Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HPB-04-03-02
MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2002 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:00 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott, Rhonda Sexton, Michael Simon, Donnamarie Sloan Jim Keavney MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Debra Garcia, Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney and Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. Variance #82: 5 NE 7th Street, Jane Sullivan, Owner. (Lot 5, Block 1), Del-Ida Park (Quasi-Judicial Hearing). Item Before the Board: Consideration of a variance to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' to 5.92' for an existing contributing structure at 5 NE 7th Street. Mr. Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, asked the Board members to state any communication they may have had with anyone regarding this item prior to the meeting. Mary Lou Jamison disclosed that Ms. Sullivan had contacted her in reference to why she was required to come back before the Board, and Ms. Jamison then referred Ms. Sullivan back to Wendy Shay for questions pertaining to the variance. All testifying before the Board were sworn in by Notary Public Debra Garcia. Ms. Sullivan, current owner of the property, addressed the Board to inform them that the lot in question is being sold to the adjoining neighbor and presently no construction is planned for the lot. The lot is to be used for landscaping purposes for the adjoining neighbor. 4/3/U2 It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sloan and passed 7-0 to approve the variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' to 5.92' along the east property line for an existing contributing structure located at 5 NE 7th Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: A. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michael Strauss, Owner (continued from the March 20, 2002 meeting) Action Before the Board: Re-consideration of a COA request for the installation of 6/1 and 4/1 aluminum windows on a contributing structure Ms. Shay explained to the Board's that the owner, Michael Strauss, was not present to represent his item before the Board. The Board then made a motion to table the item until Mr. Strauss could be present. B. Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, 20 N. Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Bonnie Dearborn, Authorized Agent. Action Before the Board: Re-Consideration of a COA for the installation of a sign. Bonnie Dearborn, Agent of the Florida Division of Historical Resources, addressed the Board. Ms. Dearborn explained to the Board that re- consideration of the height was necessary due to the location of the sign at the base of the swale. Ms. Dearborn distributed photos reflecting relationship of the sign to the house and explained that the entire height of 7' is needed due to the fact that the sign will be at the base of the swale rather than at the crown, its current location. Ms. Dearborn continued to explain that due to the nature of her office she is sensitive to proportion and mass of an object and understands the Board's concerns but she feels the sign does fits into all the criteria and scale and meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards pertaining to free-standing signs. It was moved by Ms. Sloan and seconded by Ms. McDermott, and approved (7-0) the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), and (H)(2)(a-c), of the City's Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: -2- HPB Minutes 4/3/02 Claudio Camilucci with Camilucci signs asked the Board to consider a sign design at a house at the corner of NE Second Street and Swinton Avenue. The sign has an Asian theme with carved bamboo. After much Board discussion, the Board liked the sign but directed Mr. Camilucci to make the sign frame less "winged" and less ornamental. Mr. Camilucci thanked the Board for their direction. B. Reports from Historic District Representatives: No Representatives were present to report to the Board. C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison had concerns that an awning and pavers had been installed without permits at 415 N. Swinton Avenue. Ms. Shay assured the Board that the situation would be followed up on and a report given at the next meeting. Ms. Jamison also inquired concerning fines for persons working without permits or permission from the Board. Ms. Shay informed her that either a double or triple fine could be imposed on the violator. Also, 109 Dixie Boulevard was also a concern of the Board. Staff is to check into this concern as well to see if they received permits. D. Staff: Ms. Shay updated the Board concerning the previous night's City Commission Meeting. Ms. Shay then presented the Board with the entries of the Poster Contest for Preservation Week. To date, there have been nine (9) entries. The deadline for entry is Friday, April 5, 2002. The Board decided to look at the posters and review those submitted. An entry by Paola Sanchez, an 11th grade student at Atlantic High School, was determined to be in the running for the 1st place position. Michael Santorsola, 12th grade, Atlantic High School is considered for 2nd and Romilda Jean, for 3`d place. VII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m. -3- HPB Minutes 4/3/02 The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for April 3, 2002, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on June 5, 2002. If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. -4- HPB Minutes 4/3/02 4:' OA .4y s- AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: April 3, 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. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. 5 NE 7th Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), Del-Ida Park Historic District, Jane Sullivan, Owner. Consider a request for a variance to reduce the side interior building setback from 10'to 5.92'. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michael Strauss, Owner. Re-consideration of a COA request for the installation of 6/1 and 4/1 aluminum windows on a contributing structure (continued from the Match 20, 2002 meeting). B. Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, Old School Square Historic District, 20 N. Swinton Avenue, Bonnie Dearborn, Representative from the Florida Division of Historical Resources. Re-consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff HPB Meeting April 3, 2002 Page 2 V. ADJOURN ^y't.��.I ). h_, Wendy Shay, Historic Preservat n Planner POSTED ON: March 28, 2002 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Item: II. A. - Meeting of April 3, 2002 Consideration of a variance for Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park. Location: 5 NE 7 Street ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' to 5.92' for a contributing structure located at 5 NE 7th Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D)(6), 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. BACKGROUND The subject property (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park) is located on the north side of NE 7th Street, approximately 160' east of North Swinton Avenue. The property is within the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is zoned R-1-AA (Single Family Residential). The property contains a 960 sq.ft. frame vernacular single family residence constructed in 1939. Until recently, a Unity of Title joined this lot with Lot 6 to the east which is currently vacant. When this Unity of Title was inadvertently dissolved, the existing structure on Lot 5 became non-conforming with respect to the side setback as only 5.92' is provided and 10' is required. At its meeting on February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board granted a waiver to LDR Section 4.1.4(C) to allow the adjoining nonconforming lot of record (Lot 6, Block 1, Del-Ida Park) to be developed, subject to the condition that a variance be obtained to allow the reduction of the side interior building setback for Lot 5. If the variance for the side setback is not granted, the applicant will have to re-execute the Unity of Title between the lots. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / ANALYSIS Project Description: The applicant is requesting a variance from the side interior setback requirements in order to maintain a conforming building setback and proceed with the conveyance/development of the vacant lot (Lot 6). The side interior building setback requirement for the R-1-AA zoning district is 10'. The current side setback measures 5.92'. With the previous Unity of Title combining Lots 5 and 6, the building setback exceeded the 10' requirement (55.92' previously provided), as the setback was measured from the east property line of Lot 6. By releasing the Unity of Title, the HPB Staff Report 5 NE 7TH Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park)-Variance Request Page 2 setback is measured from the east property line of Lot 5. As a nonconforming situation will be created by releasing the Unity of title, a variance is requested. Required Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), in addition to the required findings of LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5) (copy attached), the Board may also be guided by the following as an alternative to the above criteria: (1) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property through demonstrating that: (a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare; (b) Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic setting, location, nature, or character of the land, structure, appurtenances, sign, or building involved, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, appurtenances, signs, or buildings in the same zoning district, which have not been designated as historic sites or a historic district nor listed on the Local Register of Historic Places; (c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances would alter the historic site to such an extent that it would not be feasible to preserve the historic character, of the historic district or historic site; and, (d) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or a historic district. (2) Or, as an alternative to Sub-Section (J)(1), that a variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site through demonstrating that: (a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare; (b) The variance would not significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site; and, (c) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site. (3) The Board shall otherwise follow procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustments. There are other historic structures along NE 7th Street and throughout the historic district with similar building setbacks. The variance would allow the existing one story vernacular structure to remain in its original setting. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic setting, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to affect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure. Given the conditions HPB Staff Report 5 NE 7TH Street(Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park)-Variance Request Page 3 under which this variance is being requested it is reasonable to believe that the variance would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (J). While the variance is appropriate given this particular historic structure, a reduced setback to 5.92' may not be appropriate for a new structure or an addition, depending on the design. Thus, the variance should be limited to the existing historic structure. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building g setback from 10' to 5.92' for an existing contributing structure located at 5 NE 7t Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). C. Deny the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' to 5.92' for an existing contributing structure located at 5 NE 7t Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5) and 4.5.1(J). RECOMMENDATION Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side interior building setback from 10' to 5.92' for an existing contributing structure located at 5 NE 7th Street (Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). Attachments: Exhibit A Survey Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner HPB Staff Report 5 NE 7TH Street(Lot 5, Block 1, Del-Ida Park)-Variance Request Page 4 EXHIBIT A - REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5), prior to granting a variance, the granting body shall make positive findings that the granting of the variance meets the following criteria: a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which are not generally applicable to other land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning (The matter of economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance); b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning; c) That special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant; d) That granting the variance will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor nonconforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, buildings, or structure; and t) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. - ,� POMef POCE LOT 22 LOT 2/ 1. wirsi 5.5'.4Ncitat.