HPB-02-20-02 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2002
LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:02 P.M. Upon roll call it
was determined that a quorum was present.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail-Lee McDermott, Dave
Bodker, Gloria Elliott, Mike Simon, Rhonda Sexton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Donnamarie Sloan
STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Loretta Heussi, Brian Shutt
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
A. 223 NW 1st Avenue, Residence, Old School Square Historic District.
Ron Brito, Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Action requested of the Board is that of
consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion of a
garage to a guest cottage.
Ms. Shay presented the project.
Mr. Brito was present to represent the applicant.
Ms. McDermott expressed her concern about the condition to retain the
garage door.
Mr. Brito stated that he believed the garage door was installed
approximately two years ago.
Ms. Shay stated that if that was the case, staff could support the alteration
and removal of the door.
It was moved by Ms. Elliott, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6-0 to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to install a raised panel
entrance door, rear French door, and awning windows for the contributing
garage structure at 223 NW 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with
respect to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J)(5) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g), (E)(4), (E)(8)(c), &
(E)(8)(d), and the Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions:
2/20/02
1) The guest cottage must not exceed 700 square feet or occupy more
than 1/20th of the lot area. In addition, the space must be occupied by
family occupying the principal dwelling or their non-paying guests.
2) That the siding on the garage be changed to clapboard siding to
compliment the main historic building.
B. Strauss Residence, 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic
District, Martin Thorn, Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Action requested of the Board is approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of windows, pursuant to
LDR Section 2.4.6(J).
Ms. Shay presented the project.
Mr. Thorn was present to represent the project.
Mr. Thorn stated that aluminum windows were previously approved.
Ms. Shay stated that the COA approval is limited to 18 months and the
original approval was in 1996.
Mr. Thorn stated that the openings will not have to be modified to
accommodate the new windows.
A long discussion between the Board and the authorized agent ensued
regarding whether the windows should be replaced in-kind with wood
frame.
Michelle Balfoort recommended the installation of a wood frame, vinyl clad
window as an alternative.
It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6-0
to table the item until the meeting of March 20, 2002.
C. Baccari Residence, 112 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic
District, John Baccari, Owner.
Item Before the Board: Action requested of the Board is approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a one-story carport,
pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J).
Ms. Shay presented the project.
Mr. Baccari was present to represent the applicant.
-2- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
It was moved by Mr. Sloan, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6-0 to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the addition of a
carport on the outbuilding (garage) at 112 NE 1st Avenue, based upon
positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray
Beach Design Guidelines.
D. Lot 6, Block 1, Adjacent to 5 NE 7th Street, Vacant Lot, Del Ida Park,
Jane Sullivan, Owner.
Item Before the Board: Action requested of the Board is consideration
of a waiver request for a non-conforming lot (Lot 6, Del-Ida Park),
pursuant to LDR Section 4.1.4(C).
Ms. Shay presented the project.
Ms. Sullivan was present to represent the project.
Ms. Sullivan stated that her neighbors are interested in purchasing the lot .
Jim Remderg, one of the neighbors, was present to concur with their plans
to improve the lot.
Mr. Simon expressed his concern over granting waivers as a special
privilege.
It was moved by Mr. Bodker, seconded by Ms. McDermott, and passed 6-
0 to recommend to the City Commission approval of a waiver request for
the property consisting of Lot 6, Block 1 of Del-Ida Park, based upon
positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B), subject to the
following condition:
1) If the waiver is approved, a request for a variance must be submitted
before the Board prior to approval.
E. Sundy Harvest Block, SW 1st Street between S. Swinton Avenue and
SW 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michelle Balfoort,
Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Action requested of the Board is approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness and associated Class V Site Plan,
Landscape Plan, Design Elements, and associated demolition of two non-
contributing structures, for the conversion of two contributing structures for
retail/commercial use.
Ms. Shay presented the project.
-3- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
Ms. Balfoort and John Szerdi were present to represent the
applicant/owner.
Ms. Balfoort detailed the need for a waiver to allow parking in front of the
building and that she was unaware of the stacking issue. Further, she
described the project and the pedestrian friendly feel of the public garden
and landscaping.
Mr. Szerdi requested clarification concerning solids to voids.
Ms. Shay stated that solids to voids concerned both the streetscape and
design elements.
Mr. Szerdi presented a study of the development pattern of the
neighborhood and stated that there are many vacant lots surrounding the
project and to the east of the proposed project.
Ms. Shay stated that the Downtown Master Plan focuses on density and
consistency with solid to voids and that it was inconsistent within the Old
School Square Historic District. In fact, recent trends have created the
vacant lots seen today.
Mr. Simon requested additional information regarding the parking area
and whether it will be appropriate on the site.
Mr. Szerdi supported the additional parking where the non-contributing
building is currently located.
Ms. Shay re-iterated that landscaping will not fill the void of where the
building once stood.
Mr. Szerdi requested that the item be tabled with conditions.
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the item was tabled that
conditions cannot be placed on it.
After much discussion, it was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms.
Sexton, and passed 6-0 to table the Sundy Harvest project until the
meeting of March 20, 2002.
F. Management Systems, Commercial Building, SW corner of NE 1st
Avenue and NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey
Silberstein, Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Approval of a COA which incorporates aspects of
the development proposal including a Class V Site Plan, Design Elements,
and Variance Request.
-4- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, requested that anyone giving
testimony on this item be sworn in. Ms. Heussi swore in those wishing to
speak.
Mr. Shutt also requested that any ex parte communication be disclosed by
the Board. None was stated.
Ms. Shay presented the project.
Mr. Silberstein was present to represent the project.
Glenn Weiss, director of Pineapple Grove Main Street, did not support the
reduction of the setback though the committee feels the design is
appropriate in context with the surrounding properties.
Robert Saraga, 201 NE 1st Avenue, stated his concern over granting the
variance. He further stated that the property would not support the project
with the required parking and that the variance should not be granted due
to the fact that overflow parking could end up in the Banker's Row parking
lot. He further stated that any additional parking required for new
construction should be contained on site. Mr. Saraga also discussed his
concerns over the design elements of the building and that this design will
not compliment the surrounding properties.
Brian Lipshe, partner to Mr. Saraga at 201 NE 1st Avenue, concurred with
Mr. Saraga's concerns.
Mr. Silberstein re-iterated that the project will improve the right-of-way and
that the design was appropriate.
Mr. Simon requested clarification on the right-of-way dedication.
Ms. Shay stated that it was a consistent request with all properties along
NE 1st Avenue upon modification of their property.
Ms. McDermott requested shutter dogs be installed along all the long
shutters both top and bottom.
Mr. Weiss re-iterated his concern over granting the variance and
expressed a concern regarding how the new building will appear in
relation to the surrounding buildings as they are set back at least 25' from
the right-of-way.
Variance Request
-5- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
It was moved by Mr. Bodker, seconded by Mr. Simon and passed 6-0 to
approve a variance to reduce the east setback from 15 ft. to 10 ft.
pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J).
Site Plan
It was moved by Mr. Bodker, seconded by Mr. Simon, and approved 6-0,
to approve the COA and associated Class V site plan for Management
Systems, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3
(Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(5), subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the sign be submitted to the Board for review and approval.
2) That the proposed landscape and engineering plans return to the
Historic Preservation Board for approval.
3) That the three (3) in-lieu parking spaces are approved by the City
Commission.
4) That a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 is
provided.
5) That a bicycle rack is provided onsite.
6) That the proposed sidewalk along NE 1st Avenue is extended
through the drive aisle.
It was moved by Mr. Bodker, seconded by Mr. Simon and passed 6-0
to amend the motion to include an additional condition that 5' of
additional right-of-way is dedicated along NE 1st Avenue.
Design Elements
It was moved by Mr. Bodker, seconded by Ms. Sexton, and passed 6-0
to approve the design elements for Management Systems,
associated with COA-2002-038, based upon positive findings to LDR
Section 4.5.1(E), Development Standards.
Mr. Shutt distributed forms to be filled out when a Board Member
represents a client in front of any city Board. The forms are to be
submitted on a quarterly basis.
Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
A. Reports from Historic District Representatives
-6- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
None
B. Board Members
Mr. Simon requested that an attorney be present at a meeting with any
controversial issue.
Ms. Shay stated that staff requests their attendance for such matters.
John Bennett requested an opportunity for public comment during the
meetings.
Ms. Shay will add it to the agenda.
Mr. Bodker stated that the opinion of organizations such as the CRA
should not be calculated as a factor when voting on projects.
C. Staff
Ms. Shay presented updates on code enforcement issues to the Board
which was brought to her attention at the previous meeting.
Ms. Jamison requested information about what can be done after the fact
when property owners modify historic resources without approval.
Ms. Shay requested additional information regarding replacement of
windows on the Price House, 1225 Seaspray Avenue. She further stated
that it will come back to the Board for review and approval.
Ms. Shay stated that the next meeting on March 6, 2002 can be held at
Pompey Park.
The Board agreed with both the date and location.
Ms. Shay explained the details of the poster contest being developed.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned. The
information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for
February 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.
-7- HPB Minutes 2/20/02
_
AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
Meeting Date: February 20, 2002
Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting
Location: First Floor Conference Room
Time: 6:00 P.M.
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. Pursuant to F.S.286.0105.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
A. 223 NW 1st Avenue, Residence, Old School Square Historic District, Ron Brito,
Authorized Agent.
Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion of a garage to a guest
cottage.
B. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Residence, Old School Square Historic District, Martin Thorn,
Authorized Agent
Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of windows.
C. 112 NE 1st Avenue, Residence, Old School Square Historic District, John Baccari,
Owner.
Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a carport.
D. Lot 6, Block 1, adjacent to 5 NE 7th Street, Vacant Lot, Del-Ida Park, Jane Sullivan,
Owner.
Request for a waiver for the development of a non-conforming lot.
E. Sundy Harvest Block, SW 1st Street between S. Swinton Avenue and SW 1st Avenue,
Old School Square Historic District, Michelle Balfoort, Authorized Agent.
Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Class V site plan modification with
associated landscape plan and design elements for the demolition of two non-
contributing structures and the conversion of two contributing structures for
retail/commercial use.
HPB Meeting
February 20, 2002
Page 2
F. Management Systems, Commercial Building, southwest corner of NE 1st Avenue and
NE 2nd Street, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized
Agent. A quasi-judicial hearing
Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Class V site plan modification and
associated design elements for the construction of a new two-story office building
and a request for a variance.
III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
A. Reports from Historic District Representatives
B. Board Members
C. Staff
IV. ADJOURN
Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
POSTED ON: February 14, 2002
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Item: II. A. - Meeting of February 20, 2002
Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion
of a garage to a guest cottage.
Location: 223 NW 1st Avenue
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
conversion of a garage to a guest cottage including the replacement of overhead doors
and the installation of new entrance doors and awning windows, pursuant to LDR
Section 2.4.6(J).
BACKGROUND
Located at 223 NW 1st Avenue, the residence and detached garage are one-story wood
frame buildings. The frame vernacular residence and its outbuilding lie between NW 1st
Street and NW 2nd Street on the east side of NW 1st Avenue in the Old School Square
Historic zoning district (OSSHAD). The outbuilding (garage) consists of a board and
batten exterior with a pair of decorative overhead doors on the front facade, and a flat,
built up roof. A shed roof extension lies along the north elevation. Designed in the frame
vernacular style, the contributing outbuilding (garage) was constructed 1940 and
expresses limited architectural design notwithstanding the decorative fanlight designed
windows in the overhead doors.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / ANALYSIS
Project Description:
The development proposal is for the conversion of the existing garage into a guest
cottage with the removal of the overhead garage doors and the installation of a single,
solid panel door entrance with sidelights and an aluminum-framed awning window
(matching the existing windows) on the front façade facing the right-of-way. A single,
French door will be installed on the rear (east) elevation including the placement of a
concrete stoop to provide access to the rear entrance. The conversion will be sensitive
to the original exterior details of the vernacular construction with the retention of the
board and batten siding and awning windows.
Guest Cottage Requirements:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3 (P)(4)(b), a guest cottage can be used only for members
of the family occupying the principal dwelling or their nonpaying guests. Further, the
structure shall not exceed a floor area of 700 square feet or more than 1/20th of the lot
area. Setbacks must also be observed.
223 NW 1st Avenue, Garage Conversion
Old School Square Historic District
Page 2
In order to meet the requirements as stated above, the attached shed must not be
included in the floor area of the guest cottage. This provision has been attached as a
condition of approval.
Design Elements Analysis:
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g), (E)(4), and (E)(8)(c) (E)(8)(d) "Development Standards"
provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the
alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as
follows:
The Board Shall Consider:
(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) 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.
(c) The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible
with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within
the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of
windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible.
(d) The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building or structure will
be visually compatible with the front facades of historic buildings or structures
within the districts.
The conversion is designed for pragmatic purposes in order to provide light and easy
access into the structure for use as a guest cottage. The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding historic structures and appurtenances of the existing garage and main
residence. However, the removal of the decorative overhead doors and the addition of
the front and rear entrance doors and awning windows will dramatically alter the extant
historic fabric and the structure's use. The design elements for the proposed guest
cottage also inhibit the contributing status of the outbuilding in relation to the main
residence. Additionally, the proposed change of use alters the proportion of openings
and diverts from the current solids and voids pattern of the structure's original design.
The remaining board and batten siding and stucco is appropriate in its contextual
relationship with the surrounding structures in the district and the style of the guest
cottage will not detract from the frame vernacular style of the historic, contributing main
residence. However, the proposed design is not compatible with the historic use and is
not consistent with adaptive reuse projects for historic structures through the
223 NW 1st Avenue, Garage Conversion
Old School Square Historic District
Page 3
replacement of the overhead doors and the installation of a raised panel entrance door
and sidelights and rear French door.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve 2002-109-COA-HPB for the conversion of a garage to a guest cottage for
223 NW 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.6(J)(5)
and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g), (E)(4), (E)(8)(c), & (E)(8)(d) Development Standards subject to
conditions.
