HPB-04-03-13 REVISED March 29, 2013
S{ °A. AGENDA
0�`'�4r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 Time: 6:00 P.M.
Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: Commission Chambers, City Hall
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 Smith at 243-7144 24 hours prior to the program
or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission
Chambers.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,
such persons will need a record of these proceedings,and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record.
Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. ACTION ITEMS
A. Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance Request (2013-114)
1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District
Authorized Agent: Steve Seibert
Applicant: James and Janie Douglas
Consideration of additions and alterations to a contributing structure; Variance request to reduce
the rear (north) setback from 10' to 4.2'.
V. DISCUSSION & ACTION ITEMS
A. Ordinance 09-13: Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for a privately
initiated amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B), 4.4.24(C), and 4.4.24(F) to include Lots 16-18,
Less 75 Feet thereof, Block 69 with those properties zoned OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic
District) and to which the "Permitted Uses" of 4.4.13(B), "Accessory Uses" of 4.4.13(C), and
"Development Standards" 4.3.4(J)(4) of the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district are
allowed excluding exceptions to height provided in LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4).
VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
• Public Comments
• Board Members
❖ Staff
VII. ADJOURN
e. ahem,
Amy E. Alvarez
Historic Preservation Planner Posted on: April 1, 2013
DELRAY BEACH
All'
-America City
I
c
1993
2001 SIGN IN SHEET
'�oo�
Historic Preservation Board
April 3, 2013
PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO.
ORGANIZATION
,±C.-t/
M s c-r ' 7vs &e.___ l Act, II
1 ( C<<c-P; Lk J d (P GUI -- ,
--i-r7-fic I`A i a71--- __ '
AeirCv C----ree 4c‘,/'1
III IV.A IV.A V.A
HPB MEETING ATTEND
HELD: Approval of 1029 Nassau 1029 Nassau Ordinance
April 3, 2013 Agenda Street Street 09-13
To be
continued to
April 17
NAME COA Variance Meeting
VOTE to VOTE to VOTE to VOTE to
Approve Approve Approve Approve
S'0 5-0 3-2 5-0
Annie Adkins Roof P Y Y Y Y
Annette Smith P Y Y Y Y
Samuel Spear P Y Y Y Y
Anna Maria Aponte P Y Y NO Y
Ronald Brito P Y Y NO Y
Iris McDonald A A A A A
Reginald Cox A A A A A
Adjourned: 8:00PM
MINUTES OFF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING/REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2013
LOCATION: CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Annie Adkins Roof, Anna Maria Aponte, Annette Smith, Samuel
Spear, Ronald Brito
MEMBERS ABSENT: Iris McDonald, Reginald Cox
STAFF PRESENT: Amy Alvarez, Terrill Pyburn (Asst. City Attorney), Diane Miller
I. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Ms. Roof at 6:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present.
III APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Motion made by Mr. Samuel Spear, seconded by Ms. Annette Smith. Said motion passed with
a 5-0 vote.
Chair Ms. Roof read the Quasi-Judicial Rules for the City of Delray Beach and Ms. Miller swore
in all who wished to give testimony on any agenda item.
IV. ACTION ITEMS:
A.Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance Request (2013-114)
1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District
Authorized Agent: Steve Seibert
Applicant: James and Janie Douglas
Consideration of additions and alterations to a contributing structure; Variance request to
reduce the rear (north) setback from 10' to 4.2'.
Exparte Communication
Ronald Brito did a drive by.
Samuel Spear did a drive by.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Ms. Alvarez entered project files No. 2013-114 into the record.
The item before the Board is the consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and
Variance request associated with alterations and additions to the contributing structure located
at 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H).
The subject property measures approximately 5,584 square feet and consists of Lot 1,
Wheatley's Subdivision, within the Nassau Park Historic District. The property, which is zoned
R-1-A (Single-Family Residential), is located on the northwest corner of Nassau Street and
Gleason Street. The existing, circa 1941 single family residence is classified as contributing to
the historic district.
There is no other previous COA on record for the property except for a recent color change
which we administratively approved.
The COA and variance request are now before the Board for consideration. The subject
request is to add on to the existing historic structure by providing additional living space along
the north side of the dwelling. The existing, flat roof garage/storage area, which is not original to
the structure, will be demolished and a two-story addition will be constructed in its place. The
existing wall plane sits approximately 15.8' from the east property line; this setback will be
maintained with the new addition. However, the addition, which will have a larger footprint by
approximately 247 square feet, will decrease the rear yard setback from 9.9' to 4.2'. The stucco
exterior of the historic structure will be maintained on the lower story; stucco simulated siding is
proposed for the upper story. The hip roof style of the original structure will be included in the
new addition, as well. The windows, however, will provide additional differentiation by utilizing a
varying light pattern. The original structure contains 6/6 sash windows, while the addition will
consist of 6/1 and 2/1 windows.
Prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be
approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1,
the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation. With these findings we have found that everything is appropriate
and compatible.
There is one item that we are requesting; the existing conditions provide parking for one vehicle
in the concrete driveway which measures 15.8'. This measurement will be maintained with the
proposed improvements. However, it is recommended that the driveway, which measures 12.6'
wide, be widened by 4.9' to accommodate an additional vehicle on site. The recommended
measurement of 4.9' will result in the maintenance of a 5' landscape buffer adjacent to the north
property line. As an alternative, the property owner could opt to provide a concrete or paver
ribbon drive adjacent to the existing driveway, so as to avoid additional hardscape. These
suggestions have been added as a condition of approval
DSMG (Design Services Management Group) met on March 28, 2013 and it was determined
that a five foot (5') sidewalk easement would need to be provided along Gleason Street. This
requirement, along with a request for deferred installation, has been added as a condition of
approval.
Additionally, the right of way requirement for Nassau Street is also 60'. The existing width of
Nassau Street measures 28.8'. The DSMG determined that the required width of Nassau Street
could be reduced to 30', thereby requiring a .6' right of way dedication, as well as a 5' sidewalk
2
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
easement along the property adjacent to Nassau Street. The request to defer installation of the
sidewalk would also be required and supported.
As previously noted, the proposed addition encroaches farther into the required rear yard
setback. The existing rear (north) setback, which is legally nonconforming, is 9.9', whereas 10'
are required. The proposed rear setback is 4.2'.
In consideration of the criteria above, the aforenoted variance can be supported in that the
variance will assist in maintaining the historic character of the property by permitting additional
expansion of the structure in an appropriate manner. Further, special conditions and
circumstances exist in that the property measures just 95' deep, thereby limiting the
developable space available, while still maintaining sufficient space (4.2') between the building
and property line for maintenance and access purposes. Additionally, the building is setback
sufficiently from Nassau Street that, if it were not in a historic district, an addition could be
placed on the front of the structure. However, this is not permitted on historic structures and
therefore, the lot is further limited in its buildable spaces which are towards the back of the
property. The provision of the requested variance will not diminish the character of the property,
rather, it will further enhance the character by permitting the appropriate development and
further use of the property for the needs of the property owner.
Staff is recommending approval of the COA and the variance for 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau
Park Historic District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land
Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions:
1. That either the driveway is widened by 4.9' or that a ribbon drive is added to the north of
the driveway;
2. That a 5' sidewalk easement be provided along the east side of the property, adjacent to
Gleason Street;
3. That a .6' right of way dedication be provided along the south side of the property,
adjacent to Nassau Street;
4. That a 5' sidewalk easement be provided along the south side of the property, adjacent
to Nassau Street;
5. That sidewalk deferrals be requested and approved by the City Commission;
6. That all dedications and easements be accepted by the City Commission prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
APPLICANTS PRESENTATION
Steve Siebert—Architect— Representing the Douglas's
Mr. Siebert agrees with the staff presentations and is here to answer any questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS—None
BOARD COMMENTS
Ms. Aponte asked that on the site plan it looks like a wet bar in the kitchen area. Could he
explain this?
3
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Mr. Siebert said that there is a kitchen in the main house which is older and smaller and they
are hoping to put in more modern equipment. The other one is just for fixing snacks or small
food items.
Ms. Aponte asked about the door that was between the two (so called kitchens). Are they
alright having 2 kitchens or can this be explained.
Amy Alvarez said that they are ok with the 2 kitchens, but it the board would like the door
removed so that it would clearly show this was a single family home.
Ms. Aponte also asked what the setbacks for the property on the north are.
Amy Alvarez said that this property was a mixed use development.
Ms. Aponte continued to ask for setbacks on the west side, the two story building. It seems that
it is very close to the property line.
Mr. Siebert commented that he did not measure or survey that property.
Dr. Bergan (sworn in for public comments) — owners of the property just north of proposed
variance and is a single family home. And I am very interested in the amount of setback
between property lines.
