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 Ms. Shay requested that the four colors chosen be varied between the four buildings and possibly a new color introduced. Mr. Szerdi reviewed the landscape design. Ms. Shay stated that the landscaping should not block the front façade of the building obscuring a view of the building from the right-of-way. Ms. Shay stated her concern over the installation of copper roofs as they were not appropriate to the neighborhood and do not continue the feeling of a neighborhood owned by different individuals. Ms. Balfoort and Mr. Szerdi felt that the buildings with their respective alterations would not stand out. Mr. Simon inquired about the State requirements. Ms. Shay stated that the State requires in-kind replacement. Ms. Jamison concurred that she does not agree with the installation of cooper roofs and that there were no cooper roofs historically in Delray. Ms. Balfoort stated that the lifespan of an alternative roof, such as cedar, is not economically feasible. A detailed discussion regarding appropriate roofing material ensued. Demolition It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 4- 0 based upon positive findings with respect to LDR 4.5.1(F)(1) to approve the demolition of the two outbuildings located on Lots12 and 14 of the subject property. Site Plan It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 4- 0 to approve the COA for the Class V Site Plan for the Fischer Properties, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: -3- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 11- 15, Block 69, town of Delray prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a bike rack be placed on site. 4) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 5) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 6) The mulch paths, adjacent to Buildings B & C, will need to be replaced with pavers in order to comply with handicapped accessibility requirements. 7) That a revised traffic statement be submitted that accurately calculates the vehicular trips generated from the conversions from residential to commercial/restaurant. Landscape Plan It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 4- 0 to approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Fisher Properties, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That all proposed landscaping will not interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way on Swinton. Design Elements It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 4- 0 to approve the COA for the design elements for the Fischer Properties, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the design elements for the rehabilitation of the extant historic structures be developed in line with the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. -4- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 2) The architectural details associated with the current carports must be incorporated into the new elevation changes to ensure the retention of the original architectural configuration. 3) Seek alternate materials for the roof of each structure. Alternate proposals for the roofing materials must be brought back to the Board for review and approval. 4) The exterior board and batten clad addition on Building B should be reconfigured to present a more compatible design with the two types of siding to ensure that there remains a differentiation between the enclosure and the original structure. C. Forman Building, 334 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a hanging sign for the Forman Office Building, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Mr. Camilucci was present to represent the project. Mr. Simon inquired as to how the sign is attached to the post. Mr. Shay stated that it will hang on a chain and be attached with eyehooks. It was moved by Ms. Sloan, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign for the Forman Office Building, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7. (G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), and (H)(2)(a-c), the City's Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. D. Patrick Lynch Residence, 226 S. Ocean Boulevard, Nassau Street Historic District, Roger Cope, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class I site plan modification for changes to architectural elevations and site improvements to the Patrick Lynch Residence, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. The applicant is requesting the construction of a gable entrance on the guest -5- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 cottage and site improvements throughout the property including the construction of privacy walls and paver walkways. Roger Cope, architect, was present to represent the project. Ms. Shay read a request by a neighbor in the Nassau Park Historic District to consider the pervious and impervious areas as the proposed changes to the driveway will cause runoff to flow into and down Nassau Street. She further stated that the City is addressing her concerns with upcoming improvements. Ms. Shay requested additional information regarding the location of the wall on the north property line. Mr. Cope clarified where the wall footings will lie. Mrs. Katz, neighbor to the north on South Ocean Boulevard, requested that the Board review the height of the proposed privacy wall. Mr. Cope felt that 6' was appropriate despite the fact that the building code allows an 8' wall. Ms. Shay inquired as to whether the wall facing South Ocean Boulevard should match that found on the property to the north as it steps down where the two meet. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the location and height or the proposed privacy walls. It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4- 0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class I Site Plan Modification for the Patrick Lynch Residence based upon positive findings with respect to the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, pursuant to LDR Sections 4.5.1. (E)(4), 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(h). E. 17 NW 4th Avenue, West Settler's Historic District, Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Diane Dominguez, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the non- contributing structure at 17 NW 4th Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). -6- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Thuy Shutt, CRA, was present to represent the project. Ms. Shutt stated that the demolition is requested to accommodate the Atlantic Grove project. The CRA inquired about relocation but found it economically infeasible. After much discussion, it was moved by Ms. Sloan, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the demolition of a non-contributing duplex located at 17 NW 4th Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. F. Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, 20 N. Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Bonnie Dearborn, Representative from the Florida Division of Historical Resources. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Ms. Jamison questioned the proposed height of 7' and felt that the height might be inappropriate. Ms. Shay stated that the sign can be reduced per the Board's discretion. After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), and (H)(2)(a-c) of the City's Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards subject to the following condition: 1) That the overall sign height be reduced to 5'. G. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michael Strauss, Owner. -7- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Shay presented the item to the Board. Michael Strauss, owner, was present to represent the project. Mr. Strauss stated that he received bids ranging from roughly $9,500 - $21,000 for wood core, vinyl or aluminum clad windows throughout the house. He was concerned that it would be cost prohibitive to replace the existing windows with wood core, vinyl clad windows. Ms. Jamison asked Mr. Strauss if he considered a loan from the CRA for the cost of the windows. Mr. Strauss was unaware of the availability of CRA loans. Ms. Shay inquired about placing wood frame windows on the front façade only. Mr. Strauss stated that the front windows are arched and require custom construction. Ms. Shay stated that Mr. Strauss has returned to try and find an alternative rather than appealing to the City Commission despite the fact that the paperwork for a hardship has been submitted. After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 3-1 (Jamison dissenting) to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to remove the existing jalousie and awning windows and install new 6/1 and 4/1 single hung sash windows for the contributing structure at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: 1) That the window frames be constructed of wood core, vinyl clad along the front elevation facing SE 1st Avenue and aluminum on the sides and rear elevations. Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: -8- HPB Minutes 3/20/02. None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison inquired about the 28' height limit recommended by the Board for the Fontaine Fox properties directly adjacent to the historic residence. Ms. Shay confirmed that it was to be the first two newly proposed residences only. Ms. Shay further requested that specific conditions of approval based on the Land Development Regulations be stated for all variance approvals. Ms. Jamison inquired about administrative paint color approval. Ms. Shay confirmed that light purple was approved for a property on North Swinton Avenue. D. Staff: Dan Sloan presented a logo for the Historic Preservation Board. The Board reviewed various graphics for a Board logo. The Board discussed traffic calming measures in the historic districts. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for March 20, 2002, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on July 2, 2003. 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. -9- HPB Minutes 3/20/02 py HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Item: Recommendation for the listing of an individual property in the Local Register of Historic Places Location: 106 NE 12th Street, Amelung Residence • ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is a recommendation to the City Commission for the listing of the 106 NE 12th Street in the Local Register of Historic Places, pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(C). BACKGROUND The proposed designation consists of the west half of Lot 7 and all of Lots 8 and 9, Block 6, Dell Park subdivision, which is partially vacant and contains a single family residence constructed in 1949 adjacent (to the east). The existing Masonry Vernacular style, single family home has been significantly altered over the years and does not qualify for designation. The applicant wishes to relocate an existing Sears & Roebuck kit house from its present location at 1125 Vista Del Mar due to threat of demolition. If relocated, the house would be moved just to the north of the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Constructed in 1937, the two-story, four bay, frame house displays wood shiplap siding, casement windows, a front-facing gable entryway, and side-facing gable roof with two symmetrical, gabled dormers. A chimney lies to the west of the center of the building, asymmetrical to the entryway. The façade is symmetrical with the exception of the one-story extension on the east elevation (a later addition). As the residence is architecturally unique in its own right and is not contiguous to one of the five established historic districts, it would be a good addition to the Local Register as an individually listed property. During its meeting on June 18, 2003, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the designation report for the dwelling which is to be relocated and set the public hearing for July 2, 2003 to discuss the proposed designation and to provide a recommendation to the City Commission for the individual historic property listing. Due to the necessity to notify surrounding properties within a 500' radius within ten days of the hearing, the public hearing was re-scheduled for July 16, 2003 in order to ensure adequate time for notification. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION. LDR Section 4.5.1 (B)(2) states that one or more of the following criteria must be met for listing in the Local Register of Historic Places in order to be considered an historically significant property: (a) Is associated in a significant way with the life or activities of a major person important in city, state, or national history (for example the homestead of a local founding family); Meeting Date:July 16, 2003 Agenda Item: IV.B. Individually Listed Property, Local Register Nomination for 106 NE 12th Street Page 2 (b) Is the site of a historic event with significant effect upon the city, state, or nation; (c) Is associated in a significant way with a major historic event, whether cultural, economic, social, military, or political; (d) Exemplifies the historical, political, cultural, economic, or social trends of the community in history; or (e) Is associated in a significant way with a past or continuing institution which has contributed substantially to the life of the city. To be considered architecturally significant, according to LDR Section 4.5.1 (B)(3), one or more of the following criteria must be met for listing in the Local Register of Historic Places: (a) Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; (b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction; (c) Is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder; or (d) Contains elements of design, detail, material, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represented, in its time, a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment. The residence at 1125 Vista Del Mar Drive (soon to be relocated to 102 NE 12th Street), constructed in 1937 as a single-family residence, is being considered for listing in the Local Register of Historic Places under the criterion in LDR Section 4.5.1(B)(3)(a), portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles, LDR Section 4.5.1(B)(3)(b), embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction, and LDR Section 4.5.1(B)(3)(c), is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder as the building is architecturally significant for its unique method of construction, its level of architectural integrity, and for its representation of architectural development in Delray Beach and South Florida in the 1930s. If approved, waivers and variances will be processed to permit the relocation of the building on the lot at 106 NE 12th Street as the building will otherwise be demolished in order to accommodate new construction at 1125 Vista Del Mar Drive, however, the designation would not become effective until the house is relocated. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1) Continue with direction. Individually Listed Property, Local Register Nomination for 106 NE 12th Street Page 3 2) Based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(B)(3), recommend to the City Commission that the residence and associated property at 106 NE 12th Street be listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. 3) Based upon a failure to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3), recommend to the City Commission that the residence and associated property at 106 NE 12th Street not be listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. RECOMMENDATION- .. Based upon positive findings, with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 (B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(b) & 4.5.1(B)(3)(c), recommend to the City Commission that the residence and associated property at 106 NE 12th Street be listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. Attachment: • Designation Report written by Mr. Gary Eliopoulos and Mrs.Toni Eliopoulos I I I L I l \ I \ J (-- -- LEGEND bi HEATHER LANE • Q.... AMELUNG .1 ... , = N. E. 14TH ST. HOUSE Z HIGHLAND 1 I. — N llt PROPOSED wPY — � P� , ilium il• RELOCATION GO,, i . ` i>` a SITE 111!!,. N.E. 73TH ST. N12n/ T ST. HISTORIC DESIGNATION N.E • 12TH ST. 106 N.E. 12TH STREET A �"' iiiili �Mk , SUBJECT AREA Z IllIllIllIllIlli N ................. mr N.W. r 11TH ST. N.E. • 11TH ST. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PCN#:12-43-46-09-28-006-0071 m APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.40 N.E. \ 10TH ST e ABRIDGED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DELL PARK W 1/2 OF LOT 7, 4. LOTS8&9BLK6 z ZONING:R-1-AA(SINGLE N.E. 9TH ST. FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) • N.W. 9TH ST. • FLUM:LD(LOW DESNITY RESIDENTIAL,0-5 UNITS/ACRE) EXISTING LAND USAGE: RESIDNETIAL w N.W. 8TH ST. o BUSH BOULEVARD N a..�MilliHIM G•c �. WI7HINTRAFFICANALYSIS ZONE:#556 Z- 1'�. WITHIN CENSUS N.W. 7TH ST. 1111111 _11111. Q , .¢ TRACT:#66.02 ■• N.E. 7TH ST. • 44 ,QUOtall z IIiIIU! �• 1 d• ZONING�DJEPARTMENT N.W. 6TH ST. \ N.E. 6TH ST. 1 ,,,t_c,c;,. To p II ,0,4 Z 6 ` ,, N.E. 5TH TERR. ce 1 Z $� i n S OD LANE GE DTVISION _�j :n ? GEOGRAPHIC IC INFORMATION N GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM a - O�'1- ` N.E. 5TH CT. MAP REFERENCE/:LM708A / I — JUNE 2003-- I 1 ki TRINITY �` Q !ai — : . LUTHERAN N.E. 5TH ST. : i ,„, } b.; vim �4� \I:6 . .\ V _LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. .4Y S*PUS I OFFICE I I 1 " ' .... } HISTORIC PRESERVATION INDIVIDUAL LISTING DESIGNATION REPORT "AMELUNG HOUSE" r �, 1.; q `1` i .'4. ' 44ii ' . s-_-, A.,'c'-' 1•• I ;yam . ' ! hk ' ' :', •�z a,, Z '. ili IR •ter _ _ ..--...a . 1125 VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA August 2003 I. GENERAL INFORMATION II. LOCATION MAP III. DISTRICT INVENTORY IV. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE V. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE VI. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RESOURCES REPORT PREPARED BY: Gary and Toni Eliopoulos 106 NE 12th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 I. GENERAL INFORMATION Address: 1125 Vista Del Mar Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483- Current 106 NE 12th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444 - Proposed Legal Description: Delray Beach Esplanade West '/2 of lot 2, lot 3 and South 10 feet abound Laing Street lying North of and adjacent to - Current Dell Park West % of lot 7 and all of lots 8 and 9, block 6- Proposed Present Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) Classification for designation: Individual Listing for Architectural Significance ce i I I I I I I W o -- - w I * LEGEND — • N.E. 5TH ST. THE mm, ISLAND DRIVE AM E L U N G N . I! re HOUSE z '*' '' ► HISTORIC DESIGNATION IN.E. 4TH fl BEACH DRIVE I PROPOSAL i SEA SPRAY AVE. 1125 VISTA DEL MAR ISUBJECT AREA Q ND WAY LAME O WATERWAY LANE u J \.-' a o r SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Q 22 K n LAINGN Ste—'8 PCN#:12-43-46-16-18-000-0021 E R LLI DELRAY L R A Y I APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.34 IN WA" manta. ABRIDGED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: & c A H 0 VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE DELRAY BEACH Q .� ESPLANADEW 1/20FLOT2, S P L a l A D c LOT 3&S.10 FT.ABND LAING ST.LYG N.OF&ADJ TO 1d •. .: ii.Ygg1 L., Q Z ZONING:R-1-AA(SINGLE w ► FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) cif ¢ DORCHESTER . FLUM:LD(LOW DENSITY CO-OP RESIDENTIAL,0-5 UNITS/ACRE) THOMAS STREET p EXISTING LAND USAGE: N.E. 2ND CT. J 3 EAST WIND , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Q J1- BEACH CLUBS 0 WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I— v BERKSHIRE c ZONE:#653 07 WITHIN CENSUS j \ TRACT:#74.01 N.E. 1ST CT Q D R I V E ; BY THE SEA W J o i ¢ W GROSVENOR ~ 0 0 Q PLANNING I- &ZONING DEPARTMENT Q HOUSE N TT LOWRY STREET MANOR HOUSE jV CONDO 5 CC CONDO FIRE A. ��T F •,Q Q`r ~ DELRAYONMO W \ GROVE NOT 2 YY ,(��E P Z ¢ w CONDO p /� tr 41 CY CLI S Q BARR ► ) t� LONG-RANGE DIVISION `°V DIGITAL BASE-MAPPING & TERRACE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CONDO SPANISH DELRAY BEACH W SYSTEM RIVER MARRIOTT -I MAP REFERENCE#:LM708 RESORT -- JUNE 2003 -- ATLANTIC AVENUE O V WATERWAY EAST o �'� > > m �' `* .4c*4�_\ COMMERCIAL -4IIIM=aIMM¢ Q CONDO o If h. o BAR z � o _ < � ` sit Q . HARBOURS a a- z rn CONDO 1 Cr o L., m U �Q VP' IIIII A \ \ \ 1 (--- -- LEGEND -- w HEATHER LANE AMELUNG ¢ 'III HOUSE VIM N. E. 14TH ST. o HIGHLAND N. - - z N 1 PROPOSED W"Y iih: P�. RELOCATION ¢ SITE N.E. 13TH ST. N. IIIIIIII. / SUBMITTAL FOR lZrti T N.W. 12TH ST. HISTORIC DESIGNATION N.E. \ 12TH ST. 106 N.E. 12TH STREET ' SUBJECT AREA 0 r 5 N .................. Z X S. mr N.W. �'11TH ST. N.E. 11TH ST. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PCN#:12-43-46-09-28-006-0071 am J IN ` APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.40 N.E. 10TH ST. ABRIDGED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ,i DELL PARK W 1/2 OF LOT 7, ¢ 4 LOTS 8&9BLK6 z ZONING:R-1-AA(SINGLE N.E. 9TH ST. FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) N.W. 9TH ST. FLUM:LD(LOW DESNITY IRESIDENTIAL,0-5 UNITS I ACRE) EXISTING LAND USAGE: RESIDNETIAL o >II N.W. 8TH ST. �. BUSH BOULEVARD WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS c� ZONE:#556 Z �:1111111: 64454-1111111. eP�� W I T HIN C 66S02S / N.W. 7TH ST. /// .S' N.E. 7TH ST. ,P�6 (~A i 1� W, ,IIIIIIIIIJ�� r PLANNING z <II111 ,, A-ZONING DEPARTMENT N.W. 6TH ST. N �_ ,- N.E. 6TH ST._ \P� Aik6{P W ,�ti E L `,, In ¢_ ) ir z N.E. 5TH TERR. . — ` V WOOD LANE 11. LONG-IL4NCE DIVISION I DIGITAL BASE-MAPPING & .0 I 'n a GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM iF�" N.E. 5TH CT. ¢ ' MAP REFUREN2E0: LM703A -- JUNE 2003 --II\ F •D ,,TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. < w': LUTHERAN w. '} 4CI +4M W z I4 , _ ;_ , _LAKE I D A ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. J _ ' OFFICE H . 1 I I III. DISTRICT INVENTORY N/A IV. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE While there have been several owners of the property, none of whom were known to make significant contributions to the development of Delray Beach, the Cape Code style residence is significant to Defray Beach in its reflection of a prominent architectural style and development period in the 1930s and 1940s. V. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Introduction to Sears Houses In the early 20th century, from roughly 1908 to 1940, the Sears & Roebuck Co. offered approximately 450 models of kit houses through their mail order catalog. These "modern" homes were shipped to the area via rail and were assemble by the owner or local contractors. During their heyday approximately 100,000 home packages were sold nationwide. The package included the entire house complete with timber, paint, nails, hardware, and instruction booklet, each numbered for a streamlined assembly by the novice or professional. One such house made its way to Delray Beach and was constructed in 1937 at 1125 Vista Del Mar. The kit house displays a Cape Cod style charm which was a distinctive style of architecture in the 1930'3 and 1940's in Delray Beach as seen in the Nassau Park Historic District. This particular style of Sears house was known as "The Milford" model which accommodated five rooms, a bathroom, kitchen, and breakfast area. Architectural Description The 1937 two-story, four bay, frame house displays wood shiplap siding, casement windows including two gabled dormers, a front-facing gable entryway, and side-facing gable roof. A chimney lies to the west of the center of the building, asymmetrical to the entryway. The façade is symmetrical with the exception of the one-story extension on the east elevation. Renovations &Additions While the house closely resembles its original design, several additions to upgrade the floor plan have been completed since the date of construction. In the early 1940's two sun porches were added, one on the east side of the house; the other on the west. In the 1950's a bathroom was added upstairs. While these additions have altered the floor plan of the residence, the renovations have been minimal and can be considered historic in their own right as they were completed over fifty years ago. Further, the exterior of the building has been minimally altered retaining the original character of the Sears house. VI. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The 1937, Sears Roebuck and Company mail order house known as "The Milford" style was previously owned by the Amelung Family who owned the home until 2003. The home was recently purchased and is scheduled to be demolished and replaced with a new single story contemporary style home. The applicant is proposing the relocation of the building to 106 NE 12th St., in Dell Park, a vacant lot to the west of the extant single family home, and surrounded by four existing 1930's dwellings which all share distinct architectural characteristics of that period: Frame Vernacular, Bungalow, and Mission- Revival. All of which are situated on 50' wide lots with single loaded driveways. Relocating the structure to the site will not only be in keeping with the charming character of the street, it will also prevent the demolition of a significant architectural dwelling and prevent new home construction on the vacant lot on NE 12th Street, outside of the protection of a designated historic district which may or may not be in keeping with the same style of architecture from that period. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(B)(3), as stated in Section V. Architectural Significance, the building meets the criteria of architectural significance due to its retention of original materials, its architectural integrity, age, unique archjtectural style which was prevalent in Delray Beach in the 1930s and 1940s but rare in today's built environment, and due to the unique construction associated with a Sears mail order house. Further, designation will protect the house from imminent demolition and protect detrimental alteration of the building once relocated. VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 1. "Delray Beach Historic Sites Survey", by John P. Johnson. Published by the Palm Beach County Preservation Board, Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. "The House that Sears Built - A Delray Beach Family Finds Warmth and Tradition in a Sears Catalog Home", byline Ava Van de Water, Palm Beach Post February 28, 1993, Final Edition, Home and Garden Section, page 1 H. 3. Oral interview: Richard Amelung, former owner. 4. Dorothy W. Patterson, Archivist, Delray Beach Historical Society, Delray Beach, FL. 5. "The Houses that Sears Built", by Rosemary Thornton, Gentle Beam Publications, Alton, IL, March 2002. 6. "Sears and Roebuck Homes 1908 to 1940, Chicago, IL", Arts and Crafts Archives, Arts and Crafts Society, 1194 Bandera Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103. Ms. Shay entered the project file and a copy of her resume into record and presented the item to the Board. Mr. Perez was present to represent the project. Ms. Shay reviewed the staffs request to expand the westernmost landscape island to maximize green space. She further expanded staffs concerns over a changing the west entrance door. Mr. Perez suggested that the landscape island be extended adjacent to the building and that the door swing to the opposite direction. The curbing would expand out as far as the door to ensure that the door would not impeded traffic. Mr. Keavney suggested that the door swing out to the opposite side and that a bollard be installed. Ms. Sexton recommended that an awning be installed over the door to make drivers aware of the door. Ms. Shay stated that the suggestions will be reviewed by staff to ensure that the drive aisle meets the minimum required width with the improvements proposed by the Board. Waiver After much discussion, it was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and was passed 5-0 to approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the landscape strip on the north property line from the required 5' to 3' (excluding the required 6" curbing) and on the south property line from the required 5' to 2.5' (excluding curbing) based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B). Site Plan Modification It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and was passed 5-0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class III site plan modification for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings) and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. -2- HPB Minutes 8/6/03 2) That the applicant obtains a sidewalk café permit. 3) That the City Commission approves the in-lieu of parking request. 4) That the guy wire and anchor for the power pole be relocated. 5) That a convex mirror is attached to the power pole and a sign installed within the alley right-of-way indicating a hidden driveway. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and was passed 5-0 to approve the COA for the landscape plan for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Landscape Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2) Add the landscaping around the west entrance door. 3) Changing the swing of the door on the west side of the building subject to staff approval. 4) The applicant meets the required drive aisle width. 5) That the first technical item (as listed in the staff report) is contingent upon approval of the west entrance door elevation changes and site improvements as proposed during the meeting. Design Elements It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. McDermott and was passed 5-0 to approve the COA for the design elements for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(g), subject to the following condition: 1) That the applicant submit a detail and color sample of the proposed shed awning and an additional awning be added to the door (west elevation) and that it match the proposed front awning in style and color. At this time, Mr. Perez returned to the Board. -3- HPB Minutes 8/6/03 IV. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. McDermott questioned the appropriateness of the neon sign at the Bull Bar (2 East Atlantic Avenue). Mr. Keavney stated that the sign on the inside of the premises, behind glass, was permissible. D. Staff: Ms. Shay reported that the Design Guidelines are available and will be on the city's web site next week. She further stated that the Amelung House designation had been approved on first reading by the City Commission and would return for second reading on August 19, 2003 if the Board was interested in attending. There will also be a City Commission Meeting Workshop August 12, 2003 to discuss sponsorship of the Florida Trust Conference next May. To address Ms. Jamison's previous concerns, Ms. Shay stated that Neal's Market has not contacted Michelle Hoyland, the project planner, regarding an extension. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 6.35 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for August 6, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on. September 3, 2003. 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- HPB Minutes 8/6/03 1 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD.COUNCIL.COMMISSION.AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE '=i'Z-P2_—ALL. T AW&GiSC IrLlL 1iiL',Sc iiC. P►ZN y/aTlv'ty_ _34tZ_0 MAILING ADDRESS 1 . THE BOARD,COUNCIL COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON .l).LJ' (vt IC-, 1 1't 3\E�1r WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY �IP CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 1 '.'YCi:`,` -1-1: :-- -.1 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON HtG°H VOTE OCCURRED �YP�-�O`"S = _�F W E -- 6•-- O' MY POSITION IS: 0 ELECTIVE ,d APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which Ares to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IR YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE ::EN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ` A k.Gi Z- Z(--) , hereby disclose that on 20 (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of mu' C61+1* by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 04b AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING �'p4y P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: August 6, 2003 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • October 2, 2002 • March 3, 2003 • June 18, 2003 • June 23, 2003 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Tapas, 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Francisco Perez-Azua, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class Ill Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for conversion from retail to restaurant. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff V. ADJOURN \f\ -Q1(1 PrUst Wendy Shay, Hi t nc Presery ion Planner POSTED ON: July 31,2003 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2002 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:00 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gloria Elliott, Jim Keavney, Francisco Perez-Azua, Rhonda Sexton (arrived 6:05). MEMBERS ABSENT: Gail Lee McDermott, Bill Branning, STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Hoyland, Loretta Heussi II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS At this time the Chairperson explained that the meeting shall be held according to quasi-judicial hearing procedures. Ms. Hoyland recommended that Item II.C., the Ruby Residence be moved to the II.A. of the agenda due to time constraints. It was moved by Ms. Elliott, seconded by Mr. Perez and passed 4-0 to amend the agenda. Ms. Heussi swore in all witnesses wishing to speak. Ms. Hoyland inquired about ex-parte communication. None was disclosed. A. Ruby Residence, 714 NE 2"d Avenue, Del-Ida Park, Ben & Susan Ruby, Owners. Action Before the Board: Consideration of a COA for the installation of a gazebo in the Del-Ida Park Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Hoyland entered the project file into the record and presented the item to the Board. Ben Ruby, owner, was present to represent the project and stated that he agreed with the staff report. It was moved by Mr. Perez, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 5-0 to approve the COA for a gazebo at 714 NE 2nd Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. B. Jagger Residence, 275 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Cliff Jagger, Owner. Action Before the Board: Consideration of a COA and associated Class V Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the conversion of a single family home at 275 N. Swinton Avenue to retail, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F). Ms. Jamison inquired if any Board member wished to disclose any ex parte communications on this item. Mr. Keavney stated that he consulted with Mr. Jagger a year ago but did not work on the project. Ms. Hoyland entered the project file into the record and presented the item to the Board. She stated that there was a concern by the City Engineer over the installation of the mulch parking lot though mulch had been previously approved for other projects. Mulch is considered •a maintenance and liability issue and staff therefore recommended an alternate material. She further added a technical item which required the refuse container to accommodate recyclables. Cliff Jagger, owner, was present to represent the project. A discussion ensued about the location of the refuse container. Ms. Hoyland recommended that it be located out of view of the right-of-way. The Board and the applicant concurred. Mr. Jagger inquired about the requirement of a pollution prevention plan. Ms. Hoyland explained that it is a new engineering requirement to contain debris from construction. Mr. Jagger further inquired about the installation of a mulch parking lot. Ms. Hoyland explained in detail staffs concerns over the material and use of the property. Ms. Jamison inquired about the difference in price between the mulch and pea rock. -2- HPB Minutes 10/02/02 Mr. Jagger was not certain. Ms. Hoyland stated that the same subgrade is required for an alternate materials as would be for mulch. Ms. Sexton inquired about whether the "D" curbing and drainage would be required. Ms. Hoyland confirmed that both would be required. Mr. Perez inquired about ADA accessibility from the sidewalk on NE 3rd Street. Ms. Hoyland stated that a paved sidewalk could be added as an additional condition of approval. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the location and design of the ADA accessible ramp. Ms. Sexton inquired about the existing fencing and whether the location of the proposed fencing is appropriate. Ms. Hoyland clarified the LDR regulations regarding fence height and location. Site Plan After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Perez, seconded by Mr. Keavney and passed 5-0 to approve the COA for the Class V Site Plan for 275 N. Swinton Avenue, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a photometric plan be submitted along with a detail of the decorative site lighting fixture(s) and that their locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 3) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 4) That the mulch parking surface be eliminated and pavers or pea rock be provided which includes a base course and meets drainage and grading standards acceptable to the City Engineering Department. -3- HPB Minutes 10/02/02 5) That the fence along the north property line adjacent to the parking area be relocated to the interior edge of the landscape strip and reduced to no more than 3' in height to comply with the 20' sight visibility requirement or that the fence be completely removed. If the fence is replaced with another style or material other than what currently exists on site, the applicant must return to the Board for review and approval. 6) That handicap access be provided from the public sidewalk to the building. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. Elliott, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 5-0 to approve the COA for the Landscape Plan for 275 N. Swinton Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16 subject to the following condition: 1) That a five foot (5') landscape strip be provided between the off-street parking area and the right-of-way. At this time, Mr. Perez stepped down from the Board. C. 310 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Francisco Perez, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: Consideration of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 310 N. Swinton Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F). Ms. Jamison inquired if any Board member wished to disclose any ex parte communications on this item. There were none. Ms. Hoyland entered the project file into the record and presented the item to the Board. Andy Spengler and Mr. Perez were present to represent the project. Mr. Spengler stated that the building encroaches into the alley and he discussed his concern over dedicating a portion of the alley already owned by the applicant. Ms. Hoyland explained the property's history and the issue of the alley abandonment in detail. Mr. Perez confirmed that the alley is owned by local property owners and not by the City. He further requested additional information regarding the conditions of approval. Ms. Jamison inquired about the site lighting. -4- HPB Minutes 10/02/02 Mr. Perez presented the information. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the waiver request to allow six parking spaces to be located within the front yard between the building and the street. Waivers It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3) to allow six parking spaces to be located within the front yard between the building and the street. It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve the waiver to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), to reduce the required landscape strip on the north and south sides of the parking area from five feet (5') to four feet (4') along the north property line and three and a half feet (3.5') along the south property line based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Mr. Keavney and passed 4-0 to approve the COA for the Class V Site Plan for the 310 North Swinton Avenue, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That one-half of the cost to improve the alley adjacent to the property is provided prior to issuance of a building permit or that a waiver is obtained from the City Commission unless the issue of alley ownership is clarified to the satisfaction of staff. Landscape Plan It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 4-0 to approve the COA for the Landscape Plan for the 310 North Swinton Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Landscape Maintenance Agreement must be executed between the City and the owner to allow landscaping to encroach into the alley if the alley exists. • -5- HPB Minutes 10/02/02 At this time, Mr. Perez returned to the Board. Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison inquired about the accessory structure at 610 North Ocean Boulevard and why the issue was postponed from the previous night's City Commission agenda. As the next meeting is election night, she would like to see the meeting postponed. Ms. Hoyland stated that the authorized agent should request a postponement with the City Manager. D. Staff: Ms. Hoyland stated that Mr. Gross is requesting a color change for the fence at NE 5th Court and NE 2nd Avenue. The request should be submitted for review at the next meeting. Ms. Elliott inquired about the status of Mariposa. Ms. Hoyland will pass her request on to the project planner. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for October 2, 2002, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 6, 2003. If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. -6- HPB Minutes 10/02/02 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: March 3, 2003 LOCATION: POMPEY PARK, MEETING ROOM A I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:05 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott, Rhonda Sexton, Jim Keavney, William Branning, Francisco Perez (arrived 6:15) STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Loretta Heussi OTHERS: Ellen Uguccioni, Janus Research Consultant II. DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE Ms. Uguccioni gave an overview of the design guidelines update. The update information is more extensive than the original and will utilize more illustrations for more user friendly access. A glossary had been added that includes LDR references. The appendix includes different agencies and organizations which will be helpful to the public and the Board. Ms. McDermott stated that she was pleased to see that the guidelines were for use by any historic property owner not just those in the districts. • She then stated that there was a typo on page 17. She further inquired as to whether St. Paul's Church was individually designated or in the OSSHAD. Ms. Shay stated that it was part of the district. Mr. Branning inquired about whether the e-mail address will be to specific staff or the general department address. Ms. Shay said that it will be the general department e-mail address. Mr. Keavney noted several typos and inquired as to where the Delray name originated. Ms. Shay stated that many of the original settlers relocated from Michigan and that it was a town in Michigan. She further stated that the historical overview will be more diversified to include information on all of Delray's settlers. Mr. Branning inquired as to whether the Main Street Program should be included. Ms. Shay stated that it could be mentioned, but as there are few historical properties and no designated sites she would prefer not to as the guidelines are not relevant for those properties included in Pineapple Grove Main Street. Ms. Jamison inquired as to when Old School Square was established as a district. Ms. Shay stated that it was established in 1988. Ms. McDermott added that the years should be included on all the district listings. Ms. Shay stated that such information will be included along with the maps when they are added. Ms. Sexton was pleased with the historical overview though she would like the true historic areas highlighted rather than those simply called "historic." Ms. Uguccioni will address that. Mr. Branning noted that the definition of a contributing building should be clarified. Ms. Shay stated that it should be revised to include the date when a building would become contributing and that the definition should also be revised in the LDR. She further stated that both contributing and non- contributing should be clarified. Ms. Jamison inquired as to why the cost of appraisal of an unsafe structure would be covered by the Board. Ms. Shay stated that it was written that way in the ordinance and that the ordinance must be changed to reflect the current process. Ms. McDermott inquired as to whether the local residents have a say when a building is relocated into their area. Ms. Shay stated that the Board represents them in that decision. -2- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 Mr. Keavney pointed out several typos on pages 15, 16, 17, and 20. Ms. Shay requested that the term "interior" be added to the glossary. The Board concurred. Vera Farrington, EPOCH, inquired as to whether St. Paul's Church is within the Old School Square Historic District. She further inquired whether or not the Atlantic Grove development was within the West Settler's Historic District. Ms. Jamison stated that that St. Paul's is in the district. Ms. Shay stated that only the townhouses of the Atlantic Grove project are in the district boundaries. The boundaries will be listed in the district description. Ms. Shay stated that there are International style buildings in Delray Beach though they are not within established historic districts. She further added that if there is terminology that is not understood, that it should be addressed at this time in order to clarify and/or add to the glossary. Ms. McDermott requested clarification between Mediterranean-Revival and Mission-Revival styles. Ms. Uguccioni stated that it is difficult to differentiate between the two but she will do so with illustrations and additional background information. Thuy Shutt inquired as to whether pictures of existing historic buildings could be incorporated to represent the styles. Ms. Jamison stated that Dottie Patterson, City Archivist, should be contacted. Ms. Jamison inquired as to whether or not new materials will be permitted, such as hardiboard. She further stated that with the scarcity of wood and termite infestation, etc. that she thought the Board was going to have to allow new materials to be used. Ms. Shay said that unless it is an economic hardship only in-kind replacement should be supported. Mr. Branning stated that the profiles are not similar and that they should be required to match the same profile that is being replaced regardless of the material. Ms. Jamison felt that it should be on a case by case basis. -3- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 4. Ms. Shutt stated that in-kind replacement does become a hardship issue. Dan Sloan, resident of the Marina Historic District, expressed his concern about in-kind replacement. Ms. Shay stated that you can differentiate real wood from synthetics such as hardiboard and the original material should be replaced in-kind. Mr. Sloan stated that if there was some type of financial incentive, in-kind replacement could be supported. Mr. Branning suggested that hardiboard should remain as an option. Mr. Perez said that he agreed with Ms. Shay. The Board should promote the retention of original materials but could review alternate requests on a case by case basis. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the appropriate use of synthetics for replacement of wood. Ms. McDermott requested that hardiboard be separated from the wood siding bullets. The Board collectively determined that fiber cement products be listed (rather than the term hardiboard) as an optional material but not preferred and that all requests for replacements/repairs using such materials be on case-by-case basis, requiring specific action by the Board once they are presented with samples of the material. Ms. Shutt requested that the term "in-kind" be defined. Ms. Sexton inquired if examples of typical window styles could be provided for all architectural styles. Ms. Uguccioni will address that. Ms. Jamison expressed her concern over replacement of roofing materials. Ms. Shay stated that new materials are not appropriate unless historically prevalent in Delray Beach and that repairs should not lead to replacement unless necessary. A discussion ensued regarding replacement of roofing materials. -4- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 Ms. Shay requested that bullets for "recommended" and "not recommended" should be added to the chimney section. Ms. McDermott inquired about the term "party wall." Ms. Uguccioni will change it to "common" wall or "shared" and will add the term to the glossary. Ms. Shay requested that the term single and double hung sash window be added to the glossary as well. Ms. McDermott requested that information regarding pre-WWII designs be included (most frequently either wood single and double hung windows). After the war, awning windows, casement, and jalousie windows were more prevalent in many different materials. The material used should be specified. Ms. Uguccioni noted that it should be clarified. Ms. Sexton requested that review of interior blinds be removed as the Board does not review a building's interior. Ms. Uguccioni concurred. Ms. Shay stated that shutters should be approved on a case by case basis as the Board often approves or even requires the installation of exterior shutters. She further requested illustrations of shutter dogs. Ms. Sexton stated that hurricane shutters should be differentiated from decorative shutters. Ms. Uguccioni will do so. Mr. Branning stated that decorative shutters should be permitted as they are reversible and do not directly affect the structure. The Board suggested that shutters be added when appropriate to the style of the building. Ms. Uguccioni concurred. Mr. Perez requested that it state that shutters should be properly proportioned. Ms. Shay stated that as shutters and awnings are reversible treatments and will not cause irreparable damage, they can be supported in most cases. -5- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 A discussion ensued regarding retrofitting air conditioning units. Ms. Sexton requested that color be specified as part of the review process when considering installation of awnings and that color samples should be presented to the Board upon review. At this time, the Board took a five minute break. Upon returning form the break, Mr. Keavney inquired about whether architectural style should be added when considering new construction in an established area. Ms. Uguccioni felt that that issue was addressed in another section. Ms. Jamison inquired about whether new construction is dictated by the existing styles. Ms. Uguccioni and Ms. Shay stated that new styles may be introduced though they must meet the setbacks, scale, massing, etc. Ms. Jamison suggested that applicants present photos of surrounding homes or businesses to see if the new construction compliments the neighborhood, particularly when proposing businesses near residential properties. Ms. Shutt stated that a cross section may be preferred as many simulated photographs are not always true. Ms. Sexton requested that more information be included which described the review process. Ms. Shay stated that most people who have the design guidelines are aware of the process. Those without it are the ones who need to be further informed. Ms. Elliott recommended that a section be added addressing accessory structures. Ms. Shay agreed that a separate section should be included. Ms. Shay requested that the OSSHAD information regarding conversion be eliminated. The Board concurred. -6- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 Ms. Jamison inquired whether pea rock was appropriate for driveways and whether it was permitted per the LDR. Ms. Shay stated that it was. Ms. Shay reiterated Ms. Sexton's concerns that the signage section needs to be very specific and should aid anyone looking to design a sign as to what is appropriate and what the Board is looking for with respect to size, massing, scale, and design. The Board agreed that sign's should be designed in proportion to the building and taking into consideration design elements found on the building. A discussion ensued regarding signage. Ms. Uguccioni questioned the necessity of the Fire Safety Section. Ms. Shay said that it was good to stress that when fire stairs are necessary that they should be placed on the least obtrusive elevation. Ms. Shay stated that references to ADA should be changed to the FAC (Florida Accessibility Code) as the FAC is more stringent. Further, direction for designing railings should be included. The Board felt that decorative railings should be provided which is appropriate to the style of the building. Screening with landscaping is encouraged. Ms. Uguccioni will address it. Ms. Sexton stated that lighting that can be viewed from the right-of-way should be consistent with the architectural style whereas interior site lighting could be more modern. Ms. Shutt requested that a section address public art. She was particularly concerned about the proposed Cultural Loop and how that could affect the West Settlers Historic District. Ms. Shay and Ms. Uguccioni will look into the issue. Ms. McDermott requested a list of potential fencing materials be included. Ms. Uguccioni will do so. -7- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 Ms. Jamison asked about chain link fence. It was suggested that it be confined to areas out of the view of the right-of-way. She would prefer to see chain link rather than pvc. Ms. Shay asked the Board's view on using vinyl/pvc fencing. Ms. Uguccioni did not agree with the use of vinyl/pvc fencing. Ms. Sexton inquired about whether it could be used as a rear yard fence. The Board supported the use of vinyl/pvc in the rear yard if camouflaged with landscaping and not viewed from the right-of-way. Mr. Branning said that landscaping is important to the district but that it should not be "more rigorous." He recommended that the term be removed. Ms. Uguccioni will do so. Ms. Shay wished to address the question concerning the percentage of landscaping that could block the front of any building. She felt that landscaping should not block more than one bay of the building along the front façade or the architectural features. The Board felt that architectural features should not be blocked by landscaping (specifically trees). Ms. McDermott requested that owners be required to paint the hurricane panel tracks to match the building if it is the most feasible alternative. Ms. Jamison inquired about the next workshop. Ms. Shay said they would try to avoid another meeting if there were limited concerns after the next round of revisions are reviewed. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for March 3, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 6, 2003. If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. -8- HPB Minutes 3/3/03 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2003 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:01 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gloria Elliott, Gail Lee McDermott, Jim Keavney, Rhonda Sexton, Francisco Perez-Azua, Bill Branning (arrived at 6:03). MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Lynn Tuzik II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes for the Public Hearings/Regular Meetings of August 7, 2002, was before the Board for consideration. Ms. Jamison stated that the address for 117 NE 17th Street should read 117 NE 7th Street. Ms. McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keavney and passed 7-0. The Minutes for the Public Hearings/Regular Meetings of September 18, 2002, was before the Board for consideration. The minutes should be amended by removing Donnamarie Sloan's name and adding Francisco Perez-Azua as a newly elected Board member. Ms. McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7-0. The Minutes for the Public Hearings/Regular Meetings of April 30, 2003, was before the Board for consideration. Ms. McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7-0. Ms. Jamison requested that the motion be amended to change the term "Cape Code" to read "Cape Cod" and to amend the location to read "City Commission Chambers." Ms. McDermott amended her motion to include the changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Branning and passed 7-0. The Minutes for the Public Hearings/Regular Meetings of May 7, 2003, was before the Board for consideration. Ms. McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Branning and passed 7-0. The Minutes for the Public Hearings/Regular Meetings of May 21, 2003, was before the Board for consideration. Ms. McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Branning and passed 7-0. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Ms. Jamison requested that the Board divulge any ex parte communication. None was disclosed. A. Sundy Inn, 106 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Richard Martino, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: The item before the Board is to approve a COA for the installation of a free-standing sign on a contributing property, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Ms. Shay entered the project file into the record and presented the item to the Board. The sign is considered a replacement sign which accounts for the increase in height as the previous sign was several inches taller. Otherwise, the sign meets all the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.7 and the Design Guidelines. It was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Ms. McDermott and passed 7-0 to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign for 106 South Swinton Avenue, The Sundy Inn, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7.(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), (G)(3)(d), (G)(7), and (H)(2)(a- c), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. B. Amelung House, 1125 Vista Del Mar Drive/106 NE 12th Street, Gary Eliopoulos, Owner. Action Before the Board: The action requested of the Board is to review the designation report for the Amelung House and to set a date for the public hearing, pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(C)(4), Designation Procedures. Ms. Shay entered the project file into record and presented the item to the Board. Ms. Shay stated that the house is currently located at 1125 Vista Del Mar Drive, however, the applicant is interested in relocating the house to 106 NE 12th Street. -2- HPB Minutes 6/18/03 Gary Eliopoulos was present to represent the project. Ms. Jamison inquired about the fate of the house at 106 NE 12th Street. Mr. Eliopoulos, 106 NE 12th Street, is currently building a home and lives at 106 NE 12 Street temporarily. He was approached by Mr. Amelung about relocating the house adjacent to the 106 NE 12th Street house on a vacant portion of the lot. There are also potential owners who may be interested in purchasing both homes. The Amelung House must be relocated by September to accommodate new construction proposed for the lot. He then presented the proposed location and orientation for the relocated Amelung dwelling. To be relocated, the house would require a waiver to meet the required lot area as lot in question and the adjacent lots measure 50' in width. Ms. Elliott inquired about whether it would require a unity-of-title. Mr. Eliopoulos stated that it would neither require a unity-of-title nor would it be re-platted. He then highlighted the original footprint and the additions added over the years. Ms. Elliott showed a Sears Model book to the applicant which has an example of a house which may more accurately represent the actual Amelung house style rather than the "Milford" style chosen by the applicant. Ms. Sexton expressed her concern over whether the new orientation of the relocated building is appropriate. Ms. Shay stated that it was a concern and should be deliberated when considering the relocation. Ms. Sexton inquired as to why the designation must be in place in order to save the house. Mr. Eliopoulos and Ms. Shay stated that the Board of Adjustment would not support the waiver otherwise and the house could therefore not be relocated to the lot. After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Perez-Azua, seconded by Ms. McDermott and passed 7-0 to set a date for the required public hearing for the HPB meeting of July 2, 2003 to review the designation report for 106 NE 12th Street. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: -3- HPB Minutes 6/18/03 John Bennett inquired about the status of the Railroad Deport. He expressed his concern over talk of "improvements" to the depot as he felt they were not appropriate for the vernacular building. Ms. Shay stated that it would require Board approval. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison inquired about the status of the Marina District improvements. Ms. Shay stated that there have been no new updates. Ms. Jamison expressed her concern over the height of buildings constructed on the Annex site on Pineapple Grove Way (NE 2" Avenue) and how that could affect the properties on Banker's Row. Ms. Shay stated that the surrounding property owners should be notified but that Board members could attend a Site Plan Review and Appearance Board meeting to express their concern as well. Mr. Perez stated that according to the preliminary designs, the building(s) would be set back. D. Staff: None V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for June 18, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 6, 2003. 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- HPB Minutes 6/18/03 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: June 23, 2003 LOCATION: PLANNING & ZONING CONFERENCE ROOM I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:05 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott, Jim Keavney, Francisco Perez-Azua, Bill Branning (arrived at 6:12). STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay OTHERS: Ellen Uguccioni, Janus Research Consultant II. DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE Ms. Uguccioni gave an overview of the design guideline update with respect to the direction provided at the last review meeting on April 30, 2003. Topics included: the removal of the "Shotgun" style building from the architectural style section, clarification of types of wood siding and roofing materials permitted by the Board, replacement of windows on historic resources, and clarification on continuing design elements on all elevations for new construction. Ms. Elliott requested that the Mission-Revival style house (page 27) be reversed. She further stated that she has access to the picture if needed. Ms. Shay stated that she will continue collecting pictures with the digital camera particularly for additional photos of signs. Mr. Keavney requested that the explanation of siding styles correspond to the descriptions. He further requested an explanation about the qualification of Board members. Ms. Shay will request and confirm the qualifications from the City Clerk's office. Mr. Branning requested that clarification be provided regarding the historic designation process. Ms. Uguccioni explained her reasoning behind the description. Ms. McDermott requested clarification of the building permit process (page 16). Ms. Uguccioni concurred. Ms. Jamison requested clarification of the COA matrix particularly for paint changes (page 18). Ms. Uguccioni and Ms. Shay stated that the COA Matrix will be edited once more. Ms. Shay also requested that the matrix be relocated to the back of the manual. She further asked that "Site Lighting" and "Storm Panels" be added and that awning approvals be changed to staff review as they are reversible treatments. The Board concurred. The Board collectively recommended that decorative shutters be Board reviewed and approved. Ms. Shay requested that "in-kind" and "new materials" be differentiated in the matrix. Ms. Elliott inquired as to why the "Shotgun" style was being deleted. Ms. Shay stated that the manual was intended for the identification and rehabilitation of existing buildings and not those that no longer exist in the established historic districts. Ms. Shay requested the removal of the awning styles since all the styles listed can be found in the city (page 46). The Board concurred. Ms. Shay requested that each section be separated so that each new section begins at the top of the following page. Ms. Jamison inquired about examples of roofing materials. Ms. Uguccioni will provide examples. Ms. Jamison inquired about the demolition section. Ms. Uguccioni stated that it was relocated per the Board's request. -2- HPB Minutes 6/23/03 Ms. Shay requested a revision of the Board's responsibilities with respect to demolition. She requested clarification regarding unsafe structures as the Board has no control over buildings deemed as unsafe to the public. She further added that claims by the applicant that a building is unsound should be supported by a structural engineer's report. Further, denial by the Board can be appealed to the City Commission. Mr. Branning stated that the term "feeling" is still used to describe a building's attributes. Ms. Uguccioni stated that it is a term used by the Federal Government and that it should remain. Ms. Elliott requested clarification regarding the time to submit a written appeal after denial of a designation by the Board. (page 61). Ms. Shay will research whether it is ten working or ten calendar days to appeal. Ms. Uguccioni and Ms. Shay clarified the changes to the demolition section to members of the public present (Ms. Carolyn Patton, Ms. Alieda Riley, and Ms. Joanne Peart). Mr. Branning asked that the e-mail address for a staff contact be changed to the general e-mail address for Planning and Zoning. Ms. Shay concurred and will forward the address to Ms. Uguccioni. Ms. Shay stated that the formatting for the manual will be spiral bound as was the previous version. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for June 23, 2003, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on August 6, 2003. 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. -3- HPB Minutes 6/23/03 toHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: August 6th, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Ill. A. - ITEM: Tapas (8 East Atlantic Avenue) Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Class HI Site Plan,Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for a Restaurant. ` — CITY '—' ATTORNEY —— BUILDING GENERAL DATA: MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.DRIVE N.E. 2Np ST. 0 Owner Alan Schuering —2 NI Agent/Applicant Perez Design — Location South of Atlantic Avenue, approximately 50' east of —z HALL 3 Swinton Avenue. — Li Property Size 0.22 Acres Z N.E. 1ST — ST. Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) Lai a. Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School 3 z COMMUNITY z Q L Square Historic Arts 1 CENTER z • District) OW Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD (Old School SCHOOL , SQUARE MI Square Historic Arts i District) � ATLANTIC AVENUE East: OSSHAD (Old School I Square Historic Arts "M - ''`'1"' — District) • ili South: OSSHAD (Old School .1, Square Historic Arts District) 0' West: OSSHAD (Old School S.W. 1ST 1ST S.E. 1ST ST. Square Historic Arts — 4/ District) - Existing Land Use Retail — W Proposed Land Use Certificate of appropriateness z N — for a restaurant. — Water Service Existing on site. S.W. 2ND _ sr. s.E. 2ND ST- Sewer Service Existing on site. j III ., J - - if W ' S.W. 3RD — vi ST. S.E. 3R0 W.T. I I III. A. ITEM BEFORE THE,; BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness which • incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): ❑ Class Ill Site Plan Modification; Cl Landscape Plan; ❑ Design Elements; and, ❑ Waiver Request. The subject property is located on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue, between South Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue. BACKGROUND' The subject property is comprised of .22 acres described as the west 26' of Lot 4 (Less the south 14') and Lot 5, Block 69. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and is considered a contributing property in the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a two-story Masonry Vernacular commercial building constructed in 1950. The first floor contains 2,580 sq. ft. of retail space while the second floor contains a 309 sq. ft. efficiency apartment. No recent administrative or Board actions have been 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 the first floor from retail to restaurant (while retaining the residential components). PROJECT- DESCRIPTION ;. . The development proposal involves the following: o Conversion of the 2,580 sq. ft. first floor(retail space) into restaurant; o Removal of the existing 990 sq. ft canopy on the south side of the building; o Reconfiguration of the existing ten space asphalt parking area to accommodate 13 spaces (including one handicapped accessible parking space and three compact spaces) to the west and south of the building; o Installation of a 3' wide and 25'8" long canvas, shed awning; o Request of four in-lieu parking spaces; and, Meeting Date:August 6, 2003 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 2 o Removal of the existing chain link fencing and installation of associated landscaping, internal walkways and refuse container area. SITE. PLAN MODIFICATION ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. CBD Zone District Development Standards: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(11), while zoned OSSHAD, the property is located within a geographical area that is subject to the CBD zoning district development standards. The following table indicates that the proposal complies with LDR Sections 4.4.13(F), (G)(2), and Section 4.3.4(K) as they pertain to the CBD zone district: Required Provided Building Height (max.) 48' 19'-6" Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 0' 10'2" Side (Interior) 0' 0' -east -west 0' 24' Rear 10' 36'8" Open Space 0% 5.5% LDR Chapter 4.4.13(G)(1)(Parkinq): Parking Parking for this development proposal is being assessed as it relates to the conversion of the retail space to restaurant and for residential. The existing 2,950 sq. ft. building was previously utilized as retail and residential. The applicant proposes to retain the residential component (309 sq. ft. on the second) and convert the retail space (2,580 sq. ft.) to restaurant. 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. Restaurants shall provide six spaces per one thousand square feet to total new or existing floor area being converted to restaurant use. Based on the information above, 10 parking spaces are required for the existing development and 10 exist. With the conversion of 2,580 sq. ft. from retail to restaurant HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 3 seven additional spaces are required for a total of 17 spaces. The applicant is reconfiguring the existing parking area to accommodate 13 spaces on site and is requesting to purchase a total of four in-lieu spaces. The in-lieu spaces will be considered for recommendation to the City Commission at the Parking Management Board meeting on August 26, 2003. Driveway Obstruction and Sight Visibility Currently, a utility pole and concrete anchor lie at the entrance (south) of the proposed parking lot. The applicant has submitted documentation from Florida Power and Light which supports the retention of the utility pole, however, in order to accommodate a means of ingress and egress to the parking area, the anchor and guy wire must be relocated. Further, the existing building to the west (currently the Safari Steakhouse) presents a sight visibility issue with respect to egress from the parking area into the alley. While this situation has existed for many years, in order to reduce the site visibility concern with respect to the alley, the applicant must install a convex safety mirror to provide drivers better visibility at the corner (egress). A sign should also be installed within the alley notifying eastbound motorists of the hidden driveway. These have been added as conditions of approval. There is also a concern with the location of the kitchen door on the west, as it opens into the drive aisle. This is an unsafe situation particularly given the high use of the doorway by employees, loading functions, trash disposal, etc. It is recommended that the kitchen area is redesigned so the service doorway is located on the south side of the building, which will be in close proximity to the loading functions, can wash, and trash enclosure, and eliminate the potential conflict with the drive aisle. Sidewalk Café Pursuant to LDR Section 6.3.3, sidewalk cafés are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district when established in conjunction with a legally established restaurant and/or take-out food store. A sidewalk café may only be established in front of the business and immediately adjacent to the business with which the sidewalk café is associated. A clear pathway of five feet must be maintained for pedestrian traffic. Use area and/or seating capacity realized through a sidewalk café use shall not invoke provisions of the zoning code as they pertain to parking; accordingly no additional parking is required with the establishment of the sidewalk café. The proposed site plan does indicates the location of the proposed sidewalk café in relation to the property line and indicates the required five foot pedestrian pathway, however, prior to establishing the sidewalk café, a permit for the sidewalk café must be obtained from the City Engineer. This has been attached as a condition of approval. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting is required for new development proposals. Site lighting has been provided through the use of a series of wall sconces and lighted HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 4 bollards. As light poles cannot be utilized due to the unconventional and limited layout of the parking area, wall sconces will be placed on the west elevation of the building with bollards along the west side of the parking lot adjacent to the Safari Steakhouse Building. Details of the proposed lighting have been submitted along with a photometric plan, however, lighting locations have not been noted on either the site plan or the landscape plan. Decorative pendant lights are also proposed on the building on the front façade and a detail has been submitted. Notation of the site lighting on the site and landscape plans has been added as a technical item. Refuse Container Area The proposal includes the installation of a refuse container area to the south of the property adjacent to the building. The 11'x12' refuse container will be enclosed within a six (6) foot high concrete block wall with stucco exterior and metal frame, wood panel gate. The enclosure includes a can wash area and an area for recyclable containers. The design and location are appropriate with respect to the neighboring properties and accessibility from the alley. However, the enclosure detail must include appropriate details for the can wash and the dumpster area. Sidewalks Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B) (1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of- way adjacent to the property. A 5' paver sidewalk exists within the East Atlantic Avenue right-of-way. It is also noted that an internal walkway has been proposed between the proposed parking area and the building. Therefore, the sidewalk requirement has been met. Site Plan Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1) That the parking lot be striped per City of Delray Beach Standards. 2) Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. 3) That the site lighting locations be noted on the site plan and landscape plan. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS Presently, the only landscaping on the property is a hedge along the north side of the property which screens the parking area. The proposed landscaping will be minimal throughout the property based on the constraints of the lot and the building configuration. Landscaping is comprised of both existing and proposed landscaping which includes: one Pongam Tree and Ficus hedging on the north property line to remain with the addition of new Pigeon Plum and Alexander Palms. Hedging consists of Viburnum, Confederate Jasmine, and Cocoplum along the perimeter of the parking lot HPB Staff Report • Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 5 with flowering annuals adjacent to the sidewalk on East Atlantic Avenue and Yellow Lantana adjacent to the existing utility pole at the entrance of the parking area within to the alley. While the proposed landscaping is appropriate for the site, it is recommended that the Viburnum on the west side of the property be extended to approximately 28' from the south property line in order to maximize the amount of available green space on the property while maintaining the 24' required drive aisle. Further, it is recommended that if, during construction, there is any concern over the retention of the Ficus hedge or the Pongam Tree along the north property line, that they be replaced with Podocarpus and an Alexander Palm, respectively. These have been added as Landscape Technical Items. The proposed landscape plan will be in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.16 with the exception of the waiver request described below and provided that the landscape technical items as listed below are addressed. Waiver Request Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), a landscape strip of not less than five (5) feet in width, excluding the curbing, shall be located between the vehicular use area and abutting properties. The proposal includes a request for a waiver to reduce the landscape strip on the north property line from the required 5' to 3' (excluding the required 6" curbing) and on the south property line from the required 5' to 2.5' (excluding curbing)to accommodate the construction of the 13 space parking lot. Required Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings that the granting of the waiver: a)Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; b)Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Given the site constraints, the waiver is necessary to accommodate a side and rear parking lot with alley access. The existing landscape strip along the north side of the property varies in width from 4.5' to 3.5'. In order to accommodate the handicapped accessible parking space as well as the proper maneuvering area further reduction is necessary. The reduction is necessary on the south side in order to maximize the parking. Due to the site constraints and the building configuration, granting a waiver to reduce the required landscape strips on the north and south sides of the parking area can be supported. HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 6 Given the analysis above, the waiver request will neither adversely affect the neighboring area nor grant a special privilege to the property owner based on the current configuration and lot area. No public facilities will be at risk and no unsafe situations shall be formed by the granting of this waiver. Based on this analysis, positive findings can be made to grant the requested waiver pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Landscape Technical Items: The following technical items must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 1) That the landscaping proposed for the west side of the property (adjacent to the Safari Steakhouse Building) be extended to approximately 28' from the south property line in order to maximize the amount of available green space on the property while maintaining the 24' required drive aisle. 2) That if the existing Pongam Tree is damaged or cannot be salvaged during construction, that the tree is replaced with an Alexander Palm. 3) That the applicant shall consider changing the proposed Ficus hedge along the north perimeter to a different species. A hedge such as Podocarpus will take up less area, require less maintenance and will be much less destructive. DESIGN ELEMENTS Development Standards: LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8)(g)All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. Conversion to Restaurant The proposal involves the conversion of the two-story building from retail to restaurant while retaining its residential component. The contributing, 2,950 sq. ft., masonry vernacular building is constructed of concrete block and displays minimal architectural HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 7 detail that includes a storefront entrance, scoring on the second floor facade, and banding around the second story windows. Proposed elevation changes include painting the body of the building "Marmalade" a light orange and white on the window frames. The remainder of the building will consist of exposed concrete. The color scheme is intended to provide visual interest to the building's façade and to reflect the restaurant's Spanish/Latin theme. No fenestration changes are proposed at this time. A black canvas, shed style awning is also proposed for the first floor entrance which will cantilever over the storefront entrance. The proposed awning measures 3' wide x 25'8" long and projects 9'10" from the building. The awning will not encroach into the right-of- way. While the awning has been indicated on the elevations, no detail of the awning has been provided. This has been added as a condition of approval. REQUIRED FINDINGS I 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 Ill 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 Ill modification. The development proposal involves a conversion of an existing 2,580 sq. ft. of retail 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 proposals 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 2,580 sq.ft. restaurant conversion will generate 66 average daily trips. HPB Staff Report • Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 8 Solid Waste Requirements The proposed 2,580 sq. ft. office conversion will generate 32.1 tons of solid waste per year [(2,580 sq.ft. x 24.9 lb./sq.ft./year = 64,242 lbs/2,000 lb. = 32.1 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 At its meeting of June 26, 2003, the CRA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the modifications subject to staffs conditions. Downtown Development Authority At its meeting of June 18, 2003, the DDA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the modifications subject to staffs conditions. Parking Management Advisory Board The in-lieu of parking request is scheduled for the August 26, 2003 PMAB meeting. The Historic Preservation Board's recommendation will be provided to PMAB at the meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the conversion of a 2,580 sq.ft. of retail space to restaurant while maintaining the residential component and the installation of associated site improvements including the construction of a 13 space parking lot, associated landscaping, internal walkways, and refuse container enclosure. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the Land Development Regulations will be obtained provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The associated landscape waiver can be supported based on the site constraints. Further, the elevation change to the non-contributing building will enhance the property and compliments the design elements found in the Old School Square Historic District. Given this, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections (E)(4) and (E)(8)(g). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS' A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class Ill site plan modification, landscape plan and design elements for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 3.1.1(Performance HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 9 Standards), Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings) and Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. C. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class III site plan modification, landscape plan and design elements for 8 East .Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Waiver Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the landscape strip on the north property line from the required 5' to 3' (excluding the required 6" curbing) and on the south property line from the required 5' to 2.5' (excluding curbing) based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B). Site Plan Modification Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class Ill site plan modification for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings) and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2) That the applicant obtain a sidewalk café permit. 3) That the City Commission approve the in-lieu of parking request. 4) That the guy wire and anchor for the power pole be relocated. 5) That a convex mirror be attached to the power pole and a sign installed within the alley right-of-way indicating a hidden driveway. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) Address all Landscape Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. HPB Staff Report Tapas-Class Ill Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 10 Design Elements Approve the COA for the design elements for 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Tapas, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(g), subject to the following condition: 1) That the applicant submit a detail and color sample of the proposed shed awning. Attachments: • Location Map • Site Plan • Floor Plan • Building Elevations • Landscape Plan • Survey Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • L LLI a--- ¢- L. Q -- LEGEND -- \ • CITY l AT TAP ATTORNEY — _ _ III TAP BUILDING I . - DRIVE N.E. `-2NDII CERTIFICATE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ST. OF APPROPRIATENESS id Q o 1.I ' ASSOCIATED WITHA — N U N I CLASS III SITE PLAN - - 8 EAST ATLANTIC AVE. CITY ; rzHALL 3 w > I SUBJECT AREA - o _o Z N.E. 1ST j ST. M w a I' - 3 > z COMMUNITY Z Q z SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER PCN#:12 43 46-16-01-069 0041 - • APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.22 TENNIS OLD - STADIUM SCHOOL w TOWN I ABRIDGED LEGAL D z SQUARE z I Z LOT 4OF(LESS SDELRAY 14 FT.)W26&LFT OTOF 5 BLK 69(OLD ATLANTIC AVENUE SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT) II— COURT iii!iii SOUTH < ZONING:CBD(CENTRAL BUSINESS COUNTY Z DISTRICT) HOUSE N I FLUM:CC(COMMERCIAL CORE) I- Li tit i EXISTING LAND USAGE:XXX Z > - a WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - a ZONE:#N# // U) WITHIN CENSUS / TRACT:##.## u., >S.W. 1ST 1ST S.E. 1ST ST. ---\ ui Z F PLANNING N k ZONING DEPARTMENT w N N M 4 W 4.1=E Z u N N ._ - S- w 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. LONG-RANGE DIVISION • DIGITAL BASE-MAPPING k N I - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Q r SYSTEM vi W ui AMP REFERENCE#:LM715 - JULY 2003 -- 3 ui Q Act ‘bir7 ,,. :-, ::: 7,R4,\i -N vWi S.W. 3RD ST. S.E. 3RD ST. S.E. 3RD ST. V` f MERRITT Hp :it iet..4..,. .. �` PARK l� i 89 89 kil . i 79.33' W +19.70 1 AST ATLANTIC AVENUE+78.88 • • +,928 • • PAVED tj • - 71 +/943 73 2'CONC. CU62g 8 GUTTER £34 85• . PARKING• PARKING -PARKING • ' .. i SPACE SPACE SPACE - t�.i� •18.94 Yy$ • •Z 6 7 +at.I ,/ Ej - L...o'19.34 8 111 +18.94 Q +20.06 T-DRILL HOL • '_ SET p?1 62 72,3ICK PAVER& CONC. .WALK (NO NUHBER7 • 9 _ &3 • 02•. i • 26.0' 20.33' • • ( - • o ti +19.97 ±738 L,, o_PAVERSd "��" ALL • T PI N ' 4+ �9 7��C...�. I r, I/bb� i ON LINE, l 09 O • P • . j • o_ 2 T,' ll' o :UILDING • • Q p. O • ON LINE FLOOR . - . . - +20.13 PAVED ;o Zi2 • .,♦ 0 • • yV . O 0 b p NN. 1 2 >( • S. Zp0 .48 ,�99 +7 v `O• ,o s_ 24.0' 22.4' . ¢ • - _, W:- >¢ N a N O Ja . o-0 ,,' :0 1 STOR}I BUILDING ' > Li % • . y4 - . ;M I \6 a ti pa FLOOR w y h • c� I' _ VI' +20.09 4,Z�u. 4D'' B.I. 12 W2 w ' A o ti ' j2 24.0' - .19.7 - • " _ .. O 2 LOT 6 LO F 5/ L C T 4� B L O C K 6 9 ``unl%ilL 0 C K 6 B9 B C K 6 9 2 --- Lt' U 1'ER E D CONE. AN - �- ,13 ;`q`•'y46 ,. - / ,110,V-N LINE . ' BRICK +`1 —VEST • LINE L 7PLANTER JF LOT 4m9 - • _ ,1 P A V£D 4' `r' ems_oL ET N.D.- u1 gj`. IM ''(] 1 / FOUND NAIL ' 9p�t�1 TAG (NO NUMBER>�Ay�6'�'A ;ire E D Nr . tea% 43 GAT a, --D C� LANrfi-5 ^GATE 36-1 • `"FOUND 5/8 +1E 46.33' -+19.02 46.33L18.60 • . IRON-ROD POLE WIT SET N.D. END NUMBER) ANCHGR +19.095 - 4 NB.�� 15 • LEGEND. / , ALLEY RIGHT OF VAY BENCH HARK: TOP OF oCO 0 SS.Mh 28. P A-V£D 24 23N•L 8 WASHER+18.72 14 " fL 3 CENTERLINE �6 F. 10 9 . ��--- ENCH MARK: TOP OF 19 2-1) 1' r 13 .' CONC. CONCRETE \ NAIL 8 WASHER +1�479 I1 P A v£D 8 W 5'----.'W.M. = WATER METER I b- • 1E e� L.P. = LIGHT POLE � � • • S.S.M,H. = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE . C.O. = SANITARY-SEWER CLEANOUT • • MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY VE Y • - = CHAIN LINK FENCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE . = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES AND MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA . - BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 61617-6,FLORIDA 1-19.49 ELEVATION BASEDON NATIONAL GEODETIC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE,PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027,FLORIDA STATUTES. 'VERTICAL DATUM 1929. SOURCE' PALM BEACH COUNTY . BENCH MARK 'D-32' I.R. = 5/8' IRON ROD-WITH CAP 11L B 353 PAUL D. ENGLE N.D. = NAIL & DISK /LB 353 NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND SURVEYOR & MAPPER 115708 1NE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. FLOOD ZONE: X • O'BRIEN, SUI TER -& O'BRIEN, INC, . - DESCRIPTION: LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION CLB353 THE WEST 26 FEET.OF LOT 4, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 14 F_ETSURVEYOR AND MAPPER IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: PAUL-D. ENGLE _ THEREOF, AND ALL.OF LOT 5, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 69, 2601 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 DELRAY BEACH, ACCORDING TO.THE PLAT THEREOF, AS - (561)276-4501 732-3279 FAX 276-2390 RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 43, OF THE PUBLIC - • RECORDS OF.PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. DATE OF Suev£r SCALE. MAY 7, 2003 1' - 20' • FIELD BOX PAGE IC ORDER NO, ©COPYRIGHT 2003 O'BRIEN,SUITER 6 O'BRIEN,INC. D276 2 - - - -03-113d i t _FASTENER, SEE ANCHOR SCHEDULE i: . REFERENCE CONNECTION "TYPE FOR DIRECT f ' (USE REMOVABLE ANCHORSBUT D • f MOUNT ONLY (6 6" OR 12" O.C.. I NOT EXCEED SCHEDULED SPACING '/ / (TYP. TOP & BOTTOM) �- ipi r w j• I -' GLASS / :� co ' OR DOOR --j-- . 1a! b-- —- 1 - i- .1-. -- I( . Lti I) Evg -3\ r�,l /o . LO VI WiB Stto t1 I EXISTING CONCRETE. (--- HOLLOW TOCK Y(. OR WOOD FRAMING EMBED. ) 8. BOTTOM) (TYP.) WALL MOUNT SECTION © DIRECT MOUNT) SCALE : 3' = 1'-0' / (, )( 1 S irs C. icpr n C) ›e-it.cy-_, 2-X 7...2.-V,- 0 ,2 -CZo 2,./7 k 20 ;�I 1. 2 -Zy rS'' y .gk66.% 67k8 ill G.-t G-) 2 ,J 4 i. 1 " ' ^Cli ff i s +aa ri i ii ?i° , r 1 1 ••, J tr ,fir �, n. J'h M A• •',j d .x 1 ; f '- /ram I .4., : �.ti a • Y I ., EZ r r" .. 4 h 1• kt ;if),; r • t G0 •�`, 'terR ` t ".. :.`7 ::, ,1,, f ti i. i l AA,. •I: • DRRAY BEACHbittid DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 1993 200011 2001 Agent: Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. Project Name: Independence Title-Continued Location: 204 Dixie Boulevard _ BACKGROUND Zoned Residential Office (RO), the property consists of .47 acres described as the southwesterly 25' of Lot 14 and Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Del-Ida Park. Designated as part of the Del-Ida Park Historic District, the property currently contains a 1,153 square foot contributing, Mission-Revival style, single family dwelling and associated contributing garage constructed in 1930. On September 16, 1992, a Certificate of Appropriateness was administratively approved for the replacement of jalousie windows for single hung sash windows which were installed. During its meeting of June 4, 2003, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a COA and associated Class V Site Plan application and associated waivers involving the following: conversion of the 1,153 sq. ft. extant dwelling from residential to office, construction of a 3,283 sq. ft. addition to the historic building, and demolition of the contributing garage to accommodate a 1,090 sq. ft. office building. The proposal also included a waiver request to reduce the required stacking distance from 20' to 5' and a waiver to reduce the required landscape strip on the northern property line of the parking area from 5' to 3'. At that time, the Board approved the waiver request, site plan, landscape plan, and design elements with the stipulation that the applicant return to the Board after addressing the following conditions of approval-for design elements: 1) Providing color samples for the building's exterior and the proposed awnings; 2) That the proposed elevations are simplified; 3) That a detail of the proposed fountain, planters, retaining wall, and associated pilasters are submitted; and, 4) That a detail of the proposed windows be submitted including a muntin profile. Based on these directives, revised plans have been submitted and the applicant is now before the Board for review and approval. Meeting Date:August 20, 2003 Agenda Item: III.D. Independence Title—Continued 204 Dixie Boulevard Page 2 DESCRIPTION I ANALYSIS Residential Conversion to Commercial Existing The proposal involves the conversion of a contributing, one-story residential building to office. The Mission Revival building is approximately 1,153 sq. ft. and lies on the northeast corner of the property. The one-story, flat roof, frame dwelling displays original detailing such as wood frame windows (with the exception of the west elevation), textured stucco exterior, and stepped parapet. The building will be rehabilitated based on its original footprint. The project also includes the demolition of the contributing garage and the construction of a 1,090 sq. ft. building for separate office use. No elevation changes are proposed for the historic building to accommodate the conversion. Addition & New Construction The proposed project also includes the construction of a 3,283 sq. ft. addition west of the 1,153 sq. ft. single family home and the construction of a new 1,090 sq. ft. separate office building. The one-story, 3,283 sq. ft. addition is proposed to the southwest of the existing historic building. The buildings are attached at the west elevation of the extant dwelling with the. new footprint expanding westward along Dixie Boulevard. The new concrete block addition as revised has retained its influences of various architectural styles including Mission Revival, Mediterranean-Revival, and Moorish elements. The addition's exterior, square footage, and type of fenestration proposed remains the same though the proposed French door on the northwest ("entry" elevation) has been relocated to the opposite wall creating a small porch. Further, the roofline on the northwest corner has been altered to incorporate more of the flat roof design found on the original Mission style building to the far east. Decorative elements originally proposed remain including: the use of decorative columns and banding, cast stone moldings, canvas awnings, scuppers, and a wood trellis. The design has also been altered to incorporate a water table to further differentiate the historic building from the new construction. The one-story, 1,090 sq. ft., concrete block building will be located to the rear and east of the extant historic building. The new building's design has also been altered to include a covered, arched walkway between the historic building and the new building. Previous Conditions of Approval Several conditions of approval were stipulated during the previous review. Many of those have been addressed by the applicant which include: a detail and color sample for the forest green, dome and shed style awnings have been submitted, a detail of the proposed fountain, and details of the proposed planters, retaining wall, and associated pilasters have been submitted. Further, the applicant has provided a color palette for the building that includes 'White Dove" (pale cream)for the walls, "Dove Wing" (light cream) Independence Title—Continued 204 Dixie Boulevard Page 3 for the fascia, 'Wheeling Neutral" (medium tan) for the columns, and chocolate brown for the windows and doors. "Wrought iron" (dark brown) color railings will complete the color scheme. A detail of the proposed windows will be presented to the Board at the time of review. LDR Section 4.5.1(E) Design Elements Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards". provides guidelines in evaluating alterations or additions of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8)All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in (a) height, (b) front faced proportion, (c) proportion of openings, (d) rhythm of solids to voids, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (f) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g)relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the—predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (1) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of the front elevation. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that: 1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new Independence Title—Continued 204 Dixie Boulevard Page 4 feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Analysis The proposed elevations for the addition are a complex mix of styles and design. The elevations, while somewhat simplified from the original design and differentiated from the historic building has incorporated numerous design elements which clutter the elevations. For instance, removing the gable roof on the northeast elevation and incorporating a Mission style parapet (such as that found on the original building) would ease the transition between the extant building and the proposed construction. On the front or northwest elevation, the decorative medallions and rosette should be scaled down to diminish competition with the surrounding design elements. Similarly, the proposed finials atop the flat roof on the northeast elevation should be removed as detailed and complicated design elements do not compliment the minimal architectural details found on the historic Mission-Revival building. Finally, the applicant is proposing both dome and shed style awnings. In order to be consistent, one style should be utilized as changing the style does not affect its utilitarian nature. The above items have been attached as conditions of approval. With respect to the covered walkway between the new building and historic building, it is recommended that the scoring at the top of the arch be eliminated and be re-designed to display a simple smooth arch design with keystone to further compliment the Mediterranean influences exhibited throughout the new building and addition. This has been added as a condition of approval. Careful consideration should be given to the chosen architectural elements in order to ensure that a sensitive and appropriate design is provided. Re-designing the elements as stated above will aid in complimenting the existing historic building and allow for positive findings to be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. REVIEW BY OTHERS' Community Redevelopment Agency Thuy Shutt, Urban Designer for the CRA, reviewed the revised elevations on August 6, 2003. Ms Shutt re-iterated her concerns regarding the need for simplifying the architectural elevations and design elements that include: scaling down the decorative tile rosette and medallions, simplifying the rooflines and arched covered walkway, and eliminating the finials. Independence Title—Continued 204 Dixie Boulevard Page 5 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the revised elevations associated with a Class V site plan for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the revised elevations associated with a Class V site plan for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, with basis stated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the COA and the revised elevations associated with a Class V site plan for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the gable roof on the northeast elevation be modified to incorporate a Mission style parapet (such as that found on the original building) and that the decorative medallion be removed or scaled down to better fit the space. 2) That the decorative medallions and rosette be scaled down on the front (northwest elevation). 3) That the proposed awning be consistent in design. 4) Remove the proposed finials atop the flat roof on the northeast elevation. 5) Simplify the arch design on the covered walkway to display a decorative arch and keystone. Attachments: HPB Staff Report dated 6.4.03, Survey, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, & Floor Plan, Map Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner • tz 1 -- LEGEND -- • N.W. 11TH ST. N.E. 11TH ST. INDEPENDENCE TITLE ' ... ¢jI LEVEL-CLASS V N.E. 1 oTH sr SITE PLANAPPROVAL Jo )I n N.E. 9TH ST. 204 DIXIE BLVD.-NORTH N.W. 9TH ST. A ■.■ 'a�N.W. z ui 6 H T. �,. BUSH BOULEVARD 1!Iii1 NW. 7TH ¢I ,, DEL IDA PARK SWLY 25 FT OF i i ' _ , LOT 14&LOTS 1PA PARK N.W.N.W. 6TH ST. (DEL-IDA PARK o Ii HISTORIC DISTRICT) T_.1 , N.E. 6TH ST. Z & _ G� DEL IDA PARK LOT 17 BLK 10 ��G�. :;, QY = (DEL-IDA PARKHISTORIC DISTRICT) \ �P ` `; `O{ U) ZONING:RO(RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE) 0 N.E. 5TH TERR. `v FLUM:TRN(TRANSITIONAL) WOOD LANE Z ,, }} EXISTING LAND USAGE:SINGLE ,, Csi .Z 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE&VACANT WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS N.E. 5Th CT. < ZONE:#533 i 0 p WITHIN CENSUS `, \\ TRACT:#65.01 TRINITY N.E.NI (t �TH ST. . \ LUTHERAN • - PLANNING w CO &ZONING DEPARTMENT W Iyj 4 T Z ? . LAKE IDA R D. N.E. 4TH ST. 'o N 3 POST IW� ,,-E CASON OFFICE • I y 1, METHODIST CHURCH L.; `�' C a +J I < LONG-RANGE DIVISION Q DIGITAL BASE-MAPPING A: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION w I SYSTEM > MAP REFERENCEI:LM705 Q --AUGUST 2003 — C1 O ' .T F N M +- cn ■ ■ V.4 n N.W. O 3RD ST. N.E. _3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. I ,mums, Ii9 i' �� t� ;q z —z z . CITY M. f • ATTORNEY Z 'i%. }, BUILDING 1 I �� ■ ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 204 Dixie Boulevard, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class V Site Plan; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Design Elements; ❑ Demolition; and, ❑ Waiver Requests The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Dixie Boulevard and NE 2nd Avenue. BACKGROUND �. Zoned Residential Office (RO), the property consists of .47 acres described as the southwesterly 25' of Lot 14 and Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Del-Ida Park. The property currently contains a 1,153 square foot contributing, Mission-Revival style, single family dwelling and associated contributing garage constructed in 1930. On September 16, 1992, a Certificate of Appropriateness was administratively approved for the replacement of jalousie windows for single hung sash windows which were installed. There are no other recent administrative or Historic Preservation Board reviews of this property. The applicant has submitted a Class V Site Plan application and associated waivers for the conversion of the single family residence to an office building and is now before the Board for consideration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Conversion of a 1,153 sq. ft. one-story, single family home to office; o Construction of a 3,283 sq. ft. office addition on the front façade (west) of the extant historic building; o Demolition of a 372 sq. ft. contributing outbuilding (garage) in order to accommodate the construction of a new 1,090 sq. ft. detached office building; o Construction of a twenty-five (25) space asphalt parking lot including one handicapped accessible space and five compact spaces; Meeting Date:June 4, 2003 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 2 ❑ Installation of a brick sidewalk, fountain, associated landscaping, and refuse container area; and, o Waiver requests to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1) for the reduction of the stacking distance and LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the required landscape strip on the northern property line of the parking area from 5' to 3'. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified'-in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The following table indicates that the development proposal complies with LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the RO zoning district: Required Provided Building Height(max.) 35' 23' (median of tower roof) Building Setbacks (min.) - Front (southwest 25' 25' and northwest) Side Interior(east) 15' 15' Side Street (west) 25' 35' Open Space 25% 45.4% Parking Requirement —,. Pursuant to LDR 4.4.17(G)(2) parking for business and professional offices shall be at the standard of one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of total floor area. A 25 space, double bay parking lot, including one handicapped space and five compact spaces, is proposed at the southeast side of the property with access taken off of NE 5th Terrace. The existing building coupled with the new construction will contain a total of 5,526 sq. ft. Based on the proposed square footage, 18.42 or 19 parking spaces are required. Thus, the parking requirement has been met. An existing driveway lies to the north of the property fronting Dixie Boulevard. As the parking will be accommodated at the rear of the property, it is recommended that the driveway be removed as a vehicle utilizing the space will block access to the sidewalk. Since there is more than adequate parking to the rear, the space is unnecessary to meet the required parking and is not necessary to maintain the residential character based on HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 3 the development proposal. Removal of the driveway has been added as a condition of approval. Stacking Distance Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the minimum required stacking distance between a right-of-way and the first parking space or aisleway in a parking lot providing between 21-50 spaces is 20' for a local street. The applicant has proposed to reduce the required stacking distance to 10' on the west driveway and 5' at the east driveway in order to accommodate the proposed 25 spaces. Waiver Findings:— Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings that the granting of the waiver: a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Waiver Analysis In order to accommodate the 20' of stacking, three or more parking spaces will need to be eliminated. Due to the unusual configuration of the lot and the provision of two driveways, the reduction is appropriate. Granting the waiver will not negatively impact the surrounding properties as the use, time, and days of operation by the business are limited with respect to conflicts with the surrounding residential/commercial area. Further, reduction of the stacking distance and construction of the parking lot will neither diminish the provision of public facilities in the area nor create an unsafe situation. Based- on this analysis, it is reasonable to believe that a waiver would be granted in a similar circumstance for another applicant or property. — LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Bike Rack Though the property is outside of the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area), the applicant has provided a bike rack to be located to the east of the extant historic building. Site Lighting Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has been submitted to meet this requirement as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Further, site lighting locations are reflected on the site, landscape, and engineering plans and decorative fixture details were provided. The poles will spun concrete 16' in height with gooseneck mounting and a fixture height of 13'. Based on the HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 4 photometric plan provided, the illumination levels exceed those allowed in neighborhood developments. Also, sharp cutoff luminaire must be used. As the property abuts residences, the photometric plan should take into account the spillage onto the adjacent properties. A condition of approval that the site lighting and photometric plan is revised to comply with standards as stated above has been attached. Underground Utilities Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. The site plan indicates that the existing overhead utility lines will be buried. Sidewalks Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(8)(1), a 5'wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk currently runs along both Dixie Boulevard and NE 5th Terrace providing accessibility to the buildings. Refuse Container Area The proposed refuse area is located at the southeast corner of the parking area and angled for access from the parking lot. The 11'4"x10' refuse area, including recyclables, will be placed on a concrete pad and screened by a 6' high, concrete block wall with a pair of metal gates at the front and a 3' access door to the side. The wall will be painted to match the buildings. While the minimum requirements have been met for the refuse container, the location of the refuse container is not appropriate adjacent to the front yard of the abutting residence, along a residential street, and where it encroaches into the site visibility triangle. The container should be relocated to the interior of the parking area in order to be properly screened from the right-of-way and to provide better access and not abut a residential property. Further, there is no notation of the wall material and gate detail as shown on the site plan. Relocation of the refuse container and notations providing information regarding the wall material and gate detail have been added as conditions of approval. Notation of the color palette has been added as a condition of approval. s- Declaration of Unity of Title The development proposal includes improvements across property lines (the west 25' of Lot 14 and all of Lots 15-17, Block 10, Del-Ida Park). As the properties will be under one ownership and function as one development, it is appropriate to combine the properties through a Declaration of Unity of Title, which must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The City must be a party to any dissolution of this Unity of Title. This provision has been met. Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) That site data which includes the current and proposed setbacks be provided on the site plan including the current and proposed building setbacks and open space. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 5 2) That a detail of the refuse container be provided that includes notation of the wall material and gate detail. 3) Provide certified exfiltration trench test results. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS Both existing, relocated, and proposed landscaping will be interspersed throughout the property. Existing landscaping consists of Live Oaks, Royal Palms, Mango Trees, Poincianas, Lynchee Trees, Coral Trees, Seagrapes, Silk Floss, Fence and Passion Vine, and relocated Adonidia Palms, Coconut Palms, Frangipani, Live Oaks, and Royal Palms with Ficus hedge along the perimeter of the property. Proposed landscaping includes: Bougainvillea, Gumbo Limbos, Coconut Palms, Silver Buttonwood, Glaucous Cassia, Live Oaks, Solitaire Palms, and Montgomery Palms, Live Oaks, Plumeria and Solitaire Palms along the perimeter of the proposed parking area. A variety of underplantings will be interspersed throughout the property that include: various annuals, Dwarf Elephant Ear, Red Ginger, Mixed Bromeliads, Jamaican Caper, Cat Palms, European Fan Palms, Crotons, Hawaiian Ti Plants, Song of Jamaica, Golden Dewdrop, Thryallis, Stokes Dwarf, Pink lxora, Lakeview Jasmin Trees and Hedge, Boston Fern. Golden Shrimp Plant, Blue Plumbago, Wart Fern, Wild Coffee, Indian Hawthorn, Lade Palms, and Confederate Jasmins with Cocoplum and ficus hedging along the perimeter of the property. The proposed landscaping complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16 with the exception of the reduction of the landscape strip along the north edge of the proposed parking area from five feet (5') to three feet (3'). Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), a landscape strip of not less than 5'in width, excluding curbing, shall be located between the vehicular use area and abutting properties. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. Waiver Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings that the granting of the waiver: e) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; t) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; g) Shall not create an unsafe situation;and, h) 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. Waiver Analysis Due to the unusual configuration of the lot and the necessity to provide parking on site for the new development, the reduction of the landscape strip from 5' to 3' is appropriate. Further, the required amount of landscaping can be installed within the proposed reduced landscape strip. Granting the waiver will not negatively impact the surrounding properties HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 6 and reduction of the landscape strip will neither strain public facilities in the area nor create an unsafe situation. Based on this analysis, it is reasonable to believe that a waiver would be granted in a similar circumstance for another applicant or property. Landscape Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1)That all landscaping at the northeast corner of the property adjacent to the extant historic building be identified. 2)That the existing Ficus hedge and proposed Ixora in front of the addition (facing Dixie Boulevard) be eliminated and that foundation plantings be incorporated in place of the hedge in order to expand the view from the right-of-way. DESIGN.ELEMENTS/ANALYSIS' Residential Conversion to Commercial Existing The proposal involves the conversion of a contributing, one-story residential building to office. The Mission Revival building is approximately 1,153 sq. ft. and lies on the northeast corner of the property. The one-story, flat roof, frame dwelling displays original detailing such as wood frame windows (with the exception of the west elevation), textured stucco exterior, and stepped parapet. The building will be rehabilitated based on its original vernacular footprint and a 3,283 sq. ft. addition will be constructed to the west. The project also includes the demolition of the contributing garage and the construction of a 1,090 sq. ft. building for separate office use. No elevation changes are proposed for the historic building to accommodate the conversion. Addition & New Construction - The proposed project also includes the construction of a 3,283 sq. ft. addition to the 1,153 sq. ft. single family home and the construction of a new 1,090 sq. ft. separate office building. The one-story, 3,283 sq. ft. addition is proposed to the southwest of the existing historic building. The buildings are attached at the west elevation of the extant dwelling with the new footprint expanding westward along Dixie Boulevard. Complying with the required setback of 25' on both Dixie Boulevard and NE 5th Terrace, the footprint is stepped back along NE 5th Terrace in order to accommodate the angled property line. The new concrete block addition will incorporate a series of styles including Mission Revival, Mediterranean- Revival, and Moorish influences. The addition displays a textured stucco exterior and multi- plane, barrel tile roof that incorporate hips, gables, pent roofs, and a hexagonal roof design. The flat roof and decorative parapet found on the original building is also mimicked in the design of the first bay of the addition. Fenestration includes the use of 4/1 and ocular aluminum frame windows and divided light entry doors. Decorative elements include the use of louvered vents, columns, decorative banding, cast stone moldings, canvas awnings, scuppers, pendants, and a wood trellis. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 7 The addition's floor plan will incorporate new office space, meeting rooms, a kitchenette, and a formal tower style entryway with hexagonal roof providing access from the northwest corner of the proposed courtyard (rear of the contributing building). The one-story, 1,090 sq. ft., concrete block building will be located to the rear and east of the extant historic building, independent of either the extant dwelling or the addition. The building will be flanked by Chicago brick walkways and a courtyard with fountain, planters, and retaining wall to the west and will meet the required side setback of 15'. The building continues the design of the new addition with its stucco exterior, canvas awnings, and barrel tile hip roof. Fenestration includes 4/1 aluminum frame windows and wood French doors. - A window detail for the addition and the new building has not been provided and has therefore been added as a condition of approval. A series of canvas awnings are also proposed for the addition and new building, however no detail or color sample of the awnings have been submitted to date. Submission of an awning detail and proposed color(s) should be provided at the Board's meeting and has been attached as a condition of approval. As no color palette for the buildings has been proposed at this time, this should also be provided at the meeting and has been added as a condition of approval. Site Improvements A Chicago brick walkway and courtyard with fountain, planters, and retaining wall are proposed to the rear of the extant building and in between the proposed addition and new office building. The proposed fountain must be limited in depth to no more than 24" (2'). A detail of the proposed fountain, planters, and retaining wall have not been submitted and have been attached as conditions of approval. LDR Section 4.5.1(E) Design Elements Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating alterations or additions of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non- contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements • Page 8 shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E)(8)All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in (a) height, (b) front faced proportion, (c) proportion of openings, (d) rhythm of solids to voids, (e) rhythm of buildings on streets, (t) rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, (g)relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district, (h) roof shapes, (i) walls of continuity, (j) scale of a building, and (k) directional expression of the front elevation. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that: 1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 4) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new walk shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Analysis The proposed elevations for the addition are a complex mix of styles and design. The elevations should be simplified to develop a cohesive design which compliments the existing Mission style dwelling. For instance, simplifying the roof lines to one or two styles and limiting the reproduction of the same style of parapet found on the original dwelling. A new more intricate curvilinear or stepped Mission style parapet would differentiate the new from the extant while still complimenting the original. Further, the styles proposed envelop the existing Mission-Revival style building and are so varied that the addition does not appear to be a sensitive addition. It is recommended that the building represent an addition which compliments the minimal detailing on the original building while differentiating itself. Mixing three to four styles of architecture is inappropriate in the surrounding district and careful consideration should be given so that a sensitive and appropriate design is HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 9 provided. Re-designing the a elevations to compliment the existing building is attached as a condition of approval. The project also proposes the construction of a 1,090 sq. ft. separate building for use as additional office space. While the use is appropriate for the site, the construction of a new building which facilitates the demolition of a viable historic structure cannot be supported. A condition of approval has been added which supports the retention of the garage and the incorporation of the structure into the new site plan. A more detailed analysis of the demolition request follows. DEMOLITION FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1), The HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings; (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that: 1) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 2) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements • Page 10 Demolition (garage) In association with the property improvements, the applicant is requesting the demolition of a contributing 372 sq. ft. garage (20.4' x 18.25'), which is centered behind (south of) the extant historic building. The garage mimics the Mission-Revival style of the main dwelling with its wood frame, textured stucco exterior, and fenestration. Constructed in 1930, the garage is considered a contributing structure. Analysis Though inspection of the structure and notation from the applicant's engineer documents wood rot, water infiltration, and fungus, there has been no documentation provided that does not support the in-kind replacement of any deteriorated members or that the structure is unsound and cannot be rehabilitated. The structure in situ has retained its historic integrity and can be retained as a contributing structure to the main building and historic property. Construction of the additional office building can be incorporated on the property in an adjacent location separate from the garage. Demolition of the structure is at the Board's discretion. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Transitional (TRN) and a zoning designation of Residential Office (RO). Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.17(B)(3), within the RO zoning district and business and professional offices are listed as permitted uses. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. • HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 11 Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is bounded by the Residential Office (RO) zoning district with a combination of office and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed office use of the subject property is permitted on the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character, building style, scale, and massing once the conditions have been addressed. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties. �.REVIEW BY OTHERS;. . , Community Redevelopment Agency The project proposed for Independence Title was reviewed by the CRA during its meeting on May 8, 2003. The Board recommended approval of the project_provided the CRA staffs concerns are addressed regarding the architectural elevation and design elements that include: relocation of the refuse container and that the decorative tile rosette motif, cast stone eyebrow, window on the NW Entry Elevation (A1), and new cast stone parapet vents should be more simplified/redesigned or eliminated since this suggests a Moorish influence. The architecture of the new buildings should be distinct from the existing single family dwelling but should not introduce another discreet historical style and influence. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The The development proposal involves the conversion of a one-story 1,153 sq. ft. Mission-style single family home to offices. The project also includes the construction of a one-story, 3,282 sq. ft. addition and a one-story 1,090 sq. ft. new building for office use. Parking, landscaping, and related site improvements will complete the project. The waivers to the stacking distance and landscaping can be supported, however, modifications to the proposed elevations should be made as well as modifications to the site plan. The proposal will be consistent with Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements • Page 12 Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined as technical items and conditions of approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, and associated waivers for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k), Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, and associated waivers for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1. (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(a-k) with basis stated. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Waivers Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1) to reduce the required stacking distance from 20' to 5', based upon positive findings with respect to the LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d) to reduce the landscape strip at the north property line in the parking area from 5' to 3' excluding the 6" curbing, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Demolition -_ Board's discretion. Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That the photometric plan be revised to comply with LDR Section 4.6.8. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 13 3) Relocate the dumpster to the interior center of the proposed parking area. 4) Eliminate the existing driveway to the north of the property fronting Dixie Boulevard. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16 subject to the following condition: 1) That revised plans are submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. Design Elements Approve the COA and associated Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the conversion of a single family home to offices at 204 Dixie Boulevard, Independence Title, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8), subject to the following conditions: 1) That a color palette/scheme be submitted. 2) That the elevations are simplified to a cohesive design which compliments the existing Mission-Revival style dwelling. 3) That a detail of the proposed fountain is submitted. 4) That a detail and color sample of the proposed awnings are submitted. 5) That a detail of the proposed windows be submitted including a muntin profile. 6) That a detail of the planters, retaining wall, and associated pilasters be submitted. Attachments: Survey, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan, Engineering Report for Demolition Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 14 APPENDIX A CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water service exists via service lateral connections to the 8"water main along Dixie Boulevard. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to a 8"sewer main along NE 2"d Avenue. ❑ Adequate fire suppression is provided via an existing fire hydrant on the corner of NE 2nmd Avenue and Dixie Boulevard and at the corner of Royal Court and NE 5th Terrace. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via swale areas and an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: A traffic statement was submitted indicating that the 5,526 sq. ft. office development will generate 118 Average Daily trips (ADT) onto the surrounding roadway network. There is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips. Thus, a positive finding can be made with respect to traffic concurrency. Schools: The subject property is located outside of the City's TCEA, however, as this project does not involve the addition of residential units, the project is exempt from School Concurrency. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Parks dedication requirements do not apply to non-residential uses. Thus, the proposal will not have an impact. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a conversion of an 1,153 sq. ft. single family dwellings to an office and the construction of 4,373 sq. ft. of additional office space (5,526 sq. ft. total). Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of mixed use of office and residential. Trash generated each year by the proposed 5,526 sq.ft. office(s) will be 14.92 tons of solid waste per year (5,526 x 5.4 _ 2,000 = 14.92). The trash generated by the existing single family home is 1.99 tons of solid waste per year resulting in an increase of 12.93 tons per year. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual HPB Staff Report • Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 15 report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 16 _ APPENDIX B STANDARD'S FOR. SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—will be met once condition of approval relating to site lighting is addressed. B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent - E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Independence Title, 204 Dixie Blvd-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 17 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard . X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent DELR4Y BEACH DELBAY BEACH hftri HISTORIC PRESERVATIONBOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1 9)3 2001 2001 2001 Agent: John Szerdi, Authorized Agent Project Name: Sundy Harvest Project Location: South side of SE 1st Street, between South Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE ,BOARD The action requested of the Historic Preservation Board is that of granting an extension of a COA and associated Class V site plan approval for Sundy Harvest, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(3). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lots 20-25, an amended plat of Sundy and Cromer's subdivision of Block 70, which is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The property contains four buildings (two contributing, two non-contributing). Located within the Old School Square Historic District, the contributing buildings are good examples of frame vernacular and Mission- Revival styles respectively while the non-contributing buildings are frame vernacular but lack architectural integrity due to age and/or alterations. During its meeting of February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a COA and associated Class V site plan application for Sundy Harvest .. involving: the conversion of the two contributing buildings from residential to retail, and the demolition of two non-contributing dwellings for use as a parking area associated with the site plan. As city staff, the Community Redevelopment Agency, and the Board did not support the demolition of the building facing SE 1st Street (lot 23), the Board tabled the project with direction to retain the building and incorporate it into the overall design of the project. At its meeting of April 17, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and approved with conditions a COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements, and demolition request of a non-contributing building for Sundy Harvest, involving the rehabilitation of three buildings, two contributing and one non-contributing building for retail use. The project was modified to retain the building on Lot 23. 4411° Meeting Date:August 20, 2003 Agenda Item: III.A Sundy Harvest Extension Page 2 The approved site plan is valid until October 17, 2003. The applicant has 1111111 requested a site plan extension, as construction has not commenced and 25% of the cost of the improvements has not been completed by the required time. Additional background and a complete analysis of the proposal is provided in the attached HPB staff reports dated February 20, 2002 and April 17, 2002. EXTENSION ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(1) (Extensions), extensions may be granted to the previously approved application pursuant to the following: • A written request for an extension must have been received by the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration date; • The letter must set forth the basis and reason for the extension; • The extension shall be considered by the same body which granted the original approval; • The extension, if granted, shall be for eighteen (18) months unless otherwise stated. Additionally, when an extension is requested for a project on which construction has not commenced the granting body must make findings as outlined in Article 3.1 of the LDRs. These are the same findings that were made for the original approval, which relate to Consistency with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, Concurrency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. The letter of request (copy attached) was submitted by the owner's agent in a timely manner. The basis and reason for the extension is as follows: The owner of the project has had to re-evaluate the numerous real estate projects the company has been engaged in various stages of planning, design, construction, and operation over the past year. The re-evaluation has occurred due to changes in the economy since September 11, 2001 plus unforeseen expenses required to complete existing projects. This process has necessitated certain projects in the planning stages to be put "on hold." That is the reason for this project to request the extension. We will conclude our company project analysis by year's end that will reset the priorities and execution of all projects. The original site plan was approved subject to conditions (see conditions of approval at the end of this report). Further, a waiver was requested and granted to reduce the stacking distance from 20' to 15' along SE 1st Avenue. There have been no changes to the Land Development Regulations since the time of the Meeting Date:August 20,2003 Agenda Item:III.B. r Sundy Harvest Extension Page 3 original approval that would make any aspect of the proposed Sundy Harvest project non-conforming. Since the time of approval, no action has been taken with respect to the proposed demolition. All of the conditions of approval have been addressed with the exception of the submittal of a utility easement deed. Once this condition has been addressed, the plans can be certified. The original findings of Concurrency can be reaffirmed with respect to the Level of Service Standards [LDR Article 3.1]. Therefore, it is appropriate to once again approve the demolition request (for the non-contributing building on lots 24 & 25 only) and impose the original conditions of approval for this extension request. If the request for the extension were denied, it would necessitate the filing of a new site plan application. As the project has already been reviewed for compliance with the LDRs, a second review would be redundant. Permitted under the code, the applicant has requested an 18 month extension for site plan approval that would extend the deadline to April 17, 2005. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1) Continue with direction. 2) Grant the COA and Class V site plan extension request for Sundy Harvest, until April 17, 2005. 3) Deny the extension request for Sundy Harvest, on the basis that construction in the field has not been diligently pursued. Such an action will necessitate the filing of a new site plan modification application. RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Approval Extension: By motion, approve the request for an extension of the COA and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, waiver request, and demolition request for Sundy Harvest, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Compatibility), Sections 4.6.16, and 4.5.1(F)(1), and 2.4.7(B)(5), of the Land Development Regulations, said approval for an additional 18 months (valid until April 17, 2005), with the following conditions: 1) Provide stop sign and bar at egress into alley. 2) Provide drainage calculations with exfiltration test results. 3) A utility easement must be dedicated for the existing 8" sewer main located along the west side of Lot 23. 4) The handicapped parking space must be placed at the most readily available place within the development proposal. If the proposed Meeting Date:August 20,2003 Agenda Item: III.B. Sundy Harvest Extension Page 4 handicapped space remains in place behind Building #1, it must be relocated once the conversion of Buildings #2 and #3 occurs. 5) Change the notation for the porch on Building #2 and the storage on Building #3 to read as "existing." 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. 7) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. 8) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 9) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 20-25, Block 70, Town of Delray, or cross-parking and access easement recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. ,10) That a bike rack be placed on site. 11) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 12) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 13) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured - from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. 14) That the handicapped accessible parking space be centrally located between the buildings being converted and a sidewalk provided to the entrance to comply with the Florida building Code for Building Construction. 15) That a right-of-way deed be executed and recorded, dedicating 5' of right-of- way along SE 1st Avenue. Attachments: > Extension Request Letter > HPB Staff Reports dated February 20, 2002 and April 17, 2002 Meeting Date:August 20,2003 Agenda Item: III.B. 7/14/03 To: City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attn: Ms. Wendy Shay Historic Preservation Planner Re: Site Plan approval# a.k.a. —Sundy Harvest Properties Dear Wendy, Per my conversation with Mr. Jeff Costello on July,14, 2003,please accept this letter as formal request for the extension of the site plan approval for the referenced project per LUDC section 2.4.4 (F). The owner of the project has had to re-evaluate the numerous real estate projects the company has been engaged in at various stages of planning , design, construction , and operation over the past year. The re-evaluation has occurred due to changes in the economy since 9/11/01 plus unforeseen expenses required to complete existing projects. This process has been necessitated certain projects in the planning stages to be put"on hold". That is the reason for this project to request the extension. We will conclude our 2003 company project analysis by year's end that will reset the priorities and execution of all projects. We respectfully request an extension for its approval as originally submitted along with the conditions as set forth by the City's Planning and Zoning Board per staff recommendations. This extension will give us the necessary time in order to determine when the project will be resumed. Sincerely, 441 r John W. Szerdi Vice President of Business Development The Dharma Corporation ITEM .BEFORE THE .BOAR © The action before the Board is that of approval of COA 2002-085-SPF-HPB which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Sundy Harvest Block, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c): U Class V Site Plan Modification; ❑ Landscape plan; U Design Elements; and U Waiver Request. The subject property is located between S. Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue on SE 1st Street. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lots 20-25, an amended plat of Sundy and Cromer's subdivision of Block 70. In May, 1999 (COA 9-373) the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V Site Plan for properties located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Street and S. Swinton Avenue, directly east of the Sundy House restaurant. That property consisted of lots 20,21, and 22 of Block 70, Sundy and Cromer's Subdivision and contains 0.43 acres. A single-family residence at 6 SE 1st Street built in 1912 occupied the corner (Lots 20 and 21). Because of its deteriorated condition, the Historic Preservation Board approved the demolition of the house, conditioned on the requirement that the house not be demolished until a site plan was approved for all three lots (Lots 20-22). That site plan proposed the construction of a parking lot on Lots 20 and 21 and the rehabilitation and conversion of the residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) to a commercial use. The 1,373 square foot structure required five (5)-parking spaces. Twenty (20) spaces were actually provided on Lots 20 and 21 to help accommodate the required parking for the future conversion of the residential properties located to the north. In 2000, a Conditional Use modification was approved for the Sundy House Restaurant to the west, to accommodate additional dining areas. The associated parking was provided via an off-site parking agreement to utilize 16 of the 20 spaces located on this property. The residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) is a good example of vernacular architecture and was constructed in 1913. The house displays an open porch on the west elevation and reflects the typical narrow dimensions, configuration of windows, and general proportions of a Florida frame structure. In 1999, as a part of the overall Site Plan approval, the porch that had been previously insensitively enclosed was reopened. Today, the slightly tapered round wooden HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 2 freestanding columns are a noteworthy feature of the house. The removal of the enclosure reduced the total floor area to 1,098 square feet requiring only four (4)- parking spaces. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Demolition of a two non-contributing structures currently on Lots 23 & 25 o Conversion of two contributing historic residential structures into commercial/retail properties; o Construction of an asphalt parking lot with 32 standard spaces and two additional handicapped accessible spaces; o Development of brick footpaths and landscaping including a sculpture garden along the north side and the southwest sides of the property o Waiver request to reduce the stacking requirement from 20' to 16'. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION MODIFICATION ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The following table indicates that the proposal complies with LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the OSSHAD zone district: Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 17' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 25' Side (Interior) 7.5' 15' Side (Street) 15' 15' Rear 10' 15' Open Space 25% 44% HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 3 Parking: LDR Chapter 4.4.24 (OSSHAD-Special District Regulation): Pursuant to 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 the off- premises view by a hedge or decorative fencing. 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. Stacking Requirements Waiver Request: The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required stacking distance at the east entrance from 20' to 16'3". Pursuant to LDR, Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the minimum requirement for parking between 21 and 50 spaces is 20'. Due to the fact that the proposed parking arrangement provides ample parking spaces for the proposed use there is no need to reduce the minimum requirements. The reduction of two spaces at the east entrance would provide the necessary additional 3'9". Front Parking Waiver Request: An additional waiver is being requested to allow the proposed front parking configuration located in the front of Lot 23. Due to the restriction of parking in the front, between any building and the street, the current plan should be revised to remove said parking and relocate the parking area to the rear of the structures in order to shield the parking area from the view of the right-of-way. Further, granting of a waiver to allow parking in the front lot would allow encroachment of parking in the front setback which is contrary to the requirements of LDR Section 4.4.24 (G)(3). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the granting body shall make findings that the granting of the waiver: a.) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; b.) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; c.) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, d.) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Given the discussion above, the waiver request will adversely the neighboring area and would be a special privilege granted as the surrounding retail/commercial structures are HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 4 required to adhere to the stacking requirements and no parking is permitted in the front between a structure and the street in the OSSHAD. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has been submitted to ensure that requirements are met as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Site lighting locations have been provided on the site plan and landscape plan and specific fixture details have been provided. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5'-10' wide sidewalk is required within the rights- of-way adjacent to the property. A 5' brick paver sidewalk is proposed that will run perpendicular to the remaining structures along the SE 1st Street right-of-way. In addition, an undulating brick paver walkway will be constructed, that follows south along the east side of the extant parking lot that culminates in a new brick patio on the south and southeast corner of the existing structure on lot 22. A 5' right-of-way dedication of the property that accommodates the sidewalk along the northern property line is necessary in order to ensure its future use by the public. An existing 5' concrete sidewalk will remain on the corner of SE 1st Avenue and within South Swinton rights-of- way. RELATED ITEMS Declaration of Unity of Title: The development proposal includes improvements across property lines (Lots 20-25, Block 70). As the pro perties will be under one ownership and function as one development, it is appropriate to combine the properties through a Declaration of Unity of Title, which must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The City must be a party to any dissolution of this Unity of Title. This provision has been attached as a condition of approval. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS With With the installation of the additional parking spaces and the proposed sculpture garden, additional landscaping is necessary. The proposed landscape plan consists of extensive plantings on the site. The plan includes a combination of gumbo limbo trees, Royal Poincianas, Live Oaks, and Beauty Leak interspersed throughout the property with liriopes, viburnam, clerodendrun, variegated alpinia underplantings and coco plum hedges along the perimeter of the property. The existing ficus tree (located on the northwest corner of the existing parking lot), landscaping and planter are to remain HPB Staff Report • Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 5 along the west property line along S. Swinton Avenue. The landscaping complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16. Refuse Container Area: A Live Oak tree and viburnum suspensum underplantings have been proposed to screen the refuse enclosure along the west elevation of the Mission Revival structure, located on Lots 24 & 25. • DESIGN ELEMENTS Residential Residential Conversion to Commercial: The proposal includes conversion of the two contributing residential structures to office/retail use. The structures are approximately 1,123 sq. ft and 1,261 sq. ft for a total of 2,384 sq. ft. and are located on lots 22 and 24 & 25, Block 70 of the property. The architectural styles of each structure can be described as Frame Vernacular and Mission Revival style. Built in 1913, the frame vernacular house, located on the westernmost side of the property adjacent to the existing parking area, is a front facing gabled structure with an open porch. Located on the northeast corner of the property, the Mission style residence with its flat roof and decorative parapet was constructed in 1925 of stucco over wood or hollow clay tile. Demolition of two non-contributing structures The two non-contributing structures proposed for demolition include a frame vernacular and masonry vernacular structure. Located on lot 23 and constructed in 1946, the cross gabled frame vernacular house consists of stucco over wood framing with an open porch on the front facade. The building displays an asphalt shingle roof with chimney and 1/1, single hung sash windows. The fenestration remains consistent throughout the design of the structure. Overall the structure retains little architectural integrity due to its insensitive modern stucco exterior and displays few architectural details. The small masonry vernacular structure, located of lots 24 & 25, is of frame construction with novelty siding, a flat, built up roof with a flat roof door hood and no other outstanding architectural detailing. While the frame vernacular structure is in need of rehabilitation, the structure does appear to be structurally sound and may be rehabilitated to ensure that the relationship of solids to voids along the streetscape is maintained. If this is not the case and the building is found to be structurally unsound, it is highly recommended that new construction in keeping with the scale and massing of the neighborhood or the relocation of a threatened historic structure be proposed for lot 23 rather than the proposed parking lot which can be viewed from the right-of-way. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 6 Design Elements Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(8), (E)(8)(e), and (E)(4), "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating alterations or additions of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: a) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. b) The relationship of buildings to open space between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible with the relationship between historic sites, buildings, or structures within a district. c) 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. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states that: 1) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property an its environment. 2) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be not be impaired. Refuse Container Area: The proposal includes the installation of a trash/refuse container area adjacent to the extant structure on the east side of the property. The plans indicate that the dumpster will be enclosed by a wood screen fence and gate for access from west side of the building. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(1)(a)(Class V Site Plan Modification), a Class V site plan modification is a new application for development of vacant land, or for modification of a developed property when no valid site plan of record exists and which requires full review of Performance Standards found in Section 3.1.1. HPB Staff Report , Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 7 The development proposal for the demolition of the two non-contributing structures does not meet the development standards for the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan for consistency of voids to solids along the streetscape. The Master Plan calls for moving structures closer to the street to provide a pedestrian friendly environment and to eliminate expanses of parking areas or other similar features that break up the continuity of the streetscape. Additionally, the demolition does not meet the requirements for rhythm of building on streets as stated in LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(8)(e). Further, the location of parking in between the extant structures to the front does not meet the requirements for parking in the OSSHAD per LDR Section 4.4.24 (F)(3) which states that: No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Given these factors, a positive finding to this LDR Section cannot be made without modification of the request. REVIEW BY OTHERS I Community Redevelopment Agency: During the meeting of January 24, 2001, the proposed plan was reviewed by the CRA and found that the plan does not meet the parking requirements in the OSSHAD. Per LDR Section 4.4.24 (G)(3), parking must be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between the street and the closest building or structure (front yard parking). The location of the parking between the remaining structures will be considered parking in the front yard of the property and is therefore not acceptable. In addition, the CRA found that demolition of another building to accommodate more parking spaces that is not required parking is inappropriate. It is recommended that the number of parking spaces be reduced to meet only the requirements for the proposal. The reduction would involve eliminating the proposed spaces between the two structures in order to be consistent with the Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan for pedestrian friendly design of new construction in downtown Delray Beach. ASSESSMENT AND :CONCLUSION. The development proposal involves the demolition of two non-contributing structures on Lots 23 & 25. Additionally, the project consists of the conversion of two historic contributing single family homes (lots 22, 24 & 25) to commercial/retail structures including the use of extensive landscaping and a sculpture garden. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan only with substantial changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined as conditions of approval. The proposed elevations for the two buildings to be converted will comply with LDR Section 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines based upon the conditions as stated below. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 8 The requested waiver to reduce the stacking distance is not necessary as there are ample spaces in the proposed lot. The reduction of two spaces will provide the additional 3'9" necessary to meet the 20' required stacking distance at the east entrance lot based on LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1). Further, the waiver request for front parking on Lot 23 is inappropriate based on the proposals inconsistency with the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan and the LDR Section 4.4.24 (G)(3). ' ALTERNATIVE; ACTIONS , A. Continue with direction. B. Approve COA-2002-085-SPF-HPB and the associated Class V site plan modification, landscape plan and design elements for the Sundy Harvest Block subject to conditions. C. Deny approval of COA-2002-085-SPF-HPB and the associated Class V site plan modification, landscape plan and design elements for Sundy Harvest Block, with the basis stated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Site Plan Modification: Approve COA-2002-085-SPF-HPB for the Class V site plan modification for the Sundy Harvest Block, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed demolition of the structure on lot 23, block 70 be revised to include the rehabilitation of the structure or relocation of a threatened historic structure to ensure compliance with the City's Downtown Master Plan and to enforce the restrictions of solids to voids in the OSSHAD. 2) That the proposed front and side parking (lot 23) be relocated to the rear of the extant structures. 3) That the stacking distance be increased from the proposed 16'3" to 20' from the first parking space at the east lot to ensure compliance with the stacking distance requirements per the LDR, Section 4.6.9 (D)(3)(c)(1). 4) A 5' right-of-way dedication will be provided along SE 1st Street and recorded to ensure public use of the sidewalk along the north property line. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 9 5) A Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 20-25, block 70 prior to initiation of the project with City approval required for its dissolution. 6) That the proposed use for the structures be limited to office or retail space only. Landscape Plan: Approve COA-2002-085-SPF-HPB for the landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest Block, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) Submit a detailed plan of sculpture garden for review and approval by the Board. Design Elements: Approve COA-2002-085-SPF-HPB for the design elements for the Sundy Harvest Block, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the design elements for the rehabilitation of the extant historic structures be developed in line with the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and that the proposed design elements for the rehabilitated structures be brought back before the Board for review and approval. 2) That the color palette for all exterior paint for the proposed rehabilitation of the historic structures be restricted to the traditional historic colors of the neighborhood that are sensitive to the building's architectural styles. The proposed color palette is subject to further review and approval by the Board prior to its application. Waiver Request: Deny the waiver request to reduce the required stacking distance at the east parking entrance from 20'-16'3" for the Sundy Harvest Block, based on failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7 (B)(5) given its inconsistency with 4.6.9 (D)(3)(c)(1) and that the same waiver would not be supported under similar circumstances on other property: In addition, deny the waiver request for the placement of front parking on Lot 23 for the Sundy Harvest Block, based on failure to find positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) given its inconsistency with 4.4.24 (G)(3), the Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan and that the same waiver would not be supported under similar circumstances on other property. Attachments: • Site Plans • Landscape Plan • Light specs • Photometric Plan HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 10 Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 11 APPENDIX :A CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water and sewer service exists on site with connections to mains located in the east/west alley to the rear of the property. ❑ A fire hydrant is located at the southeast corner of Swinton Avenue and NE 1st Street to service this development. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to these level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on-site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 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 change in use from single family residential to professional offices will generate 36 average daily trips. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for nonresidential uses. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a conversion of a single family dwelling to an office building. Trash generated each year by the proposed 2,384 sq.ft. office/retail space is 6.44 tons of solid waste per year [2,384 sq.ft. x 5.4 lbs. = 12,873.6 lbs/2,000 = 6.44 tons]. The trash generated by the single family home is 1.99 tons of solid waste per year. The increase in trash generation of 3.35 tons per is negligible. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that it has no objection to projects that generate less than 10 tons of solid waste per year. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design EIements Page 12 APPENDIX B STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS" A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood,the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest Block-Class V Site Plan Modification,Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 13 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location, without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. • Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Sundy Harvest, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class V Site Plan; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Demolition of a noncontributing building; and ❑ Waiver request The subject property is located between S. Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue on SE 1st Street. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lots 20-25, an amended plat of Sundy and Cromer's subdivision of Block 70. In May, 1999 (COA 9-373) the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V Site Plan for properties located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Street and S. Swinton Avenue, directly east of the Sundy House restaurant. That property consisted of lots 20, 21, and 22 of Block 70, Sundy and Cromer's Subdivision and contains 0.43 acres. A single-family residence at 6 SE 1st Street built in 1912 occupied the corner (Lots 20 and 21). Because of its deteriorated condition, the Historic Preservation Board approved the demolition of the house, conditioned on the requirement that the house not be demolished until a site plan was approved for all three lots (Lots 20-22). That site plan proposed the construction of a parking lot on Lots 20 and 21 and the rehabilitation and conversion of the residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) to a commercial use. The 1,373 square foot structure required five (5)-parking spaces. Twenty (20) spaces were actually provided on Lots 20 and 21 to help accommodate the required parking for the future conversion of the residential properties located to the north. The residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) is a good example of vernacular architecture and was constructed in 1913. The house displays an open porch on the west elevation and reflects the typical narrow dimensions, configuration of windows, and general proportions of a Florida frame structure. In 1999, as a part of the overall Site Plan approval, the porch that had been previously insensitively enclosed was reopened. Today, the slightly tapered round wooden freestanding columns are a noteworthy feature of the house. The removal of the enclosure reduced the total floor area to 1,098 square feet requiring only four(4)-parking spaces. In 2000, a Conditional Use modification was approved for the Sundy House Restaurant to the west, to accommodate additional dining areas. The associated parking was provided via an off-site parking agreement to utilize 16 of the 20 spaces located on this property. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan • Page 2 During its meeting on February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V site plan that included the conversion of a contributing structure from residential to commercial and the demolition of two non-contributing structures in order to accommodate a parking area. Upon further evaluation, the Board determined that the demolition of the non-contributing structure, located on SE 1st Street, would be detrimental to the area and would not be consistent with the Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan or the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. The Board requested that the item be tabled and a revised plan be brought back before the HPB at a later date. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Demolition of a non-contributing accessory structure located on lots 24 & 25; o Conversion of two structures on SE 1st Street (14 & 18 SE 1st Street) from residential to commercial; ❑ Construction of a 24 space asphalt parking lot and 5 back out compact parking spaces adjacent to the alley (29 total spaces); o Development of brick footpaths and landscaping including a sculpture garden along the north side of the property; ❑ Installation of associated landscaping and trash receptacle areas; and o The proposal involves a waiver to reduce the stacking requirement along SE 1st Avenue from 20' to 15'. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS:. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The applicable development standards that relates to the proposal is as follows: HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 3 Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 17' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 25' Side (Interior) 7.5' 8' Side Street(SE 1st Avenue) 15' 30' Rear 10' 69' Open Space 25% 44% LDR Section 4.4.24 (OSSHAD-Special District Regulation): Parking: 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. Parking is located at the rear of the property behind the existing structures. Future use as proposed by the applicant is retail/office for Buildings #2 & #3. Building #1 (1,366sq. ft), is already approved as retail and is not part of this development proposal. Building #2 (952 sq. ft.) and Building #3 (1,258 sq.ft.) will contain either office or retail use for a total of 2,210 sq. ft. of new commercial square footage on the property. Twenty-nine (29) parking spaces have been provided for the project and eight (8) are required. If the remaining 21 spaces are to be used by adjacent properties to meet the parking requirements, an off-site parking agreement must be executed. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Stacking Distance: • Pursuant to LDR, Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the minimum requirement for parking between 21 and 50 spaces is 20'. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required stacking distance at the east entrance from 20' to 15'. Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(6)(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 Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 4 The parking lot is accessible by two driveways: one on the alley and the other on SE 1st Avenue. Thus, the traffic generated from this development is not forced to use one driveway. The reduction of the stacking distance by 5' is insignificant as SE1 st Avenue and the alley are not heavily traveled and the development will not be high traffic generator. The reduction will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Further, the waiver will not adversely affect the neighboring area, and will not affect the delivery of public services. The waiver will not result in a special privilege as similar waivers have been approved under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings, can be made. Back-out Parking (Alley): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9, back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. The proposed back-out parking is only 8' wide and appears to be 40' in depth. The survey must indicate the improvements within the alley and the spaces must have proper dimensions, which is attached as a condition of approval. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. Provision of a bike rack is appropriate for this development and has been attached as a condition of approval. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has not been submitted to meet this requirement as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Further, site lighting locations must be provided on the site plan, landscape and engineering plans including fixture details which is a condition of approval. Underground Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development, however this has not been indicated on the plans. The site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground, and is attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk currently runs along SE 1st Avenue and a proposed 5' brick paver walkway will be constructed along SE 1st Street. Undulating brick pathways are proposed along SE 1st Street, the west elevation of Building #1 and along the HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 5 east elevation of Building #3. Both pathways lead to the parking areas and have access to the sidewalks in the SE 1st Street and 1st Avenue rights-of-way. Right-of-Way Dedication: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), the required right-of-way width for SE 1st Avenue is 60' and only 40' exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), a reduction in the required right-of-way width or existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group (DSMG). The City Engineer and DSMG determined that 50' of right-of-way is adequate for SE 1st Avenue, thus, requiring a dedication of 5' with this development proposal, which is attached as a condition of approval. Refuse Container Area: - All refuse containers will have decorative wood fences and gates. No landscaping has been proposed to screen the refuse enclosures. RELATED.'ITEMS Declaration of Unity of Title: The development proposal includes improvements across property lines (Lots 20-25, Block 70). As the properties will be under one ownership and function as one development, it is appropriate to combine the properties through a Declaration of Unity of Title, which must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The City must be a party to any dissolution of this Unity of Title. This provision has been attached as a condition of approval. Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) Provide stop sign and bar at egress into alley. 2) Provide drainage calculations with exfiltration test results. 3) A utility easement must be dedicated for the existing 8" sewer main located along the west side of Lot 23. 4) The handicapped parking space must be placed at the most readily available place within the development proposal. If the proposed handicapped space remains in place behind Building #1, it must be relocated once the conversion of Buildings #2 and #3 occurs. 5) Change the notation for the porch on Building #2 and the storage on Building #3 to read as "existing." 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan . Page 6 7) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. LANDSCAP-E. ANAL:Y`SIS With the installation of the additional parking spaces and the proposed sculpture garden, additional landscaping is necessary. The proposed landscape plan consists of extensive plantings on the site. The plan includes a combination of Gumbo Limbo trees, Royal Poincianas, Live Oaks, Yellow Tabebuia, and Beauty Leaf interspersed throughout the property with liriopes, Xanadu, Vibumam, Clerodendrun, and lxora underplantings and Coco plum hedges along the perimeter of the property. The existing Seagrape, Oak, and Ficus trees (located on the northern perimeter of the property) are to remain. The landscaping complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16. Refuse Container Area: The proposal includes the addition of refuse containers to be screened with wood fencing. The containers will be located on the east elevation for Buildings #1 & #2 and on the west elevation for Building #3. DEMOLITION FINDINGS Demolition Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1), The HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings; (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property.if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. The non-contributing, masonry vernacular structure proposed for demolition is located on lots 24 & 25. The small, vernacular structure is concrete block construction with novelty siding, a flat, built up roof with a flat roof door hood, awning windows, and no other HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 7 outstanding architectural detailing. The building does appear structurally sound however, it does not appear to be contributing as its pragmatic design holds minimal architectural or historical integrity. The immediate demolition of the non-contributing structure will not be detrimental to the contributing status of the district. The structure may be demolished without altering the historical or architectural context of the mail dwellings within the neighborhood. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), and (3) within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional offices, and specialty shops are listed as permitted uses. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: • A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was HPB Staff Report • Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan . Page 8 conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is surrounded by the OSSHAD zoning district. The property is surrounded by a combination of commercial and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed use of the subject property would be allowable on each of the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character while accommodating the adaptive re-use of the historic structures. The renovation of these structures will enhance property values within the area. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties. REVIEW BY OTHERS. Community Redevelopment Agency The Sundy Harvest project was reviewed by the CRA during its meeting on March 14, 2002. No additional comments or concerns were addressed. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of a non-contributing building (lots 24 & 25, Block 70), conversion of two existing residences to accommodate either office or retail, the installation/integration of extensive landscaping and parking. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with substantial changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined as conditions of approval. The proposal involves a waiver to reduce the stacking distance along SE 1st Avenue, which can be supported. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class V site plan and landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(8), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan and landscape plan for Sundy Harvest, based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1. (E)(4, (E)(8), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. HPB Staff Report • Sundy Harvest Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Demolition Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1) approve the demolition of the non- contributing building located on Lots 24 & 25 of the subject property. Waiver Based upon positive findings in the report to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9 (D)(3)(c) to reduce the stacking distance from 20' to 15' along SE 1st Avenue. Site Plan Modification: Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 20-25, Block 70, Town of Delray, or cross-parking and access easement recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a bike rack be placed on site. 4) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 5) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. 7) That the handicapped accessible parking space be centrally located between the buildings being converted and a sidewalk provided to the entrance to comply with the Florida building Code for Building Construction. 8) That a right-of-way deed be executed and recorded, dedicating 5' of right-of-way along SE 1st Avenue. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan , Page 10 Landscape Plan: Approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. Attachments: • Survey • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Elevations Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner . HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan • Page 11 APP.EN'DIX A ; ., CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water service exists via service lateral connections to the 8"water main within SE 15t Street. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to an 8" sewer main in the north/south alley and along the west side of Lot 23. ❑ Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing fire hydrants on the southeast corner of Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Street an at the northeast corner of SE 1st Street and 1st Avenue. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 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 based upon the conversion from residential to office/retail. The statement must be revised to accurately calculate the vehicular trips generated from the conversions from residential to commercial/restaurant, which has been attached as a condition of approval. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for nonresidential uses. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a conversion of single family dwellings to a retail/office. Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of retail and restaurant. Trash generated each year by the proposed 3,576 sq.ft. retail space is 18.23 tons for a total of 36 tons of solid waste per year. The trash generated by the two single family homes is 3.98 tons [1.99 tons X 2] of solid waste per year resulting in an increase of 14.25 tons per year. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan . , Page 12 report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. • • HPB Staff Report • Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan Page 13 APPENDIX B .' STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Will be met once site lighting and photometric —complying with LDR Section 4.6.8. B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Will be met once a bike rack is provided C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan&Landscape Plan . . Page 14 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element.This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent - z CITY Li Li N > HALL > a - a a 3 J a z z NW. 1ST. ST. a N.E. a N __.____/Lill 1ST Si. o r po W 3 <r COMMUNITY D > cc CENTER 1_ z 1 _ u) cn w • • w a > ?=-C IF z TENNIS OLD z_ STADIUM Q SCHOOL w a w z SQUARE z z / z T ATLANTIC AVENUE POLICE SOUTH COMPLEX COUNTY f 1N Q II COURT . HOUSE cr Li Q a SW. 1ST ST. SW. 1ST ST. S.E. 0 1ST ST. r.-.-.-.v.-••-.-.-.-.• : ij// z o N (n SW. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. M sr /I;;/Lt Ul SW. 3RD ST._ S.E. ` a 3RD ST.— N MERRITT PARK MIN I Lim: Li (n N N (n - N • ---.....- SUNDY HARVEST CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM590 DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'IJP.. MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Il3 J. 1993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: John Szerdi, Authorized Agent Project Name: Fisher Properties Project Location: 27-43 South Swinton Avenue (Northeast corner of S. Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Street) ITEM BEFORE THE. BOARD The action requested is that of granting an extension of a Class V site plan approval for Fisher Properties, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(3). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of four, frame vernacular, single family homes located on Lots 11-15, Block 69, Town of Delray, and contains 0.74 acres, which is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). These buildings, located at 27, 31, 35, and 43 S. Swinton Avenue, are good examples of frame vernacular architecture and are considered contributing dwellings in the Old School Square Historic District. All four single family residences were constructed in 1937 and retain their historic integrity. On March 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board approved a COA and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, and demolition request for a shed associated with the conversion of four contributing buildings to retail and office use. The site plan approval is valid until September 20, 2003. The applicant has requested a site plan extension, as construction has not commenced and 25% of the cost of the improvements have not been completed within the required timeline. Additional background and a complete analysis of the proposal is provided in the attached HPB staff report dated March 20, 2002. EXTENSION ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(1) (Extensions), extensions may be granted to the previously approved application pursuant to the following: • A written request for an extension must have been received by the City at least forty- five (45) days prior to the expiration date; • The letter must set forth the basis and reason for the extension; Meeting Date:August 20,2003 Agenda Item:III.B. HPB Staff Report Fisher Properties-Site Plan Extension Request Page 2 • • The extension shall be considered by the same body which granted the original approval; • The extension, if granted, shall be for eighteen (18) months unless otherwise stated. Additionally, when an extension is requested for a project on which construction has not commenced the granting body must make findings as outlined in Article 3.1 of the LDRs. These are the same findings that were made for the original approval, which relate to Consistency with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, Concurrency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. The letter of request (copy attached) was submitted by the owner's agent in a timely manner. The basis and reason for the extension is as follows: The owner of the project has had to re-evaluate the numerous real estate projects the company has been engaged in various stages of planning, design, construction, and operation over the past year. The re-evaluation has occurred due to changes in the economy since September 11, 2001 plus unforeseen expenses required to complete existing projects. This process has necessitated certain projects in the planning stages to be put "on hold."That is the reason for this project to request the extension. We will conclude our company project analysis by year's end that will reset the priorities and execution of all projects. The original site plan was approved subject to conditions (see conditions of approval at the end of this report — Exhibit A). There have been no changes to the Land Development Regulations since the time of the original approval that would make any aspect of the proposed Fischer Properties project non-conforming. Since the time of approval, the buildings have been painted and maintained but no additional action has been taken towards their rehabilitation for conversion though the conditions of approval have been addressed and the plans certified. Similarly, the original findings of Concurrency can be reaffirmed with respect to the Level of Service Standards [LDR Article 3.1]. As all conditions of approval have been addressed and the plans certified, the original conditions of approval are not listed with the site plan extension. If the request for the extension were denied, it would necessitate the filing of a new site plan application. As the project has already been reviewed for compliance with the LDRs, a second review would be redundant. Therefore, staff supports the request for an 18 month extension for site plan approval, which would make the new expiration date March 20, 2005. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1) Continue with direction. 2) Grant the COA and Class V site plan extension request for Fisher Properties, until March 20, 2005, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.4(F)(3). HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements . Page 3 outdoor dining would require a site plan modification, at which time the parking requirement will be assessed. If outdoor dining is proposed in the future, it must be approved through the conditional use and site plan modification processes: LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Stacking Requirements: Pursuant to LDR, Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the minimum stacking distance requirement for parking lots, between 21 and 50 spaces is 20'. A stacking distance of 20' is provided at the SE 1st Street entrance. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. Provision of a bike rack is appropriate for this development and has been attached as a condition of approval. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has been submitted to ensure that requirements are met as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Site lighting locations have been provided on the site plan, however they have not been provided on the landscape and engineering plans, and fixture details have not been provided. Lighting locations must be indicated on the landscape and engineering plans, and fixture details provided, which is a condition of approval. Underground Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. The proposed site plan indicates overhead utilities services will be provided to the relocated meter. The site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground, and is attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5'-10' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of- way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk currently exists along both SE 1st Street and South Swinton Avenue. An undulating brick paver and mulch walkway will be constructed throughout the property in front of the structures (west of the structures along South Swinton Avenue) and between each building leading to the parking area. The mulch paths, adjacent to Buildings B & C, will need to be replaced with pavers in order to comply with handicapped accessibility requirements, which is attached as a condition of approval. HPB Staff Report . Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements . • Page 13 Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: ❑ Water service exists via service lateral connections to the 10" water main within N. Swinton Avenue. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to an 8" sewer main in the north/south alley and along the west side of the abutting property to the east. ❑ Adequate fire suppression will be provided via installation of a fire hydrant on the east side of Swinton Avenue, approximately 120' north of SE 1st Street. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 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 based upon the conversion from office to retail and restaurant. The statement must be revised to accurately calculate the vehicular trips generated from the conversions from residential to commercial/restaurant, which has been attached as a condition of approval. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for nonresidential uses. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a conversion of a single family dwelling to a retail/office and restaurant. Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of retail and restaurant. Trash generated each year by the proposed 3,553 sq.ft. retail space is 18 tons [3,553 sq.ft. x 10.2 lbs/sq.ft. = 36,240.6 lbs/2,000 = 18 tons] and the 1,449 sq.ft. restaurant will generate 18 tons 1,449 sq.ft. X 24.9 lbs./sq.ft. = 36,080 lbs/2,000 = 18 tons] for a total of 36 tons of solid waste per year. The trash generated by the four single family home is 8 tons [1.99 tons X 4] of solid waste per year resulting in an increase of 28 tons per year. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual report that the 11 I I I I I IIJ I_ l I I i I I-I U LJ j I I III I I I 1 1 J _MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.E. 2ND ST. ME Li • w a w Q a a I QZ ZN N— CITY Lv z HALL a - N Z J.W. 1ST ST. N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. I r ¢ N 3 I- .- w v COMMUNITY w w z CENTER D Z ofi w 0 Z a TENNIS > OLD z STADIUM SCHOOL o Z Q SQUARE I I li.j T� ATLANTIC AVENUE 11111i ""7.. SOUTH POLICE COUNTY __....... I /// / COMPLEX COURT WI I ■ HOUSE Ail= iiiii::iiiiiiii: El (iiiiiiiiililiiNM ■Q ¢ •w S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. Z ` u.i CV 1— a > Z N a Iii a CC H M d- F- 1 S.W. 2ND ST• S.E. 2ND ST. vwi W - H_� w J., (AN ui1/5cNi ui N —vismr— FISHER PROPERTIES CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM597 HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 14 established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. APPE�ND.IX` B _ HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements , • Page 15 STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Will be met once a bike rack is provided C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements • Page 16 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 12 Approve the COA for the design elements for the Fischer Properties, based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the design elements for the rehabilitation of the extant historic structures be developed in line with the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 2) The architectural details associated with the current carports must be incorporated into the new elevation changes to ensure the retention of the original architectural configuration. 3) Seek alternate materials for the roof of each structure. Alternate proposals for the roofing materials must be brought back to the Board for review and approval. 4) That the color palette for all exterior paint for proposed Buildings A-C be variegated with the introduction of additional color schemes for the body and trim for the historic structures. The proposed color palette is subject to further review and approval by the Board prior to its application. 5) The exterior board and batten clad addition on Building B should be reconfigured to present a more compatible design with the two types of siding to ensure that there remains a differentiation between the enclosure and the original structure. Attachments: • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Elevations Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner APrP.ENDIX A ;.; _ CONCURRENCY-FINDINGS HPB Staff Report . Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements Page 11 respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) and (E)(8), (E)(8)(d), (E)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Demolition Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1) approve the demolition of the two outbuildings located on Lots12 and 14 of the subject property. Site Plan Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the Fischer Properties, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 11-15, Block 69, town of Delray prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a bike rack be placed on site. 4) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 5) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 6) The mulch paths, adjacent to Buildings B & C, will need to be replaced with pavers in order to comply with handicapped accessibility requirements. 7) That a revised traffic statement be submitted that accurately calculates the vehicular trips generated from the conversions from residential to commercial/restaurant. Landscape Plan Approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Fisher Properties, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1.) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. Design Elements HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 10 Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is surrounded by the OSSHAD zoning district. The property is surrounded by a combination of commercial and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed use of the subject property would be allowable on each of the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character while accommodating the adaptive re-use of the historic structures. The renovation of these structures will enhance property values within the area. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties. REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency: During the meeting of February 28, 2002, the proposed plan was reviewed by the CRA. The Board found that the proposed plan is consistent with the historic district. However, concerns were raised over the issue of adequate parking with the proposed restaurant use at 31 South Swinton Avenue (lot 12). This issue was broached upon notice of a Unity of Title over the four lots. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of the two outbuildings and the rehabilitation and conversion of four contributing single family homes (lots 11-15, Block 69) to commercial/retail use and restaurant including the integration of extensive landscaping. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan only with substantial changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are 'outlined as conditions of approval. The proposed elevations for the four buildings to be converted comply with LDR Section 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines based upon the conditions as stated below. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for the Fisher Properties based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) and (E)(8), (E)(8)(d), (E)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for Fisher Properties, based upon failure to make positive findings with HPB Staff Report Fischer Properties-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,and Design Elements Page 9 The proposal includes the installation of an individual trash/refuse container area adjacent to each extant structure. The plans indicate that the roll-out carts will be enclosed by a wood screen fence and gate for access. Buildings A-C (lot 12-15) will place the refuse containers on the north elevation. Building D (lot 11) will locate the enclosure on the east elevation. REQUIRED FINDINGS FINDINGS'; Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), (3), and (6) within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional Offices, specialty shops, and restaurants are listed as permitted uses. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrencv: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found.