C. Deny approval of 2002-109-COA-HPB for the conversion of a garage to a guest
cottage for 223 NW 1st Avenue, with the basis stated.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to install a raised panel entrance
door, rear French door, and awning windows for the contributing garage structure at 223
NW 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.6(J)(5)
and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) (E)(4), (E)(8)(c), & (E)(8)(d) and the Design Guidelines subject to the
following conditions:
1) Retain the overhead doors on the front façade of the outbuilding and create a new
entrance at the south elevation with the installation of the raised panel door,
sidelights, and awning windows.
2) The guest cottage must not exceed 700 square feet or occupy more than 1/20th of
the lot area. In addition, the space must be occupied by family of the occupying the
principal dwelling or their non-paying guests.
Attachments: Survey, Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan
Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Item: II. B - Meeting of February 20, 2002
Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement
of windows
Location: 30 SE 1st Avenue
ITEM 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).
BACKGROUND
The residence is a one-story structure located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue,
between Atlantic Avenue and SE 1st Street in the (OSSHAD) Old School square
Historic Arts District zoning district (30 SE 1st Avenue). Designed in the Mission Revival
style, the contributing building was constructed in 1925 and expresses detailed
architectural design with its curved parapet and textured stucco finish.
On November 20, 1996, the Historic Preservation Board approved the removal of the
existing jalousie windows and the installation of white aluminum single hung sash
windows with a 6/1 light configuration. During the meeting of April 15, 1998, the Board
reviewed the proposed conversion of the single family home to office space. A request
for a waiver to allow a 3.5' landscape strip in place of a 5' strip as granted along the
west property line. In addition, a recommendation was also provided to the applicant to
apply for a variance and to submit revised plans for the site plan, landscape plans, and
design elements related to the conversion. These approvals were valid for 18 months
and neither the replacement of the windows nor the conversion were completed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS
Protect Description:
The project proposed is the removal of the existing non-conforming jalousie and awning
windows and installation of 6/1 light and 4/1 light aluminum frame, single hung sash
windows. The single hung sash windows are more appropriate and sensitive to the
Mission style of the building and will provide for greater energy efficiency with the
structure.
Design Elements Analysis:
LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) "Development Standards" provides
guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or
addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows:
• 30 SE 1st Avenue,Window Replacement
Old School Square Historic District
Page 2
The Board Shall Consider:
(a) 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.
(b) The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible
with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within
the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of
windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible.
The proposed single hung sash windows or casement windows are in keeping with the
traditional window type of the Mission style of architecture and are far more sensitive
and appropriate than the current jalousie and awning windows. The proposal does not
call for any new or altered proportion of openings or diversion from the current solids
and voids pattern of the original structure. The installation of new windows will not only
make the structure more aesthetically pleasing and increase its energy efficiency, the
installation will neither alter nor destroy any of the extant historic fabric. The window
installation will not change the structure's contributing status in the Old School Square
Historic District.
The proposed window's style and dimensions are appropriate in its contextual
relationship with the surrounding residential district and will compliment the structure's
historic Mission style. However, wood frame rather would be preferable to aluminum
frame windows and would better meet the requirements of replacement in kind as
prescribed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve 2002-108-COA-HPB for 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings
with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) and the Delray Beach
Design Guidelines subject to conditions.
C. Deny approval of 2002-108-COA-HPB for 30 SE 1st Avenue, with the basis stated.
RECOMMENDATION
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:
• 30 SE 1st Avenue,Window Replacement
Old School Square Historic District
Page 3
1)That the proportion and opening configuration and the pattern of solids and voids
remain true to the historic design of the structure.
2) That the window frames be constructed of wood rather than aluminum.
Attachments: Site Plan, Elevations, & Photos
Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Item: II. C. - Meeting of February 20, 2002
Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of
a carport.
Location: 112 NE 1st Avenue
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of a one-story carport, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J).
BACKGROUND
The subject property, also known as Pineapple Cottage, is a 1,184 square foot frame
cottage, constructed in the vernacular style in 1920 and a detached wood frame, two-
story garage, constructed c. 1928. The property is located on the west side of NE 1st
Avenue between NE 1st and NE 2nd Streets in the Old School Square Historic zoning
district (OSSHAD). Both structures are considered contributing buildings in the district.
The last action taken by the Board regarding this property was the approval of the
proposed 325 square foot bedroom/bath addition to the main residence on December
15, 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS
Project Description:
The development proposal is for the construction of a one-story carport attached to the
existing two-story garage that is located on the northwest corner of the property.
Designed with clapboard siding to match the existing siding on the garage, the wood
framed, one bay carport will be open along the south elevation and will consist of a flat
roof with wood rail posts and lattice infill along the roof deck to be utilized from the
second story of the garage.
Design Elements Analysis:
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g), (E)(4), and (E)(8)(c) and (E)(8)(d) "Development
Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for
the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as
follows:
112 NE 1st Avenue, Carport addition
Old School Square Historic District
Page 2
The Board Shall Consider:
(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) 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.
(c) The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible
with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within
the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of
windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible.
(d) The relationship of solids to voids in the front fagade of a building or structure will
be visually compatible with the front facades of historic buildings or structures
within the districts.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states:
1) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
2) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of
the historic property and its environment would not be impaired.
The addition is designed for vehicular use by the homeowner who will also utilize the
decking of the carport roof to be accessed from the second story of the garage. The
proposed project is sensitive to the design of the contributing outbuilding and its
intended use and will neither alter nor destroy the extant historic fabric. The proposal is
also compatible with the surrounding historic structures and related appurtenances of
the district and the design elements for the proposed carport will not diminish the
contributing status of the garage or the main residence.
112 NE 1st Avenue, Carport addition
Old School Square Historic District
Page 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve 2002-121-COA-HPB for the construction of a one-story carport onto the
existing garage for 112 NE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g).
C. Deny approval of 2002-121-COA-HPB for the construction of a one-story carport
onto the existing garage for 112 NE 1st Avenue, with the basis stated.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the addition of a carport on the
outbuilding (garage) at 112 NE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines.
Attachments: Site Plan, Elevations
Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Item: II. D. - Meeting of February 20, 2002
Consideration of a waiver for Lot 6, Block 1 Del-Ida Park
Location: Adjacent to 5 NE 7 Street
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is consideration of a waiver request for Lot 6, Del-Ida Park,
pursuant to LDR Section 4.1.4(C).
BACKGROUND
The subject property is Lot 6, Block 1 of Del-Ida Park. Currently vacant, the property is
located on the north side of NE 7th Street between Swinton Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue
in the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Until recently a Unity of Title joined this lot with Lot 5
to the west. When this Unity of Title was dissolved, the existing structure on Lot 5
became non-conforming with respect to the side setback 7.5' vs. 10'. If this waiver is
approved it must be subject to the Historic Preservation Board granting a variance for
the side setbacks otherwise, the applicant will have to re-execute the Unity of Title
between the lots.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS
Project Description:
The waiver request is to allow the development of Lot 6, Block 1 of Del-Ida Park, a
vacant lot that does not currently meet the minimum requirements of 75' width or the
minimum square footage of 9,500 square feet. The lot measures just 50'x120' and is
6,000 square feet in area. The lot is currently owned by the adjacent property owner to
the west, lot 5 which is 50'x120'. LDR Section 4.1.4(C) requires that if two (2) or more
adjoining lots of record are under the same ownership they shall not be developed
except in accordance with the minimum frontage and the lot area requirements.
Approval of the waiver would allow a structure to be built on the site adjacent to the
owner's current residence at 5 NE 7 street (Lot 5, Block 1 of Del-Ida Park). However,
the intent of this request is to allow the lot to be aggregated with the adjacent 50' lot to
the east. Under these circumstances while lot 5 will remain substandard with respect to
the width and area, lot 7 to the east will be expanded to meet the minimum width and
area required within the district.
There are two other nonconforming lots in the area that include the properties of 10 NE
7th Street, Lot 22, Block 2 of Del-Ida Park and 109 NE 7th Street, Lot 10, Block 1 of Del-
Ida Park. Both nonconforming lots measure 50'X120' and are 6,000 square feet in area
just as the dimensions of Lot 6. Those properties (lots 22 and 10) also currently house
residential structures. As there is a precedent for use of a non-conforming lot in the area
there is evidence to support the waiver request to approve Lot 6 as a buildable lot.
Lot 6, Block 1 Del-Ida Park Waiver Request
Del-Ida Park
Page 2
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 discussion above, the waiver request will not adversely the neighboring area
or is a special privilege being granted as other non-conforming lots already exist in the
neighborhood. No public facilities will be at risk and no unsafe situations shall be formed
by the granting of this waiver.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Recommend to the City Commission approval of 2002-106-OTH-CCA for a waiver
request for Lot 6, Block 1 Del-Ida Park, based upon positive findings with respect
to Section 2.4.7 (B) of the Land Development Regulations and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions.
C. Deny approval of 2002-106-OTH-CCA for the waiver request for Lot 6, Block 1 Del-
Ida Park, with the basis stated.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Commission approval of a waiver request for the property of Lot
6, Block 1 of Del-Ida Park, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section
2.4.7 (B) subject to the following condition:
1) If the waiver if approved, a request for a variance must be submitted before the
Board prior to approval.
Attachments: Survey, Maps
Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT---
EETING DATE: February 20, 2002
AGENDA ITEM: II. E.
ITEM: Sundy Harvest Block, SW 1st Street between S. Swinton Avenue and SW 1'Avenue,
Old School Square Historic District, Michelle Balfoort, Authorized Agent.
CITY _ --
ATTORNE"
BUILDING. I
N.W. 2ND ST. N•E• 2ND ST.
— a
GENERAL DATA: • —
Owner/Applicant Sundy Estates, L.L.C. CITY
Agent Michelle Balfoort HALL
Location Southeast Corner of Swinton
N.L. 1ST ST.
Avenue and Southeast 1st
3
Street. a
Property Size 0.86 Acres - VO ENTTER Y -
W
Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) v
Purrent Zoning OSHAAD (Old School Square OLD a
Historic Arts District) z I J sau°RE 111111 I iI
Adjacent Zoning North: OSHAAD (Old School Square ATLANTIC AVENUE
Historic Arts District)
East: OSHAAD (Old School Square
Historic Arts District) I —!. l
South: OSHAAD (Old School Squarelimim
Historic Arts District) .�___ —
West: OSHAAD (Old School Square —
Historic Arts District) S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST.
Existing Land Use Residential and Commercial ............ " I
Buildings W I
Proposed Land Use Parking lot addition
Water Service Existing on site. I
Sewer Service Existing on site. il I
S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST.
-: 1II or 1 tri
W
EMI. . I
INE _, I 2 II
N
I �M ■
sw. 2ND ST. S.E. •. , ST.
'Wait-MI
II. E.
t
•
•
z CITY
N u_i > HALL ¢ >
>
z z — i
4 N
Lk _
NW. 1ST. ST. > N. . > 1ST ST.
}
cc Li.l 3 1-,
n li.l d'
COMMUNITY D 'o
1111
CENTER u z I-
cn -
Li.l - a : .
3
z TENNIS OLD z 44
STADIUM Q SCHOOL L,.i ° ,,;
z SQUARE z z I / z
T,
ATLANTIC AVENUE
POLICE SOUTH1 II
COMPLEX COUNTY k,(13 Q
COURT
HOUSE Q
cr
> ¢ Ci i
i
SW. 1ST ST. SW. 1ST ST. S.E. 0 1ST ST.
> ii•O"iii •:i:i
• a
: i /
oZN
1111i )lnC‘IZ It
SW. 2ND ST. S.E. i
2ND ST._
ic.) / o =
Er
L-
3 Lu
vi
Li
vi
Q
vi
SW. 3RD ST. S.E. , 0 3RD ST._
MERRITT —
PARK —
i Ain LI LJ Lal —
vi vi vi vi —
N
--.....- SUNDY HARVEST
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
-- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM590
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
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):
❑ Class V Site Plan Modification;
❑ Landscape plan;
❑ Design Elements; 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.
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
• j
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 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 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.
LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
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 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-contributinq 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 façade. 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
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 Elements
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
. .
..
: . .. . .
. ,
.-1... •.....-..,•.i.".•:.:.1:,'..';'!.•.-.'..*.!:.:::.:';',.::;:-.;;;...;'..::::......::,.,:::.:::..::','::..:i'.i .i.::•• . .:: '...: ..' :: . :::;:::::... ;:::',:: .:. . . .
•
VI
1
IBALFOORT FINNVOLO ARCFIITECTURE.INC. !:
.,
..........................
..—........................... .I-
ST.'.1.111.111=.1.1 X
I
LETTEEITUTITTITT-17-471==TIEt) ::::.:r.r.r..-:::-..=zt:
•1 , -- g2-2.74-14-.Vr' •7- - - — H....1:.=:XII,•;',.;7I•II.:.::-/---'rIS 7
I ,1-1:71 •r 1,7,1'1,1'o.- ›c . .1r....4 ••••• ,,,.... I i•N. .,(1
II(''11III I''II( I 1 I ';', 7,1-1:,„ra74°`'''' , ,,--,,,,-,7,----- ,. , •, i g) I 1
1 .