Mr. Spear asks what Dr. Bergan meant by 'he is interested in the property'?
Dr. Bergan said that he was confused in what they are doing.
Mr. Brito clarified the setback question. Your setback will be 4.2 feet from property line to the
edge of your house. This is a very narrow space from property line to house.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Brito asked what is the hardship that they would need this 4.2 foot setback.
Mr. Seibert said that there is a single car garage and they are asking for an additional 5 foot to
the garage to make the living space practical. We are also taking 3 feet off the wall to create a
stair case on that wall. It certainly narrows the living space.
Mr. Brito asked had they explored any other place to put this stair well.
Mr. Siebert said that they did but it showed a hardship on the living space.
Mr. Brito also asked about the shed in the backyard. What is the building made of and Mr.
Siebert said it was wood and not sure if it is on a slab. Mr. Brito is still concerned about the
setback to the neighbor's yard. Being on the second floor you can look into the neighbor's year.
Mr. Siebert said that it would not happen as there are no windows on that side of the house. He
was corrected as there is a window on the second floor, but height will be below the tree line.
Dr. Bergen asked if someone could point out which of the 4 structures would be facing my
property. By looking at the structures it shows the door by Gleason Street and a window on the
second story addition.
4
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Mrs. Aponte wanted to summarize what she believes is true. She feels that the design is very
well done. She is concerned that we do not know what the setbacks are on the two sides. I
also know that there are issues with the stairs and maybe the variance can be reviewed.
FINDINGS
Terrill Pyburn said that the board needs to make findings on the Compatibility Standards and
the Variance Standards, because it appears that the variance is necessary in order for the
structure to be approved.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(6), Alternative Findings of the Historic Preservation
Board, the Board may be guided by the following to make findings as an alternative:
(a) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property and
demonstrating that the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public
interest, safety, or welfare. BOARD VOTED: YES
(b) That 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 on the Local Register of Historic Places.
BOARD VOTED: YES
(c) That 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.
BOARD VOTED: YES
(d) That the variance requested will not significantly diminish the historic character of a
historic site or of a historic district. BOARD VOTED: YES
(e) That the requested variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive
reuse of a historic building, structure, or site: BOARD VOTED: YES
MOTION
Motion to approve the variance to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), to reduce the rear (east) yard setback
on the second story addition to 4.2', whereas 10' is required.
Motion by Mr. Spear, seconded by Ms. Smith. Said motion passed with a 3-2 vote, Dissenting
Ms. Aponte and Mr. Brito.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8), Visual Compatibility Standards,
Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible
in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings in a historic
district for all major and minor development. For major development, visual compatibility
with respect to the height of residential structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall
also be determined through application of the following:
1. Building Height Plane (BHP): The building height plane technique sets back the
overall height of a building from the front property line.
5
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
a. The building height plane line is extended at an inclined angle from the
intersection of the front yard property line and the average grade of the adjacent street
along the lot frontage. The inclined angle shall be established at a two to one (2:1)
ratio.
b. A structure relocated to a historic district or to an individually designated historic
site shall be exempt from this requirement.
2.First Floor Maximum Height: Single-story or first floor limits shall be established by:
a. Height from finished floor elevation to top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed
fourteen feet (14').
b. Mean Roof Height shall not exceed eighteen feet (18').
c. If any portion of the building exceeds the dimensions described in a. and b.
above, the building shall be considered a multi-story structure.
e. Sections a., b., and c. above may be waived by the Historic Preservation Board
when appropriate, based on the architectural style of the building.
3.Upper Story Height(s): Height from finished floor elevation to finished floor elevation
or top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed twelve feet (12').
Are the requirements for height met? BOARD VOTED: YES
B.Front Façade Proportion: The front façade of each building or structure shall be
visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to
the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the
subject historic district.
Are the requirements for front facade proportion met? BOARD VOTED: YES
C. Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building
within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by
prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The
relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors
among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for proportion of openings (windows and doors)
proportion met? BOARD VOTED: YES
D. Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of solids to voids of a building or
structure shall be visually compatible with existing historic buildings or structures within
the subject historic district for all development, with particular attention paid to the front
facades.
6
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Are the requirements for rhythm of solids to voids met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
E. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: The relationship of buildings to open space
between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible with the relationship
between existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for rhythm of buildings on streets met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
F. Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and
porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with existing
architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on existing historic buildings and
structures within the subject historic district for all development.
Are the requirements for rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections
met? BOARD VOTED: YES
G. Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials,
texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually
compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures
within the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for relationship of materials, texture, and color met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
H. Roof Shapes: The roof shape, including type and slope, of a building or structure
shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of existing historic buildings or
structures within the subject historic district. The roof shape shall be consistent with the
architectural style of the building.
Are the requirements of roof shapes met? BOARD VOTED: YES
I. Walls of Continuity: Walls, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or building
facades, shall form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to ensure .visual
compatibility with historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district and
the structure to which it is visually related.
Are the requirements of walls of continuity met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
J. Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the building mass in relation to open
spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall be visually
compatible with the building size and mass of historic buildings and structures within a
historic district for all development. To determine whether the scale of a building is
appropriate, the following shall apply for major development only:
7
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Are the requirements for the scale of a building met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
K. Directional Expression of Front Elevation: A building shall be visually
compatible with the buildings, structures, and sites within a historic district for all
development with regard to its directional character, whether vertical or horizontal.
Is the directional expression requirement for the front elevation met?
BOARD VOTED: YES
L. Architectural Style: All major and minor development shall consist of only one (1)
architectural style per structure or property and not introduce elements definitive of
another style.
Is the requirement for the architectural style met? BOARD VOTED: YES
MOTION
Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness (2013-114) for 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park
Historic District, based on positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations,
the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation subject to the following conditions#1-6 as listed.
Motion by Mr. Spear, seconded by Ms. Smith. Said motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
V. DISCUSSION &ACTION ITEMS
A.Ordinance 09-13: Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for a
privately initiated amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B), 4.4.24(C), and 4.4.24(F) to include
Lots 16-18, Less 75 Feet thereof, Block 69 with those properties zoned OSSHAD (Old School
Square Historic District) and to which the "Permitted Uses" of 4.4.13(B), "Accessory Uses" of
4.4.13(C), and "Development Standards" 4.3.4(J)(4) of the CBD (Central Business District)
zoning district are allowed excluding exceptions to height provided in LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4).
The intent of the subject LDR amendment is to apply the development standards and uses
(excluding conditional uses) of the CBD to the property located at 36 SE 1st Avenue. The
property is located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue, approximately seventy-five feet (75')
north of SE 1st Street, and is vacant. A circa 1938 frame vernacular structure was relocated from
the subject property to 186 NW 5th Avenue in 2011, where it was individually designated and
listed on the Local Register of Historic Places as "The Harvel House" in the West Settlers
Historic District. Prior to its relocation, the structure was classified as contributing within the Old
School Square Historic District.
There are other lots in the immediate vicinity located within the OSSHAD zoning district that
may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the
CBD. Those lots are located immediately to the north and across the east/west alley from the
subject property and include a surface parking lot, the City parking garage, and a recently
constructed mixed-use building (Royal Atlantica). Those three lots were included in one text
amendment adopted on January 4, 2000 (Ordinance 47-99) which provided for the expansion of
the CBD overlay district (uses and development standards), for the primary purpose of
constructing the Block 69 parking garage.
8
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
In 2007, privately-initiated LDR Amendment (Ordinance 31-07) was submitted which was
identical to this current request. The ordinance was reviewed by the HPB (September 5, 2007),
Community Redevelopment Agency (September 6, 2007), and Planning and Zoning Board
(September 17, 2007) and was unanimously recommended for denial by all three Boards. The
ordinance was placed on hold by the property owner while a Class V Site Plan Application and
COA were reviewed by the HPB for a replacement project involving new Class A offices. The
HPB also reviewed four variances and three waiver requests associated with the Class V Site
Plan and COA, all of which were denied.
Subsequently, the property owner moved forward with an appeal of the denial which was
approved by the City Commission at its August 19, 2008 meeting. As a result, the LDR
amendment described in Ordinance 31-07 (and now in Ordinance 09-13) was withdrawn. The
approved plans for the Class A office space received extensions of approval twice and remains
valid until August 19, 2014 along with the variance that was approved. It has yet to be certified,
the plans are ready to be certified, they are in my office and it has been requested that they be
put on hold. So now we have the same LDR amendment that was not approved in 2007 that we
have reviewed accordingly.
We have done a comparison for CBD vs OSSHAD and we have outlined them in the staff
report. The applicant noted that they would like to build a mixed use office building. We do
have an approved plan for office use and it could be built.
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its
meeting of March 28, 2013 meeting. A recommendation was not made; the request was tabled.
