Loading...
HPB-11-18-1998 w DELRAY BEACH bted All-America City i1 Ir AGENDA 1993 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: November 18, 1998 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 (Roll Call) II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 1998 November 4, 1998 III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Variance-55: Vacant Parcel, Block 1, Lot 10, Del-Ida Park Subdivision, (On the North Side of N.E. 7th Street Between N. Swinton Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue), Del-Ida Park Historic district. Robert and Jeanine Mannweiler, Owners, Dan Rosenblatt, Authorized Agent. Approval for a Variance from LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Pertaining to Front and Side Setback Requirements Associated with New Construction of a Single Family Residence. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. COA-361: Vacant Parcel, Block 1, Lot 10, Del-Ida Park Subdivision, New Construction of a Single Family Residence, Del-Ida Park Historic District. Robert and Jeanine Mannweiler, Owners, Dan Rosenblatt, Authorized Agent. HPB Meeting November 18, 1998 Page 2 Approval for New Construction of a Two Story Single Family Residence; and Approval of a Waiver to LDR Section 6.1.4(B)(3)(b) Pertaining to the Required Landscape Strip Between the Driveway and the Abutting Property to the East. B. COA-362: 302 N.E. 1st Avenue, Contributing Mixed Use Building, Old School Square Historic District. Ann Schnabel, Owner. Approval for a Change of Siding Material from Wood Clapboard to Vinyl. C. COA-357 Pre-Application, 21 N.W. 2nd Street, Noncontributing Single Family Residence which is being Converted to Office Use, Old School Square Historic District. Bill Bower, Owner. Request the Board's Comments and Direction with Respect to the Elevations for Renovation and a 2,000 S.F. Addition. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Reports from Historic District Representatives B. Board Members C. Staff VI. ADJOURN Pat Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: November 12, 1998 0 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATE: November 18, 1998 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: Chairperson Turner, John Johnson, Tony Keller, Betty Diggans, William Griffin, Shane Ames arrived at 6:30; Mayor Alperin was present for the entire meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Hurlburt STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cayce, Loretta Heussi, Brian Shutt IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Johnson and passed 5-0 to approve the minutes from October 21, 1998 and November 4, 1998. III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Variance-55: Vacant Parcel, Block 1. Lot 10, Del-Ida Park Subdivision, Del-Ida Pak Historic District. Robert and Jeanine Mannweiler, Owners, Dan Rosenblatt, Authorized Agent. Those who were to give testimony, with respect to the variance request were sworn in by staff member Loretta Heussi. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: ***Variance-55 and COA-361 were combined.*** A. Coa-361: Vacant Parcel, Block 1, Lot 10, Del-Ida Park Subdivision, New Construction of a Single Family Residence, Del-Ida Park Historic District. Robert and Jeanine Mannweiler, Owners, Dan Rosenblatt, Authorized Agent. Item before the Board: The action requested of the Board is as follows: 7 Y ` 1 C. COA-357: Pre-Application, 21 NW 2"d Street, Noncontributing Single Family Residence which is being converted to Office Use, OSSHD. Bill Bower, Owner. Applicant was not present. The Board agreed to add this item to the agenda. D. Melissa Enloe, 228 NE 5th Street, Del-Ida Park Historic District. Item Before the Board: Approval of a paint color which is different from the approved version. It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Diggans and passed 6-0 to approve the new color. Additionally, staff pointed out that the fence, which was installed April, 1998 has yet to be painted. Item Before the Board: Approval to paint a portion of the fence which is visible from the street, the same dark green as the house trim. It was moved by Mr. Ames, seconded by Mr. Griffin and passed 6-0 to approve the painting for the fence. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS: A. Reports from Historic District Representatives Mary Lou Jamison (Del-Ida Park Historic District spoke in favor of vinyl siding. Mrs. Jamison stated that she had just returned from Savannah, Georgia, where vinyl siding is being approved for historic houses. The discussion then centered on the cost of vinyl siding as opposed to the cost of repainting, and whether denying the use of vinyl created an undue economic hardship on the owner. Staff pointed out that our ordinance makes provision for economic hardship, if the owner wishes to claim it. B. Board Members The chairman asked for a discussion on the lack of quality of design as well as the quality of the visuals (elevations, etc) often provided with development proposals put to the Board. She questioned whether the Board could require that plans be executed by an architect. She felt that with minor changes or additions this might not be necessary, but in the case of more substantial projects, such as the Bower development, quality is essential. She wondered whether