:F!,: 1::------,..:;?-2,: F,, 0 Te ; ;a , ) , ,--=---_-",..,:0, c •,•_.,!, _11_
, IT:1'1 l',!,1!1
',..,-----Tt""".X, I.1) I. ('-'1"\' 1IXT 4`44:l --...' -..../-• ' "1 ' '
I.:..12-!tilll..1.,_ i .,. ....' ): •'''' i ,
. I
- •,i.-___ __ ___ _ _ -_-, ••
1,,4 ,- , ;_:....--- ---.- tr... --- V.1.. ••-•,. . ,J /....j......,- I N
,Irtziv-
1 i I
- ---, 1 1 ";,..19- vi I, 1..A.;.• P.,c, i‘,9,....; ., 1 ,t, LOCATION MAP 40
; ; 1 . I .-/,.li' i f7.7.1-4 \Ii'474.71t 71 5:,::i:,t_ ,;,..1:_ \‘•'1.
L_ ; I SCALL,11i A c-
1 i I i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION-
sUNDY HARVEST BLOCK
LOTS 20,21,22,23,
\.- III.V".""Ir I I , 1 ,F.7,:thliff.:111711147NAN.P,Ig' 24.AND 25 BLOCK 70
1
I 1 I i "'".""!./. ,,/----ii:e1.,.-1 ' . ,====--.......- A .7.-..•==-=x..,--•==I, .
,,,.,,,„
I
[
.— __--_ .--......— — —--- -- ---_ •—•-----------------------• 12 U
.1.0 ru.1121.12 U.:41....1.41..0..1 A
0125
1 1 1 I
I bonsA Pultl.ael:WALL PA1D.1.
I ,:12,-,=traluta kV-fcr--) 0_
SITE PLAN
• ::::
'.
G
REVISIONS
SCAM:140,T
BUILDING AND SITE CALCULATIONS
1,---Itr,IIDDIO^IHTVI.IIr;,C HANDICAP SDP
III ! " “III
_ ----ratir::'L SINGE EASKIIISSELCULATICIS &II.ES—\47 41.1.IE
ET•:11"' :i il R Irl l'a =dna ELLIS!. i in SI
l'o',II"•=t1 24II.-ti PAVER DETAIL If' 7 •
.... Ft 3
InDon 2 1)1:S. 4 7.
M.,---:',7 '. """
CONSULTANTS
...64.122121.
''IIINriiI:ACMi"Fdal4I'
ILIRAIrgi STA'I DETAIL@
•
•
MASTER PLAN
..,
GARBAGE ENCLOSURE
r SCHE,/li S
A1.R9n.
•
• -
. ..
•
•
.. , : . .....
1 1
c ...
Plf.LAn1 A GRIMM[191 SILL
LEG 0"IWLI:',74;-:::4.1,---
CA.. 0--""•.. .i' v•i",•.'ilt.'"•"••
VG L';;;;.5:}'''=•2..:.,'".....=.4.1.... °V 0-'-':i ; ...,7Z•'
CEL 0-!•-=:::::Pit:V.A.7-0.4
• " Q9-'r.:Ii!P;';:...'7,!.;'.'"'"
(4-'-
0_,,,,,..,i7.,.:,7.7%—
vua , 2,1 zoLzak.
4
1-
i . .-------- (-- _ ,.... ...
-
=, E ..‘....-- 1 -- -.11.-t--j 1 (4, -. --'•- ,
•,.... /2 ...., T4,- ufrd
!'. ' I 1 ' ".(::,A,•;X:: 11.4, ,.,.,OA,
Z4...a.•...;]..1 '- '''''„ —'—... ;0) _: ,3 'i 1r,
...__I--:__
....,
1
/.......
-I ',, ra:CAL V:SUJ i CIOLLSZOWLII SMIL
..,r- ....,_'8 1 . ..-- ,
i. ,..,5 LiallP - 6 I
2 ! I ---- r.
;',' --,•• k-: —1:1 __.;
—,...,,,, r8,?:71.... (--- ..,, --:---- a ,,i ::[-- [ [,.
7 --i'-,-i
_ , 0,L'. (E:LI .
1 ..1 .1 1.„........ 1 ,, I-, ,.
/-ZTij. I 1„ -- -•
.ii'NVJ`'1!F.- '' - - ; -"•^
-& 1
'--
.
_-,
1 ----- - •-.4 .
rzarw..,
GRAPIIIC SCALE ss. ..,_f3
' ----...................—
itit --... ... oy
-.-
,....,
DEC. 20. 2001 V. =in..•
REV.NO I, FEB. 00.2002 I- 1 1--- --
--I.)
01\"le)a-t_ -•-•---- II ,,,rYVICAL 'ME VI.ZIYVAI I L(IIYIAI bliTlil
GENERAL UOTES
° "‘.1:2;`,:',V.,1.',M=.%"="InV:1,`:.."`"`''"`'' " ...,ur•=,..,:=.=..-zw.:T'A‘.'---------
1 I........../.1..NI 1............‘GOA.,Id ..
'TffiliNgaValK;S:itgi:Viket.'PL
' Z=1"t=.:Lrl'at41 l'•:'81:04",:'.';;"r.:In't...t`,.",`,',t"V.2.',VZ7" " ,',:!,:,n.`'', .':;',;1„'it;11,"V''‘':'',:',',..Z.,:',1'41r,;..,T4`,i,.,!:.A.
•
TI NE:1)Y I EAR,V1F: .-:-r•I' Ili lj)(!1,:'_
1 1 I. K URT K Win' 0,LI 1 UT & AS,t'.0 C I AT ES- .- .------ - - - Kd„)1\(/\/
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLA.. ING SITE PLANNING \\Ay )
.. ki_2,4rArD 227 GOOLSBY BLVD. DEERFIELD BEACH, FLD RDA 33442 (954) 426-4305
LANDSCAPE SHEET t- 1 '----
.."
•
•
. T.,". SO I I- bL11iii ;� , ...
• �1Y1 is‘-... zioruz1 r• I r_I o.,-- (�TTTT7 fl
Kfsml11 W1ll1 rti
1JITi4'/ xt' 1r A I�''SL ."
Hat
tea, UN It PM 51011031
"wiw..__ "® .ICL1141..mu l raNi i - -
TYPE D CURB "�'�ppS�. - �� �1 11I I Ilfl FM Fl P[0 J[e i
•RIS'LPlWl�S1Q11a1%P fl�.f'So� II
TWICII IAIY010 WACO 011/1 AOIOQN IMMURE DMZ M0010[P1[W11O1 POOH LII CK'1C14.44 WANNYM1IIT YU)C"
LOCATION YAP MAAI .11o00A
DESCRIPTION
ill,
.Ya 41tQ lry
INCIT
T
/ "y <Y1QTimAM17..1t IOM 1� O0.YIN0-IA.0 - TEN
•�." I N i Yowl..NYL 74,44411
>t 1
r
♦ I.C.lot LT[EET ♦1 mtIO
.. rev�L I O.y.M
E �— NS
�x •:, try": ��{�;Li.— Vim["_�� I
Ti]' 'M SST.�a }yY.4Y`4..•7• �' / /- ..�,.
O ??.:8*yP+ 1 ii 41• I .. o.� Lz /-/ ):ate1 Man MA LEGEND •J
Ti ^ ' '7E7 I I ...(. J I .111F2.4 om.vum"..ms -rW
II I
...0_...[w --._
�,1 I V
1
E i 1 I
T J 1:I.
z
�� I ;�; E I w I I, fazni° 1 1 L.,-.;:. _ ._. MGM LK
tea.
— ___ i .J I 4 V= ,r.wr� �ViTu[""� .. LLAL
'OE-T - I�)" Lil- •E ®• i ♦ �j� �I
- ---"-1 of �� `I I �� I H.
-w 11111
-Z-i-..��I- I ...�'imi �. i I: ou
..,. (Ua--. ....._-._ Iwas
DATE
7 1 T E PLAN ® . �C}tL}+Ty.41/4 =. -REVIEW a wuv["TL
BIDrr-- I . .��.�..� NOT
NOT TON CONSTRUCTION
PELNN
• CONLT"UCNCN
r. MUG OATS u/30/01 -.
Pg61EC1 MEV NUYM
' 333 o-t
•
N
I. , J .___ )..,5 O 3
89 2.21 2,'6 1,8� 1.56 1.11 '.08"°2.47 Lb .68 ,.8 1.01 1.01 1.18 .07401 ? ). 0 0 �0
o
. F — K I ,, x 11 1
9 ,76 b3, ?1 J.')9 1 LL .2 PIP , P.6.4 1.801.22 , - I. .20 1,5U ,57 I db 0,))5
i� )` 7 2 I° 193 1,,) 1.6 2,25 , 3.43 a L �1 1,35 I`,b .16E . I,�'7 0,)8 `
to 'I + + + + ' Mr• + I;_ ,, k I a
1 Al 11 2.22 1,70 1.61 2„18 201 3.58 L6` :6 L66 6 0.�>2
- —T�, I F F + + F- 14
I I
� : ►_ 1 ?. 1,61 1.36 8.07 ,�'_6'9- 2.76 2. `� 2,06 0 ,L3 0,,,3
I-] I F F F + F 1 + K_ . ii �o
d — ^— . 2,l l 1.9-1 2 35 94 2.96 2,l/ 7 2.13 .2 0���2
I4%66; . F? ' F + + + + + + + F F I
•
lJ_ 2.36 2.14 2.34 l ` 2,03E .:,2 0,. 7
Ali.
3 2 40 aro 2. 2 2,40 ;'06 1.89 2,01 2,9� ,12 7 0.i 1�,e0?
1 x + + + - + + + F �� t I ,.
1,9( 1 1.91 1.17 1.93 1,90 ,.92 1,65 1.83 1.68 1.79 1.81 1.79 3.34 1,36 9 0,91 0. 4
\ B $ I F + + + + F I- F + F + + + '"
0
: , �''' 2,58 I' 2.12 1.80 1.91 1,34 1,48 1.06 1,51 1.04 1.85 1.64 1.70 2.00 1.3. 0 0,75 0..6
'B 'T. I- I- + + + + + + F + F i F I 1
' 1.48 3.67 MI; .71 1,.1 170 .35 1.35 5 1..8 1. 9 153 .67 1.72 1.81 ____� 0.34 0..0
1 +. - F + + �1 1 - + F +_ + ( 14 U? s,k
' 1,13 2.02 ' „ , .l 3 1.19 183' .78- 18,1 . 1..9 1's2 171 .77 162 1.49 ,,I.b7 g 2 033 0.c2
_ ,4�P_i , ( F It ■i I 11_
7 0. 2 1.26 1,` . E. b c1 c .b . ,t- I, I.: • 0.410 1.c 0 i l 0.1
Il 0.'t7 0./2 Li9 1.34 1,c9 0, 9 1� 9 1,4 2160 1� 1 1,<<8 0, 3 0, 3 0_7 0.L5 0.22 0�17 0�12 0.i.1.
ris $ Y BI J SI@ urade (+)) 1g W.5 El
(MS IA 26 0,0
1 1 _ _tar ,11/1EHS—.4 o e L1ALLATT La OTY4_
(1)'B'ALH 418/5/175 (I) 20500 862
Cl L SL BBH3/1754I 10'Pole 10
(I)'C'SL BBH3/250 Hi (I)175SHH/E-28 15000 0.56
Feb 11 02 03: 58p BFILFOORT FINNVOLD 954-524-5119 p. 3
•
•
OPTIONS
IL. SSA Straight side arm for pole
mounting aF —
WMP Wall mounting plate for straight
side arm option OPr :.-,,
t LXN Polycarbonate lens for SL FH22 '' -:‘ 38 "
or SL FH32 series.Not recom
,, 21 °
mended for use with metal halide 61.z. }t} + l
Sr
lamps. h� � ,~.n
PMS Pendant mounting kit with 46 ,kc 'p(r t', "� "
inch stem and swivel joint at ,. � `: rL Lx, K
the canopy �_.
' i3
SL FH32(sHOWN)& SL FHW32 Si FH32-PM & SL FHW32(sHowN)
uIMINSION5:32"DIAMI II4 UIMCNSIONS:32"WAIL IUI
IyiJ
1■__ ■■ ■ mil
_._ ° iii
..
. s ■ ■ I!rill
1114Ili - 1 p. _ _
__ EN 1 Ili
I'F'i
■ IrL,iAa„:o„.z,.,_,i.:i4i
tn
;v,t 6 —
n'
----- — — __ _ _. „Y l n ■
___1_
SCALE:I/4"=1'
HEAD SL FH15-CA 2-SL FHW22GH3 SL FHW32-PM SL FH22 SL FHW32 SL FHW22
rl
C ARM SLA20A-2 • SLA20
A8
POLE DB6-4R14 PR5-5R16 PR4-4R14 B3-4R16 •
W•
OPTIONS • BC1-5 •
BBS4-18 •
•
9
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
-CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--
-MEETING DATE: February 20, 2002
AGENDA ITEM: II. F.
ITEM: Management Systems, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein,
Authorized Agent.
N.E. 3RD
GENERAL DATA: `- _
Owner Management Systems
Worldwide, L.L.C.
Applicant Silberstein Architects, Inc. w
Location Southwest Corner of = - I- Z
Northeast 2"d Street and z v N
Northeast 1st Avenue. - w
Property Size 0.17 Acres
Future Land Use Map OMU (Other Mixed Use) DRIVE Q N.E. 2ND ,
urrent Zoning OSHAAD (Old School 7- - lei
}
Square Historic Arts District) MI C= <
,,djacent Zoning North: OSHAAD (Old School - P, - >
Square Historic Arts District) - AM
&
East: OSHAAD (Old School Square W
Historic Arts District) Lir == a
South: OSHAAD (Old School Square - W
Historic Arts District) --
West: OSHAAD (Old School Square ■A ai -
Historic Arts District)
Existing Land Use Vacant Lot z
Proposed Land Use Construction of a 2,400-sq. o
ft., two-story, office building. ~
Water Service Existing on site. Z z z
Sewer Service Existing on site. _
OLD
SCHOOL
SQUARE
ATLANTIC AVENUE
w
> U)
3
w
I- >
0
N2
Z
LLi N
W
• II. F.