They will see this again when it comes back before them following the Planning and Zoning
Board Meeting, on April 15th
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulation
Section 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(C), and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 09-13, allowing the permitted
uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for
Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained
in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Michael Weiner — Attorney. Introduced the owners of the property, Mr. Steve Michael and Mr.
Andrew Greenbaum and asked them to speak.
Mr. Steve Michael — resident of Delray Beach for about 13 years and have a financial service
company about 2 blocks from this property and we are forced to move because a
redevelopment of this property. We have about 6,500 sq.ft and 25 people working in the office
and we really want to stay in Delray as I live in East Delray. We are looking at this as a building
we could house our business and expand.
Mr. Weiner started explaining that Ms. Alvarez and he had worked a lot together on different
historic structure and where we have to go between ourselves and staff. We talk about 4.5.1(A)
and what you're doing is looking for is Identification, Preservation, Protection with the uses of
the structure. What is before us is the changing of the LDR, the changing of 4.4.24, a very
complex code. We are zoned one way and a very different overlay in another.
9
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Mr. Weiner did a powerpoint presentation and a history.
He continued to say that if we are to protect our historic structures, we must allow the downtown
master plan in fact to be done and completed, we must allow development. We must protect
our historic assets, and that is why we make these findings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS— None
BOARD DISCUSSION
Ms. Aponte stated first that this is a very complex case and what we need to look at is what is
our goal. I think what was done with the over lay with the garage and getting it in there is totally
out of place. I would definitely not go for expanding that CBD. My recommendation is for staff
to look at the OSSHAD regulations and maybe revise.
Mr. Spear asked Ms. Alvarez what is her main concern for recommendation of turn it down...is it
the height?
Ms. Alvarez said that yes it is the height and setbacks.
Mr. Spear said that he understands, but he sees this as more commercial property and Amy did
say that there is a commercial plan. Mr. Spear commented that would be great, but if there is a
plan, what was approved.
Mr. Weiner said speaking for no one else, but he thinks it is about 5,000 sq. ft., and parking is
on the first floor.
Mr. Spear expressed that it is nice to have the quaint house in downtown Delray Beach and
hopefully the ones selected will be built.
Mr. Weiner said that his client has two properties, one that is already 48ft., and we are trying to
have some kind of consistently.
Mr. Weiner pulled up the powerpoint again to show the lots and the ally way and explain where
the ally way could go. Also, Ms. Alvarez addressed some questions from the board and used
the powerpoint presentation to point out the information.
Ms. Smith is looking to get all the information organized and seems there is a lot of confusion
here between the different disciplines and that needs to come together a little bit more and step
back until we hear from what Planning and Zoning has to say.
Mr. Spear asked that we are talking about the difference between 3 stories and 4 stories and I
am coming to the same conclusion as the board; I would like to see an actual plan before I vote.
Ms. Alvarez said that you cannot make an action on a rezoning based on a plan. A plan stands
by itself, a rezoning you have to look at whether it appropriate and has its own findings.
Terrill Pyburn (Asst. City Attorney) said that a gamble you will have one for OSSHAD and an
approved plan that that isn't even being built. Even if you look at it, it may not affect the
underlining zoning, so are you ok with the changing of the CBD or not.
Mr. Weiner said that it seems that the south side of town is so economically disadvantaged
which is not the same opportunity as the north side of town which has always been off.
10
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
April 3, 2013
Mr. Brito asked if the overlay was going to be the whole block or just the 2 blocks we are talking
about. Ms. Alvarez said that this is for one property. Mr. Brito said that it doesn't matter what
we are talking about you are looking out at a 4 story parking garage.
Mr. Spear asks if the overlay is approved, could the plan come back to us. Ms. Alvarez said yes
and you would have more flexibility with OSSHAD now.
MOTION
Mr. Spear made a motion to continue Agenda Item #V.A, Ordinance 09-13, Amendment to LDR
Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(1a) to the April 17, 2013 meeting.
Motion by Mr. Spear, seconded by Ms. Aponte. Said motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Public Comments — None
Board Members Comments— None
Staff Comments— None
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55pm
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 April 3, 2013 which were formally
adopted and approved by the Board on June 19, 2013.
Dia teiMfiller
Diane Miller, Executive Assistant
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.
11
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
MEMORADUM STAFF REPORT
Applicant/
Property Owner: James & Janie Douglas Authorized Agent: Steve Seibert
Property Address: 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic District
HPB Meeting Date: April 3, 2013 File No.: 2013-114
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is the consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and Variance
request associated with alterations and additions to the contributing structure located at 1029 Nassau
Street, Nassau Park Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H).
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D)(6), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act on all variance
requests within a historic district or on a historic site, which otherwise would be acted upon by the
Board of Adjustment.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property measures approximately 5,584 square feet and consists of Lot 1, Wheatley's
Subdivision, within the Nassau Park Historic District. The property, which is zoned R-1-A (Single-Family
Residential), is located on the northwest corner of Nassau Street and Gleason Street. The existing,
circa 1941 single family residence is classified as contributing to the historic district.
There are no previous Certificates of Appropriateness on file.
The subject request is to add on to the existing historic structure by providing additional living space
along the north side of the dwelling. The existing, flat roof garage/storage area, which is not original to
the structure, will be demolished and a two-story addition will be constructed in its place. The existing
wall plane sits approximately 15.8' from the east property line; this setback will be maintained with the
new addition. However, the addition, which will have a larger footprint by approximately 247 square
feet, will decrease the rear yard setback from 9.9' to 4.2'. The stucco exterior of the historic structure
will be maintained on the lower story; stucco simulated siding is proposed for the upper story. The hip
roof style of the original structure will be included in the new addition, as well. The windows, however,
will provide additional differentiation by utilizing a varying light pattern. The original structure contains
6/6 sash windows, while the addition will consist of 6/1 and 2/1 windows.
The existing color scheme will remain as exists: Light green stucco walls, white fascia, doors, and
windows, and black shutters.
A variance has been requested to reduce the rear (north) setback to 4.2', whereas 10' is required.
The COA and variance request are now before the Board for consideration.
1029 Nassau Street: COA 2013-114
HPB Wieeting of April 3,2013
Pace 2 of 6
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the
body taking final action on the site and development application/request.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H)(5), Prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of
Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to
Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of
Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Zoning and Use Review
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), Development Standards, properties located within the R-1-A
zoning district shall be developed according to the requirements noted in the chart below. As illustrated,
the proposal is not in compliance with the applicable requirements, and therefore, a variance has been
requested.
Required Existing Proposed
Side Street Setback (East) 15' 15.8' 15.8'
Rear Setback (North) 10' 9.9' 4.2'-4.5'
STAFF COMMENT:
As illustrated in the chart above, the proposed improvements maintain the existing side street
setback, while further encroachment into the rear setback is proposed. Therefore, a variance has
been requested to further reduce the rear setback to 4.2'. A variance analysis is provided further in
this report.
Article 4.5, Overlay and Environmental Management Districts
Section 4.5.1: Historic Preservation: Designated Districts, Sites, and Buildings
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E), Development Standards, all new development or exterior
improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic
districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray
Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. Relief from Subsections (1) through (9)
below may be granted by seeking a waiver approvable by the Historic Preservation Board, unless
otherwise stated.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(2)(b)(2), Major Development, the subject application is considered
"Major Development" as it is "the construction, reconstruction, or alteration of a building in excess of
twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing floor area, and all appurtenances, except for properties zoned
CBD, CF, or OSSHAD, subject to Development Standards of Section 4.4.13(F). For the purposes of
this section, all limitations and regulations shall be reviewed in a cumulative manner from the date of
passage of this ordinance in 2008."
STAFF COMMENT:
The proposed improvements are therefore considered "Major Development" in accordance with the
LDR noted above.
1029 Nassau Street:COA 2013-114
HPB Meeting of April 3,2013
Page 3 of 6
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), Alterations, in considering proposals for alterations to the
exterior of historic buildings and structures and in applying development and preservation standards,
the documented, original design of the building may be considered, among other factors.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(5), Standards and Guidelines, a historic site, building, structure,
improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall only be altered, restored, preserved,
repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as
amended from time to time.
The applicable Standards are noted below:
A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal
change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.-Standard 1
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.-
Standard 2
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials
that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of
the property and its environment.-Standard 9
New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.-Standard 10
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In consideration of the applicable Standards noted above, the proposal appears to have taken them
into consideration and meets their intent. The historic use of the property as a single family residence
is being maintained, and expanded, with changes which will not alter those defining characteristics of
the historic structure. The new additions and alterations do not compromise the property and are
differentiated from the historic elements with slight deviations such as the materials and light patterns
of the windows.
Based on the above, positive findings can be made with respect to compliance with the subject
Section.