-_..__— -- .dLP.t.S..I. C't N 5p er0 �•''//Gf/WGOOrENGEN. l Z�r l ,to. AT$',t 5� • LOv�CYf10 PGNEe h/NE - uW l iS a 2 :64,e 3 ,1,7zWD Ho24o'Xb -`- Q .4I,'vJ ,Q q0-9•- ZZit Y_- LI,a h \:�) ". +yiL \IL-o4.1u y V ..-.7:'.......-...:.::-1.:::.::::::-::::::::::....:::::i:%::':'*?.......:•:.:.:: -4s4 VV Et— I7'.I�I VI0/LiStk. .......•.:... ...............,.....:..................:.............-.•.„.:.•........;...............•.....:...:.......-.,...•.•..-.:...........................-...-..•........... Y 4 . [ fi r, 'c m' a ql or0 .� Q�.r •o° N \ .. c z C `"T i�" 5.9Z �W C\, /3.7!'7 3�37" any (D 0 �i 0. o /snow i.,zi V �. v4 d;or �.;.eeSiOevice.i...4.- _ a04� 67.4/ci Q 1. S„tA-rOF Kr(EC'=EN Cc }-' i yL I o- e q.IOF t r ° n,. Y3.9 V i. Z° i� �� �Q m over�0 WcoG�cncE :JC.4LE--/.,_�✓ I �0� I3•� /633n .v` NIn1t I 3 Sa Jva �+�a_ �'__�/.5.'.5'TY2 4N/GN v~l iifi =,-I C .'I ST .✓GaGFENA. I I ... 's O 'X2laiic..f ,, f P-S�ci.c P,cTr - 0.5:,i I> 9" yI P� SrEP-sro cv. ���_rfU/c.:�i N HALK `,2 ...4-- rypis P/N FOUND �\ 9 EP VOLE I CG'SHOULD ^ • V1 S. •j b -U (c JF A 67 t"' 7rr ,5'%/,.F�7- l.>G"R/iV) f /(o O.OD"hAT (i4GG.:EYc'::T/p✓E, n.P.:.c:) PK//wis ) / AN9'YEAS./ (xis riNG 2L',4SPiY.ecTfi>YErJ irr\ ... /`o_/YQ. - .4/C-� //)'O/GATES ff/r'Ccn•‘;I%9A'cK([/K/ - - e' /ND/GATES WT I L/NE ryP,--/ND/CATES TYP/c4G -y.-�,, • NOTES: =ONC• "'/ND/(AYES �NYCP,ETE —?- '-./ND/C.cTES LYEr.+e-,F„ c . rower.¢ G/.✓G I _ 1 . Not valid without the original raised seal and signature of a Florida licensed surveyor and mapper.2. y Nc un1 ,-7'-ound improvements such as building foundations, underground , ,_ I -t ems, Etc. were located, exce^•` as noted hereon. . i i • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 1, DEL-IDA PARK, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 23, • ?age 52, in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. CERTIFICATION: • • • I = hereby certify this sketch as shown hereon represents a survey made under my directionand to be true and accurate to the best of my Knowledge and belief, subject to easements and right-of-ways of record I and meets the minimum technical standards of Rule 5'G1-r-O of the Florida I Az ive Code. r�_ ('3'. li Son A. Gen.,d a File No. _8-97-52 _gistered Florida Land - Surveyor and Mapper No. 2560 LB NO. 2322 GENTRY ENGINEERING & . Le of Boundary survey with provements: April 2, 1997 LAND SURVEYING, INC. ... P.O. BOX 243 DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 • - HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Michael Strauss Project Name: 30 SE 1st Avenue Project Location: Between SE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND During the meeting of March 20, 2002, the Board reconsidered the installation of aluminum, framed 6/1 and 4/1 windows in the 1925 Mission style house. Documentation was recorded indicating that the installation of the previously approved solid wood windows would be cost prohibitive for the applicant. Alternatives were recommended by the Board that included researching the cost of installing vinyl clad wood core windows along the front facade of the structure with aluminum framed windows on the remainder of the elevations, not viewed from the right-of-way. Further, the Board recommended the applicant research additional funding sources such as the Delray Beach CRA loan program and possible Community Development grants. Findings based on the additional research will be presented at the April 3, 2002 meeting for a final review. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. C. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the front façade only and aluminum frame windows along the remainder of the elevations not visible from the right-of-way for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. D. Deny the COA for 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Meeting Date: April 3, 2002 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows Page 2 RECOMMENDATION! . Approve the Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to remove the existing jalousie and awning windows and install new 6/1 and 4/1 single hung sash windows for the contributing structure at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: 1) Install 6/1 and 4/1 SHS, wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the front (east) elevation (seen from the right-of-way) and install aluminum frame 6/1 and 4/1, SHS windows on the north, south, and west elevations. Attachments: HPB Staff report 3.20.02 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Michael Strauss Project Name: 30 SE 1st Avenue Project Location: Between SE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Background 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 lite configuration in conjunction with the site plan to convert the 1925 Mission style residence to an office. This approval was valid for 18 months, however, the replacement of the windows and associated improvements was never completed and the approval expired. At the meeting of February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the COA request to replace the existing jalousie and awning windows with new 6/1 and 4/1 DHS windows. Upon review of the request, the Board considered the applicant's proposal to replace the existing windows with aluminum frame windows. The applicant requested consideration of the aluminum due to the fact that replacement in—kind with wood framed windows would be cost prohibitive. Previous deliberation by the Board regarding this matter included the review of aluminum windows with impact glass along Banker's Row. On February 2, 2000, the Board approved the use of aluminum windows on those elevations that are not along the front façade on a case by case basis. However, any windows or doors replaced within view of the right-of-way must be done in-kind with wood frames and similar muntin profiles. Design Elements Analysis LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The 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 20, 2002 Agenda Item: II.G. HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows Page 2 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. All improvements to building, 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. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The applicant will provide information to the Board at its meeting regarding the cost and details of the windows. Further research by Staff has found several alternatives to the proposed aluminum windows. The alternatives include 6/1 and 4/1 DHS solid wood windows by leading window companies including Pella and Anderson and wood core windows with vinyl coverings. These alternatives appear more economically feasible and will support the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to replace all historic materials in-kind. Additional information will be available at the meeting. Conclusion An alternative material to the aluminum framed windows proposed may be a more cost effective solution while achieving the original intent of the Board to replace all historic materials in-kind. One such alternative is to install aluminum windows on all elevations not visible from the right- of-way with wood windows on the front façade only. Another alternative would be to install wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the exterior. Further review of the applicant's request and alternatives from Staff could determine a reasonable solution to replacing the windows and retaining the historic integrity of the structure while keeping the project economically feasible. The final project must be consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the City Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows Page 3 C. Approve the COA for the installation of wood windows on the front façade only and aluminum frame windows along the remainder of the elevations not visible from the right-of- way for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. D. Deny the COA for 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Board's discretion. Attachments: Elevations, Site Plan HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Bonnie Dearborn Project Name: Judge Knott Center 20 N. Swinton Avenue Project Location: Between NE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the west side of North Swinton Avenue, approximately 140' north of West Atlantic Avenue and consists of Lot 12, Block 60, Town of Delray. The property is located within the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district. The property contains a two-story Monterey style building approximately 2,300 square feet in size. The structure was originally built as a single-family residence in the late 1930's, and was relocated to the site from the Hillcrest neighborhood in West Palm Beach in 1994. The building is presently occupied by the Delray Beach Historical Society. The applicant proposes the installation of a new free-standing sign to replace an existing free- standing sign, which is in disrepair. The proposed free-standing sign is comprised of two parts, both of which are double-sided with rounded-notched corners. In addition to the above items, the main portion (upper) of the sign will consist of a raised half-ellipse for the building number. The secondary portion (lower) of the sign will be attached to the main portion via eye hooks. The sign will display a yellow background matching the existing building that will contrast the green border and lettering, which is intended to match the shutters. The free-standing sign measures 55" in height for a total of 84" high (including the post) and 40" in length for a total of approximately 15 square feet and will be mounted with aluminum brackets between a pair of 4" x 4" posts connected with a horizontal beam. Decorative spheres will be placed on top of each of the posts. At its meeting of March 20, 2002, the HPB reviewed the proposal. After deliberations, the Board recommended approval of the sign subject to the condition that the total height of the proposed sign be reduced from 84" (7') to 60" (5'). However, a representative for the project was not available to discuss the proposal with the Board and explain the basis for the proposed height of 7', which is due to the sign's location within the swale. Further, when the new location is available for the Delray Beach Historical Society, a new tenant will move into the Judge Knott Center which will require the use of the sign. Based on these circumstances, the applicant requests that the Board reconsider the condition of approval to reduce the height from 7' to 5' that is now before the Board for action. Meeting Date:April 3, 2002 Agenda Item: III.B. HPB Staff Report 20 N. Swinton Avenue-Reconsideration of a free-standing sign Page 2 ANALYSIS Sign Regulations LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), addresses Sign Design Standards for "Free-Standing Signs" and states: A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. Neither the pole nor the base of the monument shall be considered in calculation of the area of the sign face. A free-standing sign may not have more than two sign faces. LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(2)(b), addresses "Conformity with Surroundings" and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7). LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(a), addresses "Basic Setback Determinants" and states: The setback for a free standing sign shall be ten feet (10) from the ultimate right-of-way line unless there is a special setback or special landscape area designated for the street pursuant to Section 4.3.4(H)(6). The setback is measured from the closest portion of the sign to the right-of-way. No signs shall extend into a right-of-way. LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(2)(a)-(c), addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" and states: The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the following aesthetic conditions must be met. (a) Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E) with respect to height and area. (b) Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. (c) Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. HPB Staff Report 20 N. Swinton Avenue-Reconsideration of a free-standing sign Page 3 Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building façade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. A list of suggestions then follows, the two operatives in this instance are: • Sign style should reflect the appropriate architectural periods. • Sign dimensions should be in proportion to the building's size. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts; however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character-defining" and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: • New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Conclusion Based on the applicant's need to add an additional sign at the bottom of the proposed Judge Knott sign for any additional tenant of the building (currently a separate sign for the Delray Beach Historical Society) and based upon the availability of space on the proposed sign posts, the applicant wishes the Board to reconsider its previous recommendation of the reduction of the height of the sign from 84" (7') to 60" (5'). When measured form the base of the swale, the proposed sign will measure 84" (7'), however it will be approximately 60" (5') when measured from the crown of the road, which is the point where the height is based. The proposed 84" (7') sign is a direct reflection of the sign that was previously approved by the Board and is highly compatible with the extant historic structure. The design is appropriate with respect to its proportion with the building and other signage in the neighborhood. Positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7 (Sign Regulations), the City's Historic Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards can be made. HPB Staff Report 20 N. Swinton Avenue-Reconsideration of a free-standing sign Page 4 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation. C. Deny the COA for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION .:.' .... Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free-standing sign for the Judge Knott Center for Historic Preservation, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.7(G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b), and (H)(2)(a-c), of the City's Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Attachments: • Sign Specifications Staff Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner —\--1-is-ro Rte_.} 4 0D-- -I 2 3 ° i 4igaiRS REVIEWED BY:. 7 DATE: / - — PLANS R V IONDAETDEBt 0 ' • 0 .............,.......... -, • -4. ' pt- -5[C4J-FotAvv\. I.L r 20 1 z 7t-f(ci - ti--41 JUDGE KNOTT CENTER ‘* C -) e0qt` pr iv_umti...u0.1 FOR IIISTORIC PRESERVATION BeictICE--r ritTehiet3 Loi 12 I f".ss PALM BEACH COUNTY REGIONAL OFFICE 'SC Ket,$)S DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE mi. ,F ila jikittEtatc,- MrEC ,PieLtit8.0 (Ay CiL- PA(vor __ ---,.-7-- - .' 1 V TOQ1 tte/D w( il3q1.-(c-- -- -55 ekt--%- 140 t -).1 it ' DELRAY BEACH z. HISTORICAL SOCIETY --16 coupg_s y -cu.ocu--- 6. --, ..„- --- ,(L„--, _ ..... C-- ,t)--- . -- , ....... , ........:4 --...„. - - yo.,u):J- 10A‘k,t-1- tick)se coyi('oic:r ..) -6:_v_E-_ -tm iNI141--tc tt 5 do71-4--s (3/( to a, 1-7-PT c' P'1)-tt '9-1t- Th°-A.t.) • f1` + ;x1S 77,:•••''.'..•.'1,3.-.'''''7:7-'• • .•- . • •� x. `-:C is x u'-'4 , Obi ''..6',)',^.4..,64'v`".,.-1 20 North Swinton Avenue ,,` „k, ' i..AI.,,,Al 0 4A ` (2-story vdo1r1-erey style) I`, j ‘ ti ' . .. :,l: V'' s'rya I = Swale .1.1140. = 7 ' from grade 4/17/02 4/17/02 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2002 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:05 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott, Rhonda Sexton, Jim Keavney MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Simon, DonnaMarie Sloan STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Debra Garcia II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were available for approval. Staff assured the Board that the minutes will be brought in for review at the next meeting. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: A. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District Action Before the Board: Re-Consideration of a COA request for the installation of 6/1 and 4/1 aluminum windows on a contributing structure (continued from the March 20, 2002 meeting and the April 3, 2002 meeting) During the meeting of March 20, 2002, the Board reconsidered the installation of aluminum, framed 6/1 and 4/1 windows in the 1925 Mission style house. Documentation was provided indicating that the installation of the previously approved solid wood windows would be cost prohibitive for the applicant. Alternatives were recommended by the Board that included researching the cost of installing vinyl clad wood core windows along the front façade of the structure with aluminum framed windows on the remainder of the elevations, not viewed from the right-of-way. Further, the Board recommended the applicant research additional funding sources such as the Delray Beach CRA loan program and possible Community Development grants. The item went before the Board for re-consideration at its April 3rd meeting, however, the applicant was not present. Therefore, the Board continued the item to the April 17, 2002 meeting. Gail Lee-McDermott made the motion to Approve the Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to remove the existing jalousie and awning windows and install new 6/1 and 4/1 single hung sash windows for the contributing structure at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: 1) Install 6/1 and 4/1 SHS, wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the front (east) elevation (seen from the right-of-way) and install aluminum frame 6/1 and 4/1, SHS windows on the north, south, and west elevations. Motion was seconded by Ronda Sexton and motion passed 5 - 0 B. Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center, Old School Square Historic District, 5 NE 2nd Street Action Before the Board: The action before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a standing sign associated with a Class I site plan modification for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). The applicant proposes the installation of a free standing, hanging sign. The proposed sign will be constructed of polyurethane painted to mimic the appearance of wood and will reflect an Asian theme with a bamboo frame surrounding the text of the sign. The stand will be painted dark green and the sign will be painted maroon with gold copy and black shadowing to highlight the text (all caps). The standing sign measures 78" (6.5') in height and 48" (4') in width with 4"x6" posts. Eye hooks will be used to attach the sign to the post. The sign will be installed diagonally approximately 12' from the Swinton Avenue and 17' from NE 2nd Street. It was moved by Ronda Sexton to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7. (G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b) and (H)(2)(a-c) and the City's Design Guidelines. Motion was seconded by Gail Lee McDermott and motion passed 5— 0 -2- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 C. Sundy Harvest, Old School Square Historic District, SE 1st Street. Action Before the Board: The action before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Sundy Harvest, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): The proposal is approval of a Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Demolition of a noncontributing building and a wavier request 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. During its meeting on February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V site plan that included the conversion of a contributing structure from residential to commercial and the demolition of two non- contributing structures in order to accommodate a parking area. Upon further evaluation, the Board determined that the demolition of the non- contributing structure, located on SE 1st Street, would be detrimental to the area and would not be consistent with the Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan or the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. The Board requested that the item be tabled and a revised plan be brought back before the HPB at a later date. Gail Lee McDermott made the motion based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1) to approve the demolition of the non-contributing building located on Lots 24 & 25 of the subject property. The motion was seconded by Jim Keavney and the motion passed 5—0. Rhonda Sexton made the motion based upon positive findings in the report to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), to approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9 (D)(3)(c) to reduce the stacking distance from 20' to 15' along SE 1st Avenue. The motion was seconded by Gloria Elliott and passed 5-0. Rhonda Sexton made the motion to approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) -3- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 20-25, Block 70, Town of Delray, or cross-parking and access easement recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a bike rack be placed on site. 4) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 5) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. 7) That the handicapped accessible parking space be centrally located between the buildings being converted and a sidewalk provided to the entrance to comply with the Florida building Code for Building Construction. 8) That a right-of-way deed be executed and recorded, dedicating 5' of right-of-way along SE 1st Avenue. The motion was seconded by Jim Keavney and the motion passed 5 —O. John Szerdi, of Balfoort Architectural Design addressed the Board concerning a walkway that is located between the buildings on the East side. He requested that the walkway be optional and to allow the tenant to decide whether the walkway would remain. After much Board discussion, the motion was modified to allow the applicant the discretion whether to allow the walkway to remain. Modified motion passed 5 — 0 . -4- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 Rhonda Sexton made the motion to approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated or trimmed The motion was seconded by Jim Keavney and the motion passed 5 — 0. D. Management Systems, Old School Square Historic District Action Before The Board: COA-2002-038 request, which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Management Systems, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b): The proposal consists of a Class II Site Plan Modification, Landscape plan and a Waiver requests. Subsequent to the HPB approval of February 20, 2002, a letter formally appealing the Board's decision was submitted. Rather than having the appeal brought before the City Commission, the applicant met with the appellant and staff to discuss a compromise. The discussion resulted in the elimination of an in-lieu parking space via the provision of an additional parking space onsite. The provision of this additional parking space does, however, create the need for waivers to be sought. The applicant has submitted a modified site plan depicting the proposed changes, as well as a landscape plan, which has not been previously approved by the Board. Roger Saberson, Legal Council for the applicant addressed the Board requesting that the 5' right-of-way dedication requirement be replaced by a 5' permanent easement. Allowing the applicant to remain as the owner of the five feet and hopefully eliminating further potential waivers to the property in the future. Jeffery Silberstein, Authorized Agent also had questions pertaining to landscaping issues and the striping of the parking area. The handicapped striping was recommended by staff to extend all the way across the drive aisle and Mr. Silberstein felt that this was unsightly and unnecessary. The number of the trees recommended by staff was less than the number that the agent had proposed, and questions were addressed to the Board as to why this had been recommended. After much Board consideration and discussion Gail Lee McDermott made the motion to approve the following: -5- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 a) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); b) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); and, c) Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). The motion was seconded by Gloria Elliott and motion passed 5 —O. The motion was made by Gail Lee McDermott to table all other Management Systems issues concerning the Right-Of-Way Dedication, the striping issue and the Landscaping plans to a future date. Motion was seconded by Jim Keavney and the motion to table passed 5 - 0. E. Winston Condos, 137 S. Swinton Avenue Action Before The Board: The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design elements associated with a Class I site plan modification for the installation of windows, hurricane shutters, and a standing seam metal roof pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). The subject property consists of the Winston Condominium Building (formerly lots 7 & 8, Block 70, Town of Delray). The property contains 0.30 acres and a non-contributing, masonry vernacular building constructed in 1980 as an eight unit apartment building. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). he most recent Board action which relates to this property occurred at the HPB meeting of September 5, 2001 where a COA and associated Class IV site plan modification, landscape plan, and design elements was approved for the conversion of the multi-family structure to a two-story office building. The project was never undertaken. Wendy Shay presented the item to the Board through a review of the staff report. Rhonda Sexton made the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for elevation changes to a non-contributing building associated with a Class I Site Plan Modification for 137 South Swinton Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: -6- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 1) That the originally proposed tile inlay be included in the current façade improvements on the all elevations. 2) Add banding as shown on the originally approved plans around the windows on the West elevation. 3) And that the Landscaping Plan return before the Board for approval. The motion was seconded by Gloria Elliott and was passed 5 — 0. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. B. Reports from Historic District Representatives: No Representatives were present to report to the Board. C. Board Member: MaryLou Jamison asked staff concerning a tree house that has been constructed at the Frank McKinney property. Ms. Shay assured the Board that Mr. McKinney has submitted for a COA but has failed to submit required photo. Ms. Shay stated that she would contact Mr. McKinney concerning this matter in mid-May if she has not received a response from Mr. McKinney. Ms. Jamison inquired about the updating design guidelines. Ms. Shay stated that a consultant has been selected and is to be approved by City Commission at the May 7th meeting. Mr. Keavney commented that he could not hear some of the applicants. Ms. Shay mentioned that there isn't an amplifying devise in the conference room but that the Board can certainly request the applicant to "speak-up". D. Staff: Ms. Shay presented the Board with all the entries of the Poster Contest for Preservation week. Paola Sanchez was determined to the 1st place winner. Michael Santorsola is 2nd and AJ Rosenthal was 3rd place. -7- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 Award ceremony is scheduled for the May 7th City Commission Meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m. -8- HPB Minutes 4/17/02 . w p 1p4y �� AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: April 17, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • September 5, 2001 • September 19, 2001 • November 7, 2001 • November 14, 2002 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Michael Strauss, Owner. Re-consideration of a COA request for the installation of 6/1 and 4/1 aluminum windows on a contributing structure (continued from the April 3, 2002 meeting). B. Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, Old School Square Historic District, 5 NE 2"d Street, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign. C. Sundy Harvest, Old School Square Historic District, SE 1st Street, Michelle Balfoort, Authorized Agent. Re-consideration of a Class V site plan modification with associated landscape plan and the demolition of a non-contributing structure. D. Management Systems, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Authorized Agent. Consider a request for a waiver to reduce the stacking distance and landscape buffers and a modification to the previously approved parking configuration. HPB Meeting April 17, 2002 Page 2 E. Winston Condos, Old School Square Historic District, 137 S. Swinton Avenue, Brian Russo, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a roof, windows, and storm panels on a non-contributing structure. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff V. ADJOURN Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: April 12, 2002 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Michael Strauss Project Name: 30 SE 1st Avenue Project Location: Between SE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND During the meeting of March 20, 2002, the Board reconsidered the installation of aluminum, framed 6/1 and 4/1 windows in the 1925 Mission style house. Documentation was provided indicating that the installation of the previously approved solid wood windows would be cost prohibitive for the applicant. Alternatives were recommended by the Board that included researching the cost of installing vinyl clad wood core windows along the front façade of the structure with aluminum framed windows on the remainder of the elevations, not viewed from the right-of-way. Further, the Board recommended the applicant research additional funding sources such as the Delray Beach CRA loan program and possible Community Development grants. The item went before the Board for re-consideration at its April 3rd meeting, however, the applicant was not present. Therefore, the Board continued the item to the April 17, 2002 meeting. Findings based on the additional research will be presented at the April 17, 2002 meeting for a final review. Additional background information is provided in the HPB staff report of March 20, 2002. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS,, A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. C. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the front facade only and aluminum frame windows along the remainder of the elevations not visible from the right-of-way for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. _ D. Deny the COA for 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Meeting Date:April 17, 2002 Agenda Item: III.A. HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows 4.17.02 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request to remove the existing jalousie and awning windows and install new 6/1 and 4/1 single hung sash windows for the contributing structure at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(c) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: 1) Install 6/1 and 4/1 SHS, wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the front (east) elevation (seen from the right-of-way) and install aluminum frame 6/1 and 4/1, SHS windows on the north, south, and west elevations. Attachments: HPB Staff report 3.20.02 rar EIdr- ,, RD EK11,0RAND1lM;S;TAFF REP iktit Agent: Michael Strauss Project Name: 30 SE 1st Avenue Project Location: Between SE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue �� "�jTr FBEFO�' 1 Y �-�"BOi4`RD :�. ��x. �-�.=�',�✓ .� The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). Background 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 lite configuration in conjunction with the site plan to convert the 1925 Mission style residence to an office. This approval was valid for 18 months, however, the 'replacement of the windows and associated improvements was never completed and the approval expired. At the meeting of February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the COA request to replace the existing jalousie and awning windows with new 6/1 and 4/1 DHS windows. Upon review of the request, the Board considered the applicant's proposal to replace the existing windows with aluminum frame windows. The applicant requested consideration of the aluminum due to the fact that replacement in—kind with wood framed windows would be cost prohibitive. Previous deliberation by the Board regarding this matter included the review of aluminum windows with impact glass along Banker's Row. On February 2, 2000, the Board approved the use of aluminum windows on those elevations that are not along the front façade on a case by case basis. However, any windows or doors replaced within view of the right-of-way must be done in-kind with wood frames and similar muntin profiles. Design Elements Analysis LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The 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 20, 2002 Agenda Item: II.G. • HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1 st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows Page 2 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. All improvements to building, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The applicant will provide information to the Board at its meeting regarding the cost and details of the windows. Further research by Staff has found several alternatives to the proposed aluminum windows. The alternatives include 6/1 and 4/1 DHS solid wood windows by leading window companies including Pella and Anderson and wood core windows with vinyl coverings. These alternatives appear more economically feasible and will support the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to replace all historic materials in-kind. Additional information will be available at the meeting. Conclusion An alternative material to the aluminum framed windows proposed may be a more cost effective solution while achieving the original intent of the Board to replace all historic materials in-kind. One such alternative is to install aluminum windows on all elevations not visible from the right- of-way with wood windows on the front facade only. Another alternative would be to install wood core windows with vinyl cladding on the exterior. Further review of the applicant's request and alternatives from Staff could determine a reasonable solution to replacing the windows and retaining the historic integrity of the structure while keeping the project economically feasible. The final project must be consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the City Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. r ALl'ERNATJVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA for the installation of wood core windows with vinyl cladding for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. HPB Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue—Reconsideration of windows Page 3 C. Approve the COA for the installation of wood windows on the front fagade only and aluminum frame windows along the remainder of the elevations not visible from the right-of- way for the property at 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to Section LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. D. Deny the COA for 30 SE 1st Avenue, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. IL, � ; x��,-., t ; a RECO fiffiaDATION* -'. ::: „ '. '' '{ * F Y t g; L.+{.+.. �aw+n'4A�.1.fzi^�rrwN�rwi�o.P'^..J' t . v�..i�..x.eh Board's discretion. Attachments: Elevations, Site Plan w.-- '. .1:_:._,'-'•--- / NU' • -_.: :.-.±7.• . IT . •-..L. - . ...7 • ...-- . ' • • ,. . - .... :1 • • • • •. . • ' • i . . : .. g...,-: . . .i ! .• . ..i .: . •. : " 1 t .., • :. . • • . ; ' ' .-. • AVE- - :.--77-:F-.-•:fil.t.'-=1.-....-. 1.--at:: 7.7 z:EiP ra7.111 : ii :11 :- : ' I , r, li: F I nil:,i , 1 •I ,L_. 7.L..-7--=:— ..41.-r- --__•:-.....^..c......--_—.., ... -- .' Siir' nanaali: .! Lo,ii-i..! A reillleetri 4.. . 1....1 :::'. -7.-'.. Gri 0 , . 1 I .-=._ 1_..7,= 1 7 i ; 1 • . i I !Wr...'•_-vi5i..:-.,.5 I ipt..! I . I ' •. . . . . . , . . ' _ - --------. - l ' ~° =° N /__ m <1 � ~ � tC--- ������/�� ����Z]�� - A MU ---- *y - -- - -' -------' ---- - -' * °/V � t- m- ELL , - Hn ----- --~i I_�����I]���� ����ZJ���� ' .`~' ' ,' ' . HISTOR [ C PRESERVATION BOARD Agent: Claudio Camilucci Project Name: Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center Project Location: 5 NE 2nd Street p;, ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a standing sign associated with a Class I site plan modification for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of the Lot 19, Resubdivision of the south 150' of the west half of Block 66, Delray Beach, and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The 1,216 sq. ft. commercial structure, located in the Old School Square Historic District, is a contributing structure constructed in 1946. Built in the masonry vernacular style, the one-story structure is made of concrete block with a stucco finish, awning windows, and gable roof. During its meeting of December 16, 1992, the HPB approved a Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements, and associated waivers for the conversion of the property from residential to commercial use. The improvements were completed in 1993 and the property was occupied by Coastal Revegetation, Inc. which vacated the site in 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes the installation of a free standing, hanging sign. The proposed sign will be constructed of polyurethane painted to mimic the appearance of wood and will reflect an Asian theme with a bamboo frame surrounding the text of the sign. The stand will be painted dark green and the sign will be painted maroon with gold copy and black shadowing to highlight the text (all caps). The standing sign measures 78" (6.5') in height and 48" (4') in width with 4"x6" posts. Eye hooks will be used to attach the sign to the post. The sign will be installed diagonally approximately 12' from the Swinton Avenue and 17' from NE 2nd Street. -: ANALYSIS The Board shall consider: Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center April 17, 2002 Page 2 SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7 (G)(1)(b) addresses Sign Design Standards for "Free-standing signs" A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. Neither the pole nor the base of the monument shall be considered in calculation of the area of the sign face. A free-standing sign may not have more than two faces. LDR Section 4.6.7 (G)(2)(b) addresses "Conformity with Surroundings" and states: The scale of the sign, in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be painted and the neighborhood and streetscape where it is to be located; but in no case shall it exceed the height limitations set forth in Subsection (7). LDR Section 4.6.7 (H)(2)(a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications and Standards" The aesthetic quality of a building, or indeed of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and (I), the following aesthetic conditions must be met. Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is located or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (E) with respect to height and area. Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration of color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright or gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building façade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center April 17, 2002 Page 3 The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. A list of suggestions then follows, the two operatives in this instance are: • Sign style should reflect the appropriate architectural periods. • Sign dimensions should be in proportion to the building's size. • Appropriately designed lighted signs enhance a district. However, the exterior source of the lighting should be concealed. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts, however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character- defining" and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Conclusion The proposed signage conveys the use and identity of the establishment without obscuring the front facade of the structure or any character defining architectural elements. The design is appropriate in relation to the signage in the neighborhood. Based on these factors, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7, the City's Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards can be made. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class I site plan modification for the installation of a sign for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, subject to conditions. Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center April 17, 2002 Page 4 C. Deny the COA and associated Class I site plan modification for the installation of a sign for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, with the basis stated. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign for the Balinesian Spa & Wellness Center, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.7. (G)(1)(b), (G)(2)(b) and (H)(2)(a-c) and the City's Design Guidelines. Attachments: • Sign details, photo, survey ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a COA that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for the Sundy Harvest, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class V Site Plan; ❑ Landscape Plan; ❑ Demolition of a noncontributing building; and ❑ Waiver request The subject property is located between S. Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Avenue on SE 1st Street. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lots 20-25, an amended plat of Sundy and Cromer's subdivision of Block 70. In May, 1999 (COA 9-373) the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V Site Plan for properties located at the southeast corner of S.E. 1st Street and S. Swinton Avenue, directly east of the Sundy House restaurant. That property consisted of lots 20, 21, and 22 of Block 70, Sundy and Cromer's Subdivision and contains 0.43 acres. A single-family residence at 6 SE 1st Street built in 1912 occupied the corner (Lots 20 and 21). Because of its deteriorated condition, the Historic Preservation Board approved the demolition of the house, conditioned on the requirement that the house not be demolished until a site plan was approved for all three lots (Lots 20-22). That site plan proposed the construction of a parking lot on Lots 20 and 21 and the rehabilitation and conversion of the residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) to a commercial use. The 1,373 square foot structure required five (5)-parking spaces. Twenty (20) spaces were actually provided on Lots 20 and 21 to help accommodate the required parking for the future conversion of the residential properties located to the north. The residence at 10 SE 1st Street (Lot 22) is a good example of vernacular architecture and was constructed in 1913. The house displays an open porch on the west elevation and reflects the typical narrow dimensions, configuration of windows, and general proportions of a Florida frame structure. In 1999, as a part of the overall Site Plan approval, the porch that had been previously insensitively enclosed was reopened. Today, the slightly tapered round wooden freestanding columns are a noteworthy feature of the house. The removal of the enclosure reduced the total floor area to 1,098 square feet requiring only four(4)-parking spaces. In 2000, a Conditional Use modification was approved for the Sundy House Restaurant to the west, to accommodate additional dining areas. The associated parking was provided via an off-site parking agreement to utilize 16 of the 20 spaces located on this property. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 2 During its meeting on February 20, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a Class V site plan that included the conversion of a contributing structure from residential to commercial and the demolition of two non-contributing structures in order to accommodate a parking area. Upon further evaluation, the Board determined that the demolition of the non-contributing structure, located on SE 1st Street, would be detrimental to the area and would not be consistent with the Delray Beach Downtown Master Plan or the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. The Board requested that the item be tabled and a revised plan be brought back before the HPB at a later date. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: o Demolition of a non-contributing accessory structure located on lots 24 & 25; ❑ Conversion of two structures on SE 1st Street (14 & 18 SE 1st Street) from residential to commercial; ❑ Construction of a 24 space asphalt parking lot and 5 back out compact parking spaces adjacent to the alley (29 total spaces); o Development of brick footpaths and landscaping including a sculpture garden along the north side of the property; ❑ Installation of associated landscaping and trash receptacle areas; and ❑ The proposal involves a waiver to reduce the stacking requirement along SE 1st Avenue from 20' to 15'. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The applicable development standards that relates to the proposal is as follows: HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 3 Required Provided Building Height (max.) 35' 17' Building Setbacks (min.) - Front 25' 25' Side (Interior) 7.5' 8' Side Street(SE 1st Avenue) 15' 30' Rear 10' 69' Open Space 25% 44% LDR Section 4.4.24 (OSSHAD-Special District Regulation): Parking: Pursuant to LDR 4.4.24(G)(4)(a) all non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. Parking is located at the rear of the property behind the existing structures. Future use as proposed by the applicant is retail/office for Buildings #2 & #3. Building #1 (1,366sq. ft), is already approved as retail and is not part of this development proposal. Building #2 (952 sq. ft.) and Building #3 (1,258 sq.ft.) will contain either office or retail use for a total of 2,210 sq. ft. of new commercial square footage on the property. Twenty-nine (29) parking spaces have been provided for the project and eight (8) are required. If the remaining 21 spaces are to be used by adjacent properties to meet the parking requirements, an off-site parking agreement must be executed. LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR, Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the minimum requirement for parking between 21 and 50 spaces is 20'. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required stacking distance at the east entrance from 20' to 15'. Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 4 The parking lot is accessible by two driveways: one on the alley and the other on SE 1st Avenue. Thus, the traffic generated from this development is not forced to use one driveway. The reduction of the stacking distance by 5' is insignificant as SE1st Avenue and the alley are not heavily traveled and the development will not be high traffic generator. The reduction will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Further, the waiver will not adversely affect the neighboring area, and will not affect the delivery of public services. The waiver will not result in a special privilege as similar waivers have been approved under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings, can be made. Back-out Parking (Alley): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9, back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. The proposed back-out parking is only 8' wide and appears to be 40' in depth. The survey must indicate the improvements within the alley and the spaces must have proper dimensions, which is attached as a condition of approval. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. Provision of a bike rack is appropriate for this development and has been attached as a condition of approval. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR 4.6.8 (Lighting), site lighting is required on site for new development proposals. A photometric plan has not been submitted to meet this requirement as outlined in LDR Section 4.6.8. Further, site lighting locations must be provided on the site plan, landscape and engineering plans including fixture details which is a condition of approval. Underground Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development, however this has not been indicated on the plans. The site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground, and is attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B)(1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. An existing 5' sidewalk currently runs along SE 1st Avenue and a proposed 5' brick paver walkway will be constructed along SE 1st Street. Undulating brick pathways are proposed along SE 1st Street, the west elevation of Building #1 and along the HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 5 east elevation of Building #3. Both pathways lead to the parking areas and have access to the sidewalks in the SE 1st Street and 1st Avenue rights-of-way. Right-of-Way Dedication: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(2), the required right-of-way width for SE 1st Avenue is 60' and only 40' exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), a reduction in the required right-of-way width or existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group (DSMG). The City Engineer and DSMG determined that 50' of right-of-way is adequate for SE 1st Avenue, thus, requiring a dedication of 5' with this development proposal, which is attached as a condition of approval. Refuse Container Area: All refuse containers will have decorative wood fences and gates. No landscaping has been proposed to screen the refuse enclosures. RELATED ITEMS Declaration of Unity of Title: The development proposal includes improvements across property lines (Lots 20-25, Block 70). As the properties will be under one ownership and function as one development, it is appropriate to combine the properties through a Declaration of Unity of Title, which must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The City must be a party to any dissolution of this Unity of Title. This provision has been attached as a condition of approval. Technical Items: The following Technical Items must be addressed with the submittal of revised plans prior to building permit submittal: 1) Provide stop sign and bar at egress into alley. 2) Provide drainage calculations with exfiltration test results. 3) A utility easement must be dedicated for the existing 8" sewer main located along the west side of Lot 23. 4) The handicapped parking space must be placed at the most readily available place within the development proposal. If the proposed handicapped space remains in place behind Building #1, it must be relocated once the conversion of Buildings #2 and #3 occurs. 5) Change the notation for the porch on Building #2 and the storage on Building #3 to read as "existing." 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 6 7) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. 