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The action before the Board is that of approval of COA-2002-038, which incorporates
the following aspects of the development proposal for Management Systems, pursuant
to LDR Section 2.4.5(F):
• Class V Site Plan;
• Design Elements; and,
• Variance Request.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd
Street (Martin Luther King Jr. Drive), within the Old School Square Historic Arts District
(OSSHAD).
BACKGROUND
The subject property incorporates Lot 9, less the west 60' thereof, and the north 26.5' of
Lot 10, less the west 60' thereof, Block 67, Town of Linton. The property contains 0.167
acres and is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD).
At its meeting of December 5, 2001, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a one-story residence built in 1978.
An application for site plan approval is now before the Board for a two-story, 2,400
square foot office building with associated parking and architectural elevations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The development proposal involves the following:
• Construction of a new two-story, 2,400 square foot office building;
• Construction of a new five (5) space parking lot along the south side of the
property, two (2) parallel parking spaces within the NE 1st Avenue right-of-
way, and the purchase of three (3) parking spaces via the payment of an in-
lieu parking fee; and,
• Installation of new brick paver sidewalks, and walkways.
The site plan application also includes a variance request to the following section of the
City's Land Development Regulations (LDR):
• A variance request to reduce the required side street building setback from
15' to 10' [LDR Section 4.3.4(K)].
Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 2
SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
Items identified in the Land Development Regulations (LDR) shall be specifically
addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development proposal.
LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Matrix:
The following table indicates that the proposal complies (with the exception of the side
street setback) with LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the OSSHAD zoning district:
Required Proposed
Building Height: 35'-0" 23'-6"
Building Setbacks: Front (North) 25'-0" 25'-0"
Rear (South) 10'-0" 50'-5"
Side Street (East) * 15'-0" 10'-0"
Side Interior (West) 7'-6" 7'-6"
Open Space: 25% 44%
*-Refer to Variance Analysis
Variance Analysis:
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act on all
variance requests within an historic district, or on a historic site, which otherwise would
be acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. Prior to granting a variance, HPB must
make the following findings pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5):
(a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the
land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to
other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning (The matter of
economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance);
(b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning;
(c) That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions
of the applicant;
(d) That granting the variance will not confer into the applicant any special
privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the
same zoning. Neither the permitted, nor nonconforming use, of neighborhood
lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered
grounds for the issuance of a variance;
• • • Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
' Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 3
(e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the
variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and,
(f) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with general purpose and
intent of existing regulations will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), in acting on a variance requests the Board may also
be guided by the following as an alternative to the above criteria:
(1) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property
through demonstrating that:
(a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or
welfare;
(b) Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic
setting, location, nature, or character of the land, structure,
appurtenances, sign, or building involved, which are not applicable to
other lands, structures, appurtenances, signs, or buildings in the same
zoning district, which have not been designated as historic sites or a
historic district nor listed on the Local Register of Historic Places;
(c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances would alter
the historic site to such an extent that it would not be feasible to
preserve the historic character, of the historic district or historic site;
and,
(d) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the
historic character of a historic site or a historic district.
(2) Or, as an alternative to Sub-Section (J)(1), that a variance is necessary to
accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic
District or upon a Historic Site through demonstrating that:
(a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or
welfare;
(b) The variance would not significantly diminish the historic character of
the Historic District or Site; and,
(c) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the
adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site.
(3) The Board shall otherwise follow procedures and impose conditions as
required of the Board of Adjustments.
The development proposal includes a request for a variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K),
as it pertains to the side street building setback requirement. The specific variance
requested, and justification statement as supplied by the applicant is as follows:
•
' . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 4
"Originally we had provided for a 15'-0"side street setback. The dedication
of 5'0" of right-of-way on NE 1st Avenue has resulted in a 10'0" side
street setback. The required setback is 15'0': We are requesting a
variance for a side street setback of 10'-0""
The above rational does not address any of the required findings of LDR Sections
2.4.7(A)(5), or 4.5.1(J).
Prior to the dedication of the additional five feet (5') of right-of-way for NE 1st Avenue,
the proposed 2,400 square foot building was able to meet the building setback
requirements of the OSSHAD zoning district. Consequently, by dedicating the
additional right-of-way for NE 1st Avenue, the potential building footprint for the subject
property is being reduced. By allowing the requested variance to the side street
building setback requirement, the construction of the proposed 2,400 square foot office
building would be able to proceed, and an adaptive reuse of the subject property would
be realized.
As previously noted, granting the requested variance would reduce the side street
building setback requirement from 15' to 10'. By itself, this is not a tremendous
reduction. However, for those adjacent properties along NE 1st Avenue the setback is
25', as NE 1st Avenue constitutes the front of their property. Viewed from the
perspective of these properties, the requested variance would constitute a difference of
15' between where the proposed building with a variance would be constructed and
where the neighboring buildings elsewhere along the block are located, or could be
constructed. This concern was voiced by the Pineapple Grove Design Review
Committee.
LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD):
Parking Requirements:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(4)(a), all non-residential uses, with the exception of
restaurants, shall provide one (1) parking space per 300 square feet of total new floor
area. Based upon the above, the proposed 2,400 square foot professional office
building would require eight (8) parking spaces.
LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(5), states that if it is impossible or inappropriate to provide the
required parking on-site or off-site, the parking requirement may be met by providing an
in-lieu parking fee of$6,000 per space [REF: Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(3)—Area 3: Parcels
located within the OSSHAD zoning district]. Due to site constraints the in-lieu fee option
has been proposed for three (3) required parking spaces, which will cost a total of
$18,000. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e), in addition to in-lieu fees due, where
adequate right-of-way exists adjacent to a proposed project the applicant must construct
additional on-street parking and the total in-lieu fee due shall be reduced by an amount
equal to the actual construction cost, but in no event to exceed the total in-lieu fees due.
. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 5
A five (5) space parking area consisting of four (4) standard and one (1) handicap
accessible parking spaces will be constructed on the south side of the property. The
three (3) remaining required parking spaces will be provided via an in-lieu parking
agreement, of which two (2) of the spaces will subsequently be constructed by the
applicant within the NE 1st Avenue right-of-way.
The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) is scheduled to review the request
for the purchase of the three (3) in-lieu parking spaces at its meeting of February 26,
2002. Its recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission on March 5, 2002.
Approval of the in-lieu parking fee option by the City Commission is attached as a
condition of approval.
Article 4.6 Supplemental District Regulations:
Fences:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.5(A), walls, fences, hedges, or similar structures shall not
be erected in the public right-of-way or close to the public right-of-way in a manner that
will obstruct visibility or otherwise interfere with the proper flow of vehicular traffic,
pedestrian safety, or the provision of public services. The proposal calls for the
installation of a three foot (3') high picket fence on the north and east sides of the
property. As the fence is only three feet (3') in height, it will not obstruct visibility along
the adjacent rights-of-way. Thus, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR
Section 4.6.5(A).
Site Lighting:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided for new development
proposals. There are two (2) decorative wall mounted light fixtures proposed for the
south elevation of the building (facing the parking lot) and two (2) additional decorative
wall mounted fixtures along the north elevation. Also, decorative post mounted lights
are proposed for the southwest corner of the property and along the north side of the
driveway. However, a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 has not
been provided with the submittal, and has been attached as a condition of approval.
Bicycle Rack:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided by
a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City's TCEA
(Transportation Concurrency Exception Area). The subject property is located within the
TCEA and is therefore required to provide a bike rack. A bike rack has not been
indicated on the site plan, and its' provision has been attached as a condition of
approval.
•
' • Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 6
OTHER ITEMS:
Right-of-Way Dedication:
Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), and the Transportation Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the required right-of-way width for NE 1st Avenue is 60'. Currently
40' of right-of-way exists for NE 1st Avenue. The Development Services Management
Group (DSMG) approved a right-of-way reduction for NE 1st Avenue to 50'.
Accordingly, only five feet (5') of additional right-of-way must be dedicated by the
property owner, which is attached as a condition of approval. The required right-of-way
width for NE 2nd Street is 50', and has already been provided.
Sidewalks:
Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a five foot (5') wide sidewalk is required within the
rights-of-way adjacent to the property. A five foot (5') sidewalk currently exists along the
north side of the property adjacent to NE 2nd Street. This sidewalk will be replaced with
a new brick paver sidewalk to match the sidewalk being installed within the newly
dedicated NE 1st Avenue right-of-way. With the installation of the new sidewalks this
requirement will be met, however the sidewalk along NE 1st Avenue must extend
through the proposed driveway, and is attached as a condition of approval.
Site Plan Technical Items:
While revised plans have accommodated most of the staff concerns the following item
remains outstanding, and must be addressed prior to building permit submittal:
1. The height and dimensions of the proposed sign at the northeast corner of the
property need to be provided on the site plan.
LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS
The landscape plan associated with the subject development proposal is not before the
Board at this time. The applicant will need to return to the Board for landscape plan
approval, and has been attached as a condition of approval.
DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS
The proposed two-story office building has been designed at a scale consistent with the
residential area. The architectural style of the building is Caribbean, and while this style
is now commonly found throughout the City, that is not entirely the case with the Old
School Square Historic District. The District is comprised more of the wood frame
vernacular style, and consequently there is a concern with respect to the architectural
compatibility of the Caribbean style structure within the District, which the Board may
wish to discuss.
•
' - Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 7
The proposed north and south elevations will be identical to one another and will consist
of several full length aluminum frame windows along the base of the building. The two
(2) single-hung windows at the east ends of the elevations will be accented with
decorative wood Bahama shutters overhead and louvered wood shutters along both
sides. The three (3) central windows along the base of the elevation will be accented
with a stucco reveal. The aluminum frame doors at the west ends of the elevations will
have a rounded top and will be encased by an archway of sidelights, which in turn will
be encased by a stucco band. Louvered wood shutters will be attached along both
sides of the door, as well as decorative light fixtures. The first and second floors will be
separated by a stringcourse, which will run across all four elevations of the building.
The second floor shall have a pair of aluminum frame windows accented by louvered
wood shutters at both the east and west ends of the elevation. At the center of the
second floor of the north and south elevations will be a balcony. The balcony will
feature a white wood picket railing, and will be supported by decorative brackets at its
base.
The east and west elevations, while not identical, are very similar to one another in their
appearance. The first floor of the east elevation will feature four (4) full length aluminum
frame windows with decorative Bahama shutters overhead and louvered wood shutters
along the sides. The second floor will consist of four (4) aluminum frame windows
accented by louvered wood shutters. As previously indicated, the west elevation is very
similar to the east elevation, with the main difference between them being the size and
number of windows. The west elevation will have three (3) windows on both the first
and second floors; however the windows will be larger in width than those on the east
elevation. All of the proposed windows will be single-hung, and generally will consist of
eight (8) lites.
The building will feature a silver standing seam metal roof that will have a slight change
in pitch and the eaves. The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee has
recommended that the change in pitch be more defined, staff agrees with this
assessment, and the change in pitch is attached as a condition of approval.
The first floor of the building will be painted pale yellow (Crocus Yellow), and the second
floor will be painted crème (Veiled Sun). All of the doors, windows, shutters, railings,
and trim will be painted white.
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 the Future Land
Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with
the Land Development Regulations.
• ' . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 8
Section 3.1.1(A) — Future Land Use Map:
The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of OMU (Other Mixed
Use), and a zoning designation of OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District).
The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map
designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), within the OSSHAD, business and
professional offices are a permitted use. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to
make a positive finding with respect to the Future Land Use Map.
Section 3.1.1(B) — Concurrency:
As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates
to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and
solid waste.
Section 3.1.1 (C) — Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions):
As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates
to Standards for Site Plan Actions.
Section 3.1.1 (D) — Compliance with the Land Development Regulations:
As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance
with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed.
Comprehensive Plan Policies:
A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was
conducted and no applicable policies are noted.
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 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 bordered on all sides by the OSSHAD (Old School Square
Historic Arts District) zoning district. The existing adjacent land uses include: an office
building to the north; and single-family residences to the south, east, and west.
Compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential, and office uses is not a
concern. The abutting single-family residences located to the south, east, and west will
be buffered by proposed landscaping, and an existing six-foot (6') high wood fence
' . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 9
located on the adjacent single-family properties. The proposed use as a business office
will be low intensity in nature and is appropriate in a mixed-use district. In addition, the
redevelopment of the site should enhance property values in the area, and may serve
as an inducement for the upgrading of nearby properties.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA):
At its meeting of January 24, 2002, the CRA recommended approval of the
development proposal, and while the CRA did not directly support the requested
variance, they did not suggest that it be denied.
Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee:
At its meeting of February 11, 2002, the Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee
recommended approval of the development proposal while stressing concerns over
effect the requested setback variance would have on the neighborhood. Ultimately, the
Committee did not support the granting of the requested variance. The Committee also
suggested that the Bahama shutters be lowered so that they may operate more
efficiently, and that the change in roof pitch be more defined.
Neighborhood Notice:
Special Notice was provided to the Old School Square Homeowner's Association.
Letters of objection, if any, will be presented at the HPB meeting.
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
The development proposal involves the construction of a 2,400 square foot two-story
office building with associated parking. The proposal will be consistent with the policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations,
provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The proposed redevelopment of the
site should enhance property values in the area, and may serve as an inducement for
the upgrading of nearby properties.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve COA-2002-038, and the associated variance, Class V site plan, and
design elements for Management Systems, subject to conditions.