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8), Visual Compatibility Standards, New construction and all
improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto
within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District
Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for
in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color,
texture, roof shape, direction, lot coverage, and square footage, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in
Section 4.5.1.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In consideration of the Visual Compatibility Standards, the proposed additions and alterations are in
compliance with the technical requirements of "Height" and "Scale". Further, the materials, colors, and
architectural style are appropriately designed, and the proposal also meets the intent of the rest of the
Standards. Therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to the application of the subject
Section.
• 1029 Nassau Street SOP.291 i 14
HPB kleeting o.Apr,!3 20 3
Pace 4 of 6
4.6.9, Supplemental District Regulations
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2)(a), Requirements for Residential Uses: Single Family
Detached Residences, including Assisted Living Facilities, two spaces per dwelling unit. Tandem
parking may be used provided that in the Single Family (R-1 District) or RL District, no required parking
space may be located in a required front or street side setback.
STAFF COMMENT:
The existing conditions provide parking for one vehicle in the concrete driveway which measures 15.8'.
This measurement will be maintained with the proposed improvements. However, it is recommended
that the driveway, which measures 12.6' wide, be widened by 4.9' to accommodate an additional
vehicle on site. The recommended measurement of 4.9' will result in the maintenance of a 5' landscape
buffer adjacent to the north property line. As an alternative, the property owner could opt to provide a
concrete or paver ribbon drive adjacent to the existing driveway, so as to avoid additional hardscape.
These suggestions have been added as a condition of approval.
Article 5.3, Dedication and Impact Requirements
Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), Right-of-Way Dimensions, the required width for Gleason Street,
a Local Residential Street without a curb and gutter, is 60'. The existing width of Gleason Street
measures 40'. A determination was made to reduce the right of way width requirement and to maintain
the existing 40' at the DSMG (Design Services Management Group) meeting of March 28, 2013.
However, it was determined that a five foot (5') sidewalk easement would need to be provided along
Gleason Street. This requirement, along with a request for deferred installation, has been added as a
condition of approval.
Additionally, the right of way requirement for Nassau Street is also 60'. The existing width of Nassau
Street measures 28.8'. The DSMG determined that the required width of Nassau Street could be
reduced to 30', thereby requiring a .6' right of way dedication, as well as a 5' sidewalk easement along
the property adjacent to Nassau Street. The request to defer installation of the sidewalk would also be
required and supported.
While it not anticipated that a sidewalk would be installed by the City in the near future, it should be
noted that other recent applications for additions to properties along Nassau Street have been required
to provide the same dedications and easements.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
Note: As required by the LDRs, a notice regarding the subject variance request was sent to those
property owners located within a 500' radius of the subject property.
Article 2.4, General Procedures
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A), Procedures for Obtaining Relief From Compliance With
Portions of the Land Development Regulations, Variances, a variance is a relaxation of the terms
of these land development regulations where such variance will not be contrary to the public interest
and where owing to the conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the
landowner, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary and undue hardship.
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(6), Alternative Findings of the Historic Preservation Board, the
Board may be guided by the following to make findings as an alternative:
(a) That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property and demonstrating
that the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare.
(b) That 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
• 1029 Nassau Street COA 2013-114
HPB Meeting of April 3.2013
Page 5 of 6
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) That 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) That the variance requested will not significantly diminish the historic character of a historic site
or of a historic district.
(e) That the requested variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a
historic building, structure, or site:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), Development Standards, properties located within the R-1-A
zoning district shall provide a rear setback of 10'.
STAFF ANALYSIS
As previously noted, the proposed addition encroaches farther into the required rear yard setback. The
existing rear (north) setback, which is legally nonconforming, is 9.9', whereas 10' are required. The
proposed rear setback is 4.2'.
In consideration of the criteria above, the aforenoted variance can be supported in that the variance will
assist in maintaining the historic character of the property by permitting additional expansion of the
structure in an appropriate manner. Further, special conditions and circumstances exist in that the
property measures just 95' deep, thereby limiting the developable space available, while still
maintaining sufficient space (4.2') between the building and property line for maintenance and access
purposes. Additionally, the building is setback sufficiently from Nassau Street that, if it were not in a
historic district, an addition could be placed on the front of the structure. However, this is not permitted
on historic structures and therefore, the lot is further limited in its buildable spaces which are towards
the back of the property. The provision of the requested variance will not diminish the character of the
property, rather, it will further enhance the character by permitting the appropriate development and
further use of the property for the needs of the property owner.
Given the above, Staff recommends approval on the variance request as positive findings can be made
pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(1).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness (2013-114) for 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park
Historic District, based on positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations, the
Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation subject to conditions.
C. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness (2013-114) for 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic
District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development
Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (Motion to be phrased in the affirmative. See above.)
1029 Nassau Street:COA 2013-114
HPB Meeting of April 3,2013
Page 6 of 6
RECOMMENDATION
By Separate Motions
Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness (2013-114) for 1029 Nassau Street, Nassau Park Historic
District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development
Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions:
1. That either the driveway is widened by 4.9' or that a ribbon drive is added to the north of the
driveway;
2. That a 5' sidewalk easement be provided along the east side of the property, adjacent to
Gleason Street;
3. That a .6' right of way dedication be provided along the south side of the property, adjacent to
Nassau Street;
4. That a 5' sidewalk easement be provided along the south side of the property, adjacent to
Nassau Street;
5. That sidewalk deferrals be requested and approved by the City Commission;
6. That all dedications and easements be accepted by the City Commission prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit.
Approve the variance to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), to reduce the rear (east) yard setback on the second
story addition to 4.2', whereas 10' is required.
Report Prepared By: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner
I
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS
4.4.24(B)(12)(c), 4.4.24(C)(6)(c), AND 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) TO ADD LOTS 16-
18, LESS SOUTH 75 FEET THEREOF, BLOCK 69, TO THOSE
PROPERTIES ZONED OSSHAD (OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC
ARTS DISTRICT) WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITTED AND
ACCESSORY USES OF 4.4.13(B) AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
OF THE CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT,
EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN
4.3.4(J)(4).
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD
The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Board regarding a privately-initiated amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square
Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections (B) Permitted Uses, (C) Accessory Uses, and (F)
Development Standards. The proposed amendment is to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the
South 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district
that can be developed pursuant to the development standards and uses of the CBD (Central
Business District) zoning district, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
BACKGROUND
The intent of the subject LDR amendment is to apply the development standards and uses
(excluding conditional uses) of the CBD to the property located at 36 SE 1st Avenue. The
property is located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue, approximately seventy-five feet (75')
north of SE 1st Street, and is vacant. A circa 1938 frame vernacular structure was relocated from
the subject property to 186 NW 5th Avenue in 2011, where it was individually designated and
listed on the Local Register of Historic Places as "The Harvel House" in the West Settlers
Historic District. Prior to its relocation, the structure was classified as contributing within the Old
School Square Historic District.
In 1990, with the citywide rezonings, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District)
zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic district including
all of Block 69. All lots within Block 69 were rezoned from GC (General Commercial) to
OSSHAD.
There are other lots in the immediate vicinity located within the OSSHAD zoning district that
may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the
CBD. Those lots are located immediately to the north and across the east/west alley from the
subject property and include a surface parking lot, the City parking garage, and a recently
constructed mixed-use building (Royal Atlantica). Those three lots were included in one text
amendment adopted on January 4, 2000 (Ordinance 47-99) which provided for the expansion of
the CBD overlay district (uses and development standards), for the primary purpose of
constructing the Block 69 parking garage.
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
p
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
In 2007, privately-initiated LDR• Amendment (Ordinance 31-07) was submitted which was
identical to this current request. The ordinance was reviewed by the HPB (September 5, 2007),
Community Redevelopment Agency (September 6, 2007), and Planning and Zoning Board
(September 17, 2007) and was unanimously recommended for denial by all three Boards. The
ordinance was placed on hold by the property owner while a Class V Site Plan Application and
COA were reviewed by the HPB for a replacement project involving new Class A offices. The
HPB also reviewed four variances and three waiver requests associated with the Class V Site
Plan and COA, all of which were denied.
Subsequently, the property owner moved forward with an appeal of the denial which was
approved by the City Commission at its August 19, 2008 meeting. As a result, the LDR
amendment described in Ordinance 31-07 (and now in Ordinance 09-13) was withdrawn. The
approved plans for the Class A office space received extensions of approval twice and remain
valid until August 19, 2014.
PROPOSED LDR TEXT AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(1), amendments to the Land Development Regulations may
be initiated by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board or City Administration; or an
individual. The proposed amendment is a privately-initiated text amendment to the Land
Development Regulations.
