The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB 07-18-18 naEd 41/ 4-1 / /41- (16-4-/kw:s /F At-b-1 cu ato : �tvn3 7-a- it 14/ f_,7 b tit If. el Hc__ it-exoc_d alal? . 097 � � CCC��.E i�� - ( 4a-e_ 7ikcA litioLlic ' 4a, L._ 6L3 . / c✓ -- 40-1 t__ a70 - 07, 4-f--4CC-144- - /(c. cc. 0// . l Z7 ei 41142/L, v C 4 - , /t /441_ 4-- "I° AL-46.4C - /1011t_ Aet , 4 — 04f_. 6-0 6C - dlo? de S74 " ____l_ck_t_th,_74) LuLd d t �£ (n i o /� ice-C au C✓ icy? icCEit-i 7ao yz YG v &it Cco-ey ��i �l� �l�.d�,c �� YAP. Gc,A./G — ow- oActi, ksit_ke' )14E_, - c4-Lica. LI 1-40 c t/OfIcc.,Lai 0 104 - 0 76 pIA ,1 0e1N-4 t/Gt_.,c c o *jt 1104,kuci cuL (LC/1 '170-LS � . €1,a.10 ,h U -7t-15 OC.Acul T/4-xx..0 — OcJ4f./L- 4/./. - ax.ceic.4i caou.T �cu Jie 44-0_14.1-xco 11513 6-o mod- eix_cott, , / 41. d P — Bch t_ll L �cc� �-,c-� d A1? - foo tic cE. J - / oi i /niL — (,Ec,e-i is - l� c-S44j§ — ofou_ccr t.L.c (Oui:s af,ityksi-; - fo-,L./v /a..Lcc_7 e__ !� A v-x..T 661 1)3L-11 - (tx.c_ca c-‘)I Yout.ciff,t. OIL Cf r (fie . �/ !n 7jacSI9 ✓h° lai-Ctrk — �o ;we idiod 6p - vSat,vE, 6 e)fiaL; ak)!? - /--e-E, D 3 ! + 03 ?- 4011;_cucr (74- h I - 0-10 72 &elk j),,yo _ yoA,ku.Li / gac c�.11 Zir — &C v ckLIt . "Cr' kt-Triak U.A-diAit-Tatidi/17 thr "taw I" CiLit :iJ r Cvtn datO — 3 ' /Go 73kJ- - cog "KB / J —. . 5 ' f cJ� Iscc,c.t .A4 vx — I IA a/tilt-A_ 67/6-1( alio 4.44 c-}2I L1L__ / W.3 00 /OVA. ()C4 -1 1111 ilC ! Yr Ey - ut �c�1 ill Icy-c.'d 5`-ec jE. in a rc._ ,ce_c.cx_d ! 7 - 153 / 7 - 25 �0�cc�6u S cek — 4cch , 1E p Lufzi-ice_d P. a ku.At_ ICA_.01-; d1-4- �61� n�" ��i - Aucutce 1113 / ‘---0 —/OILAA At? - C))1• tb 6111P ?kJ del )00z ,sAc, cy-1 1/44 ' zin --Qckt (ALW 0,, AGENDA v = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Meeting Date: July 18, 2018 Time: 6:00 P.M. Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 100 NW 1st Avenue CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. SWEARING IN OF THE PUBLIC V. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (NOTE: Comments on items that are NOT on the Agenda will be taken immediately prior to Public Hearing Items.) Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (2018-097): Consideration of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption request associated with additions and alterations to a contributing structure. Address: 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District Owner/Applicant: Noel Smith and Linda Harper; noelstime@gmail.com Agent: Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc.; copearchitects@bellsouth.net B. Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (2018-075): Consideration of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption request associated with additions and alterations to a contributing structure. Address: 109 Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District Owner/Applicant: Kim and Peter Dwyer, 2kimdwyer@gmail.com C. Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-068): Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a pergola on the Northwest corner of the property. Address: 202 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District Owner/Applicant: Cathy Whitt; cathyjwhitt@gmail.com Agent: SYZYGY Global Inc.; mary@syzygyglobalinc.com D. Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-076): Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of two (2) noncontributing additions and Revocation of an existing Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption. Address: 212 Seabreeeze Avenue, Individually Listed to Local Register of Historic Places Owner/Applicant: Michael Marco; michaellmarco@gmail.com Agent: Jeffrey Silberstein, Silberstein Architecture, Inc.;js@silbersteinarchitect.com E. Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-100): Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new 1-story, courtyard style, single-family residence with an attached 2-car garage on an existing vacant lot. Address: 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District Owner: 115 Del-Ida, Inc; tolive64@gmail.com Applicant: Tonja Olive and Martin Ingram; tolive64@gmail.com Agent: Gary Stofft, AIA, Randall E. Stofft Architects; parv(a�stofft.com Historic Preservation Board Meeting Agenda: July 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2 F. Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-031), Variance (2018-032), and Waiver: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 3,887 square foot addition to the existing 1,240 square foot residential structure, new pool and associated landscaping and hardscaping, Variance to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 3'-1", and Waiver for enclosure of the existing carport for use as a 1-car garage. Address: 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District Owner/Applicant: Kenneth Fabel and Paola Fabel; kenfabel@outlook.com Agent: Shane Ames, Ames International; sames@amesint.com G. Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-253) and Variance (2018-254): Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations, additions and Variance to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 5'-2". Address: 227 NE 15t Avenue, Old School Square Historic District Owner/Applicant: Michael Perlman, michaelperlman@gmail.com Agent: Dan Sloan, AIA, NCARB, Sloan & Sloan, Inc.; dsloan@sloandesign.biz VII. REPORTS AND COMMENTS ❖ Staff ❖ Board Members VIII. ADJOURN j(1,1Atitbth Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner; HPB Board Liaison Posted on: July 10, 2018 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 the City Manager at 243-7010 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. 7-if- it 7- /?- / ? Historic Preservati 3oard-Voting Sheet III VI.A VLB VI.0 VI.D VI.E HPB MEETING HELD: ATTEND Approval of 49 Palm 109 N. Dixie 202 NE 5th 212 115 N. Dixie July 18, 2018 Agenda Square Blvd Terrace Seabreeze Blvd. Ave Tax Tax COA COA Exemption Exemption COA Attorney: VOTE to VOTE to Rec VOTE to Rec VOTE to VOTE to Rec VOTE to Lynn Gelin Approve to CC to CC Approve to CC Approve AIF 6-0 6-0 6-0 6-0 5-1 John Klein P Y Y Y Y Y Y Andrea Sherman P Y Y Y Y Y Y Angela Budano P Y Y Y Y Y Y Reeve Bright P Y Y Y Y Y Y Andrea Harden P Y Y Y Y Y NO Price Patton A A A A A A A John Miller P Y Y Y Y Y Y Page 1 ***with additional conditions added by the Board Historic Preservati 3oard-Voting Sheet I VI.F VI.F VI.F VI.G VI.G HPB MEETING HELD: ATTEND 228 N. Dixie 228 N. Dixie 228 N. Dixie 227 NE 1st 227 NE 1st July 18, 2018 Blvd. Blvd. Blvd. Ave. Ave. COA WAIVER VARIANCE COA VARIANCE Attorney: VOTE to VOTE to VOTE to Rec VOTE to VOTE to Lynn Gelin Approve Approve to CC Approve Approve 5-1 5-1 5-1 6-0 6-0 John Klein P Y Y Y Y Y Andrea Sherman P Y Y Y Y Y Angela Budano P Y Y Y Y Y Reeve Bright P Y Y Y Y Y Andrea Harden P NO NO NO Y Y Price Patton A A A A A A John Miller P Y Y Y Y Y Page 2 ***with additional conditions added by the Board ADJOURNED: 10:30pm DELRAY BEACH itiaisi All-America City 1993 1 r 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Historic Preservation Board July 18, 2018 PRINT ADDRESS OR ORGANIZATION ITEM NO. FULL NAME Drip kutiv, T3✓' b Pairc\'‘e\ I vvyamit 2 33\- 3 Vk \ Pr/ - (o v -~? / 4' :-\?5_0. OWL, /14/1 &Si (t7 k) Cr %' \), SW NJ-kb AAA- N /4 ,W �� 41Abe 2� 1.-•zricgMtvi PeatmEekr,„ D 3 v k `4 a w64 ,J- sy 6 y C 3GSO 1-\e rrtY Sy216V DELRAY BEACH All-America City 1 I 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2 001 Historic Preservation Board July 18, 2018 PRINT ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION FULL NAME Ti4 14 FA- 2ze!=. 9P-)ct — (� PloaPu r 'Z o'V E ociA, or" crep.,( /Or /5c(.9,. 0/S- /1- Zvi- ./ - becc 1- lEtr oO -y- 14-b1 x 1 c Blvd awn., 3 Of 1 � E1-fi � x o MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 MEETING PLACE: Commission Chambers, City Hall I. CALL The meeting was called to order by HPB Chair John Miller at 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL A quorum was present. Members present were John Miller, Chairman, Angela Budano, Reeve Bright, Andrea Sherman and Andrea Harden and John Klein. Absent was Price Patton, Vice Chairman. Staff present were Lynn Gelin Assistant City Attorney, Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner,Anthea Gianniotes, Principal Planner, and Diane Miller, Board Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to APPROVE the Agenda was made by Angela Budano and seconded by Andrea Sherman. ALL IN FAVOR IV. SWEARING IN OF THE PUBLIC John Miller read the Quasi Judicial Rules for the City of Delray Beach and Ms. Miller swore in all who wished to give testimony. V. MINUTES None VI. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None VII. ACTION ITEMS A. 49 Palm Square—Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (2018-097) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte None Applicant Noel Smith Linda Harper Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public Comment None 1of6 Minutes of the July 18,2018 Historic Preservation Board Board Comments None Motion to APPROVE the Valorem Tax Exemption was made by Reeve Bright and seconded by John Klein MOTION CARRIED 6-0. B. 109 Dixie Blvd. —Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (2018-075) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte None Applicant Presentation Tonja Olive— 127 Marlin Drive, Ocean Ridge Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public None Board Comments None Motion to APPROVE the Valorem Tax Exemption was made by Angela Budano and seconded by Andrea Harden MOTION CARRIED 6-0. C. 202 NE 5th Avenue. —COA (2018-068) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte None Applicant Presentation Jason Herring—SY2YGY Cathy Whitt- Owner Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public Roger Cope Board Comments None 2of6 Minutes of the July 18,2018 Historic Preservation Board Motion to APPROVE the COA was made by Reeve Bright and seconded by John Klein MOTION CARRIED 6-0. D. 212 Seabreeze Avenue. —COA (2018-076) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte None Applicant Presentation Jeffrey Silberstein Michael Marco - Owner Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public Michael Marco - Owner Board Comments Andrea Harden—Concern about Structure Motion to APPROVE the COA was made by John Klein and seconded by Andrea Budano MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Suggestions: Strike #1 in COA motion #2 becomes #1 E. 115 N Dixie Boulevard. —COA (2018-100) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte None Applicant Presentation Tonja Olive Martin Ingram Gary Stofft-Architect Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public Louis Brezinsky— 110 NE 7`h Street Board Comments Board concerned with the garage roof. 3 of 6 Minutes of the July 18,2018 Historic Preservation Board Motion to APPROVE the COA was made by Angela Budano and seconded by John Klein MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Dissenting Andrea Harden F. 228 N. Dixie Blvd. — COA (2018-031, 032) Michelle Hoyland,Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte Drive by Emails Applicant Presentation Kent Fabel—Owner Shane Ames -Architect Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public An Gannon Linda Oxford Louis Brezinsky Rebecca Broom Julie Ritter Board Comments None Motion to APPROVE the COA was made by John Klein and seconded by Andrea Budano MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Dissenting Andrea Harden Discussion-Andrea Harden said it does not meet criteria. Motion to APPROVE the Waiver was made by John Klein and seconded by Andrea Sherman MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Dissenting Andrea Harden Discussion-Andrea Harden said it does not meet criteria. Motion to APPROVE the Variance was made by Andrea Sherman and seconded by Andrea Budano MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Dissenting Andrea Harden G. 227 NE 1"Avenue— COA &Variance (2017-253 z7 2017-254) Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner entered the project into the record. Exparte Drive by Applicant Presentation Dan Sloan -Architect 4of6 Minutes of the July 18,2018 Historic Preservation Board Staff Presentation Michelle Hoyland presented the project from a power point presentation. Public Roger Cope Board Comments None Motion to APPROVE the COA was made by Angela Budano and seconded by John Klein MOTION CARRIED 6-0 Motion to APPROVE the Variance was made by Angela Budano and seconded by John Klein MOTION CARRIED 6-0 VII. LEGISLATIVE ITEMS— CITY INITIATED A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment— Historic Preservation Element Michelle Hoyland presented the element NO VOTING B. Central Business District (CBD) Update Anthea Gianniotes presented the update. NO VOTING IX. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Staff Comments *Next meeting August 1 (CBD and Comp Plan) *Workshop coming up B. Board Comments None 5 of 6 Minutes of the July 18,2018 Historic Preservation Board X. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 10:30P.M. The undersigned is the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for July 18, 2018, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on November 7, 2018. Diane Mittel Diane Miller If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. (These Minutes are a record of the proceedings of this Board. The full audio and video recording of these proceedings are available at: www.mvdelravbeach.com/city-commission lay or a digital copy may be purchased at City Hall.) 6 of 6 r • CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER Project Name: 212 Seabreeze Avenue Address: 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Listed to Local Register of Historic Places File Number: 2018-076 ORDER Following consideration of all the evidence and testimony presented at the July 18, 2018 meeting before the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Delray Beach and pursuant to the respective Section(s) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Historic Preservation Board finds that there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support the findings, as applicable, for the referenced projects. Approved with Request&LDR Section Approved Conditions* Denied** CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2.4.6(H)(5) 6 -0 *Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. **For a denial, the list of findings not supported by the Board are attached as Exhibit B. 4 Ch toric Preservation Board Return Original to: Jeffrey Silberstein Silberstein Architecture, Inc. 524 NE 2nd Street Delray Beach, 33483 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval 1. That the North addition be retained until a building permit is issued for replacement of the kitchen located in the addition; and, 2. That the property owner provide documentation that the taxes associated with the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption have been re-payed to Palm Beach County. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER Project Name: 202 NE 5' Terrace Address: 202 NE 5' Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District File Number: 2018-068 ORDER Following consideration of all the evidence and testimony presented at the July 18, 2018 meeting before the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Delray Beach and pursuant to the respective Section(s) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Historic Preservation Board fmds that there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support the findings, as applicable, for the referenced projects. Request&LDR Section Approved Approved with Denied** Conditions* CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2.4.6(H)(5) 6-p *Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. **For a denial, the list of findings not supported by the Board are attached as Exhibit B. istoric Preservation Board Return Original to: Mary Becker SYGYGY Global Inc. 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 011C S V Z (Obi ( . C kt j 4/ 4)1 rl �Ch 3( t) ticx.I C a4C(/)o CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER Project Name: 115 North Dixie Boulevard Address: 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District File Number: 2018-100 ORDER Following consideration of all the evidence and testimony presented at the July 18, 2018 meeting before the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Delray Beach and pursuant to the respective Section(s) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Historic Preservation Board fords that there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support the findings, as applicable, for the referenced projects. Request&LDR Section Approved Approved with Denied** Conditions* CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2.4.6(H)(5) J — ' *Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. **For a denial, the list of findings not supported by the Board are attached as Exhibit B. C r istoric Preservation Board Return Original to: Gary Stofft Randall Stofft Architects 42 N. Swinton Avenue#1 Delray Beach, FL 33444 F CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER Project Name: 228 North Dixie Boulevard Address: 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District File Number: 2018-031 and 2018-032 ORDER Following consideration of all the evidence and testimony presented at the July 18, 2018 meeting before the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Delray Beach and pursuant to the respective Section(s) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Historic Preservation Board finds that there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support the findings, as applicable, for the referenced projects. ** Request&LDR Section Approved Approved with Conditions* Denied CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2.4.6(H)(5) WAIVER 2.4.7(B)(5) s— VARIANCE 2.4.7(A)(5) — r *Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. **For a denial, the list of findings not supported by the Board are attached as Exhibit B. istoric Preservation Board Return Original to: Shane Ames Ames International 203 Dixie Boulevard Delray Beach, FL 33444 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval 1. That an additional window opening be included on the west elevation of the carport; 2. That the French sliding doors on the East, West, and South elevations (first floor) do not exceed 8' in height; and, 3. That the survey's legal description be revised to the match the legal description on the property's warranty deed. 11 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER Project Name: 227 NE 1st Avenue Address: 227 NE ls` Avenue, Old School Square Historic District File Number: 2017-253 and 2018-254 ORDER Following consideration of all the evidence and testimony presented at the July 18, 2018 meeting before the Historic Preservation Board for the City of Delray Beach and pursuant to the respective Section(s) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the Historic Preservation Board finds that there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support the findings, as applicable, for the referenced projects. Request&LDR Section Approved Approved with Denied** Conditions* CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS f 2.4.6(H)(5) /„ -d VARIANCE ��/// 2.4.7(A)(5) 6 -0 *Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. **For a denial, the list of fmdings not supported by the Board are attached as Exhibit B. Chair H' ric Preservation Board Return Original to: Dan Sloan Sloan&Sloan, Inc. 106 SE 7th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BOARD ORDER EXHIBIT A Condition of Approval 1. That the roof material be revised to dimensional asphalt shingle. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District, (2018-097) — Consideration of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption associated with additions and alterations to a contributing structure. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption GENERAL DATA: k. a E - `:',.f� .s:yam �, Owner/Applicant Noel Smith and Linda Harper ` r, o,, tit Agent Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc °�� P� - Atlant;c`Ave 4 E 3 fiL Z_ Location. 49 Palm Square, East side of Palm *te� + 4 °. Square between E. Atlantic Avenue , 1' ,. ` µ i `Lip,=- and SE 1st Street 1 , E f 1, :;:=fir,— ,3 1` i Ate.. ��e+��' ?. Property Size 0.23 Acres , f , s ti Historic District:............ Marina Historic District .Y. �� '� '' ` r`"rr-t(qi inn ,,,-4----'f { Current Zoning RM (Multi-Family Residential) �{ 11*...A��'4 " ;;k L , :s v'r` :: Adjacent Zoning '* 1?�50 ; North: RMl. FL. .' " .,,.. South: RM .�c ,r`� n; 3 East: RMW*0; ` t., West: RM .-,, ,,,; `, ,r,"`:i:: .fit: aY�' a MD (Medium DensityResidential � a4r �+` �:+. Existing Future Land _ , r Use Designation 5-12 DU/Acre) {� �Iy } t.:.:..Y47' '> ems, i. S� 7sf'st i 7 �, ., Water Service Public water service is .;4 ram` ' =Pfi 1 provided on site. 6F.174,H,P17:. " , Y E � } y-4 'I Sewer Service .i4w,..It- - ......3-..r.- . Aiik Public sewer service isK,� s ' i ,h7, provided on'site. ��.ti { : s ,.. ., tr �� a _' NORTH ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action requested of the Board is to recommend approval to the City Commission of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for improvements to a contributing property located at 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1(J). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is located within the RM (Multi-Family Residential) zoning district and the Marina Historic District, a Nationally and Locally Registered Historic District. The one-story, historic, minimal traditional wood frame residence was built in the late 1930's or early 1940's as a vacation cottage. According to the City Property cards, the residence was built in 1942, yet the master site files reflect 1939 and 1940. The original one-story residence contained 1,024 square feet, had front facing cross gabled roofs covered in asphalt shingle, horizontal clapboard siding, operable wood louver shutters and an irregular floor plan. There was a brick chimney located towards the rear (West) side of the residence and the height of the residence is approximately 14' (grade to peak). In 2015, the Historic Preservation Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (2015-250) for the hydraulic lifting of the structure in place by approximately 2' foot higher than it is was originally situated, which was below the flood plain at 6'-13" (NGVD) and not meeting FEMA floor height level requirements. The lifting of the structure to 8'-0" (NGVD) allowed it to slightly exceed the FEMA required minimum floor elevations. The property is one block away from the Intracoastal Waterway and flooding has occurred on the site as well as on adjacent properties. The proposal also included: • Creation of two additions on the South side of the existing structure. One is an extension of the bath and guest closet and the other is an extension of the master bedroom; • An 1,490 square foot addition on the North side of the existing structure for a new kitchen, pantry, laundry; • A new attached open air carport at the North side of the existing structure to contain a cabana bath and storage area situated to the rear (East) of the carport and equaling 627 square feet; and, • Alteration of the rear porch. The approved additions to the residence were similar in scale, mass and height to the existing structure, maintaining similar architectural details. The approved height of the raised structure is approximately 14' high, with the new addition to the rear of the existing residence approximately 20' high. At its meeting of July 19, 2017, the HPB approved a COA (2017-167) to allow a material change for the approved brick chimney to natural coquina stone, to eliminate the proposed trellis feature on the West (front) elevation, revise the roofline of the front porch, construct new covered entrance on the North elevation and revise the style of the front door. The applicant is now before the Board to request review of the Tax Exemption Application for the aforenoted site and building improvements. Based on State regulations, an Ad Valorem Tax Exemption can be approved for a project before, during, or after it has been undertaken. The applicant therefore requests consideration of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption as the project is complete. 4 49 Palm Square, Tax Exemption Application 2018-097 Page 2 of 4 AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), a tax exemption is available for improvements to qualifying contributing properties in a designated historic district or individually designated properties, as listed in Section 4.5.1(1). Qualifying properties shall be exempt from that portion of ad valorem taxation levied by the City of Delray Beach on one hundred percent (100%) of the increase in assessed value resulting from any HPB approved renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, or other improvements of the qualifying property made on or after the effective date of the original passing of Ordinance 50-96 on November 19, 1996. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(1), clarifies that the exemption does not apply to the following: (a) Taxes levied for payment of bonds; (b) Taxes authorized by a vote of the electors pursuant to Section 9(b) or Section 12, Article 7 of the Florida Constitution; or (c) Personal property. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(2), explains the exemption period shall be for ten (10) years, unless a lesser term is set by the City Commission. (a) The term of the exemption shall be specified in the resolution approving the exemption and shall continue regardless of any changes in the authority of the City to authorize such exemption or change in ownership of the property. (b) To retain an exemption, the historic character of the property and the improvements which qualified the property for an exemption must be maintained in their historic state over the period for which the exemption was authorized. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(4) provides the parameters for qualifying properties and improvements. The subject property qualifies as it is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(5) requires that for an improvement to a historic property to qualify the property for an exemption, the improvement must: (a) be consistent with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended; and (b) be a constructed and/or installed improvement as approved by the Historic Preservation Board and as established in rules adopted by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, FAC 1A-38, as amended which defines real property improvements as changes in the condition of real property brought about by the expenditure of labor and money for the restoration, renovation, or rehabilitation of such property. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to: modifications, repairs, or additions to the principal contributing building and its associated accessory structures (i.e. a garage, cabana, guest cottage, storage/utility structures, swimming pools), whether existing or new. The exemption does not apply to improvements made to non- contributing principal buildings, existing non-contributing accessory structures, or undesignated structures and/or properties; and, (c) be consistent with Section 4.5.1(E), "Development Standards", of the City's Land Development Regulations; and (d) include, as part of the overall project, visible improvements to the exterior of the structure. The project meets the above criteria (a) and (b) through previous approval by the Board of the associated improvements outlined above which constituted its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as well as the rules of Florida Administrative Code 1A-38, promulgated by the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. The development project further meets criterion (c) per the COA approval, which applied the LDR Development Standards in the assessment of the proposal. Finally, the project meets criterion (d) as the project encompasses visible improvements to the exterior of the building and related property. 49 Palm Square, Tax Exemption Application 2018-097 Page 3 of 4 Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(7), any property owner, or the authorized agent of the owner, that desires an ad valorem tax exemption for the improvement of a historic property must submit a Historic Property Tax Exemption Application to the Planning and Zoning Department upon completion of the qualifying improvements. (a) The application shall indicate the estimated cost of the total project, the estimated cost attributed solely to the historic structure, and project completion date as determined by the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building Department. (b) The Historic Property Tax Exemption Application shall be accompanied by a copy of the most recent tax bill from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser for the property; a new property survey illustrating the improvements; a copy of the building permit application indicating estimated project cost; a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection; and photographs illustrating the before and after of each improvement, including both the interior, exterior, and all new construction. The photographs shall be identified with a date and description indicating the impact of the improvement. (c) The application must be submitted within three (3) months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (d) The Historic Preservation Planner will inspect the completed work to verify such compliance prior to Historic Preservation Board review. a. If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work is a qualifying improvement and is in compliance with the approved plans and the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the Board shall recommend that the City Commission grant the Historic Property Tax Exemption Application. b. Upon a recommendation of approval of a Historic Property Tax Exemption Application by the Historic Preservation Board, the application shall be placed by resolution on the agenda of the City Commission for approval. The resolution of the City Commission approving the application shall provide the name of the owner of the property, the property address and legal description, a recorded restrictive covenant in the official records of Palm Beach County as a condition of receiving the exemption, and the effective dates of the exemption, including the expiration date. c. If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work as completed is either not consistent with the approved plans or is not in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the applicant shall be advised that the request has been denied The qualifying improvements were completed and submitted on May 9, 2018, within three months of the Certificate of Occupancy, which was issued on February 14, 2018. The tax exemption will be limited to the increase in assessed value (as determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser) resulting from the subject improvements and provide an abatement of taxes on the City and County portions for a period of ten years from the date of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(8), Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant, the covenant required in order to qualify for the exemption: (a) To qualify for an exemption, the applicant must sign and return the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant with the Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work. The covenant as established by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, shall be in a form approved by the City of Delray Beach City Attorney's Office and applicable for the term for which the exemption is granted and shall require the character of the property and qualifying improvements to be maintained during the period that the exemption is granted. (b) On or before the effective date of the exemption, the owner of the property shall have the covenant recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and shall cause a certified copy of the recorded covenant to be delivered to the City's Historic 49 Palm Square, Tax Exemption Application 2018-097 Page 4 of 4 Preservation Planner. Such covenant shall be binding on the current property owner, transferees, and their heirs, assigns and successors. A violation of the covenant shall result in the property owner being subject to the payment of the differences between the total amount of the taxes which would have been due in March of each of the previous years in which the covenant or agreement was in effect had the property not received the exemption and the total amount of taxes actually paid in those years, plus interest on the difference calculated as provided in Sec. 212.12(3), Florida Statutes. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(10), Revocation Proceedings, provides guidelines to revocation of the tax exemption upon violation of the recorded covenant. (a) The Historic Preservation Board may initiate proceedings to revoke the ad valorem tax exemption provided herein, in the event the applicant, or subsequent owner or successors in interest to the property, fails to maintain the property according to the terms, conditions and standards of the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant. (b) The Historic Preservation Planner shall provide notice to the current owner of record of the property and the Historic Preservation Board shall hold a revocation hearing in the same manner as in Section 4.5.1(M)(10), and make a recommendation to the City Commission. (c) The City Commission shall review the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board and make a determination as to whether the tax exemption shall be revoked. Should the City Commission determine that the tax exemption shall be revoked, a written resolution revoking the exemption and notice of penalties as provided in Paragraph 8 of the covenant shall be provided to the owner, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, and filed in the official records of Palm Beach County. (d) Upon receipt of the resolution revoking the tax exemption, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser shall discontinue the tax exemption on the property as of January 1st of the year following receipt of the notice of revocation. The Sections noted above regarding the "Restrictive Covenant" and "Revocation Proceedings" are provided to demonstrate that the tax exemption is binding, and if violated, the property owner would have to comply with the consequences. The tax exemption request complies with the criteria contained in LDR Section 4.5.1(J) as the Historic Preservation Board approved the associated improvements by making positive findings with respect to the applicable LDR Sections, Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for improvements to the property at 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). C. Recommend denial to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for improvements to the property at 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application (2018-097) for improvements to the property at 49 Palm Square, Marina Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). Report Prepared by: Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner 16 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, (2018-075) — Consideration of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption associated with additions and alterations to a contributing structure. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption GENERAL DATA: a- /O1t/ ' -i•t.'..,a` illatMf3J fel 't.. •3FeL I:v.58}LSimeri I:t2RRIioi l i Owner/Applicant Kim and Peter Dwyer ��.i r e� *.,NE 77,th St i'E' ; � i s y C u.vc t S 4"i41C,. II Location. 109 North Dixie Boulevard, _ 1 Between N Swinton Avenue and • ' 4 4v fltli&1:HI }NE 2nd Street .�"` . TA, 1Property Size. 0.40 Acres2. 4..V g '1' k i Historic District Del-Ida Park Historic District _� ` 'At` z yi , `• " 1 Current Zoning. R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) i Irx r >K ;r. Adjacent Zoning t':t.E, t� W c t k North: R-1-AA v •� x??�v t� �3` a pt, South: R-1-AA € A' ; 'r >'Tt Rai.:; East: R-1-AAr;i , 4 k4t West: R-1-AA ' ' .. 4_w ..;-_^.- ,v,',7g-LP- :� 1„klk Existing Future Land Use Designation. LD (Low Density 0-5 DU/Acre) F 4� `` :',' rp#'sr ` 0ir, Water Service. Public water service is t•i f , " � t' rt$ �jetir l provided on site. 3 .s �� Sewer Service Public sewer service is '�' Vj of � , ,. provided1.on site. z: U- � > fi 4.1, ,`� � ' li,,... c:y ` 74-- 7 ":S $t - NORTH j • ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action requested of the Board is to recommend approval to the City Commission of a Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for additions and alterations to a contributing structure located at 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1(J). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is located within the R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) zoning district and the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property contains a 1937 contributing 1-story vernacular residence with a detached converted garage/shed into a later guest cottage. At its meeting of October 7, 2015, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed a concept plan review regarding the construction of additions and alterations to the subject property. At its meeting of December 2, 2015, the HPB approved a COA (2015-232) for a 1-story addition (2,978 square feet) adjoined to the existing 1-story historic residence (664 square feet). The addition consists of 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, family room, 2.5 car garage (880 square feet), swimming pool, and garage in the Southwest corner of the property. The proposal also included demolition and reconstruction of the existing converted garage/guest house to create a new guest house at the (North) corner of the property. The applicant is now before the Board to request review of the Tax Exemption Application for the aforenoted site and building improvements. Based on State regulations, an Ad Valorem Tax Exemption can be approved for a project before, during, or after it has been undertaken. The applicant therefore requests consideration of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption as the project is complete. AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J), a tax exemption is available for improvements to qualifying contributing properties in a designated historic district or individually designated properties, as listed in Section 4.5.1(1). Qualifying properties shall be exempt from that portion of ad valorem taxation levied by the City of Delray Beach on one hundred percent (100%) of the increase in assessed value resulting from any HPB approved renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, or other improvements of the qualifying property made on or after the effective date of the original passing of Ordinance 50-96 on November 19, 1996. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(1), clarifies that the exemption does not apply to the following: (a) Taxes levied for payment of bonds; (b) Taxes authorized by a vote of the electors pursuant to Section 9(b) or Section 12, Article 7 of the Florida Constitution; or (c) Personal property. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(2), explains the exemption period shall be for ten (10) years, unless a lesser term is set by the City Commission. (a) The term of the exemption shall be specified in the resolution approving the exemption and shall continue regardless of any changes in the authority of the City to authorize such exemption or change in ownership of the property. (b) To retain an exemption, the historic character of the property and the improvements which qualified the property for an exemption must be maintained in their historic state over the period for which the exemption was authorized. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(4) provides the parameters for qualifying properties and improvements. The subject property qualifies as it is listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. LDR 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Tax Exemption Application 2018-075 Page 2 of 4 Section 4.5.1(J)(5) requires that for an improvement to a historic property to qualify the property for an exemption, the improvement must: (a) be consistent with the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended; and (b) be a constructed and/or installed improvement as approved by the Historic Preservation Board and as established in rules adopted by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, FAC 1A-38, as amended which defines real property improvements as changes in the condition of real property brought about by the expenditure of labor and money for the restoration, renovation, or rehabilitation of such property. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to: modifications, repairs, or additions to the principal contributing building and its associated accessory structures (i.e. a garage, cabana, guest cottage, storage/utility structures, swimming pools), whether existing or new. The exemption does not apply to improvements made to non- contributing principal buildings, existing non-contributing accessory structures, or undesignated structures and/or properties; and, (c) be consistent with Section 4.5.1(E), "Development Standards", of the City's Land Development Regulations; and (d) include, as part of the overall project, visible improvements to the exterior of the structure. The project meets the above criteria (a) and (b) through previous approval by the Board of the associated improvements outlined above which constituted its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as well as the rules of Florida Administrative Code 1A-38, promulgated by the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources. The development project further meets criterion (c) per the COA approval, which applied the LDR Development Standards in the assessment of the proposal. Finally, the project meets criterion (d) as the project encompasses visible improvements to the exterior of the building and related property. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(7), any property owner, or the authorized agent of the owner, that desires an ad valorem tax exemption for the improvement of a historic property must submit a Historic Property Tax Exemption Application to the Planning and Zoning Department upon completion of the qualifying improvements. (a) The application shall indicate the estimated cost of the total project, the estimated cost attributed solely to the historic structure, and project completion date as determined by the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building Department. (b) The Historic Property Tax Exemption Application shall be accompanied by a copy of the most recent tax bill from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser for the property; a new property survey illustrating the improvements; a copy of the building permit application indicating estimated project cost; a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy/Final Inspection; and photographs illustrating the before and after of each improvement, including both the interior, exterior, and all new construction. The photographs shall be identified with a date and description indicating the impact of the improvement. (c) The application must be submitted within three (3) months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (d) The Historic Preservation Planner will inspect the completed work to verify such compliance prior to Historic Preservation Board review. a. If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work is a qualifying improvement and is in compliance with the approved plans and the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the Board shall recommend that the City Commission grant the Historic Property Tax Exemption Application. b. Upon a recommendation of approval of a Historic Property Tax Exemption Application by the Historic Preservation Board, the application shall be placed by resolution on the agenda of the City Commission for approval. The resolution of the 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Tax Exemption Application 2018-075 Page 3 of 4 City Commission approving the application shall provide the name of the owner of the property, the property address and legal description, a recorded restrictive covenant in the official records of Palm Beach County as a condition of receiving the exemption, and the effective dates of the exemption, including the expiration date. c. If the Historic Preservation Board determines that the work as completed is either not consistent with the approved plans or is not in compliance with the review standards contained in Section 4.5.1(E), the applicant shall be advised that the request has been denied The qualifying improvements were completed and submitted on April 6, 2018, within three months of the Certificate of Occupancy, which was issued on January 1, 2018. The tax exemption will be limited to the increase in assessed value (as determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser) resulting from the subject improvements and provide an abatement of taxes on the City and County portions for a period of ten years from the date of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(8), Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant, the covenant required in order to qualify for the exemption: (a) To qualify for an exemption, the applicant must sign and return the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant with the Final Application/Request for Review of Completed Work. The covenant as established by the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, shall be in a form approved by the City of Delray Beach City Attorney's Office and applicable for the term for which the exemption is granted and shall require the character of the property and qualifying improvements to be maintained during the period that the exemption is granted. (b) On or before the effective date of the exemption, the owner of the property shall have the covenant recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and shall cause a certified copy of the recorded covenant to be delivered to the City's Historic Preservation Planner. Such covenant shall be binding on the current property owner, transferees, and their heirs, assigns and successors. A violation of the covenant shall result in the property owner being subject to the payment of the differences between the total amount of the taxes which would have been due in March of each of the previous years in which the covenant or agreement was in effect had the property not received the exemption and the total amount of taxes actually paid in those years, plus interest on the difference calculated as provided in Sec. 212.12(3), Florida Statutes. LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(10), Revocation Proceedings, provides guidelines to revocation of the tax exemption upon violation of the recorded covenant. (a) The Historic Preservation Board may initiate proceedings to revoke the ad valorem tax exemption provided herein, in the event the applicant, or subsequent owner or successors in interest to the property, fails to maintain the property according to the terms, conditions and standards of the Historic Preservation Exemption Covenant. (b) The Historic Preservation Planner shall provide notice to the current owner of record of the property and the Historic Preservation Board shall hold a revocation hearing in the same manner as in Section 4.5.1(M)(10), and make a recommendation to the City Commission. (c) The City Commission shall review the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board and make a determination as to whether the tax exemption shall be revoked. Should the City Commission determine that the tax exemption shall be revoked, a written resolution revoking the exemption and notice of penalties as provided in Paragraph 8 of the covenant shall be provided to the owner, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, and filed in the official records of Palm Beach County. 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Tax Exemption Application 2018-075 Page 4 of 4 (d) Upon receipt of the resolution revoking the tax exemption, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser shall discontinue the tax exemption on the property as of January 1st of the year following receipt of the notice of revocation. The Sections noted above regarding the "Restrictive Covenant" and "Revocation Proceedings" are provided to demonstrate that the tax exemption is binding, and if violated, the property owner would have to comply with the consequences. The tax exemption request complies with the criteria contained in LDR Section 4.5.1(J) as the Historic Preservation Board approved the associated improvements by making positive findings with respect to the applicable LDR Sections, Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; therefore, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Recommend approval to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for improvements to the property at 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). C. Recommend denial to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for improvements to the property at 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval to the City Commission of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application (2018-075) for improvements to the property at 109 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1(J). Report Prepared by: Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 202 NE. 5ch Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District - Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-068) for the installation of a pergola on the Northwest corner of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant Cathy Whitt Oc\ �' ' -,, I,. ''" p,....,., _. . : liezi,t, - Agent SYZYGY Global In ` f =` r. tt g 0 �F NE&St` '�, Location 202 NE 5th Terrace, Southeast 41'' � corner of NE 5th Terrace and NE 2"d �(�,a �� ` Avenue k'+..^� '`�.�' •i�+�� cM � ,`� .ra Property Size 0.23 Acres Y, � E 1 �►,,,,;-•, ..,.. 4,-, l =`'`Al Historic District: Del-Ida Park Historic District '7, ' ��> ' t „/� s Zoning. RL (Low Density Residential) ;• ; �,' ' r ▪- 5�ky l Y nIL, F r l -• .i 1. Adjacent Zoning. yo,�� ,xt• �,� ' NErtf Ter "- -- -: North: RO �' ff t, : f l r4 eF ii t , East: RL • • ` s South. RL ' �': ,� Y= �d { r 'r ' y G �pWest: R-1—AA 4 , . , y h 1 Existing Future Land 44 �y ,t �i J a y�f�'1�y` '� k �4 � !? Use Designation. LD (Low Density 0-5 DU/Acre) M3 ,t; �°` : yyi �� i��i T '. to Water Service Public water service is provided• a�• ('{ - • T --�'? on site. f' ,.,d, NE } Sewer Service Public sewer service is provided _ }4 4r� Ak on site. NORTH ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-068) for the installation of a pergola on the Northwest corner of the property located at 202 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is located within the RL (Low Density Residential) zoning district. The 0.23-acre lot measures 85' wide x 120' deep and contains a single-family residence. The historic masonry vernacular style structure was built in 1951 and is classified as contributing to the Del-Ida Park Historic District. According to the City Property cards, the historic structure had a floorplan consisting of four rooms, flat roof with pitch and gravel roofing, reinforced concrete construction, stucco and concrete block exterior walls, plaster interior finish, and concrete flooring. A flat roofed open air porch was situated on the North elevation which was noted as the front of the home on the original 1951 building permit. The residence was modified in 1982 as a new ridge and truss system was installed over the existing flat roof. In 2004, a Certificate of Appropriateness (2005-062) was administratively approved for the installation of a Chicago Brick paver driveway and walkway on the North side of the structure. In 2014, a Certificate of Appropriateness (2014-135) was administratively approved to replace the existing windows and doors with impact rated aluminum-framed single hung windows, aluminum-framed outswing and sliding glass doors. The subject COA includes installation of a white aluminum-framed pergola on the Northwest corner of the property. The COA request is now before the Board for consideration. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H)(5), prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ZONING AND USE REVIEW Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), Development Standards, properties located within the RL (Low Density Residential) shall be developed according to the requirements noted in the chart below. As illustrated, the proposal is in compliance with the applicable requirements; therefore, positive findings can be made. Development Standards Required Proposed Setbacks (_Minimum)_ Front (North) 25' _ 30.4' Side Interior(Easy 15' 1 N/A Side Street (West) 15' 35.4' Rear (South) 25' N/A LDR SECTION 4.5.1, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGNATED DISTRICTS, SITES, AND BUILDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) - Development Standards: all new development or exterior improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. 202 NE 5th Terrace,2018-068 Page 2 of 3 Standard 2 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 9 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 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. An exterior stone and brick paver patio area exists in the location where the pergola is proposed. The pergola will provide a covered area on the subject property. Installation of the pergola will preserve the exterior patio area which is a space that characterizes the property especially since this area was originally designed for use as a patio. The white aluminum-framed pergola is differentiated from the structure and compatible with the massing, size scale, and architectural features of masonry vernacular style structures. The pergola will be attached to the residential structure in a manner that if removed in the future will not compromise the integrity of the historic property. The proposal meets the applicable standards noted above and their intent as the proposed changes ensure an appropriate exterior alteration of the existing historic structure. Overall, the proposed changes protect the historic integrity of the existing structure and its environment by allowing the modernization of the exterior patio area with durable materials. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7) - Visual Compatibility Standards: new construction and all improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor and major development as referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m). Visual compatibility for all development on individually designated properties outside the district shall be determined by comparison to other structures within the site. Applicable Visual Compatibility Standards (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings in a historic district for all major and minor development. For major development, visual compatibility with respect to the height of residential structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall also be determined through application of the Building Height Plane. (b)Front Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the subject historic district. (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district. 202 NE 5ui Terrace,2018-068 Page 3 of 3 The proposed exterior alterations to the historic structure are appropriate and compatible with the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The height of the pergola (91-8") does not exceed the highest element of the existing residence. The proposed pergola is compatible with the existing front façade (North Elevation) proportion. The pergola continues the flat roof line that characterized the original structure. The white aluminum frame of the pergola is a durable material that is compatible with the masonry vernacular style of the residential structure. The proposal meets the intent of the review criteria above; thus, positive findings are made with respect to the sections indicated above. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-068) for the property located at 202 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.6(H)(5). C. Deny Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-068) for the property located at 202 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and by finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.6(H)(5). RECOMMENDATIONS COA Approve the COA 2018-068 for 202 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(H)(5). Attachments: ■ Site plan, elevations, and survey Report Prepared by: Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner • HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Designated — Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-076) for the demolition of two (2) noncontributing additions and Revocation of an existing Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness GENERAL DATA: Owner/ Applicant Michael Marco er4'*`"°4q7` t 44 Agent Jeffrey Silberstein aR = C :e +. 11 Silberstein Architecture, Inc. e*,r qr �;,! `'k, . Location 212 Seabreeze Avenue, l..,4o y - r Waterway Ln North side of Seabreeze Avenue r+ q I"'" `� and South side of Vista Del Mar Drive ! , Property Size 0.26 Acres g0 Itt , Historic District. Individually Listed to Local Register '" >' NOsta Del Ma:D �, )- :; of Historic Places t '4;= a 11111Ift Current Zoning R 1 AA (Single Family Residential) '' ' 51 Adjacent Zonin . �'° ``1 J 9 - S Vista,D Mar Dr : {' .- *1' North: R-1-AA itile South: R-1-AA " t East: R 1 AA t � a Ail West: R 1 AA . 4. 4. A` '- 4 ' f 1', ,7 ' ^1 ,Thomas St A Existing Future Land _'. 2�: ..., Use Designation LD (Low Density Residential . ,. 4 • . 0-5 DU/Acre) ' Water Service' Public water service is . a ': � :f•. provided on site. g j' ", --,-.*-II"- Sewer Service' Public sewer service is w � :~� .� ;'.,' provided on site. t' - NORTH ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-076) for the demolition of two (2) noncontributing additions and Revocation of an existing Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption for property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Designated, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lot 21 and the West 35 Feet of Lot 22, Delray Beach Esplanade and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA). The structure consists of 4,686 square feet. The original structure was built in 1955 and contained 1,594 square feet. Named for the original owner, Sewell C. Biggs, and designed by architect Paul Rudolph, the structure is representative of 20th century regional modernism tailored for the Florida environment. In the early 1908's a 1,156 1st floor addition was constructed on the north side of the property. It was at this time that the kitchen was relocated from the original structure to the addition. At its meeting of June 15, 2005, the Historic Preservation Board recommended approval for individual historic designation of 212 Seabreeze Avenue to be known as The Sewell C. Biggs House. At its meeting of July 5, 2005, the City Commission passed Ordinance 50-05 that listed the subject property on the Local Register of Historic Places. At its meeting of October 18, 2006, the HPB approved Certificate of Appropriateness (2006-454) for a two-story, 1,936 square foot, handicap accessible addition to the existing structure on the South elevation. At its meeting of October 6, 2009, the HPB recommended approval of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application for the improvements stated above as approved with COA 2006-454. In addition to the components associated with the approved addition, all interior improvements were eligible for the exemption. At its meeting of October 20, 2009, the City Commission passed Resolution 52-09 granting an Ad Valorem Tax Exemption to Virginia Courtenay (property owner) for the historic rehabilitation of the property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue. The subject COA request includes: 1. Demolition of 1,936 square foot, handicap accessible addition to the existing structure on the South elevation; and, 2. Demolition of first floor addition constructed in 1981 on the North elevation. The Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Application passed in 2009 is binding, and if violated, the property owner will have to comply with the agreement listed in the Covenant. Should the Board approve the subject COA request, demolition of the noncontributing additions would result in a Revocation of the Historic Preservation Property Tax Exemption Covenant. Upon revocation of the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption the owner is required to pay the difference between the total amount of taxes which would have been due in March in each of the previous years in which the Covenant was in effect had the property not received the exemption and the total amount of taxes actually paid in those years, plus interest in the difference calculation. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H)(5), prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 4 212 Seabreeze Avenue;COA 2018-076 Page 2 of 5 LDR SECTION 4.5.1, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGNATED DISTRICTS, SITES, AND BUILDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) - Development Standards: all new development or exterior improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. Standard 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Standard 2 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 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. The proposal meets the applicable standards noted above and its intent by providing for the continued use of the subject property as residential. The proposal includes demolition of the existing noncontributing additions, the 1,936 square foot, handicap accessible addition on the South elevation and the 1,156 square foot first floor addition on the North elevation. The noncontributing additions do not contain distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques that contribute to the historic character of the property. The proposed changes will maintain the historic purpose of the lot as a residential use and maintain the original structure. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F)—Demolitions: Demolition of historic or archaeological sites, or buildings,structures, improvements and appurtenances within historic districts shall be regulated by the Historic Preservation Board and shall be subject to the following requirements: (1) No structure within a historic district or on a historic site shall be demolished before a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued pursuant to Section 2.4.6(H). (2) The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition must be accompanied by an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to the structure or the redevelopment of the property. (3) Demolition shall not occur until a building permit has been issued for the alterations or redevelopment as described in the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness. (4) All structures approved for demolition and awaiting issuance of a building permit for the alterations or redevelopment shall be maintained so as to remain in a condition similar to that which existed at time that the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition was approved unless the Chief Building Official determines that an unsafe building condition exists in accordance with Section 4.5.3(G). (5) A Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of 25% or more of contributing or individually designated structure shall be subject to the following additional requirements: (a) A demolition plan shall accompany the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. The plan shall illustrate all portions of the existing structure that will be removed or altered. 212 Seabreeze Avenue;COA 2018-076 Page 3 of 5 (b) The Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition and the Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration or redevelopment shall meet the "Additional Public Notice" requirements of LDR Section 2.4.2(B)(1)(j). (6) The Board upon a request for demolition by a property owner, shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of designated historic sites, historic interiors, or buildings, structures, or appurtenances within designated historic districts: (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill criteria for designation for listing on the national register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are approved plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the historic district designation or the individual designation of the property. (7) No decision of the Board shall result in undue economic hardship for the property owner. The Board shall determine the existence of such hardship in accordance with the definition of undue economic hardship found in Section 4.5.1(H). (8) The Board's refusal to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness requested by a property owner for the purpose of demolition will be supported by a written statement describing the public interest that the Board seeks to preserve. (9) The Board may grant a certificate of appropriateness as requested by a property owner, for demolition which may provide for a delayed effective date. The effective date of the certificate will be determined by the Board based on the relative significance of the structure and the probable time required to arrange a possible alternative to demolition. The Board may delay the demolition of designated historic sites and contributing buildings within historic districts for up to six months while demolition of non-contributing buildings within the historic district may be delayed for up to three months. (10) Request for Demolition Justification Statement: A justification statement shall accompany the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of any contributing structure in a historic district or individually designated historic structure. (11) Salvage and Recordation of Historic Structures: (a) The property owner shall contact the Delray Beach Historical Society for the purpose of salvaging and preserving specified classes of building materials, architectural details and ornaments, fixtures, and the like for reuse in the restoration of the other historic properties. Confirmation of such efforts shall be provided in a written statement and submitted with the other demolition application prior to consideration by the Historic Preservation Board. (b) The Board may, with the consent of the property owner, request that the Delray Beach Historical Society, or the owner, at the owner's expense, record the architectural details for archival purposes prior to demolition. i. The recording may include, but shall not be limited to photographs, documents and scaled architectural drawings to include elevations and floor plans. ii. One (1) copy of the recording shall be submitted to the City's Planning and Zoning Department, and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Delray Beach Historical Society for archiving purposes. 