C. Deny approval of COA-2002-038 and the associated variance, Class V site
plan, and design elements for Management Systems, with basis stated.
• ' • Historic Preservation Board Staff Report
Management Systems—COA-2002-038
Page 10
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Variance Request:
Board's Discretion.
B. Site Plan:
Approve COA-2002-038 for the Class V site plan for Management Systems,
based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards)
of the Land Development Regulations, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
LDR Section 2.4.5(F)(5), subject to the following condition:
1. That the height and dimensions of the proposed sign at the northeast
corner of the property are provided on the site plan;
2. That the proposed landscape and engineering plans return to the Historic
Preservation Board for approval;
3. That the three (3) in-lieu parking spaces are approved by the City
Commission;
4. That a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 is provided;
5. That a bicycle rack is provided onsite;
6. That five feet (5') of additional right-of-way is dedicated along NE 1st
Avenue;
7. That the proposed sidewalk along NE 1st Avenue is extended through the
drive aisle; and,
8. That the change in roof pitch be more defined.
C. Design Elements:
Approve the design elements for Management Systems, associated with COA-
2002-038, based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(E), Development
Standards.
Attachments:
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Proposed Site Plan
• Design Elements
Staff Report Prepared by:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner
APPENDIX A
CONCURRENCY FINDINGS
Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(B), Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of
the 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 plans have not been submitted for approval at this time. The applicant has
indicated that they will return to the Board at a later date for approval of the engineering plans,
which has been attached as a condition of approval.
Drainage:
A preliminary drainage plan has not been submitted for approval at this time. The applicant has
indicated that they will return to the Board at a later date for approval of the engineering plans,
which has been attached as a condition of approval.
Streets and Traffic:
The subject property is located in the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
(TCEA), 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 proposed professional office building will generate 46
Average Daily Trips (ADT).
Parks and Open Space:
Park dedication requirements do not apply for non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed
development will not have an impact with respect to this level of service standard.
Solid Waste:
The proposal calls for the construction of a 2,400 square foot office building. The amount of
solid waste generated annually by the proposed office building will be 6.48 tons [2,400 sq.ft. x
5.4 lbs. = 12,960 lbs/2,000 = 6.48 tons]. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its
facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals till the year 2021.
Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service.
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 This standard will be met when a photometric plan in
compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8, is provided, which has been
attached as a condition of approval.
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 The provision of a bicycle rack has been attached as a condition
of approval.
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 X
Meets intent of standard
Does not meet intent
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
54
•
SlIborsteIn
..
SITE STATISTICS ArchileCts
5151142. 1nel 60,571
i_ -
1014.1 2151250 11002 0.120. 1140 520 111 Or WTI
NI. 2ND STREET I,. 561 271 0116 TOM 210211 WI •StIl Nt g ' •-,, ••••...,,..,.,
01715/1.2.14521210 5•12( Ir.,712771 •25.1772
11.1111 WOKS 0 5071 On KA 5711
ellt,C
,o,.1.111.AAAA r 14501
/ \
1114T1-4117ATPVC741204°"1 4
1 rirvr-vfv,ri;; ,1:17511,91111PTI,'
TOM SPAM 1710,2211 8 IS•2 Ix 11251
17I111 e
F7 45 5.7, 1
11.11.251 21214412 -17 ' 71.1
MANAGEMENT
Moon <NAL
'17' 2 SYSTEMS
1102,0 15-0- 7 ZU
" l ,I 11 ,'7:17,,.1
.... DELRAY BEACH,FL
". enorouo 31,, .,.,
1.2101112 12.51115 Li C 71 1 1
'7
.;-r . --- . _.,_
,A , 17711 1 5_ —
t Ole.0041,1i,rtinil :
."214 I P411 '.,_,I
!Il?' 01 40
1 II 01
'0 --' til 011122 e/1512 1 I , ,...L,71
1111
4471 5.
ttC.1-littril MO ;!., I i 1 I
(_
il 6
,251411 21 171.2.2..rtcwin 04 1.<5 2.4214 220.40 1<m. - - .7-1.1r7A:141'5.. L,.,.-,
St ...
<
Atilpini 11.1.MS IT 'i ( \
111.1 15 20.45127.721.5 All..___7.1{11.I_7; - : ._:1-2 :- -1
1i 7, ,/,.6 .e....
e '
:11.0.14 LI toc<515
I
I i 7/54; <4 255.0475.4...
oitn olil s,..iq I — ""°
,
II I I 2• N ?II:51,37,
1 1_1 _4 --• '71 —_ ',..
..1.
•I•I--
if i•
i t
1
1 1
VICINITY MAP I: ''''.1'- / 1 I 5 -,— ..,
cr
„15X1'21711111 11.r.(1 /
II 1111.111(57 I< 11
9
I,
I REv,sioNs
_I 4,__:, ) l'
---
ii
„".,':::
1.1.112.1411.<MI6
NOVEMBER II 2001® LOCATION MAP SITE PLAN-ALTERNATE 2 STORY SCHEME i
.War 11) (3)6 GALE.Kr.rir - (1 0 A-1.0
[Drawn by.DK[
G lATcti.C100 Polect1Olkes M0*ge220 Symms INejs‘Cds1A 10 tin
Silborstoin
Arc hIt o ctr:
Tit,. -+ww91.8. avWwi.r 99. '
1888
1111 t '' te 1 * � • 1 M :•�si
I - � -_ I ,vim I
I "�° r41
Z.Z.mumI rt �ro (MANAGEMENT
1111
11111111111111111111 SYSTEMS
4i I I I I I I WOW I I I DELRAYBEACHFL
1 I k iom°c a.rs 1'11111111111111111111
—'f -.rnr to a Vier-. -o a/,r ,o am.:n/u• r u•-a>/n• a� /,r
i I i I 1 I
I I I I I I
i I I 1 1 1
Ise g I I.1 I Ise
In i Iq I Ip i
I I I
i I I 1 I I
I I 1
I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
OFIRST FLOOR PLAN OSECOND FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
sa1.E:,;e•.,•a 2 scALE:vo•.,w• 3 SCALE:vlr.ra•
REVISIONS
®,n.n..a
NOVEMOER S.2001
A-2.0
Drawn by:DII
DWcti.ecNrc Prolects101fices`Alanapemenl Syslme'u.pslLds`A•2.0 m.p
.. . . . .. , . . . .
. SlIborstoIn
A ..
rchltocts
524 IA C. and 81.0,•1
Oslesg...‘Flail."OS
4.r•r.... Tat 411•MO-93.3
I 0,01 , 11141,411•••14 tr•
4:;:ra rircri 1•14 comm.,lon coor,t,./.4
110111111 J1--IIII:tit 11[1:1 j 11 .
1111.•MAR C., V:,7::::::':,,e4:::.;:::::r.
I
-*‘'-'--- r•-• ''' -- '.- Illl I ill i 11 II lUbi I I Id I il I J .I i LI 1 11,111
MANAGEMENT
--
11 11. I I,-rd F_A-------
1-
?-.- T / DELRAY BEACH,FL
h r...,..:..,
.1. ......
•WOW 51.11116 W1.111
's.-i
4:a•f•
(I')NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATION
`,...../SCALE.1,1...•1,0-
l':•:-..,..,., 4•;.',."';—
—-4 “.. 1TC'il4r.
• • --- M'CLAi"-':11Yrli
"-'5.11
,'"" T.
1,1,41.-MAR GLA,
1
11 11:1 71 Hi] ''j ,. ----—-1V000 5111111I/11-MIIIIC
1
1J -- li -'-- i'l'C'1:;:;2- 1111( I! S;ITVI:4-21„1
11
4;2:0 nOw t .I
4;LW o no. t 1 —L
.. ,
2 E,
m 1 _,, ___.s,“.,,,...Min
F.:_ ,_..._______.,4,=,,,:=0
,.__ _.....„ __,. _ __ ".-z-7
F.'-'] 1----. <,..7, PlC.,1•11•I•OCO
Mtillf/1,1041N!IA. voill AlUumuu 11r,..1
VgrrN407C911.4'''''"
1111.1,1 MO 01.31 _ _- • ---.
-.• --•- ITPICAL-MAR CLASS
I.1.01,111) .1,01 WOOD',UMW:-WHIT
4 Lel:•-i-TIZ\ -
... 4';.:U.lo
-- - _
-- -
ILL •
42:
(2)EAST P-EVATION_........ . (3)WEST ELEVATION . .
‘.. ,,SCALE:14.-1,17 SCALL.1/4'-1-0r
REVISIONS
NOVEM8Ell 8,2001
A-3.0
[Drawn by.DK i
, • G1Ar2re25re Pqncts101fices`Mracernet Syslenteno0s,C45.8:3811.0
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING DATE: MARCH 6, 2002
LOCATION: POMPEY PARK AUDITORIUM, Rooms A & B
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by the Chairman. Upon roll call it was
determined that a quorum was present.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail-Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott,
Michael Simon, Rhonda Sexton, Donnamarie Sloan
MEMBERS ABSENT: None (Bodker resigned)
STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Dan Martino, Brian Shutt, Debra Garcia,
Loretta Heussi
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 610 & 615 North Ocean Blvd, Fontaine Fox House, Individually
Listed Historic Property, Rebecca Henderson, Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Recommendation to the City Commission
regarding an amendment to Ordinance 70-89 for the historic
designation of the Fontaine Fox House and related property.
Brian Shutt, Asst. City Attorney, asked all those who wished to
speak be sworn in. Loretta Heussi, Notary, swore in all those
wishing to speak.
Ms. Shay presented the project and reviewed the location and
designation information of the individually listed property and the lot
configurations associated with Ordinance 70-89. She described in
detail the project proposed by the applicant. The proposal would
amend Ordinance 70-89 to remove the historic designation from Lot
3 and a portion of Lot 2 which would be subdivided into a total of
four separate parcels to accommodate a development plan for
construction of single-family homes (perpendicular to the extant
historic dwelling). The historic designation for the remaining portion
of Lot 2 (the lot that houses the Fontaine Fox House), as well as
Lot 1 on the ocean side (615 North Ocean Boulevard), would
remain.
3/6/02
Rebecca Henderson, Authorized Agent, representing the applicant,
Village by the Sea, LLC, requested to de-designate or amend the
legal description associated with the current ordinance designating
the property to accommodate a development proposal. Ms.
Henderson stated that the house is historic due to its affiliation with
Fontaine Fox, the cartoonist, who constructed the house for his
personal residence. Ms. Henderson reviewed the history of the
property's owners and alterations made over the years to the
historic dwelling. She also stated that the boundaries, as proposed
by the applicant, are appropriate as dictated by the location of the
house. The property that includes the house (designed by
renowned, local architect John Volk) is within the only portion within
the actual historic boundaries. Ms. Henderson further reviewed the
topography of the land including the retaining wall to the north.
Ms. Henderson addressed in detail her opposition to the conditions
of approval as stated in the staff report. She addressed her
concerns regarding the lack of historical integrity on the property
and listing the property at 610 North Ocean Boulevard in the
National Register of Historic Places as she felt that the "dirt" behind
the house is not historic and that listing the property in the National
Register could open it to public scrutiny. She further discussed her
opposition to the height restriction of 28 feet imposed on the first
two lots behind the historic house. Ms. Henderson closed with her
reassurance that the proposal does not include the alteration or
demolition of the historic house and that the proposed development
will be positive for the City.
Ms. Jamison inquired about ex part communication. None was
disclosed.
Ms. Jamison opened the floor for those in favor of the project. No
members of the public spoke in favor. She then asked those
opposed to speak at this time and reiterated that those who were
not sworn in must do so prior to speaking.
Mr. Shutt stated that they can be sworn in by Ms. Jamison.
The following spoke in opposition:
John Bennett, President of Progressive Residents of Delray
(PROD), stated that "a deal is a deal." In 1989, The Wilson's, the
previous owners of the Fontaine Fox property, approached the City
to acquire historic designation of the entire property Lots 1, 2, and 3
and received a variance which would allow the construction of a
2,400 sq. ft. beachfront house on a non-conforming lot to the east
-2- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
of North Ocean Boulevard. Frank McKinney, current owner of the
Fontaine Fox property, wishes to allow construction of several
homes (not including Lot 1 as he does not own that property) which
is the opposite intention of the terms of the ordinance that
established the designation. He further stated that when de-listing a
property was applied in Palm Beach County it was due to as
association with different terms that dictated its removal.
Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road and property owner at 60
Marine Way, Marina Historic District, opposed the de-listing of the
property which could promote the construction of "monster" homes.
She stated that if the Fox House and 622 North Ocean Boulevard
are to be protected, she urged the Board to get such terms in
writing as Mr. McKinney is promoting development of both 610 and
622 North Ocean Boulevard as an oceanfront retreat or the
possibility of development of up to nine lots which would
consequently envelop the lot which the house lies on.
Monty Helm, 1221 Harbor Drive property owner, is opposed to the
amendment of the ordinance as he viewed this as an attempt to
manipulate the City government for personal gain. "In the past, we
have revered and protected certain land and structures which have
been given certain historic designations and it is our duty and
privilege to continue to do so." He discussed the Wilson's deal
with the City in 1989 and the Wilson's desire to ensure the integrity
of the entire property on the west side of North Ocean Boulevard.
He pointed out that a request to amend Ordinance 70-89 was
submitted in 1992 which proposed an 840 sq. ft. addition to the
house which was going to be built on the beach. However, that
request was denied by the City Council on October 27, 1992. The
City entered into an agreement and the City had a responsibility to
not approve the addition. In closing he stated that it would be a
potentially dangerous move to de-list this property. A deal was
made and it should be complied with and it would be a mistake to
change the existing ordinance.