The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75'
of each, Block 69, to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to the noted CBD
standards and regulations. The CBD development standards would permit a maximum height of
forty-eight feet (48'), versus a thirty-five foot (35') maximum height permitted within OSSHAD. In
the OSSHAD zoning district, the required setbacks are twenty-five feet (25') for the front, seven
feet, six inches (7'6") for the side interior, and ten feet (10') for the rear, whereas the CBD
setbacks are as follows:
• Front setback may vary from five feet to ten feet (5'-10') for 70%-90% of the front
elevation depending upon the proposed use on the ground floor and at least fifteen feet
(15') for 10%-30% of the front elevation. These setbacks are required up to a height of
thirty-seven feet (37'). The remainder of the building could contain up to 70% of the
ground floor with a fifteen foot (15') setback, with up to thirty percent (30%) containing a
setback of five feet to ten feet (5'-10');
• Side setbacks may be zero (0) if there is vehicular access to the rear. Otherwise, one
side must be setback at least ten feet (10');
• Rear setbacks are ten feet (10') up to thirty-seven feet (37') in height while the elevation
over thirty-seven feet (37') must be setback twenty-two feet (22') as the subject property
abuts a zoning district to the west (OSSHAD) with a maximum height requirement of
thirty-five feet (35').
The proposed changes would further increase the types of both principal and accessory uses
that could be established in the OSSHAD zoning district to allow for a wider range of retail,
service, and office uses, as well as more dense multi-family residential.
A chart containing the above noted information has been provided on page six of this report.
2
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED LDR TEXT AMENDMENT
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5),Findings, in addition to LDR Section 1.1.6(A), the City
Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and
the following applicable Objectives and Policies were noted:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, GOAL AREA "A": Land within the Planning area shall be
developed or redeveloped, to enhance the existing quality of life, complement existing land use
and result in a mixed, but predominantly residential community with a balanced economic base.
Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a
manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil,
topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land
uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs.
Future Land Use Element Objective A-4 The redevelopment of land and buildings shall
provide for the presentation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued
adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies:
Future Land Use Policy A-4.1 Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or
development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic
site, the Historic Presentation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent
with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations (see below) relating
to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines".
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(A), Historic Preservation Sites and Districts: in recognition
of findings as set forth in the original enactment of Ordinance 13-87, passed March 10,
1987, this Section is created in order to provide for the identification, presentation,
protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and the use of districts, archeological sites,
buildings, structures, improvements, and appurtenances that are reminders of past eras,
events, and persons important in local, state, and national history; that provide significant
examples of architectural styles of the past; that are unique and irreplaceable assets to the
City and its neighborhoods; or that provide this and future generations with examples of
the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; and other purposes.
Future Land Use Policy A-4.2 In order to protect the City's historic resources, the Land
Development Regulations shall include provisions for designation of historically significant
buildings, structures, archaeological sites, or districts. The City shall conduct periodic
neighborhood surveys to identify and evaluate potential historic resources.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Objective A-1 noted above requires that development be complimentary to adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment would allow for the subject property to be developed in a manner
complimentary to both those properties located across SE 1st Avenue, outside of the historic
district and zoned CBD, or those located in the historic district but recently developed under the
CBD Overlay. The amendment would not provide for complimentary development with the
historic properties within the subject historic district and would allow for the incursion of more
intense development with reduced setback requirements and the potential for greater height. The
3
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
OSSHAD zoning regulations were established as a mixed use district with less intensity with
respect to uses, density, and scale and massing than those allowed in the CBD. The adjacent
properties to the west and south are also zoned OSSHAD and consist of either contributing
single-family residences or non-contributing mixed-use development. The proposal is not
consistent with Objective A-4 which requires that the amendment provide for the preservation of
historic resources through the redevelopment of land and buildings. Further, Policy A-4.1
requires that the Historic Preservation Board make a finding that the requested action is
consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations. The
provisions of the Section are to provide for the preservation of districts, buildings, and structures.
The proposed amendment not only does not provide for historic preservation, the potential
intensification of future development does not encourage preservation of the historic structures
located immediately to the west of and abutting the subject property. Therefore, positive findings
cannot be made as the proposed LDR text amendment is not consistent with and do not further
the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element.
HOUSING ELEMENT, GOAL AREA "A": To maintain a safe and adequate supply of housing
by preserving existing stable neighborhoods, stabilizing and enhancing neighborhoods that are
in transition, and restoring and rehabilitating neighborhoods that have declined.
Housing Element Objective A-10: The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of
historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of
a particular neighborhood.
Housing Element Policy A-10.1 This objective will be implemented in accordance with the
standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic
Preservation Sites and Districts.
Housing Element Policy A-10.2 The City will promote the use of historic designations as a
revitalization tool in its preparation of Neighborhood Plans for those areas which have a
significant inventory of historic structures.
Housing Element Objective A-12 To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing
their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and
around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following
policies.
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 a proposed development will result in a
degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied.
Housing Element Policy A-12.4: The City will provide planning and technical assistance to
implement neighborhood-supported initiatives aimed at preserving the character of existing
residential areas. Such assistance may involve the formulation of regulations that would limit the
size and scale of new homes to be consistent with existing structures within a defined
neighborhood, and analysis of the housing inventory to determine if the area qualifies for
designation as a historic district, and similar measures.
4
t
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The increase of density within this historically designated area will increase the traffic volumes
and with this particular amendment proposal could negatively modify circulation patterns.
Further, it will allow development inconsistent with the desired development pattern of the
OSSHAD district. This desired development pattern is explained in the "Purpose and Intent"
section of the LDRs and calls for encouraging the restoration or preservation of historic
structures and, maintaining and enhancing the historic and pedestrian scale of the area. Uses
and development densities and intensities that are currently allowed in the OSSHAD promote
the preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. Increasing the intensity
of use of the property available under the CBD will have an adverse impact on the stability of
this historic area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remainder of the
historic district. Additionally, the proposed amendment has the potential to negatively affect the
historic neighborhood environment of the Old School Square Historic District by impacting the
safety, habitability, and stability of the residential area. The properties to the west continue to be
single-family residences (although vacant), as are the majority of the properties along the west
side of SE 1st Avenue, within Block 70, located to the south. Therefore, positive findings cannot
be made, as the proposed LDR text amendment is not consistent with and does not further the
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element.
CBD VS. OSSHAD
As previously noted, the property is currently regulated by the OSSHAD which is a mixed use
zoning district intended to:
1. Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, with an emphasis on
the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet,
maintain and enhance the historic and pedestrian scale of the area;
2. Stimulate greater awareness and pride in the City's architectural heritage, and create an
atmosphere and feeling of"Old Delray Beach";
3. Improve the environmental quality and overall livability of this Historic District and stabilize
and improve property value therein, and;
4. Allow uses which promote preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the
District.
The CBD was "established in order to preserve and protect the cultural and historic aspects of
downtown Delray Beach and simultaneously provide for the stimulation and enhancement of the
vitality and economic growth of this special area. The regulations within the Central Core, within
which the subject property lies, are "intended to result in development that preserves the
downtown's historic moderate scale, while promoting a balanced mix of uses that will help the
area evolve into a traditional, self-sufficient downtown. Further, "residential development is
permitted at higher densities in this area than any other part of the city, in order to foster
compact, pedestrian oriented growth that will support downtown businesses."
There are clear differences between the purposes and intents of the OSSHAD and CBD zoning
districts. Overall, the CBD does not emphasize the preservation of historic structures, but rather,
strives to protect historic aspects of the downtown, such as the scale, which is low-scale,
particularly when looking to the surrounding municipalities and their larger height maximums.
However, when compared with the historic districts, the CBD scale is not compatible in that it is
taller and permits more scale and massing. Therefore, the OSSHAD intent is more appropriate,
as are its development requirements, with the intentions to maintain the historic development
pattern of the original Town of Delray neighborhood.
As previously noted, the proposed amendment will allow the incursion of a more intense
development having reduced setback requirements and a potential for greater height into an
5
r
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(6)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
historic district having zoning regulations that established a mixed use district with a less
intensity of uses, density, scale and massing. The chart below gives a comparison of the
development standards applicable to the proposed amendment and conditions of the subject
property:
OSSHAD CBD - Central Core Difference
Height* 35' 48' +13'
Cannot determine
Lot Coverage 40% --- difference
Open Space 25% 10% -15%
Lot Size 8,000 square feet 0
Lot Width 80' 0 --
Lot Depth 100' 0 ---
OSSHAD CBD - Central Core Difference
Lot Frontage 80' 0 ---
Setbacks**
1st&2nd Stories Up to 25'
5'-10', depending on 70%-90%=15'-20'
Front 25' ground floor use;
70%-90% = 5'-10' max.; closer;
10%-30% = 15' min. 10%-30%=10' closer;
Side-Interior 7'6" 0' 7'6"closer
5'-10', depending on 70%-90%=5'-10'
Side-Street 15' ground floor use; closer;
70%-90% =5'-10' max. 10%-30%=No
10%-30% = 15' min. difference
Rear 10' 10' No Difference
3rd Story-Over 25'-48'
The floor area for the At least 70% = 15' min.;
Front third floor shall be Up to 30% =5'-10' min.
limited to 50% of the Cannot determine
0' or 10' difference.
