Loading...
HPB 01-09-08 4,44 °� AGENDA °�► , HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING 41qy�����p CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CALL TO ORDER II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7u' Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN Vcwr ClaMilik Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CHECKLIST I. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: (Pursuant to Sections 2.4.6(H) and 4.5.1) A. New Construction/Additions: Yes No 1. Height: Is the height compatible in comparison to the height of existing structures and buildings? 2. Facade: Is the front façade of each structure visually compatible with the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent buildings? 3. Openings: Are the openings (windows and doors) visually compatible with prevailing historic architectural styles? 4. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: Are the relationships of buildings to open space visually compatible? 5. Entrances: Are the entrances and porch projections compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances? 6. Materials/Color: Are the materials, texture, and colors of the proposed building compatible with the materials, texture and colors of adjacent structures? 7. Size/Mass: Is the size and mass of the subject structure compatible with the size and mass of adjacent structures in the district? 8. Direction: Is the direction of the front elevation compatible with adjacent structures? 1 Yes No 9. Lot Coverage: Is the lot coverage or "foot print" of the structure compatible with adjacent lots and structures? B. Roof: 1. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the shape and materials of adjacent structures? 2. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the architectural style of the subject structure? C. Walls/Fences: 1. Are the wall/fencing materials compatible with the subject structure and adjacent structures? D. Hurricane Shutters: 1. Are the shutters removable? 2. If the shutters are not removable, are they located so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way? 3. If the shutters are not removable and are visible from the right-of-way, are the tracks compatible with the exterior surface and color of the structure? E. Demolitions: 1. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer or architect explaining that the structure is structurally unsound or damaged beyond repair? 2. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer, architect or general 2 Yes No contractor explaining the projected costs of repairing the structure? a. Do the costs to repair the structure result in an undue economic hardship to the owner?' 3. Has the applicant provided an appraisal of the property in its current condition, along with its estimated value as vacant land and its potential value as a preserved and restored historic property? a. Do the estimated appraisals of the property show that an undue economic hardship is likely to result if the owner's demolition request is denied?' 4. Has the applicant provided documentation to illustrate that reasonable efforts have been made to find a suitable alternate location for the structure? II. VARIANCES: (Pursuant to Section 4.5.1(J)) A. A variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 1 Additional information must be submitted to make final determination of undue economic hardship pursuant to Section 4.5.1(H)of the LDRs. 3 3 Yes No • 2. Do 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? 3. Does the literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances 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? 4. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district? B. As an alternative to subsection A, a variance may be necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 2. Will the variance significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site? • 3. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to affect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site? 4 C. If neither A nor B apply, the Board shall otherwise follow all procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustment: Yes No 1. 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? 2. Does the literal interpretation of the LDRs deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to same zoning? 3. Do special conditions and circumstances exist that were not the result of the applicant's own actions? 4. Will the granting of a variance confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings under the same zoning? 5. Do the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify granting the variance? 6. Is granting of the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of existing regulations, meaning it will not be injurious to the neighborhood? III. MATRIX OF ITEMS REQUIRING BOARD VS. STAFF APPROVAL: (see attached) 5 �'�� ���► AGENDA o = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING "rqP CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN W c rrexvAd,c/w Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 T HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front façade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7th Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 2 of 6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, presented, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 79'Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 7`~Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 4 of 6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story lion to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7`r Avenue,2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of 6 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 79'Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations r i. t "i 1. a �,._, - _r- ^7 E" '+"- •, .A r1 ,, ,---7.. F, m 9 n,+» r m;+ r--' r , ' •:;/ i^ t, �1 wiiil 't i' rah ,'„,,°7P:4.c ilr,AFf"11 ,41''a 1 •y:,' o° :r c 'm I r „� ;' r �' l ,v, ` , i'.+ 3wlr.u..0 a:��,«.,.tanS'��. aw .,.�'+,,,4�6,•, ,uu al✓awa. �rz'.roL + .ed&" 'tC,�Ye, dea�vb�t ^Flow we �•«%. 1.•1, m,.t...`Vrn ;r. r„ 9,W µ mr,s. Y ,w,0;4, f�14414.,,d`4'4,1" W i,r �,\, x 1�N iti�i, ,iS ►r....,... Jrf +ir t "v #wjy� tt `�0. •' �/t Ihr� t ri. u r� l u t 1 y, / � to L. Wyk,! ar, ry ,ar ", t a 1 r x VJ+ L s . Y, k 6 y i S ;. . b , � ..,..... ".,,._.:. . ... -...--.. _ .....Jl ASV d ' 1" S�'br 1 i nx <7 Olt , Em ..'-i , ' ' ; '0 ' '-ehl ' I n,. �✓./i? i �l ,t vi Vo tea �, 2Q .1 .wee` -- 1k; _ /� '41 2- AM---; i Yotts FLya . + . t/ n.' ° er 1111�12.,0 ,dttacZ„AM,, ,,;, -;,—. ,.- , . w-..,». ,� „ - ., . 11/1 ►I a��� 12�9 AM n� iv Y 46h fY ,'�fM4)+ i' .. C y ty ��,h � e�X.'y�'+"d'lP'S "4l�.vrtr.'.t.,. _ .�? T . +r"-' ..F Flay. i'�.k�kx ?,.,_' ,:,,I.,,, s , A 0.:,_lii,,i,. mom Y"Y r„„:... 7_,,,,_ .,..1 El ... �' lirr 1 qq y 1.1 F . ii a _ h. V�1 if..,,,,,,,, ''',„6,:e%*1.,1,..4,31, Iri a'".,e iii tom) t •r � .� .+y, ��1E �' a ? n .F: i "1'� it r.nn:,, r-r ✓r '�� r .r Y � yip •T F .. J a c, yy'J' • .S r ➢ .uW L j+ my k�i� • 1, Y ,Sx c { y t - am Lam, .ri r ! �,y 'L ytttF� /' `. ¢, ': r 1 ki2007~ 12 7 RANI , 11W121 0'0®7 15it AM _ t x ' "^,. ,1,-.�.,... .. . ,,r. . . _. ,l,. .0 w.t"r�e' sw?.' 4i'„ d •,a.r .. ,^ ka,.,.,+ F i< � "�" ?S�b :. ka, r of DIVU 1111 I ..Y 4111 1V01K OQMV R11,II.13.117 KOK NISRO]01 IK 5U.ninu OPCIRLVOMILICAN IX Z a I r =_� _1 I ---I 1-- III, � _ril Ft � Q� Q LIVING I BEDROOM Q' m IIKITCHEN ROOM II I II I BEDROOM II VI �r z II FLORIDA RM. I 1 1- -,, r---� II I II i Q o0 ENTRY PORE I II if.....L. - --1-- II LAUNDRY II II pgp,OLIb4 DINING ' II I BEDROOM II II BEDROOM BATH I II BEDROOM 1 �^ II 1 -1- L Lb L `_._ -._� I _._17_7 --J UAIE 9.1401 I ,F,u0,:s zevaa:.. J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN '��' V4••1'-0• T V4••r-o• K 4 Z tula Ot N c m1 �vou ORMT lffl.M1 ilW r1.1i NI.f7I.1101 r.c N1:ruTu ll .aaa�o.1[au[.ca &IL 1I'illa )LLFIL I a [IIII (IIII Fill I L III IIL_III; p. p. MA Litt II I te = rx Q I l I I ¢ o C� w,J w z EXISTING EAST ELEVATION O w Q 6 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION cg ( =w V4•.1'•04 IV4.•r•o• Q r.r y w � - Q z ry iJ Q o0 aemmuees [IIII' IIII' = IIII; (IIII II I VA IihIIII [■iI[•JI V��VI IU�LI ". D.Ita, �, � IIF,I,t� _ . iiiiilr i I[I�JI[I��I O If I �I[�m �I � i4 gill EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION A2 IA'•r-m• 0 fhll gip ! u s m' wort OMIT WI,R r— xi.:.r.Twi r�x. a�.man� rI 111 MI I III��III 11111 M ICI �I•il [1111] W— C ` z a III, 111111111114 i ¢I[uii [lIDIiIIIIIII '"I" 11■ no ni . 1 _ o r O C� w W ,,L' PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O W V V4,•��, PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION w 5 w 'VY•1'4). r, Q r_ Q z�m � ry i J Z1 O�w A L5161 11111111111 Fli I;IIII 'IIII IIII iuuIIII IIII IIII IIII. i .I�l I. 1,111110 I I MI III UAE: 1.11.01 fiMii,KJ I!EE ! II� ® I , IIII,IIII O IIIIIIIIII (IIII� imiall '� fillin' ' f PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION { HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CHECKLIST I. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: (Pursuant to Sections 2.4.6(H) and 4.5.1) A. New Construction/Additions: Yes No 1. Height: Is the height compatible in comparison to the height of existing structures and buildings? 2. Facade: Is the front façade of each structure visually compatible with the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent buildings? 3. Openings: Are the openings (windows and doors) visually compatible with prevailing historic architectural styles? 4. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: Are the relationships of buildings to open space visually compatible? 5. Entrances: Are the entrances and porch projections compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances? 6. Materials/Color: Are the materials, texture, and colors of the proposed building compatible with the materials, texture and colors of adjacent structures? 7. Size/Mass: Is the size and mass of the subject structure compatible with the size and mass of adjacent structures in the district? 8. Direction: Is the direction of the front elevation compatible with adjacent structures? 1 Yes No 9. Lot Coverage: Is the lot coverage or "foot print" of the structure compatible with adjacent lots and structures? B. Roof: 1. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the shape and materials of adjacent structures? 2. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the architectural style of the subject structure? C. Walls/Fences: 1. Are the wall/fencing materials compatible with the subject structure and adjacent structures? D. Hurricane Shutters: 1. Are the shutters removable? 2. If the shutters are not removable, are they located so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way? 3. If the shutters are not removable and are visible from the right-of-way, are the tracks compatible with the exterior surface and color of the structure? E. Demolitions: 1. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer or architect explaining that the structure is structurally unsound or damaged beyond repair? 2. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer, architect or general 2 Yes No contractor explaining the projected costs of repairing the structure? a. Do the costs to repair the structure result in an undue economic hardship to the owner?' 3. Has the applicant provided an appraisal of the property in its current condition, along with its estimated value as vacant land and its potential value as a preserved and restored historic property? a. Do the estimated appraisals of the property show that an undue economic hardship is likely to result if the owner's demolition request is denied?1 4. Has the applicant provided documentation to illustrate that reasonable efforts have been made to find a suitable alternate location for the structure? II. VARIANCES: (Pursuant to Section 4.5.1(J)) A. A variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? Additional information must be submitted to make final determination of undue economic hardship pursuant to Section 4.5.1(H)of the LDRs. 3 • Yes No 2. Do 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? 3. Does the literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances 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? 4. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district? B. As an alternative to subsection A, a variance may be necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 2. Will the variance significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site? 3. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to affect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site? 4 C. If neither A nor B apply, the Board shall otherwise follow all procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustment: Yes No 1. 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? 2. Does the literal interpretation of the LDRs deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to same zoning? 3. Do special conditions and circumstances exist that were not the result of the applicant's own actions? 4. Will the granting of a variance confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings under the same zoning? 5. Do the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify granting the variance? 6. Is granting of the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of existing regulations, meaning it will not be injurious to the neighborhood? III. MATRIX OF ITEMS REQUIRING BOARD VS. STAFF APPROVAL: (see attached) 5 AGENDA c, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING ��y�.�frP CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN W arre vvAd,amtwe Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 AGENDA c� `r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING q P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN W ct rve tvAd,ct4144, Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 f Wof AGENDA t►, 0 t r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN W a rrevvAcicums, Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CHECKLIST I. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: (Pursuant to Sections 2.4.6(H) and 4.5.1) A. New Construction/Additions: Yes No 1. Height: Is the height compatible in comparison to the height of existing structures and buildings? 2. Facade: Is the front façade of each structure visually compatible with the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent buildings? 3. Openings: Are the openings (windows and doors) visually compatible with prevailing historic architectural styles? 4. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: Are the relationships of buildings to open space visually compatible? 5. Entrances: Are the entrances and porch projections compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances? 6. Materials/Color: Are the materials, texture, and colors of the proposed building compatible with the materials, texture and colors of adjacent structures? 7. Size/Mass: Is the size and mass of the subject structure compatible with the size and mass of adjacent structures in the district? 8. Direction: Is the direction of the front elevation compatible with adjacent structures? 1 Yes No 9. Lot Coverage: Is the lot coverage or "foot print" of the structure compatible with adjacent lots and structures? B. Roof: 1. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the shape and materials of adjacent structures? 2. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the architectural style of the subject structure? C. Walls/Fences: 1. Are the wall/fencing materials compatible with the subject structure and adjacent structures? D. Hurricane Shutters: 1. Are the shutters removable? 2. If the shutters are not removable, are they located so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way? 3. If the shutters are not removable and are visible from the right-of-way, are the tracks compatible with the exterior surface and color of the structure? E. Demolitions: 1. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer or architect explaining that the structure is structurally unsound or damaged beyond repair? 2. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer, architect or general 2 Yes No contractor explaining the projected costs of repairing the structure? a. Do the costs to repair the structure result in an undue economic hardship to the owner?' 3. Has the applicant provided an appraisal of the property in its current condition, along with its estimated value as vacant land and its potential value as a preserved and restored historic property? a. Do the estimated appraisals of the property show that an undue economic hardship is likely to result if the owner's demolition request is denied?' 4. Has the applicant provided documentation to illustrate that reasonable efforts have been made to find a suitable alternate location for the structure? II. VARIANCES: (Pursuant to Section 4.5.1(J)) A. A variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? Additional information must be submitted to make final determination of undue economic hardship pursuant to Section 4.5.1(H)of the LDRs. 3 Yes No 2. Do 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? 3. Does the literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances 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? 4. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district? B. As an alternative to subsection A, a variance may be necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 2. Will the variance significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site? . 3. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to affect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site? 4 C. If neither A nor B apply, the Board shall otherwise follow all procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustment: Yes No 1. 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? 2. Does the literal interpretation of the LDRs deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to same zoning? 3. Do special conditions and circumstances exist that were not the result of the applicant's own actions? 4. Will the granting of a variance confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings under the same zoning? 5. Do the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify granting the variance? 6. Is granting of the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of existing regulations, meaning it will not be injurious to the neighborhood? III. MATRIX OF ITEMS REQUIRING BOARD VS. STAFF APPROVAL: (see attached) 5 <4 0 AGENDA c ¢ r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING , tly P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 40 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING o‘- P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN WcurreAfvAc c vw Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 AGENDA o = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING ,tq p CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN WarreniACIWY1* Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 0•0 AGENDA o i y HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING '`��--1 101 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN 1ti cur rewAd',a.l'vt- Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front facade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7th Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 2 of 6 second floor on the south facade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 7" Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 71'Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 4 of 6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7`"Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of G existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 7`h Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations i i.,,� x r �: ,�. . .1 ` f 'E a:r 1 �•t $`r'rL,, ,'P°'"":v-�ryM"""" ap 7J"I ,.„ti,+ rp „.n 7 --ti._ j/j¢ :,,.,.. r� len x.a,a L w.w.ur.ra3' g,,,+• rFy '.S+G1f,42,4,' Wa , t.row., •JV wit " .+ a+5:warii4.4 r :I,�1"e I 3: 1 4t t ._t, ?,... k4at',W+ ael*,,' ,,gi.„ t ,, •, "', µ�. G!, ..t n..,x' .YA, , ,Cr rd �•y� rc .a ° z N111111 N4� a• .�� Ry• 1. ar .1 wlu •�� ` 1 y t. '� °c '! �7 I ..... t. rY• F .t. 4; _ , SI dl ti:"'r !.w,nW.w •ann„saa�.�«r' i tor id aq: �,yC• f r c i • 1 b' F • .. r� 11112'12©©7 12 5'7rAM —- - T- . �`"', .r 11112/2 D�� 1 .,9 AM - ti ;t,ll,, ; /,, / ^ �. s' . u4, a,nen.�.�MA+:�x .We 1:+Yy!wawa• -�salY ,.+i,�.,wa«..«...,.a',Su.. ,.. � � n r �� ;i 1, ., ,r r `0.44-' ,MIA ��'''' a<r`rntr: • Itrig .. 'Eli■ _11_1__11111_ 1:11111111',la .' ' -_.,,.._... 1 - • Sa ttr ,.,,y�P} .t , iS.'fPYai'1•.'F .u-WSlsfiYF^crrpur: „(1y+nr..‘. 9 1i , . /_ .•,'',, ,.—'.0.,=:-„,„-,,;..'.._.,t.,,.;,.7,,'—); .,:;,k./&,,\. ah ::, 'iti' Zi yt i M1 /j $021 s� ¢ V, { a h2 rc r � N g, .. 1'4fN.s?q.rSt°n 1 ax,u � r' '� '"' F•1,,,.:1, ',,, II dd I j 0:‘tvil,,t4,itk,,;. I�+i�M '1''."."'—'''''Ir',.--71 * f • ,,,,,,:. ; 4,# • ,«...;•A, • /" -Y l r to %4t }Sw'm s xaa, .1,''y . .• Cyrc 1'f 'r. i 3 ak r 1 ! '' F v 'r 4 1 ,,,4'r 9: ,�, ,, r w �x °ii"� i 74. • • • ti'°711'T"Pu..a x t t4. '' 4 1, N Yt,f. ,>,. , . ,.4C 1 ll1•212007,-12 7``"AM - - -• --.-� �—..` :` 11112/ 007 ,12"5i8_A ._ _ _1 ,n r `, w r ,►+"41, 4. +I ,.,iRS> c :'• ,'t.,•,,ryr✓.e,!;.,'ti $MW;c 4 +n '. '.,..... :•' _,. --. -!r.,Is ' ..ri,r._ '`SYt,,'''r'r" i,:w �,4...1:;i1��' , *htrei . " .., ' C°•"Xt�!t?:,°...,,'�J am' M,a F'M,'>"4'� _ 'N,":i per»,.�.t!SS.i3Ytxb,rka+k,.NL!Ys�"4n..x ra. .. w of lull'Tip ! U fig CV . • MOM 114I.7St.730i nr. NI.171_V S n on¢ r ownA c ,, d V!ww W IX Z a 2 I- a_ T. 7 r f —1--T- —n---- , 1 P—. 'JO w w l r I � I L—�=� � � a U -w BEDROOM II KITCHEN RIOOOM II I II I BEDROOM II w z Q Y_l II FLORIDA RM. I , II I II = Q �� ENTRY POR�.�I II , II�l .—• I I I- �JIIIIII�. — —�—�—I I-1 IIIIIIIIII 1 I II _ i111111 _ IIIIIIII�i' ir,,, II LAUNDRY II II "°mm"'°' DINING IIII I II-i- L ^ BEDROOM I II BEDROOM .BATH I I —- I BEDROOM y BATE{ .„ L r----J DATk. 9-M-01 aFwsa s J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN '��' VY.I'-0• V4.•r-m. F • Z 4 O Kiii b R AIN AV[MR FAL aE.mnoE Mx IITCTA041.711.7f23 rnwEo�rtcnrowE1 IIII1 IIII! nh Iiiu [IIII mill][liii [11111 11.1 X C - [IIII! I.