Loading...
HPB 09-15-04 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: September 15, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, Jr., Linda Lake,and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz and Michelle Reich STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:15 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any changes to the Agenda. Mr. Tefft advised that item II.D. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.4.17 will be deferred to the next meeting, and will be replaced with Consideration of a Public Hearing date for the Dell Park Historic District. II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 1.3.6(A). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 1.3.6(A) to exclude historically contributing properties from the restrictions on repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into record. The proposed text amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A) is to exempt contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds on repair and maintenance of noncontributing Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 • structures pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). In view of a couple of projects of properties located in historic districts there are restrictions as to how much you can put in to be redeveloping it within a 12 month period which is counter-productive to the preservation of historic structures and they often cost more than that 10% or 15% threshold. The text amendment is just going to add on an exemption to exempt contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and staff recommends approval. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 4 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board for the amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), 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 criteria set forth in Section 3.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Chairman Perez advised we will skip II.B. until the applicant arrives at the meeting, and we will proceed to II.C. C. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.24 AND 4.3.4(K). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendments to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The main point of the text amendment deals with 4.3.4(K). The City Commission had raised some concerns that the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) that the regulations do not adequately discourage development/redevelopment which could negatively impact the character of the district. They instructed staff to make to make some modifications to the district regarding massing and scale that is more appropriate to the district. Staff is proposing that within the district it increase setbacks of three-story structures from 15' to 27', and the side interior setback from 7.5' to 12.5'. And in addition to that the amendment will also make some minor clarifications to some uses, as well as corrections to the regulations themselves. The text amendment may be tweaked slightly basically just adding somewhere at the end dealing with the minimum distance between structures to 15'. The current setback is 7.5' along the side. So just in part of this if you have one lot and it contains two buildings you get a setback of 15' to provide between the two in order to kind of mimic the setbacks that you would get from two structures on two separate 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 properties that are adjacent to one other, each had to be 7.5' setback each for a 15' total. The text amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff is recommending approval of the text amendment as proposed. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Tefft if the 75' was arbitrary in the entire OSSHAD District Mr. Tefft advised he was not sure where the 75' came from, and I don't know if it is an arbitrary number of not. The acreage may be struck out to not limit that. Chairman Perez inquired if you are on Atlantic Avenue wouldn't these setbacks be taken care of by the new Design Guidelines? Board discussion ensued relative to the third floor setbacks. Mr. Silberstein felt it would impair the architecture. Mr. Tefft advised that the setbacks are consistent with the Design Guidelines. Ms. Lake inquired what was staff trying to accomplish with this amendment. Mr. Tefft advised that City Commission was concerned with respect to the massing and scale in the district. They wanted staff to modify the code to eliminate the potential negative impacts. Mr. Silberstein and Chairman Perez stated that they felt the setbacks were limiting. Ms. Dersh also felt it was limiting specifically with the smaller lots, and will force people to purchase two or three lots and works against what we are trying to accomplish in the district. The Board concurred with Ms. Dershs' comment. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 5 to 0 to move a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board for the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. B. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS 4.4.24(B) 11) AND 4.4.24(F) (1). Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24(B) (11) and 4.4.24(F) (1) to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) to allow the permitted uses and development standards of the Central Business District (CBD) (LDR Section 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 4.4.13) to apply to the southern portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. These lots are located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163' north of NE 1st Street. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into record. On July 7, 2004 the Historic Preservation Board only considered the LDR text amendment to Section 4.4.24(B) which allowed the CBD permitted uses on those OSSHAD parcels. The Board elected to table that amendment so that it could be reconsidered, concurrent with a related amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(F) which would apply the CBD development standards to the same lots. The text amendment is straightforward what would be changed as far as the text goes, we're just adding the south 38' and 3" of lot 5 and on Lot 6, Block 75 and through Lots 7 & 8, Block 75 which are already in (11) and (F) (1) specifically. Those are basically sections that allow certain lots to be reviewed by the CBD regulations with respect to principal uses and the development standards. The proposed change would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established in the district, a wide range of retail service and office uses, and also more dense multiple family, and residential development. Stand alone multiple- family developments, which are currently not allowed in the district would be allowed at residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Additionally the changes to the incorporation of the development standards on these lots will allow for increases in height of the building, reduction of setbacks, increase in the lot coverage, reduce the required open space, and modifying the allowed ratio of floor area within mixed use developments. The increase in height would go from 35' per OSSHAD to 48' feet as a standard allowed and potentially up to 60' subject to conditional use approval. Additionally, the maximum lot coverage with the ratio of 40% to 90% and the minimum open space would be reduced from 25% to 10%. The text amendment would also allow for parking to occur within the front yard setback. The properties in question that would be added on to those two sections of code are adjacent on the north and west sides to the OSSHAD district which are developed to single family homes, single family homes converted to non- residential uses as well as non-contributing structures. Introducing densities consistent with the CBD district are inconsistent with the scale of development within the OSSHAD district and not appropriate in terms of intensity or complimentary to those adjacent land uses. Lot 75, was already included in that and the reason for that is at the time when the district was established, special considerations were given to those lots given the commercial development that existed on that former Neil's Market site. However, Lots 5 and 6 did not have such a commercial history. They are historically residential in use, and should not be considered for similar standards for Lots 7 and 8. Along with the reports here, there were plans that were included along with this that have been prepared by the applicant. These plans are merely potential representation of what could occur or possibly could occur under the code. They have not been reviewed for consistency with the LDRs. There is no guarantee that what you see before you would ever be developed. The property could change hands or could be rehabilitated differently down the line. There is no guarantee that what you actually see will end up happening. The increases in the intensity of the use by the density and the modifications for potential use will have an adverse impact we believe on the stability of the area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remaining area. It is possible to have a conditional use you get 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • September 15, 2004 the height of 60' where an adjacent property would be at a maximum of 35'. There is potential for very disproportionate development immediately adjacent to one another. Staff's recommendation is to move a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board. Michael Weiner, Esquire, I think this board was interested to see what it was that these new regulations would allow us to do on this piece of property. I think everybody knows this piece of property right now is an apartment complex built in the late 50's or early 60's. The staff report talks about the fact that where Neil's Market used to be was commercial and it came under the CBD because of its historic situation. We are talking about making it 13,000 square feet larger. The whole site is about 75,000 square feet we're talking about just 20% of the site. It is extremely interesting because if what you want to do is base yourself on the historic uses we got about fourteen units on less then 13,000 square feet. We are talking about 55 to 60 units per acre of what's there now. It wasn't commercial but it sure was high density and historically it's high density. In fact its high density right now. I know that there are practical decisions and legal decisions. You can make these decisions tonight, but basically make one set of decisions. You are leaving that standard or sub-standard building on that property for a much longer time to come. On the other hand and this I'll show you actually carry out the Comprehensive Plan you can carry out the historical district you can decide what the people are proposing is going to be. an improvement over that building that's there right now and move forward with this project. Certainly there could be bad faith on our part. I'm not going to take an emotional position with respect to what Robert has to say about us trying to sell it out from under him. I do point out the fact it has been in this community for a long time now and I don't think that's what he's here to do today. What I am saying is regardless of what you think, you can sit with what we have now or you can try to come up with a consistent compatible project for the whole area. Using Robert's analysis of what historically is there, originally we all knew that the CBD was mostly a retail commercial area but we all saw a change in circumstances. What we see now is that mixed use has become far more important than ever before, and all that you are doing is giving an opportunity for this last 13,000 square feet to be mixed use to blend in instead of to stand out of the project. What you're going to do is really adding to consistency and compatibility. You are only talking about 20% of the site and unfortunately right now it's just bifurcated zoning. Get consistent zoning. You did it before; you did it with Lot 69 for a parking structure. With Lot 69 you could have put up something else you could have built 60' high, the guys could have sold all sorts of things, you passed it, City Commission passed it and entrusted the people who were going to do it. I think that's similar to the situation we have here now. Actually under those circumstances you consider it a zoning change, we consider it a zoning change too. As I said you have to have some kind of change in circumstance. Well the biggest change in circumstance faces you directly. You turned to mixed-use the importance of residential downtown is far grater than it was five years ago, far greater than it was ten years ago. We should recognize the change and not encourage that substandard building remain but encourage complimentary and consistency on the project. The inconsistencies down at the zoning level where most of it is CBD or CBD regulations except for the last 13,000 square feet. There is consistency there we're not violating any law by changing it. You don't have to change the Future Land Use Map to do it. There's been some trouble as to whether or not we're going to be carrying out what they call Section 4.5.1 but we're not saying that the Historical Board won't supervise everything that's going to be done.. You are 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 not taking this out of your regulations. What you're doing here tonight is just giving us one zoning. You will be able to make every decision as far as site plans concerned, you'll be able to control it, we've