Loading...
HPB-12-18-02 12/18/02 SIGN IN 1IIP� 1993 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting of DECEMBER 18, 2002 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ORGANIZATION ITEM _K0I%)S o � 1i1 tf ! J `` •`^ / 5 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: December 18, 2002 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 6:00 P.M. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Lou Jamison, Gail Lee McDermott, Gloria Elliott, Rhonda Sexton, Jim Keavney, Bill Branning, Francisco Perez-Azua. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Shay, Scott Aronson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 18, 2002 were before the Board for consideration. Ms. McDermott moved to approve the minutes as presented. Br. Branning requested that a change of color for the door on the Colony Hotel must be brought back before the Board. Ms. McDermott amended her motion to include the issue of the color of the doors of the Colony Hotel. The motion was seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7-0. III. MOTION TO AMEND AGENDA It was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7-0 to move Mariposa, 48 SE 1st Avenue to the beginning of the Certificate of Appropriateness agenda. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS Ms. Jamison, Chairperson, read the Quasi-Judicial Rules into record and swore in all those wishing to speak. A. Mariposa, 48 SE 1ST Avenue, OSSHAD District, Charles Rhein, Authorized Agent- Action Before the Board: The action before the Board is to approve a COA-2002-111 and associated Class IV Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements, Sign and waivers for Mariposa, 48 SE 1st Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F). Ms. Shay entered into the record the application and her resume. Mr. Charles Rhein was present to represent the project. Mr. Rhein addressed his concern regarding the condition of approval to bury the utility lines. Further, he requested the retention of the existing metal awnings. Staff confirmed that burying the lines is a requirement of new site plans as required in the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Branning expressed his concern over the slope of the retaining area. The Board expressed its concern over the dimensions and design of the monument sign for the building. Ms. Shay recommended a reduction of the sign by one foot on both the width and height. Ms. McDermott expressed her concern over the location with respect to visibility at the corner of the property. She agreed that retention of the awnings is appropriate though the colors should be toned down. Waivers After much discussion, it was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Mr. Perez and passed 7-0 to approve the waiver from LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), to allow parking on the south and east sides of the building, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). It was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Mr. Keavney and failed 1-6 (Keavney supporting) to approve the waiver from LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2) to reduce the site visibility triangle from 40' to 10' at the intersection of SE 1st Street and SE 1st Avenue, based on positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), subject to written confirmation from the City Engineer. Site Plan It was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Ms. McDermott and passed 7-0 to approve the COA and associated Class IV site plan -2- HPB Minutes 12/18/02 modification for Mariposa based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1) Address all Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2) That the use of the property comply with LDR Section 4.4.24(c)(2) regarding the accessory use of the property or a conditional use application be submitted. 3) That the off-site parking agreement be dissolved. 4) That the asphalt driveway to the canopy on the south side of the property be removed and converted to landscape area. 5) That the photometric plan is revised to conform to the illumination standards, provide an elevation detail of the light poles and fixtures with a maximum height of 25' and that they be residential/decorative in character. 6) That the planter at the west end of the parking tier is eliminated or the perimeter landscape area reduced (five-foot minimum) and the parking spaces on the north side of the parking tier shifted to the east in order to provide the required maneuvering area. 7) That an enclosure be created on the west side of the building, north of the staircase with a six-foot high vision obscuring enclosure for refuse containers to screen it from the property to the west. 8) That a $6,000 in-lieu parking fee be remitted prior to issuance of a building permit and that parallel parking is installed along SE 1st Street per LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e). 9) That the dry retention area be limited to a depth of one foot and any addition requirements be provided with the installation of a French drain. Landscape Plan It was moved by Mr. Perez, seconded by Ms. McDermott and passed 7-0 to approve the proposed Landscape Plan, based upon -3- HPB Minutes 12/18/02 positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1) That the swale be eliminated or limited to one foot. Design Elements It was moved by Mr. Branning, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 7-0 to approve the proposed elevation changes for Mariposa, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the building and awnings be painted a color scheme in accordance with the approved charted colors or be brought back before the Board. 2) That the sign be re-submitted to the Board for review and approval. 3) That a detail of any proposed window be submitted to Staff fro review and approval. At this time, Mr. Branning left for the evening. V. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Bus Shelters Scott Aronson, Delray Beach Parking Specialist, presented five designs proposed for the City's future bus shelters. He described the project including deadlines for grant applications and the internal review process by City Boards and Committees who would be affected by the installation of the shelters. Mr. Aronson requested a recommendation by the Board regarding the five proposed designs. It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6-0 that the Board preferred design "E" as the first choice, design "D" as second, design "C" as third, design "B" as fourth, and then "A" as the fifth and least desirable choice. It was moved by Ms. McDermott, seconded by Ms. Sexton and passed 6-0 to accept the teal and rawhide color scheme as presented by Mr. Aronson. -4- HPB Minutes 12/18/02 VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Jamison requested clarification of the survey information. D. Staff: Ms. Shay expanded on information regarding the improvement on the Atlantic Avenue Bridge. Ms. Shay requested participation by the Board for the 2004 Florida Trust Annual Meeting in Delray Beach. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for December 18, 2002, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on May 21, 2003. If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. -5- HPB Minutes 12/18/02 ``,�.4 c� AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING 46 *1' CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: December 18, 2002 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • November 18, 2002 III. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Bus Shelters IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Mariposa, 48 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Charles Rhein, Authorized Agent. Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with a Class IV Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the conversion of an Adult Living Facility to an Office. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VI. ADJOURN \\ \' 1:\ I:1 I !- Wendy Shay, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: December 13, 2002 ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is approval of a COA-2002-111, which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Mariposa, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): ❑ Class IV Site Plan Modification; ❑ Landscape Plan; Cl Architectural Elevations; and, The subject property is located at the northwest corner of SE 1st Street and SE 1st Avenue (48 SE 1st Avenue). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of the south 75' of Lots 16, 17 and 18, Block 69 of the Subdivision of Block 69. The 0.26 acre property contains an existing two-story non- contributing 4,107 square foot building built in 1955. The property is located in the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district. At its meeting of July 10, 1984, the City Commission approved a conditional use application for an Adult Living Facility for Mariposa subject to conditions including that a lease agreement and stabilized sod parking spaces be provided off-site on the adjacent property to the north. An off-site parking agreement was executed to allow nine sod parking spaces on the adjacent property. A site plan application has been submitted to convert the subject property from an Adult Living Facility to a mixed-use office and residential development and is now before the Board for action. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal incorporates the following: • Reconfiguration of the existing floor area (3,795 square feet total) to provide 1,924 square feet of office area in the east portion of the building and a two-story 1,871 square foot two-story residential unit (five bedrooms) in the west side of the building; • Conversion of the bedroom at the southwest corner of the structure to a garage for the residential unit; • Reconfiguration of the parking area on the east side of the building to provide four parking spaces; and, • Installation of associated landscaping and "paverlock" sidewalk and patio. The site plan application includes waiver requests to the following sections of the City's Land Development Regulations: 1. LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), which requires that parking be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to an alley and that parking not be located between any street and the closest building or structure. HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 2 2. LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2) to reduce the site visibility triangle from 40' to 10' at the intersection of SE 1st Street and SE 1st Avenue. 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 proposal involves an existing structure with no additions that would affect setbacks or lot coverage. The following table indicates that the proposal complies with the applicable requirement of LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the OSSHAD zone district: Standard_, Provided Open Space 25% 48% LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) Regulations: Accessory Uses: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2), on a parcel that has as its principal use a non- residential use, there may be one single family residence, either within a separate structure or within a structure housing a non-residential use, provided that one of the situations exists: (a) The residence is occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of a business enterprise conducted on the property; or, (b) The business is owned, or operated, by the owner of the parcel; or, (c) The residence is occupied by the owner of the parcel. The owners of the property have indicated that they will occupy the office portion of the structure for their business. Therefore, the property will comply with the second option of the accessory use requirements. It is noted that pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(D)(1) and (2), the existence of more than one residential unit on a parcel upon which there is a mixed-use (residential and non-residential usage) and residential use which occurs other than as provided in LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2) requires conditional use approval. A condition of approval is attached that the development must comply with LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2) regarding the accessory use/residential component of the property, unless conditional use approval is obtained. HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 3 Front and Side Yard Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), all parking, except for single family homes and duplexes, shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Where there are existing buildings or structures, the Historic Preservation Board may waive this requirement during the site plan review process, provided that it is determined that compliance is not feasible and that the character of the area will be maintained. If approved, such parking shall be substantially screened from off-premises by a hedge or decorative fencing. There are two existing and two proposed parking spaces on the east side of the building adjacent to SE 1st Avenue and back-out parking spaces on the south side of the building adjacent to SE 1st Street. The applicant has submitted a waiver request to allow parking along the south and east sides of the property. 