Kevin Warner, Beach Properties Association, reminded the
applicant's representative that other City's regulations do not apply
in Delray Beach. He then referenced the City's staff report which
stated that there is no formal de-designation process in the LDR.
He also stated that the central issue is what Delray Beach and its
residents stand to gain which he felt was nothing despite the claims
that the tax base would increase. If changes are made to codified
laws, it shows a disrespect and disregard for the concept of the
rules of the law. The City established those laws and LDRs for
legitimate reasons and they should be followed. No benefits to the
residents, tax payers, and the City, would be derived from this.
-3- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
Alice Finst, former member of the Historic Preservation Board,
spoke on behalf of the previous decision in 1989 to designate the
entire property for the benefit of the house and the land. The
previous owner, Ms. Wilson was very dedicated to preserving the
buildings of John Volk and she would be concerned about this
proposal. Ms. Finst reiterated that this is a historic property and that
there is no compelling reason to alter the previous decision to
designate the entire property.
Alieda Riley, resident of Marina Historic District, stated that none of
the additions damaged the integrity of the house and inquired that if
this proposal is approved then what would be next?
Ms. Jamison asked if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the
project. As no further members of the public stood to speak, she
closed the meeting to the public and allowed Ms. Henderson to
respond to the public's comments.
Ms. Henderson requested to introduce Ms. Marla Dumas, private
consultant, to discuss compatibility issues.
Ms. Dumas stated that there is a great inconsistency with respect to
compatibility without adequate guidelines. The current Board
should not be bound to previous decisions by past Historic
Preservation Boards. The City of Delray needs to look at these
inconsistencies with the redevelopment of resources to ensure
consistency and compatibility with historic resources.
Ms. Henderson concluded by stating that the land is historic
because of certain occurrences in the past. This land is historic
because of its affiliation with Fontaine Fox, the cartoonist. There is
no record or evidence that he did anything to the back property that
was not done on the remainder of the estate. The house is also
historic because it was designed by John Volk. Despite these
facts, there is no evidence to prove that the "dirt" is historic. The
designation simply listed all the property owned by the Wilson's but
there was no basis for its historical label. The number of new
homes permitted on that vacant property is relegated by the current
zoning classification. The applicant is not attempting to de-list the
house or propose demolition with this proposal. Further, the
proposed height restrictions do not ward off the construction of
"monster homes."
Many changes have occurred within the City since 1989 and they
can be supported based on the current regulations. The applicant is
not opposed to designating 622 North Ocean Boulevard with the
-4- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
assumption that the McKinney's continue to own the building as it is
presently up for sale. In conclusion, the applicants wish to develop
their property, as they have the right to do, without altering the
historic dwelling.
Mr. Shutt advised Ms. Henderson that she has the right to cross
examine City staff. Ms. Henderson was satisfied with her
presentation and did not need to cross examine.
Ms. Shay stated that she had a rebuttal to some of the original
claims proposed. The City's proposal is that three of the four
proposed lots be buildable with the condition that a 50 ft. buffer be
placed between the extant, historic house and any new
construction. The retaining wall which abuts the outbuildings,
behind the structure, does not provide adequate protection between
the house and new construction. In addition, the remaining land to
the west of the proposed buffer could be consolidated into three
remaining lots which would provide a larger area for the remaining
lots and possibly more revenue per lot. Staff is also requesting that
a height restriction of 28' (the average height of a two-story
building) be placed on the first two houses adjacent to the historic
dwelling in order to prevent overpowering the extant building.
Further, staff requested listing 622 North Ocean Boulevard in the
Local Register to protect the house and 610 North Ocean
Boulevard in the National Register of Historic Places to ensure that
reviews will take place whenever projects are proposed in the area.
Ms. Shay then presented the National standards for de-listing which
include: relocation, loss of historic integrity, an error in professional
judgment, or an error made in the listing process. Based on these
standards, there is no basis for de-listing the property behind the
house. The LDRs define an historic site as "...any site, building,
structure, feature or improvement which has been designated as an
historic site" under the terms and conditions of Chapter 174 of the
original HP regulations. As stated in the Delray Beach Land
Development Regulations, the criteria to list historically and
architecturally significant properties are due to its association 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. The designation criteria does not restrict that
definition to a building or structure but allows the entire homestead
which is applicable to the land the house lies on and its surrounding
property in this case.
There has also been some neighborhood concern over the height
of the backfill necessary to construct new residences and how that
might affect drainage on the surrounding properties. To address the
applicant's claims that more of the contiguous property is historic
than was designated, Ms. Shay stated that there are properties
-5- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
throughout the City which were affiliated with Fontaine Fox. They
are no less historic because they lack a designation and as the
adjacent properties were not owned by the Wilsons they could not
be included. In conversations with Mrs. Wilson as to why this
particular property was designated, Ms. Shay was told that it was
intended to protect the integrity of the house by keeping the
regulations of review consistent on all the related parcels. Staff
does not have any concern over the proposed construction behind
the house. Their main concern is to protect the two historic
resources. The designation must remain in place for any new
development to ensure that there is no negative impact on the
historic structures and to ensure a Board review for any new
adjacent construction (as well as staff if requested by the
applicant). In closing, the city is requesting that the designation be
retained on the property and that a buffer and height restriction be
established. Further, staff is requesting that the property at 622
North Ocean Boulevard be placed in the Local Register and that
610 North Ocean Boulevard be placed in the National Register of
Historic Places. Listing of the property in the National Register will
impose no additional restrictions to the homeowners not already
imposed by Local Register regulations, though there are many
misnomers to the contrary, such as additional expense and
governments reviews, which also discourage others from listing
their property. While the City is encouraged by the additional
increase in tax base, the cost of de-listing the property and possibly
altering the historical and architectural integrity would be too high.
Ms. Henderson closed with the following comments: Regarding the
south property owners who stated their concerns, she believed it
would be most helpful if their name and address went on record.
She also felt that Mrs. Wilson, previous owner, should have been
there to address her comments or have her comments submitted in
writing rather than have them interpreted by another. Further, she
stated that there are consulting expenses which would be incurred
by listing the property in the National Register and that there are
other ways to stop government actions such as the widening of
A1A. The private home is not open to the public and should
therefore not be exposed to such scrutiny.
Ms. Shay confirmed that the expenses referenced to by Ms.
Henderson were that of consulting fees and not imposed upon by
the State of the National Park Service and that her services could
be utilized to research and write the report for no fee.
At this point, Ms. Jamison closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Shay then requested that the project file be entered into record.
-6- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
At this time the Board took a five minute break. Ms. Jamison
advised the Board not to discuss this item with anyone or amongst
themselves.
Ms. Jamison called the meeting back to order at 7:35pm.
Ms. Sloan inquired about the location of the retaining wall.
Ms. Henderson indicated on the overhead map which showed the
wall along the back (west) of the extant dwelling.
Ms. Sloan inquired why the other parcels did not have the
designation (Ordinance 70-89) applied to them.
Ms. Dumas responded that it could have been a district for the
Fontaine Fox Estate and the adjacent, contiguous properties could
have been designated.
Ms. Jamison addressed this issue stating that the Board does not
arbitrarily designate a district and that the majority of the
homeowners within the proposed district must concur with the
designation.
Ms. Dumas inquired as to whether the other property owners were
approached.
Ms. Jamison was uncertain.
Ms. Henderson stated that the inconsistency has to do with the
Lane Subdivision. However, it was not considered at that time that
the site was historical.
Ms. Sloan asked if the Wilson's deemed it historic.
Ms. Henderson stated that they had but that the integrity of the
property could not be shown and that they exchanged the
designation for construction of a single family home on the east
side of North Ocean Boulevard.
Ms. Jamison stated that she did not believe that Mrs. Fox who lived
at 622 North Ocean Boulevard would have agreed to the
designation of the adjacent property.
Ms. Sexton inquired about the height of the Fontaine Fox house.
Ms. Shay stated that it was a standard two-story house.
-7- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
Ms. Henderson approximated its height to be 28'.
Ms. Sexton inquired as to whether the height should not exceed the
height of the house and if 35' was the height that the City allows.
Ms. Henderson concurred that 35' is permitted.
Ms. Sexton inquired as to the size of the proposed lots due to the
addition of the lane.
Ms. Henderson indicated they would be 100 x 125 ft. for a total of
12,500 sq. ft. which meet dimension and area regulations.
Mr. Simon requested exact dimensions of the proposed four lots.
Mr. Martino, Principal Planner, stated that they would be 100' x 126'
for a total of 12,599 sq. ft. If three lots were developed, the
remaining parcel could be redistributed any number of ways.
Ms. Elliott asked if the current owners, the McKinney's, were aware
of the constraints placed on the property by the Unity of Title, etc.
Was their intent to develop the property?
Ms. Henderson replied that she could not speak about intent at the
time of purchase. Mr. McKinney is a developer; however, it is
currently their home.
Ms. Elliott then stated that perhaps if a developer had not bought
the property, nothing would have come of this and everything would
stay the same. Was purchasing the property merely for economic
gain?
Ms. Henderson stated there are clearly economic issues involved.
as the area behind the house is appraised at $375,000 and if
subdivided and sold off, the owners would make a profit. They
were, however, well aware of the restrictions imposed by the
designation associated with Ordinance 70-89.
Mr. Simon inquired about the Unity of Title.
Ms. Henderson presented the Title and passed it on to the Board
for review. She then explained that Ms. Wilson filed the Unity of
Title to protect the home but it does not encompass Lots 1, 2, and
3.
-8- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
Mr. Simon inquired as to the setback of the wall. He stated that it is
very close to the house which must be why the City is requesting
the buffer. He then inquired as to whether the City was requesting
removal of the designation.
Mr. Martino replied that it is an adjustment to the density restriction
while Ms. Shay stated that the City is not requesting removal of the
designation and does not wish to restrict the property owner's rights
to develop but merely to have some review.
Mr. Simon inquired about the approval process. He stated that
marketing of this property has been going on for at least three
years encompassing the 5.4 acreage in total and that this is not a
new development proposal despite what the applicant claims.
Ms. McDermott stated that she could not vote in favor of the
change.
Ms. Jamison stated that she would not support the de-listing of any
property. Mr. McKinney knew what the conditions of the designation
were. She could support the 50 ft. buffer and the development of
three developable lots but she could not support any type of de-
listing.
Ms. Shay requested an opportunity for closing arguments and
wanted to reiterate that the issue has nothing to do with whether
additional parcels should be designated but deals directly with what
is already designated which are Lots 1, 2, and 3 and that she still
has concerns about registering the house at 622 as someone could
purchase the lot and tear the house down.
Ms. Henderson stated that the main issue was whether it was
appropriate to have the dirt behind the house designated.
Ms. Jamison asked someone to make motion.
It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. McDermott and
failed 3-3 (Jamison, Elliott, and Sloan dissenting) to make a
recommendation to deny approval of COA 2002-101-COA-CCA for
the amendment to Ordinance 70-89 affecting 610 and 615 North
Ocean Blvd, Fontaine Fox House with the basis as stated.
Mr. Shutt announced the motion died due to a tie.
Ms. Jamison requested a motion be made by Ms. Sexton to include
622 North Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Sexton asked that someone else
make a motion.
-9- HPB Minutes 3/06/02
It was moved by Ms. Sloan, seconded by Ms, Elliott and failed 3-3
(Simon, Sexton, and McDermott dissenting) to make a
recommendation to request to amend Ordinance 70-89 based on
positive findings for the property at 610 & 615 North Ocean Blvd.
with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(B), (E), and (K), and the Design
Guidelines subject to the following conditions:
1) Maintain the geographical boundaries of the historic
designation (Lots 1, 2, & 3) and the south 10 ft. of Lot 3.
2) Modify the density restriction from 3 to 5 dwelling units.
3) Establish a minimum of a 50 ft. buffer between the existing
wall at the rear of 610 and the adjacent lot (west).
4) Restrict the height of any new construction of proposed Lots
3 and 7 to 28 ft.
5) That the property at 622 N. Ocean Blvd be listed in the Local
Register of Historic Places and approved by the City
Commission. The designation process for local listing is to
be completed prior to the recordation of the proposed final
plat.
6) That the Fontaine Fox House must be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, unless otherwise determined by
the State Historic Preservation Office. The designation
process for listing in the National Register will be initiated
prior to the recordation of the final plat.
Mr. Shutt announced the motion likewise died as it is a tie. He
encouraged further Board discussion.
Ms. Sloan stated that the two designations make the remainder of
the concessions worthwhile. Ms. Jamison concurred.
Ms. Sexton inquired as to whether the McKinney's own all the
property. Ms. Jamison confirmed that they owned all but Lot 1.
Ms. Jamison stated that she did not feel that any portion of the
property should be de-listed.
Ms. Sloan felt that the City gained from a historic preservation
perspective.
-10- HPB Minutes
3/06/02
Mr. Simon concurred that the designations are a big benefit to the
City.
Ms. Sloan stated that the designation remaining in place will protect
the back property through review in addition to gaining a second
designation.
Ms. Sexton expressed her concern over the lack of
protection/designation on Lot 7.
Mr. Marfino and Ms. Shay stated that if Lot 7 were to be designated
it would be in conjunction with designating the property at 622.
Mr. Marfino stated that as part of the motion that it could be stated
"as the property exists."
Mr. Simon inquired about the configuration of the Lot behind 622.
Mr. Marfino clarified.
Ms. Sexton declared that the Board has no purview over the lots
behind 622 until designation is in place.
Mr. Simon asked if the conditions would be upheld at the City
Commission level.
Ms. Shay stated that it was their prerogative to approve, deny, or
amend those conditions.
Ms. Sexton recommended the division of Lot 3.
Mr. Simon stated that it could be stated as such in a motion.