got to meet each and every regulation, All it does is give us some opportunities to have some consistent setbacks, to have some consistency between the buildings, and as far as the façade we might do this we might do that, you can deny conditional uses. There's some concern about the fact this is going to be detrimental for the neighborhood. In fact, some people talk about traffic. As I mentioned to you time and time and again fourteen units are up there. If you pass this tonight the most units will be seven, that's half of what's up there. As it appears tonight at best we want six. Now think of this logically, will it be detrimental to the neighborhood to take down a 14 unit complex that we all know is pretty ugly and put back six good looking units that are complimentary to the architecture and its surroundings. It's complimentary to what is being done in the Pineapple Grove area and that are now up to standard and fit as a whole. I can't see any reasons to defend this and to actually say that this means that we have taken down the structures that protect OSSHAD. I don't think that's true at all. There's been a lot of discussion about the Comprehensive Plan and whether we're supporting it or somehow contrary to it. The Comprehensive Plan has a lot to say but there are certain policies and objectives that are encouraged and promoted by what we are doing. Just for the record, Policy A.2.3 of the future land use objectives say development of remaining vacant property shall occur in a manner, which is consistent with and complimentary to adjacent development. You can't keep this a different zoning and say that you're going to be complimentary and consistent. Policy 2.6 of our housing element policy says that housing in and near the downtown area in close proximity to employment opportunities and services are a critical need. You talk about changing this and changing that, change the Comprehensive Plan and let everybody come forward and change the Comprehensive Plan. It is not changed now. It talks about this kind of housing being a critical need. It talks about it around the central business district. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Silberstein because there are things to talk about. I know you are interested in the plan. We are talking about 13,000 square feet; there are 14 units on it now if you do this we'll be able to put up not more units or less units. You will be getting rid of a substandard building; you'll be putting up a better-looking building. You have trusted other developer, and I don't know why you can't trust Mr. Carbone. I think Mr. Silberstein can tell you little bit about what we're planning so that you can really see that we're trying to carry out the things that OSSHAD means to all of us. Jeffery Silberstein, Architect, I want to give you a brief overview of the project. Mr. Silberstein presented a model of the project. The architecture is Vernacular. We have a quite a few different influences here, and a lot of detail. Commercial takes place at street level. We have created all these plazas off Second Avenue, some as deep as 32' in. The setbacks continue to go back up to about 32'. As you round the corner it continues to be commercial with residential on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors. The alleyway runs underneath the landscaped pool deck that is on third level. It was basically the 16' height of commercial space at grade and you have apartments above that. On Lot 7 and 8 where Neil's Market used to be the building is setback about 15' and then it stands out further and then as we round the corner it's still commercial. This is a four-story building with apartments on the second, third and fourth floor. On Lots 5 and 6, where there are existing 14 units now this is the parking deck, which is underneath all this. You don't see the parking deck there is no visual connection from the street. The second and third floors have apartments on 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 it. You would have about 20 feet between the buildings. We presented this to the Pineapple Grove Association last week and they were extremely happy with it. Ms. Lake inquired if all the parking was residential. Mr. Silberstein advised there is both residential and commercial. There are 174 parking spaces and there are 51 apartments, of which 8 are one bedroom and there are also two and three bedrooms. That leaves about 80 spaces for commercial use. Chairman Perez inquired if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Louis Carbone advised the last time we were here we basically wanted some comments regarding what people wanted to see. You had a concern about the height. We reduced it to two stories. Mr. Miller mentioned that he didn't want to see the garage. We kept the traffic off the historic district by continuing the alley through the building. This has become more of a process to come up with a project that everyone will like. Mr. Tefft advised what is before you is a text amendment, not the project. It is an amendment to expand the CBD regulation within the OSSHAD zoning district. Mr. Michael Weiner, if you talk about compatibility and consistency then it seems to me, better to be compatible with three sides than being compatible with one side. You are increasing compatibility when you change the zoning. You are not allowing anything that you won't be able to control in the future. Any kind of height increase as a conditional use -that means if you want it on the front of our building we're going to have to design the rest of the projects sufficiently enough to please you that we'll be able to get it in the little space that you requested before. I don't think you have to consume yourself that you haven't necessarily put the same items on the agenda in the same night, but if you want it in approving this to say that if this kind of project was to be built then we would make a recommendation. I don't mind you conditioning it because that's because we intend on building a good project. Chairman Perez inquired if there were comments from the Board. Ms. Lake asked if Mr. Carbone if they were going to build this project. Mr. Carbone advised that they have been working on this project for about a year. Instead of going in and saying we have all these ideas, ideas, we wanted to get the Board's input relative to criteria and what works for the property. We still have a long way to go with some of the design, however; we need to start somewhere. Chairman Perez advised they came to the Board a few months ago and asked for direction. They in turn come back. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Tefft that they are here relative to the text amendment, however, they could put an application together of this project. Mr. Tefft advised you could, however, you would have to take that one section a portion of Lot 5 and Lot 6 and develop it per what OSSHAD would allow. They can develop the remainder under CBD. You would have a very different looking building 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 sitting there. Mr. Tefft advised there is an application as to what it is conceptually; however, I don't believe a formal submission was ever made. Chairman Perez advised the text amendment has to be approved first, or they will reject the application. Mr. Miller advised he likes the project, however, it is the precedent of expanding the use within the OSSHAD. This is the only way you can do it. I am leaning towards letting it go. The massing is big. He asked Mr. Tefft is along Second if it met with Planning &Zoning regulations and code. Mr. Tefft advised we have not completed a review as of yet Ms. Lake questioned what the height was. Mr. Weiner advised it was 59'. Mr. Weiner advised no one else would ever ask for this text amendment again, no one else has a 14-unit complex in 13,000 sq. ft. The way we are the south side of town and the north side of town everybody's acquired what they're required. I did this once before with the city on the south side of town. It so happened that there were few blocks — OSSHAD running that long rectangle, there were a few blocks that were commercial. They said okay you will be in OSSAHD but we will give you OSSHAD regulations. They had strange lines on them, on the south side of town we straightened out the strange lines and now it's more rectangular in shape. On the north side of town we're now about to straighten out the strange lines, and that's it. It doesn't go anywhere else, you couldn't make it, well you could try, but you'd have a perfect reason to say hey, that's where it stopped. Now the City says these strange lines was because Neil's was commercial and this was residential. But this is a very intensive residential, almost equal to the residential that we could have now. So in a sense in fact as you could see because we are going to do 6 units, and you could only do 7 at the most, we're not going to be any more intensive, we're going to be less intensive than that old structure that is up there now. Board discussion ensued regarding the traffic. Mr. Silberstein advised going back to the process we're talking about, it's really residential it's not even mixed use. Every apartment has.a front door, has a gable face, has balconies, it reads residential. The intent was to continue this residential scale on First Avenue. Mr. Miller asked when it was going before the Planning and zoning Board. Chairman Perez advised it would go before Planning and Zoning on September 27, 2004 and then to the City Commission in October. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and passed 4 to 0 to move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses and development 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 standards of the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). C. RECONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR DELL PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. Mr. Tefft advised that at the second meeting in August the Board set a public hearing date for October 6, 2004 for designation for the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and Dell Park Historic District. Staff set-up times to make presentations to the individual homeowner associations. We met with Lake Ida on September 1, 2004. The meeting that was scheduled for Dell Park, which was last Monday, was cancelled because many individuals did not have electric due to Hurricane Frances. They requested we postpone that meeting till after October 11, 2004, which is their next Association meeting. They requested if you could postpone the Dell Park Historic meeting from October 6, 2004 to October 20, 2004. Staff does not have a problem moving that back. The Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation would still proceed on October 6, 2004. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Miller and approved 5 to 0 to change the Public Hearing date for Dell Park from October 6, 2004 to October 20, 2004. Ill. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments. None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives. Ms. Dersh inquired if Board approval was necessary for repairs on buildings that were damaged by the hurricane. Mr. Tefft advised repairs and maintenance would fall under General Maintenance and do not need Board approval unless there are changes. Mr. Tefft advised approval for installation of shutters has to go to the Board. C. Board Members D. Staff Mr. Tefft advised staff had been looking at taking out a small section of the Dell Park Historic District (the Northwest quadrant of both sides fronting 13th Street and the north side of 12th Street). The total area has 41.8% contributing, as it is depicted now. If we were to exclude that area, that would go up to 48.7%. The Northwest Swinton district is about at 41.8% and is comparable to what this is now. There are only six (6) contributing structures in the area being considered for exclusion. Mr. Tefft passed out pictures of the homes that are contributing. After some deliberation, the Board concurred to cut out Block 1 and Block 4 from the designated area. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 W. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:25 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for September 15, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on 2004. Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 10 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: September 15, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, Jr., Linda Lake, and Maura Dersh MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz and Michelle Reich STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:15 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any changes to the Agenda. Mr. Tefft advised that item II.D. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.4.17 will be deferred to the next meeting, and will be replaced with Consideration of a Public Hearing date for the Dell Park Historic District. II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 1.3.6(A). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 1.3.6(A) to exclude historically contributing properties from the restrictions on repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into record. The proposed text amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A) is to exempt contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds on repair and maintenance of noncontributing Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 structures pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). In view of a couple of projects of properties located in historic districts there are restrictions as to how much you can put in to be redeveloping it within a 12 month period which is counter-productive to the preservation of historic structures and they often cost more than that 10% or 15% threshold. The text amendment is just going to add on an exemption to exempt contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and staff recommends approval. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 4 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board for the amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), 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 criteria set forth in Section 3.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Chairman Perez advised we will skip II.B. until the applicant arrives at the meeting, and we will proceed to II.C. C. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.24 AND 4.3.4(K). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendments to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The main point of the text amendment deals with 4.3.4(K). The City Commission had raised some concerns that the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) that the regulations do not adequately discourage development/redevelopment which could negatively impact the character of the district. They instructed staff to make to make some modifications to the district regarding massing and scale that is more appropriate to the district. Staff is proposing that within the district it increase setbacks of three-story structures from 15' to 27', and the side interior setback from 7.5' to 12.5'. And in addition to that the amendment will also make some minor clarifications to some uses, as well as corrections to the regulations themselves. The text amendment may be tweaked slightly basically just adding somewhere at the end dealing with the minimum distance between structures to 15'. The current setback is 7.5' along the side. So just in part of this if you have one lot and it contains two buildings you get a setback of 15' to provide between the two in order to kind of mimic the setbacks that you would get from two structures on two separate 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 properties that are adjacent to one other, each had to be 7.5' setback each for a 15' total. The text amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff is recommending approval of the text amendment as proposed. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Tefft if the 75' was arbitrary in the entire OSSHAD District Mr. Tefft advised he was not sure where the 75' came from, and I don't know if it is an arbitrary number of not. The acreage may be struck out to not limit that. Chairman Perez inquired if you are on Atlantic Avenue wouldn't these setbacks be taken care of by the new Design Guidelines? Board discussion ensued relative to the third floor setbacks. Mr. Silberstein felt it would impair the architecture. Mr. Tefft advised that the setbacks are consistent with the Design Guidelines. Ms. Lake inquired what was staff trying to accomplish with this amendment. Mr. Tefft advised that City Commission was concerned with respect to the massing and scale in the district. They wanted staff to modify the code to eliminate the potential negative impacts. Mr. Silberstein and Chairman Perez stated that they felt the setbacks were limiting. Ms. Dersh also felt it was limiting specifically with the smaller lots, and will force people to purchase two or three lots and works against what we are trying to accomplish in the district. The Board concurred with Ms. Dershs' comment. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 5 to 0 to move a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board for the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. B. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS 4.4.24(B) 11) AND 4.4.24(F) (1). Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24(B) (11) and 4.4.24(F) (1) to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) to allow the permitted uses and development standards of the Central Business District (CBD) (LDR Section 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 4.4.13) to apply to the southern portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. These lots are located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163' north of NE 1st Street. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into record. On July 7, 2004 the Historic Preservation Board only considered the LDR text amendment to Section 4.4.24(B) which allowed the CBD permitted uses on those OSSHAD parcels. The Board elected to table that amendment so that it could be reconsidered, concurrent with a related amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(F) which would apply the CBD development standards to the same lots. The text amendment is straightforward what would be changed as far as the text goes, we're just adding the south 38' and 3" of lot 5 and on Lot 6, Block 75 and through Lots 7 & 8, Block 75 which are already in (11) and (F) (1) specifically. Those are basically sections that allow certain lots to be reviewed by the CBD regulations with respect to principal uses and the development standards. The proposed change would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established in the district, a wide range of retail service and office uses, and also more dense multiple family, and residential development. Stand alone multiple- family developments, which are currently not allowed in the district would be allowed at residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Additionally the changes to the incorporation of the development standards on these lots will allow for increases in height of the building, reduction of setbacks, increase in the lot coverage, reduce the required open space, and modifying the allowed ratio of floor area within mixed use developments. The increase in height would go from 35' per OSSHAD to 48' feet as a standard allowed and potentially up to 60' subject to conditional use approval. Additionally, the maximum lot coverage with the ratio of 40% to 90% and the minimum open space would be reduced from 25% to 10%. The text amendment would also allow for parking to occur within the front yard setback. The properties in question that would be added on to those two sections of code are adjacent on the north and west sides to the OSSHAD district which are developed to single family homes, single family homes converted to non- residential uses as well as non-contributing structures. Introducing densities consistent with the CBD district are inconsistent with the scale of development within the OSSHAD district and not appropriate in terms of intensity or complimentary to those adjacent land uses. Lot 75, was already included in that and the reason for that is at the time when the district was established, special considerations were given to those lots given the commercial development that existed on that former Neil's Market site. However, Lots 5 and 6 did not have such a commercial history. They are historically residential in use, and should not be considered for similar standards for Lots 7 and 8. Along with the reports here, there were plans that were included along with this that have been prepared by the applicant. These plans are merely potential representation of what could occur or possibly could occur under the code. They have not been reviewed for consistency with the LDRs. There is no guarantee that what you see before you would ever be developed. The property could change hands or could be rehabilitated differently down the line. There is no guarantee that what you actually see will end up happening. The increases in the intensity of the use by the density and the modifications for potential use will have an adverse impact we believe on the stability of the area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remaining area. It is possible to have a conditional use you get 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 the height of 60' where an adjacent property would be at a maximum of 35'. There is potential for very disproportionate development immediately adjacent to one another. Staff's recommendation is to move a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board. Michael Weiner, Esquire, I think this board was interested to see what it was that these new regulations would allow us to do on this piece of property. I think everybody knows this piece of property right now is an apartment complex built in the late 50's or early 60's. The staff report talks about the fact that where Neil's Market used to be was commercial and it came under the CBD because of its historic situation. We are talking about making it 13,000 square feet larger. The whole site is about 75,000 square feet we're talking about just 20% of the site. It is extremely interesting because if what you want to do is base yourself on the historic uses we got about fourteen units on less then 13,000 square feet. We are talking about 55 to 60 units per acre of what's there now. It wasn't commercial but it sure was high density and historically it's high density. In fact its high density right now. I know that there are practical decisions and legal decisions. You can make these decisions tonight, but basically make one set of decisions. You are leaving that standard or sub-standard building on that property for a much longer time to come. On the other hand and this I'll show you actually carry out the Comprehensive Plan you can carry out the historical district you can decide what the people are proposing is going to be an improvement over that building that's there right now and move forward with this project. Certainly there could be bad faith on our part. I'm not going to take an emotional position with respect to what Robert has to say about us trying to sell it out from under him. I do point out the fact it has been in this community for a long time now and I don't think that's what he's here to do today. What I am saying is regardless of what you think, you can sit with what we have now or you can try to come up with a consistent compatible project for the whole area. Using Robert's analysis of what historically is there, originally we all knew that the CBD was mostly a retail commercial area but we all saw a change in circumstances. What we see now is that mixed use has become far more important than ever before, and all that you are doing is giving an opportunity for this last 13,000 square feet to be mixed use to blend in instead of to stand out of the project. What you're going to do is really adding to consistency and compatibility. You are only talking about 20% of the site and unfortunately right now it's just bifurcated zoning. Get consistent zoning. You did it before; you did it with Lot 69 for a parking structure. With Lot 69 you could have put up something else you could have built 60' high, the guys could have sold all sorts of things, you passed it, City Commission passed it and entrusted the people who were going to do it. I think that's similar to the situation we have here now. Actually under those circumstances you consider it a zoning change, we consider it a zoning change too. As I said you have to have some kind of change in circumstance. Well the biggest change in circumstance faces you directly. You turned to mixed-use the importance of residential downtown is far grater than it was five years ago, far greater than it was ten years ago. We should recognize the change and not encourage that substandard building remain but encourage complimentary and consistency on the project. The inconsistencies down at the zoning level where most of it is CBD or CBD regulations except for the last 13,000 square feet. There is consistency there we're not violating any law by changing it. You don't have to change the Future Land Use Map to do it. There's been some trouble as to whether or not we're going to be carrying out what they call Section 4.5.1 but we're not saying that the Historical Board won't supervise everything that's going to be done. You are 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 not taking this out of your regulations. What you're doing here tonight is just giving us one zoning. You will be able to make every decision as far as site plans concerned, you'll be able to control it, we've got to meet each and every regulation, All it does is give us some opportunities to have some consistent setbacks, to have some consistency between the buildings, and as far as the façade we might do this we might do that, you can deny conditional uses. There's some concern about the fact this is going to be detrimental for the neighborhood. In fact, some people talk about traffic. As I mentioned to you time and time and again fourteen units are up there. If you pass this tonight the most units will be seven, that's half of what's up there. As it appears tonight at best we want six. Now think of this logically, will it be detrimental to the neighborhood to take down a 14 unit complex that we all know is pretty ugly and put back six good looking units that are complimentary to the architecture and its surroundings. It's complimentary to what is being done in the Pineapple Grove area and that are now up to standard and fit as a whole. I can't see any reasons to defend this and to actually say that this means that we have taken down the structures that protect OSSHAD. I don't think that's true at all. There's been a lot of discussion about the Comprehensive Plan and whether we're supporting it or somehow contrary to it. The Comprehensive Plan has a lot to say but there are certain policies and objectives that are encouraged and promoted by what we are doing. Just for the record, Policy A.2.3 of the future land use objectives say development of remaining vacant property shall occur in a manner, which is consistent with and complimentary to adjacent development. You can't keep this a different zoning and say that you're going to be complimentary and consistent. Policy 2.6 of our housing element policy says that housing in and near the downtown area in close proximity to employment opportunities and services are a critical need. You talk about changing this and changing that, change the Comprehensive Plan and let everybody come forward and change the Comprehensive Plan. It is not changed now. It talks about this kind of housing being a critical need. It talks about it around the central business district. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Silberstein because there are things to talk about. I know you are interested in the plan. We are talking about 13,000 square feet; there are 14 units on it now if you do this we'll be able to put up not more units or less units. You will be getting rid of a substandard building; you'll be putting up a better-looking building. You have trusted other developer, and I don't know why you can't trust Mr. Carbone. I think Mr. Silberstein can tell you little bit about what we're planning so that you can really see that we're trying to carry out the things that OSSHAD means to all of us. Jeffery Silberstein, Architect, I want to give you a brief overview of the project. Mr. Silberstein presented a model of the project. The architecture is Vernacular. We have a quite a few different influences here, and a lot of detail. Commercial takes place at street level. We have created all these plazas off Second Avenue, some as deep as 32' in. The setbacks continue to go back up to about 32'. As you round the corner it continues to be commercial with residential on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors. The alleyway runs underneath the landscaped pool deck that is on third level. It was basically the 16' height of commercial space at grade and you have apartments above that. On Lot 7 and 8 where Neil's Market used to be the building is setback about 15' and then it stands out further and then as we round the corner it's still commercial. This is a four-story building with apartments on the second, third and fourth floor. On Lots 5 and 6, where there are existing 14 units now this is the parking deck, which is underneath all this. You don't see the parking deck there is no visual connection from the street. The second and third floors have apartments on 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 it. You would have about 20 feet between the buildings. We presented this to the Pineapple Grove Association last week and they were extremely happy with it. Ms. Lake inquired if all the parking was residential. Mr. Silberstein advised there is both residential and commercial. There are 174 parking spaces and there are 51 apartments, of which 8 are one bedroom and there are also two and three bedrooms. That leaves about 80 spaces for commercial use. Chairman Perez inquired if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Louis Carbone advised the last time we were here we basically wanted some comments regarding what people wanted to see. You had a concern about the height. We reduced it to two stories. Mr. Miller mentioned that he didn't want to see the garage. We kept the traffic off the historic district by continuing the alley through the building. This has become more of a process to come up with a project that everyone will like. Mr. Tefft advised what is before you is a text amendment, not the project. It is an amendment to expand the CBD regulation within the OSSHAD zoning district. Mr. Michael Weiner, if you talk about compatibility and consistency then it seems to me, better to be compatible with three sides than being compatible with one side. You are increasing compatibility when you change the zoning. You are not allowing anything that you won't be able to control in the future. Any kind of height increase as a conditional use -that means if you want it on the front of our building we're going to have to design the rest of the projects sufficiently enough to please you that we'll be able to get it in the little space that you requested before. I don't think you have to consume yourself that you haven't necessarily put the same items on the agenda in the same night, but if you want it in approving this to say that if this kind of project was to be built then we would make a recommendation. I don't mind you conditioning it because that's because we intend on building a good project. Chairman Perez inquired if there were comments from the Board. Ms. Lake asked if Mr. Carbone if they were going to build this project. Mr. Carbone advised that they have been working on this project for about a year. Instead of going in and saying we have all these ideas, ideas, we wanted to get the Board's input relative to criteria and what works for the property. We still have a long way to go with some of the design, however; we need to start somewhere. Chairman Perez advised they came to the Board a few months ago and asked for direction. They in turn come back. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Tefft that they are here relative to the text amendment, however, they could put an application together of this project. Mr. Tefft advised you could, however, you would have to take that one section a portion of Lot 5 and Lot 6 and develop it per what OSSHAD would allow. They can develop the remainder under CBD. You would have a very different looking building 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 sitting there. Mr. Tefft advised there is an application as to what it is conceptually; however, I don't believe a formal submission was ever made. Chairman Perez advised the text amendment has to be approved first, or they will reject the application. Mr. Miller advised he likes the project, however, it is the precedent of expanding the use within the OSSHAD. This is the only way you can do it. I am leaning towards letting it go. The massing is big. He asked Mr. Tefft is along Second if it met with Planning & Zoning regulations and code. Mr. Tefft advised we have not completed a review as of yet. Ms. Lake questioned what the height was. Mr. Weiner advised it was 59'. Mr. Weiner advised no one else would ever ask for this text amendment again, no one else has a 14-unit complex in 13,000 sq. ft. The way we are the south side of town and the north side of town everybody's acquired what they're required. I did this once before with the city on the south side of town. It so happened that there were few blocks — OSSHAD running that long rectangle, there were a few blocks that were commercial. They said okay you will be in OSSAHD but we will give you OSSHAD regulations. They had strange lines on them, on the south side of town we straightened out the strange lines and now it's more rectangular in shape. On the north side of town we're now about to straighten out the strange lines, and that's it. It doesn't go anywhere else, you couldn't make it, well you could try, but you'd have a perfect reason to say hey, that's where it stopped. Now the City says these strange lines was because Neil's was commercial and this was residential. But this is a very intensive residential, almost equal to the residential that we could have now. So in a sense in fact as you could see because we are going to do 6 units, and you could only do 7 at the most, we're not going to be any more intensive, we're going to be less intensive than that old structure that is up there now. Board discussion ensued regarding the traffic. Mr. Silberstein advised going back to the process we're talking about, it's really residential it's not even mixed use. Every apartment has a front door, has a gable face, has balconies, it reads residential. The intent was to continue this residential scale on First Avenue. Mr. Miller asked when it was going before the Planning and zoning Board. Chairman Perez advised it would go before Planning and Zoning on September 27, 2004 and then to the City Commission in October. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and passed 4 to 0 to move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses and development 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 standards of the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). C. RECONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR DELL PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT. Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. Mr. Tefft advised that at the second meeting in August the Board set a public hearing date for October 6, 2004 for designation for the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and Dell Park Historic District. Staff set-up times to make presentations to the individual homeowner associations. We met with Lake Ida on September 1, 2004. The meeting that was scheduled for Dell Park, which was last Monday, was cancelled because many individuals did not have electric due to Hurricane Frances. They requested we postpone that meeting till after October 11, 2004, which is their next Association meeting. They requested if you could postpone the Dell Park Historic meeting from October 6, 2004 to October 20, 2004. Staff does not have a problem moving that back. The Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation would still proceed on October 6, 2004. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Miller and approved 5 to 0 to change the Public Hearing date for Dell Park from October 6, 2004 to October 20, 2004. III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments. None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives. Ms. Dersh inquired if Board approval was necessary for repairs on buildings that were damaged by the hurricane. Mr. Tefft advised repairs and maintenance would fall under General Maintenance and do not need Board approval unless there are changes. Mr. Tefft advised approval for installation of shutters has to go to the Board. C. Board Members D. Staff Mr. Tefft advised staff had been looking at taking out a small section of the Dell Park Historic District (the Northwest quadrant of both sides fronting 13th Street and the north side of 12th Street). The total area has 41.8% contributing, as it is depicted now. If we were to exclude that area, that would go up to 48.7%. The Northwest Swinton district is about at 41.8% and is comparable to what this is now. There are only six (6) contributing structures in the area being considered for exclusion. Mr. Tefft passed out pictures of the homes that are contributing. After some deliberation, the Board concurred to cut out Block 1 and Block 4 from the designated area. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes September 15, 2004 iv. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:25 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for September 15, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on November 17, 2004. Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 10 ``.0 qt. AGENDA v _ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING ('4r P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: September 15, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If-a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 1.3.6(A). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 1.3.6(A) to exclude historically contributing properties from the restrictions on repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures. B. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS 4.4.24(B) (11) AND 4.4.24(F) (1). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24(8) (11) and 4.4.24(F) (1) to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) to allow the permitted uses and development standards of the Central Business District (CBD) (LDR Section 4.4.13) to apply to the southern portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. These lots are located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163'north of NE 1st Street. C. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.24 AND 4.3.4(K). Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendments to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District). D. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 4.4.17. Forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for an amendment to Land Development Regulations Section 4.4.17 to allow multiple family dwellings in the Residential Office (RO) zoning district within certain geographical areas. September 15,2004 Historic Preservation Board Meeting Page 2 III. REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members O Staff IV. ADJOURN ,(2/7 "-K Robert G. Tefft, Senior Planner POSTED ON: SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 PLEASE NOTE: ITEM II. D. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 4.4.17 WILL EITHER BE DELIVERED TO YOU ON MONDAY OR BE DEFERRED. DENISE VALEK DEIIWYBEAC}i - � } DE<RAY BEACTI L- r � as-Ameitaciti H!