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. These existing spaces were previously approved and therefore nonconforming since they would no longer be allowed. The addition of two spaces on the east side of the property is appropriate. The back-out parking for the single residence is also appropriate. The parking required for the residence is accommodated within the garage and the adjacent driveway. However, the existing asphalt drive adjacent to the covered patio is not necessary for the residence and is not permitted for the non-residential use as vehicles should enter and exit the site in a forward manner. Furthermore, the driveway in front of the covered patio/carport does not meet the minimum dimensional (9' by 18') requirement for a parking space. The removal of this space would eliminate one of the nonconforming back-out parking spaces along SE 1st Street and improve the vehicular safety along this collector road. Thus, a waiver to allow parking in the front and side yards is appropriate provided the driveway adjacent to the covered patio is eliminated and converted to landscape area, which is attached as a condition of approval. Because the parking is existing and the aesthetic issue of allowing parking in these areas will not be exacerbated by the proposed conversion, the proposed waiver can be supportable. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be made. HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 4 Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(4)(a), all non-residential uses with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 square feet of total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 square feet of total floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and non-residential use in the same structure. Based on this, the non- residential portion of the use (1,924 square feet) must provide 4.81 parking spaces. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(c), the residential unit must provide 2.5 parking spaces for a total of eight required parking spaces for the mixed-use development. It is noted that the parking calculation is based on one residential unit, which is allowed as an accessory use to the principal use as previously discussed in this report. Any modifications to include additional unit(s) would increase in the number of required parking spaces and would require conditional use and site plan modification approval. LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(5) states that within the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) when 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 a space to utilize City parking [REF: Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(3) — Area 3: Parcels located within the OSSHAD zoning district]. The one deficient parking space will require the in-lieu payment of $6,000. In addition to the above, LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e) states that where adequate right-of-way exists adjacent to a proposed project for which an in-lieu parking fee has been approved, the applicant must construct additional on-street parking, not to exceed the total amount of spaces subject to in-lieu fees unless authorized by the City Commission. The total in-lieu fee due shall be reduced by an amount equal to the actual construction costs, but in no event to exceed total in-lieu fees, for these on-street spaces including street lighting. Additional credit, not to exceed 10% of the total fee, may be taken for the actual construction costs of approved streetscape beautification elements in the public right-of-way. Beautification improvements may include, but are not limited to, paverbrick walkways, street furniture and landscaping. Neither credit for construction for construction of on-street spaces, nor credit for construction of beautification elements shall be reimbursed until such construction has been fully completed. The Parking Management Advisory Board will review the in-lieu parking fee request one parking space ($6,000) at its meeting on December 17, 2002. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the HPB and City Commission. With the conversion of the property to a mixed-use development, adequate parking can be provided on the site. Based upon the above, the proposed conversion complies with the parking requirements as seven parking spaces are provided (four off-street spaces, one garage and two back-out spaces) and one in-lieu space. Off-Site Parking Agreement: As noted in the background section, an off-site parking agreement was executed to allow the establishment and utilization of 9 stabilized sod parking spaces on the adjacent property to the north. Since the required parking can be accommodated on the property with an in-lieu HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 5 payment for one space, the off site parking agreement should be dissolved and is attached as a condition of approval. Special District Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(H)(1), residential uses within a structure containing permitted non-residential use(s) shall not use more than 50% of the gross floor area of the structure within which they are located. The proposed conversion complies with this requirement as the residential floor area (1,871 square feet) is 49.3% of the gross floor area of the building (3,795 square feet). LDR Chapter 4.6 Supplementary District Regulations: Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(B)(3)(c), the maximum illumination for local merchant or neighborhood shopping centers is 2.5 foot candles. Given the location of the property with respect to the adjacent residential properties, this requirement should be the standard utilized for illumination. The proposed photometric plan indicates that a maximum of 5.1 foot candles will be provided. This illumination will be provided via two pole mounted light fixtures. Furthermore, the maximum height of the light poles and fixtures cannot exceed 25'. The photometric plan does not provide an elevation detail of the light poles in order to determine compliance with this requirement. Given the mixed-use nature of the development decorative light fixtures and poles should be provided to compliment the residential character and use of the property. Therefore, a condition of approval is attached that the photometric be revised to conform to the illumination standards, provide an elevation of the light poles and fixtures with a maximum height of 25' and that they be residential in character. Maneuvering Area: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), dead-end parking bays are discouraged, but when site conditions dictate that there be dead-end parking bays, they shall be designed so that there is a 24' wide by a 6' deep maneuvering area at the end of the bay. This maneuvering area shall not encroach upon required landscape areas. This required maneuvering area is required for the existing