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, Yellow Tabebuia, and Beauty Leaf interspersed throughout the property with liriopes, Xanadu, Viburnam, Clerodendrun, and Ixora underplantings and Coco plum hedges along the perimeter of the property. The existing Seagrape, Oak, and Ficus trees (located on the northern perimeter of the property) are to remain. The landscaping complies with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16. Refuse Container Area: The proposal includes the addition of refuse containers to be screened with wood fencing. The containers will be located on the east elevation for Buildings #1 & #2 and on the west elevation for Building #3. DEMOLITION FINDINGS Demolition Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1), The HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings; (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. The non-contributing, masonry vernacular structure proposed for demolition is located on lots 24 & 25. The small, vernacular structure is concrete block construction with novelty siding, a flat, built up roof with a flat roof door hood, awning windows, and no other HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest- Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 7 outstanding architectural detailing. The building does appear structurally sound however, it does not appear to be contributing as its pragmatic design holds minimal architectural or historical integrity. The immediate demolition of the non-contributing structure will not be detrimental to the contributing status of the district. The structure may be demolished without altering the historical or architectural context of the mail dwellings within the neighborhood. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), and (3) within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional offices, and specialty shops are listed as permitted uses. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A), Future Land Use Map Consistency. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan was HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 8 conducted and no applicable goals, objectives or policies were found. Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is surrounded by the OSSHAD zoning district. The property is surrounded by a combination of commercial and residential uses. Compatibility is not a concern, as the proposed use of the subject property would be allowable on each of the surrounding properties. The proposal retains the existing residential character while accommodating the adaptive re-use of the historic structures. The renovation of these structures will enhance property values within the area. Based on the above, the development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent properties. REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency The Sundy Harvest project was reviewed by the CRA during its meeting on March 14, 2002. No additional comments or concerns were addressed. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of a non-contributing building (lots 24 & 25, Block 70), conversion of two existing residences to accommodate either office or retail, the installation/integration of extensive landscaping and parking. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with substantial changes as identified in this staff report. These changes are outlined as conditions of approval. The proposal involves a waiver to reduce the stacking distance along SE 1st Avenue, which can be supported. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the COA and the associated Class V site plan and landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(8), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and the associated Class V site plan and landscape plan for Sundy Harvest, based upon failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1. (E)(4, (E)(8), and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Demolition Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)(1) approve the demolition of the non- contributing building located on Lots 24 & 25 of the subject property. Waiver Based upon positive findings in the report to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9 (D)(3)(c) to reduce the stacking distance from 20' to 15' along SE 1st Avenue. Site Plan Modification: Approve the COA for the Class V site plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and (Findings) and Section 2.4.6 (COA Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) That revised plans be submitted addressing the technical items and conditions of approval noted in the staff report. 2) That a Declaration of Unity of Title must be recorded for lots 20-25, Block 70, Town of Delray, or cross-parking and access easement recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That a bike rack be placed on site. 4) That decorative site lighting fixture details are provided and that the light locations be indicated on the site and landscape plans. 5) That the site plan must be revised to show the relocation of the utilities underground. 6) Back-out parking onto an alley must be 10' wide and 42' in depth measured from the paved alley to the head of the parking space. 7) That the handicapped accessible parking space be centrally located between the buildings being converted and a sidewalk provided to the entrance to comply with the Florida building Code for Building Construction. 8) That a right-of-way deed be executed and recorded, dedicating 5' of right-of-way along SE 1st Avenue. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 10 Landscape Plan: Approve the COA for the landscape plan for the Sundy Harvest Properties, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following condition: 1) That all proposed landscaping that will interfere with the line of site of the front façade from the right-of-way be replaced or relocated. Attachments: • Survey • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Elevations Report prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 11 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: U Water service exists via service lateral connections to the 8"water main within SE 1st Street. ❑ Sewer service exists via service lateral connections to an 8" sewer main in the north/south alley and along the west side of Lot 23. ❑ Adequate fire suppression is provided via existing fire hydrants on the southeast corner of Swinton Avenue and SE 1st Street an at the northeast corner of SE 1st Street and 1st Avenue. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated on- site via an exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, OSSHAD, and West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. Therefore, a traffic study is not required for concurrency purposes; however a traffic statement is necessary to keep a record of trips approved in the TCEA and for calculation of traffic impact fees. The applicant has submitted a statement based upon the conversion from residential to office/retail. The statement must be revised to accurately calculate the vehicular trips generated from the conversions from residential to commercial/restaurant, which has been attached as a condition of approval. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for nonresidential uses. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for a conversion of single family dwellings to a retail/office. Trash generation is based upon the worst case scenario of retail and restaurant. Trash generated each year by the proposed 3,576 sq.ft. retail space is 18.23 tons for a total of 36 tons of solid waste per year. The trash generated by the two single family homes is 3.98 tons [1.99 tons X 2] of solid waste per year resulting in an increase of 14.25 tons per year. The Solid Waste Authority indicates in its annual HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 12 report that the established level of service standards for solid waste will be met for all developments until 2021. Therefore, a positive finding can be made to this Level of Service standard. HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan & Landscape Plan Page 13 APPENDIX B STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Will be met once site lighting and photometric —complying with LDR Section 4.6.8. B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Will be met once a bike rack is provided C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent HPB Staff Report Sundy Harvest-Class V Site Plan &Landscape Plan Page 14 F. Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Agent: Jeffrey Silberstein, Silberstein Architects Project Name: Management Systems Project Location: Southwest corner of NE 1st Avenue and NE 2nd Street (Martin Luther King Jr. Drive). 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(G)(1)(b): • Class II Site Plan Modification; • Landscape Plan; and, • Waiver Requests. 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 single-family residence built in 1978, which was demolished in January of 2002. On February 20, 2002, HPB approved the construction of a two-story, 2,400 square foot office building with eight (8) associated parking spaces, and a variance request to reduce the required side street building setback from 15' to 10', subject to the following conditions: 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; Meeting Date:April 17, 2002 Agenda Item: III. D. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 2 6. That five feet (5') of right-of-way is dedicated along NE 1st Avenue; and, 7. That the proposed sidewalk along NE 1st Avenue is extended through the drive aisle. Subsequent to the HPB approval of February 20, 2002, a letter formally appealing the Board's decision was submitted. Rather than having the appeal brought before the City Commission, the applicant met with the appellant and staff to discuss a compromise. The discussion resulted in the elimination of an in-lieu parking space via the provision of an additional parking space onsite. The provision of this additional parking space does, however, create the need for waivers to be sought. The applicant has submitted a modified site plan depicting the proposed changes, as well as a landscape plan, which has not been previously approved by the Board. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The development proposal involves the following: • Modification of the previously approved parking area adjacent to the south side of the building to consist of three (3) standard, two (2) compact, and one (1) handicap accessible parking space (6 spaces total); and, • Landscape plan associated with the modified parking area and previously approved building. The development proposal also includes waiver requests to the following sections of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDR): • A waiver request to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6") [LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1)]; • A waiver request to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet (2') [LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a)]; and, • A waiver request to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent property to the west from five feet (5') to two feet (2') [LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d)]. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b), a Class I I site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1, but requires action by a Board. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 3 LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5), formal findings are not required for a Class I or II modification. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 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: Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), a minimum of 25% non-vehicular open space shall be provided with the development. The proposal provides 42% non-vehicular open space, which exceeds the requirement. 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 two (2) required parking spaces, which will cost a total of $12,000. 