Ms. Henderson stated that her applicant would not have to comply
with a recommendation.
It was moved by Ms. Sexton, seconded by Ms. Elliott and passed 6-
0 to make a recommendation to amend Ordinance 70-89 based on
positive findings for the property at 610 & 615 North Ocean Blvd.
with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(B), (E), and (K), and the Design
Guidelines subject to the following conditions:
1) Maintain the geographical boundaries of the historic
designation, Lots 1 thru 3 of Ocean Apple Estates and the
south 10 ft. of Lot 3 of Palm Beach Acres.
2) Modify the density restriction from 5 to 4 dwelling units.
-11 - HPB Minutes
3/06/02
3) Establish a minimum of a 50 ft. buffer between the existing
wall at the rear of 610 North Ocean Boulevard and the
adjacent lot west approximately 140 ft. east of the west line
of Lot 2 of Ocean Apple estates (as shown on the attached
map).
4) Restrict the height of any new construction of proposed Lots
3 and 7 to 28 ft.
5) That the residence at 622 North Ocean Blvd be listed in the
Local Register of Historic Places and approved by the City
Commission. The designation process for local listing is to
be completed prior to the recordation of the proposed final
plat.
6) The Fontaine Fox House must be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, unless otherwise determined by
the State Historic Preservation Office. The designation
process for listing in the National Register will be initiated
prior to the approval of the plat.
Ms. Shay clarified that Lot 7 is not included in this recommendation.
Ms. Henderson requested clarification.
Ms. Jamison stated that all of the parcels in question would be
designated.
Mr. Marfino explained that the inclusion of the property at 622
would be incorporated into another ordinance.
III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
A. Donnie's Golden Spoon Restaurant, West Side of NW 5th
Avenue, West Settler's Historic District, Donnie Dobson, Owner.
Item Before the Board: Continued from February 6, 2002- Re-
consideration of lighting fixtures and the railing associated with the
proposed restaurant.
Ms. Shay presented the project. The Board previously directed the
applicant to revise the decorative light poles and fixtures in order to
-12- HPB Minutes
3/06/02
be consistent with the public light poles along West Atlantic Avenue
and to add vertical elements to the proposed railing.
Mr. Dobson was present to represent the project.
Ms. McDermott inquired about the material of the light pole.
Ms. Shay confirmed that it is metal.
Mr. Simon inquired as to whether the vertical elements on the hand
rails are metal.
Ms. Shay stated that she thought that they were.
Ms. McDermott and Mr. Simon inquired as to whether they had to
meet handicapped accessible standards for a rail due to the slope.
Ms. Shay confirmed that they were necessary unless they met the
1:12 slope.
It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 6-
0 to approve the decorative light poles and vertical hand rails based
on positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4) and
(E)(8).
B. Atlantic Grove, Atlantic Avenue between SE 3rd Avenue & SE
5th Avenue, West Settler's Historic District, Tim Hernandez,
Authorized Agent.
Item Before the Board: Continued from February 6, 2002 — Re-
consideration of the site lighting associated with the Class V Site
Plan for Atlantic Grove mixed-use development pursuant to LDR
Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8).
Neither the applicant nor the authorized agent was present.
Mr. Simon inquired as to whether the lighting matched that just
approved for Donnie's Golden Spoon.
Ms. Shay stated that the applicant felt they were cost prohibitive
and did not compliment the architecture of the project.
It was moved by Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. McDermott and
passed 5-1 (Sexton dissenting) to approve the installation of the
decorative lighting fixtures for the Atlantic Grove Complex based
upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and
-13- HPB Minutes
3/06/02
(E)(8), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
A. Reports from Historic District Representatives
None
B. Board Members
None
C. Staff
Ms. Shay mentioned an opening on the Board to replace Dave
Bodker and that several terms are ending in August 2002. Those
Board members need to apply to be re-appointed.
Mr. Simon inquired about whether a new owner could relocate or
demolish the house at 610 North Ocean Boulevard?
Ms. Shay confirmed that it could be relocated or demolished though
adequate documentation would have to be provided to support
such a request.
Ms. Jamison discussed a possible National Register nomination for
a property on Hibiscus.
Ms. Elliott inquired about the possibility of extending the Old School
Square Historic District two blocks to the south from NE/NW 2nd
Street to NE/NW 4th Street. Ms. Shay would like to request a survey
of the area before considering new boundary changes.
Ms. Shay distributed copies of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation to the Board.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
10:00 P.M.
The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for
March 6, 2002, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on July
16, 2003.
-14- HPB Minutes
3/06/02
If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then
these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and
approval, which may involve some changes.
-15- HPB Minutes
3/06/02
4� 04
"riy AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
Meeting Date: March 6, 2002
Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting
Location: Pompey Park Auditorium, Rooms A& B
Time: 6:00 P.M.
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. Pursuant to F.S.286.0105.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. 610 & 615 N. Ocean Blvd., Fontaine Fox House, Individually listed historic property,
Rebecca Henderson, Authorized Agent
Recommendation to the City Commission regarding an amendment to Ordinance
70-89 for the historic designation of the Fontaine Fox House and related property.
III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
A. Donnie's Golden Spoon Restaurant, Commercial Building, West Side of NW 5th
Avenue, Approximately 300' North of West Atlantic Avenue, West Settlers Historic
District, Donnie Dobson, Owner.
Consideration of a railing and lighting fixtures associated with the proposed
restaurant(continued from February 6, 2002).
B. COA 469: Atlantic Grove, New Construction— Mixed Use, North 300 and 400 Blocks
of West Atlantic Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Tim Hernandez, Authorized
Agent.
Consideration of lighting fixtures associated with a proposed Class V Site Plan for a
Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project(continued from February 6, 2002).
III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
A. Reports from Historic District Representatives
B. Board Members
C. Staff
IV. ADJOURN
HPB Meeting
March 6, 2002
Page 2
n
yr c rtU, , \WAAL(
Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
POSTED ON: March 1, 2002
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Item: II. A. - Meeting of March 6, 2002
Consideration of an amendment to Ordinance 70-89 regarding the
Fontaine Fox House historic designation.
Location: 610 & 615 N. Ocean Boulevard
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is approval of an amendment to Ordinance 70-89 for the
Fontaine Fox House historic designation, pursuant to LDR Sections 4.5.1(B) and
4.5.1(K)(2).
BACKGROUND
The Fontaine Fox historic designation contains approximately 2.5 acres of land and
consists of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Ocean Apple Estates Plat and the south 10' of Lot 3
(lying east of A1A) of the Palm Beach Shore Acres plat. The properties are located
approximately 900' south of George Bush Boulevard between Andrews Avenue and the
Atlantic Ocean. Lot 1 lies on the east side of Ocean Blvd. (615 N. Ocean Blvd.) while
lots 2 and 3 lie on the west side of Ocean Blvd (610 N. Ocean Blvd.) between N. Ocean
Boulevard and Andrews Avenue. Associated with the property is a 1,184 square foot
Cape Cod cottage, which was constructed in 1936 of Florida cypress. Inspired by the
trolley made famous in Fontaine Fox's "Toonerville Trolley" cartoon strips, the Cape
Cod Cottage style is located on Lot 2. Three outbuildings are also located to the west
(behind) the existing house on lot 2. All three structures are considered contributing
buildings. Zoned R-1-AAA Single Family Residential, the property (including all three
lots) is an individually listed historic property in the City of Delray Beach as established
by Ordinance 70-89.
The Historic Preservation Board recommended approval of Ordinance 70-89 to the City
Commission on September 20, 1989 with the stipulations that Lot 1, the oceanfront lot,
could build one dwelling unit of no more than 2,400 square feet and that the property be
subdivided into no more than three lots for no more than three dwelling units (one house
per lot). The Ordinance was adopted by the City of Delray Beach on October 24, 1989.
In conjunction with the designation, the beachfront lot (Lot 1) received a variance to
allow a lot that did not comply with the minimum lot area and side building setback
requirements of the R-1-AAA zoning district. The gross lot size was reduced from
12,500 sq. ft. to 8,042 sq. ft. and the side setbacks reduced from 12' to 5'.
A request to amend Ordinance 70-89 was submitted in June 1992 which proposed an
850 square foot addition to the gross floor area for the single family home to be
constructed on Lot 1 (615 N. Ocean Boulevard). This amendment would have allowed
a dwelling unit of 3,250 gross square feet as opposed to the 2,400 square foot
restriction as imposed by the Ordinance. Upon review of the request, the Board
recommended approval of the amendment to the City Commission at its meeting on
October 27, 1992. However, the amendment request was denied by the City
Commission during its meeting on October 27, 1992.
610 &615 N. Ocean Boulevard, Ordinance amendment
Individually Listed Property
Page 2
In December 2, 1992, the Board approved the architectural elevations for the
construction of a new residence at 615 N. Ocean Blvd. Approval was contingent upon
the terms set forth in Ordinance 70-89, which stated that the building shall contain no
more than 2,400 square feet or gross floor area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS
Project Description:
The proposal is to amend Ordinance 70-89 in order to remove the historic designation
from Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 (see map) and alter the previous density restriction to
allow Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 to be subdivided into a total of four separate parcels to
accommodate a development plan for construction of single family homes
(perpendicular to the extant historic structure). The historic designation for the
remaining portion of the current Lot 2 (see map), the lot that houses the Fontaine Fox
House and its contributing outbuildings, as well as Lot 1 on the ocean side, would
remain.
The overall project also proposes to subdivide the lot immediately north of the Fontaine
Fox House, which consists of a contributing Cape Cod house built in 1935 (proposed
lots 6 & 7). Lot 7, located directly behind (west) the structure at 622 N. Ocean Boulevard
is currently described as Lot 1 of the Hancock Subdivision.
De-designation Analysis:
There is no formal de-designation process in the Land Development Regulations.
In absence of a formal process, this de-designation request is being evaluated
based upon the current designation criteria. If it is determined that the de-
designation should not be evaluated based upon these standards, the item
should be tabled and a formal de-designation LDR process created.
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(a), and (E)(8)(j) "Development Standards" provides
guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or
addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows:
The Board Shall Consider:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
610 &615 N. Ocean Boulevard, Ordinance amendment
Individually Listed Property
Page 3
(c) A height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in
comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings.
(d) The size of a buildings, the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows,
door openings, balconies, and porches shall be visually compatible with the
building size and building mass of historic sites, buildings, and structures within a
historic district.
In 1989, the previous property owners, Roderick and Joyce Wilson initiated the
designation process for the Fontaine Fox Property, currently described as Lots 1-3 of
Ocean Apple Estates, for listing in the Local Register of Historic Places. The
designation would ensure that the density of development for the property was
restricted and would permit the construction of a dwelling on the lot directly across from
the Fox residence on the east side of Ocean Boulevard (Lot 1). As previously stated,
this lot received a variance to allow the creation of a lot that did not comply with the
minimum lot area and side yard building setback requirements of the R-1-AAA zoning
district. The request for historic designation of the property and the restrictions imposed
on the property to limit the division of one lot to three and imposing a square footage
limitation on the oceanfront parcel (Lot 1) was supported by the property owners and
was not an arbitrary action by the City. Due to the fact that these restrictions run with
the land and not the owner, the designation and building restrictions should remain on
all three lots associated with the property.
The removal of the designation from the adjacent lot (lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2) could
hold long term implications for both the protection of the integrity of the extant historic
structures at 610 N. Ocean Blvd. and the designation status of other sites and
structures on the Local Register of Historic Places. In order to protect the integrity of the
Fontaine Fox House and its contributing outbuildings, it is recommended that lot 3 be
divided into just three additional parcels, allowing the development of these conforming
lots for the construction of just one single family home on each parcel. The fourth lot,
adjacent to the Fontaine Fox house (directly to the west of the house) should be
divided/eliminated to establish a minimum of a 50' buffer between the proposed new
lots and the historic property. The residual area of this divided lot could then be
incorporated into the three remaining proposed lots (lots 1-3). These restrictions will
allow for further development of the property and is therefore not considered an
economic hardship for the property owner. As the limitations on the property were
already in place when the current owner purchased the property, there was an
understanding of the property's development restrictions including the historic
designation from the time of purchase.
Additionally, the historic designation would remain on all three extant lots to ensure that
the design elements including the scale and massing of the new construction conform to
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Delray Beach Design
Guidelines. As the proposed project protrudes onto the adjacent lot to the north
affecting the historic residence at 622 N. Ocean Blvd., it is recommended that steps be
taken to list the house at 622 N. Ocean Blvd. on the Local Register of Historic Places,
which has been attached as a condition of approval. Controlled density and design
elements for any new construction in close proximity to the historic structures on 610
and N. Ocean Blvd. would further protect the integrity of the structures and control
610 &615 N. Ocean Boulevard, Ordinance amendment
Individually Listed Property
Page 4
future development plans around the buildings. To ensure that any new construction be
designed to compliment the surrounding historic structures, a height limitation of 28' is
recommended for any structure built on proposed lots 3 and 7 (per staff
recommendation to eliminate lot 4).
In addition, to the above, it is recommended that the property owner move forward with
the filing of a Preliminary Information Site Questionnaire (PSIQ) with the Division of
Historical Resources (SHPO) in Tallahassee to ascertain the historical and architectural
integrity of the Fontaine Fox house and its outbuildings for their nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. If the PSIQ yields positive findings towards listing
the house, a National Register nomination should then be initiated and submitted to the
National Park Service to designate the property and its contributing historic structures to
the National Register. Both designation processes are to be initiated prior to the
approval of the plat. These terms have been placed as conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve 2002-101-COA-CCA for the amendment to Ordinance 70-89 affecting 610
& 615 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, based upon positive findings with
respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(B) and 4.5.1(K)(2) and the Delray Beach Design
Guidelines subject to conditions.