`STO�� RESERVATION`'BOARD r s . M.EM�RANQUM STAFF REPORTS t 1993 MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: II. A. — AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 1.3.6(A) TO EXEMPT CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND INDIVIDUALLY LISTED HISTORIC STRUCTURES FROM THE YEARLY PERCENTAGE THRESHOLDS ON THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. ITEl1 BEFORE THE OA I The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning.and Zoning Board regarding a City initiated Land Development Regulations (LDR) text amendment to exempt contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds on repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS At its meeting of May 17, 1994, the City Commission approved on second reading a text amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), which established the current language on yearly percentage thresholds on repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures. The text amendment established the twelve (12) month timeframe and enabled the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) to approve exterior modifications not to exceed 15% of the structures current replacement cost in addition to the 10% threshold on interior work. The text amendment modified LDR Section 1.3.6(A) as follows: (A) On any nonconforming structure or on a structure containing a nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of fixtures, nonbearing walls, plumbing, or wiring, provided the repair work does not exceed 10% of the current replacement cost of the structure in any 12 month period. In addition. the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board may approve exterior modifications to a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use, provided the modifications do not exceed 15% of the current replacement cost of the structure in any 12 month period. During the course of reviewing recent development proposals within the City's historic districts, staff has identified a concern with regard to the yearly limits set forth for renovation in LDR Section 1.3.6(A), particularly as it relates to contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures. Additionally, the current code only notes the SPRAB as being able to approve exterior modifications to a nonconforming structure; however external modifications to contributing structures within historic districts or to individually listed historic structures are approved by the Historic Preservation Board (HPB). The current code requirements are counterproductive to the restoration efforts on contributing historic structures. Since most renovations to these structures will exceed the existing Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A)-Repairs and Maintenance Page 2of2 percentage thresholds, a text amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A) is proposed to add language that exempts contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds as noted, and also that the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) may approve exterior modifications to nonconforming structures where appropriate. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following is noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-4: The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. Housing Element Objective A-10: The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. The exemption of contributing structures within historic districts and individually listed historic structures from the yearly percentage thresholds will enable the City's existing historic resources, which may be nonconforming, to be rehabilitated and preserved without the restriction on improvement costs. Thus, the above referenced Comprehensive Plan objectives will be furthered by the proposed amendment. ALTERNATIVkACTIONS: _.r<.1 # y.. .. .... A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board for the amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), 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 criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board for the amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Move a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board for the amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A), 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 criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Memorandum Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tef t,Senior Planner Attachments:Proposed Ordinance Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report • Amendment to LDR Section 1.3.6(A)—Repairs and Maintenance Page 3 of 3 Section 1.3.6 Repairs and Maintenance: (A) On any nonconforming structure or on a structure containing a nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of fixtures, nonbearing walls, plumbing, or wiring, provided the repair work does not exceed 10% of the current replacement cost of the structure in any 12 month period. In addition, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) or Historic Preservation Board (HPB) may approve exterior modifications to a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use, provided the modifications do not exceed 15% of the current replacement cost of the structure in any 12 month period. However, improvements to contributing structures within historic districts or to individually listed historic structures can exceed the established 10% interior and 15% exterior maximum thresholds. (B) If the Chief Building Official declares a nonconforming structure or structure containing a nonconforming use to be unsafe or unlawful due to its physical condition, such structure shall not be rebuilt, repaired, or restored, except in conformance with the requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. (C) Nothing herein shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition, any building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by the Chief Building Official. DEIRAY BEA(}i - ' DEIINY BFAQ1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD end • STAFF MEMORANDUM �� 1993 01 2001 2001 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING A PRIVATELY INITIATED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT (REVISED) FOR THE PINEAPPLE GROVE LIMITED MIXED- USE PROJECT. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD - The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Sections 4.4.24(B) & (F). The applicant proposes to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) by allowing the permitted uses and development standards in the Central Business District (CBD)[LDR Section 4.4.13] to apply to the southern portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. These lots are located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163' north of NE 1st Street. BACKGROUND : An application for conditional use and site plan approval has been submitted for Lots 5 through 8 and 13 through 16, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. Lots 13 through 16 are zoned CBD and Lots 5 through 8 are zoned OSSHAD. Lots 5 and 6 contain an existing two-story 6-unit multiple family structure and a duplex (8 total dwelling units). The duplex was constructed in 1950 and the 6-unit structure was constructed in 1972. The existing density for these two lots is approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. Lots 7 and 8 are currently vacant and was the site of Neal's Market and Jo's Back Room buildings built in 1925, 1954, and 1960. All of these buildings were demolished in 2001. Lots 13 through 16 contains a 4,854 square foot building for an auto parts business that was constructed in 1985 and a 8,556 square foot building for a retailer that was constructed in 1965. At its meeting of July 7, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board only considered the LDR text amendment to Section 4.4.24(B), which allowed the CBD permitted uses on those OSSHAD parcels. The Board tabled the proposed text amendment so it could be considered concurrent with a related amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(F) which would apply the CBD development standards to the same lots. The Board also directed the applicant to provide examples of the type of development that could be constructed under the LDR changes. Meeting Date: September 15,2004 Agenda Item: II.B. HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 2 ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(1), amendments to the Land Development Regulations may be initiated by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board or City Administration; or an individual may request an amendment. The proposed amendment is a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations. CBD Permitted Uses (LDR Section 4.4.24(B): In 1990 with the Citywide rezonings, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic district, including Lots 5 through 8. Lots 5 and 6 were rezoned from RO (Residential Office) to OSSHAD. Lots 7 and 8 were rezoned from GC (General Commercial) to OSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning was, and continues to be, a district that provides for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, and promotes the restoration and reuse of existing structures. Permitted uses include single family and duplex dwellings, offices, retail shops, restaurants, arts related businesses, training and vocational schools, libraries and museums, barber and beauty shops, and bed and breakfast inns. Allowed as conditional uses are multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure, outdoor dining, various types of residential care facilities (i.e. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities, nursing homes), parking lots not associated with a use (i.e. public parking), and residential inns. There are several lots located within OSSHAD that may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD. These lots, which are identified in the attachment, include the blocks fronting on Atlantic Avenue on either side of Swinton Avenue (excluding the Old School Square complex), the Neal's Market property, and the east half of Block 76 across from Old School Square. These lots were so identified because their existing or potential uses and/or development pattern were more typical of the CBD than OSSHAD zoning. It is noted that this development pattern did not apply to the proposed Lots 5 and 6 currently under consideration when the OSSHAD district was established. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add the subject lots, Lots 5 and 6, Block 75, to this list. The proposed changes would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established in the district to allow for a wider range of retail, service, and office uses, as well as more dense multi-family residential. The amendment as submitted modifies LDR Section 4.4.24(B), to allow permitted uses pursuant to the CBD District which will accommodate stand alone multi-family uses which are not currently allowed, and at residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre (10.89 du/ac maximum density limited to single family or duplex). It is noted that more than one residential use in conjunction with mixed use development is allowed in OSSHAD as a Conditional Use. The amendment would permit similar uses as allowed on the adjacent Lots 7 and 8 [also zoned OSSHAD], which are also part of this overall development. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(11), special consideration was given to Lots 7 and 8 given the commercial development history (Neal's Market) of these lots prior to the establishment of the HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 3 OSSHAD zoning district. Lots 5 and 6 have a history of residential use and were not, and should not, be considered for similar standards. CBD Development Standards (LDR Section 4.4.24(F): The applicant has revised the LDR text amendment request to allow the development standards of the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6. These development standards would allow the increase in the height of the building, reduce the setbacks, increase the lot coverage, reduce the required open space and modify the allowed ratio of floor area within a mixed-use development. The result of this text amendment would allow an increase in height from 35' to 48' and up to 60' subject to conditional use approval by the City Commission. The text amendment would increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 90% and the reduction of the minimum open space requirement from 25% to 10%. The text amendment would allow parking within the front yard. The parking for a mixed-use development would need to comply with the CBD requirements, which are typically greater for commercial uses and less for multiple family units. The restriction within the OSSHAD zoning district that limits the residential floor to not more 50% of a mixed-use building would be eliminated. The following table identifies the changes in the setback requirements between the OSSHAD and CBD zoning districts that would result due to the proposed text amendment: Zoning Front Side Street := Side Interior Rear District CBD 10' 10' *0' 10' OSSHAD 25' 15' 7.5' 10' *When there is no dedicated access to the rear of any structure a 10' side yard setback shall be provided. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. As noted above, the proposed amendment will allow a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre and apply the CBD zoning district development regulations to the subject lots. The text change would also allow office space on the first floor, which currently requires conditional use approval under the existing OSSHAD district requirements. The adjacent uses to the north and west are zoned OSSHAD and are developed with single family homes, single family homes converted to non-residential uses, and include historically contributing structures. The introduction of densities consistent with the CBD District are inconsistent with the scale of development envisioned for the OSSHAD District is not an appropriate intensity nor complementary to adjacent land uses. While the applicant may argue that this should be HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 4 applied given the site location adjacent to Lots 7 and 8, these lots were previously occupied by Neal's Market. The City allowed the cross-reference to the uses in the CBD for these properties given its commercial history. Further intrusion of these uses into the OSSHAD is not compatible with the character of the historic district and does not further the preservation of this area with respect to scale and intensity. It is further noted that these changes applying the CBD regulations to Lots 7 & 8 was done before the height increase to 60' or increase in densities were envisioned. In hind site, given these intensifications, it may be more appropriate to consider further restricting the CBD regulations for Lots 7 & 8. Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1 — Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines". The proposed amendment will allow the increase of the intensity of development to the subject property. As noted in the background section of this report, it was identified at the time of the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district that the development pattern of Lots 7 and 8 was more consistent with the CBD zoning district. The existing residential development of Lots 5 and 6 was, and continues to be, more consistent with the OSSHAD district. The OSSHAD District was established as a lower intensity mixed use district. To this end, the City is currently exploring LDR Text Amendments to further limit the intensity not to further intensify them within the OSSHAD district. Therefore, a modification to the LDR's of this type should not be considered. Housing Objective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. The increase of density within this historically designated area will increase the traffic volumes. Depending on the specific development proposal these volumes may negatively modify circulation patterns within the historic district. Further, it will allow development at densities inconsistent with the desired development pattern of the OSSHAD district. This desired development pattern is explained in the "Purpose and Intent" section of the LDR's which calls for encouraging the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, maintaining and enhancing the historic and pedestrian scale of the area. Uses and development densities that are currently allowed promote the preservation and adaptive • HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 5 reuse of all structures within the District. Increase in the intensity of use of the property available under these changes will have an adverse impact on the stability of this area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remainder of the district. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) in addition to provisions of 1.1.6(A) the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Given the discussion above positive findings with respect to this amendment can not be made and the amendment should be denied. ASSESSMENT ,AND CONCLUSION As noted in the background section of this report, it was recognized that at the time of the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district that the development pattern of Lots 7 and 8 (Neill's Market) was more consistent with the CBD district. Consequently, the Land Development Regulations allowed the permitted uses in the CBD district to be included for these lots. However, it was never envisioned that Lots 5 and 6 should be allowed to have a greater intensity. These lots have historically been residential in character. The OSSHAD district is typified as a low intensity mixed use district that allows single family residential, professional offices, boutiques, etc. The intensity allowed as principal uses in the CBD zoning district proposed for Lots 5 and 6 is incompatible with the historic district. This LDR amendment does not meet the required findings of LDR section 2.4.5(M)(5) and therefore should be denied. R E COMMENDED ACTION . . . ..._. Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD to apply to Lots 5 and 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachments: • Proposed Amendment • Location Map • Applicant's Justification Statement • OSSHAD Lots Subject to CBD Regulations • Conceptual Plans HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 6 PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENT FOR BLOCK 75 (B) Principal Uses and Structures: The following types of uses are allowed within the OSSHAD as a permitted use: (11) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (c) Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69 (d)Lots-7-3 The South 38 feet and 3 inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8, Block 75 (e) Lots 1-6, Block 76 (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth, for the OSSHAD District, in Section 4.3.4 apply, except for: (1) The following locations shall be subject to the standards of the CBD Zone District: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (c) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, Block 69 (d) Lots 7 8, The South 38 feet and 3 inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8, Block 75 (e) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 dr.14.W. 2ND ST. 1 7• 9 1 g 10 11 Ir / 48 3 C 12 .k• #4 4 :V 4 VOA Ar Ai/ / . ;to,. it, ;�:iii• • i CBD 0 j'�4,144*i�+i!i�i�iuiui' ���� u•�u'•'�.'�!�. �ui�iuiuiuiuiui�i A0;# cNi • 144 0. • 41-04:.4s4.4.4.44 .iII!I uuu , . Ar -, A• 4.a.7 4,al. 8 16 1ST ST. 1 7 ui 1 I z 3 ' r e . U 6 l • 8 4 2 N C1wY CF CQMY MACH,r. PLANNING a ZONING Dlw TI. it -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYS7DI -- ww riff tees WEINER &ARONSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House • 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone: (561)265-2666 Telecopier: (561)272-6831 E-mail: mweiner@zonelaw.com MICHAEL S.WEINER OF COUNSEL: CAROLE J.ARONSON RQBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, JASON S. MANKOFF Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer MICHAEL R.HARRIS L.L.M.(In taxation) July 8, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Paul Dorling: Director of Planning & Zoning City Hall Planning &Zoning 100 N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, 9orida 33444 Re: Amendment to Land Development Regulations Our File No: CARB002 Dear Paul: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5 (M) of the Land Development Regulations of Delray Beach, • Florida. this is a formal letter of request to amend LDR Section 4.4.24(F)(1). This request should be reviewed simultaneously with and in conjunction with our initial request to amend Section 4.4.24 (B) (11). Attached is a draft of the proposed overall amendment in which the language to be amended is underlined. T e appropriate mailing labels are also enclosed. Please advise me of all respective•fates. Very r ly y urs ael S. `Neln kilk• MSW:vf Enclosures cc: Louis Carbone, Esquire (w/enclosures via regular mail) O:\CARB002\Supplement to Text Amendment.wpd LAtos!iki tx LJNii PROPOSED LDR SECTION 4.4.24 AMENDMENTS LDR Section 4.4.24 - OSSHAD Zoning District Regulations (B) Principal Uses and Structures (11) Within the following described areas,the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B)pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: (a) Lots 13-16,Block 60; (b) Lots 1-4,Block 61; (c) Lots 1-7 and 19-24,Block 69 [Amd. Ord. 47-99 1/4/00]; (d) The South 38-feet and 3-inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8 Block 75; and (e) Lots 1-6,Block 76 (F) Development Standards: (1) The following locations shall be subject to the standards of the CBD Zone District: (a) Lots 13-16,Block 60; (b) Lots 1-4,Block 61; (c) Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69 [Amd. Ord.47-99 1/4/00]; (d) The South 38-feet and 3-inches of Lot 5 and all of Lots 6-8, Block 75; and (e) Lots 1-6,Block 76. O:\CARB002\Final Proposed LDR Amendment.wpd I l �V �'•� 13EVENL�DR. .-.N.E. sTH l ST. C q BOY SCOUT TRINITY Z N.E. sTH ST. iIR } Z • COM.FHUT LUTHERAN = _ _ U = CHILD v n WAL— �• CARE vi GREENS - 1IIII CENTER �O,e ROAD (N.W. 4TH ST.) 4TM _to, •TM st \ ST. POST CASON OFFICE METHODIST CHURCH ! if / ,„_.„... 6.. .. _ - a a .„, < < w 4 LLw1., 14 13 , 28 • W. 3RD ST_- N.E. 3RD ' I N.W. 3RD I --_ 1 24 1 f 9 1 24 SII. Mal J III IST. , . GI RY 8 i6 MI jIi la ATTORNEY > J '_^ � "' � o BUILDING Q j 1 _" ry —m h ¢ I . - .� iJ 12 19 I20 1 12� iJ MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.W. 2ND ST. N.E. 1 2ND ST . mil __ assiiii Ermii54 pax" imi . mi ii ilm: allitl lip :�' o a11uf- CITY '11k • MA irratI _alma� • = z HALLI. . I N o N.W. 1ST ST.I sin inn exci NA 111111 ._ W. ST ST. N.E. , 1ST ST. El 7 • 3 3 COMMUNITY z�,� 3' a � 3 = 3 i i CENTER anitri _ _ FIRE " STATION - _ ` TENNIS 12 OLD ®a III tj 4i 1 NO. I I I I I I I I�I STADIUM k���� SOUAREL. i tiff I I = �4F z � A T L A N T I C � AVENUE l _ Mil POLICE SOUTH I( 1� 41M COMPLEX COUNTY COURT 5 11 �► Y HOUSE il,:;.. - V ga iii 111 : Ill /FI ij - 1OT6NEE , alQ Q $•W, 1ST ST. S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST _- ST. - 1I ^a Ill 11111 z n i BUDS I o II n N (n ij N S.W. 2ND ST_- S.E. 2ND -_ __ i ST. _ _ I-r ZOiiili Vi VI -V31 NV' VI z yVI m f, 1 to Z - N OSSHAD LOTS SUBJECT TO C.B.D. REGULATIONS • --iimi- i■•i i i i -OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT(OSSHAD) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING& ZONING DEPARTMENT ® -EXISTING LOTS ® -PROPOSED LOTS 6 J-BLOCK NUMBER s -LOT NUMBER -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LMAI22 Jeffrey SIIbi l . SITE Ambits*6 Mud**,Inc. aa.Mt and n.••1 ,� oarna.un n•m. •, i t,/,; ..M•ro ew .y r NFFw:::nH Y"n'mYM rM • MnPM"'.,,4 , IM VIZ' °LOCATION MAP ►Ana ��' ►'C��i 1� i` 1► — — _ ____ . :ue:1 w•.M i`n"n..n• KALE:HTS .IA ite re IIII-•• .,• PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD piJlrfP 1 'I tm i�� ae:,wow.ml..Ace 00ada... ••w•„ d��L ❑o D ��1w5:/l,_.►C. w• n.1wa..•�w... •.Ma,. gh,'> , 5 .,`,,,J is r r + � o D❑ �,►I�I�!.. �� .,. P. \• III s. WY aMM rWl •O ,,,:.::'.:::: I \ ii �I U i > an ,„ r II.A • C Teo,•11414. ICJ 4) • I1,'I llu.IIIJiiiiiiiiii11III o" '. "o. wlcwwn y aweyn •� jiww....*POO aaOCwn t I : rA "..`/ , ;• AIM � I ► \� roK rAn.Osw• � DOD ■11 '=— :..4,F�4.•. . 31 � . } . ..'. ❑ O i i LDR b441.4DA00,two I Ste.de'b M•frbn • �� : .4111111.mum o o❑ moow. e.•a-vY aY•.+v•n-.. Owed.-w — � L 4 CII� 0D 0 NLI4•aI .w..._1 .r,1.1.40 .••.wont , .,�I- 1 , � • !r , ` ` �!i4 � t 2 b 1 '. IIIIIIIII lD ; Of•, a � `neon » •A &A `,�IIII IL1111111111111111.. : I : ,d . .;, - ."----L----_i I rKNL.MncE"iJ I LG..*PACs a L -!-i__i 1 i L,44 , ,,..., NE IST STREET wx ad..n.» mr REVISIONS • AUGUST 05,2004 • OSITEPLAN/ROOFPLAN a v-i •OI 1 SCALE 120 Drawn by;SP G:WtlteCvrPPnlK'alhed LIM1PIIIMX4 yoIPciog Cost.3,ddp eJeffrey Silberstein An:NW a M•ooltlee,I a, •D' ICD' ST'-I ' •0' 16' T �p e••M4 •nd Str••I Tf•� MG. fU4.4m naMT r'r e•,er•.r.•IM,•. '- �1 `r< ,. �' ...,7 '""ry f3i, (yf.. f• !' —'-- + h r..1 I/.•IS" Tell •H•O••044 -,,• -..-.. 1 f iimi 1 i i rmi—ic,„■va te! I 1630 50 FT 4•'•,e«•a w M&".00::: ♦. 4- I I j, ♦ I •M. _2'0ee p loll.. I I I ° I , AMI 4 O ♦ -� }, ; <,, -E j t 1� j t . I _ � M!� j t s ail, n ..MM,. 1 � 3PINEAPPLE GROVE,LTD. I o,Oe r 1 �� 1 ss7 fit„ DELRAY BEACH -4�6�. of .o N. '� I I • I I I I - 1 © _, 46 II! 1 cl-E]'I M6�I'w�` 4 o LEGEND I aoo$c+FT ® ° • 1 mmn M W Teri BRICK PAVERS GI. O D' 24' ID' III ID' , 24' 'D', 24' D-D ,4 ID' 24' ID' 1 . ?ill 1 l� m ,� III -t f 0O hi;�,-•,+J<, LANDSCAPE .� 1 n • I W Li I l II 1 Mita , n 5 As Q I o -�ul -2'0"" '�' os ° I I ° �.. I Q o �� °i ' , ii 0.6:44. • utj 3 •\\\\\\\\\'t:,\\\V�' 1 OF Q.O.W. R 1 l',.. Fr...., : k J0 , a girl ��IIlIuuu�l —� wi �r: 'f �@t,'' � ��� I■tlO l ■_YpYY�I 1 '}. t yay..I ll� I' — �' o. I e-e 5280 SQ i 3IN I 7d 4 C a a -A2 3000 50 FT n D j� !� 9t I 0.0I I ,w. + rCil I ,, I 165 ' ",PS, 3Y I OPARKING STANDARDS s. A IC6' 2 L I __J 2 t SCALE:NTS REVISIONS ® OF R.O.W. NE 15T STREET ------ 13, --rr AUGUSTST 03,2001 ()PARKING LOWER LEVEL A AND FIRST FLOOR A e O GLVtllt raRq•cYAe•.demt'Nan 144M3• ✓,.T"'.• A Jeffrey]—. NIP Artfaect&trodta.,Inc. 0.4 NE tn.elr..I y 00' S.1 411. tC' le' T e.lr......A II.r11.It.l. 440 III•t>.••... •.� Fr ir•^�, ^r"'s "�1,-�>�c'�Y ' ..nil rxxmerr rxn.x ., 1 Vii1"01iii • .!,; 1—RRWi!I ... T T ';:::`A';',, 1— 1 r..n..,e..•in.T,•N•"TMIA .� I � I Ir PINEAPPLE GROVE,LTD. .1). ,, s 4 t I I 1 �� B 1 t ' A1f1111 IImmo;;I�i©lii I I °,°n I .r g , DELRAY BEACH h i.`; IIAYie� —_�'I IVI6� ! I IU..+41�hL I��11 I..4.4.0 I. Ili Eli '?'I I I - dllld ♦'' . .I D' 24' Id I IC' 24' 24 •� ID' 1 24, 1 f• 4',.' ;• 1•. 1 �I 1 t "' °�C111; 1 t II 11,,!,,:e :,,..........e.,,,e.11 in. , .,.?..i,‘..a 4. m I I- --•'—'.-.. t"And 1 ...,:i'ori, 1,,...1.y,.!z . .iL,-....,. I ♦ a z N � % v� ;; 2 7 I. Z 4 t II �� � i 1d1.. zI; --I _ , ®® Ilir! , ��,. ., i :::'"I .MI I IINIII ?I :, -- • . f01W1 I eN 'I� I L • �I• t' N ! ,.I JYs .n'°" '.� i 1 :IIE tC1 1" d'e $1 I 1 fib ,ag§�, ri., ;r r i i L NE I5T 5TREE I REVISIONS M "`� AUGUST f'U,20t0'�4 ®PARKING UPPER LVL r A 2.IU SCALE:+ne•.VG' .e rnw+o-y:av G.UIchIYClnWroJeW'JIeW.nowWtes Mtrk.17'dgrCd.Vrd.dp eJeffrey Silberstein A+C.YK*a As.orLa.4c. r-I • 0.110 Anil 11100 O SOT' fb• .a. ,6' 7'r o.r.11...M/IWO n.l. r • O I I 7 I I ;5 'a - 3 I- ____I 19"f0'A rT ix., I tt .�..r- ...00,......I 3 y KIT, MO 50 r r I .:»....' ..• In_,,.; KIT. LIV. LIV. o` o - KIT. 'll,,ti::,'a 301050 rT �w••^w 3143 xa rT L , _ ,1 „� PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD e LIV. A I Mr LP 'all / DELRAY BEACH ; l.�wLM70GyC�� . " I 2 1 1 "% "+. . r 3360 50 PT 3 _ %: i I. LIV. 9 h 1 I�i g Wig I 0 1460150 rT I 1 >.. r LIV. KIT. 3165 50 PT 3 J ., ::1,:,,' r 1." �' .00L Ilill�lul :I�i1W�fl3 s 0 � � ` a9 .„ a F. I I= � W TV 1 I , LN. - ,• • LIV. ��: I al . In Ins '#-). I�IWWIP I al > Ill 1 { '' LIV. KIT. 3365 50 FT j r 9 KIT. I / I ; L 3 Q LA'' Z $ PM 3 I �xo 60 rr_J % �LA•v6c.PC- /./` I 1111121174 m-•�; I 3I' 1 w WIWI 116I , al Amb WIO .. 11WIWI1„ ERE KIT. �IIWIII ..= 3964 50 PT LIV. LIV. LIV. KIT. LIV. KIT. . I I I 3 5 I 3 3591 50 PT 3 I an 33}7 WIPT 16�90 50 Pf I 2 5 g 4�1' I I 7 s ��� mu JI \ 3 % 111Wm'. , II' , ,C6' y 40 Ir�' p , '6' 66' lb' 16 LT J ` ` REVISIONS NE 1ST STREET 1 f ! eo �� AUGUST A 2004 O2 NO FLOOR //J A-3. SCA1E:1n S•.1'-0' C� ��/ I Dnwlty:BP f G:Arch40n'Prcj�cs'illad LIWAraepYOor�'dup li.7.dp AA Jeffrey All • AMiNd t Aucdatm Ina se•Ne •ne nr••• eNnremr.•I.1. rar n.•n••••n -- — — •— — — . - h •.on wmmmeun.nn.n ■. — •-.- — — — , u _. .....,....., I 2 ...........,........„.....n. 1 1 I p1-ry 8 3 I I 9 t!...r,i�"�•m fin:n.w r 990 'G7 FT,„,i, 304s b0 PT I .11 «,e m M••naM inn3030 PT 1690 60 PT // 01 •wMNM•N•Mn NM•• M.•. KIT, LI— o `- IIII I' KIT �� 4 PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD _ I_ © b ..E ^,� s .I 1` L•�Immll�lI AY BEACH DELR ImoI I 3 /,- J ._..• _ ...�: �\1 -,00 8G1 1330 90 PT • IT Invv 0cx rl I I A 11171 0 1 1 I I u 3 LIv. 1030 50 PT r. LIV. Cal l� 41 11 E1111 , .,.. —I,os IL P I 1 ', 1 —I I Ili I IE :ass F II " 1111E1111 111U1011 © ; zz roar jy IIIIUAII�I ,,�( e._ictl. maw S'a,I a' 3 '-D• b -4 I9 1'" Iv !,, I 15 14'—S . /I a'1 9esen _. tiJ. II 1 16'Y .4),,. < �� uv. �� Ir vn sa Pr I N = } III' 1 uv. 13t0 00 PT z ZI I DDS SO LN, u`.I 1650 SO FT 1 IAldll ' L 64.4n. 4 I IAIUtl 1►� 1 I n Q I 1 11AImA i mml 1 1 �.y.I I L ..I CI �1linlluul 111111 fl LN. 11m m1� �� Z LIV. Ion Q r 1170 90 PT KIT, 1 I LIV. 111 30I•a0 LIV, 1815 so 1440 e0 PT 1 1 I 3 I 3 I I 2 9 9 2 1 II_� • a MI III , . EMI aa a a REVISIONS 9 NE 1ST STREET AUGUST 05,2004 °THIRD FLOOR e `-4.O 1 SCALE:1/1A'.1'-0' e I Drawn by:BP G1A/e/b55061Projectatod UuNFupple prow'd•W,CmUJdp Jeffrey Silberstein `�F. A•rMe4 a Awdabe.Ina ea•,. and•Ir••r up ru..riven Fall a a .nn 7.' _ _ .nl.nu Iwnrnr..d ., e•r•m•ons MI — — , •I ! MNµd n✓rN�mrWr n,a..w 2 1 i, 41 .,.i 10 o sa Fr tilt .. . ... ,...w.,..S I I 10001 zoos sa rr «:r•."M.Ne•„ LIV. LIV. luu I �.Y.",",:: 7 Ell PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD s ��°'w�Arl '�1 DELRAY BEACH x,. iiii LIV. zoo !11{ '.i I am I L---- -- ..', oFE: AM I• Iemu LIV. ® ill �AIi' -- - - IIIr lu 1099 s PT 1114 >_ • 3 IIIII�IIII I maul ' 31 Z w a -A I<lIIIIIIII� 0 a' Mil I 1 a-.a Aw , 1 -.� , ,q-ri'.. I. •� LIV. eo.,.• I Eli i 0 Q a.. 7y I se� a �s• so' Is' Ili'i ..6 F,-• I 1di'i r� 11, • 1ebo 5o ri.Kir. 2 B w N h LIV. ® i tilt / lay x+�r Q a L1 pAW I 2 IOW wl — liiIii ..�wnw' F= LIV. Z W IDdo 9a PT I ::t soo sa PT zLI -- TT !iI .. II I: 1 is aa' REVISIONS e NE 1ST STREET a c AUGUST 005,2004 °FOURTH FLOOR . •UG`-5.0 1 SCALE:1/1r.l'4 Drawn by:BP GIAP74422.1'Arclaps'7AxedUraY'InayPIG'Ir•',V5IC4 W.dN Jeffrey Sheraton NTJOrd i ti.o.:4*,In . II•n■ I a n e.lr.l i...A r1.r11.11111 .f 1.1 11 IIr1 yp� — — — —j _ — — —gyp Y i 11 1•n1;1::,..::/..11...11.r.l T I s a *Tr.. � = I . nNn N .s N 1r, I I l p p p I X 2200 50 rr 15,0 50 FT «'w ir,lr .an :la." ..1•r.... MM . KIT. wv, ,w., • II II PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD 0 °1 u I DELRAY BEACH s i IIII�I ' l I I — - of ``=r , ° ,iA I � 1 1 s� . I050 50 FT ; LIV. KIT. II 1111111111 AI x r: LIV. KIT. I _ _-_-- _ �. 1'16T5orT 2 I . II III 1 m1111 - . X 5�6' , I ST�YJ Z Ilk I y_46 ' '1S1 .• in S0: 1n 19 75.. / ,. LIV. se io.KIT. „te 6 ,, Tjgl T-2' I I I ❑ 1655 50 PT W p .. �nniil..__ . I N p .. .LIV. KIT. 7 - IiiZ o�Glw�r+6 IGGL _ I 0 / 1T05 50 rT Q °\- �" �. �: : a �IIINtl 51. Q Z Imall1 �►1 cv aJ �� KIT.I'''''' W--- — : t¢, Mil z � 1 ROOF I I 1551 s0 FT I it � r0 7j KIT. 1T4o Bo rT .. I ill p❑p l�, LIV, I I r 5 7 I f I . 0 T. "a1 § ail ! i I. I{ = e 4 , u' , 106' IS, , 66' ls' , 16' , § REVISIONS NE 1ST STREET , nuu,usr(�o5,xa • FIFTH FLOOR A-6.O O . a_ Dram by:BP I SCALE:1/ic.t'-0' O:Wchlledur&ProlectsWired 1)e.01neepplo proleWnp Cd.0.3,* Jeffrey Silberstein ANYI to M.odatM.un .f.N. in.1V..1 rut wr. •un •04. I I uu:pmmu..Nwnn.ui p y g p1 le am/...,.n» 6 " .�...M�.n:7 .N^'N4Mh.MNNM0 •".MI..I.»M.*wn:M. m O I-2'0"I ,---I 1 El ® I I PINEAPPLE GROVE,LTD. a� I ......I � 4 .l 1 I I 4 1 r" 1 F J Hi--. l t •I,u.i ,► , 0 ® DELRAY BEACH aP II I o�o.l _I I. I-a'6• I . . 4 I� ,_ I I �''� I LEGEND .740 I I I d•�'I %" L 1,800 90 PT I • ����ol BRICK PAVERS o. I I_ I I I nnw I I oo I ^ ` LANDSCAPE w3i II I I;i In3 _ v 4. .. I uj IwmuL Q • Iy I-2o"I °" o I I I R. '+-'NV. GP.VNN4. �, Nr Q I o o, __, K Sows.... .... ..: F- % .� —I I O ,.e a noun I n .a ..y..w..a. ..W.a. . v o. 111 .4_. rig I,800 80 PT .... W LJL / \\1 s 'N. N - 1 Z rw w.+yrwa..wu w.negwm..00. a it-u I [. . a I.. . Mr.9i . Via I ill®rill ►11 • 718000 PT 3....•_, 10'0•I 6000 80 PT .; 1 0 0'I ... T .. _4 1 W _ L LI ...J I I NE 1ST STREET m m Th -r • REVISIONS • � AUGUST 05,2W1 OI.ANDSCAPE PLAN 7. L-1 .0 • SCALE:100 I Dmm 6y:BP G*4.Grxu\Pmj.dAailvai W'L Larket J8•0,0:0U3.* ,, JeftrerJAIBIIJin ArchlU0 a Amdahl.,Ino. Ill NE End ITT 0.1,00.flood. Toll ..I.0..OM Fax: 111..T....If 1.HI:INIIHNo.aNlnm.Nl • MOII.N MIT 7Fn.NT w.... yN..n I•I.4.Non.X,4 IrMiM 1 rl nt.n,nr N 7,N:-.4:.low TUN... .sM�I�.n�MN.MNXI.N' IIlIg11 ® RIIg1ry-6 .n0.Non,N Nlw.�f.1 tow., p a a a t..7MF N ...•• • ..."'" lrill.RIE111111111�onN�i� II""OHIIIIIMIIIPIMFonl�i 7:i► UI, FIFA ITI Im��uNllul.«�, fw" �• $r' •• II II II Iel ,}III 1111111 111" ll 11 1 7111 1111IIi 11 a''11 6 !! III d a PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD r .' .. """ "°"" "" � DELRAY BEACH 1 ,III 1, 11 II -�- E.11111111�I111111I -,1.IIIIIII�1111111 ll 11 11� Ili a 1 �I IIIGLIIK 11 1 1 11 l 1111 II p l Iilillil�l1i111!1 �1 1 'il �,lulllill ulltdlj -I Illlilllillilllld 11 i�lail it lilj' i ° ,� I L III •_. I ' I Q .nw °.I• I! On 0 E ,III I€ 00 Ie/'1941 ® B ®O LEGEND OF MATERIALS "'a. - •`:• o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIII 1i[ 1„ IIIN1p 41p I h I—Illrli i iiiiijtl IA o •", 0 p: I ' O 01.NpiNO SLIM ACTA ROO-ShYR wN 0,4 6i LL - a Lo1M1RR SHUTTERS a W000 TR[LL11 ONE 2ND AVENUE ELEVATION-EAST O name A'.11040 SCALE:1n6-.1'-0' • ❑o MACULAR WOOD KNC[SRAC[. pi MOM RAFTEE TART E 1 INCH LAP SID1110 pi W'Hrt[PICKET WOOL tat ❑i SNCC011NISN • O mart PKA([T WOOD SAP O I.K 1'THICK STUCCO TRIP ® O 11[TAL SCRUM TO WTCH ROOT FINISH p ° p 1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuiliii 111111mirDl,11 pMYI II Ill.Illlll�lllllll#;IIIlllll111'lI111W1 II 11;r a —row.,,,, OW:, - ��_'::s IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+IIIIIIIIIO.°m 1 111N.- ., 1. 1 l i i I I I l I I I E; w� 1 p i !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ,,,,r:T,till. a a !I ill DOD a 0 El II a ll,l, !! ° a 1, _ 1 . 2�GOURD0 II II II El a o1Ii® tria11,frII.I jIllir gram, a1 4b . 1 �®®®®®El®® IImII ou—° oo 11.•11 11 y l 11 11 � ®® 11 ® 1 ""r" `0 u u u.„, ° ■.t_E q. _w , I NI;1=1=I=IFI=I}�1;1 =1=1-11— 9 11,i1nhni1u1•1111n.11u41n, Ni 4I .4‘,� 1 �L:N« I II II'I 1 a £ w c _»• • n...,w�'`.# w ON E'1ST STREET ELEVATION-SOUTH SCALE:Tn6'.T'-0• REVISIONS AUGUST 6.200. A-7 f DTlomb:TDS I GOATcNteclurawrojecpVAlx Usepine.pplp prowl! 'L111/Wew Fader Jeffrey Silberstein Mt*A►Ar aWM,Inc. •N■ R.Y n.... l tllq ln.A null.IIOl T.b 1 •1T1•1E11 1 III.1n.1111 I.xI I ILII.OI,x11.11-u..ill AM-,N MN..-.M/-.--. - - I' I T' 1 I II Il na._ - . -�•-, "'� ;� 11 '�I 6 III 11�11 -��I n•- _ �" - M " l•- n . u u n ...+mNII11111mrg ''''ff''''''''11''''I; ghat'.., .^,..:',F3,•.-. .� ="-y ~- � 7■I■uiY1WW�i��sWlII! -x..---..�;.;-,. t II .�: II I� it Ivi•1��. I1�T 1Sb-. A „�� , °� — ®gymm ��i1 _.nIII11111Y�t�1111111',, '!IIIIWuu1.. — a:'. PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD k ��I I'.I 1®a1 le II ®®®e II U__ .3111t o n .u,.0 .,,L; E ...- DELRAYBEACH u IP 11 13 I .l'1 rI II: .0 1 �....1.) ' P H n e e e e � Li a e e e nv �' � LEGEND OF MATERIALS a STANOIHO SSW OCTAL KW-SUER a LOWER SHUTTERS 1 NORTH ELEVATION O WOOD SPEWS °SCALE:In.1'O. pi rUBRIC 1WH120 El TRYNOU4R WOOD KNEE BRACES a EXPOSED RASTER TOILS O 1 PICK LAP SIDIHO OWAITS PICKET WOOD RAIL E STUCCO n01Sx 0 WHITE PICKET WOOD RA;L a 1'X♦'THICK stucco MY 0 OCTAL SCREEN TO WTCN ROOP POSH orar , WGIImaLuA!!9I11IiIIhhIml. — —a..:. """"1111111111""""� .,.. n r�`i ° "w EE 11 EE EE I I 11 -1'11 1► .1 ''''..,L.." .E4 =•,—iu111u11SupII1�hIIIIDI1IIlIl4I� III I I I I ILI NIL l n{1 III II II_I I t — 1 arilsII yy u ■ nilri 11 1 II n utmu { a a n r „ � Tri iF 7 ,..,,.e.r I I e I m` ICiI_- Nu I 7rI q 14 ,�y I I I P^ I'^,. -�' '.::'�w. ,�—a o- EI 0 0 �] �® 0 0 II a I �iil i Ii.O i�,ii II�i a o. U IW 0 0 0® p:,T,•"'" ❑Y a s s In a nl al si 11 isi is 11 1 1 I�. 4 ri " I n - 2° NE 1ST AVE ELEVATION (WEST) REVISIONS SCALE:MO'.1'-0' Aqua*05,2004 A-8.0 Dn*D by:BP 0.W ,cCC?rojBCJwieiCYa4.144inll.Y of LA'QI'GCEW7QNq II�'II III > Jere,'UIIY•Yleln Architect i ARwdemn,Inc. BBB NB Ind B1••1 0.0NbNK PINK.u.11 III.MI.MI Vol eel•ITS•RIRR R..n1 hmnNM.0e...N.N. O n _ r tml IlplmlmlanmmllmnllnnnnnnmmuIIIII Ip1 tulau' o COm �.'�..., " I 1 III�II�. IIIIIIIIIII \I u m h........)....,root IIIIIIII. ^'M N•.Nx'ems" ICI - �_!Al II> ollullluµlal01;1II11111`IIIIII Ii' IA N lggb'., w. AATBo t MnN MM•R H n I�11'I Eesce+nAi I I o o NiN "II lyC1{(JI' Io710anTAL ci u1 o •""•'"1$1$1°":••°�i«"�el. I�I;. id 11 Tlll uIR31 I I I• �:� Sli~� �� n 1 DA• L 'mini o �pylil 11 Ilillll i� ILNEA AL ��r' PINEAPPLE GROVE LTD -41 M. ���� BE I—. .Qli eapBi II{.J I_ !Mil CI • DELRAY BEACH �.. '$ I 4l lU �J _. RIESILITNTIAL Iml m I pi', 11 I I I I I I I I I�?ni ® i I • --µ + _ am n i1 RAMONA ,A R c„� ;, I LEGEND OF MATERIALS al III II PAWING, _ 1.. ..._ - 1 Ii, ., ►A1001W O STANDING SLAY METAL ROC'-SILVER NTY ti 0 LOWS,SHUTTERS ALLEY 11O1L.POOL./PECK NOT Mora PC CLARITY ID WOOD TRC= OSECTION:EAST TO WEST LOOKING SOUTH ORUNO ARCM,1 SCALE:I .r•P �R RNNOULAR WOOD KNEE BRACES • na• ❑i ESROSCE RARER TAILS 0 a INCH ur law ❑R WHtrt PICKET Wo00 RAIL ^ 0STUCCO'WISH ID WHITE PICKET WOOD RAIL I] 1•S N.TWICE STUCCO TRW TT O METAL SCREEN TO WATCH ROOT BARN PROPERTY LING PROPERTY • .'•• LINs 111111.111111P. ii IIH III t (\WALL SECTION OWALL SECTION SCALE:Ina•.I'-0' SCALE:Ina'.1'•0* REVISIONS • • • . AUGUST5,2004 , A-9 Grim by:IDS • GUrchltewrolPreiecta00K Ueebineamlo arow+DWW WUW6W Folder 1 DElRAYBEACH DELRAY6FA4i HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ' 1II/! MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 1993 2001 2001 MEETING OF: SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: II.C. - AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.4.24 AND 4.3.4(K) REGARDING OSSHAD ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board amendments to LDR Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) regarding the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic District) regulations, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D)(5), the Historic Preservation Board makes recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board concerning amendments to the Land Development Regulations, as they apply to historic structures and districts. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City Commission has raised concerns that the current Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district regulations do not adequately discourage development/redevelopment which could negatively impact the character of the District. Staff was directed to study the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) zoning district regulations and make revisions to the district regulations that would ensure the character of the district is preserved. The proposed text amendment will allow no more than two units in a mixed use development/structure. The amendment limits the length of a building fronting a street to 75' as well as the development size to one half an acre. In order to accommodate massing and scale appropriate to the district, increased setbacks are proposed for three story structures. For the third floor the front setback will be increased from 25' to 37', the side street setback will be increased from 15' to 27' and the side interior setback will be increased from 7.5' to 12.5'. These restrictions will not apply to the Old School Square Cultural Arts Center or the properties that are subject to the CBD (Central Business District) regulations. This amendment also provides for associated clarifications to uses as well as corrections to the text of the OSSHAD regulations. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan were conducted and the following are noted: II.C. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 2 Future Land Use Element Objective A-4 The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies: Policy A-4.1 Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines". Policy A-4.2 In order to protect the City's historic resources, the Land Development Regulations shall include provisions for designation of historically significant buildings, structures, archaeological sites, or districts. The City shall conduct periodic neighborhood surveys to identify and evaluate potential historic resources. Housing Element Objective A-10 The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. Policy A-10.1 This objective will be implemented in accordance with the standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. Policy A-10.2 The City will promote the use of historic designations as a revitalization tool in its preparation of Neighborhood Plans for those areas which have a significant inventory of historic structures. The development pressures the City has experienced is of concern especially as it relates to the Old School Square Historic Arts District zoning district. While the adopted Design Guidelines and development standards for historic districts and designated sites (LDR section 4.5.1) provide some protection, additional regulations are necessary to ensure that the massing, scale and overall character of the Old School Square Historic District is retained. The above objectives and policies, LDR Section 4.5.1 and the Design Guidelines for Historic Places support the proposed amendments. OSSHAD Zoning District Regulations— Purpose and Intent Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(A)Purpose and Intent, the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) is a mixed use district which is intended to: r HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 3 • Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, with an emphasis on the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet, maintain and enhance the historic and pedestrian scale of the area; • Stimulate greater awareness and pride in the City's architectural heritage, and create an atmosphere and feeling of"Old Delray Beach'; • Improve the environmental quality and overall livability of this Historic District and stabilize and improve property value therein, and; • Allow uses which promote preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. The proposed amendments will further the purpose and intent of the OSSHAD zoning district especially as it relates encouraging the restoration and preservation of historic structures, maintaining and enhancing the historic and pedestrian scale of the area, and creating/maintaining an atmosphere of"Old Delray Beach". REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency At its meeting of September 9, 2004, the CRA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed text LDR amendment. Pineapple Grove Main Street: At its meeting of September 8, 2004, the PGMS Executive Board reviewed the proposed LDR text amendment. The consensus of the Board was to support the LDR amendment. RECOMMENDATION By motion, recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board approval of the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 4 Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) (A) Purpose and Intent: The Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) is a mixed use district which is intended to: (1) Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, with an emphasis on the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet, maintain and enhance the historic and pedestrian scale of the area; (2) Stimulate greater awareness and pride in the City's architectural heritage, and create an atmosphere and feeling of"Old Delray Beach"; (3) Improve the environmental quality and overall livability of this Historic District and stabilize and improve property value therein, and; (4) Allow uses which promote preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. (B) Principal Uses and Structures: The following types of uses are allowed within the OSSHAD as a permitted use: (1) Rcsidential uses of sSingle family detached dwellings_ and duplexes. (2) Duplex structures. (2.1) Business, Professional, Medical and Governmental Offices. (34) Retail sales through specialty shops (single purpose businesses) such as: bath shops, book stores, gift shops, florists, hobby shops, kitchen shops, boutiques, bicycle shops, excluding liquor stores, convenience stores and drug stores. (45) Arts related businesses such as craft shops, galleries, and studios within which is conducted the preparation of, display of, and/or sale of art products such as antiques, collectibles, custom apparel, jewelry, paintings, photography, picture framing, pottery, sculpture, stained glass. (56) Educational and/or Instructional activities including training, vocational, or craft schools, the arts, personal development, and libraries, museums, and social and philanthropic institutions. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 5 (67) Restaurants of a sit down nature such as a cafe, snack shop, full service dining but excluding any drive-in and/or drive-through facilities or features. (78) Providing of personal services such as barbershops, beauty shops, salons, cosmetologists. (B9) Bed and Breakfast Inns. (010) Catering services not associated with a restaurant, subject to the special regulations of Section 4.4.24(H). (4-011) Group Home, Type 1, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (1412) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special regulations previsions-of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (c) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, Block 69 (d) Lots 7- 8, Block 75 (e) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 (C) Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted: The following uses are allowed when a part of, or accessory to, the principal use: (1) Uses and structures normally associated with residences such as: bird aviaries, dog houses and dog runs, garages, greenhouses, guest cottages, playhouses, pool houses and covers/enclosures, pump houses, slat houses, storage sheds, workshops, swimming pools, and home occupations. (2) On a parcel that has as its principal use a non-residential use, there may be one-sing4e family residence no more than two residential units, either within a separatey� structure� �� ��+ �o�r}+within a structure housing a non-residential use,pre -that one ofChe situations-exists: (a) The residence is occupied by the owner, proprietor, or employee of a business enterprise conducted nn the property; or vc��rr�r�.��-�r-rcc.TF'r' , , (b) The business is owned, or operated, by the owner of the parcel; or, (c) The residence is occupied by the owner of the parcel. (3) Family Day Care HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 6 (4) Parking lots and refuse storage areas (5) Outdoor dining areas which are accessory or supplemental to a restaurant or business use, provided the operation of the outdoor dining area is limited to daylight hours. (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the OSSHAD: (1) The existence of more than one residential use on a parcel upon residential unit m cated within a mixed uc e c eruct ure. .,'� .,... .`" c�rc�..ra,-,o.,o�mai�ri.-a-rrrncccru�n-uvrcrrc (2 a pa cel tt#ta's as its--princip•al awe a non re iden� irrrial use- rs other than a ection (C) (2). (31) Outdoor dining which operates at night or which is the principal use or purpose of the associated restaurant. (42) Adult Congregate Living Facilities, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Residential Licensed Service Provider Facilities subject to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(D), Child Care, Adult Day Care, Continuing Care, Convalescent Homes, and Nursing Homes. (53) Parking lots not associated with a use. (64) Residential-type inns, not to exceed more than eighteen (18) individually leased suites or rooms per acre. (75) Group Home, Type 2, and Community Residential Homes, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(1). (E) Review and Approval Process: (1) All principal uses and accessory uses thereto, which do not require a permit shall be allowed upon application for occupational to, and approval by, the Chief Building Official. (2) Structures which require a building permit for external work must receive approval from the Historic Preservation Board, or the Director of Planning and Zoning or designee, as applicable, through the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. (3) For new development, or a change in use which results in the requirement to provide additional parking, approval must be granted from the Historic Preservation Board pursuant to Sections 2.4.5 (EF), (Gj ), and (III). i • HPB Memorandum Staff Report 0 LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 7 (4) Conditional uses must be approved pursuant to Section 2.4.5(FE). Prior to action by the Planning and Zoning Board, the conditional use request must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board with a recommendation forwarded by them. to the Planning and Zoning Board. (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth, for the OSSHAD District, in Section 4.3.4 apply, except fer as modified below: (1) The following locations shall be subject to the development standards of the CBD Zone District, excluding exceptions to height limitations provided in Section 4.3.4(J)(4): (a) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, Block 69 (b) Lots 7- 8, Block 75 (c) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 (2) The following location shall be subject to the development standards of the GC zone District: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61 (3) Parcels located along N.E. 1st Avenue between N.E. 2nd Street and N.E. 3rd Street (Banker's Row) shall comply with either provisions of Section 4.3.4 or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plan, whichever is more permissive. (4) Except for properties identified in Sections 4.4.24(F)(1) and (2), and the Old School Square Cultural Arts Complex, development sites shall not exceed one half acre in size and the maximum length of a building fronting a street shall be limited to 75'. (G) Supplemental District Regulations: Supplemental district regulations as set forth in Article 4.6, except as modified herein, apply: (1) Parcels located along N.E. 1st Avenue between N.E. 2nd Street and N.E. 3rd Street (Banker's Row) shall comply with either provisions of Article 4.6 of these Supplemental District Regulations [Subsection (G)], or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plan, whichever is more permissive. (2) The perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(e) shall not apply. (3) All parking, except for single family homes and duplexes, shall be located in the side or rear yard or adjacent to a rear alley. No such parking shall be located in the area between any street and the closest building or structure. Where there are existing buildings or structures, the Historic Preservation Board may waive this requirement during the site plan review process, provided that it is determined that compliance is not feasible and that the character of the area will be maintained. If HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 8 approved, such parking shall be substantially screened from off-premises view by a hedge or decorative fencing. (4) Parking Requirements: (a) All non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 sq.ft. of total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 sq.ft. of total floor area, or by at least one space, where there is a mix of residential and non-residential use in the same structure. (b) Restaurants shall provide six spaces per one thousand square feet of total new or existing floor area being converted to restaurant use. (c) Residential-type inns shall provide one parking space per guest room/unit. Other accessory uses shall be calculated separately based upon square footage of the use area as provided for in subsections 4.4.24 (G) (4) (a) and (b) above. (5) If it is impossible or inappropriate to provide required parking on- site or off-site, pursuant to Section 4.6.9(E)(4), the in-lieu fee option provided in Section 4.6.9(E)(3) may be collected. For the purpose of this provision, "inappropriateness" may be considered in relationship to the historic character of this zone district. (6) When the parking requirements of Section 4.6.9(C) are applied to either new development, expansion of an existing use or a change in use, which results in the requirement of only one new parking space, a one space exemption shall be allowed. This exemption may only occur once per property. (H) Special District Regulations: (1) Residential units within a structure containing permitted non- residential use(s) shall not use more than 50% of the gross floor area of the structure within which they are located. (2) Residential uses shall comprise no less than 10% of the uses in the OSSHAD District as expressed by the exclusive use of individual parcels, other than condominium ownerships. The existence of an occupational license, except for one issued for a home occupation, shall establish that such a parcel is non-residential. (3) Residential-type inns shall create a transitional or buffer area between residential uses and non-residential uses (such as office, commercial, etc.) which are either on or near the subject property. (4) A residential-type inn shall be associated with an historic structure and must be residential in design, scale and character. HPB Memorandum Staff Report • LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 9 (5) Catering services cannot exceed 2,000 sq. ft. of total floor area and shall not have overnight storage of more than two vehicles, which shall not exceed 1-1/2 ton capacity. (6) 24-Hour or late night businesses as defined herein must be processed as a conditional use and are subject to the provisions of Section 4.3.3(1N). (7) Duplex structures must have an integrated design to give the appearance of a single family dwelling. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) (Development Standards Matrix): Setbacks: Building Setbacks (min) Side Side Front Street+ Interior Rear 1&2/3 1 &2/3 1&2/3 Current 25' 15' 7 %2' 10' Proposed 25'/37' 15/27' 71/' / 12%2' 10' DEL O LRAYR FA A BCH F bliebril All-America City ' ' ' ' I! 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 01 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION 1(}C AFL N (,uPANE- A�ork•svA, It- ' . _ v ,-(, [A,),, ?,4.)e,_Av(e G L; ) ^ .