212 Seabreeze Avenue;COA 2018-076 Page 4 of 5 The existing additions are considered noncontributing as they were built in 1981 and 2007. No alterations are proposed to the original 1955 structure. A review of the applicable code requirements relating to demolition of noncontributing structures has been completed and is noted below. The applicant has provided a request for demolition via the subject COA application. The demolition is proposed prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a new structure because the original structure will remain. It is noted that the North addition constructed in 1981 contains the kitchen; therefore, a condition of approval is attached that this addition be retained until a permit is issued for replacement of the kitchen. This is to ensure the structure will meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code, which requires residential structures include a kitchen. The existing structures are to be maintained so as to remain in a condition similar to that which existed at the time of the application for the COA. The applicant has not claimed undue economic hardship with respect to the subject COA request. Should the Board deny the request, the Board shall provide an explanation within the motion and a written supporting statement for the record describing the public interest that the Board seeks to preserve. An additional delay period has not been requested and is not anticipated to be necessary. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(10), Revocation proceedings for Tax Exemptions for Historic Properties, the Historic Preservation Board may initiate proceedings to revoke the ad valorem tax exemption. The Historic Preservation Board shall hold a revocation hearing and make recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission shall review the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Board and make a determination as to whether the tax exemption shall be revoked. Should the City Commission determine that the tax exemption shall be revoked, a written resolution revoking the exemption and notice of penalties as provided in Paragraph 8 of the covenant shall be provided to the owner, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, and filed in the official records of Palm Beach County. Upon receipt of the resolution revoking the tax exemption, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser shall discontinue the tax exemption on the property as of January 1 of the year following receipt of the notice of revocation. The applicant has requested the approved Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption be terminated for the subject property upon HPB's approval of the demolition of the non-contributing structures. The applicant accepts the penalties outlined in the LDRs and the recorded Covenant, which include repayment of taxes that are subject to the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption, which expires in December of 2019 per the recorded Covenant. A condition of approval of the subject request is that the property owner will provide documentation that the taxes have been re-payed to Palm Beach County. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-076) and recommend approval of the Revocation of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption to the City Commission for the property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Designated by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5), subject to conditions. C. Deny Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-076) and recommend denial of the Revocation of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption to the City Commission for the property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Designated by finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5). i 212 Seabreeze Avenue;COA 2018-076 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION COA Approve the COA for 2018-076 and recommend approval of the Revocation of the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption to the City Commission for the property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Individually Designated, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(H)(5), subject to the following condition: f "`it That the North addition be retained until a building permit is issued for replacement of the kitchen located in the addition; and, I.2! That the property owner provide documentation that the taxes associated with the Historic Property Ad Valorem Tax Exemption have been re-payed to Palm Beach County. Attachments: • Site plan • Survey • Photographs • Resolution for Revocation of Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Report Prepared by: Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner and Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CITY'S REVOCATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTY AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 212 SEABREEZE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH REVOCATION PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AT SUB-PARAGRAPH 4.5.1.Q)(10) ALONG WITH SUB-SECTION 196.1997(7), FLORIDA STATU IES.;FURTHER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES DUE UNDER BOTH THE STATE LAW AND THE RECORDED TAX EXEMPTION COVENANT AS A RESULT OF THE REVOCATION OF THE TAX EXEMPTION PRIOR TO ITS NORMAL EXPIRATION DATE AS STAYED IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COVENANT;PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK; PROVIDNG FOR EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida,has received a request by the current owner of real property located at 212 Seabreeze Ave. to remove portions of the structures at this site which would result in a revocation of the"Historic Preservation Property Tax Exemption Covenant"recorded at ORB 24208, Pages 718-721 on November 22,2010 (the"Covenant");and WHEREAS, Sub-paragraph 4.5.1(J)(10) of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDR's) provides the process and the authority for the Historic Preservation Board (the "Board") to recommend to the City Commission that the historic preservation ad valorem tax exemption be revoked;and WHEREAS, the City Commission then reviews such Board recommendation, which if approved, then adopts a resolution revoking the exemption and provides a notice to the owner of the financial penalties resulting from the revocation pursuant to both Paragraph 8 of the Covenant and also to Sub-section 196.1997(7),Florida Statutes;and WHEREAS, upon revocation of the historic property tax exemption the owner is required to pay the difference between the total amount of taxes which would have been due in March in each of the previous years in which the Covenant was in effect had the property not received the exemption and the total amount of taxes actually paid in those years,plus interest in the difference calculation as provide in Sec. 212.12(3),Florida Statutes;and WHEREAS,the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach supports the recommendation of the Board and determines that the historic preservation ad valorem tax exemption shall be revoked for the property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue in the City of Defray Beach,Florida. 1 RES NO -18 • '*, NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.That the forgoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference and are approved and adopted. Section 2.That pursuant to Sub-paragraph 4.5.1(J)(10) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, the City Commission hereby determines and makes the following findings: that the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board("Board")is approved and the owner is hereby notified of the financial penalties resulting from this ad valorem tax exemption revocation by the provision of this resolution to the owner of the subject property, which amount is set forth on Ex."A" to this Resolution. Thus,the City Commission formally revokes the historic property tax exemption on property located at 212 Seabreeze Avenue, as more particularly described as follows: Lot 21 &West 35 feet of Lot 22,Defray Beach Esplanade,according to the Plat thereof,as recorded in Plat Book 18,Page 39,of the Public Records of Palm Beach County,Florida. Parcel Identification Number. 12-43-46-16-18-000-0210 Section 3. That the City Clerk, or designee, is directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Palm Beach County, Florida, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser along with a third certified copy to the current property owner of 212 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach,Florida; and to ensure that a certified copy of this Resolution is also recorded in the Public Records for Palm Beach County,Florida,pursuant to Sub-paragraph 4.5.1.(J)(10)(c) of the City's LDRs. ' Section 4. The City Commission also approves the conveyance of the portions of the abandonment area owned by the City of Delray Beach to Palm Beach County via a Quit Claim deed; and hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the Quit Claim deed and directs the City Clerk to effectuate this conveyance as is deemed necessary in order to accomplish this purpose. Section 5. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOP iED in regular session on the day of ,2018. Shelly Petrolia,Mayor A 1 PEST: City Clerk Approved as to form and legality: R. Max Lohman, City Attorney 2 RES NO -18 EXHIBIT A Estimate of Taxes Due Upon Revocation of Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Total interest (10.o per Original Bill New Bill month) Total Interest Total Bill 2011 S 8,352.30 S 459.48 75°70 _ S 344.61 S 804.09 2012 S 8,467.88 S 459.83 63% S 289.69 $ 749.52 2013 S 8,408.67 S 458.36 51% S 233.76 S 692.12 2014 S 8,514.29 S 458.36 39% S 178.76 S 637.12 2015 S 8,460.18 S 454.52 27% S 122.72 S 577.24 2016 S 32,174.42 _ S 890.85 15% S 133.63 S 1,024.48 2017 S 20,829.88 S 446.86 3% $ 13.41 S 460.27 TOTALS S 3,628.26 S 1,316.58 S 4,944.84 s HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District — Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-100) for construction of a new 1-story, courtyard style single-family residence with an attached 2-car garage on an existing vacant lot. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness GENERAL DATA: Li. . u NE7thSt �^&3 i I Owner Tonja Olive and Martin Ingram �-� , oA {{� �" ` 4j Agent Gary Stofft, AIA a�t'l-!� 1r� l ill Randall E. Stofft Architects `44Y a%.P ' rtt {,i-''!'i - --t ;� Location 115 North Dixie Boulevard, t _� t ;, .• > ;�i e ; N between N Swinton Avenue and r a; t`-. '0`;` . `, ' ;'_,1' '�' • "W'' NE 2nd Street a� �,' ii iaS, � , `.. 'K ,F _, - I , i rProperty Size 0.24 Acres ? j , Historic District: Del-Ida Park Historic District :01 , - i` „ ' Zoning R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) yg • � * ,,wcti1 Adjacent Zoning: L 3 `�'• ,y il• ', North: R-1-AA � ,irk. .' ,46;c • ,�' .4 g East: R-1-AA R • r �: "�:°. e:. .i h;A 1 <. South: R-1-AA �, . . -1 ` / ' i .- 7 �, \+` ' ' . � 1:R West: R-1-AA �g,, k.'+ -. k.1 '., ti .',,II.1 .;'.,.. * '6, , '�v �..--, }�` 1 . t �k ii, ,,i,.,,-,e-ig, ,.. ..11„ ,tif rip Existing Future Land , , ` Ai ;.4 • ; 1 Use Designation* LD (Low Density 05 DU/Acre) #' t{ � • � 1:� Water Service Public water service is provided :y! :: `� tior,"fi,1 if " F '. } on site. C i}lxao, 7. � s� : 4¢. '• �` ^ 6Y Sewer Service Public sewer service is provided ' 1 r 4 . :.._.,,,» 5" '`"` � NESttt St 11 � on site. (e }Y,. v 1� 1 " NORTH._A ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-100) for the construction of a new 1-story, courtyard style single-family residence with an attached 2-car garage on a vacant lot located at 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(H). BACKGROUND The vacant property is located within the R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) zoning district and consists of Lot 23 and the Southerly half of Lot 24, Block 4, Del-Ida Park. The 0.24-acre lot measures 75' wide x 140' deep and is vacant. In 2017, the Planning, Zoning and Building Department and the City Engineer approved a subdivision plat exemption request associated with the recombination of the property into 2 individual lots (115 North Dixie Boulevard and 125 North Dixie Boulevard). The request proceeded to Palm Beach County Clerk's Office for recordation (Plat Book 9, Page 52). The subject COA request includes: 1. Construction of a new 1-story, 3,047 square foot courtyard style, single-family residence with a 2-car garage; 2. Construction of a new pool on the West side of the property; and, 3. Construction of new driveways, fencing, and landscaping. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H)(5), prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ZONING AND USE REVIEW Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), Development Standards, properties located within the R- 1-AA (Single Family Residential) shall be developed according to the requirements noted in the chart below. As illustrated, the proposal is in compliance with the applicable requirements; therefore, positive findings can be made. Development Standards Required Proposed Open Space (Minimum, Non-Vehicular) 25% 35.5% Setbacks (Minimum): Front West 30' 30'-2" Side InteriorJSoutti) 10' ! 10'-2" Side Interior (North) 10' 10'-2" Side Street 15' N/A Rear (East) i 10' 10'-2" Height (Maximum) 35' 20'-5" SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2), Parking Requirements for Residential Uses: two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Tandem parking may be used provided that in the Single Family (R-1 District) or RL District, no required parking space may be located in a required front or street side setback. Positive findings can be made with respect to this code regulation as the proposed structure includes a 2-car garage which includes parking for 2 vehicles, ensuring required parking is 115 North Dixie Boulevard;COA 2018-100 Page 2 of 6 provided for outside of the front or side street setback areas. In addition to the required parking, parking spaces are also provided within the driveway in front of the garage. LDR SECTION 4.5.1, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGNATED DISTRICTS, SITES, AND BUILDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) - Development Standards: all new development or exterior improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. Standard 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The proposal meets the applicable standard noted above and its intent by providing for the continued use of the subject property as residential. Prior to the subdivision plat exemption request the lot was associated with a single-family residence on 125 North Dixie Boulevard (contributing structure), and a new 1-story, courtyard style single-family residence will be constructed on the subject vacant lot. These changes maintain the historic purpose of the lot as a residential use that is compatible with the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(2)(b)(1)— Major Development. The subject application is considered "Major Development" as it involves new construction in the R-1-AA district, which requires additional technical and specific regulations to determine appropriateness and compatibility. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7) - Visual Compatibility Standards: new construction and all improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, facade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor and major development as referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m). Visual compatibility for all development on individually designated properties outside the district shall be determined by comparison to other structures within the site. Applicable Visual Compatibility Standards (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings in a historic district for all major and minor development. For major development, visual compatibility with respect to the height of residential structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall also be determined through application of the Building Height Plane. (b)Front Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the subject historic district. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The 115 North Dixie Boulevard;C0A 2018-100 Page 3 of 6 relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of solids to voids of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district for all development, with particular attention paid to the front facades. (e) Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: The relationship of buildings to open space between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible with the relationship between existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district. (f) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with existing architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on existing historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district for all development. (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district. (h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape, including type and slope, of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district. The roof shape shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building. (i) Walls of Continuity: Walls, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or building facades, shall form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to ensure visual compatibility with historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district and the structure to which it is visually related. (j) Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall be visually compatible with the building size and mass of historic buildings and structures within a historic district for all development. To determine whether the scale of a building is appropriate, the following shall apply for major development only: 1. For buildings wider than sixty percent (60%) of the lot width, a portion of the front facade must be setback a minimum of seven (7) additional feet from the front setback line: 2. For buildings deeper than fifty percent (50%) of the lot depth, a portion of each side façade, which is greater than one story high, must be setback a minimum of five (5) additional feet from the side setback line: (k) Directional Expression of Front Elevation: A building shall be visually compatible with the buildings, structures, and sites within a historic district for all development with regard to its directional character, whether vertical or horizontal. (I) Architectural Style: All major and minor development shall consist of only one (1) architectural style per structure or property and not introduce elements definitive of another style. The agent has submitted the following justification statement: "To whom it may concern; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8) Visual Compatibility Standards. New construction and all improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual 115 North Dixie Boulevard;COA 2018-100 Page 4 of 6 compatibility for minor and major development shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m) of this section. Provide a written narrative or justification statement speaking to the architectural style of the proposed structure as it relates to its compatibility with the district and how the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. Height and Building Height Plane The height of the proposed structure is compatible with the district. It is one-story in height, meets the building height plane, and is 14'below the maximum 35'height limit. b. Front Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the subject historic district. The proposed structure has a front facade with pleasing proportions, and varied architectural elements giving the home a quaint appearance that is visually compatible with the historic district. c. Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district. The proposed structure contains single hung windows with historic scale sizes and a muntin pattern of 4 over clear to be visually compatible within the subject historic district. d. Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of solids to voids of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district for all development, with particular attention paid to the front facades. The relationship of solids to voids of the proposed structure are at a pleasing percentage and are visually compatible with and are similar to other existing structures within the historic district. e. Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: The relationship of buildings to open space between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible with the relationship between existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district. The relationship of buildings to open space are visually compatible with and are similar to other existing structures within the historic district. Within the property the proposed pool area creates a nice open space between the proposed structure and the house to the west. f. Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with existing architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on existing historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district for all development. The relationship of the entrance and front porch to the sidewalk is visually compatible with existing historic buildings and it creates an inviting entrance to the home. g. Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the proposed structure are visually compatible with and are similar to other existing structures within the historic district. 