parking tier along the east side of the property. The existing planter encroaches into this required maneuvering area for the handicap parking space. The maneuvering area can be provided by eliminating the planter or the perimeter landscape area reduced (five-foot minimum) and the parking spaces on the north side of the parking tier shifted to the east and is attached as a condition of approval Other Items: Dumpsters and Recycling: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(C)(1), dumpsters, recycling containers, and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sides and vision obscuring gates on the fourth side, unless such areas are not visible from any adjacent public right-of-way. The applicant proposes to install a six-foot high wood fence along the north side of the property and north of the office HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 6 to create an enclosure for trash and recycling bins that will screen visibility from SE 1st Avenue and from the adjacent property to the north. The trash and recycling facility for the residence is proposed in the garage. These bins will encroach into the required nine-foot wide by 18'-deep parking space. An enclosure should be created on the west side of the building, north of the staircase with a six-foot high enclosure to screen it from the property to the west and is attached as a condition of approval. Signage: Typically the review of signage for code compliance is conducted as part of the sign permit application. However, the applicant has submitted sufficient information for a free standing sign at the intersection of SE 1st Avenue and SE 1st Street to include an analysis of the sign as part of the site plan modification review. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(a), the setback for a free standing sign shall be ten feet 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. The proposed monument free standing sign is located five feet from SE 1st Avenue and SE 1st Street. The proposed sign is five feet high and five feet wide and contains 12.5 square feet of sign area. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(d), when considered as a part of a sit plan approval, or modification to a site plan, a sign may be located totally within the ten foot setback provided that the sign not exceed seven feet in height and the sign are is less than 20 square feet. Based on the above, the proposed sign location and size are allowed as requested. However, pursuant to Section 4.6.7(G)(3)(e), whenever consideration is given to locating a sign within a special setback or the standard ten foot setback area, the granting body must determine that the location of the sign does not present a hazard_to pedestrians or to vehicular traffic circulation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), visibility triangles are established at the intersection of two public rights-of-way being 40' in length along the right-of-way lines and the third side being a line that connects both ends., Within this area all landscaping shall provide unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between three feet and six feet. While this standard is applied to landscaping it is a guideline that can be used for determining safe sight lines for signage. The applicant has submitted a waiver request to allow the freestanding sign within the required visibility triangle. Waiver Analysis: (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 Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 7 The proposed sight visibility triangle at the intersection of SE 1st Avenue and SE 1st Street is approximately 10' given the location of the sign. The Engineering Division has reviewed the location of the monument sign and has found it acceptable in that a pedestrian or vehicular safety concern should not be created with the sign location. However, there may be some concern with sight visibility due to the installation of required parallel parking on SE 1st Street, which contains two eastbound lanes (one-way) and the proximity of the travel lanes to the sign location. If the Board feels that there is a safety concern, it is recommended that the sign either be moved to the west along SE 1st Street out of the 40' visibility triangle or the sign reduced to a maximum height of the three feet. Prior to the Board meeting a formal recommendation by the City Engineer will be obtained. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be made subject to written confirmation by the City Engineer. Technical Items: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and will need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. That a note is provided on the site plan that indicates that all utility facilities that serve the property will be placed underground. 2. That a recorded unity-of-title is provided prior to an issuance of building permit. 3. That the office bathroom is handicap accessible in accordance with direction by the Chief Building Official. 4. That the fire rated wall is extended to fully separate the residential use from the office use in accordance with direction by the Chief Building Official. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS A landscape plan been submitted and evaluated by the City Horticulturalist. The landscape plans provides perimeter landscaping consisting of Pidgeon Plum trees, Silver Buttonwood trees, Gumbo Limbo trees, and Adonidia palms with Blue Plumbago, Juniper, Green Cocoplum, and annuals underplantings and hedging in addition to building foundation and interior landscape areas. The City Horticulturalist found that the proposed landscape plan complies with the City's Land Development Regulations (Section 4.6.16). DESIGN ELEMENTS Building: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(4), (E)(7), and (E)(8)(c), (E)(8)(d), (E)(8)(f), and (E)(8)(g), "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating alterations or additions of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 8 A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible including but not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color, proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids, and rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections. Constructed in 1955, the masonry vernacular building is considered non-contributing based on age. The existing building lacks character and has minimal defining qualities. The only proposed exterior improvement is to accommodate the staircase for the residence, which will be compatible with the structure. The existing color of the building is a bold yellow and purple and was painted without obtaining Board approval. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and City staff has suggested several improvements that would upgrade the appearance of the building: (1) That door and window trims as well as, shutters and decorative treatments should be provided for the office portion of the building on the south and east elevations, which face the public rights-of-way. (2) That the jalousie doors and windows be replaced with multi-panel doors and windows. (3) The metal awning and support columns on the east elevation should be replaced with a decorative roof structure and columns. (4) That the building should be repainted in a color scheme that is consistent with the Historical Preservation Board's suggested colors. The applicant has stated that the jalousie door on the east side of the building will be replaced with a six-panel door and the jalousie windows will be replaced with multi-pane single hung windows. Additional architectural treatment such as shutters and window trims should also be provided. Consideration should be given to replacing the metal awning. It is also recommended that the Board consider the existing color scheme of the building and require that the building be repainted in a color scheme that is consistent with the Board's suggested colors and is attached as a condition of approval. Signage: Pursuant LDR Section 4.6.7(H)(2), 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 HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 9 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 considerations must be met. 1. Scale: The scale of the sign must be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be placed or painted and the neighborhood in which it is located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of subsection (G) with respect to height and area. 2. Garishness: The overall effect of the configuration or 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. 3. Conflict: The colors of a sign shall not conflict with other signs already on the building or in the immediate vicinity. The proposed monument sign is five feet high by five feet wide. The sign will have a light stucco finish and will be painted Pastel Peach, which appears to match the trim of the principal structure. The sign will have horizontal bands at the top and middle. The letters and address numbers will be internally illuminated and will be violet. The proposed sign is rather plain with little aesthetic appeal and no relation to the residential architecture of the principal building. Previously, the Board directed that signage for converted residential buildings be reduced in massing in relation to the extant building and that architectural design elements be incorporated to obtain consistency with the scale and character of the site. Ground lighting could be used to illuminate the sign. The proposed internally illuminated monument sign is too commercial in character and is not in the same scale as the historic neighborhood. A condition of approval is attached that the proposed sign be reduced by 50% in height and width and that a non-internally lit sign be provided utilizing a wood simulated polyurethane material. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following areas: Section 3.1.1 (A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of OMU (Other Mixed Use) and is zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). The OSSHAD zone district is consistent with .the OMU Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(2), business, professional, and government offices are permitted uses in the OSSHAD zone district. As noted previously, per LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2), one single family residence either within a separate structure or within a structure housing a non- residential use is allowed as an accessory use. This accessory is contingent on the residence being occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of the business; the business being owned or operated by the owner of the parcel of land; or, the residence is HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 10 occupied by the owner of the parcel of land. If these scenarios are not adhered to, then a conditional use application must be submitted. It is noted that the proposed residence cannot be converted to more than one residential unit. If in the future more than the one residence is proposed a conditional use application must be submitted. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. 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, when all outstanding items attached as conditions of approval are addressed. Section 2.4.5 (F)(5) - Compatibility (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is bordered on the north, south, east and west by single family residences. The properties to the west, south and east have received approval for conversion to commercial use. The proposed development plan is compatible with these uses and will not cause a depreciation of property values. The proposed development will not interfere with or hinder the use of nearby properties. The proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the OSSHAD zoning district and allows for adaptive re-use of the structure. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives and policies have been identified. Housing Element Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 11 a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. The conversion of the property to mixed-use (office/residential) will have an insignificant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. When the OSSHAD zoning district was created it was recognized that there would be a mix of commercial and residential uses. The proposed office use will have a relatively low impact given the traffic volumes associated with these types of uses and as the property is located adjacent to a City collector road (SE 1st Street). REVIEW BY OTHERS The property is not located in an area that requires review by the Downtown Development Authority. Community Redevelopment Agency At its meeting of February 14, 2002, the CRA reviewed and recommended approval of the request. Courtesy Notices: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: > President's Council ➢ Chamber of Commerce > PROD Letters of support and objection, if any, will be presented at the Historic Preservation Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The proposed site plan modification for the Mariposa mixed use project consists of the conversion of existing Adult Living Facility to a 1,924 square foot office and a two-story 1,871 residential unit with five bedrooms. The applicant has requested an in-lieu parking for one parking space ($6,000), which also involves providing on-street spaces on SE 1st Street. There is an existing off-site parking agreement with the property to the north that was part of the conditional use approval for the adult living facility to provide additional parking for this property. This agreement should be dissolved as part of this approval. The Board may want to consider requiring additional improvements to the building including that it be painted in a color scheme that is consistent with the approved color of the Historic Preservation Board. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approval are addressed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 12 B. Approve the COA and associated waivers, Class IV site plan modification, landscape plan and design elements for Mariposa based on positive findings with respect Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility), Section 4.5.1 and Section 2.4.7(B)(5)(Waiver Findings) of the Land Development Regulations and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. C. Deny the COA and associated waivers, Class IV site plan modification, landscape plan, and design elements for Mariposa based on a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION By Separate Motions: Waivers: 1. Approve the waiver from LDR Section 4.4.24(G)(3), to allow parking on the south and east sides of the building, based on positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). 2. Approve the waiver from LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2) to reduce the site visibility triangle from 40' to 10' at the intersection of SE 1s Street and SE 1st Avenue, based on positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), subject to written confirmation from the City Engineer. Site Plan: Approve the COA and associated Class IV site plan modification for Mariposa based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. 2. That the use of the property comply with LDR Section 4.4.24(C)(2) regarding the accessory use of the property or a conditional use application be submitted. 3. That the off-site parking agreement be dissolved. 4. That the asphalt driveway to the canopy on the south side of the property be removed and converted to landscape area. 5. That the photometric plan is revised to conform to the illumination standards, provide an elevation detail of the light poles and fixtures with a maximum height of 25' and that they be residential/decorative in character. HPB Staff Report Class IV Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations and COA 2002-111 for Mariposa Page 13 6. That the planter at the west end of the parking tier is eliminated or the perimeter landscape area reduced (five-foot minimum) and the parking spaces on the north side of the parking tier shifted to the east in order to provide the required maneuvering area. 7. That an enclosure be created on the west side of the building, north of the staircase with a six-foot high vision obscuring enclosure for refuse containers to screen it from the property to the west. 8. That a $6,000 in-lieu parking fee be remitted prior to issuance of a building permit and that parallel parking is installed along SE 1st Street per LDR Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e). Landscape Plan: Approve the COA and associated landscape plan for Mariposa based on positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations. Elevations: Approve the COA and associated elevations for Mariposa based on positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.18, subject to the following condition: 1. That additional architectural treatment such as shutters and window trims be provided ; 2. That the building be painted with a color scheme in accordance with direction by the Historic Preservation Board. 3. That the proposed sign be reduced by 50% in height and width and that a non-internally light sign be provided utilizing a wood simulated polyurethane material. Attachments: • Appendix A • Appendix B • Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations Report prepared by: Scott D. Pape, Senior Planner APPENDIX A CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: With respect to water and sewer service, the following is noted: O Water service is provided to the site via a lateral connection to an existing 4" water main located along SE 1st Avenue. O Sewer service is provided to the site via lateral connection to an existing 8" sewer main within the alley adjacent to the property to the north. O Adequate fire suppression is provided to the site via a fire hydrant located at the northeast corner of SE 1st Avenue and SE 1st Street. The Comprehensive Plan states that adequate water and sewer treatment capacity exists to meet the adopted LOS at the City's build-out population based on the current FLUM. The conversion of the property to a mixed-use facility will have an insignificant impact on all public services and was anticipated for this property and was factored into the plan. Thus, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The applicant provided the traffic information for the subject property and the following is noted: The subject property is located in the City's TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC, and OSSHAD, as well as the West Atlantic Avenue 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 traffic statement indicates the project will generate a net increase of 12 average daily trips based on the difference between the traffic generation of the adult living facility and the proposed mixed use development. This trip generation will have an insignificant impact on the surrounding road network. Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed residential unit will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, a park impact fee of$500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit. Solid Waste: The conversion of the adult living facility to the mixed-use development will result in a net decrease of 4.02 tons per year. Drainage: Drainage will be accommodated on site via sheet flow to a dry retention area along the south side of the property. There should be no impact on drainage as it relates to this level of service standard School Concurrency: The development application was received prior implementation of the Palm Beach County School Concurrency requirements. Therefore, a finding of concurrency is not required. However, the addition of the single residential will have an insignificant impact on the public schools. APPENDIX B STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X (Subject to revision of the photometric plan) Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent 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. Appendix B Standards for Site Plan Actions Page 2 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 (Subject to the provision of the required maneuvering area) 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