- on IIII] iii 11111111111 — I- ,tic �_ �____ IIL IIL III] RYA oc �— lowni 11 I x I i I V wa. W o z W EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 0/ rr w l� a V4••1'.0• I III` V LW V4••1•.0• I. Q r m y w} - Qz_J = Q N W O Q NY00U064 I[ I[ �I = I�� Ill I I'l�I f — • \ DATE. T.14.O'i f ERhl'.t I•!J REVI$Iprlc Mill [IIII] [IIII] OO IIII IIII IIII] I�•I�•�I Ina I I1 �_r. Fil i-,_, _J-, EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION V46•I'-0' ! V4••MP of N 1im III O a[ RN AVOW OMIT WI,R SSIU KKK NI=7301 MI. eel sum IIKIIMICHITECNICC011 III 1iiI IIII IIII; �un IIH$ .alix huh111111 W Z a �III,I, pirmlrni • t I�ll�' t[mill lill ►111I111111111111 '' p. 2 lamI ill lo ~ I 1 o W E WLL PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O w Q u V4,•1�, PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION w t7 .w V4••I'-O• IMQ ^m LLJ r = QJ W O Q AR0001:64 Tim !IIII IIIII 'IIII [111111 IIIII IIII IIII IIII 1•9'.11111 I. 1.I.I '■I ,■I■1 ■U . \\ ET:,,;.-- , IIII h"h, I t ► IIlilllllllll� I M. ,�,.�,,, ! milihil III E PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION V4••1'-0• 1 /63 V4••I'-0• T HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front facade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7`r Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 2 of 6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 7th Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 7`r Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 4 of 6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative door jambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7th Avenue,2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of 6 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 74.Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 4 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations E. ..r-. ._ ,. 3*'. J �°p' J d a �"F? "'P :...m, ti r .! J r in :;t d Y ..a r t*: w--.e 3Y d ,;. .T. xwl4 n < .4 �'.,.,t r. ,w,..1,udivtk ° awMd l E. 'kWcd`rY.4,-,4,1.�:kae:Cin.4# r,s °' ,�Y * ila'rdw`we } il • , tx� it$ , q r" Y ��ys %, a .' 1• •• rs Sir • • " 4 �� .h~5 �.,"g" k �\ r iS gg } y l ' nr 'I�imlaiaV r p • f 0�) '•.�"�!+L+"NL ".aneExru au!a` � ,t�4 ;: G •kk A., .z.•.. 4 ....,.. .— v..._ �i• ., .,v .,..a.... ter• • + 4s it L :b J ', wi r n a Mn FFF y�� ' t. 5 qy� ,,. . a 5.;ry .. 4 S xe r",F`is y'/, ` r f s f 7i 11/121.200,7rilt47TA 1 __— w �. . ......., r.. .. . ti `w, } �� .�,a M. ,� 11/121/ U� 1169,AM 1 I F , 1Y i.. 11 . „. ai ,.. / , K' 1,\7t y ¢,� ,t f 'rn ie 6 FM Y 41, 40, . ,t" Cu tYYrt W...•.u, 4 t }• f� vill , 14,. t, rat? ><'�'� • 7 ,t { -' a^. t '' •• - �.: �tv'4'� y 3� ,t..., ;,, r, r� i tM.,I- ....: f ' , ,,,,,. i ..- . . ` �y� „,. � t a�� �i h fi • IC ,J .. ' 'u^Sr Y i .. rsr i' °..... 7? •a,'Y , g 'I �M .: } ',i 1G f + -rf �F"�" I. 4 ,�1,4: ''''''' 1 ";`, 't 'tq" 200 1+E 8,_AM ;:.:_., ._ _ ___.,__ 4 •11ki '/2007,12 -A", ..— t 11/12/ "j ', _ i ', r. W 4 ".:.J f J! ,:Y.�rU d�` Y.k /I�.tYr�". } "iJ� y,rf g, ( F Y4 .: 5 :,.. ..... t..2_.....,. ..-,..,F'tl''..�.'t�t�if';�;. - _•.:'ii,1'°:.. -u��si�"u?"��"i 's�':71,-'A•, w>k�rnu4adr.51,1!. .pr."���uJkr,'in.:�tdX:.a�'s,ea'.',45,50"..;-.`,�,;m , �+ rsr:' _Ardd�a+',,' ^u�V 'slcwudxJ,w.t,arwr kN,'c�.. Ku ii% as x mE MOON oaur KM.rt 33 U MOM ximnui DX- aun.ms rnauIaRaIue oaY Cl) W Cg Z a H _..7 i , (.) a.< -3 D-J r 1--- w= r I 4- I I____, O w Q 5 Q -w BEDROOM n m II LIVING I I Q� II KITCHEN ROOM II I I 111 BEDROOM IIY+ Z 1II PIORIDA RM. IIEI Q �Q 1 I — i • ENTRY POR II r —5 roe- _1 „mum LAUNDRY II1 - inunini . --. 1 II ARIDO SY4 DINING ' II I . BEDROOM r I II II BEDROOM BATH I I ---I II BEDROOM L.; I L �_-_ _-_� I —.— r----J DATE l.I4-09 _ I REYR S, — —• REYSiQ'�5. L_ J mir EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN ANL VP.1'-0• IV4 •r-0• L, • ... Z e. Iti i— u SD x 4e1 AVOW DCLW wl.R&sus MOW sii.m.rsoi Mt alm.mx •CIOVXMrtaucca 11111111111 1III 11111111111 vi �� ce JUil ` a I(IIIII(IIIII) (� � llllllHIP 1111111110 ril Miffii- NI Ix g Min �� x a = o i I Va .6 _ OGWzEL-' EXISTING EAST ELEVATION O w Q u EXISTING WEST ELEVATION t w V4••1.-d' I y 1- 1 = N J Q o0 ewerttrx4 I[111111[IIIHI = Mimi �11111 Flo I11111IIIII,Ila �� �� I ■J ■J l•J \\\\\ nre a-u a1 \ rfenrt T •::i:: 'Mill[ow OO lID [IIIIloin lD "' Fill II i [... L_,_, rrs - EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 2 V4••P-o, 114••1'-0• 0I r lie 111111 Ill N R 4111 AVOIK MOM 503717301 INCODW onmuccaE pIII •II1 I I lll�''�Ifl1l l[til IIIII II ril tlll US W_ z a III; I'IIIIII •IDIII t Rtplimil 111 1111 1mlui illl. 2 mmi- - -ill _ o Q 1 W a W zo LL PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O w Qu PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION /�/ r a 1V4••1'-0' Ed W V4'•r-O• rm V -• LLJ z- I F-1 ryJ SiO Q Me0019LD4 I,I�I�I■I 1ii1i1 I`I limit 1�� I� (I�lll�l Illllllllllll oniE ,-µ.�, �`=.iM i�.J. 1 :::C IIIII IIII O IIII IIII t R.. p. vi "0 , I, I, I l�•l•l burl. ,■ii■, LL, „-- r -1, PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 'V4••I'-0' /63 ,114'•1'-0' S HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front facade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south facade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7th Avenue, 2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 2 of 6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 7`b Avenue,2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 7`h Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 4of6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative door jambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 79'Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of 6 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 7th Avenue: 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations • '. , . , .,,7-----T-27-7,.7,-;,',7tf-.-777....--:.--7-1:-.,Y,-.;-7 .,v.t.,„.„, ,11--r,rr7"-,'''',7""---"2 "--7-:-2------t--r-:31-1"----:'''' ------"'"--,-,),7.7/ 7.- ,7--f::--=-7,..,.5"--7,--.-----71.----777,--1------, ,,,,,,, • ?:',I '`t1i,./ty .14,,,,,:g..ro';4 „,,J, ,.,„„i, `..?„,,, ,,t4i.,,A,, ,,,„,,,,c.,„.,,,- ;` ,- , ..,: ,,,,,., . ,,,-,— , ,,,,,,,,,,. 4,— - ",,....,,, *,.. ,' ', ' •••,`,."101.46•N'' '-'-° •—•, •• • '‘,1 ' • 4',,, ' ?.., ii% ,',"_,.. :.„..4„:. .41,4„,,,, „„...,,,,z....; •'7, ' , ,A '7g1 iiii 7',..tf,' .(:.Z''',-.71;•-',',1-..•','"*V.,..j; .f t. • ,:•:•• ' •4 MIN ' ,11. son 4,,,,,,,A, ...::: N., , A liii , ... ,.. , ,4' l 4 4 ili: , • 1,,,-,Ti.7,•---1 •,*r " , A a ..,, c,,i, , • - 1 '10,, ,, ',,r. ',-;4. ,, , - '),(;,..!/ •-rill ,,„',',' 11/1E42 0 0,1iTf1245.."1,'AM,7 ,i..,--- .,:-.7. .. . .,...:, 11/2/' ,17 41 ,9-AM-;,..--,,- ,-'-- - ,—.,.. ,;.. , ,f:P' ,,;.i.,,,,,*,,,.7.' • ii;', ' ... , .;„,..,,',0' t`.4)." 044,,A,S14, ',, ,'' *:,..;'.,.;"'-,' - '. .. ,....,,,,,.,,-41 • '1.,7, ' . ' - 1% ., --= --'1/4 l',,,l'.-` - . ' •-•:, , , , -,,-- ' -:`,",.:':.:, " . '-..i "1"'"•-** 1111 • . ---„ , q'r,'''''....' ''' iil I= 511111 MEM UNE .- ---..„;,,,e-t-,:. - — III ... . , , . ,, -,..,\ ,,,,,f _ , kl, . 'k ot..--,,,,,,,/,-i 1,k.,,s• '; A.'., ,1 ; kiAc, , 011,p' t ,.f — --., Losi ,,, iv/top, ' ‘1 ,,,„ - //, •, , • 1 k. ' ' - • ', ,Pi., 11 -::, 'IA, '1. vlIk---14 • , .• I • • Ei , , — le 1 . • li k it ..,, '14tiPra .c* 1 ' , J,,,,"' ''', ' '"...''')'7 •• it I ' . ' ,./ ,. A k;) • 11 ./..A`,.1 -I'I•', f° , "i,,',v1,:',. f i 41,0 r ' I •:1• , .. iIi,'. t 74 -'--v - ' i...., , iII' :tp.ks1'i'''''•.',, , , , ,.;; ,,-....;,•.„ ?.::;,. :•., ` . Iri• ' .• ',1''' ,',;i::;;;A:=4,.--..,"0 .. ,...,oillPii.-.";:",•--.. . -,.. ... , .. :.-'/-S!,,..,{”. , .. .."'"4- '.:"...7 ''''•.„yrr...----': --- -I', , .-t' , ..;: ‘1111.11'?1200712... -.4A NA -.,- -• '- : - -,i(c--- .. ,'":" ' 1.,..-t,... 11112/2 OD7 15.458 PI T . :'4 -- ----• -----''"------" —--- .1"41,M1144,212PAN.M444+ 8.41,4400.00 .0e.:aitl*--,10 if ti',W.,"PrOT - ,:.: '% - --=- tfi''-5 ta-A'. . .:-:, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII\- . 'KJ 11111.1 Y IC qH AVOW( UL AY ICI.)L SUN name UI2/L1301 WC 5.I.i70.1101 M<•OMORRMCCY US ILLI IX Z a 2 I— I- -, = x o I V Q r I I =..= I,, n - � -- -iLIVING I I BEDROOM I� ¢ II KITCHEN ROOM II ll I BEDROOM II in �r z IJ II FLORIDA RM. I ll II P,O I I L I ENTRY POR .� II Iffirli II r --.., _run- — 1 II LAUNDRY II II AliTml]5DI _1 alumni DINING li I , II �+ I ll 1 . - mmuni I BEDROOM ll L-- BEDROOM ,I.BATH I — 11 —— 13 I BEDROOM I_�_ I =1 —1- L L _-_ in- _._� I - - _.�----J CATE 1.1401 ;+q-•:O I I �Fv:�O:j. E_ J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN IAA V Y -0 `•: •I' ' ,EXISTING .I'-0)' CE eatb R� 4M AVrMR oair RM,n TW] FAY- NI.T)T-TT01 FAY- 1 54I.T17J772 .a+oallomcnT[.ca gig �� In 1 nLJLJ III y 1Z Z L a H�Il (IIII1 I Riga 11111 11. 67 1 4 Z x Q 1 I ,++ ¢ o = w Ew 2-Lz! EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION o.y w Q u v4••r•o Ix =w vs•.1'•a '.. Q rL m V Q Zc = 1i fV O Q W AIWgSD4 IIII IIII; j JIII- IIII Ifil IIII) LIIII,IIII 'LUG N I it ■ _ ilk � �TI �e, fERnrt rip REvrtip`Ic I:: ! ::1 Hill OO IIII'' IIII pi 7 IF.9 li•, n I•�IR_I • EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION V4•.I'•tl I1/4••1'•0• of Kill% ray a1.n sslu FAX. 51133I37U RRI Rillilmi pi 111111.1111111 fla. RR ini pi uS a III; [IIIIIIIIII t �—� +I�IIIl [IIIII 1111111111MN • El 'III; 1- v O _ w E W LL (PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O w Q 5 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION rt c7 ',is•1'-0' 1 V4'•P.O. IMI ^m Nw} Qzg N J = Q o0 IIIII (III im !(III '(III IIIII Illli IIIII (III IIIII (III .l.. I�•I•I .►1•I LLmI .JE -...., =S 1 gra OO uuIu !Iul (IIIF '] n PIP • IIlIlIuuII. mill . ,(III /2111,.. 121..,',' � mill-bib PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION V4'•1'-0' /63 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front façade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7`b Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 2 of 6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 7� Avenue,2008-043-SPI t HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be presented. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 7`r Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 1 Page 4of6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative door jambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The Kew openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7th Avenue,2008-043-SPI 1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of 6 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 7`h Avenue, 2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations • y wry„ " W M sl .w;.�..� Y' ;� dw 't ., iau�r,,e�Nuuul�tSr"aua 4�mA"� y 10 +° ri rG1i'v'�'r Ln a'Ya sad``}xd 9 vvY A"'' —s s: ' a r,, r/+ .. � , I el III 1111 1 Y ra. tir .lam ry,'' a. '4'. / ; ,9 5 .. ......... .._.. S .. ....... .., .�i ":::.e,.:'4:: + F ram+,., , ..'�" .. t '' ....1i:-4 e,, L. r r q�y�y�e rl yp,rI.`. 1 �: r '/ ' iW , .-t,II o,, -1 T •i 0 ,el '.'• , tl .wt �t 1., y �. ry �I i� i ` `r .....„ :::::: , .,„, ., ,,c,„ el :i.,t ii. :::::-.L . ,1,:. 1, ,,A, , . , , 4,i'"/'1,47!PRI , 11/1241..2tox...�125'7! AM. _- - 0t . ,,,, ,01.,,:.•,4,,..10,.1 ., 1.1f121/246"� 115,9 /4,R',,.�y ' -! '. 1a All ERN vm� . .„ d '; , ---,— -------i---�•Y> �..r,:-- -.