Side-Interior second floor area and (depending on vehicular
the building setbacks access to rear of property)
or planes of the facade
Side-Street are offset and varied to See Front(above)
Rear provide visual relief. 10'
4th Story—Over 37'
Front At least 70% = 15' min.;
Up to 30%=5'-10' min.
N/A 0' or 10'
Side-Interior (OSSHAD height limit (depending on vehicular OSSHAD height limit
is 35') access to rear of property) is 35'
Side-Street See Front(above)
Rear 22'***
*Additional height exceptions would not apply,as identified in 4.4.13(F)(1).
**See LDR Section 4.4.13
***Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4(A)(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise,rear setback is 10'.
6
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
See Appendix A for a comparison of the permitted uses within both the OSSHAD and CBD
zoning district.
The following excerpt is from the statement was submitted in justification of the subject
amendment:
"The applicant is seeking to build a mixed-use office building,...By allowing this zoning
text amendment, the stability of the neighborhood will be enhanced since the commercial
activity of Atlantic Avenue will not be able to prosper for the daytime economy if we do
not allow office development. "
As stated in the narrative, the applicant notes that the development of a mixed-use office
building is desired. An office building was previously approved and is still valid until August 19,
2014; a mixed-use building could be built under the existing OSSHAD uses. Therefore, the
subject amendment is not necessary to achieve the needs of the applicant.
Further, the surrounding area includes the CBD zoning district (located both within, as an
overlay, and outside of the Old School Square Historic District) and the Old School Square
Historic District (properties zoned OSSHAD). The properties to the west of the property are
contributing structures within the subject historic district, and will be the most affected by the
proposed amendment. This is of concern as those properties that have not yet benefited from
redevelopment could be further hindered as there would be less incentive for the rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse of those properties. The properties to the north are located within the Old
School Square Historic District and subject to the CBD uses and design standards. However,
the east-west alleyway serves as a physical boundary between those properties and the subject
property. Further, it appears that development outside of the designated historic district is being
used to justify inappropriate regulations within the historic district such as the Worthing Place
development located across SE 1st Avenue. If development outside of the historic districts
justifies changing regulations within the historic district, then the same rationale could be applied
to Block 70, located just to the south of the subject property and within the Old School Square
Historic District.
It should be noted that it was made clear during the review for the amendment to the north that
providing CBD overlay of permitted uses and development standards for those properties would
not be precedent setting. The justification statement for the subject request submitted by the
applicant illustrates the opposite.
The OSSHAD district is typified as a low intensity mixed use district that allows single family
residential, professional offices, boutiques, etc. The intensity allowed as principal uses as well
as the more liberal development standards in the CBD zoning district, such as setbacks and
height, for the subject property, is incompatible with the historic district. Consequently, a positive
finding cannot be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5).
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the preservation of historic resources, which is not achieved
by the proposed amendment. Therefore, a positive finding cannot be made that the
amendments are consistent with and further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered the subject LDR Amendments at
its meeting of March 28, 2012 meeting. A recommendation was not made; the request was
tabled.
7
i
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(6)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
The Planning and Zoning Board will consider the subject LDR Amendments at its April 15,
2012. A recommendation will be made to the City Commission.
Public Notice
Since the proposed LDR text amendment is site specific, a public notice has been provided to
property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property.
Letters of objection and support, if any, will be presented at the meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Continue with direction.
B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulation Section 4.4.24(B)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 09-13,
allowing the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to
additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting
the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment
and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set
forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land
Development Regulation Section 4.4.24(6)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 09-13,
allowing the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to
additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting
the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment
and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the
criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). (Motion to be phrased in the affirmative. See
above.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulation
Section 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(C), and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 09-13, allowing the permitted
uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for
Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained
in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
(Motion to be phrased in the affirmative. See above.)
Attachments:
• Appendix A—Chart of Permitted Uses within OSSHAD and CBD
• Exhibit"A" [Proposed Amendment]
• Location Map
• Justification Statement
8
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
APPENDIX A
OSSHAD L CBD-Central Core
Permitted Uses
Single family and duplex dwellings X ---
Business, Professional, Medical and X
Governmental Offices X (Except Government Offices)
Retail sales through specialty shops
(single purpose businesses) X X
Restaurants of a sit down nature X X
Arts related businesses X I X
Educational and/or Instructional activities
(including training, vocational, or craft schools, the X X
arts, personal development, and libraries, museums,
and social and philanthropic institutions)
Libraries and museums X X
Personal services X X
(barbershops,beauty shops,salons,cosmetologists)
Catering services X
(not associated with a restaurant) X
Bed and breakfast inns X X
Group Home, Type 1 X
General retail I --- X
Business and professional office X X
Services and facilities (See 4.4.13(B)(3)) __ X
Multi-family --
(As a conditional use in a X
mixed-use structure)
Hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, and X
residential-type inns (Bed&Breakfast Inn Only) X
Permitted Conditional Uses
Multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure ---
X (Allowed as combination of
permitted uses)
Outdoor dining X X
Adult Congregate Living Facilities, Residential
Licensed Service Provider Facilities, Child Care, X X
Adult Day Care, Continuing Care, Convalescent
Homes, and Nursing Homes
Parking lots not associated with a use
(i.e. public parking) X --
Residential-type inns X ---
(As a permitted use)
Group Home X X
Group Home, Type 2, and Community X
Residential Homes
9
I
Ordinance 09-13; HPB Meeting of 04.03.13
Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a)
OSSHAD CBD-Central Core
Permitted Conditional Uses
Multi-family dwelling units, excluding duplexes, at
a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre,
on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and -- X
north of S.E. 2nd Street
Wash establishment, with automatic/mechanical
systems only, for vehicles --- X
Flea markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and
similar retail uses - X
Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of
assembly for commercial entertainment purposes — X
Movie theaters X
Veterinary clinics X
Recreational establishments such as bowling
alleys, gymnasiums, health spas, miniature golf X
courses, skating rinks
Gasoline stations or the dispensing of gasoline
directly into vehicles -- X
Funeral homes including accessory uses X
Financial institutions X
Child care and adult day care X
Amusement game facilities X
Residential licensed service provider X
Adult congregate living facilities X
10
ORDINANCE NO. 09-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL
SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION
4.4.24(B)(12), "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES" TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LOTS SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL
REGULATIONS OF THE CBD ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING
SECTION 4.4.24, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT
(OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION 4.4.24(C)(6), "ACCESSORY USES AND
STRUCTURES PERMITTED" TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LOTS
SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL REGULATIONS OF THE CBD
ZONING DISTRICT AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.4.24(F)(1),
"DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
LOTS SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL REGULATIONS OF THE CBD
ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A
GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE,AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board
reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on XXX and voted
to to approve the amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning
Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent
with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)",
Subsection 4.4.24(B), "Principal Uses and Structures" of the Code of Ordinances of the Land
Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Principal Uses and Structures: The following types of uses are allowed
within the OSSHAD as a permitted use:
(12) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in
Section 4.4.13(B)(12) pursuant to the base district and special regulations of the Central Business
District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD:
- 1 -
(a) Lots 13-16, Block 60
(b) Lots 1- 4, Block 61
(c) Lots 1- 7, Lots 16, 17 and 18, less the south 75 feet, and 19 - 24, Block 69
(d) Lots 7- 8, and the South 34.75 feet of Lot 6, Block 75; and
(e) Lots 1- 6, Block 76
Section 2. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District
(OSSHAD)", Subsection 4.4.24(C), "Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted", of the Code of
Ordinances of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and
the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
(C) Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted: The following uses are allowed when
a part of, or accessory to, the principal use:
(6) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as accessory uses in Section
4.4.13(C) pursuant to the base district and special regulations of the Central Business District
regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD:
(a) Lots 13-16, Block 60
(b) Lots 1- 4,Block 61
(c) Lots 1- 7, Lots 16, 17 and 18, less the south 75 feet, and 19 - 24, Block 69
(d) Lots 7- 8, and the South 34.75 feet of Lot 6,Block 75; and
(e) Lots 1- 6,Block 76
Section 3. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District
(OSSHAD)", Subsection 4.4.24(F), "Development Standards", of the Code of Ordinances of
the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth, for the OSSHAD
District, in Section 4.3.4 apply, except for as modified below:
(1) The following locations shall be subject to the development standards of the
Commercial Core (CC) area of the CBD Zone District, excluding exceptions to height
limitations provided in Section 4.3.4(J)(4):
(a) Lots 1- 7, Lots 16, 17 and 18, less the south 75 feet, and 19 -24, Block 69
(b) Lots 7- 8, and the South 34.75 feet of Lot 6, Block 75; and
(c) Lots 1- 6, Block 76
Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof,
any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other
than the part declared to be invalid.