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. The previous approval provided for five (5) onsite parking spaces (4 standard, 1 handicap accessible) within the parking area on the south side of the property. The three (3) remaining required parking spaces were to be provided via an in-lieu parking agreement of which two (2) of the parking spaces would be constructed by the applicant within the NE 1st Avenue right-of-way. The proposed modification will increase the total Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 4 number of parking spaces available onsite to six (6) (3 standard, 2 compact, 1 handicap accessible). Thus, only two (2) parking spaces will now need to be provided via an in- lieu parking agreement and both of those spaces will be constructed by the applicant within the NE 1st Avenue right-of-way. The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) previously recommended approval of a request for the purchase of the three (3) in-lieu parking spaces at its meeting of February 26, 2002. This request was subsequently approved by the City Commission at its meeting of March 5, 2002. As the number of in-lieu parking spaces being requested is decreasing with the site plan modification, the request it is not necessary that the request go before the City Commission a second time should the site plan modification be approved. Article 4.6 Supplemental District Regulations: Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided for new development proposals. With the proposed site plan modifications a decorative post mounted light at the southwest corner of the property has been eliminated. As a result, there is a concern that adequate lighting will not be achieved onsite. Accordingly, it is attached as a condition of approval that a light fixture be installed at the west end of the parking area and that a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 be provided. Off-Street Parking Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c), provisions must be made for stacking and transition of incoming traffic from a public street, such that traffic may not backup into the public street system. The minimum distance required between NE 1st Avenue and the first parking space within a parking lot containing 20 parking spaces or less is five feet (5'). The applicant has requested that a waiver to this requirement be granted to reduce stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet - six inches (2'-6"). The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 5 (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. While the provided stacking distance onsite is insufficient, there will be 15.5' from the parking space to the NE 1st Avenue travel lanes due to the provision of on-street parking between the travel lanes and the property. The provision of five feet (5') of stacking on local streets is primarily to take into account the five foot (5') wide perimeter landscape strip. Further, the 2,400 square foot office development will generate relatively low traffic volumes. Similar waivers have been granted for parking areas adjacent to alleyways. Granting the waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create an unsafe situation. Further, given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Site Plan Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and must be addressed prior to building permit submittal: 1. That the previous conditions of site plan approval as discussed in the "Background" section of this report are addressed; 2. The height and dimensions of the proposed sign at the northeast corner of the property need to be provided on the site plan; and, 3. The air conditioning units located on the west side of the property should be relocated against the building rather than adjacent to the neighboring property. LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS The proposed landscape plan provides foundation landscaping consisting of Alexander, and Roebelenii Palms underplanted by Dwarf Chenille, Purple Queen, Shrimp Plant, Ti Plant, and Wart Fern. The perimeter landscaping consists of Live Oak trees underplanted with Ficus, and Red Tip Cocoplum hedging. Coconut Palms will be planted at the northeast corner of the property to accent a proposed free-standing sign, which will be underplanted with various annuals. Additionally, Alexander Palms and Pink Tabebuia will be installed within the landscape islands in the NE 1st Avenue right-of-way. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 6 With respect to the aforementioned Live Oak trees, the spacing between the trees is only 19' — 20'. LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(e), requires that where any commercial area abuts a property in residential use, one (1) tree shall be planted every 25' in order to provide a solid tree line. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the Live Oaks are planted at a rate of one (1) tree every 25'. With respect to the Alexander Palms that are to be installed with the northernmost landscape islands adjacent to NE 1st Avenue; in order to be consistent with the other landscape materials along NE 1st Avenue, the proposed palms should be replaced with a Pink Tabebuia. This has been attached as a condition of approval. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), the landscape buffer between the parking area and NE 1st Avenue is required to be five feet (5') in width and contain (1) tree. The proposal is to provide a two foot (2') wide landscape strip without the required tree. In addition, LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), requires that a landscape buffer of five feet (5') in width be provided between the vehicular use area and the adjacent property to the west. The applicant has requested that waivers be granted for these requirements. The following is an analysis of the waiver requests: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The waivers are requested to maximize the number of on-site parking spaces through the installation of an additional on-site parking space, this is the result of meetings with an adjacent property owner who opposed this development not providing all the required physical parking spaces. The proposed landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent right- of-way to the east side of the property is only two feet (2') in width. The width of the landscape island is capable of supporting the hedge that is required to screen the vehicular use area from the right-of-way, however the provision of the required tree within the landscape island is not feasible, as the tree would only have two feet (2') of soil in which to take root. Further, the provision of a tree within the landscape island Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 7 would interfere with the Pink Tabebuia that is to be installed within the adjacent landscape node. The proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the vehicular use area on the west side of the property varies between two feet (2') and three feet (3') in width. The buffer, while deficient in size, will still contain the landscape materials necessary to screen the parking area from the adjacent property. In addition, a six foot high wood fence currently exists on the adjacent property to the west. Granting these waivers will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create an unsafe situation. Further, given the conditions under which the waivers are being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Landscape Plan Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and must be addressed prior to building permit submittal: 1. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(E)(1), xeriscape principals shall be utilized in landscape designs and installations. In small landscape areas adjacent to parking areas, ground cover shall be utilized instead of sod; 2. The proposed Red Tip Cocoplum hedge at the southeast corner of the property must be continued through the remainder of the landscape island so as to fully screen the adjacent vehicular use area; and, 3. The paver brick patio at the southwest corner of the building should be reconfigured so that additional landscape area is provided between the proposed hedge and the doorway to accommodate a required tree, and that the refuse containers are relocated to the north side of the doorway. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the modification of a previously approved parking area to increase the number of parking spaces provided from five (5) to six (6). The modification will further serve to reduce to number of in-lieu spaces necessary to meet onsite parking requirements. 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. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 8 B. Approve the COA, and the associated waiver requests, Class II site plan modification, and landscape plan for Management Systems, based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), subject to conditions. C. Deny approval of COA-2002-038 and the associated waiver requests, Class II site plan modification, and landscape plan for Management Systems, based upon a failure to make positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Waiver Requests: A. Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance along NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet- six inches (2'-6"), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); B. Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(a), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and NE 1st Avenue from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5); and, C. Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(d), to reduce the required landscape buffer between the vehicular use area and the adjacent western property from five feet (5') to two feet (2'), based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Site Plan: Approve the COA and associated Class II site plan modification for Management Systems, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; and, 2. That a light fixture be installed at the west end of the parking area and that a photometric plan in compliance with LDR Section 4.6.8 is provided. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Management Systems—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 9 Landscape Plan: Approve the COA and associated landscape plan for Management Systems, based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Landscape Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. That the Live Oaks are planted at a rate of one (1) tree every 25'; and, 3. That the proposed Alexander Palms within the landscape island adjacent to NE 1st Avenue are replaced with a Pink Tabebuia. Attachments: • Site Plan • Landscape Plan Staff Report Prepared by: Robert G. Tefft, Planner Silberstein Arch I t o c t M SRE STATISTICS n „ _ RTInHon,.veaoa"rn1r.kP':e sOn.JI"::o•".i.artOer�m]C�.Na,a R�re a a+�m.Faf a. AREA .a•e n ea E.. Dai.R%a aeesN.C. 2ND STREET ii.n... n•RRra.a.Apra +x.D sarE I7X Or SITE F 7a Sr� w DFAKING/PAVDARIA. ]a5o Or EEA Eo SPACE: osons ' xa '(I)4a VON SODIES \`""'" • -�x,R,W • TOTA PAR,MG SPACES REWIRED a TOTAL PARRc SPACES PROMO ON stt a w1 yp$" � 09i �4 e t 2;ga is:4741:E.R r P.L. 66'-0 A if 4,4 ,1 , —cam c. wb MN.n pPwMatt e�ot^Rew;�A: P 3 - \ \REC TPAC[SPROND GAEm RW D� {l y II MANAGEMENT ` o Is - I \ FI LLtt SYSTEMSSEDRL4lrSIRID \ SYSTEMS ACTUu SOUTH IC-0' DELRAY BEACH,FL I MEST Y_a-- ]-6 SE1B Ck ¢¢V eVlONL�2GIt1-. EY LA]'ALL CAR p "��, _ PLOWED LESS MAN SS'-0" ARIAL Er-S" i I la ID1l1MV4DL301.tL00G - S ;� PI" f [F%,SEML+STORY RRMENCEI �1.IIr vT� la OSSW.O"emu J Y QI 1 "� n mntt s tt LEGnL➢C521 122 • 2 II nOCK"61 owv Wro Miori(*011* R3Y w*1111*cmn1NG w 11 ' amrAt aN WI e w a TW me vua axEmar As RE D rAru, +a.vAa +. S(SHEET A.PUS=RECORDS Or PALM SUER COUNTY.PLORDA. Q j ' 1 5uND1RDJWDN1LSDDLS ° -,, 1 4T ° -„ \ CROUPASC-Dx7.E55 OCCUPANCY �•Lv ` .1. T _� _ _OCCTYPE � — DEC, �� to-3 PROJECT LOCATION $N CAN \ ' • _ 1..� ONO n ♦ j E iiil—_13 - ; O _ - ^G �C ) 1 � 1 I ii ri4 1 1 n? E ,�t� ORY=IN MAP :..• ,�...: c 1 Wad I :`r( k �> P.L. - CO 0 marl MOOD PINCE j"W,���-1,;R�a,.n+ll� � n I UTI.I �HnA r M,�rNGE REVISIONS �1 11 NR,n,'+I P AS/]R/]d,] LOCATION IMP NTS O N NOVEMI3FA II,2001 2 LDOGMTION MAP /Q c)SITEPLAN-ALTERNATE2STORYSCHEME A-1 1 `�' SCALE.lR'a 1,0' Dmwn by:DK C:WcNtectre ProlectlafresWanaptnRnsystenr.�RC11ATO nor LANDSCAPE DATA A A I WIMP LNCSCNE DATA rorAL aE AKA(.r...w+.•..•1 TS°3 9 JERRY TURNER TOTAL PART MOM liwur,.IPE ri•N.•1 T•Sr I AALCAAM NED & ASSOCIATES DTAL LN09NK MCA MM. T.Sr ____—_ _—_ _—_—_—___—_—_ _—__ ___ _-I.—__ ToTk w�"rtma"nT'"ais vMi.w"r`ao 3WWEIS IJVO/QM[100•000.0t N.E. 2ND STREET I awcTEP LNOSCAPS DATA UM 1.1.810 1108 OIYwOMIORAL 00181 R en if to 10 N1 0.AD1.D:M S O Q I 101AL PO 10 RpIIDOSC PE AKA Fe 3 10TN PENWTEP LNOTCNY AKA PROUIRD ..D 9 2➢ 1 MLR/]0 if WOWED AKA IAOMO[D b 4 O1A WW2.EO.RD .TNRS O��.IDIlOII�A�MsNL POW I IDEAL MES PADVDED .M[S E�.0�.-1NR C.NaM Ir1f00 S / I N ASC Or MOWED RP.(TE0:MEPOTP LANDSCAPE {nU fE10 zy / m a RNnmi M[N LANDSCAPE MO EPPG rs s o�MN�+ �Ml.�A WIn [. PLµ.WA SCOURED El 9 p01) r • PLANTED A T MOWED t03 9 .....C. I • 's¢ � J et Fence 1 .Amc RN.i DATA . r ` w:a NL.Lowm earsroEE lumt MANAGEMENT 1► _i n3aNLOM.RIMSat ALmtr.AT11L SYSTEMS a Tli C ^ 3s AR / I I_�_J T➢rN notate MET T ME5 ® '0 © - I,.,`�, OTAL 00111E MES IKOWCO MES ® ® +'�jr- Q TolAL.ATM MLs PPOLoEn a USES 0 1r� ® SA MUM aRA NO ODDUM CON.NCA TES 9 (� D �. ��j s 0 I NAME AMA MOWED TIE3 SA - ® �, ®® V - l -, 2 I PLANTING NOTES: quo 00, ��• N• n, ..__n"A .:...N......,„."..._...,.. O i e•b �.r..�i,e�, V Ofo°7D0ri`•• O•iio3 _ _�•1_J_— .w.••7 le I y1 E 1 ...... ..._N....•..•.•..•�. .41 ` i2.Q 0 © 1.. . n rose D ;_�... 1• IT I O z1 .....•bw..�'.Ur.."'wwtl«""". NM.Mr 4 .UR �r m �O •i �L > ..4++.tow Ant r.•....M..w �O BeDM.FL til o to _ .+,......N.....b..*Inn 1 'Gpen. ' ....n our Ana ww. 110.00 •I (DP sP IC t.i 4...11.St� ,.. T•.......°...1•..w.'.o. llikk Fo! ;J L: 000^oo'oo Ge;: f •'► r w 1........_. if?Il My .E/ 1 IV. ;IA Q ,/ 4 1 1 .Ni•...i" 'non n.:..p....me*•.......1eO...... PI // ICI'/ I 1 ® PLANT LIST of ,' 1 1 © WO PLAIN AWE OTT NT SP MOWS O ' 11014111P41110‘ I err e°i'a1c LxO.i. n ?.�ic w oR I , CN Dxe...Io Nt ; 1 rC S%..NM3. S 4-le N. ort0 R N•mU..Pon T 'mete lee. E.yting r 0 / I ro wPb o... 30 nr D me.