-5 ' 11111 'tb t4''' `.;. M III {f „ It ; 'c';,v::4'1: y/ e r 1 i r r1,1 j f g,y G / w• "�` t — r�r r y / • 6r + , YK Af�3 L F .• Wet !,, 11h1'12007-=19 °AN .: ..— , y 11312/ 0T007 Nit A' _ - '1. _; ��-� rS '9 1 ,r•.'Y i „ > : r �. 1��+�t�� a.hj S@ .' .'' 7iad1*.Si�'11 :: ....... � ..... ..._M ,.:C ✓ ;L. . ' Si, '... `S V '-'," �f. sw'.1" µry '� '`tr'�Y.�' ,7CR YK+»91u. Ir,. , .:l.hi4i,kr4bv,'4"1^,: 44'-• ., x �� �e p�t n .7�;R^•� .,�r,9.adt�Y4'idti+s•.�:adz;�sct��kt�w�stat:��lu*�rE+�,<Nr. �n ,a�n a. fil 11;1 41 N 41N ♦I NR OG141'KM.R 31I8.3 MK N1272.7301 • ILL 041272.17I1 INVOW anmuccol W IX Z a 2 I- r =_� J I ---I =-= 1p,, -_ 1_____, 11 W zo`� >_r + IO w Qu Cg CD rQ I.I LIVING I I II w II BEDROOM I BEDROOM II w z Q II KITCHEN IIIn11� ROOM CO) rC. III FLORIDA RM. II II IQ pp I T■� " .ENTRY POR�.II IIMIlli II II� I II ; --. 0 LAUNDRYIlk II II °'°0017D4 �J DINING I LI1 .. I I II r BEDROOM II 6EDROOM 1 ———4- LBEDROOM L v ii, L Is FIT___I DATE. 1-{4-01 � — _ I I r..afvn1T�w — —• ,ia,c L J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN '�1' IV4••I''m• V4••I'. FS- 9 • Z a • tOtit MKT OM ft WO IICI[ 111I.212.170I rwc aIS)!S)If RToMITmurml 111111 II IIII IIIII IIII I IIII 1 W� 1 II it 111II1 iii IIII IIII �I ii,_ illi I liii IIL III! 1 : t5 6' 011 ► a 0 g w� W Z� EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 0 w Q Q V4•.1'.0' L < I`m z 2_ I--1 fV J"J O� ~00264 [IIII) [IIII) = HMI IIII] is /MAI MI • 111 IIII; ;IIII) I_._JII._JI - ,_.,___. onrr e•4-01 1� L 1 rEan..rn Na I[IIIuIMU O lei IIIDI[IIII IIII tz 19 l MA 1m EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION V4•.1,0. A2 I/4••r-0• of follIf II 1 o a all 4r111 miur ea.M1 ssw MIK 54I3/11301 EU. 511t.ir74722 11111ownaan1rcoi mii. [a L;, Egiiiimil� I �. I�I�',I�I�II Fil i'� W --......,______....._ z a 1Dil I1111 luil,F sI[uitliui1l .m_ I"I"'I '"I"' Ex 2 I I v °"'al .0 N PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION O Iaw a u V4•.P-0• CX V Lw 'V4'•N- . ' m Vi N LLI cl _ Z K ail J F-i w O Q 4RDOUlD4 IIIIIImil ipm .11..1 .ICI I11m ••niquill iiii NIT I I■m limpiol ■ ni DATE. S44.01 rr// PEv6IPERMIT N Will • oIIII• 1111 III t ill LT1111 n r9.1rli mini o AM I PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION V4••N-0• 113 V4••1'•0' f HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RM (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front facade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7`"Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 2of6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 7`°Avenue, 2008-043-SPI } HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 7`"Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 4 of 6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative door jambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7``'Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5of6 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of 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 approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 7`h Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations f' a • • • . K / , ^ iryli J•,� lftr4Y yki A d b d f r ri •• • ., g, . _. .r,• fYS p. �1',,, ' u h'imkr 4 , '1lip,Xz44G Y ;Y 7$ �.d„ M1 .G nv F 1Ii� -,: k °" " •` i SY yam 'i r .1.,!. .. ..1., .,„ , ..... . - ........, 4.:.....:. . ,, ,,„4.,..,.....,.. ,1,,, li,., ,, ...... i c iHs 4 >v * g�/ ,„ ,�,,,k- E rrs 1''` i i i iiti:,.),t 9 nv .: t `` M F 4 II, ! �' 11/124.2o07 1 5�7 AM .ate , .. Al, . arr.o. y.. ,.. 1.11 ►l�(i � 1+ 5� AM '''_e_,,,,,,,s7'11...," ' ___ _____ _,.., _ ,,,„,..,„ , ,A,iy, N r.Ap ;r t„, ........., ,,, ,,„.„ in t4.gl, , _ ..,, ,,. ‘.,, . , , , i . ...,,,, 7 ,, ,,.„,. , , „„. .,.. 4 i,,..,_...... 11 Krr 1 1 4 ill Y A i, j r '-•, 1r'''':1, 7'1 r�jj 4 n r, 1 ,I.,__.. _,,,,_ ,-, ,.:4 , ;F fi. n 4 § ` pr... .• , • ...._..... , , 1 'l' rr ds,G Asa Jff.' , xqt Y. -., v'^�; 5r+.*. yr.r r ,e'<' Y` aT ► r a � off p 'Y' ,,,Q E�(JM.vI IiJ f INS ✓y-?- 1 1C { 't^ d/ t i{ •• 7 1/,1 V2O07�12 7,.,A`e'lx � . s, ,,—~ A , 11/12/200 2 5i8 AM J m.� �„ .'7. x ' '�'� _,_,_ .- • — -w:r[:2. !r .. .1`^.. 4 "a ln'{w•.` �+ a ": •3 ":,,,,Aoc tiV:H:n,.. S,:,s i> ta€c r5t m-.6n�raa '. . '; M hY�%' '�.-.' 'tJwa WWs,wb mLr.trr r ,drn ..v Ot 1iii Y It MI MOM [CUM'KN.FL SIM NOW 541.272.7301 M. NIan-sIS RuouomRIMfAY N W Xg Z a I- F._____T___i______, r T L___, OwQ_1 Eta II LIVING I I II BEDROOM I II�ww ¢ m IIKITCHEN ROOM II I I BEDROOM II V1 QQ z IIFLORIDARM. (I II um Q rO 1 I 1.-- - ENraY POINE II II T-- r -1111., _tumuli`" 11111111111§ T- --1 I IILAUNDRY H DINING I BEDROOM^ II -- BEDROOM I BATH II II L ,I. I I -- BEDROOM—I- L L I = io L o.- CM o.e� _-- J DATE 9.14.01 R FV S:O.vs:. aewsa J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN lir AIL V4•.I'-0• V4••I'q0• 4 Z ., ea, Val mEna,71, Pnn. e1+272sra onownmcnR.ow IIII IIII', IIII 'IIII IIII IIII; IN W a • • I�•_I• n -_ n w / a IMIIII�IIIll] �� i 111111lllll 2 L�; ��� �� 111111M1111•41 :� ���1 a o f I Ew w zLL EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION O�/ w Q u v4•.r.a IX c =w v4••P-a N w L} — Q z� 2 fV w O Q AAm0ULD4 IIII; (1111 = IIII [III IIII MIMI lam' l 1-44.01 fEMIT rq hit RCVIyOrJ!. + 1 witi IIIJIII•I Il � I ' _ ri • • • , ,_, EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION V4••P-0• + VP•P-0• LII Fil 1)1111)1111 pl 11111[11111 MI pi nil Fill_lt vi z a Ilt. 1)I1111:11111 t �-i t I[liii 1Illil liul,m iul;ui • IIL 2 l • ■ ' i I•! '�: .� o ICI I I t) w a. zo PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O w a v PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION w w}w V4'•1'-0' l IA'4 NO. F < n m yz� E. �/''� ry J E. 'i O W Q 'mol 11,11II11,1 MIMI ilMiElli pir•ill pnTE Lf O1 FE7M T^.;0. REV',p':5. 1. .1 0 �. • F111'l i_, _g_i___ t nIE-„-. �..► 1_i1 r-i I,, t .. II II1n' .. .. ,_, PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ,PROPOSED •1'-0' AII3 V4'•1'4r DELL o o ARAY BEACH F 1 All-AmedcaCity I 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting January 9, 2008 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD January 9, 2008 MEETING COMMENCED: 6:0513.m. in II.A. NAME ATTEND 302 NE 7 Avenue Hartman House S p� VOTE: Yle‘" ROGER COPE JAN KUCERA-WINNEY ( 77)11 LINDA LAKE JOANNE PEART RHONDA SEXTON KEITH SNIDER ,>,/ TONI DEL FIANDRA A v HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CHECKLIST I. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: (Pursuant to Sections 2.4.6(H) and 4.5.1) A. New Construction/Additions: Yes No 1. Height: Is the height compatible in comparison to the height of existing structures and buildings? 2. Facade: Is the front façade of each structure visually compatible with the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent buildings? 3. Openings: Are the openings (windows and doors) visually compatible with prevailing historic architectural styles? 4. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: Are the relationships of buildings to open space visually compatible? 5. Entrances: Are the entrances and porch projections compatible with the prevalent l l architectural styles of entrances? 6. Materials/Color: Are the materials, V\ C :S texture,k and colors of the proposed building Q q \eo atit with the materials, texture and ` �\ / g colors of adjacent structures? i 7. Size/Mass: Is the size and mass of the subject structure compatible with the size and mass of adjacent structures in the district? 8. Direction: Is the direction of the front elevation compatible with adjacent structures? 1 Yes No 9. Lot Coverage: Is the lot coverage or "foot print" of the structure compatible with adjacent lots and structures? B. Roof: 1. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the shape and materials of adjacent structures? 2. Is the roof shape and materials compatible with the architectural style of the subject structure? C. Walls/Fences: 1. Are the wall/fencing materials compatible with the subject structure and adjacent structures? D. Hurricane Shutters: 1. Are the shutters removable? 2. If the shutters are not removable, are they located so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way? 3. If the shutters are not removable and are visible from the right-of-way, are the tracks compatible with the exterior surface and color of the structure? E. Demolitions: 1. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer or architect explaining that the structure is structurally unsound or damaged beyond repair? 2. Has the applicant provided a certified report from an engineer, architect or general 2 Yes No contractor explaining the projected costs of repairing the structure? a. Do the costs to repair the structure result in an undue economic hardship to the owner?' 3. Has the applicant provided an appraisal of the property in its current condition, along with its estimated value as vacant land and its potential value as a preserved and restored historic property? a. Do the estimated appraisals of the property show that an undue economic hardship is likely to result if the owner's demolition request is denied?' 4. Has the applicant provided documentation to illustrate that reasonable efforts have been made to find a suitable alternate location for the structure? II. VARIANCES: (Pursuant to Section 4.5.1(J)) A. A variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 1 Additional information must be submitted to make final determination of undue economic hardship pursuant to Section 4.5.1(H)of the LDRs. 3 Yes No 2. Do 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? 3. Does the literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances 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? 4. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district? B. As an alternative to subsection A, a variance may be necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site if the following questions can be answered in the affirmative: Yes No 1. Is the variance contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare? 2. Will the variance significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site? 3. Is the variance requested the minimum necessary to affect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site? 4 C. If neither A nor B apply, the Board shall otherwise follow all procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustment: Yes No 1. 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? 2. Does the literal interpretation of the LDRs deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to same zoning? 3. Do special conditions and circumstances exist that were not the result of the applicant's own actions? 4. Will the granting of a variance confer a special privilege on the applicant that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings under the same zoning? 5. Do the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify granting the variance? 6. Is granting of the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of existing regulations, meaning it will not be injurious to the neighborhood? III. MATRIX OF ITEMS REQUIRING BOARD VS. STAFF APPROVAL: (see attached) 5 .<4 AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING *q P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Time: 6:00 P.M. Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Location: City 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. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 302 NE 7th Avenue, "Hartman House", Individually Listed, George Risolo & Peter Canelo, Property Owners; Weiner&Aronson, P.A., Authorized Agent. Consideration of a Class I Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness (2008-043) for the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff IV. ADJOURN W c rre/wA d.ctvu, Warren Adams Posted On: January 3, 2008 } REVISIONS- BY U r �l/ �`0:/;;:. rk- ,,* ) /,,...\\,,,, / y Jam, ,\,,,,, -� All* G jp \;W W_ CI) Euarvb-G IW Ewyb'<r'Fc}� Inn 11 ca-. wmw.i.,E.1 1 \ , cnsvw wt. wawmEd 11. ccsvca COICE - Lc=2,=..-1L-L u-n-11-R-Ji-R-LFJL=J1, AtalbalallellEallellelL=-11_ _ ,JI-ILL-IL=JL=11-111=JL=11-11.-JL=11 11- 11 JL-1L-- W co co �11=11-II 111=1=11JL 1L=JL=11 1L1LJI-I' UA=.11== P.J=1L-.H ,IL 11=J=- =1L:IL JI=, '�-1IF -ILJL=, r I=JI=11 1L 11-11=11 1L L_-.I JL=11 • O ~ E� �_- - - _ g r�Ee: uaFaa14.n jh ;'�7 1LLJI�JI a=a1• ca•�141%01 rrn'P�F �7 14-11 IL=, y _• x>r:�w m�.l�rrn..mctEat e_,.,T I.0 6645s:'m ' JL-_ L-Ir Fan wa-.x Muewze HA �=11 IL=I = t P" • �� IL=JI-11 �11=11 , �� _l. ltll, CO U �_�-11=11 I-- Euua4axiC'-0 —�11= 11= -u4s iO ' / i iiiiii iiiiiii I11'= I"�Jf ��®_L=11: L=JL_ 7f=7C.11=JIr L a O) 1��®J1=11 II1L===_ 11 JL-11- �, _ 11= 11 11=1= - m rc, Ebl =JI 11 11-11=11 1•.••L-11 11=ll1L1L=1L=11. 1L=Jla -11=1f 27' 1" =`II ILLJI 11=I 1_-11=11=JL 11'_JL=11 11 L=1= al— Q >, II 1L IL 111 111L=11=11 1WL 11 r 1-R- II 1111- 1 �L=1Lll=11.7L=JI 1 =I _ =1 1L-1L-ILIL 1L1L=I I.- '[ E AEw 11=JI:J1 i 'JL-11-u-11=1111=1 -I1 1L E.A.,ha, `� 11-1L=�11=1 - -2...•=11.=11 11=11= ; 11=11- II 1L= 11-11 1= - -II 1L•-- _' 11= 1LI=11 ' ,:rf, ,,r1L11 1f IL-1L __I=ll= 1=11=1 ,m11,•1 L=11=1=. _ =11 iLg JL=11= L=1L-iLI- lieu m CL Q ILII 14=11 1- L==11 1=11 IWL I i I=J 11- IL JL= U L=11 L==L= 1 Q w 1L 9LJ 1L 1=11 1=a ' .-S1=�11 L= L JL J=R 1=117 11- 11-1 IL 11- 1 W 1L=.IL IL 1111=n-LL=11Fn-n1L=IaL=11=2= 1LJ .1 11 11 • '': JL=11 JL=J,-n- u n,L-1 w v Q CV 1L=1L=11=1L=I-11.lt=11 JL 1L=11=1=1L=JLJ- Il AL--ll'= IFJL'=JI1L-= Pod a Per 6tzP r 11F -JL=I IL=JL=11rll 111111=1L=1L .o 11-R-11-1L--JL 1-- - JI-ll_1L-1,11=1L=11 1L- c rarta Te Prade Eryrcere:Dra.ny Il • ) _11 1L=J1-ll 1LIFJL=1- �Z1� /� y t o. 1'�17 L11��LIL=1L l� :. L11 -1=1L=.1= V CC C n cal 11J IL A J=r1 llI 1 II I 1 F7- I -" 1 lJl=1 N Z N ll1 WAW7ll LA -2qU-T41-4-— Z Qn h A ECTION THRU SPA A SECTION THRU POOL 1 SCALE:?=1'-Oa 2 SCALE:in=1'-O° 0 • v • C • O ima_ 1190 NASSAU STREET tn H 116.7C: Q 7 30' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT - ASPHALT PAVNG '� - WIDTH VARES `i// �— L ®qC «T I _ �AY \ / et/ Q v) 0 CBS WALL 90°11 I I" , 0 EXISTING 13 .... 6 0.� R00 / V 0 CO END L` �. ®- a-PEE ...��.......1* 1fii �.� . .�' II ! Cr / ! ♦.♦ ♦. . i Q NOKM U —� ............♦ I Q.�- �i°i°i°i°ii°i°i°i°i°w� p�� i - W •iii•"°��°°°°°��la ❑ p l/ — , ������+��3 .� To$pa F. iBottom C1 `11 w 1 v o¢om �'+� .�i Pod I PRE. O v. 4 �� \V as Pool i;' r EWE p .�.e�/ \� —i I.1��l 5.16.07 �•.. — ,j,�a j` f seise C _ LOT1-NORTH UNIT Q �i . I i g I p COST.ROOF PITCH E:12 1i♦�• y I/8"= 1-�. OOO � ,ww. F-I I O�O nz ',..U.,, r I 10.23.06 NS71NG BRICK .— ...' i I — PRIVFVGY 1OT 13 9 •'••• PI _ ,�l��i i sr�n 1 S 90°00'00°W 9797' JJ iq,� 10.g j o �- co,- --. T ' ! X L`I OF 2 SHEETS h 1 ? .. u I ' REVISIONS BY GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 4_-% 't a ,um.r hoof 1.All plant material shall be Ft.41.oe better,as per the latest addition of Ft.Grades&standards.All-specimen"quality materials shall be F.Fancy,and shall be pre-approved by the Landscape s..+....Li.T«as,u. n-L� 1 Fiona w.a, p.a.Bs..Mn.... v......111..i- Architect. 7me,Far...) r:� S.our von w,w 0l OW rimlr O w.rl �e. 2.All plant materials shall be true to name&size.as per Fl.Grades&Standards.Plant materials which do not meet.or exceed these standards will not be accepted. 11Fi a'� am.,o veso :+ dns2 pcm er n°"'ca !,?•���W'. 3.Quantities,sizes,and locations of Janis will be determined bytheplan and material schedule.Sias of the specifiedplants shall take precedence over the container size.Spacing of the ground =r.-- •` .Nr= b.Yrm gv.n.Lam.al P Pa W 9< Ps.A.w sa+ �'� _ 7.r61.1? .r. II�i� rmcrhow mmwr. .11r•lYj covers will be determined by the material schedule.Quantities shown on the material schedule are to be used as a guideline.The landscape contractor shot be responsible for the actual quantities iC 11 ` �� eeaor ow,kgm.r r V'LI;`f•\ I(7.- I savor (.' IsrWmwuor+mp shown on the plan.The plans will take precedence over the material schedule.Discrepancies shot be brought to the attention of the Landscape Architect,prior to commencing. _SLY I fin• �`_ Iel I 4.No sudstitutions shot be accepted without the Landscape Architect's written approvaL Al substitution requests shall be mode in writing. r-'-'-n-I I S.Planting soils shoo be clean,steNe,and free of debris.Sol shot consist of SO%FL muck%50%clean sand.Trees shot be Installed with a mirtirtsum of 4'on sides&bottom of root balls.Shrubs,plants Quantum •y I��I _ Pn.aap length erolu.e. ?.c•.r.oaemwaII &ground covers shall be Installed with a minimum of 4"on sides&bottom of root bolls.Rooted cuttings shot be installed with a mirsirrusm of 4"of planting soils worked into the top 6"of the existing Sti1U a,mc mrmp ore. 1 a""h, .VW y„�;°p°,a'"', ,,,mal,app, s"°` �\ soils.Saba!palms and Phoersixs specie shall be installed with o clean wet drained sand. r'pt J....TYiYi°. I 41 Pit mo'mn.uA..a.1 mvep rti...n�xa aw.a...wr.p Ps•ms..r,an r,..�x cmasw ' \ fKg"a N. 6.Mtiiarganile,or equal,faller shall be appued to at plantings,per manufactures recommendations.In addition,'Agrifomf tablets(20-10-5)shall also be applied 10 at plants 1 goL,and above,per c.NO c,,,n, i.I, 1 /� manufactures recommendations. 1 ""`+- II-IH ' 7.All tree's&palms shall be mulched with a 311.diameter circle.3'minimum depth.All planting beds shall receive 3-finished depth,mulch upon completion of planting process.Mulch steal �n,co car. Pwapsit ..14/I 4'e:c,wwAr.r,+r. , "Eucalyptus-,or approved equal.NO CYPRESS MULCH SHALL BE UTIUZED ON THE PROJECT. IIIII II IIl•11I s•11L G1OA,vnr-u \ rdn.CU Sand 8.Au plants shall be planted at soil levels which they were previously grown.Shrubs and hedges are to be planted 2ft.away from any wet,or structures.Materials with a six greater than overhangs .A. °-I=1� ::•• a;',jl!= E'abnp Grabs �\ a•sgn mom., shall be planted so as not to impede the natural growth habit of the plant. s•as lit i ,-..•__ ill= r°. / 9.All materials are to be watered-in Immediate after planting,so as to remove ail air pockets.BIB materials areato be hand-watered for a mutimum of l week after installation,and thereafter as v' �'t jrV`. W--II'•1111- - _ 'u required.Contractor shall advise the owner of any additional hand-watering requirements. _ 1�` iL"�►? \ "Ib� If11=11 t 10.Al tree's 811..or larger,are to be staked.a guyed.to provide ample support such that materials remain straight&true in an up-right position through the guarantee period.Staking&guying shot -�!t�\`1 9 it .�;7 arv.am w;..,mu. ttij . .i11 .':0 -ersusw SW ROTE Si*Lit...1,,,to rot m'3prpr GryWY«.rrpm Oan7os rir.6r.pn,b Ntl be performed at the option of the landscape contractor•except where required by code.However,the landscape contractor shall be responsible for al tree's&palms remaining straight&true MiggittiMii war It 4= m„con s.m eanw truama of wnwa Ym.oea.ordeab'.matrsw ass a..pc•.1•.r•mm. -..-..- =11 through the guarantee period.In the event that a material shifts after B has been properly staked,or guyed,the landscape contractor shall not be held responsible. un...sa.Ow...tc mmato! u....Ira)W.WOvir G1=11,_,�..g=�L=ll. I I.Al sod shall be'Floratam".unless otherwise specified.Sod shall be dense,green,well-rooted,and tree of debris.weeds,disease,or insects.A complete 6-6-61ertiizer shall be applied at a rate of Trees _ r""^grab''i1v4 mesa i'1'..I'.� /� 10lbs.per 1,000sq.rt..Sod is to be watered to a depth of 3"immediately after installation.Grades are to be raked smooth,and at debris removed.prior to Installation. Groundcovers rare top or roar GALL TO BEnwrne rp%OF eneALLROOr- b°"c'` V 12.Al tree's,plants it,ground-covers shall be guaranteed fora period of 120 days,and allpalms are to a period of one year.after the date od substantial RAM NE1GrmABOVE FINS“GRADE.(op TOP OF7ROOT oruc TOSE Straight Trunk Palms W = 9P completion.Phoenix canariensis& PLANTED?ABOVE Mt.GRADE) q dactyufera palms ore to be maintained•per growers/suppers recommendations,by a qualified person,or firm.Said maintenance program shall be the responsibility of the owner.The landscape invoice will be deemed as rejection of the plant materials.The landscape contractor shot remove any,or al of the rejected materials from the site as their discretion. In. 'w 14.The removal of bore rocks not Included in the landscape contract. SITE DATA,DUPLEX dog Y/ 15.All grades are to be within 2"of finished grades.prior to the landscape contractor commencing work A.Total lot area 4,086 Sq.Ft. � ~ c'ri / B.Structures,parking,walks,drives,etc... (w/future pool&terrace) 2.560 Sq.Ft. C' T"T C.Total pervious area(C=A-B) 1,526 Sq.Ft. oft 11.1 M D.Area of tree's&groundcover(REQUIRED) 458 Sq.Ft. Pm Q D=Cx.30 = J J= E.Area of trees,shrubs,&groundcovers provided 649 Sq.Ft. CO) C.) p F.Native vegetation REQUIRED(F=D x.25) 115 Sq.Ft. Q CC m 1190 NASSAU STREET G.Native vegetation PROVIDED 160 Sq.Ft. H.Total number of existing trees 2 Trees p I.Total number of REQUIRED frees 1.6 Trees CelIIW (I=A/2000sq.f1.-H I • m CC a. p J.Total number of frees PROVIDED 4 Trees (J=H+I+any addtl.trees) Q la � w K.Total number of native trees REQUIRED W V Q N 30' DOSTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT (50%Requiired) 1 Trees Z Cl) t a 35 ©a (\ EXISTINGsencwaE To ire L.Total number of native trees PROVIDED 2 Trees Z Gif Existing Green Bottonwood vrornvAHiEs ® ,,,,I„r„p��,a�,�� gig LL; N Aot Trees(Field Verify Location) Ps MINN SIGHT TR MANGLE LN rer _OW scanoFm Or, BEET MAIENJPI SQ-WI E - \ - _ BRICK AEI i ® :• _ di ® �\ fOki. Ka watt kaV eamm woes eDRIVEWAY I.,, r/� �, � � � i-�. / ENO SAY wain boo 6 Lry'a Cr-os rucifaa/Gr..Mhr.Laout pin 1520'wd. �j '�I$:l Il� /�j f11: J .4 •'�"a'�-!c_�_�>-��✓LTV ► 4 frp-s-m Vara,rad�a/flails tha✓.h Palm T•tr'camu 41) DaMivcNa� 1�1 I�1 11�14i�1 ,g ,,.;• /��t, 11[111,1�`,�`"I,�,�,J�''[,I,1,��,'), 222eI I Ch.a' 'rd,iadnersd'dia/Prr.mrA,ntrce I1r6Rm. 1 - m IINIIII'�f!y>✓ ®' '•�.. OOOj�j;I IIIP�\��`�,w` � Irk yw e�i/ I I 20 2 51 Strdtrcawdz/Wf ebrddpaaduc IA'I6'a. /-+IIIIhr.�' �!ilfllwf'fi ,. ♦�•�•�'Il 111111l)�,,. .. . aaj�., � ' ' 2 C.A. Caaa).vs E.`xsaln/51rn'l ttaramltra 10-IZ'S' C Cr) © L f�Iw1111,:•: «IP Ir,•\. `��,iV.'...�a•!�%Yr1,;:%�!'•- ii'�/ iYatol it t� I p r. -ELM / ► yt -► / (© 1 frp 'Bre.ralli'a/Florida t etch palm 7-8ice. W r I�� I ® e ` t1 I� t��00�� �,... 00�►'0�A.... �O��00000000.., A... C71 N�� It/l��: � �1 �t�G��/%lo0 00A0�00000•/400000�Iti1� �; I � 2 5p•r Safal pin,reLratcd 14-I6'aa CO en • © e, 1 T�1�-� >y 1� .1 rid. %%1�����C��'���������'*74� IK 4 ttitIt I I 2 P Phalli".V.abdau/P ride do 6'-T as ant#ruts ' �� 1 d 00��.�wyd000 ,0., t,,.. _,a .�- I �I����'O �1�0000 ,... 