-2-
Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the
same, are hereby repealed.
Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption on second and
final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this
the day of , 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
First Reading
Second Reading
-3-
36 SE 1st Avenue
Location Map
•- .nl a, e .� - 3 R� w' ,.� t tt ! \-.F-" -•yQ - . r 1 Ft ;
� � - . .> -sue,,,, .,, J55 7 s, .J t: �"`'- s' '... ' -a' sy' F.: ' <,
- t. r ,�,_•, ++.q.t 4 +• 4r-t n . .1`Y 't`w£ P'i _-t-ivi ? Il. �� -I
7=r = ., #` f fi x -r f M ;.= •T. I , t• ,
E htlantic�AveF"
.:i � mn; _,. � I°�• +1., -�• a. r _ -� ''a` dr `. fib-n ▪., fG,
c r 5 .
r`: ?:'yF'— - ;`;s I � try, - ( ;. 1 I t,..ii -'� 't *�" Y{ s� .: f�F, :.
#, i fs.- '. ,�1 - f f '4 If t ` e .. ti.^ }.t '' ' tT �';r
1, `x 1. - Y`' Idl i" 1- - fl ?��' i 'ter R ,�` ' t 'r
- "E -sue' 'lt - 5 'r 1-i - . ` XI! '4'4 -••
r• �•'. Ifi •.l! ra..•y ..
��� I [` lie j is .rt •- N, r c t' . • :-
5 . 1 f�..f_{tl ` 1 ' ;r-
1 --, 4,___; .. ,i, ._, :„,-:.-...,:: .-_, ., -,•„;.„,.._,=__ -=:_-_-_!... -... . 0 :[-•-... . .7:_ ti-z---:.-ft.., -, ..r.4 ' 1 '-. -ia'',4 -; t..
t ,
1
. - _ - . . ..) _ li_-::,_‘,_,...„..-„... ..„ ...,._,•,. ,__-_
__ ._ :_- ...,-',3, :_ c-,.
_i '' - ay A. 4.'.I !t i_ ;I 1` I,, J tio
ntn+r JJ,''-1 ,. j ,.
NN t .A,- Olt f it is+ 't i
_ r ,
,,,,,
,..___. , ...1 , _ .,., L.... ,..:_,;;.
.,±1:_ii,._ i,,m,,..._ ,. ...•5 •' t•-•r: ----,,-„=0;1-15'.'4,71 J.,,-4!.:, ,,_4',",e ,---gA -- __, „_-_-_-,1,.. -.1v1!% ,r,.,-, _!▪kr, 1 ,. %,, - .,,____ --7-.-_ , : . :,,,,,,,,...,k,,..1
iv
- . S. - 1 A.
' f1 r .'. • i t - - _ 'L4 F, • 4i1;.
`$i � `^•- -fit -.r1 1= f - {y ; F, r �f. 1.-, f ii
,„ •- - .
'� ir�_ it� t:tr i s�z# A I i'uI
_ Coda,Clf ` t '3`" { � I }I �'' t `i r 4:.�"s� d I I: Fi 5'' "F II`rf.I r
1}. t t ;I '�`i,'y ` .., ' 1 ,iritt.1 � ,S .. ' 'lc 7'fis£�t :.k:A. +) 1 'r.
-�fl- I t S -'"4S',T�i t {. t •;1'',rf '4;1. 1,}I'� trxe
141
<�: iI {,Sqr. fr G } S ,...." I;ph,ei `.. i• ,,.h #Ir;ra r r d, , . +f' ••r,,
mil
4.0 ,muff(3 .�.c .�f -. y- ' tiM1 `ti , .,a 1 ' I.
I} 's .f � Lli .''iy.7's' r III ,.�i
i� t. I r•;TT ..s ,id! -, •-, q,'tsik ii, C , r tom ' 1�l ..„'.Y III;e,
tomt 'ii� ry ' 4s�. `1.t1�•'� ' i�,_ ----ei1 :✓� 1 ,. + ; k r. y Ti,1 1 '�I�•tl•
l
Coda CiI�.:�--�� �� r r tr,sP t �• ,,mow ir- r ,rr1 „e, `S* - - • -.f!• N• ,7 -?1••/ . 11:
4 +4, . , p , F, r 1sir,t
I� owidp",q „ ; - - - ' 33 - s� ! `',fir•.
T -.' ! :y S a «,s i . s n 3 - 3 .- ,.! _ +S ;' I F III
!0341
A t��j•
i—� i_ � I • �-....ph., Nf
}.; •4 i -, /+0 tic >" _ Xr ;
e �• � f�▪ ��/
t7 �11 i t tv^+ram+ :1, �,;- •{ " , r .�- -:, 7 Ems^° �
- JSW�2nd St• SE Ind St ��`•� _..: - y _
___
JUSTIFICATION
This text amendment is to allow the permitted uses and development standards
in the CBD to apply to the subject property located within OSSHAD.
The applicant is seeking to build a mixed use office building, which use is in high
demand from all economic analysts throughout the area. Section 4.4.24 of the
LDRs allows certain sections of OSSHAD zoning to be treated as CBD (Central
Business District). The structure which had been on the property, which gave the
property its historical relevance, has since been relocated to property compatible
with a house of its size and height. This was the best preservation of historic
resources. Conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing has
already occurred recognizing that the house which existed on the property would
only suffer in comparison to the surrounding area considering the development
which has occurred to meet the recognized demand for Class "A" office buildings
in the City.
8y allowing this zoning text amendment, the stability of the neighborhood will be
enhanced since the commercial activity of Atlantic Avenue will not be able to
prosper for the daytime economy if we do not allow office development.
Accordingly, the only logical conclusion is that the Comprehensive Plan is met by
enacting this change.
CBD regulations are otherwise allowed within the OSSHAD zoning to preserve
and protect the cultural and historic aspects of Downtown Delray Beach and
simultaneously provide for stimulation and enhancement of the vitality and
economic growth of this special area. It is therefore obvious that the regulations
for CBD are sympathetic and complimentary to the area.
The development pattern surrounding this property is more typical to the CBD
development regulations than the OSSHAD zoning regulations. Directly to the
north of the property is the Bob Federspiel Parking Garage which is subject to
the CBD development regulations, as are all the lots to the north of the garage, to
Lot 24. To the east of the property is the Worthing Place project, which is located
in the CBD zoning district. It is not the proliferation of these projects which
serves as the basis for allowing this zoning text amendment. Rather, those
projects followed a natural progression of development south from Atlantic
Avenue for business uses that complement the needs of the City.
Previously, there has been a statement of expression relating to the (mostly
dilapidated) cottages to the west. These structures must be examined in light of
the historical contexts involving OSSHAD and CBD.
OSSHAD was established in the early 1990's. In February 1993, almost twenty-
three (23) lots were added allowing CBD regulations to be applied in OSSHAD.
After three (3) years, the City soon realized that it was necessary to blend CBD
I
and OSSHAD regulations. In 1999, the City found once again that there was not
an appropriate integration of CBD and OSSHAD zoning and added five (5) more
lots so that an appropriate parking garage could be constructed. Thereafter in
2002, the Downtown Master Plan was promulgated with numerous
recommendations and then incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan requires consistency with the Master
Plan. The Master Plan summation of what occurs on the streets off of Atlantic
Avenue is as follows:
"The lack of buildings along side streets within the commercial
core district has limited the commercial component and caused it
to concentrate mainly along Atlantic Avenue. In Delray Beach
Downtown's success has made supply low and demand high
leaving the small business owner who is able to provide more
assessable neighborhood services out of the equation."
By building in accordance with the CBD district guidelines, the City will allow this
deficiency to be addressed as recognized in the Downtown Master Plan, which
the Comprehensive Plan requires us to carry out. Pursuant to LDR Section
2.4.5(M)(5), the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
/OZfaz s
z
VARIANCES
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5), a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of
property if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:
Yes No
(5) (a) Do special conditions and circumstances exist which
are peculiar to the land, structure, or building
involved and which are not generally applicable to
other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the
same zoning?
(b) Does the literal interpretation of the regulations
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties subject to the same zoning?
(c) Were the special conditions and circumstances a
result of actions that were not created by the
applicant?
(d) The granting of the variance does not confer a
special privilege onto the applicant that is not
available to other lands, structures, and buildings
under the same zoning.
(e) Do the reasons set forth in the variance petition
justify the granting of the variance in that the
variance is the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or
structure?
(f) Will the granting of the variance be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of existing regulations
and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare?
1
Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(6), as an alternative to Section 2.4.7(A)(5), a variance may be
necessary to maintain the historic character of property if the following questions can be
answered in the affirmative:
Yes No
0(6) (a) Will the granting of the variance be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of existing regulations
meaning it will not adversely effect the public
interest, safety, or welfare?
(b) Do special conditions and circumstances exist
because of the historic setting, location, nature, or
character of the land, structure, appurtenance, sign,
or building involved?
(c) Will the variance help to preserve the historic _ (�
character of the historic district or historic site?
(d) Will the variance help prevent the historic character 0
of a historic site or district from diminishing
significantly?
(e) Is the variance requested necessary to accommodate
an adaptive reuse of a historic building, structure, or
site?
2
VISUAL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
I. Visual Compatibility Standards. New construction and all improvements to both
contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a
designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually
compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation
Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with
regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture,
roof shape, direction, lot coverage, and square footage, and other criteria set forth
elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor and major development as
referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in
(a)-(m) below. Visual compatibility for all development on individually designated
properties outside the district shall be determined by comparison to other structures
within the site.
69 Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually
compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and
buildings in a historic district for all major and minor development. For major
development, visual compatibility with respect to the height of residential
structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall also be determined through
application of the following:
1. Building Height Plane (BHP): The building height plane technique sets
back the overall height of a building from the front property line.
a. The building height plane line is extended at an inclined angle from the
intersection of the front yard property line and the average grade of the
adjacent street along the lot frontage. The inclined angle shall be
established at a two to one(2:1)ratio. See illustration below.
z1 NO BUILD MAX 35' HT.
� ZONE
it'
wl
OI 22.51 HISTORIC
al �� 2 STORY HT.
1 II 17.5' REAR
ai p. ,� 15' SETBACK
12 5'
0.—J'i I
30.0'
35.0'
150.0' /
BUILDING HEIGHT PLANE
AT 2:1 RATIO
1
1
b. A structure relocated to a historic district or to an individually designated
historic site shall be exempt from this requirement.
2. First Floor Maximum Height: Single-story or first floor limits shall be
established by:
a. Height from finished floor elevation to top of beam (tie or bond) shall
not exceed fourteen feet (14').
b. Mean Roof Height shall not exceed eighteen feet (18').
c. If any portion of the building exceeds the dimensions described in a.
and b. above, the building shall be considered a multi-story structure.
d. See illustration below:
12 ROOF PITCH MAY VARY
s
xMEAN ROOF HT.
1 "TOP OF BEAM
2 x
Q
.-
'
` i l F.F.E.
e. Sections a., b., and c. above may be waived by the Historic
Preservation Board when appropriate, based on the architectural style
of the building.
3. Upper Story Height(s): Height from finished floor elevation to finished
floor elevation or top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed twely feet(12').
Are the requirements for height met?
2
YES NO
B. ) Front Facade Proportion: The front façade of
each building or structure shall be visually
compatible with and be in direct relationship to the
width of the building and to the height of the front
elevation of other existing structures and buildings
within the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for front facade
proportion met?
�� Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors):
The openings of any building within a historic
district shall be visually compatible with the
openings exemplified by prevailing historic
architectural styles of similar buildings within the
district. The relationship of the width of windows
and doors to the height of windows and doors
among buildings shall be visually compatible within
the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for proportion of openings
(windows and doors) proportion met?
If)) Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of
solids to voids of a building or structure shall be
visually compatible with existing historic buildings
or structures within the subject historic district for
all development, with particular attention paid to the
front facades.
Are the requirements for rhythm of solids to
voids met?
AiRhythm of Buildings on Streets: The relationship
of buildings to open space between them and
adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible
with the relationship between existing historic
buildings or structures within the subject historic
district.
Are the requirements for rhythm of buildings on
streets met?
3
YES NO
F. Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections:
The relationship of entrances and porch projections
to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually
compatible with existing architectural styles of
entrances and porch projections on existing historic
buildings and structures within the subject historic
district for all development.
Are the requirements for rhythm of entrance
and/or porch projections met?
G. ) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color:
L/ The relationship of materials, texture, and color of
the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be
visually compatible with the predominant materials
used in the historic buildings and structures within
the subject historic district.
Are the requirements for relationship of
materials, texture, and color met?
H. Roof Shapes: The roof shape, including type and
slope, of a building or structure shall be visually
compatible with the roof shape of existing historic
buildings or structures within the subject historic
district. The roof shape shall be consistent with the //
architectural style of the building. f
Are the requirements of roof shapes met?
(--.) Walls of Continuity: Walls, fences, evergreen
landscape masses, or building facades, shall form
cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to ensure
visual compatibility with historic buildings or
structures within the subject historic district and the
structure to which it is visually related.
\d//
Are the requirements of walls of continuity met?
4
J/ Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the
building mass in relation to open spaces, windows,
door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall
be visually compatible with the building size and
mass of historic buildings and structures within a
historic district for all development. To determine
whether the scale of a building is appropriate, the
following shall apply for major development only:
1. For buildings wider than sixty percent (60%)
of the lot width, a portion of the front façade
must be setback a minimum of seven (7)
additional feet from the front setback line:
a. Lots sixty-five (65) feet or less in width
are exempt from this requirement.
b. To calculate how much of the building
width must comply with this provision,
multiply the lot width by 40% and subtract
the required minimum side setbacks
(example: 100' lot width x 40% = 40' -
15' side yard setbacks =25').
c. Any part or parts of the front façade may
be used to meet this requirement.
d. See illustration below:
•
75'LOT 75'LOT '
7 S 7.5. 7.6 77SS
60'BUILDING B0'BUI.DING
L 45' _ 15',, 22.5' 15' 22.S J
N N
5
e. If the entire building is set back an
additional seven (7) feet, no offset is
required.
2. For buildings deeper than fifty percent (50%)
of the lot depth, a portion of each side façade,
which is greater than one story high, must be
setback a minimum of five (5) additional feet
from the side setback line:
a. To calculate how much of the building
depth must comply with this provision,
multiply the lot depth by fifty percent
(50%) and subtract the required minimum
front and rear setbacks (example: 120' lot
depth x 50% = 60' - 25' front yard setback
- 10' rear setback=25').
b. Any part or parts of the side façades may
be used to meet this requirement.
c. See illustration below:
75'LOT
1
r 76'LOT
b
b
r
7.615' 50' 6'7.5'
50' 6'7.5'
d. If the entire building is set back an
additional five (5) feet from the side, no
offsets are required on that side.
1
6
YES NO
3. Porches may be placed in the offset portion of
the front or side facades, provided they are
completely open except for supporting
columns and/or railings.
Are the requirements for the scale of a4
building met?
ITI Directional Expression of Front Elevation: A
building shall be visually compatible with the
buildings, structures, and sites within a historic
district for all development with regard to its
directional character, whether vertical or horizontal.
Is the directional expression requirement for the
a
front elevation met?
`/ Architectural Style: All major and minor
development shall consist of only one (1)
architectural style per structure or property and not
introduce elements definitive of another style.
Is the requirement for the architectural style
met?
M. Additions to Individually Designated Properties
and to Contributing Structures in all Historic
Districts. Visual compatibility shall be
accomplished as follows:
1. Additions shall be located to the rear or least
public side of a building and be as
inconspicuous as possible.
Is this requirement met?
2. Additions or accessory structures shall not be
located in front of the established front wall
plane of a historic building.
Is this requirement met?
7
YES NO
3. Characteristic features of the original building
shall not be destroyed or obscured.
Is this requirement met?
4. Additions shall be designed and constructed
so that the basic form and character of the
historic building will remain intact if the
addition is ever removed.
Is this requirement met?
5. Additions shall not introduce a new
architectural style, mimic too closely the style
of the existing building nor replicate the
original design,but shall be coherent in design
with the existing building.
Is this requirement met?
6. Additions shall be secondary and subordinate
to the main mass of the historic building and
shall not overwhelm the original building.
Is this requirement met?
8
c.`�� AGENDA
v`404r v HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Meeting Date: April 17, 2013 Time: 6:00 P.M.
Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: Commission Chambers, City Hall
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 Smith at 243-7144 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.
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF APRIL 17, 2013
HAS BEEN CANCELED. THE NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR
MAY 1 , 2013.
ae."
Amy E. Alvarez
Historic Preservation Planner Posted on: April 11, 2013
DELRAY BEACH
Lthtitzi,
All-America City
" III?
1993
2001 SIGN IN SHEET
2001
Historic Preservation Board
April 17, 2013
PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO.
ORGANIZATION