the requirement could kick in at a percentage of new square feet in the case of additions. Staff proposed that she bring up these concerns with 3- 11/18/98 the Planning Director, and possibly find out what other historic review boards are requiring. C. Staff None VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Diggans moved to adjourn the meeting at. 7:15, seconded by Mr. Ames and passed 6-0. The undersigned is the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on �,��/�? j , 1998. Y� 1 1 -'rye' Ps 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- 11/18/98 a. STAFF REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Project Name: COA-361 Robert and Jeanine Mannweiler, new construction of a single-family residence. Project Location: Block 1, Lot 10, Del-Ida Park ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action requested of the Board is as follows: • Granting a variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) pertaining to front and side setback requirements. • Granting a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.4(B)(3)(b) pertaining to the landscape strip between the driveway and the east property line. • Approval of COA-361 for the design elements for a two story single family residence. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lot 10, Block 1 of the Del-Ida Park subdivision and is located within the Del-Ida Park Historic District in the R-1-AA zoning district. The development proposal is the construction of a two story single family residence of approximately 2,250 s.f. and a 290 s.f. detached garage. Nonconforming Lots and Uses of Lots of Record Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix, the following minimum lot dimensions are required within the R-1-AA zoning district: Minimum Lot Size 9,500 s.f. Lot Width 75' Lot Depth 100' The subject lot has a width of 50', a depth of 120' and lot area of 6,000 s.f., and is therefore nonconforming with respect to width and area. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.1.4 Uses of Lots of Record, any lot of record that does not comply with the required minimum lot area and minimum lot dimensions for the zoning district Meeting Date: November 18, 1998 Agenda Item: III and IV-A HPB Staff Report COA-361 and Variance 55 Page 2 may be used for allowed purposes as long as it complies with all other requirements of that zoning district and is at least 50' in width. The subject lot is a Lot of Record, as it was created with the Del-Ida Park subdivision in 1923. As the property is 50' in width, it is a buildable lot. Adjoining Lots of Record Under the Same Ownership LDR Section 4.1.4(C) states that in residential zoning districts other than R-1-A, if 2 or more adjoining lots of record are under the same ownership at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance, and if the total frontage and the total area is equal to or greater than that which is required by the zoning district regulations, said property shall not be developed except in accordance with the minimum frontage and lot area requirements of the district. The subject lot, Lot 10, and Lots 8 & 9, to the west were under the same ownership at the time the above ordinance was adopted, October 18, 1994. The previous owners of Lots 8, 9 & 10 requested a waiver to the above LDR Section which was granted by the City Commission on November 3, 1998. Thus, Lot 10 is a buildable lot. It was purchased by the applicant soon after the waiver was granted. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), the following minimum setbacks are required in the R-1-AA zoning district: Front 30' Side Interior 10' Side Street 15' Rear 10' The applicant is requesting a variance to the above requirements to allow the front setback to be 25' and the side interior setbacks to be 7.5'. • The variance to reduce the front setback from 30' to 25' will allow a covered porch to be constructed across the width of the front elevation for a distance of 28.67' allowing a 5' encroachment into the front setback. • The variance to reduce the west side setback for the house from 10' to 7.5' is to apply along the west property line. The covered front porch wraps around the west elevation for a distance of 19' then the house itself continues for a distance of 40.5'. Thus, the structure will encroach 2.5' into the west 10' side setback for a length of 59.5'. HPB Staff Report COA-361 and Variance 55 Page 3 • The variance to reduce the east side setback from 10' to 7.5' is for the detached garage to the rear of the house and will only apply for a distance of 20'. The proposed house is set back 13.83' from the east property line. The HPB discussed this proposal during a pre-application review at its meeting of September 16, 1998. Given the development pattern of the street, the historic district, and the compatibility of the house to the neighborhood, the Board recommended that the applicant make a formal request for the variances. Variance Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J) Historic Preservation Board to Act on Variance Requests: the Board is guided by the following 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, appurtenance, 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 in the Local Register of Historic Places. (c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances would alter the historic character of the historic district, or historic site to such an extent that it would not be feasible to preserve the historic character, of the historic district or historic site. (d) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district. Granting the variance will not impact public interest, safety or welfare. The originally platted 50' lots in the subdivision create special conditions and limitations in the Del-Ida Historic District. The Design Guidelines state that "every attempt should be made to obscure vehicular use area from the pedestrian view", however, it is almost impossible to design a house with the garage to the rear of a 50' wide lot, unless setback requirements are relaxed. Additionally, the Guidelines state "the HPB may grant a variance when a new HPB Staff Report COA-361 and Variance 55 Page 4 building will correct the orientation of the streetscape". Placing the garage in the rear improves and retains the historic orientation of the streetscape. The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the new construction to be appropriately sited on the lot. Waiver Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.4(B)(3)(b) a 5' landscape strip is required between a driveway and a property line. Pursuant to Section 6.1.1(B) a waiver to the above Section is allowed if the City Engineer concurs in the granting of the waiver. The applicant is proposing to install a 3' landscape strip between the paver block driveway and the east property line. 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. Because of the 50' lot development pattern mentioned above, many of the driveways in Del-Ida Park are less that 5' from the property line. The use of paver blocks and a hedge will benefit the aesthetics of both the streetscape and the historic district. The grant of the waiver will not impact public facilities nor create an unsafe situation. Further, the granting of the waiver will not result in a granting of special privilege as a waiver would be supported in similar circumstances. DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS The style of the building is based on the Colonial Revival period of the 1930s, however the use of porches and the mill finished metal roof add elements of what is locally referred to as the Resort Colonial Revival style. The columns and porch railings will be of wood. A wood lattice infill will surround the porch foundation. The horizontal clapboard siding will be of cement board; the windows will be single hung sash 2/2 aluminum; and the doors will be wood. HPB Staff Report COA-361 and Variance 55 Page 5 Where indicated, the shutters will be operable aluminum louvers which are hurricane rated. Where these are not used, the openings will be protected with direct mount panels (no tracks will remain when panels are removed). The landscape plan and paint color scheme will be presented at a later date. The house is appropriate in style and proportion to the historic district and positive findings can be made to the visual compatibility criteria as set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) Development Standards. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue with direction. 2. Approve COA-361 and the associated variances and waiver. 3. Deny COA-361 and the associated variances and waiver, with reasons stated. RECOMMENDATION VARIANCE VARIANCE Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), approve the variance to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the front setback from 30' to 25'; and the side setbacks from 10' to 7.5'. WAIVER Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), grant the waiver to LDR Section 6.1.4(B)(3)(b) to reduce the required 5' landscape strip between the driveway and the abutting property line to 3'. DESIGN ELEMENTS Based upon positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8), approve the design elements associated with COA-361. file/u/ww/coa361 sr STAFF REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Project Name: COA-362, Ann Schnabel, Ann's Quality Grooming Project Location: 302 N.E. 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action requested of the Board is that of approval to allow a material change for the exterior siding from wood clapboard to vinyl. BACKGROUND • To refresh your memory, this staff report was included in the packet for the October 21, 1998 HPB meeting. The item was tabled to allow the Board to review the type of cornerboards and the 6" wide vinyl clapboards without the wood graining. The applicant assures me that she will present the sample at this meeting. The single-family residence was constructed in 1945 in a contemporary split-level style with a prominent shed roof. The exterior siding is horizontal wood clapboard. The single family home and detached garage were converted to mixed use (residence and pet grooming establishment) in August of 1991. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal consists of covering all exterior walls, soffit, and fascia, including entry on the south side of the residence with horizontal vinyl siding. The house is to be white with dark green trim. STAFF COMMENTS The applicant has discussed the use of vinyl siding with staff on several occasions. Staff has pointed out that the use of vinyl siding on historic houses is inappropriate and that it is the Board's policy to approve vinyl siding only for new construction. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommends that the original siding be maintained and does not recommend the use of vinyl siding. Our Design Guidelines state that synthetic siding is inappropriate and should be avoided at all time. (See page 28 of the Guidelines, which is attached) Meeting Date: November 18, 1998 Agenda Item: IV-B • ' — HPB Staff Report COA-362 Page 2 Vinyl siding is considered inappropriate for historic houses as it contributes significantly to the loss of historic character by hiding the original façade. Furthermore, such siding can conceal signs of deterioration to the structural system of the house, allowing major deterioration to occur unnoticed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approved as presented. 2. Deny, with reasons stated. RECOMMENDATION Based on a failure to make positive findings to Section 4.5.1(E)(9) and the Design Guidelines, deny COA-362 to allow the use of vinyl siding on a contributing structure. File/u/ww/coa-362s2 Y - STAFF REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Project Name: COA-357, Bower Office Building Project Location: 21 N.W. 2"d Street, Old School Square Historic District ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW, NO FORMAL ACTION REQUIRED The action requested of the Board is to review, comment and give direction with respect to the appropriateness of the elevations for the Bower Office Building. BACKGROUND The existing single family residence which is located on the at the northeast corner of N.W 1st Avenue and N.W 2nd Street was moved to the site from N. Swinton Avenue in 1992. The lot adjacent to the east is vacant. The applicant has purchased the existing residence and the vacant lot. The proposal consists of constructing a 2000 s.f. addition to the east of the existing 1494 s.f. residence. A site plan, which staff supports, has been submitted, which accommodates the required parking. When this proposal first came to the Planning & Zoning department, staff recommended that the applicant bring the preliminary elevations to the HPB for a pre-application review. This did not happen; the final elevations have been submitted. Staff feels that before the working drawings are prepared, and before the formal COA review, the Board should have an opportunity to make comments and give direction with respect to the appropriateness of the design elements. STAFF COMMENTS The site plan has been through full review by the P&Z staff and is appropriate and compatible to the site, especially with the parking lot taking access from the north/south alley. The footprint of the addition is also compatible to the site, staff does not recommend that the Board suggests changes to the footprint. However, there are several inconstancies with respect to Section 4.5.1(E) Development Standards which are apparent in the elevations: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors) and (f) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections Meeting Date: October 21, 1998 Agenda Item: Ill-A HPB Staff Report COA-3572 Page 2 The addition will be stepped back from the front porch of the existing building approximately 12', which will create an interesting break in the plane of the south (front) elevation. The hip roof on the front portion of the addition is also an attractive feature. However, staff has concerns with the proportion and spacing of the windows in relation to the wall space, especially on the front and east elevations. The existing porch has a flat roof and is enclosed with a fixed pane and glass jalousies on the west and south. The redesigned porch will be enclosed with siding; a single window will be installed on the south, and a door on the east. Perhaps a French door could replace the window on the south. As the front porch is located at the 25' setback line only a step would be allowed to encroach; a railing, to create a balcony effect, would not be allowed. However, a thick hedge could be planted in front of the step and, if allowed to grow to railing height, would have the visual barrier effect of a railing. The flat roof over the existing front porch is inconsistent with the pedimented gable over the new entrance. Perhaps a less classical approach to the entrance would be more appropriate to the irregularity and informality of the combined hip, gable and flat roofline. Materials for the project have not been submitted. The existing house has aluminum siding, aluminum single hung windows with applied muntins, and a composition shingle roof. Staff assumes that the windows, siding and roof for the new addition will match the existing. As the addition is approximately 1% the size of the existing structure, a great deal of aluminum siding will be visible. The Design Guidelines state that "artificial and manufactured materials are always obtrusive and inappropriate in Historic Districts." The industrial railings for the handicapped ramp and front steps will need to be redesigned to be more residential in character. In order to understand the relationship of the existing structure and the new construction, the Board should request that the revised plans show all 4 elevations of the existing building. File/u/coa357pa