115 North Dixie Boulevard;COA 2018-100 Page 5 of 6 h. Roof Shapes: The roof shape, including type and slope, of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district. The roof shape shall be consistent with the architectural style of the building. The roof shape, type, and slope of the proposed structure are visually compatible with and are similar to other existing structures within the historic district. The roof shape and slope are consistent with similar styled homes in the historic district. i. Walls of Continuity: Walls, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or building facades, shall form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to ensure visual compatibility with historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district and the structure to which it is visually related. The fence along the perimeter of the property is designed to match the railings of the existing home. The fence connects the existing home with the garage addition, which also has similar railings at the porch area. This ties the buildings together as a whole and is visually compatible with historic buildings with the historic district. j. Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall be visually compatible with the building size and mass of historic buildings and structures within a historic district for all development. To determine whether the scale of a building is appropriate, the following shall apply for major development only: The proposed structure meets the scale of a building calculation — see sheet A101 for calculation. k. Directional Expression of Front Elevation: A building shall be visually compatible with the buildings, structures, and sites within a historic district for all development with regard to its directional character, whether vertical or horizontal. The proposed structure's vertical and horizontal directional character are visually compatible with the surrounding buildings. The size and massing of the proposed structure is similar to the size and massing of surrounding buildings. Neighboring buildings on Dixie Boulevard are 1 story structures similar to what is proposed. I. Architectural Style: All major and minor development shall consist of only one (1) architectural style per structure or property and not introduce elements definitive of another style. The proposed structure design is consistent with one architectural style and does introduce elements of other styles. m.Additions to Individually Designated Properties and Contributing Structures in all Historic Districts. Visual compatibility shall be accomplished as follows: Not Applicable. Sincerely, Randall E. Stofft, AIA President" The proposal is for construction of a new 1-story, 3,047 square foot courtyard style single-family residence with a 2-car garage is appropriate and compatible with the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The new residence will enhance the Del-Ida Park Historic District with the use of authentic Masonry Vernacular architecture and durable building materials. The layout of the structure is known as a courtyard home with a courtyard and pool central or interior to the structure. The proposal includes a mill finish Galvalume Plus standing seam metal roof and aluminum exterior light fixtures in a • • 115 North Dixie Boulevard;COA 2018-100 Page 6 of 6 black finish. The color scheme includes smooth stucco painted in Sherwin Williams "Bravo Blue", exterior front door painted in Sherwin Williams "Green Vibes", and exterior trim painted in Sherwin Williams "Extra White". The front façade includes a covered porch with aluminum louvered panels (white), wood louvers (white), decorative wood columns (white), and an aluminum railing (white). A cellular PVC trellis is proposed above the 2-garage galvanized steel doors and a cellular PVC decorative gable and false louver is proposed on the North, East, and West elevation. White aluminum-framed windows and doors, and fiberglass front door with sidelights will be installed. Raised smooth stucco banding and precast window sills (white) will frame the openings (windows and doors). Raised smooth stucco pilasters (white) are proposed on the front elevation (South) on the exterior of the guest bedroom window and dormer windows above the garage. The sliding glass doors connecting the dining room to the outdoor living area will also be framed with raised smooth stucco pilasters (white). A new concrete paver driveway will be constructed on the South side of the property. A new pool and associated deck in the proposed courtyard on the West of the property. A 4' high aluminum picket fence and gate (white) is proposed along the front yard (South). An 8' high wood fence (board on board) will be installed on the East side and North side of the property. An existing 4' high welded wire fence will remain on the West side of the property. The proposal meets the intent of the review criteria above; thus, positive findings are made with respect to the sections indicated above. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-100) for the property located at 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5). C. Deny Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-100) for the property located at 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5). RECOMMENDATION COA Approve the COA for 2018-100 for 115 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(H)(5). NOTE: If the COA is approved, the following must be addressed prior to certification: 1. That the location of driveways and/or access points of adjacent properties within 50 feet, including intersections across North Dixie Boulevard, be illustrated (sheet A101). 2. That a note be added indicating the material and color of the exterior light fixtures (sheet A301). 3. That note 210 on the 200 Series Keynotes chart be removed (sheet A201). Attachments: • Site plan, elevations, and survey Report Prepared by: Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner • HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District — Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-031) for a 3,887 square foot addition to the existing 1,240 square foot residential structure, new pool and associated landscaping and hardscaping, Waiver for enclosure of the existing carport for use as a 1- car garage, and Variance (2018-032) to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7-6" to 3'-1". RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance GENERAL DATA: y 9 '� . - -- .-,a " ,u,oa Bus! -BI:A Owner/Applicant Kenneth Fabel and Paola Fabel �j -5,5�d� , Agent. Shane Ames, , v x � , . Ames International ` '"tee, . ; Location. 228 North Dixie Boulevard. between �y� 4/*t NE 2nd Avenue and NE 3rd Avenue _.;h � �,ae r,rr : •Property Size 0.23 Acres �. '_'7 r i.14,�' " *y rof ' E A6Vio: .ii 4-Vf44,,,p,, , A N. :i Jot - ., ',:Nd I 16 it** j Historic District: Del-Ida Park Historic District '- �� ,v M* "Y , t Zoning RO (Residential Office) ,fpf.-- _. 4?}# ttE Ito .,: 0 Adjacent Zoning- 3�< - ": _. r .. 4 a a�- , ..I North: RO Ve: : . ,. s , `'� , F; East: RO South: RO . 3 Y . West: RO NE 5th T Existing Future Land ; .uti.- � 'r .ilk ` 'R Use Designation TRN (Transitional) >-�, . `P___ { _ ;i��7 Water Service Public water service is provided ,:4. - on site. j , - pii Sewer Services- etc Public sewer service is provided + `�'� `.ate,. on site. r4* I �'. I ' NORTH - ► t F a.. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-031), Waiver, and Variance (2018-032) requests associated with a 3,887 square foot addition to the existing 1,240 square foot residential structure, new pool and associated landscaping and hardscaping as well as enclosure of the existing carport for use as a 1-car garage to the property located at 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H) and 2.4.7(A). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is located within the RO (Residential Office) zoning district. The 0.23-acre lot measures 72' wide x 140' deep and contains a 1,240 square foot single-family residence, 247 square foot 1-car carport, and 59 square foot covered entry. The minimal traditional style structure was built in 1947 and is classified as contributing to the Del-Ida Park Historic District. According to the City Property cards, the historic structure has a floorplan consisting of six rooms, gable roof and single and tile roofing, concrete tile construction, stucco and concrete block exterior walls, plaster interior finish, and hardwood flooring. The building permit for the original structure indicates that Samuel Ogren was the architect. Ogren was Delray's most prolific architect during the real estate boom, he designed hundreds of homes and commercial buildings in Delray Beach in a variety of architectural styles. The subject COA request for exterior renovations and additions to the residential structure includes: 1. Demolition of noncontributing detached utility/recreation structure located on the South side (rear) of the property; 2. Demolition of noncontributing screened porch located on the South side(rear) of the property; 3. Construction of 3,887 square foot addition on the East, West, and South side (rear) of the property; 4. Construction of a new pool on the South side (rear)of the property; 5. Installation of white aluminum-framed windows, glass block openings, and wood front door; 6. Exterior color change to Sherwin Williams "Pure White" exterior walls and Sherwin Williams "Coastal Blue" shutters; 7. New standing seam metal roof in Sherwin Williams "Agate Green"; and, 8. Installation of new fencing, landscaping and hardscaping. The subject request also includes a variance to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 3'-1" on the West side of the property for a 1-car garage as well as a waiver request to enclosure the existing carport for use as a 1-car garage. The COA, variance, and waiver request are now before the Board for consideration. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H)(5), prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. LDR SECTION 4.5.1, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGNATED DISTRICTS, SITES, AND BUILDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) - Development Standards: all new development or exterior improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. • 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 2 of 7 Standard 2 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 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Standard 6 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 9 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. The renovations include a 3,887 square addition with a two-story portion for a guest bedroom and office on the South side of the property, new aluminum-framed (white) windows, new wood front door, construction of a new pool and associated deck, and enclosure of the existing carport for use as a 1-car garage. The detached utility/recreation structure will be removed on the South side of the property. The screened porch located on the South side of the property will also be removed to accommodate the addition. The exterior color scheme will be changed from white exterior walls and asphalt shingle roof (gray) to Sherwin Williams "Pure White" exterior walls, Sherwin Williams "Coastal Blue" shutters, and standing seam metal roof in Sherwin Williams "Agate Green". Overall, the proposed changes do not destroy historic features that characterize the structure. However, there is a glass block window on the north elevation that is being eliminated due to enclosure of the carport. The applicant has proposed a new glass block openings to mimic the original in a different location on the front elevation. The proposal meets the applicable standards noted above and their intent as the proposed changes ensure an appropriate renovation and addition of the existing historic structure. The proposed changes protect the historic integrity of the existing structure and its environment by restoring an important resource within the Del-Ida Park Historic District and will allow for modernization and expansion of the existing structure utilizing durable materials. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(2)(b)(2) - Major Development. The subject application is considered "Major Development" as it involves "alteration of a building in excess of 25 percent of the existing floor area, and all appurtenances." Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7) - Visual Compatibility Standards: new construction and all improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor and major development as referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m). Visual compatibility for all development on individually 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 3 of 7 designated properties outside the district shall be determined by comparison to other structures within the site. Applicable Visual Compatibility Standards (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings in a historic district for all major and minor development. For major development, visual compatibility with respect to the height of residential structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall also be determined through application of the Building Height Plane. (b)Front Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the subject historic district. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of solids to voids of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district for all development, with particular attention paid to the front facades. (g)Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district. (j) Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall be visually compatible with the building size and mass of historic buildings and structures within a historic district for all development. To determine whether the scale of a building is appropriate, the following shall apply for major development only: 1. For buildings wider than sixty percent (60%) of the lot width, a portion of the front façade must be setback a minimum of seven (7) additional feet from the front setback line. 2. For buildings deeper than fifty percent (50%) of the lot depth, a portion of each side façade, which is greater than one story high, must be setback a minimum of five (5) additional feet from the side setback line. (I) Architectural Style: All major and minor development shall consist of only one (1) architectural style per structure or property and not introduce elements definitive of another style. (m) Additions to individually designated properties and contributing structures in all historic districts. Visual compatibility shall be accomplished as follows: 1. Additions shall be located to the rear or least public side of a building and be as inconspicuous as possible. 2. Additions or accessory structures shall not be located in front of the established front wall plane of a historic building. 3. Characteristic features of the original building shall not be destroyed or obscured. 4. Additions shall be designed and constructed so that the basic form and character of the historic building will remain intact if the addition is ever removed. 5. Additions shall not introduce a new architectural style, mimic too closely the style of the existing building nor replicate the original design, but shall be coherent in design with the existing building. 6. Additions shall be secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the historic building and shall not overwhelm the original building. 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 4 of 7 The applicant has submitted a justification statement(refer to Exhibit A). The proposed renovations and additions to the single-family residence are appropriate and compatible with the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The height of the additions does not exceed the highest element of the existing residence. The two-story addition located on the South side of the property (rear) is secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the residence. The proposed alterations are compatible with the existing front facade (North Elevation) proportion. Overall, the proportion of openings and the rhythm of solids to voids is retained with the new windows and doors. As previously noted, a glass block window on the north elevation is being eliminated due to enclosure of the carport. The applicant has proposed a new glass block openings to mimic the original in a different location on the front elevation. Enclosure of the carport creates a blank wall on the west elevation that causes an imbalance in the proportions of windows and doors and the rhythm of solids to voids. A condition of approval has been added to include an additional window opening on the west elevation of the carport. In addition, larger openings are proposed with French sliding doors on the East, West, and South elevations which create a storefront appearance that is not appropriate for residential uses. A condition of approval has been added to modify the French sliding doors on the East, West, and South elevations (first floor) to not exceed 8' in height. The top lights can be maintained as clerestory windows above the 8' high French sliding glass doors. These changes will help maintain the residential appearance of the structure. The exterior color scheme will change to Sherwin Williams "Pure White" exterior walls and Sherwin Williams "Coastal Blue" shutters. The gray asphalt shingle roof will be replaced with a standing seam metal roof in Sherwin Williams "Agate Green". The scale of the building will not be substantially altered since the addition does not exceed the height of the existing structures. A new 6' high concrete block wall with a metal gate is proposed on the back yard of the property (South). The applicant has indicated that the PVC fence (white) located along the rear property line (South). The proposed changes are compatible with the minimal traditional architecture of the structure and do not introduce a new architectural style. The overall proposal maintains the existing minimal traditional style architectural details appropriate for the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The proposal meets the intent of the review criteria above; thus, positive findings are made with respect to the sections indicated above provided the condition of approval are addressed. WAIVER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Procedures for Obtaining Relief From Compliance With Portions of the Land Development Regulations, Waivers, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(3)(2)(c), Garages and Carports: c. The enclosure of carports is discouraged. When permitted, the enclosure of the carport should maintain the original details, associated with the carport, such as decorative posts, columns, roof planes, and other features. 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 5 of 7 In consideration of the criteria, the enclosure of the carport for use for as a 1-car garage is permitted on the subject property. The applicant has stated the following regarding the waiver request: "In correlation to the LDR which we are seeking this relief, 4.5.1(E)(3)(a)(2) Garages and carports, the following criteria are met therefore permitting the variance to be approved: a. Due to the orientation and width of the existing residential structure there is no way to orient a garage or carport on the side or rear of the property. The only available space to place a conforming garage would be in the front yard of the existing residential structure which would violate the historic preservation intent by constructing a new structure in front of the existing contributing structure as there is approximately 930 SF of buildable space in front of the existing structure but rather than propose to violate numerous articles within LDR's such as 4.5.1(E)(7)(m)(1),...(2), ...(3) and ...(6). b. The orientation of the proposed garage is in line with the historic development pattern. Furthermore, the placement of the garage is the 5th elevation from the front setback and it is important to note that the first front facade sits an additional 10' back from the 25' mandated setback and the face of the proposed garage is approximately 53' from the front property line. c. Although the enclosure of a carport is discouraged it is of material importance to identify that the enclosure of the carport to a garage is not repurposing or expanding the existing space but rather with keeping with the historic pattern for the area while also providing the basic rights the neighboring properties are permitted to have a secure garage space for the use and enjoyment of my family. Furthermore, the enclosure of the carport will keep the existing front façade, exterior metal columns on the front and side, and roof plane; the mere addition of a carriage style garage door will be in a secondary plane behind the existing column and roof line and keep with the historic style of the residence. d. As noted above, the garage door being proposed is in line with the historic features of the property to keep the quaint features of the property to the forefront and not embellishing the garage as a prominent feature." Special conditions and circumstances exist due to the non-conforming lot width of 80' as well as the historic setting of the site within the Del-Ida Park Historic District; thus, the waiver request does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. It is noted that the request does not diminish the provision of public facilities nor does it create an unsafe situation. Similar waiver requests to enclose a carport have been permitted and the current request would not result in the granting of a special privilege. The applicant has provided documentation of other properties within the area, which have enclosed carports. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), required side setbacks within the RM District are 15'. The subject request is a variance to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 3'-1" on the West side of the property for a 1-car garage. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act on all variance requests within an historic district, or on a historic site, which otherwise would be acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5) Variances, the following findings must be made prior to the approval of a variance: (a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 6 of 7 structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning (The matter of economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance); (b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning; (c) That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant; (d) That granting the variance will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted, nor nonconforming use, of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; (e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and, (f) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant has submitted a justification statement(refer to Exhibit B). The variance is to allow a reduction to the required 7'-6" side interior setback to 3'-1" to accommodate enclosure of the existing carport for use as a 1-car garage on the West side of the property. Special conditions and circumstances exist due to the non-conforming lot width of 80' as well as the historic setting of the site within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The existing carport has a support pole and roof overhang that extend beyond the property line, the roof overhang extend approximately 2 feet (existing non-conformity). The carport is being reduced in size to reduce the existing non- conformity. The survey submitted by the applicant contains a legal description that does not match the property's warranty deed. A condition of approval has been added to revise the legal description of the survey. The one-car garage is proposed 3'-1" from the West property line with a 1'-6" roof overhang. It will not significantly diminish the historic character of the site or the district. Literal interpretation of the requirements of the code would alter the historic character and scale of the property as it is situated within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of the historic structure and site. Finally, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, safety or welfare. Note: As required by the LDRs, a notice regarding the subject variance request was sent to those property owners located within a 500' radius of the subject property as well as a Special Courtesy Notice to the Del-Ida Park Neighborhood Association. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (2018-031), Waiver, and Variance (2018-032) requests for the property located at 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5), and 2.4.7(A)(5). C. Deny Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-031), Waiver, and Variance (2018-031) requests for the property located at 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and by finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5), and 2.4.7(A)(5). 228 N Dixie Boulevard,2018-031 and 2018-032 Page 7 of 7 RECOMMENDATIONS (COA) Approve the COA 2018-031 for 228 North Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(H)(5), subject to the following conditions: 1. That an additional window opening be included on the west elevation of the carport; 2. That the French sliding doors on the East, West, and South elevations (first floor) do not exceed 8' in height; and, 3. That the survey's legal description be revised to the match the legal description on the property's warranty deed. NOTE: If the COA is approved, the following must be addressed prior to certification: 1. That a note be added to identify the fencing material and height on the South side of the property(sheet A-023). Waiver Approve the waiver request to LDR Section 4.5.1 (E)(3)(2)(c), to allow enclosure of the existing carport for use as 1-car garage, based upon a finding that the request and approval thereof does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Variance Approve the Variance to allow a reduction to the required 7'-6" side interior setback to 3'-1", based upon positive findings to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5). Attachments: • Applicant Justification Statement • Site plan, elevations, and survey Report Prepared by:Abraham Fogel,Assistant Planner , 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Dear Sir or Madam, Myfamily and I write this overviewto support our position forthe renovation and addition to residential structure at 228 Dixie Boulevard located in the historic Del-Ida Park District. We underline that the proposed modifications are onlysoughtafterto bring the property to a state of utility and allow efficient contemporary use of the property without diminishing but rather restoring the historical prominent features of the residence.Through extensive planning and coordination with local architect Shane Ames, of Ames International,we believe we offer an astounding solution to meet the requirements of the Historic Preservation Board(HPB)and our family's household needs while our proposed addition does not adversely affect any neighboring area or create any special privilege to us the applicant. Within the enclosed application and supporting documents we will layout our basis for issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for our future home. To offera backdrop on the property,James and PeppyJohnson constructed the home afterLt.James Johnson completed his service in WWII in 1946 where they raised their children and resided until ourfamily purchased the home in 2017.The property was originally 214 Dixie Boulevard when permit No. 167 was issued on May 6,1946 forthe original structure. The original residence was drawn by Delray Beach's renowned Architect,Samuel Ogren and drafted by his son Samuel Ogren Jr.When the original house was constructed the property was at least 3'wider and 5'deeper which is shown on Samuel Ogren's Sheet No. 1 on the original permitted drawings. Consequently,on the documents recovered from the City of Delray Beach the Johnson's permitted aframed screen porch on the rearof the original house on May6,1952 and it isthis permit(No.2353)that shows hand modifications to state 72'by 140'notthe original 75'by 145'. It is evident that the 3' on the carport side was allotted to the southeast property(220 Dixie Boulevard)and the rear was reduced by 5'to the rear abutting properties on or before 1952 as indicated on this permit card.Also on this 1952 permit card the property address was amended to 228 Dixie Boulevard and the framed porch was constructed without an architect.Furthermore,on June 18,1964 the Johnson's permitted the Utility and Rec.Room in the rear of the property without an Architect,and at this time the property was only listed as 228 Dixie Boulevard. For 71 years the Johnson's with their two sons resided atthis residence and Peppy continued to make herfamous"Mrs.Johnson's Banana Bread"into her 90's and decided to move to assisted living last year.Also,over the past 10 years my parents neighbored Mrs.Johnson(220 Dixie Blvd.)developing an ongoing relationship thatallowed the Johnson Family to offer my wife and two young boys this home that we plan on remaining at forthe foreseeable future. 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 2 of 7 Of the prominent Delray Beach architectural styles this residence shares many Florida Vernacular traits with characteristics of both masonry vernacular and minimal traditional. With these characteristics in consideration we offer our position on the following key elements of our proposed home: Front Façade In keeping with the Land Development Regulations(LDR)for contributing historic properties,namely LDR 4.5.1(E)(7)(b)we highlight that we are not modifying thefrontfacade or proposing any modificationsto the structure on the front building plane. This is of material importance as the original contributing structure is located 35'back from the front property line to the first front façade when the setback allowed is 25'therefore we are forfeiting over 930 square feet of buildable area by not modifying the existing front façade.Our proposed modifications to the frontfacade only include updating thewindows and doorto hurricane impactwhile maintaining the color(white),style,and sizes;replacing the decorative rotted wood shutters;stucco touch-up as needed;and repaintthefrontto a similar white on the current house.We propose to keep the fascia and replace if deteriorated with similar,and front entrywill remain the same size. Addition Through extensive coordination and planning at costs only to us we have developed a splendid addition that is not only entirely behind the front building plane but also without modification to the existing structural characteristics.Although never practical, the addition could be removed in its entirety and the original structure would remain. Through meticulous planning our Architect has been able to provide a marvelous flow from the original structure through the addition that keeps the architectural style preserved. Demolition of Non-Contributing Structure(s) Part of our proposed plan includes removing and partially removing structures on the property. Our findings indicate that these structures are neither contributing or appropriate to preserve any historic pattern in the neighborhood. First,we are proposing to take the porch located directly behind and attached to the main structure down to the slab and allow the addition to encompass this area. Our records search indicate that the porch was permitted to be constructed as an addition tothe original structure and as a screened porch in 1952 and laterthe residents enclosed the porch with wood paneling and jalousie windows that we did notfind as partof a permit package to the City of Delray Beach. As the original structure was designed by a prominent architect of the area the porch was donewithout an architect and does not complywith the architectural style of the home.This area is approximately 200 square feet and as mentioned the demolition is limited to the framed walls and ceiling, and the slab area will remain. Last,we are proposing to remove the non-contributing utility and rec.room permitted in 1964 which is approximately 473 square feet.The structure is of neither interest or quality that would oblige it to be part 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 3 of 7 of the historic registry. The reasons for removing the structure are numerous and important to the wellbeing of the finished project as it cannot be habitable without literally removing the structure and the foundations. To begin,the structure is built over both side and rear setbacks,it appears the structure was set off the original property boundaries when the lot was 5'deeper and 3'wider however in 1964 the boundary was already reestablished and reduced;therefore, making the encroachment into the setback significant in both directions. With regards to the foundations, the structure was permitted showing(18) 12" by 24"deep foundations however the structure appears to be resting on cinderblocks.The walls are constructed of 2"x4"'s with wood siding however due to severe deterioration and termites the siding has decomposed so the interior is exposed to the exterior and the framing is compromised from deterioration and termite damage as well. In addition,due to the compromised foundation the floor joists and therefore wallsand roof are outof level as much as 5"on some planes. Due to the out of level foundationsall doors and windows cannot operate as intended.As with the porch,the utility room brings no historic value to the property, it was designed without an architect and as demonstrated has multiple deficiencies that would force the actual demolition of the existing structure and the reconstruction of the structure from the foundations up to only put a structure back that is noncompliant to the current setback standards and offers no consistency to the main structure. It is for these reasons that the structure neither offers design or workmanship worthy of historic preservation and the structure promotes no value to historical heritage or culture. Based on theabove information we believethe HPB will feel convicted to permitthe demolition of these areas as they cannot be contributing structures based on the historical data of the construction of each. Garage As part of the Historic Variance Application submitted separately we are proposing to reduce the current nonconformance condition where the existing carport is up against and in some instances overthe property line by minimally modifying the existing contributing structureto incorporatea garage.Wetrustthatthe HPB will take the findings offered in that application as justification to grant the variance to such a commonly allowed and required household room. Roof Shapes and Material(s) Throughout the planning and development of our home we continually mold our needs to the architectural style of the home while maintaining building products and finishes that exceed the code requirements. It is why we have elected to propose a metal roof that complies with this architectural style and gives our family the assurance thatthe product will last multiple lifespans longer than asphalt shingles or tile and has superior wind resistance to the aforementioned roof types. In the Del-Ida Park Historic District over(25) structures are fitted with metal roofs in both contributing and non-contributing structures, this combined with being compatible to the Florida Vernacular architectural style endorses our request to install a metal roof on the existing structure and addition. Also,worth mentioning the proposed project has flat roof areas that are completely concealed by the pitched roofs by design.Furthermore,the main roof ridge line on the existing structure remains prominent 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 4 of 7 in our design as the addition is not visible from the street or above the BHP.Last,note that metal roofs are recognized by the Historic Park Service as a historic roofing material. Additional Conformance to the LDR's 4.5.1(E)(7)(a-m) Tofurtherexemplify howweare meeting thevisualcompatibilitystandardsin LDR4.5.1(E)(7)(a-m)weoffer the following findings relative to subparts a through m: a. The heightof the proposed addition does not exceed the building height plane(BHP)or come near surpassing the BHP as the proposed addition,even the second floor has been designed in such a way as to keep the addition secondaryas at its closest point of the second floor is 113'from the front property line and proposed flat roof keeps the second floor at the original structures roof ridge so it is not possible to be seen while standing at the front property line. b. First floor maximum height is not violated as the proposed first floor addition roof line is at or below the original structures roof ridge.The mean roof height is notviolated as the entire roof area for existing and proposed does not go above 18'rather it is all under 17'. Proposed second story elevation does not exceed the 12'limit but is actually being proposed at approximately 8'to keep the second floor limited in overall height. c. As described in the section above regarding the front façade we are not proposing any modificationsto the existing structure.We are even keeping the original roof vents atthe gable roof ends to keep with the original look of the residence. d. Proportion of openings(windows and doors)is being accomplished in thefollowing ways: 1. Front and side facades of the existing structure are keeping the same window and door openings and windows and doors are being updated to meet current wind loads. Product to be white and similar style in painted aluminum glazed productsforthewindows and wood entry door. 2. The addition side and rear facades are utilizing window sizes or proportions of the original windowsizes to create the openings,meaning we are making all efforts to utilize 3'x 6' (example not actual size)windows if design permits, if the design doesn't permit we are using the size that made up from the pattern of muntins(or styles)to size the added window. In the rear of the property we are proposing sliding glass doors to assist in allowing the efficientcontemporary use of the residence and to assist in minimizing the scale of the sliding glass doors we are proposing top lights with muntins to mimic the look of the current existing windows. 3. As a result of the proposed modifications the glass block on the southwest corner which was a prominent feature is being maintained in a similar and unique fashion by inserting the block on each side of the garage door and wrapping the corner like the original the original characteristics of the front façade is maintained. This modification allows usto remove the existing discolored, broken, and non-wind rated glass block and replace the material to a uniform compliant glass block material which would simulate as best as possible the original condition. e. Rhythm of buildings on the street is being maintained as we are not proposing structural modifications to the front façade. In addition,we are maintaining the Florida Vernacular style of the original design.We trust the board will also take into consideration that North Dixie Boulevard 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 5 of 7 is zoned Residential Office(RO)with non-historic buildings and a vastvariety ofprominentdesigns representing different historic styles of Delray Beach. For instance,the two properties on the east side of the street and southwest of 228 Dixie are both residential(216 and 220 Dixie)have similar Florida Vernacular with traits of Masonry Vernacular and Minimal Traditional while the structure southwestof216 is an office(2055thTer.)and has Mediterranean Revival characteristics.Also,the two-neighbor's northeastand on thesame side of the street as228 Dixie Blvd.are examplesof Mission Revival.Furthermore,there are examples of Art Deco style architecture directly in front of 228 Dixie at 219 Dixie Blvd.and on the same side of the street at 240 Dixie Blvd. Meanwhile addresses on North Dixie:227,236,246,and 250 are commercial in use and offer no historic contribution in design. f. Rhythm of entrance and/orporch projections are notmodified within ourproposalthereforewe believe we meet the historic intent. g. Relationship of materials,texture,and color will be visually compatible to the Del-Ida Park Historic District as we are proposing to only use materials available to the era that the home was constructed in 1946 and the colors are of such nature to represent many other approved historic preservation projects. In brief summary,we offer the following for exterior fagade colors and have samples in thesubmittal: 1. Walls: White,similar to existing color. 2. Roof: Standing Seam which is common on Florida Vernacular.Colorto be patina to add to the aged(historic)look. 3. Fascia: White, similar to existing. 4. Shutters: Blue to complement the patina roof. 5. Windows: White frames with muntins similar to existing. Glass to be non-reflective type hurricane impact with Low-E coating for energy conservation. h. Roof Shape will be in line with the original structure sloped gabled roof with sections offlat roof that are not visible.Flat roof is utilized to reduce overall height and will be secondary to the pitched roof. i. Walls of continuity are not subject to any non-conformance in our submission.The proposed plan is to construct privacy walls in the rear of the property which is currently wood fence.The walls are being proposed to meet the LDR's under 4.3.4,4.5.1(C)(3)(a)(1), and 4.6.5. Front yard and side sections of the front yard do not have any proposed walls,fences, or landscape masses and as these are not part of the original propertywetrustto complywith the requirements of the HPB. j. With respects to the scale of the building the proposed home meets all subparts 1 and a though e for front and subparts 2 and d for depth. Reference findings below: 1. This building is widerthan 60%of the lot and we exceed the requirement of part of the building being at least 7'from thefront setback as the firstfrontfagade is 10'back from the front setback portions of the house go back an additional 28' back from the front setback(the proposed garage). a. Subpart a does not apply as our lot is 72'in width. b. Subpart b does not apply as noted in bullet 1 above the entire structure sits 10' and more from the front setback. c. As the entire building resides over 10'subpart c is met. 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 6 of 7 d. The illustration supports our finding that we surpass the minimum standard to have the front façade step back at least 7'.Also note that there are five additional forward-facing façade planes therefore the structure does exceptionally well to meet this standard. e. Although the building is setbackat least7'as noted in subpartethen nooffsetis required it should be noted that the applicant has forfeited nearly 930 square feet (approximately 10%of the lot)of buildable space to preserve the front façade and at peril to the applicant has submitted a separate variance request to create a garage and reduce the side setback from the current 0' to 3'-0" ratherthan propose a garage forward of the existing structure. 2. As the proposed structure is deeper than 50%of the lot the structure on the northeast side has more than one story being proposed and it meets the standards of being set-back an additional 5'from the 7.5'side setback as follows: a. Perthe calculation 140'x 50%=70'less 25'frontsetback and less 10'rear setback =35'that mustsetback 12.5'ratherthan 7.5'. As the second floor is only 17'of this elevation we fall significantly within the requirements. b. The southeast side elevation has no second floor within 12.5'of the side setback. c. Illustration was used to validate thatwe exceed the requirementsforeach side setback. k. The directional expression of the front elevation is not being compromised from the original design intentof 1946 rathertheapplicantisexpresslyreturningthefrontfagadetoerasimilarcondition and style.As noted above,the original front façade with window sizes and materials remaining as similarto existing design as possible while complying with current building codes and standards. I. The architectural style is remaining Florida Vernacularand the scope of the addition is being framed as such to follow this style.Techniques to achieve this include but are not limited to uniform stucco finish to match the existing,window sizes in line with those on the original structure with similar muntin pattern, all visible roofing will be upgraded to metal which is appropriate for the architectural style and match on the addition and existing appropriately hiding any flat roof that is required. Although there are large sliding glass doors scheduled on the rearfacing courtyard they are being reduced in heighttoflowwith the original scale ofthe home by introducing muntins on the lights above the sliding glass door panels,this speaks largely to the factthat the architecture is authentic and the architecture is true to the style of Florida Vernacular. m. With respects to the addition,the visual compatibility is achieved in response to subparts 1 through 6: 1. Although the existing contributing structure is located an additional 10'back from the front setback and we are being deprived of constructing over 930 SF of structure in this area up to the front setback we achieved a functional and cohesive addition 100%behind the front building plane and designed the elevations as such to make the original structure all that is visible while standing at the street.As this property has no side streets only the front will allow public view and all construction is toward the rear least public side therefore accomplishing the requirements of this subpart. 