C. Deny approval of 2002-101-COA-CCA for the amendment to Ordinance 70-89
affecting 610 & 615 N. Ocean Blvd, the Fontaine Fox House, with the basis
stated.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request to amend Ordinance #70-89 based on positive findings for the
property at 610 & 615 N. Ocean Boulevard with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (B), (E),
and (K), and the Design Guidelines subject to the following conditions:
1) Maintain the geographical boundaries of the historic designation (Lots 1-3 of Ocean
Apple Estates and the south 10' of lot 3 of Palm Beach Shore Acres).
2) Modify the density restriction from three to five dwelling units.
3) Establish a minimum of a 50' buffer between the existing wall at the rear of 610 N.
Ocean Boulevard and the lot adjacent (west) approximately 140' east of the west
line of Lot 2 of Ocean Apple Estates (as shown on the attached map).
3) Restrict the height of any new construction of proposed lots 3 & 7 to 28'.
2
610 &615 N. Ocean Boulevard, Ordinance amendment
Individually Listed Property
Page 5
4) That the residence at 622 N. Ocean Blvd be listed in the Local Register of Historic
Places and approved by the City Commission. The designation process for local
listing is to be completed prior to the recordation of the proposed final plat.
5) That the Fontaine Fox House must be listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, unless otherwise determined by the State Historic Preservation Office. The
designation process for listing in the National Register will be initiated prior to the
approval of the plat.
Attachments: Staff Report for Historic Designation of 610 N. Ocean Blvd., Current Plat, Proposed Plat
Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner
1 • .
III
1
HAMMOND RD.
w 1
D
z k
> r - - - ... - - - - r — inn - - - - - - - - ter. - - -
< I r ' 44
v
i
N
1 3 2 1 0
1 r ,--- - - - '
m116 — — _ — — — — — — — - In,
I Ca
Lii m„
J 0 � - - - - - - d k
z tt
Q HARBOR DRIVE , m
o
U
Z
D' Q
M
m w N
Q 0
I,M O --NOT TO SCALE--
EXISTING CONDITIONS •
EXISTING LIMITS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION- ehye
• PLAT OF OCEAN APPLE ESTATES.
1
HAMMOND RD.
I I
7 6
z k
LU - - - - - - M =pi - - - -
tt
VILLAGE BY THE SEA LANE ; r kl
vi 1 I Ca
1 2 3 4
5
raim m um EN
in I * CI
°
1 > k
z Jtt
HARBOR DRIVE
m
0
/ z
0
m w N
Q
0 '--
J=• 0
f --NOT TO SCALE--
♦ HISTORIC DESIGNATION LIMITS AS PROPOSED-��V/
PROPOSED PLAN • LOT CONFIGURATION FOR PROPOSED VILLAGE BY THE SEA PLAT.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,FL
PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT * DENOTES SOUTH 10'OF LOT 3,BLOCK"E,"PALM BEACH SHORE ACRES.
--DIGITAL EASE MAP SYSTEM--
MAP REF: LM584
�n .__ . ..HISTORIC PRESERVATIONvBOARD}MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT � r
Agent: Donnie Dobson
Project Name: Donnie's Golden Spoon Restaurant
Project Location: Between NW 5th Avenue and NW 6th Avenue, approximately 300'
north of West Atlantic Avenue (north of the Fire Station #1).
The item before the Board is consideration of the railings and site lighting associated with
the COA-2001-229 for a Class V site plan and associated building elevation for Donnie's
Golden Spoon Restaurant, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J).
BACKGROUNDIANAL�YSIS'
Background
At its meeting of February 6, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board (SPRAB) reviewed the Class
V Site Plan Application for Donnie's Golden Spoon Restaurant. The modification included the
installation of a 2,911 square foot restaurant, parking and associated landscaping and dumpster
enclosure. The exterior lighting consisted of concrete poles and a standard commercial light
fixture (shoe-box). The handicap ramp and walk-up window included a railing that consisted of
two horizontal rails. The Board approved the site plan, landscape plan and architectural
elevations. However, the Board directed the applicant to revise the proposal to include
decorative light poles and fixtures that are consistent with the public light poles along West
Atlantic Avenue together with railings that have vertical elements.
Design Elements Analysis:
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), Section 4.5.1(E)(8) "Development Standards" provides
guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of
exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows:
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 to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time
to time.
All improvements to building, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district
shall be visually compatible.
Analysis:
The applicant has submitted a "cut-sheet" detail of decorative light poles and fixtures that are
similar to the City's light poles along West Atlantic Avenue. The revised elevations include
railings that have vertical elements.
Meeting Date:March 6, 2002
Agenda Item: II.A.
l a
SPRAB Memorandum Staff Report
Donnie's Gold Spoon Restaurant—Site Plan & Building Elevations
Page 2
Conclusion
The decorative light poles and fixtures as well as the proposed railing will be consistent with
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8) the City Design Guidelines.
Approve the COA for the decorative light poles and fixtures, and vertical hand rails for Donnie's
Golden Spoon Restaurant based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4)
and (E)(8).
Attachment: Previous Light Pole/Fixture
Revised Light Pole/Fixture
Previous Hand Rail
Revised Hand Rail
LUMINAIRE SCHE
Symbol Label Qty
I I SA 4
UGHT (SEE SCHED.)
}:
.r.
LU# AIR -LOCK
0
L7 t
(NJ 30'30' PRECAST, REINFORCED No. Label
..�COi RETE POLE M- TEto.
•
6x6 PVC J-80X
SA
• PROVIDE IN LINE
FUSS PER MrG"RS SPEC'S • 2 SA
.1:
.1. 3 SA
_�%—� GRADE SA
I PULLBOX
/�" PVC STATISTICS
CONDUIT --
fi R IGRD RD
0' CU
CLL RD ' GRD R
Description
LIGHTING POLE TO HAVE 120 MPH WITHSTAND RATING
Parking Lot
1 FfeAL LfGHT POLE DE-Aft
NOT TO SCALE
(DOUBLE FIXTURE. POLE !S SIMILAR)
PREVIOUS LIGHT POLE/FIXTURE
•
NG fide ..-.. i ami ghtg.COM _r
LJ •*- � n,"` _ G t r •' 4 i
' ,- ,;. '.i 4 ,.* - f 1, r i ; a •f:z. ' T - t�t'-• : ,,- -...
/jam
•
. 1 1 lit -----5.,.--'----'
:...........,.... •
.....,_:.• ..
_ . . , • . , .,,...,... ... _ _. _ . .. -....:., v„,,...........,,,,,...
-B - ''' .:..-. -..'..."...,:-:Z--• .Z...-:- -7-''. -"-7;4'. _Ha- -4'.:•;.-
- f. , - _- ,.. v_. .,... A',,,J.
Y 1 ('tG i s'
p ,-. --_ ,--. - �� li w.v :.. .- 4 cJ w:
I,� i E :I I _- _
Banner
T = i."tjj� I i-.
c I 1bs corners ;£-ter1
x
I i ii 1 . I
f i 1 ^�i
i I l it -1 / 1 f ; r I
mac...v I it I r �iy �^
1
i 11
I •
c r. _
II F- `i1:I1 �I. � 3 ,
i1 I I ii � if i L. _
Lt =-sue
i-
rions o:poles and ' ,-tu-es shover.above a a,
xsibtlitm.Most of the Doies and it-Lir=z 7 r - - :("LT"'
_J _ z_ POD -:-m
_1_ T
it:and COn�ziOns are available to f dd - ,`v'• .
:If you.would IA_-to Vieff z combinzrio: 4_
i<i rrr nai^i olr'Sn€.cor. the site yt--- __, -- —. r " -
of Dole and ice--==*e.a:weWell:s v_-in:a n.a i-?sp=a--.:�oaez sb
-------.—_ ,S L
��,
rr •.
I 1
;:i.lI
I II 1rl1n1r1 n1n1rrr(11n11�7i r1l1r,114 rn nIr rn n lll 1ll IrIlI r 11ITI1I1 11nl'l 111rn111 n1ll1 ll1l'Hi1l i1111 1 �1nI�1l1ll li In11 1�11 ' CI
!1r11rII II 11 11 1 III rI II I II IIItTi 1 lI 1l II 11111 1111PI 11 1 1 1111 1 i1.1 � I. 1.0 1 11111T ."1 1 1171J-11 �1uUu iii11L utLuuirLul1Jf uduuouulivau llti uuuluatiutiu aII
.:il,
...
,.i, _ .
___
_ -- �--_- _..- - D ONNIE' '
S
.__ GOLDEN SPOON 1
IRESIAURAN1'
�� --�-_�_ �!-IANDICA 'TUCCO F11r
---------___lllllul —_---�--_ /� NANpRAI
LOO• —
NEW LONG STAIRS --__`__ — —— —
LANDING /
—` i NEW 1 i/C RAMP•.-__._ �_�i.
-�—i
.
----:
EXIST.CONC.
1 L E ROOF
•r11i1'ire,InnIi InrIrIrIrIIrnIr1pIit nil'1rr1r1r1n11nir1ulrr nlIlrI1r1 H11ItIirI�I1p mI Ili!I7I,I IIn11Iu1lr1 111t11r11I1I1IlIl.IlrlI1Ir1 ill.lIl r 1t1lu l 1n_1n1 1'1�lli iIiIi iI I irI(fiIir1li i1'l I7If1111 11lfilTIlIlT4 5Trfil l lIIIIlIII ltI1 II�I11ipi11IIll 1...1 I Il
ri 1 .:iiLl 11i 11111)111I � l1111I �1i lli1111 111ii1I 1)ll.11l10 1fIc1i11 IIfl III 1I11 11111 i h,1 4rill1LtII7�(lllul� r41 u7ll E4rii� Yl1 �411i1r1i1Luj1 i i11 , it r 1id 1ai1 Lll _,?11 ��L� 11LL-1
ii
•
EXIST.AWNING i Tl'PJ \ ll
-- ... __ ____ J
s
-\STUCCO FINISH` / i in
.... _— _.-...- FINISH FLOOR
,,
PREVIOUS HAND RAIL
SOUTH ELEVATION
..
^
/~- p '
-r
/ EXIST.CONC.
12
Nt
MAL
DO NATE'S
/
|7/z
| GOLDEN ^~'`
RLs|oUx/xw| ovcco/ mm
i ------- -- ---- ' / --���^���
FLOOR-
»`^/°� � -----' -------- �-- =������-
r^mr +e�J� ���
mHvnq/rwoc
wcm///C n^Mr-___/'
_
s*mnxa,
u/aupAn^per
Ipg TTT.7T—Tl '112
fi flAU"In
~ �
� m 14,pu/I- -
/
l |------� --1
-�- PAINT -r excco , -^���m��
i '°MATCH EXIST. - ���_ ron^`o,
REVISED D80D RAIL
�
R
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
Agent: Tim Hernandez, New Urban Communities
Project Name: Atlantic Grove
Project Location: Atlantic Avenue between SE 3rd Avenue and SE 5th Avenue
ITEM BEFORE THE'BOARD
The item before the Board is the consideration of the site lighting associated with the Class
V Site Plan for Atlantic Grove mixed-use development pursuant to LDR Sections 4.5.1 (E)(4)
and Section 4.5.1(E)(8).
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of February 6, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the Landscape
Plan and Design Elements/Architectural Elevations for Atlantic Grove, a mixed-use development
to be located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue between NW 3rd and NW 5th Avenues.
The Board discussed the two different proposed decorative light fixtures along the right-of-way
and their use in the interior of the development. After an in depth discussion, the light regarding
the light fixtures was tabled in order to solicit guidance from the City regarding future plans for
the area's redevelopment and to determine a specific policy for decorative lighting and whether
it should mimic the decorative fixtures that are currently used along Atlantic Avenue.
Upon further review, Planning Staff has determined that any fixtures along the right-of-way of
any new project in the Atlantic Avenue Corridor must reflect the decorative style of those fixtures
in place on Atlantic Avenue. However, the fixtures installed in the interior lot of a project must be
decorative in nature but does not need to replicate the design of the fixtures on Atlantic Avenue
assuming that the proposed fixtures are compatible with the architectural style of the
surrounding structure(s).
ANAYLSIS
Design Elements Analysis:
LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), Section 4.5.1(E)(8) "Development Standards" provides
guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of
exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows:
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 to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time
to time.
Meeting Date: March 6, 2002
Agenda Item: III.B.
`r
HPB Staff Report
Atlantic Grove— Lighting
Page 2
All improvements to building, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district
shall be visually compatible.
The proposed lighting fixtures along the adjacent streets and in the main parking lots behind the
mixed-use buildings will be the same as those used by the City in the new streetscape for West
Atlantic Avenue. The developer has agreed to install the City light poles and fixtures at the
entrances to the off-site parking lot and townhouse development to obtain consistency with the
streetscape lighting. As presented in the meeting of February 6, 2002, a colonial lantern-style
fixture will be used within the interior townhouse area and in the rear parking lot in the 400
block, adjacent to Mount Olive Church.
CONCLUSION
The proposed lantern lighting conveys a visual compatibility to the decorative lighting as viewed
along the Atlantic Avenue streetscape and the right-of-way in its pedestrian friendly scale and
luminosity. In addition, the fixtures are decorative in nature and will maintain the architectural
theme of the complex. Positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and Section
4.5.1(E)(8), the City's Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation can be made with approval.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve the COA for the installation of the decorative lighting for the Atlantic Grove
Complex.
C. Deny the COA for the installation of decorative lighting for the Atlantic Grove Complex,
with the basis stated.
RECOMMENDATION: ,.
Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of decorative lighting for the
Atlantic Grove Complex, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1. (E)(4)
and (E)(8) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation.
Attachments:
• Lighting plan and details