•1.... •dt .tV / �eillicl. r • 11LACti R.....N. 5 mAr lmn •%8'>=CO'11%2/01 0� W R711 Fern 74. a o '�' "-T` Landscape C r wt rem r o• o ooc,000wll0004.e.o.o.0D.40110.040!).O-O.O!OP . ` lc. v_ Plan a II II 0 �z .E ND dt . 6 •sA� x3ntw� t L- 1 f u of 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Agent: Brian Russo Project: Winston Condos Location: 137 South Swinton Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design elements associated with a Class I site plan modification for the installation of windows, hurricane shutters, and a standing seam metal roof pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of the Winston Condominium Building (formerly lots 7 & 8, Block 70, Town of Delray). The property contains 0.30 acres and a non-contributing, masonry vernacular building constructed in 1980 as an eight unit apartment building. The property is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). The most recent Board action which relates to this property occurred at the HPB meeting of September 5, 2001 where a COA and associated Class IV site plan modification, landscape plan, and design elements was approved for the conversion of the multi-family structure to a two-story office building. The project was never undertaken. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS Project Description: The development proposal is to retain all eight units for residential use and install a standing seam metal roof to replace the existing asphalt shingle roof. In addition, the proposal calls for the installation of new 1/1 single hung sash, aluminum framed windows. As the windows are not to code for impact resistance, the owner is required to install storm panels on the structure. A change in paint colors from its current cream and yellow to the previously approved colors of Lemon Kiss (yellow), Soami Tan (pale orange), and Moonstone (gray) will also be completed as part of the facade improvements. The proposed storm panels consist of corrugated metal panels that will be bolted directly to the structure upon the approach of a storm and stored when not in use. The shutters will measure a maximum of 12' in height and will be retrofitted to each window and door as required. Agenda Meeting Date: April 17, 2002 Item: III.C. 137 S. Swinton Avenue, Roof,windows, &storm panels Old School Square Historic District Page 2 Design Elements Analysis: LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (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. The elevations approved for the conversion to office consisted of the same roofing material and windows, however it included additional architectural elements such as decorative lighting, modern hand rails for the stairways, and new stucco. Additional landscaping was also proposed. The reason for retaining the residential units and eliminating the architectural elements relates to cost and a need for immediate occupancy of the units. While the proposed elevations are an improvement to the existing structure, the applicant should consider retaining some of the architectural elements that were previously approved, particularly those that do not involve major structural changes. Landscaping The proposal must meet the minimum landscape requirements per LDR Section 4.6.16, prior to the approval of the COA and to the issuance of the building permit. This review can be done administratively. Conclusion As the residential structure is modern in design and age, a masonry vernacular structure constructed in 1980, and non-contributing, the installation of a new standing seam metal roof, 1/1 SHS aluminum frame windows, and corrugated metal storm panels will neither be invasive to the fabric of the building nor will their use be disruptive to the character of the historic district. Based on the analysis above, a positive finding with respect to LDR 4.5.1 can be made for the installation of the new roof, windows, and storm panels. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for elevation changes to a non-contributing building associated with a Class I Site Plan Modification for 137 South Swinton Avenue, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines with the following condition: 137 S. Swinton Avenue, Roof, windows, &storm panels Old School Square Historic District Page 3 1) That the originally proposed tile inlay be included in the current façade improvements. Attachments: Elevations, Previously approved site plan & elevations, & Specs Report Prepared by: Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner WIDTH UNLIMITED (PERPENDICULAR TO 2.00" . — PANEL SPAN) 17/64` TYP. 1 • TYPICAL SECTIONS —� 1/:..0 TYP. ' - 0p:-0 '.. f • • O • O . 0• 00••0 , '- . . . .-� 3/3 ' TYP. 0• 0 • �' i wQ U• 000 •0 r . PLAN m~ 0' 00 •O I ' VIEW o Qp ` O. oO •0 _ I f V ' F'E ,\p 00 •c0.,/ -I• II 1 1 w0 0• - J= u Dfx 00 �}T L' W �'" E uQ W z J V Z►- Q CC ?rOj in1 0441.1 _ _ SOLID PANEL ELEVATION PE SCALE: 1/4" = V - 0" SC 2.00" 4.50" f / , 2.00" ,r 2.00" LABEL LABEL . LOCATION LOCATIO� 50 � �8 ' 0' 2.00 1, d.00 J:00 .I 2.00" I • 1 12.00" COVERAGE I / 12.00" COVERAGE / 13.75" 14.75` ®STORM PANEL ®STORM PANEL SCALE: 3` = V - 0" SCALE: 3" = V - 0" 1/4-20 STUD • 1/4-20 STUD x3/4" ® 12" O.C. x3/4" @12" O.C. OPTIONAL LEG 625" 374" y} 1 n DIRECTION 't— - c \ j:6 125" 125 .: " TYP. TYP. 11.00" I I 1.00" MIN. I 12.00" I OPTIONAL LEG / 2.1 5.00" MAX. DIRECTION - ..X?? ®SLIDE STRAP DANGLE ®STUD ANGLE O"F" TRACK ®"P' ANG SCALE: HALF SIZE SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE: 3• 4. 2.275" . 2.40" 2.275" . I '� 685" • o .100" �` o .100" 100" 107" ii'.285" .10 c TYP. m m o TYP. m • TYP. m � I o o ;\ m ;> > �..� ::: - .077'l "'t2.125" 250" "J L-.260".090"— A., 2.00" .250" 250.. j, 2.00" dr \Li2 "h" HEADER 3 "h" HEADER 14 "U" HEADER 6--- RECESS TRACK _6 SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE: 3" = V - 0" SCALE : HALF SIZE • • I- 53.425 I ITEM DESCRIPTION V.T. 4' OTY. / LOCATION VENDOR VENDOR /I MAX. 19 FLANOfo RAU H 0 r ' J 6,. 2 P Al UMA A _fi J rLI LANG£D FRAME S/ILIi um. 606J-LMIIMinki •I P27 2 ALlll1AX Ai-I 226 • - 1'�'IY Li 4JJ f 1!<ALIm. j 61 ; I UAIAx A I 41'H 0' RA1 AG m. 6ed 'I 6121 . 1 ALUAIAX _1 ?Q __6 SASH OTTOU RAI Al m :1:)-T51 6122J0 I ALI�X AF-122. �j 7 Srl.21r SID PAIL Alum. 606.1-T51 61'.2.31 AI.UUAX AF-121_ �- �r;��:717T ALUJJ4 '-12131 D -FI IN nII AIuM, b�.�- 0!rl� A`UN.)X A!-3113� SSLATHER) I ld YI, U[ 4 B 1 per Glazing /cc41--"/AU P1!ASTIC£ -T � a , I/ 3,L 8 51 W MONSANTO INTER YER 17?999C MP-TORN/NO 899 I-+ 1`2 5'16 (35 OUPONT INTE LAY H PG H.P. ( - ! ( 750 PHIL. PH. HO. 7o56PFA� Hach Balances to mb A FASTENERS 14 51:7:EP LATCH ? t t. rum *no of Vest lop rod UINLATURE DIE CA$TiNG FGT.214.XX N 4 __1 width is >= 42) m 15 6 x .625 PHIL ELT. 110. 7858N'Iv 2 Sweep Latch Screws} MER[1UNIS FASTENER4 when „sins 2 Swap Ln(cf.$) • r 16 J.Y,.`,ICLOAD ADAPTER (Atom. 6063-75) 612236 2 O frame jambs, •,1''j 4A a ..375 PHIL. P.H. rfK 7 Xl PH 0�Iron boll A LAM .f_-1?2;ti _ �. L�lwrndl 4.1"Water (14'S MERCHANTS FASTENER 1-+ 1, 1A'(ATH R^ra_P VINYL 61118\SA$H _ 61-P249K / cot Van! B9pftom Rail) .TEAM PLASTICS TA-T49 d ._ 1 SAR!TOP QUID 2'(1 per each bolonc.) A},1$YER rod. j 0--I ,IA(ANC£COL ER Ic by/ancel WYOQPGWin GH.\PGf SIAVc ? �A`ANCQ 2 J;or ea h 2 1 eocn home Jamb) C.LLON•ELL '— -I 7c OGO " le-.1t,1(R�rPIP - f1L4\FIN, A d t jambs A wnf too rag} NL€G.L C.5 . F$7.�'_r6-Idf_ B.000 2 g `�L 610E"W 3 Oen $ _� I-I A'AX. 4 $c.�. H FACE GUIDE 71083r2 Tent jamb. 2.5"from bcl.) Y 7$CH.CFG�- } - _ _ - _ 15 /d�a .500 PHIL. FLr. HO TMX12FPAW(sash lac4 ulcle screws)-- SCH. R INC). PROD. fib'-SA:H 5T0? (Hum. 6)6J-T51 of ? Y 0 :'t..;,;ik•!,;I I 5 44 4 CF lea of each Irene icln;) IlLI iX AF-11144 UC" 4"�+Y )�+i9F 27 f'i1r I 1 0 PHIL P.H. US 7SX,PFA 4 Frama * Vent Al3V. Sagw3) -11t RCHAIJ�9` F.7 ThAc01 %� .5l $p.,,k 650155W SCNNE£/3REHE.. $U5504 -1 19 Vrv010A0 ADAPTER(PJ`tSTlC) 61207 2 O Home ambs, JD iron boll PA f PE T1 F-i • U 0. i . 01/1)- vENr SIZE; so r/2' 38 1/4" I • 3 1/6' ON CENTE)! 2 2 APPROYEU AS rANPLYINJ WIIN Mt .. I` .-- .. ..... .. .. .. , ... ..`_ ._ 6" SOUIN fL4tIM YUILOIryO COLt ad(Oct t)lait. . 19N. AD fN000Cf CONt)OL fllY!SIOII i `= ` 0/4- I h 13.000—I ELEVATION Mu ON(WENIIVIlUWO CODE COMItINICI OFFICEA no. ,.ems&Ste ACCETtARCC NO.1B-O223.0i 03 • 0 I 1,11 LARGE dUSSLE I'.r ACj W1110014'$ I-, _ m I.)CU:ta:. !or(lea)L4NNAlTb w/pvafar NILMAo(R ar.n:ena• • 19 2.)caolcuRArw`N; cx j (�1 plagrass;Ye Iecrnt)oy) , J)DtSA:r,PRCsaI',SC AALSI.C. (.I .+. w µ a.. r u +v .+40 P.S.F.• -SO PSI.1ANCFE MA1(R Y1nL1RArl0H FED. IS Ilan NEMCO.) Ndlr%d: {grwbsalw: Prue.Cal( ♦i)PST„ -4J PSr (1+11(R(WHIR PMlM.A1WN RCJ. IS h'[[CEO) � SH aar )1r41/ure+01 II NM $ 1' i a 4 M/Y 5 J/a'IRCW EACH C[KN(A THUG h Sll) ie,W l+ a o,t;l:pl,,,,,: MAY II'SPACING ING AlM ((Fv(F(lau,r5) / �•�' SH-70 I ALUhf. SINGLE HUNG WINDOW AMCSPACc I N[Ap Y Srl: IJOCO RMlra ty: _2/9/93 .;l�. 'HZ SPA{v+a Al a+vae IJ 125 //D /,� O.B. 8/18/98 3)too solsR itcas Ii tmeNr Otvcf 55Cm.na.: P.O. BOX )S?_9 •nM up.r r•.: fq SHUR[AS AEOL'R[0 s:or A,arue: N:e. N.T.S. NOKOMIS, FL. 34274 I Q ' 4040 r A •N D R In I m --2 731--- 53.125 ROUGH ID OPEN L 49.62563 50l -' 1.123 -- • DAYLIGHT OPENING 7 3 W `_` r—+ "� ' I EXTERIOR (no) 737-� . l-- •- � I r • INACTIVEILIA ROUGH h,�`� r •� LL T% '2 , OPEPIING �_j;�J , J P.G T. i 2.71 J �l' m 1 112 14.4 + �'_ i'tl Will- ROUGH m 34.500 OPENING DAYLIGHT ® O • OPENING 13 �, m INTERIOR ►� IS a 0m ( aa.2so • H `, 8 DAYLIGHT OPENING Z d O ••y --Fr- A f D • HORIZONTAL SECTION rq in • :‘,..o 1'14. . 1:::,,bej -------03 . • • a?? ' 31.SOD APPROVED AS MIMING Will) THE O NI OP ACTIVE ENT BOOM rIODIDA BUHOm CODE OPENING DAIS 09 064 A.Z.19.9et o/Ii1`13�..Gl,a„dti WA S PROMCoYr(OI DIU O<I i t7 Mill OiHG CODE COltiMiCE Dr/1CP I � .CCfPI.ancr no 98-Q Z pl m : I .i I is—t,1CP / I VERTICAL SECTION 'l�'pQ �p Ii l 2.330 a..,u ._ m � 'progressive aASSlethnalay? m lWlrrld: porrdwolron rod Col SrnrrAreJfe Now fMrf. �l � �� Jrfe„a,: n,H. 2%9/98 real • S "{ 70 I SECT. 2 a 4 �• 655I UINTERIOR 1��% Rf.•rrJ dy O popr:I'O/91� CROSS SECTIONS 1.r�_j6.R1�/l RJ 4H Id \7) O!/ U tJ PPt:r:rc w^'°• : kris: Narrr P.G. 80X 1529 s:r. ar•+r Na: Prr.: _ __zAsa N.T.5 NOKO IS, FL. 34274 Q 40 0 A • til -0 3) AI En m Coco+Coco ................”.... .11 1::Ii.1117a1 r.o r .....S....reSiia.oe. IETA MOS TAU METAL&COMIC.TO. oell I I I 0 I (III II I 1 1 I II ILNANI RAM IINANI Oka al ,ifi Iiii III ifi ,1:11 IEV1 ,E01 DEM STAR MAE EP. NEW AIN&PASS COLON.RP.. TRW STUCCO&PALM!.TAP, 1, I • IM MI M MI MI 1/1 I IMI FMI I i Ell, a n 13 ,, LAMM MAMT Luca t MAIM I ,,, . ., ire ei 10 01 NORTH ELEVATION _ SCAIE.I r•14. ' I IlEY I I LS 11111=1) =11- 11 III W M n r- e- o- SECOND FLOOR PLAN-PROPOSED -,.._ e-- ULM SCONE IIP r-,-- SCAIE:15.•I 01 c....,..- r.- < 1 EIEDI NE&VA &CUSS pi 1 EllEl' i- --t&N STUCCO&P MIT,PIP. ANDO&PIP Milli I III I j 0 6 , , r DUE ? ,-.____M 1 It Is,1 g 3 . z im 11---- a cn 0 ,11.'JUT STUN!,,,,,--I = 5 ......, 6 EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION = .3 0 MANI DAN! IINAIll MIIAII scALE. 111.1.-01 SCALE I r•1.-cr (/) a'. r— KIM 1—. LAYAIDRCY1' DIAVAIIIII 2 IAVAIVIT LAYAIOA/ L_Io ol o o au, .,. ...,,,,. .. • N R 1) .r1 ' [II 1 I i 11111 , ] I ' . 1 Ililli; I 1.9,.... 1-1771 7F-prr-'.1."7-rd..!- , Hii--, i Fil'17 i HI 1 , I I I • . F _ __ tool.. GROUND FLOOR PLAN-PROPOSED .,--::: _—-,3_,-='-._ ' ' - ollool Iola SCAM ur•Ill ._[FT_—RH _EDLEH __ l _ ,. _,_ - • ,i.. I,L.-2,..]. MA GUARDRAIL PP.--- —NEW VULVA&CUSS DE.TIP. NEW PM PIP. -- —NEW ALUM&(LASS"Mk flP. lob ghost!We SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:I SI•1.01 o olleat , A- 1 ..., . .. . .. . . COCO+COCO Ler OVA CALCUIL0CNS CROUNOOFLq R OFe 10 S RUU RE 1ER.11;Of SCE 101. q ARE IELT,1Ox Or SRC OvNRICRAKRRARIAt0203 NOTATE IE.,92 Or SIZE r......r',::5:7.,... um(tAND,CAPED)W SONO.nu. t,re snE 1'10.7_OCw:nL6,tu5_L*CLLv111Is usE.-cr1¢u c.uwAnD AL oq FEA'"-}1.00m SPACE PARnlxn ovncl_:rAS 11It t _ PACE Nat 11 AS 1xx nxF-IIUE OCxU, 00 SPACES 11r0UiR1OLO 'meal PAPSL•IO_.'.1'KE9_CMNOLR; IS:RACES PIULR Or1%E• SAACE9PPI�I0.9WIt1 0 C1t09 NJ.zxIC AI'RUMEN,...v../AIACCxI PROPER. 70 ELIO... I00111:13 FEL9 111 11LO],.Sn'PP00010 AS PEA ENISIWC ORIO SCE:)S IFET 11E IREO.IS IIEI POWDER A,I.1 GI311NO REM.10 ILE9 RICO.,9C ow..m u.,A9 PLn DI51An1p'ER[v15n,IC ROTC 118 a O 0 WW'� ' __ inn 1n'111't I11 n,' nC IL III II IA I ,,,,,„,1„IIIOx/N,NNA III AAx1 VI I.s IC AC Wit,1111CAL I11 I I > 01 III ( II f III 6 r sR 1\1V-I a f�027 ,9, 7i�n� --a I(V: -NA.III 11,;F;; PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE$ �u m (L Nt9> tf O w { ++ 1. 89 Z z8 0/ rm... — � �� ~ N g. a es Is o ch w z ,o ,00 ' 1 O. 1--' 3 l / � \•,������ � - 1 dots dsKrlPu,. es. LPl ------ f lSI IOCANOrI _� `, EMI CORO ANd'\ rild'IZ TRAIN 3103 CO NC. RELOCATE[x SIO PnA IRE LINE F.1sxx UI. Ax 1ux0 MANE .- W - ;woo R rum P101 n10 ASPIULF-- f mblooA aN.Sxi1I0O IN ERIS1.IO LOCATIONS_.. °I al r11.n1 Inle a I, LASTING R(11 AT. ACE, IPh 01> Fx S,:4O MIRI SIOP I , I sheet Illle . . . _.- _ --.. .heel 11 nn loitrt 1.31 10 C0x101000,SCPF Er110 IL•OR10 0 ARNCCIO PIpP3RIR C _ 1 SITE PLAN SCALE:1••10-0'