2. As noted in the previous subpartthe addition is not located in the established frontwall plane rather toward the rear of the property. 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit A—Visual Compatibility Standards Justification Statement Page 7 of 7 3. Nothing within our proposal forthis project destroys or obscures the original structure. We go to great lengths to preserve the original structure and rehabilitate itto its original or era similar condition. As a matter of fact,the only demolition proposed occurs on subsequentadditionstothepropertyaftertheoriginalstructurewasbuiltandtheseare in the rear and of no historical significance.We are proposing to remove the walls and leave the slab of the porch and to remove the utility detached building that violates numerous building codes and LDRs.To go on further,the utility room and porch were not designed by anyarchitectto add historical value norwere they engineered to meet any basic building codes.The porch was originally permitted as screened and was later enclosed with wood paneling and jalousie windows which we have not found being permitted.The utility room thatwas constructed in 1964 is built over both side and rear setbacks, built without any foundation, severely leans out of plumb, has termite damage to floor, walls, and roof, and is near condemnable if given the proper engineering inspection so ratherthan expend countless resources on a non-contributing and non- conforming structure we proposeto remove itand open the backyard forourchildren. 4. The well contemplated addition meets the full intent of subpart 4 in the most literal way as if it was as simple as removing a current code designed structure the existing roof and walls would remain as constructed from 1946.Nothing proposed diminishes the basicform of the original building down to the original perimeter walls, rafters and roof deck remain. The proposed floor plan is a stellar example of using the original structure and adapting it to current use needs. 5. As outlined above the addition is not introducing a newarchitectural style but ratherthe addition allows a flow through or around the house in scale,design, and proportion.The design does an extremely well job of maintaining the Vernacular style of the original structure to influence the balance of the design.As noted in subpart I(Architectural Style) we are taking extensive steps to keep to the historic pattern of the contributing structure. 6. As demonstrated the additional structure is entirely behind the original structure and not over the BHP. Since the addition is not exposed to any street frontage(front,side or rear) we believe we meet the intent of this subpart. As part of our argument in the variance application to minimally construct over the side setback in the approximate location of the carportwe believe we go above and beyond to not build in front of the original structure to add a garage or living space thus further preserving the intent of this LDR. To close,we hope the Historic Preservation Board will approve the Certificate of Appropriateness along withouronevarianceapplicationtoallowmywifeandtwosonstheopportunitytoenjoythispropertyas the only previous owner did for 71 years. As our intent is aligned with yours we believe this residence can be an exemplary historic preservation project of what can be done in the confines of the historic principles not what cannot. Sincerely, Ken abet 1 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit B—Variance Justification Statement Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B—Variance Justification Statement Dear Sir or Madam, My family and I respectfully request relief that can be permitted by the Historic Preservation Board to build a limited portion of our home over the southwest side setback at228 Dixie Boulevard. In fact,the current structure is up against and in some cases on and overthe neighboring propertyand ourvariance being soughtwill leave approximately 3'-1"between our proposed structure and the property linethus improving thecurrentnonconforming structure. In nowaywill granting of this variance constitute any hardship on public interest but to the contrary improve the neighborhood by relaxing the Land Development Regulation(LDR)and allowing this property to be rehabilitated to a model historic preservation project. Due to the existing carport residing over the side setback and partially on and over the neighboring property,and the unique lot size and placement of the existing contributing residential structure we are forced to make the request to seek the standard benefits enjoyed by numerous neighboring residential properties that have garages otherwise the literal enforcement of thesidesetbackwould imposetoourfamilyundue hardshipof being denied thesecurityand privacya garageoffers. To offer a backdrop on the property,James and Peppy Johnson constructed the home after Lt.James Johnson completed his service in WWII in 1946 where they raised their children and resided until our family purchased the home in 2017.The property was originally 214 Dixie Boulevard when permit No.167 was issued on May 6,1946 forthe original structure. The original residencewas drawn byDelray Beach's renownedArchitect,Samuel Ogren and drafted by hisson Samuel OgrenJr. When the original house was constructed the property was at least 3'wider and 5'deeperwhich is shown on Samuel Ogren's Sheet No. 1 on the original permitted drawings.Thus,on the documents recovered from the City of Delray Beach theJohnson's permitted aframed screen porch onthe rearof the original house on May6,1952 and itisthis permit(No. 2353)thatshowshand modificationstostate72'by140'nottheoriginal 75'by145'.ltisevidentthatthe 3'on thecarport side was allotted to the southeast property(220 Dixie Boulevard)and the rearwas reduced by 5'to the rear abutting properties on or before 1952 as indicated on this permit card.Also on this 1952 permit card the property address was amended to 228 Dixie Boulevard and the framed porch was constructed without an architect. Furthermore, on June 18, 1964theJohnson's permitted the Utilityand Rec.Room in the rearof the propertywithoutan Architect,and atthistime the property was only listed as 228 Dixie Boulevard.For the next 71 years the Johnson's with their two sons resided at this residence and Peppy continued to make her famous"Mrs.Johnson's Banana Bread"into her 90's and decided to move to assisted living last year.Also,over the past 10 years my parents neighbored Mrs.Johnson(220 Dixie Blvd.)developing an ongoing relationship that allowed the Johnson Family to offer my wife and two young boys this home that we plan on remaining at for the foreseeable future. With respects to the history of the carport that is constructed on the property(and overthe property line in some instances), the researchthatwe have gathered from the City of Delray showsthatthecarportwas notconstructed with the original 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit B—Variance Justification Statement Page 2 of 4 house on the drawingsfrom 1946 byArchitectSamuel Ogren. I n fact,thefirst permit card from the City of Delray Beach that depicts the carport is on the permit No.2353 dated May 6, 1952.It is on this 1952 permit card that permitted the carportto be constructed up to the adjacent property line and overthe side setback.Furthermore,the 1952 permit card showsthatthiswas not designed byanArchitectandthere is nota permit card clearly identifying the construction ofthe carport. Since the carport was not constructed with the original structure and was not designed by any Architect we trust youwilltake into consideration that removing the nonconforming carportin its current position in no way diminishesthe original structures historical prominence. Last,although we seek a variance to have partof the garage overthe side setback it is imperativeto recognizethatthisvariance is being soughtforless areathan the current carport resides overthe side setback,for example the current carport has an area(with overhang)of 205 square feet overthe side setback and our proposed structure reduces the area over the side setback to under 140 square feet. With reference to the variance being pursued for construction overthe side-setback,we outline the reasons forthis request which correlate to the findings and alternate findings below: a. As a primary point to our variance request the area of the side setback we are requesting relief to construct on has already been permitted for approximately the same location that the carport resides on.Ourrequestdoes not repurposeoralterthe useof the area rathertheenclosureofthesimilarareawhich is located overthe7.5'side- setback utilizes the original permitted area.For reference,we are proposing to build approximately 140 square feet within the side-setback and as outlined in this document there is no alternative to place a garage on this property without violating numerous LDR's. b. With the above point in mind,we seek consent to remove the existing carport and reconstruct the garage in approximatelythe same area but reduce the nonconformancefrom the currentstructure abutting and overthe neighboring property to a structure that allows approximately 3'-1"of setback for only 32'then the balance of the structure on all sides complies with the setbacks defined in the LDR's.This property is in a Residential Office(RO) zoning district and the side-setback is 7.5'perArticle 4.3.4(K)Development Standards Matrix.Also take into consideration that the matrix provided in 4.3.4(K)describes a minimum lot width of 80'which further exaggerates the need forthis variance as the lot width is 72'not affording the additional side space we seek. c. To comply with LDR Article 4.4.3(F)(3)(a)which although is not specific to zoning district RO we understand the principle to applytothis property requiring parking to be outside of the street setback.With this requirement on residences the parking area of the existing carport(being reconstructed as a garage)is required to afford the two (2)minimum vehicularparking spots on the property and notwithin the street setback.The second required vehicle parking spot is located directly in front of the proposed garage(existing carport). d. As identified in section 4.4.17 specific to the RO district the following are met: a. 4.4.17(A)(2)this proposed renovation meets the purpose of this article as the projectwill be a revitalization to the neighborhood asthe current property has not been maintained to exemplary standards and our proposed modifications are in line with the intentof the Historic Preservation Board,also reference our COA application and justification letter. b. 4.4.17(C)(3) pursuant to this article relating to accessory uses and structures permitted within this RO district a garage is specifically permitted. c. 4.4.17(G)(1)Supplemental districtregulationsfurthersupportourcauseforvariance approval as thearticle states"All uses shall be in completely enclosed buildings and any outdoor storage is expressly prohibited" (Emphasis Added).By removing the carport and modifying the structure to accommodate the garage we are meeting all parts of this supplemental district regulations as cited above and denial of this variance request would be in literal conflict with this LDR. 1 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit B—Variance Justification Statement Page 3 of 4 e. Lastly,in accordance with Section 2.4.7(A)referencing Variances,we believe the necessity to relax the LDR's specific totheside-setback is of no conseq uence to the public interestand dueto the peculiarconditions of the property such as:narrow width,the abovementioned LDR's,most notably 4.4.17(G)(1)and 4.4.3(F)(3)(a)which force this variance request.The literal enforcement of the LDR side setback requirementsforthis zoning districtwould cause undue hardship to us the Owner as we would be deprived of parking,a common facility such as a garage,the secure storage of our belongings,and the area of the carport already exists within this setback area without any adverse impacts to adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood as a whole. f. The orientation of the proposed garage is in line with the historic development pattern. Furthermore, the placement of the garage is the 5th elevation from the front setback and it is important to note that the first front façade sits an additional 10' back from the 25' mandated setback and the face of the proposed garage is approximately46'fromthefrontpropertyline.ltisworth noting thatthefrontpropertyline is 25'from the nearest face of the parallel street meaning the proposed garage is located 71'from edge of North Dixie Blvd. g. Furthermore,an auxiliary result of granting this variance improves the current nonconformant driveway condition with respects to LDR 6.1.4(C)(3)(b)2 as the current asphalt driveway is all the way against the southwest property linewith no separation. By granting the variance and allowing the garage to be constructed with a 3'-1"side setback the garage doorand aligning drivewaywill be 5'-0"off the paralleling property line and therefore conforming to another LDR. Furthermore, to assist in the approval process we feel assured that the Historic Preservation Board will find that: a. The location of the existing structure creates special and nonconforming conditions forcing this proposed alteration that minimally affects the existing contributing structure and removes the nonconforming existing structure.The width of the existing home does not permit space on either side to place a garage and not violate the setback requirements,there is no rear entry available to place a garage on the backyard of the property,and the structure is built substantially behind the front setback requirements so much so that the proposed garage is 46'behind the front property line(21'more than required). b. A garage is a common residential element enjoyed by numerous properties in the same zone classification.The purpose of the garage is to offer secure and concealed storage of our possessions and as this is not a public safety and welfare impact the rejection of the proposed variance would impose impacts to ourfamily's safety and security by exposing our belongings to the public and neighborhood. c. The applicant has not created any condition or circumstance leading to this request.The conditions of this carport are as built over 50 years ago and nothing the applicant has done to the property since taking ownership has led to this request. d. Granting of this variance will not permit any special privilege to the applicant rather granting this will allowthe applicant the standard privileges enjoyed by residences in the same zoning. e. The applicant has laid forth a reasonable and most importantly minimum variance by reusing an area previously designated for a carport and minimal alterations to the existing structure to allow the garage to be integrated into the property.Bysimplygrantingthisminimumvariancetoallowa3'-1"setbackforonly321inealfeetratherthan building a new structure forward of the existing structure thatwould impose numerous variances and detract from the historic pattern of the property. This request does not increase any paved or roof area within the side setback but rather reduces the roof and foot print area over the side setback thus improving an otherwise nonconforming condition. If denied thesame roof and paved area would remain furtheroutlining the inconsequentiality of this variance request to the adjacent property and neighborhood rather the denial would impose significant undue hardship to us the Owner by denying the security and enclosure of a garage enjoyed by so many in the same neighborhood. 228 N Dixie Boulevard, Exhibit B—Variance Justification Statement Page 4 of 4 f. Granting of this variancewill keep the harmonyof the existing regulations as we have laid out howwe meet the criteria to allow a garage,this variance will not have any adverse impacts to the neighborhood or public welfare. Also, should the Historic Preservation Board need alternative reasons to approve this variance application we trust the following are met: a. The approval of the variance is necessary to insignificantly affect the original front facade of the structure,more so the rejection ofthevariancewould result in the proposal of a garagewithin the propertysetbacksthatviolatethe historic pattern and Historic Preservation Board's intent. In no way does the proposed garage have any adverse impacts to public interest, safety, or welfare. In contrast denying this variance would cause the nonconforming structure to remain,expose the public interest and welfare to the unconcealed personal affects which take away from the historic intent of the area.Lastly,the construction of garages was common placepostWWll and often used by Architects to balance home's front"picture window"which would be considered the case on this property as the large"picture window"is a symmetrical without the garage in place. b. As noted before the existing contributing structure is unique in that the structure is placed in excess from the front setback,starting at35'to thefirstface and 46'attheface of thegarage and combining thefactthatthe structure is on a non-typical(narrower)lotwith the structure ofthe existing carportoverthe setbacka multitude of special conditions exist at this property forcing this variance and waiver request.Should a new garage be proposed on the opposite side the result would be more significant and require no setback to the property line at that side therefore our approach to minimize the alterations to the front of the structure and therefore to maintain and reduce the area of the existing carport as a garage is the preferred solution to comply with LDR's and existing conditions of the property. c. The literal interpretation of the code would force the placement of a garage,a commonly provided residential element specifically permitted in the RO district, to be placed forward of the existing structure which specifically violates other LDR's thus not preserving the historic characteristics of the historic district and site. d. This proposed variance in no way diminishes the historic character and in fact by keeping with roof line,face of the existing façade on all front elevations we are meticulously making every effort to keep the existing vernacular appearance of the home for the period in which it was initially constructed and meeting current building codes and regulations. e. The requested variance is necessaryto accommodate the reuse ofthis historicpropertyforbasic residential security needs. Our family hopes this application is welcomed with the understanding that this variance is reduced to the minimum imposition and will greatly increase our basic needs for a garage to offer the security of our possessions while offering an organized and clean solution to concealing the everyday items taken for granted by so many that are stored in a garage. We look forward to this approval and the continuance of the permitting process so we can ultimately enjoy our infinite memories and experiences in ourfamily's home hopefully for another 71 years asthe with the original owner. Sinc Ken F el , HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 18, 2018 ITEM: 227 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District — Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-253) for renovations and additions, and Variance (2018-254) to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 5'-2". RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant Michael Perlman ? F `� � `� Agent. Dan Sloan, AIA, NCARB, kx " + t' : g p �^�V � NE 3r�St ;� , Sloan & Sloan, Inc. `met► p;_.0AP j`�'�•` ` �14 ' ` ii Location 227 NE 1scAvenue, between NE 1st t I " : '�x' t ' ,", ° fir, 0 Avenue and NE 2 Avenue -- t w . - Property Size 0.17 Acres `' `. ;' 4: ^ry '8 y 7� Historic District: Old School Square Historic District 14 i ., ='- ,,� =`�' - Z.Pfi „ L C •Zoning. OSSHAD (Old School Square ` z -, - - _ . . . y Historic Arts District) .i , -I 1 ii'l i, I;, ' ;i'' Adjacent Zoning. e k� �'4'�,, F � fii a North: OSSHAD , e'` . fl � ' 't11._ 1 East: CBD i . , ._ {fit � + ` ,�, South: OSSHAD lk k �' �-�'' E t t , West: OSSHAD ' � fi P. L'i frt '' : . ;< $ :, R; ' �y t �7ti 1 t�, i �� ,4 Existing Future Land � ', �� , p Use Designation OMU (Other Mixed Use) k. x� � �,� i.,�: , j , t 4 m A li 1-1 Water Service. ... Public water service is provided ,, �, . #�r V on site. �' Sewer Service. Public sewer service is provided on site. 4;j ; �.` .' 4 NORTH ° ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-253) and Variance (2017-254) requests associated with renovations and additions of the property located at 227 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H) and 2.4.7(A). BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is located within the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district along the east side of Banker's Row. The 0.17-acre lot measures 55.5' wide x 132.6' deep and contains a 1,740 square foot existing single-family residence. The historic frame vernacular style structure was built between 1937 and 1939 and is classified as contributing to the Old School Square Historic District (OSSHD). The structures within the Banker's Row were built in two periods of economic growth and change, before and after the Great Depression. The subject block, originally established as residential was characterized by the presence of 2-story Mediterranean Revival residences on the West side of the street, and Traditional Cottages (known as the Mackie Cottages) on the East. The subject property is one of the Mackie Cottages, which were built in a frame vernacular style. According to the City Property cards, the historic structure had a floorplan consisting of five rooms, gable and hip roof with shingle and composition roofing, wood frame construction, wood siding exterior walls, plaster interior finish, and hardwood, concrete and tile flooring. In 2013, a Certificate of Appropriateness (2013-054) was administratively approved to replace the existing windows with impact-resistant aluminum windows. The subject COA request for exterior renovations and additions to the residence includes: 1. Enclosure of existing 112 square foot front porch; 2. Construction of a new 90 square foot roofed front porch; 3. Construction of 93 square foot addition on the North side of the property to accommodate a new kitchen and living room configuration; 4. Construction of 401 square foot addition on the East side of the property to accommodate a new master bedroom suite; 5. Removal of exterior storage room on the North side of the structure; 6. Installation of crimp galvalume metal roof; 7. Installation of aluminum-framed windows and doors (white); 8. Installation of hardiplank siding for the additions; 9. Exterior color change to Sherwin Williams "Watery" siding, Sherwin Williams "Scanda" shutters, and Sherwin Williams 'Drizzle" front door; and, 10. Reconfiguration of the existing parking area. The subject request also includes a variance to allow the proposed 93 square foot addition to encroach 2'-4' into the required 7'-6" side interior setback on the North side of the property. The COA and variance request are now before the Board for consideration. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL Pursuant to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 2.4.6(H)(5), prior to approval, a finding must be made that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with provisions of Section 4.5.1, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 227 NE 1st Avenue, 2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 2 of 8 LDR SECTION 4.5.1, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DESIGNATED DISTRICTS, SITES, AND BUILDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) - Development Standards: all new development or exterior improvements on individually designated historic properties and/or properties located within historic districts shall, comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Development Standards of this Section. Standard 2 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 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Standard 6 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 9 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. The renovations include new aluminum framed (white) impact-resistant windows and doors, a new crimp galvalume metal roof, and reconfiguration of the parking area with a gravel stop 5' from the property line and wheel stops. A condition of approval has been added that the roof be replaced with a comparable material such as dimensional shingles rather than the requested metal roof. This is to ensure the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (2, 5, 6 and 9) are met. The additions include removal of the exterior storage room on the North side of the structure to accommodate a new 93 square foot addition for a new kitchen and living room configuration. Hardiplank siding is proposed for the additions to match the pattern of the wood siding on the original structure which will remain. The exterior color scheme will be changed to Sherwin Williams "Watery" painted siding, Sherwin Williams "Scanda" painted shutters, and Sherwin Williams 'Drizzle" painted front door. The existing black fabric awning-covered front porch will be replaced with a new 90 square foot, metal roofed front porch. The existing 112 square foot front porch is being enclosed to accommodate a larger foyer within the residence. A 401 square foot addition on the East side of the property will be constructed to accommodate a new master bedroom suite. Provided the conditions of approval are met, the proposed changes will not destroy historic features that characterize the structure and the proposal will meet the applicable standards noted above as well as their intent. Overall, the proposed changes ensure an appropriate renovation and addition to the existing historic structure while protecting the historic integrity of the existing structure and its environment by restoring an important resource within the Old School Square Historic District and Banker's Row utilizing durable materials. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(2)(b)(2) - Maior Development. The subject application is considered "Major Development" as it involves "alteration of a building in excess of 25 percent of the existing floor area, and all appurtenances." 227 NE 1st Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 3 of 8 Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7) - Visual Compatibility Standards: new construction and all improvements to both contributing and noncontributing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto within a designated historic district or on an individually designated property shall be visually compatible. In addition to the Zoning District Regulations, the Historic Preservation Board shall apply the visual compatibility standards provided for in this Section with regard to height, width, mass, scale, façade, openings, rhythm, material, color, texture, roof shape, direction, and other criteria set forth elsewhere in Section 4.5.1. Visual compatibility for minor and major development as referenced in Section 4.5.1(E)(2) shall be determined by utilizing criteria contained in (a)-(m). Visual compatibility for all development on individually designated properties outside the district shall be determined by comparison to other structures within the site. Applicable Visual Compatibility Standards (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings in a historic district for all major and minor development. For major development, visual compatibility with respect to the height of residential structures, as defined by 4.5.1(E)(2)(a), shall also be determined through application of the Building Height Plane. (b)Front Facade Proportion: The front facade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and be in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other existing structures and buildings within the subject historic district. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by prevailing historic architectural styles of similar buildings within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings shall be visually compatible within the subject historic district. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids: The relationship of solids to voids of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with existing historic buildings or structures within the subject historic district for all development, with particular attention paid to the front facades. (g)Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building and/or hardscaping shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic buildings and structures within the subject historic district. (j) Scale of a Building: The size of a building and the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, porches, and lot size shall be visually compatible with the building size and mass of historic buildings and structures within a historic district for all development. To determine whether the scale of a building is appropriate, the following shall apply for major development only: 1. For buildings wider than sixty percent (60%) of the lot width, a portion of the front facade must be setback a minimum of seven (7) additional feet from the front setback line. 2. For buildings deeper than fifty percent (50%) of the lot depth, a portion of each side facade, which is greater than one story high, must be setback a minimum of five (5) additional feet from the side setback line. (I) Architectural Style: All major and minor development shall consist of only one (1) architectural style per structure or property and not introduce elements definitive of another style. (m) Additions to individually designated properties and contributing structures in all historic districts. Visual compatibility shall be accomplished as follows: 1. Additions shall be located to the rear or least public side of a building and be as inconspicuous as possible. • 227 NE 1st Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 4 of 8 2. Additions or accessory structures shall not be located in front of the established front wall plane of a historic building. 3. Characteristic features of the original building shall not be destroyed or obscured. 4. Additions shall be designed and constructed so that the basic form and character of the historic building will remain intact if the addition is ever removed. 5. Additions shall not introduce a new architectural style, mimic too closely the style of the existing building nor replicate the original design, but shall be coherent in design with the existing building. 6. Additions shall be secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the historic building and shall not overwhelm the original building. The proposed renovations and additions to the single-family are appropriate and compatible with the Old School Square Historic District. The height of the additions does not exceed the highest element of the existing residence. The proposed alterations are compatible with the existing front facade (West Elevation). The new roofed front porch is in direct relationship with the height of the front elevation and creates a distinct entrance to the residence, this element was originally incorporated on adjacent cottages. The proportion of openings and the rhythm of solids to voids is retained with the new windows and doors. The exterior color scheme will change from yellow exterior walls and blue shutters to Sherwin Williams "Watery" (light green) siding, Sherwin Williams "Scanda" (dark blue) shutters, and Sherwin Williams 'Drizzle" (dark green) front door. A new crimp galvalume metal roof is proposed to replace the existing asphalt shingle roof, which is not appropriate for the existing cottage. The cottage is one of a collection of post-war cottages that represent a specific time period. A condition of approval has been added that the roof be replaced with a comparable material such as dimensional shingles rather than the requested metal roof. Hardiplank siding is proposed for the additions to match the pattern of the wood siding on the original structure which will remain. In regards to fencing, the existing wood "shadowbox" and picket fences will remain. The scale of the building will not be substantially altered since the addition does not exceed the height of the existing structures. The proposed changes are compatible with the frame vernacular architecture of the structure and do not introduce a new architectural style. Based upon the project's location in the Banker's Row area, the parking can be permitted as indicated in the Banker's Row Master Development Plan and associated Neighborhood Plan/Site Plan. Pursuant to this Plan, when a new project comes through the City approval process the site plan as indicated in the Banker's Row Neighborhood Plan/Site Plan (Plan) can be utilized as a vested situation for purposes of the number of parking spaces and location of such parking spaces. Thus, the gravel parking area located on the rear side of the property (East) is a vested situation. Provided the condition of approval is met, the overall proposal maintains the frame vernacular style architectural details appropriate for the Old School Square Historic District and Banker's Row. The proposal meets the intent of the review criteria above; thus, positive findings are made with respect to the sections indicated above. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K), required side setbacks within the RM District are 15'. The subject request is a variance to allow construction of a 93 square foot addition to accommodate a new kitchen and living room configuration to encroach 2'-4" into the required 7'-6" side interior setback on the North side of the property. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act on all variance requests within an historic district, or on a historic site, which otherwise would be acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. 227 NE 1st Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 5 of 8 Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5) Variances, the following findings must be made prior to the approval of a variance: (a) That 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 (The matter of economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance); (b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning; (c) That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant; (d) That granting the variance will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted, nor nonconforming use, of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; (e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and, (f) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The agent has submitted the following justification statement (attached). "Dear Board Members; We are requesting a 2'- 4"North Setback Reduction to allow for a reconfigured and dramatically improved open plan Living Room/Dining Room/Kitchen areas of a contributing home at 227 NE 1st Avenue. This residence, while a charming example of a series of frame vernacular homes on this street, has a very small & nearly non-functional kitchen (with no full size refrigerator!). The adjacent Dining Room is even more diminutive. Just to the East of the Dining Room is the Family Room with an abutting Storage Room on the north side. Just to the West is a Guest Bedroom/Bathroom suite. Both the Storage Room and Guest Bedroom/Bathroom encroach on the North Setback 2'- 4"feet. Only the approx. 5 1/2 foot wide north wall of the Dining Room does not encroach on the north setback line. The Owner would like the home to have a much more usable, functional, and attractive "Open Plan" Living Room/Dining Room/Kitchen Space. In order to accomplish this with minimal disruption to the architectural fabric, we are proposing to renovate and incorporate the Storage Area into the open plan area and move the North Wall of the Current Dining Room 4'to the north, which would result in a minimal 13 added square feet of space encroaching on the setback area. This Proposed 5'-4"x 2'- 4"area of encroachment will line up with the existing north walls of the home and is the smallest size that will fulfill the architectural objectives outlined above. Certain findings are required to be made by this Board in order to support this variance request. So we will address these items individually; "a) That 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..." 227 NE 15'Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 6 of 8 This historically significant structure is burdened with a very constrained floor plan with a barely functional Kitchen and Dining Area. "b) That a literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning" Few other homes in the OSSHAD or R-1-A Zoning Districts have such a constrained floor plan. The Owner wishes to have a reasonably sized Kitchen and Dining Room, similar to other homes in the same zoning, and we have designed a plan with the minimum of encroachment that will meet these objectives. "c) That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant" This home was designed and constructed in its present location and configuration in the 1937 and the present owner has not altered the exterior or interior in any substantive way. "d) That granting the variance does not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted, nor nonconforming use, of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considering grounds for the issuance of a variance." The architectural characteristics and situation of the building on the land are unique circumstances to this historically significant structure, and hence would not confer a special privilege on the applicant. "e) That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the petition and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, ..." This proposed North Setback Encroachment is a very modest 5.3'x 2.5' and is the smallest size that will fulfill its architectural mission of creating a vibrant and dramatically improved Livinq/Dininq/Kitchen area for this residence. "f) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose, intent of existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare." We believe this tiny encroachment will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. Quite the contrary, we hope this distinctive renovation/Addition to this historically significant home will continue the trend of sensitive additions and adaptive use projects in this neighborhood. In closing we would request your support in the granting of this variance. We are hopeful that the Addition/Renovation enabled by this Variance, in conjunction with the planned Master Suite and New Entry Feature will dramatically improve the Architectural Quality of this home and make a fine addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Dan Sloan, AIA, Architect Agent for the Owner" The Variance request is to reduce the side interior setback from the required 7'-6" to 5'-2" on the North side of the property for a 93 square foot addition. 227 NE 1st Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 7 of 8 Special conditions and circumstances exist due to the small size of the 55.5' wide property as well as the historic setting of the site within the Old School Square Historic District and Banker's Row. Further, the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of the property. The existing storage room and guest bedroom encroach 2'-4" into the required setback. The variance will accommodate an addition that is in line with the front wall plane of the North side of the residence. The variance will not significantly diminish the historic character of the site or the district. Literal interpretation of the requirements of the code would alter the historic character and scale of the property as it is situated within the Old School Square Historic District and Banker's Row. The variance is necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of the historic structure and site. Finally, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, safety or welfare. Note: As required by the LDRs, a notice regarding the subject variance request was sent to those property owners located within a 500' radius of the subject property. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-253) and Variance requests (2017-254) for the property located at 227 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5), and 2.4.7(A)(5). C. Deny Certificate of Appropriateness (2017-2253) and Variance requests (2018-254) for the property located at 227 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and by finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 2.4.6(H)(5), and 2.4.7(A)(5). RECOMMENDATIONS (COA) Approve the COA 2017-253 for 227 NE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(H)(5). Subject to the following condition: 1. That the roof material be revised to dimensional asphalt shingle. NOTE: If the COA is approved, the following must be addressed prior to certification: 1. That the reference to R-1-A zoning be removed from the site tabulations (sheet A1.01 b). 2. That the price and owner options for windows and doors be removed and the notes updated to correlate with the submitted Notice of Acceptance (sheet DD6 and DD.7). 3. That the option for pressure treated pine be removed and hardiplank siding be the only proposed siding material for the additions (sheet DD.3 and DD.6). 4. That the option for the metal crimp metal roof be removed and dimensional asphalt roof shingles be the only proposed roof material (sheet DD.6, DD.7, DD.8, and DD.9). 5. That a North arrow be provided on plan sheets (sheet DD.2, DD.3, DD.8, DD.10, DD.11, and DD.12). 6. That the mean elevation of the crown of the street along the lot frontage be provided on the elevations (sheet DD.4, DD.5, DD.6, and DD.7). 227 NE 15t Avenue,2017-253 and 2017-254 Page 8 of 8 Variance Approve the Variance to allow a reduction to the required 7'-6" side interior setback to 5'-2", based upon positive findings to LDR Section 2.4.7(A)(5). Attachments: ■ Applicant Justification Statement • Site plan, elevations, and survey Report Prepared by: Abraham Fogel, Assistant Planner Hoyland, Michelle From: Fogel,Abraham ant: Monday,July 16, 2018 8:32 AM Hoyland, Michelle Subject: FW:Zoning Variance Michelle, A property owner submitted the following statement regarding the variance request for the project located at 227 NE 15t Avenue. Thank you, 1t6 � Assistant Planner, Historic Preservation From: Henry Stark[mailto:starkchic@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 5:52 PM To: Fogel, Abraham Subject: Zoning Variance My name is Henry Stark and I live in City Walk, 200 NE 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach. During the summer months I stay at 400 E. Randolph, Chicago. I am an official Florida resident and have been coming to Delray for a quarter of a century.. When I first came to Delray, it was a pleasant "village by the sea" not so different from the prettier villages in —Uape Cod. Recently i have watched the deterioration of Delray by projects such as the entertainment complex on Federal and the huge luxury condo project, also on Federal, further south. Pleasant little houses have been destroyed to make room for these monstrosities, apparently to please venal politicians and greedy investors. Across the street from City Walk, there is (or was) a rather dilapidated gym and an array of mom and pop stores. I understand a hotel will be going up there. The destruction of the gym is no great loss but the elimination of the stores will further reduce the "village by the sea" character of Delray. NE 1st Avenue is a jewel. Combined with Swinton Avenue and the museum, it is one of the nicest neighborhoods in Delray. Any tampering with it should be strictly forbidden. Your letter(File#2017-254) does not explain why Perlman wants the variance except to say he wants "an addition". While going from 7'6" to 5'2" on the setback seems nominal, if allowed it will set a legal precedent that in time may disrupt the character of the neighborhood. If Perlman wants the setback for medical reasons e.g allowing space for an iron lung or hospital bed with all the hook-ups, then consideration should be given to his needs. If he wants the extra space to store a motorcycle or a jetboat, or increase the value of his property for a future sale,deny, deny, deny. Respectfully submitted Henry Stark, PhD. (312) 909 1523 i