0.A4II . l ®' ✓ �1. Brg �® 1 .�.�.�.�♦ � I�,_.__ �,:' .I it , UV 9 Hdd li-0:au ladq-dt/False bird d paradise 30"3q.0'A"a.35 ► Ct- OOOvr ��J- r'I Q ql Cc* Cart-Fos erect./Cenluttawad 3.5-Rill aa.030"a. L _ GI ♦00000000000♦ a 441 ✓'at [hassaab.trrct 15"�q.018"a. O ► �� ♦w:IT SpaF=.�arA��r. -�/ X I 250 MIg h'eph-dcpis spp..Madsofan ZO 3q.e'1'a - O ® A+ ® I rim. L��..-+- - �*''.,.�%.��� or Y,�ai�3-Amyl 13 20 Firs HL us Tara z/Hu as, 20"3 asstd.alas -7�000Ot� ® ®�'•����/ L 3.v .4/ 1 m sPP•,gcrn triad fa. 15"lq.018"a, 0 Lk La..00�/�\�__� 01,!s^4 ( 90 MT. Pdrvanxcp./blot fern. 10"Iq.el'a. o �' LOT 1-NORTH UNIT ��•.•�1 b ra 14� ��A/ I g I I 2 Ct-k C cUne 1e mniV Flarrai'a.tt Fiats 4'Mld. Q CC 0 I - UST,ROOF PITCH Bs12 Zypbu Bud \ '\e°'a'Q *c'' ��r�i' j• I I c' I 8 D-Ex litr orla sp./Drxrn-wrq[jagrw 15"3q.H18"a. c if�q a�'\�\ iOO��OO"��r� I 1 < I La-qe CrrunAgssGm/Qi:een emra ':0"2�0" O 'Z I Aga `�1-z� Nay, /1 \\\' / ® icryatun/Gala:knew 15"�.HI9"a �p a� I♦41I�����" 8 ClGh Cahiew r q +- rantic eala k.►okib .....- AN,f fiats!, I 20 Lw Livecraven*It/gat mal;mlgass 12"Igel'a ,d DRJWWAY IOT 13 2 N.\\..\`� \`\♦ 1\ spy;r,iar I •i- L EDurnlpin•All olim TI14:�,,i6,- t��`t 7%+, I 1 m 100 OJ OF a lAa�ia+s/htrlo gain 6"I WJ• 0) Ct �`ar / r \ t_4;o y 22 Ps-: Plydadndra✓Ku-add 15"3 020"a •wIJ►,�,/A�.n1 q S 90 00 00 W 97 9T . '' , I i f EV a Id ff frpacun tlmdaa/M.faYaatdne crass 15"3q.e15"a. RI t EL-- 10 Mf-I a'NcyinleyH nw.,Madlo fan" 18"fiq,02'a. 1 8 55 zi r Saes _c �ded<dededed<dededed ®� ' U r ydi;O�I�IOIVIVO�ddeJ i fhq than.Rica Crard 5 Cu.Yards LAW A.25/27-Cu Yds �dedel<Iedel<Iededel ( /` '-Denotes native,or highly drought tolerant plant materials,per SFWMD."Xeriscape Manual". �� 0 0 ' W 0 MINLcnn N oIOl�d�d�d:O�d�Ii;I�I % I Note:All Phoenix species Palms To Be Pre-Approved By Landscape Architect Prior To Delivery To Job Site. C� Planting soils,see specs.&details N Z r LOT P SOUTH UNI F ;I`��I�. ��I�I�O �� I Mulch,see specs.&details Q _" �sede, Ief<I { i Sod,sold floratam,as required. C 0% eaeb ►�e�d 1 t Q Noah p- • reI<I<IedeJ<Iei feI<I / I I m OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS lej<jejejOdeje1 4 rededeeeede4 ceejdeej W 7 TOTAL LOT AREA 8,244.59 sq.ff. n O djjjdd4 cejej L DRAWN rededededejede4 ceded MIN.25%OPEN SPACE 2,061.14(requ'ued) --.1 O _ I red<deI <Iedei f M ( 9r red<OOdOded�ie �ejej to < 0111 DRIVE 3,025.00sq.ft. RisC. reI<I<I<ded� ceded / �^ (LJ DRIVEWAY 1,497.00 sq.ft. nN.C. /' CONC.EQUIP.PADS/STOOPS 92.00 sq.ft. acre Adedededed I<I<I / o ! t �J I POOLS&POOL TERRACES 1,440.00 sq.ft. 5.16.07 • C//�JU!// z THIS AREA NOT rejejeejejejejejeoejejejej<j O OSCALE reI<I<I<I<I<I<I<O<OeOedel<I�nI TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 6,054.00 s ff. INCLUDED I : • re♦de a ej�de ejejej<de Odej -i I i q' 1/B=r•o' ■ PROJECT • • • • • • "8.244.59 sq.ft.-6,054.00sq.f.=2,190.59s •ff.(open s ace provided)" 'O&NO.10.23.06 II II WO ,.DLSK 0 aRift ROO S 90 00' 00"W 92.85' ID501 DUSTING eCBS WALL ON FACE OF WALL I �I LANDSCAPE PLAN OF • SHEETS 1 REVISIONS BY IRRIGATION LEGEND ----- Laser Drip Line Toro 570-6 Pop-up,Strip Series 0 Q 0• Toro 570-6 Pop-up Series w/PCP pattern as shown A Richdale Valves 3 Rain bud Controller/Mini Click Ram Sensor Water Source:Dedicated irrigation meter(1'min.) i - - -_ Q PVB Valve,Per City Specs. NOTE:Main fie&valve locations are shown for graphic clarity only. All main lines&valves are to be located within landscape areas on-site. IRRIGATION NOTES: 1190 NASSAU STREET Notes: Automatic irrigation System N 43 Water demand/zone Pressure required(refer to plan) W GENERAL pm nom System shag be installed in accordance with a Fedral,State,and local codes, 30' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT ICC N Contract drawings and Contract Specifications. Irrigation design is based on"Planting Plan"doted 3.13.07 7 ASPHALT PAVING Min = P3 _ Contractor shall refer to this pion to coordinate sprinkler locations and pipe routing V4DTHVArtES V M with plant locations. M CO The water source for this system shall loco city water rtsafer(5/8'min.) --- - — --- -- - —avur.suiaax - - — _ O ` f`'7 The master shut-off valve shall be activated via the automatic controller,and shag be _ CONC. ---_� I LL J used to depressurize the zone lines when the system Is flat operationalValve#1 Valve#2 ontraots,ashot adjust the irrigation,where noted c the plans Inc actual field O�O -- -- (22 Gpm) (16 Gpm) N. I Cl) V u conditions,and shall install spe the system in accordance with South Florida Irrigation DV W `� Society Standards and specifications. DRIVEWAY 17 DUET.a FND.39•NON ROO 41 To Insure properoperation of this system.pumpsize,pressure required,pipe and wire cos war_ .'r°W'11" I ' 6%ISTwG a WALL 6cgP t&zzm m oP Ys q He .. •'�/•'_� ). saes,sprinkler spacing,Installation details,and specifications sisal be 6 DISK R - 7■ ■ .�s.._ `, C 'o/ 1 > followed as shown on the drawings and n me specifications. - <'1<y<� 1 I `V a Irrigation system shag provide 100%coverage,with a 50%ovedap minimum.utifuirr9 ('t'1 4 1■ ��• 111111.<<<<<1:a-7����-�Tv��a,. / 1 CO ■ . 0 lust-free"water source.If a wet& um system is to utilized,the contractor shall �'A r1!. .1:M «««'V««««««<,9««4 / pump Y [� I'WYI ?,°? .per::'�,: «<���I:. si«« � / 11: Q w "chemical .` r «<• «<..«««•►««<�it 1 injection system'to inhibit rust stains,if water sample testing indicates that (� 'N 84441 '4'4<<<��<<<<��ill<<���<</! ► —I w < CV there will be"lusr staining ham the wet water. l 1 Cr) I IMar —\r•'a. ::� i <� < ► / Z CO) _c v0 PIPING ►««««««����N $3 (20 #3 0. All pipe l is e schematic inonly,accordance and shot bewith fieldto adjusted ford per manufactures ® <<<<<<<<•«-<<<<<<<<<0. ►<��I�i' `� I q (20 Gpm) CD All pipe shot be installed n accordance v41h local codes,and per manufactures «<?,5�►,!««< / p I— W ; •...::.�.....<.� - •�.,1 ,a el m ; � a CV Piperecommeunder. Sensor «<1««««<� -- Pipe routed under paver surfaces.and through planter wags shall be sleeved n SCH I/ SenBOf <<<<<<<<<<<<<<-0,. r'►�<�) ''F��� / w �' .p I 40 PVC.Sleeves shot be of adequate size to allow for 1/2"clearance for pipe&wire. O ��<.�<��.�<<<<H��G�<<<I�Ta erc�oFuru %0 f I 1 0 o Contractor — O — = <<<00 —4.►j<���i</ Pm 1 I shall verity the location.depth&ice of at existing sleeves,as required. �1�<. <�� POOL y���/ 1 h }� Ai k Pipe installed above grade for the backflow preventer shot be SCH 40 Galvanized O <<«� �� _i �<�•1■/ ,^ pipe.AS other piping shall be PVC.The main tine shall be SCH 40 PVC.laterals sized *., . _ ♦�1�-� / from 1 to 7 shall be SDR 26,Class 160.and laterals sized from 1"to 3/4'shat be SDR O I I LOT 1-NORTH UNIT -tom ''ti<<�4111� m I I gli 21.Class 200 PVC pipe. O COST.ROOF PITCH 812 \,� ' I<(I �� 1 I o I s-� '�<.�.<<�i. Pipe Shall be instated so the backlit depths ore maintained at 18",Inc main Ones and F-I O 1' a 7 �i<41�� all lateral Ones routed beneath pavement,and at 12"for at other Fines.The depths F-I r O , �I<<<<<I/ I from 1-to 2'shall be SDR 26,Class 160,and laterals sizetl from 1"to 3/4"shot be SDR JIWVPWAY I0T 1h 9 CD 1��<<<<<�1' I I C or Class to PVC pipe. - •� Q ore to be taken from finished grades. S 90°00'00°W 9797 / te.K Backlit material Mai be suitable material,free of rocks,stones,or other debris that 1 I ) could damage components at me irigdtion system. — ^—- • — _ ._ - - ._ _ MCI SPRINKLERS ��e$e�e�e�eyO$I>v4r4 , r -�eeeeeeeaee Sprinkler locations are schematic only,and shot be adjusted for urine,landscape t �- �Oe>e>e>O>e`ede>e>e, N. materials,hardscape elements,etc..to provide 100%coverage with a no overthrow �Oeeeeee`eie �� I ( onto vedsurfaces,orbuildin facades. - l Illll>>II/ - / v-- Pop-up spray heads shot be Toro series 6",and 12'type,which are to be installed onflexible i ((� N SHALL BE NOg4"POP-UPnts of OHEADS UTILIZED FOR THE PROJECT.ro thick-waled poly pipe with 1/2"insert elbows.THERE 0 Shrub heads shall be nsfated al a uniform height of 6'above the plantings,and are LOT2 -SOUTH UNIT - -�eee llee to be located within planting masses so as to be concealed from view. �✓e0e(, OOe0e0 � h Q- CC Shrub type spray heads shall be Toro 570 series,and are to be installed on a 1/2'SCH 0 C 40 PVC risers. • I Bubblers are to be installed on a SCH 40 PVC risers at the base of the plant material. — OO'r 0 0 4 _• clef / tar low-level watering. >>>>0>4 °> I m O 0 All SCH 40 PVC risers ore to be painted-Forest green",or Brown,to be less W ..eeeeee0� :�ee '� conspicuous _ >�>�>�>�I�I�4 ►4n4 /L ,.. I 7 L- 'C Toro 12'pop-up sprincJers shall be installed In ground-cover areas at the parking-lot 0 eeeeelele/ p%4 ! I L — ° O Islands,and at other critical locations,as determined in the field by the Landscape - e0e>O°e>e>e°ell �O>O° III — Architect. _� I��e�OjOj�O�sV j0, h Q 'E (113 L LL Sprinklers located adjacent topavement,sidewalks.decks,patios.buildings.etc.. ) . j I /1 1 _X (/1 r I~ ( W W sisal be installed 8'from the edge.Unless otherwise noted on the plum.Pstate /' ' D 0 sprinklers shall be instated 6-from the edge,and shrub sprinklers shall be instated 18" t� v Prir>H g from the edge.Shurb risers are not to be instated at walk-way intersections,or >,,°,V v v e>'�� o I •_ where-ever a trip&fat^hazard may occur. :eeeeeeOeeeeeee I I 'PVB Valve O N m THISAREANOT - eeeee0eeeeeeee !� Adjustment feature of sprinklers specified shot be utilized to insure proper coverage. � eleOefelele>>>elele>eIe>eI ,Fit z while minimizing undesirable overthrow. INCLUDED JN- .. I U Contractor shall use precaution in locating.and setting sprnder heads in planting areas adjacent to parking spaces to minimize the damage to sprinklers be _ PROJECT I I Water Z 0 overhanging car bumpers. •- • • • - • - • • • • c L 6� � J I Meter C p` Pop-up sprinklers with:low angle"nozzles shall be installed amid masses of tat shrubs. FND mad 6 O FND.s¢IROh!PGD for low level watering.Contractor steal install sprinklers al optimum locations for the FNO.NADISK LB 6a S 90 00' 00"W - 92.85' FU1CAP/ IRON IJ0�01 ,_ 0 most effective Coverage. ON FACE OF W� EXISTING 6•CBS WALL CONTROL SYSTEM <_ Ronbird control system that be instated,per manufactures recommendations,to _ Dam.activate in-line valves•and the master shut-off valve. _ —_ Proper grounding equipment that be instated.for the controller. UP Controller location shot be approved by the Landscape Architect,and project - cried supervisor. 1H.C. The irrigation contractor shall supply the controller.however the physical installation there-of,and the electrical hook-up that be by others. DATE 5.16.07 VALVES 1 Richdale,or approved equal electric valves shall be installed per manufactures swE recommendations,and as per details.At valves are to be installed in 10'Ametex I/O'=1,-0' valve box,see details. Jul no, RAIN SENSOR 10.23.06 Mini-ctck"ran sensor shall be instated,per manufactures recommendations.Rain m¢zs sensor location shall be approved by the Landscape Architect. IRRIGATION PLAN L-2 OF 2 SHEETS 1 REVISIONS BY L,d r Pair.'5dedrle Note: L.icnt,IN Za1es 1).Cadrdler:Intsrmarlc•or egial."program ablz"artrdl er• I.Prat(AIA)ll?I is 4)- Wa'kway-Licit. Nalco 1019 Eeaan LI.yt•w/95w. Capable of cresting cliff-mat,zms hdependatly. MV Medun Ease E19Lanp-Na'aral Eras Fhlsl, 2)S1I Ladscape Ik,trq sha7 be instilled wth dectn� a ccLtE, 2,p od a�W�kvray/Drr enaa theme shall be w"Peect Eirlal"ca'�'e utbeed a this project. � s REPrrrewal-Lk t Nalco VW9 Peaces LPrea Walkway/Prtvewaa p�� �,w/IOOw.max. Pcd 14 mril caidelwkra Ease Lamp-5tariess Steel Phlsh Up-Licit Hadar 131114te EI-GD-L w/30w.Plod _ Pa-20/k20 Akan Ease Lanp-Nahrd Eras Frdsh I I Lkjt. Hoodoo Battle EI-a-L w/100w.Flood Pa-20/P20 ihduml3xeLanp-NatuaErassFrush 1190 NASSAU STREET W 30' EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT. CO111111 ASHW.T PFWlG � � � WIDTH VARIalbES W inimmini `W m � ---- - - ---- --- — .Box Ni.'.50% --- - - - --._-- --- --- '7 0 = LL BRIM tfik.mr.-:=.4. 7- 1016 - -- DflIYEWAY - --- �` --- -- - - --- - FND.SB•WON ROO d 1. 4r. Me cNa Nae� FJ*IRINI`tifiMf16i1111\ �iL*li1►A^11E.r11fll� __.—�_ -L�IKV I SI V� l:e i acjarean m aDcsrc 1���allxlMN :rintelItlIINiAIilaliXIMOi1111IIpII• rr, 1 O��' 1� �� (I ��1�A � ills Q 0 -r•• firr..- .mow .. e.T�,II4,,,,. ....1 AY.. • I ''ril�I'Ili�' ■Illfihfl;9 f�IQ1111 ■ iiei4=��,�''''I-'4-..V.' ► 6;L 7u&V� 'T"`�\ 0 I W a� Cr) /I IIIU:/� - e•.� ;.•.•••o y: F • t m re d o .... �� a EDue �•••••�.• •�•••••� L i�••i��•'�r•••••����, IIIA:' ii� glf I :❑ ❑.PIE _ 4 ♦• • ♦.••. ♦••• ••••• rCO CT; L_i M �Ic►�� �. \ �•e. /w� �;00e�•�`o��e'••••O�••••A�•0��. I I Z F' V�LLI t\.11oilm llll�ry°� —— •e••=i.,.•.v••��\ �I tip; M�- so El ►��♦ 4---- ♦ ,thy t3 I a ••♦ ♦•••••e.r - W1010k � '►►i•iiiii�� blit a= A ,' cn Z w N V L� , �‘❖�••••E�i•G�•••er/io mnoFm aA a —�I I I ti V n 76 0 o !.! - .tit — I LOT 1-NORTH UNIT •`�� "'R— ��••�•��AI'1. I I o , LIGHTING PLAN oast.ROOF Aral xIs ���ESMILBEIZ ���, /•�•�\fir I I I Q ,..c.F.,...w.,47-2. ,,,, 4k 4::. ..4_,/ i pPotiTwAr 1 or to u s U „ 1 Illlh1e!�! \c�%/�/r S 90 00'oo W 9r 9� Aw��/A`/�a ` '%� — 1 ,L — — { ,�,'',�,,r'uys�: �.k. I 4� {KiltiOe°$°o°$°$°$°e i �e°e°e°e°e°e°SKS1-e l I I Q i ko°o°o°o°o°o°o°i°o°i [ �i°i°i°i°e°e°o°o°o°� t �o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°i � "- ♦000 ioo...• I , C *1%sev`,E.::44%e 3 I , ...1 O fn LOT 2 SOUTH UNIT e�e�$�0. �O%e4 rI I I o I 5 /v°i Avv, . F •mot' I a �ee �s1, • • O❑ o + $ � $; 0e$o o %eo ���� v I ZI c O J / $°vt.i°�°°e°i°4 o ��' i roa i,i _ o s ofIllI .�%$�sus: �e�e IM I°$°o°$°$°$°i`e`o`o`�`e`$°e°i o b`D I I O THIS AREA NOT 0••0s••N. ••4e•••;•• - IO I O I _� m z INCLUDED1N .•-.a-.aIaI0I•I04.4•4 44.4•44.0 I z PROJECT I I curl d yrrrrr trt rrr.ii rrirrrr b� ri trt rrr rrr rrr rr rrrrrrrrr rrr rrrrrt rrtt it rr r r rrri,rt irrrrr rr ritrrrirrrr I A\ �DISK 1H MCA S 90°00'00"W 92.85' Ewsrr+cecaswFLL .PL�B�ROO I NORTH s3 ONFACE OF WAIL i el 0 _— 6049w _ sr cir..ota P.H.C. PALE 3.13.07 JOB oo LANDSCAPE PLAN 1023.06 snEEt LANDSCAPE&LIGHTS PLAN "-4 [ OF SHE' 1111/97 Pa 'We" - jap-P (A) 1MPPF,r ;V -a ? _et4 0A.J //211,0-yuL _ 9/ f,7 • , -�S N tp1/71/4 „GP p ,cps' F • jik; ,-z o l nIkAAP Q144-.4772— oof cal/hei Cp 71L- t- I / � -- -- , tos3V( V2—' N C9 ter, Lic i----7;Lewe — . 2// \ L„Dot) cica,,,,k C. / 7 Z` ti-- 2 • #_ 2__ (›Lot-1,-2 G - W - 1 / - / �--z- a) ) 4/444 — a b o � �--� ‘y4t a/4 „ (>2 — (/ �_40)/') 0,1-k—Ln_ ,--'" c_.- ., ,,,'"--- __7 ' /40..1 _, _. '" / r) / c>2_, af- — _44.1_y____4'4, . _ 12-(--,4- 11) P ,i'd4 -%- ' / / Z- ) ___--- 2/' ' <7- 2-- 9 ' �P �- �' 1 :—i,,_ ,,,r 5 _„41_i/a) __--- -----iei 'ill \ ,._____� g /71_ 14__-) 04,, --.) ' 11/) 7- a'''' �.� 3 7(ex, 47 P.,_)1. xL.tieL ? %./', 6—Q--6''"V- .4,...ii,-. ' Ili/ '.IIY.)-- N __ _„,,,..L e, ,".2,,.,/ Q_cL1.. . F— -- -- --j"6'2-c-- ____ _ r_ ,, d 7, , -----IT'' , ,.)---- ,' / ,,,), i 0/ cam- ; v' yz , P6J 7> 2' \ /ice, -7---_.,,,,,,c c,- ,,,,______„ ci/ ZAJ ,1_ 7 , tt- / e-:&66 \ / 7) 2 /_--/ 6 C--( 6z__ 22---- ,. ..-/ e.„ , — ,h o> / ___( / _ . ,z( __„/--e/ GLx5.1-e 6 fit,r4e-, , ,,--, — --c.) , , , --- eL) ,7 ct) /41 $1_J 9, ij C. (AJc,_j egde . � 77\ r /1> e9‹,•(-A1) P'/1": i/1/ ‘ l - --j21 •Th c 0 ( )( 01Y(2 Ns1/4 Y-1 — C2/2 /( 1PC7— affS^ A°1A AtaJ- 6c � �z�j bn L�rr 9 c,1_. 9 0e r it-164T HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD January 9, 2008 MEETING COMMENCED: 6:00 p.m. II.A. II. B. NAME ATTEND 110 NE 5th Street 418 NE 2nd Avenue Approved 6 to 0 VOTE: ROGER COPE JAN KUCERA-WINNEY LINDA LAKE JOANNE PEART RHONDA SEXTON KEITH SNIDER TONI DEL FIANDRA A Meeting Adjourned: p.m. Historic Preservation Board—Meeting of January 9,2008 1. Approved (6 to 0, Toni Del-Fiandra absent), a Class I site plan modification and a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of aluminum frame windows and alterations for the "Hartman House" an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD January 9, 2008 MEETING COMMENCED: 6:00 p.m. II.A. NAME ATTEND 302 NE 7th Avenue Hartman House Approved 6 to 0 VOTE: ROGER COPE JAN KUCERA-WINNEY LINDA LAKE JOANNE PEART RHONDA SEXTON KEITH SNIDER TONI DEL FIANDRA A Meeting Adjourned: 6:50 p.m. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING INTRODUCTION (May be read by Chair at the beginning of the meeting) This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with quasi-judicial rules. The City, Applicant and Parties shall each be allowed 20 minutes to present their case. The Public shall be allowed to speak for 2 minutes each or a maximum of 6 minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present, but agree not to speak. City staff, the Applicant or a Party may be allowed to cross=examine a witness for a period not to exceed 2 minutes per witness. The City, Applicant and Party may have up to 2 minutes for rebuttal. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the numbers of citizens who support or fail to support a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Regulations. SUMMARY OF QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING PROCESS Staff enters project file into the record. 1. Swear in Witnesses 2. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications by City Commissioners/Board Members 3. City Staff enters project file into the record. City Staff shall present case, including witnesses (max. 20 min.) 4. Applicant shall present case, including witnesses (max 20 min.) 5. Other parties may present case, including witnesses (max 20 min.) if approved for party status 6. Public may speak for or against (max 3 minutes per person; unless person represents an organization or other group of people who are present and who yield their time to an individual person, then the maximum time shall be 6 minutes.) 7. Cross examination will be allowed after each witness. City Staff, the Applicant and Parties shall be allowed to cross examine anyone who testified before the board for a period of 2 minutes per witness. However, if either City Staff, the Applicant or Parties desire to cross examine a citizen participant it is only allowed through the Chair in accordance with the rules of the City Commission/Board. 8. The City Staff, Applicant, and Parties may have 2 minutes for rebuttal. This sheet is just a summary of the rules of procedure for quasi-judicial hearings for the City Commission and Boards and is not inclusive of all the requirements for quasi-judicial hearings. The Rules for the Board or, if the Board has not adopted rules, the Rules of the City Commission shall govern all quasi- judicial hearings. August 23, 2006 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT Applicant/ Authorized Agent: Weiner&Aronson, P.A. Property Owner: George Risolo and Peter Canelo Property Address: 302 NE 7th Avenue "Hartman House", Individually Designated HPB Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 File No: 2008-043-SPI ITEM BEFORE THE,BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification for the replacement of aluminum frame windows and alterations to an individually designated structure located at 302 NE 7th Avenue (aka "Hartman House"), pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lots 13 & 14, Block 113, Highland Park Subdivision and is located on a .33 acre site at the northwest corner of NE 7th Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Located within an RNA (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density) zoning district, the property contains a 2,752 square foot, two-story Frame Vernacular style dwelling which is known as the Hartman House. The 1923 dwelling was listed on the Local Register of Historic Places in 2005. On May 18, 2005, the HPB reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V Site Plan Application for the repair of the historic dwelling, demolition of the garage and swimming pool, and the construction of two new dwellings to flank and be attached to the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the Staff Report considered by the Historic Preservation Board for the aforementioned development repeatedly emphasized repair and restoration, as opposed to replacement, of various features: • "Repair and alteration of the extant historic building..." • "The proposal is for the construction of a townhouse development which includes the restoration of the Hartman House (Unit B), which is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places,..." • "The dwelling contains the original wood frame windows to the front façade which are of a traditional four over one design. The historic structure has almost no ornamentation apart from a wheel window to the south façade; however, this may have been added at a later date along with the corresponding out of proportion window on the second floor as they are off-center and inconsistent with the symmetrical design of the building. It has been recommended that both these windows be retained since they are part of the development history of the building." • "Proposed appropriate works to the exterior of the structure will consist of replacing the shingles, the insertion of a more appropriately designed window to the middle of the 302 NE 7'"Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 `s Pane 2of6 second floor on the south façade, window repairs, the addition of a canopy over the front door, repainting, and the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool." • "The development proposal involves the restoration of the historic Hartman House...The restoration of the Hartman House will consist of mainly appropriate repairs which should be encouraged as the building will be put to an appropriate and sustainable use which will ensure its ongoing maintenance and repair. At its meeting of June 6, 2007, the HPB reviewed and approved a two year site plan extension for the development proposal. On July 16, 2007, a building permit application was submitted for the replacement of the existing original wood windows with aluminum frame windows. The permit was denied as the HPB did not previously grant approval for the original window replacement. On Monday, September 24, 2007 Staff performed a site visit to the subject property where it was noticed that the original wood windows were removed, and many of the proposed aluminum windows were installed. It was also noted that the new aluminum windows were of a three-over-one configuration as opposed to the original four-over-one configuration. As previously noted, the permit had been denied because this detail had not been reviewed or approved by the HPB upon approval of the Class V Site Plan Application in 2005. The City's Code Enforcement Division was notified. At its meeting of October 17, 2007, the Board considered a Class I Site Plan Modification requesting consideration to remove the existing and original wood windows and replace them with aluminum windows. The Board approved the application subject to the condition that the windows were replaced with either wood or aluminum clad wood windows of the same type, size, and configuration as previously existed. The current proposal is to replace the existing three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins with four-over-one aluminum windows with profiled muntins and carry out alterations to the window and door openings on the west, south and north elevations. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. Secretary of the Interior's Standards The following Standards apply to the subject application: 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) 302 NE 71"Avenue,2008-043-SP1 HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 3 of 6 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (Standard 4) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (Standard 5) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. (Standard 6) 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) Windows The historic character of the structure has already been significantly altered by the removal the original four-over-one wood windows and their replacement with three-over-one aluminum windows with flat muntins. The three-over-one configuration adversely affects the overall appearance and there is a great distinction in the muntin profile of the original wood windows and the newly installed aluminum windows. Documentation should have been provided to demonstrate that the wood windows could not be repaired; however, this was not done and their replacement was undertaken without approval. If replacement was necessary, the new windows should have matched the old in terms of material, size and configuration. As they are a recent alteration, the new windows have no historic significance. While their replacement with the proposed new windows will be more historically accurate because of the four-over-one configuration and raised muntins, the intent of the standards will not be met as they are still aluminum-framed. Given the circumstances associated with alterations that have already occurred without support, the current COA request may be the best compromise. Alterations The proposed alterations to the facades consist of changes to a number of the existing door and window openings. Almost all of the changes to the windows and doors are either being undertaken on the one-story addition to the rear of the property or to recent inappropriate. alterations that have no historic significance. The intent of the standards has been met. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: The following Standards apply to the subject application: (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any buildings within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. 302 NE 71'Avenue, 2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 4 of 6 (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Windows The predominant window material used in historic sites, buildings, and structures of this age is wood; however, there are currently aluminum frame windows with an inappropriate configuration installed. The proposed new configuration with raised muntins will be more appropriate in terms of historical accuracy; however, as they still have aluminum frames, the intent of the standards with regard to materials has not been met. Alterations The proportion of the openings has been adversely affected by previous alterations to the structure. The proposed alterations are appropriate for this property as the new door and window openings are more compatible in terms of proportion and position. The intent of the standards has been met. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Windows • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. • Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. • Replacing viable windows should be avoided. The newly installed three-over-one aluminum windows are inappropriate in terms of configuration and material. The proposed four-over-one configuration with raised muntins will contribute to restoring the property's historic appearance. However, the use of aluminum frames does not meet the intent of the above noted guidelines in that they do not retain any of the original distinctive features of the windows. Alterations Recommended: • Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doorjambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Not recommended: • Cutting new openings, altering existing openings, blocking windows, and installing a replacement sash that does not fit the window. The proposed alteration of the size, location, and style of a number of the existing doors and windows on the structure is appropriate in this particular case. The above section on retaining distinctive windows refers to historic windows; however, almost all of the windows and doors to be altered are later inappropriate alterations. The new openings will be cut into the one-story addition to the rear of the structure therefore the historic fabric will not be affected. None of the 302 NE 7`r Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9,2008 Page 5 of 0 existing windows will be completely blocked up; however, some will be reduced in size. The proposed new sizes are more in keeping with the historic windows. Analysis Windows The existing three-over-one windows with flat muntins were installed without approval and are inappropriate for the structure. While the proposed new four-over-one windows with raised muntins will in some way restore the original appearance of the structure, the question must be raised as to whether these windows can be deemed appropriate and whether the applicant should follow previous Board direction and install either wood frame or aluminum clad windows. It is clear that the proposed new windows do not meet the intent of the LDRs, Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and Design Guidelines in terms of material and muntin design; however, it is also clear that they are more appropriate than the existing windows. The Design Guidelines state: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)". In the past, the Board has approved aluminum window frames for properties in historic districts; however, they have been primarily approved for either non-contributing buildings or new additions to contributing structures. If the proposed windows are approved, the approval should be subject to the condition that all windows and doors contain impact glass as this will avoid further damage to the historic fabric through the installation of other hurricane protection options such as shutters. Alterations The proposed alterations (windows and doors) to the non-historic, one-story rear addition can be supported as their style is in keeping with the character of the structure and no historic fabric will be affected. The alterations to the two-story historic structure can also be supported as they are mostly changes to windows and doors that were inappropriately added to the historic structure at a later date. Again, the proposed new alterations are in keeping with the style of the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to conditions. i cyi ( ,� / o C. Deny approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Class I Site Plan Modification (2008-043) for 302 NE 7th Avenue, (aka "Hartman House"), by adopting the findings of 302 NE 7"'Avenue,2008-043-SPI HPB Meeting of January 9, 2008 Page 6 of 6 fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDATION At the Board's discretion. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Photographs • Plans, Elevations T.«nww?a'reu. +...r+>.rrw,mcK.ummwuamlan - r ^"""'^ I.. M+w+n,•...w.wawl+J YI�I r •,Id f AMR r1 g � f 1I d,5e`..,, 3�•-c. r 'A } a, •;y ,y i,.,,' r v y��� Jr ytt'�ottoay `F ,��, .�i r`t✓. .„ ,,,., .n.,.'f „#' rPw..�.,Iw:41�Yvt4ur R ••'� »rv., ,Juwi..4� f p�"^ V Via.+'n, E 1 6 a++r r�J.W�'�4�.'✓'p ysra+ew/pY��4 R7SCk l! V"Z'1 , 1i �'uk t' y :. -,,,,,,., ., . i, I r Y,y}� N , �� fir% .A''';',•r� `9 I i:i• ivy h•“; .y}°y . ax. 4' eS I ',,t='r,t ' ,,aa�� 'ru['u.2seWVG.emu.. ___xA+xr' r 5 y.4 fir:'. Yai d b off` �(ff'� �]vr ,i'/L, yrr. 1 ' j1 4/, ;$ \, i i it IIIn .-; f i :i:i . ....... L........ . . . ,,. , , ,, „, , . ,„.: .. , : .... . ... ,,,,,,, .. 1:.; .. ,,,,, , . , ,,,,„,„,,,,,„„ ,, , _ , I •• _ / i • , - .4 ,.„,,, ` a . l Jou vft / / 11/1�I.2o0�.,1�5�7..At�l�, N:,�,., r.-�.�J-: t� ,,zw�.,.wa.u<.4�� 4 ,, -. � 111'�2��''� 1�59 AM ,• , :,..,..,:w,,,;;(:,...,:,...m;., tt#"kty1 3 �7R'I f 217 ;Ali eII■ ®®® o■■ - , fa sa�acs s .0 . .. ��� � � ',R�4r .d �l� �14G �h R� , l''''' Vl nay :V;::::"Avi:tt: nu , II yy z,,,1.,,,,,,N14,.,,1,..,I P'',,,,,,,,,:L,;:fily:,..,,,1/4:. ;11-5 :7-1';11 0:11 '' ''''' ' ' ./ 'A, � IIPl e -, .: i � }�'1 ;�' { t. , , f I a» a C t n ,..,...nr� r r r l r , ...Y i $t y S� ~ 1 1 , `11/01212007'12 7',AM -,,, t .,' 1/2/20D 1'58 AM -, �'_,, .yT � ,w _.ctJ.` -n V •ftm�, _ „�L - c, ,,,r '`4�a $,,.,,„ ,,,� ,w 4 1►I, ',,t4,..*& Sda.,44.. tlrkc'{F:.*^#0.d'...4.t.o.7h.1,,, �«Vma'hPd' _ 41k C;�M"5u y_� ._y �..... _ . _-- --:sz.�wl. .. •. 't, w6,.. �''r ua..�I,,,Wr�t •wr�s oc Kij lip ! o a all onus Dolor 101,Ia awa PICK manna' IUL 0.41.171.172f M1904MOCRCM1aCCC41 uS W Cg Z a 2 H 0 al ,-,-,3 ZLL r I -i I T I I____,I b aU L.-w BEDROOM m LIVING BEDROOM II KITCHEN p11' ROOM II I I II i Z K II FLORIDA RIM I r� �I II I II 'am Q�wQ IIT'f I-- I I ENTRY POR II I LAUNDRY I— —j., _rillin.- — II II A1�90LMID4 _, ...Hum, II DINING s II , . r BEDROOM I II II BEDROOM I , II BEDROOM L bid II II L.,1 i) _1 ---+- i!. =J L `-.- = _._� I -.- M i r----J DA,E 9.14-01 I aEvi;Ov; J EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 'min' 1/4•.1'-0' V M 4.. -0' R F K 0 Z Klii; u a 4n1 4eC Snawnetcluccoi 1011111111 IR [IIII IIII ���� Ell us am mil am 111•111 \ IX > z �rII] IIIh� l 11111 IIII — 2 � �R,� I, M R11111111111 '0 C I a 11 = x I I I I Q v ¢ i6 .. a zo LL EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION O DWI Q 6 14••1.-0. �./ =w EXISTING •1.-e, F hm V+ Z} Z N J W O Q Mi>mgSD4 [IIII; (III] = Mill IIII itFill. IIII; !III] \\`r F'CViGq:". U 1 I I�IIi [II]] 0 [�fI] Vim. ia F11 III 6•Iim low Pit LL, , EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION V4••I.-CO A2 of irie wu Iv 1 u s MI aouc CCUUT KM.IL 33413 not[ 5413/1)]01 W. M1.ai1711 IIa+Rw1 IR[C ALC011 III IIII hill 1111 Mill �IIII, ���1 nu RRus_ tic an in inini ill in III la UJI z a rIfit 'liiiI t ��„ W I�������Il��.I1111111111 fH1II1�! Si • iIICI III �-ar % _ o W v 6 _ a z ' PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION O w Q u �.•.l 0• PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION IX c. -}w 1/0• I"' w N O-J Q ' = Q "J W Ale00litlt 11111111111 19 11111111111 imil pi Iiiiii.mo • Immo mail In tom! mi nisi an On ri 9-14-61 =n 1 Nil mom] 0 imiiiiiii pi ' nu rlia V ail oci ,iIriq min mini • �- F -� PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION