Loading...
HPB 10-06-04 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft, Jeffrey Costello, and Denise Valek CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:05 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. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of July 7, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K). Item Before the Board: Reconstruction of a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the Old School Square Historic Arts District. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Costello presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. At the last meeting of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) the Board took action in regard to the LDRs regulations concerning changes to the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The HPB had concerns primarily related to the increased setbacks for third floors and did not feel the increased Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 setbacks should apply to small lot developments. The Board recommended denial. Subsequent to that we contacted the Chairman and discussed what we proposed. This is similar type of setback utilized in the Design Guidelines in the CBD zoning district. The City Commission has raised concerns that the current OSSHAD zoning district regulations do not adequately discourage development/redevelopment, which could negatively impact the character of the District. Since that time it did go to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 27, 2004 to discuss the LDR amendments and they had a concern that the other Boards it went to supported it, however, the HPB did not. The Board did not feel comfortable forwarding the item to the City Commission without obtaining positive recommendation from the HPB. We have provided some amendments attached to the staff report, regarding increased setbacks for a third floor. We also had a recommendation regarding reduction of the floor area on the third floor and providing some relief setback to deal with the massing of the structure. We have another proposal that relates to an increase in the setback by an additional 5' on the upper floor adjacent to the street. Those items are before you for your consideration. Regarding some of the other amendments, there are some 50' lots and there are also 75' lots. We are proposing to limit the width of a structure to 75' and related to a separation of 15'. The district requires a 7.5' setback. The concern was the streetscape. As you go along the street you see a similar development pattern that you see throughout the neighborhood. In the analysis in the Staff Report these proposals do comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and positive findings can be made. The Planning and Zoning Board will be hearing this item at their October 18, 2004 meeting. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Leslie Hornenburger, 510 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach - advised this was the first time she had attended a meeting, and requested Mr. Costello to explain what this proposal is in plain English. She was concerned because she lived north of Swinton Avenue. Mr. Costello advised this does not relate to the properties north of Fourth Street. It relates to the properties in the OSSHAD District. This allows office and residential uses it is adjacent to the CBD. This was one of the first Historic Districts created to insure and provide incentives for reuse of existing historic structures. This is more of a mixed-use district. With the development pressures that the City has been experiencing in this district there was a concern of the demolition of the historic inventory we have and that redevelopment would be out of scale and character in the district. This is an amendment to the LDRs relating to this district to address these situations. Ms. Diane Collona, Director, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), advised the CRA is a strong supporter of this amendment. The OSSHAD district is especially important as it is very visible and a highly traveled area. This district is under siege now, and we are victims of our own success. When this district was created this area was experiencing slum and blighted conditions. The homes were not maintained and neglected. This zoning district was created to encourage rehabilitation and renovation of those homes by allowing office type uses, retail uses, etc. so the homes would be preserved and continue to be utilized for a different use 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 but would be preserved and not be demolished. We have been very successful in that area. There is a great deal of pressure on this district as the properties have become extremely valuable and we have people willing to push the envelope more and more and intensify it and change the code to allow more heights, and more intense uses. We need to look at what we have and how valuable it is to the City. Swinton Avenue epitomizes the character of the Village By the Sea. The CRA supports this amendment. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Perez advised staff did have some concerns, and we have been given some options. The amendment has some valid points. Mr. Silberstein advised he listened to Ms. Collona and she is right, the OSSHAD district is a beautiful district and we don't want to lose it. There are some good proposals here, but there are also some that I am not quite sure have been thought out well. Mr. Silberstein pointed out that Mr. Costello advised we did the same thing with the LDRs in the CBD district. We can't take the same LDR for the CBD district and apply it to the OSSHAD district. The 25'/75' proposal is too much, and it should not be more than 55'. I don't want to see 75' wide buildings in the OSSHAD district. Can Mr. Costello pinpoint a project that we are not happy with? Mr. Costello advised we are trying to be proactive; we are at a point where we need to do something. We know what is out there and what people are thinking. As far as the setbacks as they relate to the CBD district. These are smaller lots and have a different setback than the downtown and that is why we proposed these other alternatives. It still would be a maximum of 35' in order to allow usable area on the upper floor. If you drive around the district, there are maybe one or two having a third floor and they are scaled back. The Federspeil office building is within the 35' height limit. The upper area is an attic that would fit into the 50% ratio. That is probably the largest and newest in the district. Mr. Silberstein inquired if there was a project in particular that the current LDRs were not working and was approved and you feel that has driven by staff. Mr. Costello advised it is not just the setbacks we are looking at we are looking at the whole picture. Multi-family development is not allowed in the district. If someone had additional land you would give them the benefit if you had a 75' lot and you have a 7.5' set back on each side you can go with the 60'. Ms. Collonna advised that most of the Dharma property was up for sale, and people are inquiring about developing the Sundy House as a hotel. There are four vacant houses on South Swinton that have been vacant for several years now. Proposals are coming in for a large scaled development. There is a lot of risk here and we need to be proactive, and the code should be changed. Board discussion ensued and they concurred that we should move forward with this amendment to protect the area. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 7 to 0 to recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.3.4(K) and 4.4.24 and 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 Developments Regulations with the following conditions: 1. That the maximum width of sixty feet (60') be established for any development within the district and; 2. That the third floor be no larger than 50% of the second floor area, and the building setbacks of planes of the façade are offset and varied to provide visual relief. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Item Before the Board: Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1 (C). Mr. Tefft advised the City is proposing to designate the area (shown on the overhead) to the Historic Register of historic places. At the meeting of August 18 2004, the Board reviewed the designation report for the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and set a public hearing date for this evening. To qualify as a historic site or historic district, the property or properties must fulfill one of more of the criteria set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1 (C) (2) and/or (3). The designation report contains, at a minimum, sufficient information to conform to the criteria stated in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3). Specifically, the district portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and, embodies distinctive characteristics typical of those styles and period of construction. Designating the district as historic will help preserve the character of the extant historic dwellings and promote the retention of the scale of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval to the City Commission. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. Larissa Ozols, 107 NW 15th Street, Delray Beach —the purpose of this meeting is to hear public testimony and make nominations to designate this historic district. Mr. Tefft referred to Section 4.5.1 (C) outlining the responsibility of the HPB tonight to find out or not that this nomination fills the proper designation. The Board provided area property owners with statements of significance and they gave two reasons; the district portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and, embodies distinctive characteristics typical of period. Can't we say that about most of east Delray Beach? I looked at the information you provided us and I found 160 properties within the proposed symmetrical and uniform boundary set forth in the designation report. Of that, 47 properties (29%) are designated as contributing for 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 the reasons stated above. That would hold true for most of east Delray Beach single-family neighborhoods. According to the survey dated August 27, 2004, of those 47 contributing properties 31 are directly on Swinton Avenue. That is 66% of all contributing properties according to information you provided are on Swinton Avenue. The non-contributing properties are disproportionate to contributing properties within the proposed symmetrical and uniform boundaries, and therefore, share unequal burden of restrictive rezoning associated with the historic district. Do not table this tonight; deny the nomination for Northwest Swinton to become a historic district. Nan Thompson, NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach - I am very much against this rezoning. I was told by my insurance company that they will not insure my property if it is designated historic. My previous insurance company pulled out of Florida and I had to find new homeowners insurance. What I went through I don't wish it on anyone, especially my friends and neighbors. Finally, Nationwide, at the last minute told me they would insure my house, but not if it was designated historic. Richard Marchek, NW 16th Street, Delray Beach - I am a sixty plus year resident of this City. I have a problem with what is being proposed. In looking at the areas designated, maybe 50% of the areas within the district are designated. The ones designated historic will get certain provisions and financial help while the ones not designated historic will not. Those that do not have historic preservation status will also have to adhere to the same regulations. As a property owner I do not think that is fair. I do not believe that there are enough buildings west of.Swinton Avenue to designate this a historic area. You can apply individually to have your home designated historic. There is no reason why we all have to be brought in to do this. I am totally against this. Frank Hunter, wanted to thank the members of the Board and Mr. Tefft. I have a list of people (with signatures) who I am representing tonight. The City Attorney recommended that I put into the record, that when I went to the August 18, 2004 meeting before hurricane preparation, the Board had adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The Del-Ida Park proposal was postponed to October 20, 2004. Our Lake Ida members do object to this. This map does not fit the report that was put out. Every house on the top north side of 17th is non-contributing, however, on the map they are shown as contributing. Everyone I have talked to, including homeowners are against this. The Lake Ida and Del Park area have been improving over the years without the historic district. If you cannot postpone this today, I request that a record be made available to the City Commission. I also asked Ms. Shay and Mr. Tefft for a copy of the mailing list that was mailed out. I never received those. The mailman advised me he had 75 letters to deliver and a lot of the people were not home. We have not had time to mobilize to get the information out to the people. I did get copies of the LDRs. Leslie Horenburger, 510 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach — I was unable to attend the meeting in August as I was out of town. We received a certified letter a day before the hurricane. It was several days after this that we received this information. With the hurricane I have not had time to review the details. I came in open minded with the possibility that the Historic District would preserve the older homes, which I am in favor of. I have seen the plans for the home that is going next 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 to me. I am upset that my insurance company would not insure my house. I certainly do not want to go through that process again. I request that you table this vote so that we have additional time to review all the aspects of this. Ms. Mary Lou Jamison, 515 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach — I have been fighting with the Insurance Commission for over 15 years in trying to get insurance. When I bought our home twenty-one years we had a problem getting insurance due to the age of the home. I presently have State Farm Insurance. I tried to get the Board to try to do something with the State of Florida. They want these old homes preserved. As a Board I don't know what you can do, you might be able write a letter, or you might be able to get with other cities and Boards. Larissa Ozols, 107 NW 15th Street, Delray Beach - this outlines a symmetrical and uniform boundary. The United States does not have a uniform boundary, the City does not have a uniform boundary, and the County does not have a uniform boundary, and we still function as a democracy. I am trying to bring some common sense to the table. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the homes on Swinton Avenue are part of the contributing homes. Make it a non-uniform boundary. If you insist on a historic district, change the language, and change the boundaries to only be limited to Swinton Avenue. Brenda Wutherrspoon, 701 NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach — I live in a non- contributing home in the district. I have concerns about restrictions that will apply. I want to change various parts of my home. I am concerned about the availability of insurance. I do have a concern that this is some kind of a smoke screen to stop some of the development in my neighborhood. I deal with Code Enforcement and I think could do a better job as a city by mandating restrictions. I am not convinced it is the best for everyone in that area. If we have a goal that we direct our attention to that goal and not have people who do not live in historic homes fall under the same restrictions as historic homes. I am not opposed to development; any one of us can live in bigger, grander homes. We have to work towards a goal. Douglas Root, 1421 NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach — advised he is in favor of what the Board is attempting to do. The two largest pieces of land on the map had developers trying to buy it. Anything the Board can do to prevent developers from coming in and tearing one house and putting up five, and stop the large mansions from being built, will benefit the whole neighborhood overall by stopping a lot of development. Someone has to have regulations relative to this area. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez expressed his concern that there were a lot of misconceptions relative to the historic designation and clarification is needed. When you are designated as a historic building you can do it locally. It is different that what staff is trying to do here, this is to maintain the character of the district. The Board and Planning and Zoning Board will seek to maintain the character of a contributing structure as opposed to a non-contributing structure. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Mr. Tefft advised that the contributing structures can get a tax abatement. The non- contributing do not qualify for that abatement. It is based upon what improvements they make to their property. It is only for contributing property in the historic district a non-contributing does not qualify. Mr. Costello advised when you are in the district there are design guidelines that apply to contributing and noncontributing construction. It does not have to be a certain style. A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is not a restriction. It is a process in the Design Guidelines stating what staff can approve and what the Board needs to approve. The COA process typically runs between one and three weeks. We will try and get items on the Board as quickly as we can to do the proper analysis. It does not require additional setbacks. It is a little more in detail. It provides another way to make sure that scale and character is appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Miller questioned if this would provide some flexibility when it comes to Planning and Zoning. Instead of tearing down a historic structure, you can apply for variances and receive some flexible consideration to do certain things that would otherwise not be allowed. Mr. Costello advised that demolition on a non-contributing structure the Board has the ability to stay a demolition for three (3) months. On a contributing structure they have the ability for six (6) months. If it is inevitable let's try and find an opportunity to save that historic resource. There are structures that have been brought into the neighborhood from other areas. There are criteria in the code that allows for historic structures some flexibility on the standards to obtain a variance. The Board of Adjustment criteria are much more stringent than the HPB. Recently we have modified the LDRs to relate to non-conforming structure. Historic structures in the historic districts you are limited relative to repairs and exterior modifications. Ordinary repairs are limited to 10% of the replacement value of the structure within a twelve (12) month period. We modified the code that will go to the Planning and Zoning Board and then to the City Commission to allow consideration for non- conforming historic structures to allow them to do these improvements. There are some flexibility with a historic home. Ms. Schatz advised she chaired a Board of Adjustment for many years you are extremely restricted with the Board of Adjustment as to what you can do or not do. You don't have much flexibility. The majority of people who come in say they don't want mega mansions; they want to keep the character of the neighborhood. You either want the protections of keeping the character of the neighborhood or you don't. The issue comes down to pursuing this issue or not. Mr. Silberstein — if the neighborhood is designated a historic district does that mean that automatically the house becomes a historic house, and can they still get their insurance? Mr. Tefft advised he is not educated to speak relative to the insurance. The shaded structures on the map are contributing to the neighborhood should the district be adopted. They would all be considered in a historic district. I don't know if that would make a difference relative to insurance. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Ms. Jamison advised that it is on your property tax bill that you live in a historic district. It means that some insurance companies are not writing insurance if your house is listed in the historic district, not that it is old. Harvey Brown's insurance told me that when my house was 60 years old that he did not have an insurance company that would insure it because it was over 50 years old. There are insurance companies that will not sell you insurance if you are in a historic designated district. There are insurance companies that will not insure older homes in a historic district. It is a major problem. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Costello and Mr. Tefft if they knew anything about the insurance issue. Mr. Costello advised we would look into that issue. Ms. Dersh inquired was it because the insurance company expects to rebuild the historic house as it was, or is there a difference in that you have to meet certain criteria in rebuilding the house? Mary Lou advised that if your home is destroyed you do not have to rebuild that house. In talking to the different insurance companies there were a lot of misconceptions and inconsistencies. There are more problems with an older home. I speak with Tom Gallagher's office regularly, and State Farm and Allstate is not writing insurance in historic districts. Mr. Schatz—there are three kinds of insurance: wind storm, flood, and homeowners. We also have the east of 1-95 issue, which has nothing to do with any of this. We are solely talking about homeowner's insurance. Ms. Lake — owns a house that was built in 1932 east of Federal east of the Intracoastal and I am insured with Harvey Brown Insurance Agency. I am not in a historic designated area. I will have some information regarding property owners insurance. Ms. Dersh advised we were given some information at a previous meeting. Mr. Miller advised we have gotten off track. I grew up on Swinton Avenue, and the changes have been positive. I like the look and feel of the neighborhood. Most of the changes in the area have been positive. The land in this area is so valuable that people that purchase homes do not want to live in a 1,200 sq. ft. house; they want to be able to add on to the home. Ms. Lake recently was on a task force in two neighborhoods in the beach area; the Seagate neighborhood and the area north of Atlantic Avenue. We had concerns about the size of homes being built and what renovations were starting to look like. The task force was made up of individuals in the neighborhood. We set-up guidelines to preserve what is going on in the beach area. There should be a set of plans and guidelines in order for the City to be able to control what is going to be redeveloped. My recommendation would be to have the neighborhood look at working to create something that will work to maintain the integrity of what is there now. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Ms. Reich—would like to know more about the insurance as well. Board discussion ensued relative to the insurance issues, lack of enough time for the homeowners to review and absorb the information, and the time frame to set the next meeting date. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 7 to 0 to table the direction of North Swinton Avenue until the November 3, 2004 meeting. V. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 205 NE 5th Terrace (Independence Title). Del-Ida Park Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign on a Contributing Property, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The freestanding sign is to be located five feet (5') from the NE 2nd Avenue right-of-way, within the required sight visibility triangle. The freestanding sign will be 42" high (3.5') and 68" (5.6') wide totaling 19.83 square feet. Including the sigh base and decorative cap, the sign will stand 66" (5.5') tall and will be 84" (7') in total width. The applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the sight visibility triangle at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue and NE 5th Terrace to 36' and at NE 2nd avenue and Dixie Boulevard to 24'. The City Engineer has looked at the request but denied it due to safety concerns that there was a mango tree nearby. He suggested moving the sign outside of the sight visibility triangles or redesigned to it does not exceed three feet (3') in height. Staff has concerns with the appearance and size. Staff is reconsidering that waiver request be denied. We do recommend approval of the COA subject to the conditions that the free- standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, and/or that the sign is reduced so as not to exceed three feet (3') in height. The applicant is not present. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. Waiver Request: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move denial of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (2) to reduce the required 40' sight visibility triangles at the intersections of NE 2nd Avenue, NE 5th Terrace, and Dixie Boulevard, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Certificate of Appropriateness: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for Independence Title (205 NE 5th Terrace), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1, and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the condition that the free-standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, and/or that the sign is reduced so as not to exceed three feet (3') in height. B. Atlantic Grove (301 -401 West Atlantic Avenue), West Settlers Historic District, Mark Gregory, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Blanket Sign Program associated with the Atlantic Grove development, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.8(J). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. This is associated with the Atlantic Grove development located between 301 and 401 West Atlantic Avenue. Freestanding signs are proposed at the corner of NW 3rd Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue and NW 5th Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue. These freestanding signs are only 3' in height, and there,are no issues with site visibility. Wall signs are proposed for the first floor of the south elevation, the retail bays along Atlantic Avenue. These signs will be on the fascia of the building. Under canopy signs are proposed for the first floor retail on the north and south elevations and for the second floor offices on the north elevation. Nameplates and window signs are also proposed. Nameplates will be on either side of the doorway for the entry, and window signs would be for the offices on the second floor. A lot of these are restricted by their condominium committee prior to installation. Staff is recommending approval of the subject blanket sign program subject to two conditions: That the flood lamps be installed with the free-standing signs at grade, and that there is design consistency between the under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant so we do not have varying signs. Mr. Mark Gregory, Boca Raton, asked staff to clarify the last statement as far as the condition between the wall sign and under canopy sign. There will be three under canopy signs. One is in the back where there are no wall signs it is over the door entrance. I do not think they are in conflict with wall signs. On Atlantic Avenue we will have under canopy signs for pedestrian walkways, and a flat wall sign. Mr. Tefft advised that the signage should have the same image and be consistent throughout the building. Mr. Gregory advised these signs are consistent with the Blanket Sign Program. We want to have a unique look, and did not want to have a strip mall or commercial look. We wanted it to have the flavor of downtown Delray Beach. The landlord is going to be very restrictive on the type of signs they are going to approve. They have to meet 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • October 6, 2004 the association's standards as well. Regarding the under canopy signs, we tried to unify them regarding the color, the simple letter style. A few retail signs will be illuminated. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh questioned what illuminated meant, is it just light up, and not neon. Mr. Gregory advised that they had an option of being illuminated internally. It is not exposed neon. There will be an internal illuminated feature on the lettering. You will not see any neon you will just see the illumination. It will be restricted by a metal face or a Plexiglas face. You will just see the color of the letter or the silhouette of the letter. Mr. Gregory advised that the traditional illuminated sign would be about a 5" deep projection. A non-illuminated sign would be something as simple as a plate letter one-quarter inch thick that would be raised off the wall about one-half inch. Most of the letters will fall within the sign band will not pass that lower coping area. I would like the signs to be in a range 3"to 6" in letter depth. Chairman Perez advised that non-illuminated and illuminated should have the same depth and letter size. Ms. Dersh believes that neon signs do not belong on Atlantic Avenue and questioned where the monument signs would be. Mr. Gregory advised the Board had plans in their packets regarding the monument signs. They are matched with the building color. They are recessed back in the landscape area. We had to make modifications to satisfy the City Engineer. Mr. Gregory advised there will be no exposed neon on the front of the building as the landlord put a restriction on neon signs. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval with an additional condition (No. 3.) of the Blanker Sign Program for Atlantic Grove, 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 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the flood lamps should be installed at grade; 2. That there is design consistency between the under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant; and 3. That the letter projection be limited to between three inches (3") and six inches (6") off the building. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 C. 219-221 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Gulfstream Roofing, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated for roof material change within the Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to Land Developments Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The applicant has submitted a COA to replace the existing roof with a light beige Spanish "S" cement tile roof. The surrounding properties are comprised of a variety of different roof styles/types and architectural styles. These roof materials include barrel tile an asphalt shingles. The dwelling immediately to the north has a white Spanish "S" tile roof, which is similar to the proposed roof. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Ted McCall advised the reason for the change is that there are two or three significant leaks; therefore, replacement of the roof is necessary. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 219-221 North Swinton Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. D. 19 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jim Zengage, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Class II Site Plan Modification for the Demolition of a Noncontributing Building Addition and Construction of a Six (6) Space Parking Lot. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and into the record. The 0.15-acre subject property consists of Lot 9, Block 69, Town of Delray. The property, which is located on the east side of South Swinton Avenue, approximately 256' south of Atlantic Avenue, is considered a contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a one-story vernacular structure constructed in 1940 as a single-family residence. The structure is of reinforced masonry and wood construction on a concrete foundation. The roof is asphalt shingle and aluminum awning windows have replaced the original wood frame windows. Two non-contributing one-story additions have been constructed on the east elevation of the structure. The first addition, built in 1967, consists of a flat roof, 12 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 while the second addition, built in 1975, consists of a gable roof and a flat-roofed covered porch. At its meeting of April 2, 1997, HPB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA 8-301), site plan modification, landscape plan, architectural elevations, and waiver requests associated with the conversion of the single-family residence to a hair salon. The development proposal consisted of the conversion of the original contributing 878 square foot single-family residence to a hair salon; the enclosure of the 214 square foot carport on the north side of the dwelling to accommodate additional salon floor area (1,042 square feet total); the removal of the front driveway; and the installation of a four (4) parking spaces backing onto the alley at the rear of the property. The aforementioned non-contributing additions (consisting of 641 square feet) were to be utilized for storage and as an efficiency dwelling unit. The improvements associated with the conversion were completed in June of 1999. A Class II Site Plan Modification has been submitted to demolish the existing non- contributing 641 square foot addition (storage area and efficiency unit) at the rear of the structure and the existing four (4) parking spaces in order to construct a new six (6) space single-loaded parking area. Additionally, an existing concrete walkway along the south side of the structure will be modified to provide handicap access to the front of the structure. The proposed changes are associated with the conversion of the hair salon to offices. The development proposal also includes four waiver requests. Mr. Jim Zengage, applicant, 75 NE 6th Avenue, No. 214, Delray Beach - agreed with staff's recommendations and conditions. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Mr. Silberstein inquired as to the pattern of the landscaping. Mr. Tefft advised that they would be utilizing a cocoplum hedge. Mr. Silberstein inquired if there would be landscaping to cover the chain link fence. Mr. Tefft advised that a hedge would be planted along the fence. Waiver Requests: A. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the alley right-of-way and the first parking space within the parking lot from five feet (5') to four feet (4') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to 13 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the east side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to three feet-six inches (3'-6") 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the width of the landscape barrier between the parking area and the property to the north from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6") 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (j) to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the west side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to one foot (1') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Demolition: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the demolition request for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan Modification: It was moved by Ms. Reich, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class II site plan modification for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. That the actual height of the proposed light fixture is indicated; 3. That the finish of the light fixture and pole is indicated; 4. That a photometric plan indicating the proposed light fixture locations and the means by which cut-off shielding will be implemented is provided; 5. That two feet (2') of right-of-way is dedicated for the adjacent alley and accepted by the City Commission; and 6. That the full width of the alley (following dedication) is paved. 14 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Landscape Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Lake, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. That the landscape plan is revised to locate the Cocoplum hedge and Silver Buttonwood tree proposed within the landscape island between the parking tier and the alley on the subject property. Design Elements: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation VI. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. Del-Ida Point Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat (Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The subject property is at the southwest corner of NE 2'd Avenue and NE 6th Street within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 2,144 square foot non-contributing dwelling constructed in 1952. The original attached garage (west side of dwelling) was converted to a bedroom in 1958. At its meeting of August 18, 1999, the Historic Preservation Board approved the installation of a 10' x 14' aluminum garden shed on the west side of the property and while a concrete slab exists for the shed, the shed itself was never installed. An application has been submitted to subdivide the subject property into two (2) conforming lots while retaining the extant non-contributing single-family dwelling. The plat is now before the Board for action. The development proposal was to re-plat the existing Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park into two (2) conforming lots. The existing Lots 26 and 28 are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width and frontage. 15 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Staff is recommending approval to City Commission regarding the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat. It was moved by Ms. Lake, seconded by Mr. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Del-Ida Point Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. B. Dixie Del-Ida Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat (Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park. The subject property is designated as a part of the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is located on the southeast side of Dixie Boulevard, lying just west of NE 2nd Avenue. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 1,836 square foot contributing dwelling constructed in 1930 and a 286 square foot garage constructed in 1948. The development proposal is to re-plat the existing nonconforming Lots 2 - 5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park into three (3) conforming lots. The existing lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width, depth, and frontage. Staff is recommending approval to City Commission regarding the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat. Ms. Dwyer's plan has also been shown to the Heads of the departments and was signed off and approved. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 6 to 1 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Dixie Del-Ida Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. VII. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: None D. Staff: Mr. Tefft advised that he would find out additional information from the Historic Trust, as well as obtaining information relative to the insurance issue. 16 Historic Preservation Board Minutes + October 6, 2004 Chairman Perez advised that the City will have a training session for all Board members on October 12, 2004 in the City Commission Chambers. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for October 6, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on 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. 17 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft, Jeffrey Costello, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:05 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. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of July 7, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K). Item Before the Board: Reconstruction of a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the Old School Square Historic Arts District. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Costello presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. At the last meeting of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) the Board took action in regard to the LDRs regulations concerning changes to the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The HPB had concerns primarily related to the increased setbacks for third floors and did not feel the increased Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 setbacks should apply to small lot developments. The Board recommended denial. Subsequent to that we contacted the Chairman and discussed what we proposed. This is similar type of setback utilized in the Design Guidelines in the CBD zoning district. The City Commission has raised concerns that the current OSSHAD zoning district regulations do not adequately discourage development/redevelopment, which could negatively impact the character of the District. Since that time it did go to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 27, 2004 to discuss the LDR amendments and they had a concern that the other Boards it went to supported it, however, the HPB did not. The Board did not feel comfortable forwarding the item to the City Commission without obtaining positive recommendation from the HPB. We have provided some amendments attached to the staff report, regarding increased setbacks for a third floor. We also had a recommendation regarding reduction of the floor area on the third floor and providing some relief setback to deal with the massing of the structure. We have another proposal that relates to an increase in the setback by an additional 5' on the upper floor adjacent to the street. Those items are before you for your consideration. Regarding some of the other amendments, there are some 50' lots and there are also 75' lots. We are proposing to limit the width of a structure to 75' and related to a separation of 15'. The district requires a 7.5' setback. The concern was the streetscape. As you go along the street you see a similar development pattern that you see throughout the neighborhood. In the analysis in the Staff Report these proposals do comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and positive findings can be made. The Planning and Zoning Board will be hearing this item at their October 18, 2004 meeting. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Leslie Hornenburger, 510 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach - advised this was the first time she had attended a meeting, and requested Mr. Costello to explain what this proposal is in plain English. She was concerned because she lived north of Swinton Avenue. Mr. Costello advised this does not relate to the properties north of Fourth Street. It relates to the properties in the OSSHAD District. This allows office and residential uses it is adjacent to the CBD. This was one of the first Historic Districts created to insure and provide incentives for reuse of existing historic structures. This is more of a mixed-use district. With the development pressures that the City has been experiencing in this district there was a concern of the demolition of the historic inventory we have and that redevelopment would be out of scale and character in the district. This is an amendment to the LDRs relating to this district to address these situations. Ms. Diane Collona, Director, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), advised the CRA is a strong supporter of this amendment. The OSSHAD district is especially important as it is very visible and a highly traveled area. This district is under siege now, and we are victims of our own success. When this district was created this area was experiencing slum and blighted conditions. The homes were not maintained and neglected. This zoning district was created to encourage rehabilitation and renovation of those homes by allowing office type uses, retail uses, etc. so the homes would be preserved and continue to be utilized for a different use 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 but would be preserved and not be demolished. We have been very successful in that area. There is a great deal of pressure on this district as the properties have become extremely valuable and we have people willing to push the envelope more and more and intensify it and change the code to allow more heights, and more intense uses. We need to look at what we have and how valuable it is to the City. Swinton Avenue epitomizes the character of the Village By the Sea. The CRA supports this amendment. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Perez advised staff did have some concerns, and we have been given some options. The amendment has some valid points. Mr. Silberstein advised he listened to Ms. Collona and she is right, the OSSHAD district is a beautiful district and we don't want to lose it. There are some good proposals here, but there are also some that I am not quite sure have been thought out well. Mr. Silberstein pointed out that Mr. Costello advised we did the same thing with the LDRs in the CBD district. We can't take the same LDR for the CBD district and apply it to the OSSHAD district. The 25'/75' proposal is too much, and it should not be more than 55'. I don't want to see 75' wide buildings in the OSSHAD district. Can Mr. Costello pinpoint a project that we are not happy with? Mr. Costello advised we are trying to be proactive; we are at a point where we need to do something. We know what is out there and what people are thinking. As far as the setbacks as they relate to the CBD district. These are smaller lots and have a different setback than the downtown and that is why we proposed these other alternatives. It still would be a maximum of 35' in order to allow usable area on the upper floor. If you drive around the district, there are maybe one or two having a third floor and they are scaled back. The Federspeil office building is within the 35' height limit. The upper area is an attic that would fit into the 50% ratio. That is probably the largest and newest in the district. Mr. Silberstein inquired if there was a project in particular that the current LDRs were not working and was approved and you feel that has driven by staff. Mr. Costello advised it is not just the setbacks we are looking at we are looking at the whole picture. Multi-family development is not allowed in the district. If someone had additional land you would give them the benefit if you had a 75' lot and you have a 7.5' set back on each side you can go with the 60'. Ms. Collonna advised that most of the Dharma property was up for sale, and people are inquiring about developing the Sundy House as a hotel. There are four vacant houses on South Swinton that have been vacant for several years now. Proposals are coming in for a large scaled development. There is a lot of risk here and we need to be proactive, and the code should be changed. Board discussion ensued and they concurred that we should move forward with this amendment to protect the area. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 7 to 0 to recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.3.4(K) and 4.4.24 and 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 Developments Regulations with the following conditions: 1. That the maximum width of sixty feet (60') be established for any development within the district and; 2. That the third floor be no larger than 50% of the second floor area, and the building setbacks of planes of the façade are offset and varied to provide visual relief. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Item Before the Board: Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1 (C). Mr. Tefft advised the City is proposing to designate the area (shown on the overhead) to the Historic Register of historic places. At the meeting of August 18 2004, the Board reviewed the designation report for the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and set a public hearing date for this evening. To qualify as a historic site or historic district, the property or properties must fulfill one of more of the criteria set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1 (C) (2) and/or (3). The designation report contains, at a minimum, sufficient information to conform to the criteria stated in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3). Specifically, the district portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and, embodies distinctive characteristics typical of those styles and period of construction. Designating the district as historic will help preserve the character of the extant historic dwellings and promote the retention of the scale of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval to the City Commission. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. Larissa Ozols, 107 NW 15th Street, Delray Beach —the purpose of this meeting is to hear public testimony and make nominations to designate this historic district. Mr. Tefft referred to Section 4.5.1 (C) outlining the responsibility of the HPB tonight to find out or not that this nomination fills the proper designation. The Board provided area property owners with statements of significance and they gave two reasons; the district portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and, embodies distinctive characteristics typical of period. Can't we say that about most of east Delray Beach? I looked at the information you provided us and I found 160 properties within the proposed symmetrical and uniform boundary set forth in the designation report. Of that, 47 properties (29%) are designated as contributing for 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 the reasons stated above. That would hold true for most of east Delray Beach single-family neighborhoods. According to the survey dated August 27, 2004, of those 47 contributing properties 31 are directly on Swinton Avenue. That is 66% of all contributing properties according to information you provided are on Swinton Avenue. The non-contributing properties are disproportionate to contributing properties within the proposed symmetrical and uniform boundaries, and therefore, share unequal burden of restrictive rezoning associated with the historic district. Do not table this tonight; deny the nomination for Northwest Swinton to become a historic district. Nan Thompson, NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach - I am very much against this rezoning. I was told by my insurance company that they will not insure my property if it is designated historic. My previous insurance company pulled out of Florida and I had to find new homeowners insurance. What I went through I don't wish it on anyone, especially my friends and neighbors. Finally, Nationwide, at the last minute told me they would insure my house, but not if it was designated historic. Richard Marchek, NW 16th Street, Delray Beach - I am a sixty plus year resident of this City. I have a problem with what is being proposed. In looking at the areas designated, maybe 50% of the areas within the district are designated. The ones designated historic will get certain provisions and financial help while the ones not designated historic will not. Those that do not have historic preservation status will also have to adhere to the same regulations. As a property owner I do not think that is fair. I do not believe that there are enough buildings west of Swinton Avenue to designate this a historic area. You can apply individually to have your home designated historic. There is no reason why we all have to be brought in to do this. I am totally against this. Frank Hunter, wanted to thank the members of the Board and Mr. Tefft. I have a list of people (with signatures) who I am representing tonight. The City Attorney recommended that I put into the record, that when I went to the August 18, 2004 meeting before hurricane preparation, the Board had adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The Del-Ida Park proposal was postponed to October 20, 2004. Our Lake Ida members do object to this. This map does not fit the report that was put out. Every house on the top north side of 17th is non-contributing, however, on the map they are shown as contributing. Everyone I have talked to, including homeowners are against this. The Lake Ida and Del Park area have been improving over the years without the historic district. If you cannot postpone this today, I request that a record be made available to the City Commission. I also asked Ms. Shay and Mr. Tefft for a copy of the mailing list that was mailed out. I never received those. The mailman advised me he had 75 letters to deliver and a lot of the people were not home. We have not had time to mobilize to get the information out to the people. I did get copies of the LDRs. Leslie Horenburger, 510 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach — I was unable to attend the meeting in August as I was out of town. We received a certified letter a day before the hurricane. It was several days after this that we received this information. With the hurricane I have not had time to review the details. I came in open minded with the possibility that the Historic District would preserve the older homes, which I am in favor of. I have seen the plans for the home that is going next 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 to me. I am upset that my insurance company would not insure my house. I certainly do not want to go through that process again. I request that you table this vote so that we have additional time to review all the aspects of this. Ms. Mary Lou Jamison, 515 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach — I have been fighting with the Insurance Commission for over 15 years in trying to get insurance. When I bought our home twenty-one years we had a problem getting insurance due to the age of the home. I presently have State Farm Insurance. I tried to get the Board to try to do something with the State of Florida. They want these old homes preserved. As a Board I don't know what you can do, you might be able write a letter, or you might be able to get with other cities and Boards. Larissa Ozols, 107 NW 15th Street, Delray Beach - this outlines a symmetrical and uniform boundary. The United States does not have a uniform boundary, the City does not have a uniform boundary, and the County does not have a uniform boundary, and we still function as a democracy. I am trying to bring some common sense to the table. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the homes on Swinton Avenue are part of the contributing homes. Make it a non-uniform boundary. If you insist on a historic district, change the language, and change the boundaries to only be limited to Swinton Avenue. Brenda Wutherrspoon, 701 NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach — I live in a non- contributing home in the district. I have concerns about restrictions that will apply. I want to change various parts of my home. I am concerned about the availability of insurance. I do have a concern that this is some kind of a smoke screen to stop some of the development in my neighborhood. I deal with Code Enforcement and I think could do a better job as a city by mandating restrictions. I am not convinced it is the best for everyone in that area. If we have a goal that we direct our attention to that goal and not have people who do not live in historic homes fall under the same restrictions as historic homes. I am not opposed to development; any one of us can live in bigger, grander homes. We have to work towards a goal. Douglas Root, 1421 NW 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach — advised he is in favor of what the Board is attempting to do. The two largest pieces of land on the map had developers trying to buy it. Anything the Board can do to prevent developers from coming in and tearing one house and putting up five, and stop the large mansions from being built, will benefit the whole neighborhood overall by stopping a lot of development. Someone has to have regulations relative to this area. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez expressed his concern that there were a lot of misconceptions relative to the historic designation and clarification is needed. When you are designated as a historic building you can do it locally. It is different that what staff is trying to do here, this is to maintain the character of the district. The Board and Planning and Zoning Board will seek to maintain the character of a contributing structure as opposed to a non-contributing structure. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Mr. Tefft advised that the contributing structures can get a tax abatement. The non- contributing do not qualify for that abatement. It is based upon what improvements they make to their property. It is only for contributing property in the historic district a non-contributing does not qualify. Mr. Costello advised when you are in the district there are design guidelines that apply to contributing and noncontributing construction. It does not have to be a certain style. A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is not a restriction. It is a process in the Design Guidelines stating what staff can approve and what the Board needs to approve. The COA process typically runs between one and three weeks. We will try and get items on the Board as quickly as we can to do the proper analysis. It does not require additional setbacks. It is a little more in detail. It provides another way to make sure that scale and character is appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Miller questioned if this would provide some flexibility when it comes to Planning and Zoning. Instead of tearing down a historic structure, you can apply for variances and receive some flexible consideration to do certain things that would otherwise not be allowed. Mr. Costello advised that demolition on a non-contributing structure the Board has the ability to stay a demolition for three (3) months. On a contributing structure they have the ability for six (6) months. If it is inevitable let's try and find an opportunity to save that historic resource. There are structures that have been brought into the neighborhood from other areas. There are criteria in the code that allows for historic structures some flexibility on the standards to obtain a variance. The Board of Adjustment criteria are much more stringent than the HPB. Recently we have modified the LDRs to relate to non-conforming structure. Historic structures in the historic districts you are limited relative to repairs and exterior modifications. Ordinary repairs are limited to 10% of the replacement value of the structure within a twelve (12) month period. We modified the code that will go to the Planning and Zoning Board and then to the City Commission to allow consideration for non- conforming historic structures to allow them to do these improvements. There are some flexibility with a historic home. Ms. Schatz advised she chaired a Board of Adjustment for many years you are extremely restricted with the Board of Adjustment as to what you can do or not do. You don't have much flexibility. The majority of people who come in say they don't want mega mansions; they want to keep the character of the neighborhood. You either want the protections of keeping the character of the neighborhood or you don't. The issue comes down to pursuing this issue or not. Mr. Silberstein — if the neighborhood is designated a historic district does that mean that automatically the house becomes a historic house, and can they still get their insurance? Mr. Tefft advised he is not educated to speak relative to the insurance. The shaded structures on the map are contributing to the neighborhood should the district be adopted. They would all be considered in a historic district. I don't know if that would make a difference relative to insurance. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Ms. Jamison advised that it is on your property tax bill that you live in a historic district. It means that some insurance companies are not writing insurance if your house is listed in the historic district, not that it is old. Harvey Brown's insurance told me that when my house was 60 years old that he did not have an insurance company that would insure it because it was over 50 years old. There are insurance companies that will not sell you insurance if you are in a historic designated district. There are insurance companies that will not insure older homes in a historic district. It is a major problem. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Costello and Mr. Tefft if they knew anything about the insurance issue. Mr. Costello advised we would look into that issue. Ms. Dersh inquired was it because the insurance company expects to rebuild the historic house as it was, or is there a difference in that you have to meet certain criteria in rebuilding the house? Mary Lou advised that if your home is destroyed you do not have to rebuild that house. In talking to the different insurance companies there were a lot of misconceptions and inconsistencies. There are more problems with an older home. I speak with Tom Gallagher's office regularly, and State Farm and Allstate is not writing insurance in historic districts. Mr. Schatz—there are three kinds of insurance: wind storm, flood, and homeowners. We also have the east of 1-95 issue, which has nothing to do with any of this. We are solely talking about homeowner's insurance. Ms. Lake — owns a house that was built in 1932 east of Federal east of the Intracoastal and I am insured with Harvey Brown Insurance Agency. I am not in a historic designated area. I will have some information regarding property owners insurance. Ms. Dersh advised we were given some information at a previous meeting. Mr. Miller advised we have gotten off track. I grew up on Swinton Avenue, and the changes have been positive. I like the look and feel of the neighborhood. Most of the changes in the area have been positive. The land in this area is so valuable that people that purchase homes do not want to live in a 1,200 sq. ft. house; they want to be able to add on to the home. Ms. Lake recently was on a task force in two neighborhoods in the beach area; the Seagate neighborhood and the area north of Atlantic Avenue. We had concerns about the size of homes being built and what renovations were starting to look like. The task force was made up of individuals in the neighborhood. We set-up guidelines to preserve what is going on in the beach area. There should be a set of plans and guidelines in order for the City to be able to control what is going to be redeveloped. My recommendation would be to have the neighborhood look at working to create something that will work to maintain the integrity of what is there now. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Ms. Reich —would like to know more about the insurance as well. Board discussion ensued relative to the insurance issues, lack of enough time for the homeowners to review and absorb the information, and the time frame to set the next meeting date. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 7 to 0 to table the direction of North Swinton Avenue until the November 3, 2004 meeting. V. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 205 NE 5th Terrace (Independence Title). Del-Ida Park Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign on a Contributing Property, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The freestanding sign is to be located five feet (5') from the NE 2nd Avenue right-of-way, within the required sight visibility triangle. The freestanding sign will be 42" high (3.5') and 68" (5.6') wide totaling 19.83 square feet. Including the sigh base and decorative cap, the sign will stand 66" (5.5') tall and will be 84" (7') in total width. The applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the sight visibility triangle at the intersection of NE 2"d Avenue and NE 5th Terrace to 36' and at NE 2nd avenue and Dixie Boulevard to 24'. The City Engineer has looked at the request but denied it due to safety concerns that there was a mango tree nearby. He suggested moving the sign outside of the sight visibility triangles or redesigned to it does not exceed three feet (3') in height. Staff has concerns with the appearance and size. Staff is reconsidering that waiver request be denied. We do recommend approval of the COA subject to the conditions that the free- standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, and/or that the sign is reduced so as not to exceed three feet (3') in height. The applicant is not present. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. Waiver Request: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move denial of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (2) to reduce the required 40' sight visibility triangles at the intersections of NE 2nd Avenue, NE 5th Terrace, and Dixie Boulevard, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Certificate of Appropriateness: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for Independence Title (205 NE 5th Terrace), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1, and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the condition that the free-standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, and/or that the sign is reduced so as not to exceed three feet (3') in height. B. Atlantic Grove (301 -401 West Atlantic Avenue), West Settlers Historic District, Mark Gregory, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Blanket Sign Program associated with the Atlantic Grove development, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.8(J). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. This is associated with the Atlantic Grove development located between 301 and 401 West Atlantic Avenue. Freestanding signs are proposed at the corner of NW 3rd Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue and NW 5th Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue. These freestanding signs are only 3' in height, and there are no issues with site visibility. Wall signs are proposed for the first floor of the south elevation, the retail bays along Atlantic Avenue. These signs will be on the fascia of the building. Under canopy signs are proposed for the first floor retail on the north and south elevations and for the second floor offices on the north elevation. Nameplates and window signs are also proposed. Nameplates will be on either side of the doorway for the entry, and window signs would be for the offices on the second floor. A lot of these are restricted by their condominium committee prior to installation. Staff is recommending approval of the subject blanket sign program subject to two conditions: That the flood lamps be installed with the free-standing signs at grade, and that there is design consistency between the under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant so we do not have varying signs. Mr. Mark Gregory, Boca Raton, asked staff to clarify the last statement as far as the condition between the wall sign and under canopy sign. There will be three under canopy signs. One is in the back where there are no wall signs it is over the door entrance. I do not think they are in conflict with wall signs. On Atlantic Avenue we will have under canopy signs for pedestrian walkways, and a flat wall sign. Mr. Tefft advised that the signage should have the same image and be consistent throughout the building. Mr. Gregory advised these signs are consistent with the Blanket Sign Program. We want to have a unique look, and did not want to have a strip mall or commercial look. We wanted it to have the flavor of downtown Delray Beach. The landlord is going to be very restrictive on the type of signs they are going to approve. They have to meet 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 the association's standards as well. Regarding the under canopy signs, we tried to unify them regarding the color, the simple letter style. A few retail signs will be illuminated. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh questioned what illuminated meant, is it just light up, and not neon. Mr. Gregory advised that they had an option of being illuminated internally. It is not exposed neon. There will be an internal illuminated feature on the lettering. You will not see any neon you will just see the illumination. It will be restricted by a metal face or a Plexiglas face. You will just see the color of the letter or the silhouette of the letter. Mr. Gregory advised that the traditional illuminated sign would be about a 5" deep projection. A non-illuminated sign would be something as simple as a plate letter one-quarter inch thick that would be raised off the wall about one-half inch. Most of the letters will fall within the sign band will not pass that lower coping area. I would like the signs to be in a range 3" to 6" in letter depth. Chairman Perez advised that non-illuminated and illuminated should have the same depth and letter size. Ms. Dersh believes that neon signs do not belong on Atlantic Avenue and questioned where the monument signs would be. Mr. Gregory advised the Board had plans in their packets regarding the monument signs. They are matched with the building color. They are recessed back in the landscape area. We had to make modifications to satisfy the City Engineer. Mr. Gregory advised there will be no exposed neon on the front of the building as the landlord put a restriction on neon signs. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval with an additional condition (No. 3.) of the Blanker Sign Program for Atlantic Grove, 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 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the flood lamps should be installed at grade; 2. That there is design consistency between the under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant; and 3. That the letter projection be limited to between three inches (3") and six inches (6") off the building. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 C. 219-221 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Gulfstream Roofing, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated for roof material change within the Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to Land Developments Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The applicant has submitted a COA to replace the existing roof with a light beige Spanish "S" cement tile roof. The surrounding properties are comprised of a variety of different roof styles/types and architectural styles. These roof materials include barrel tile an asphalt shingles. The dwelling immediately to the north has a white Spanish "S" tile roof, which is similar to the proposed roof. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Ted McCall advised the reason for the change is that there are two or three significant leaks; therefore, replacement of the roof is necessary. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA request for 219-221 North Swinton Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. D. 19 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jim Zengage, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Class II Site Plan Modification for the Demolition of a Noncontributing Building Addition and Construction of a Six (6) Space Parking Lot. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and into the record. The 0.15-acre subject property consists of Lot 9, Block 69, Town of Delray. The property, which is located on the east side of South Swinton Avenue, approximately 256' south of Atlantic Avenue, is considered a contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a one-story vernacular structure constructed in 1940 as a single-family residence. The structure is of reinforced masonry and wood construction on a concrete foundation. The roof is asphalt shingle and aluminum awning windows have replaced the original wood frame windows. Two non-contributing one-story additions have been constructed on the east elevation of the structure. The first addition, built in 1967, consists of a flat roof, 12 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 while the second addition, built in 1975, consists of a gable roof and a flat-roofed covered porch. At its meeting of April 2, 1997, HPB approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA 8-301), site plan modification, landscape plan, architectural elevations, and waiver requests associated with the conversion of the single-family residence to a hair salon. The development proposal consisted of the conversion of the original contributing 878 square foot single-family residence to a hair salon; the enclosure of the 214 square foot carport on the north side of the dwelling to accommodate additional salon floor area (1,042 square feet total); the removal of the front driveway; and the installation of a four (4) parking spaces backing onto the alley at the rear of the property. The aforementioned non-contributing additions (consisting of 641 square feet) were to be utilized for storage and as an efficiency dwelling unit. The improvements associated with the conversion were completed in June of 1999. A Class II Site Plan Modification has been submitted to demolish the existing non- contributing 641 square foot addition (storage area and efficiency unit) at the rear of the structure and the existing four (4) parking spaces in order to construct a new six (6) space single-loaded parking area. Additionally, an existing concrete walkway along the south side of the structure will be modified to provide handicap access to the front of the structure. The proposed changes are associated with the conversion of the hair salon to offices. The development proposal also includes four waiver requests. Mr. Jim Zengage, applicant, 75 NE 6th Avenue, No. 214, Delray Beach - agreed with staff's recommendations and conditions. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Mr. Silberstein inquired as to the pattern of the landscaping. Mr. Tefft advised that they would be utilizing a cocoplum hedge. Mr. Silberstein inquired if there would be landscaping to cover the chain link fence. Mr. Tefft advised that a hedge would be planted along the fence. Waiver Requests: A. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the alley right-of-way and the first parking space within the parking lot from five feet (5') to four feet (4') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to 13 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the east side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to three feet-six inches (3'-6") 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the width of the landscape barrier between the parking area and the property to the north from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6") 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (j) to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the west side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to one foot (1') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Demolition: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the demolition request for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan Modification: It was moved by Ms. Reich, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class II site plan modification for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. That the actual height of the proposed light fixture is indicated; 3. That the finish of the light fixture and pole is indicated; 4. That a photometric plan indicating the proposed light fixture locations and the means by which cut-off shielding will be implemented is provided; 5. That two feet (2') of right-of-way is dedicated for the adjacent alley and accepted by the City Commission; and 6. That the full width of the alley (following dedication) is paved. 14 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Landscape Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Lake, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. That the landscape plan is revised to locate the Cocoplum hedge and Silver Buttonwood tree proposed within the landscape island between the parking tier and the alley on the subject property. Design Elements: It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation VI. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. Del-Ida Point Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat (Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The subject property is at the southwest corner of NE 2nd Avenue and NE 6th Street within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 2,144 square foot non-contributing dwelling constructed in 1952. The original attached garage (west side of dwelling) was converted to a bedroom in 1958. At its meeting of August 18, 1999, the Historic Preservation Board approved the installation of a 10' x 14' aluminum garden shed on the west side of the property and while a concrete slab exists for the shed, the shed itself was never installed. An application has been submitted to subdivide the subject property into two (2) conforming lots while retaining the extant non-contributing single-family dwelling. The plat is now before the Board for action. The development proposal was to re-plat the existing Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park into two (2) conforming lots. The existing Lots 26 and 28 are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width and frontage. 15 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Staff is recommending approval to City Commission regarding the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat. It was moved by Ms. Lake, seconded by Mr. Schatz, and passed 7 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Del-Ida Point Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. B. Dixie Del-Ida Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Item Before the Board: Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat (Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park. The subject property is designated as a part of the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is located on the southeast side of Dixie Boulevard, lying just west of NE 2"d Avenue. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 1,836 square foot contributing dwelling constructed in 1930 and a 286 square foot garage constructed in 1948. The development proposal is to re-plat the existing nonconforming Lots 2 - 5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park into three (3) conforming lots. The existing lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width, depth, and frontage. Staff is recommending approval to City Commission regarding the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat. Ms. Dwyer's plan has also been shown to the Heads of the departments and was signed off and approved. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 6 to 1 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Dixie Del-Ida Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. VII. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: None D. Staff: Mr. Tefft advised that he would find out additional information from the Historic Trust, as well as obtaining information relative to the insurance issue. 16 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 6, 2004 Chairman Perez advised that the City will have a training session for all Board members on October 12, 2004 in the City Commission Chambers. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for October 6, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on December 1, 2004. 41G, / Z/(- enise 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. 17 '� O �� .A, AGENDA o� Y �qr �� HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: October 6, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: City Commission Chambers 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 decidesto 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 maybe in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES O July 7, 2004 III. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.24 AND 4.3.4(K). Reconsideration of a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for amendments to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the Old School Square Historic Arts District. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Consideration of the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District. V. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 205 NE 5th Terrace (Independence Title), Del-Ida Park Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign. B. Atlantic Grove (301 —401 West Atlantic Avenue), West Settlers Historic District, Mark Gregory, Authorized Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Master Sign Program for the Mixed-Use Development. Historic Preservation Board Agenda Meeting of October 6,2004 Page 2 C. 219 — 221 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Gulfstream Roofing, Authorized Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a roof material change. D. 19 South Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jim Zengage, Authorized Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Class ll Site Plan Modification for the Demolition of a Noncontributing Building Addition and Construction of a Six(6) Space Parking Lot. VI. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS A. Del-Ida Point Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission on the Re-Plat of Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park. B. Dixie Del-Ida Plat, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kim Dwyer, Authorized Agent Forward a Recommendation to the City Commission on the Re-Plat of Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park. VII.REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members O Staff VIII. ADJOURN Robert-G. Tefft, Senior Planner POSTED ON: October 1, 2004 DEERAY BEACH OEERAYBEACH lifHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ale ld 'III.. MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT liii 1993 1993 2001 2001 MEETING OF: OCTOBER 6, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: III.A. - AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.3.4(K) AND 4.4.24 REGARDING OSSHAD ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board concerning City-initiated amendments to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24 and 4.3.4(K) pertaining to the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), 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 Background: In 1988, special "overlay districts" were created for the purpose of preserving the historic fabric of certain areas within Delray Beach. These overlay districts did not affect allowable use of the area, but only regulated aesthetics, neighborhood character, and provided some safe guards against actions which would be detrimental to the objective of appropriate historic preservation. The Old School Square Historic (Overlay) District was established on February 9, 1988. It was placed on 50 acres of land with 209 properties, 86 of which were identified as being historically contributing properties. Six base zoning districts governed the allowable land use within this overlay district. These zoning districts included the RO, POC, GC, RM-6, RM-10 and CBD. In May, 1989, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) began consideration of a single zoning district to replace the existing six zoning districts within the Old School Square Historic District. The Board desired to increase the marketability and focus of the Historic District through a unified zoning district which would allow additional cultural arts and related uses. The types of changes envisioned at that time were additional permitted uses such as: Yoga, Health Spa, and Fitness Center uses; change some conditional uses to permitted uses; shortening review and approval processing time. In August, 1989, the initial drafts of the proposed zoning district were distributed for review. The use of "bed and breakfast" was added and some minor changes were II LA. P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 2 suggested during the review. A general consensus seemed to have been reached and the proposal was put into proper format. In March 1990, the Historic Preservation Board considered recommendations that multiple family residences and duplexes should no longer be allowed as permitted or conditional uses in the proposed zoning district. During the ensuing review period several comments and challenges were made to the proposal, most seeking more lenient provisions. From June through August, the proposal was aired and modified during the public review process. On October 1, 1990, the OSSHAD was created concurrently with adoption of the Land Development Regulations (major re-write of the zoning and development regulations). It is noted that with the adoption of the LDRs, duplexes were permitted and residential units were allowed as a conditional use in conjunction with a nonresidential use provided the residential use did not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the structure. In April, 1991, dissatisfaction with two development proposals led to special work sessions among the City Commission, Historic Preservation Board, and others. As a result of those meetings, direction was given to revisit the OSSHAD regulations. A special committee was created to work on the task. Extensive changes to the OSSHAD regulations were made. At its meeting of February 23, 1993, the City Commission approved the text amendment. Since the major changes in 1993, there have been minor changes which mostly related to parking requirements, addition of residential-type inns and 24-hour and late night businesses as conditional uses, and inclusion of some properties on the west side of SE 1st Avenue as an area that is subject to the CBD regulations. 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 intent is to clarify that multiple family structures and townhouses are not permitted in the district; however it does not prevent residential uses in a mixed-use structure in a manner more consistent with the neighborhood. Currently, the minimum lot area for a duplex is 8,000 sq.ft. Essentially, this allows development of duplexes or two units within a mixed use structure at a density of 10.89 units per acre. The amendment limits the width of a building fronting a street to 75' and requires a minimum separation of 15' between buildings fronting a street of a development site that contains more than one structure. Currently, a 7.5' side interior setback is required, which results in a 15' separation between buildings. While there are some 50' wide lots P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 3 in the OSSHAD, the predominant width is 75'. The maximum width of 75' was established to provide some flexibility to owners of multiple lots. In order to accommodate massing and scale appropriate to the district, increased setbacks are proposed for three story structures. With regard to the building setbacks, at its meeting of September 15, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed and recommended denial of the text amendment, as they had concerns with the increased setbacks. The concern was that the increased setbacks would impact small lot developments. Since that time, staff has contacted the Chairman of the HPB who expressed the concern and discussed possible alternatives. One alternative is to limit the floor area of the third floor to 50% of the second floor area and require that offsets are provided on the third floor to provide visual relief. While this would be more lenient for smaller lot development it could be more restrictive for larger developments depending on the proposal. Three alternatives are proposed: (1) 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'; (2) the front setback will be increased from 25' to 30', the side street setback will be increased from 15' to 20' and the side interior setback will be increased from 7.5' to 12.5'; and, (3) The floor area for the third floor shall be no more than 50% of the second floor area and the building setbacks or planes of the façade shall be offset and varied to provide visual relief. 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. Either regulation would help accomplish the intent relating to scale and massing. It is noted, this LDR amendment also provides for associated clarifications to uses as well as corrections to the text of the OSSHAD regulations. At its meeting of September 27, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment. The Board did not feel comfortable forwarding the item to the City Commission without obtaining a positive recommendation fro the Historic Preservation Board. Therefore, the Board tabled the item and remanded it back to the HPB for further consideration. 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: P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 4 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: • 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 P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 5 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. Historic Preservation Board: At its meeting of September 15, 2004, the HPB reviewed the proposed text amendment. The Board discussed the proposal and had concerns with the increased setbacks for third floors and did not feel the increased setbacks should apply to small lot developments. After discussing the text amendment, the Board recommended denial of the text amendment. Downtown Development Authority: At its meeting of September 15, 2004, the DDA Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed text LDR amendment. Planning and Zoning Board: At its meeting of September 27, 2004, the Planning and zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment. There were two members of the public and an HPB member who spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. The board did not feel comfortable forwarding the item to the City Commission without obtaining a positive recommendation fro the Historic Preservation Board. Therefore, the Board tabled the item for further consideration by HPB. P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 6 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue with direction. 2. Move to recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) 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. 3. Move to recommend to the City Commission denial of the attached amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) 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. RECOMMENDATION By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to LDR Sections 4.3.4(K) and 4.4.24 and 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. Attachments: Proposed LDR Amendment Aerial of Old School Square Historic District Map of OSSHAD lots subject to CBD Regulations Old School Square Historic District—Tax Map Parcel Configuration P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 7 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) Residential uses of sSingle family detached dwellings_ and duplexes. (2) Duplex structures. (23) 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. (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. P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 8 (78) Providing of personal services such as barbershops, beauty shops, salons, cosmetologists. (89) Bed and Breakfast Inns. p10) Catering services not associated with a restaurant, subject to the special regulations of Section 4.4.24(H). (a 011) Group Home, Type 1, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(1). (4412) 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 Visions 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-single family residence-no more than two residential units, either within a separate structure or within a structure housing a non-residential use, provided that one of-the situations exists: business enterprise conducted on the property; or, , (c) The residence is occupied by the owner of the parcel. (3) Family Day Care (4) Parking lots and refuse storage areas P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 9 (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 resin a located w ixeel-use structture- (2) On a parcel that has as its principal use a non residential use, (5) 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 (SF), (GH), and (141). (4) Conditional uses must be approved pursuant to Section 2.4.5( E). Prior to action by the Planning and Zoning Board, the conditional use request must be A P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 10 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, the maximum width of a building fronting a street shall be limited to 75' and the minimum separation of 15' between buildings fronting a street of a development site that contains more than one structure. (5) The floor area for the third floor shall be limited to 50% of the second floor area and the building setbacks or planes of the façade are offset and varied to provide visual relief. (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 P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations (City-initiated) Page 11 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 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. P&Z Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Text Amendment—OSSHAD Regulations(City-initiated) Page 12 (4) A residential-type inn shall be associated with an historic structure and must be residential in design, scale and character. (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(W). (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 1/2' 10' Alternative 1 25'/37' 15/27' 7'/2' / 12'/2' 10' (Previously reviewed by HPB) Alternative 2 25'/30' 15/20' 7'/2' / 12'/2' 10' Alternative 3 25'/ (1) 15' / (1) 71/2' / (1) 10' (1) (1) - Refer to individual district regulations. Proposed LDR Section 4.4.24(F)(5) The floor area for the third floor shall be no more than 50% of the second floor area and the building setbacks or planes of the facade shall be offset and varied to provide visual relief. A • S Y rr�� p I W....=, t 7...."7 '-'"Lit:'...7.-7 Q,1---, :..-„,...q ,:,,,,:,-.„ ,. . __,,,,,,_.,,:::...,, . , ig;;a4-. .4,.„. L-E.,,-„,,,____, .,.-:, , . . .. r.„,. ..-.,,,,,_ !* .' k1+` � .�fl ) 4: x ,..-, t la7.7llf .., �� .71 -i, tlt : e j - pol...K.,,,-;,:,;...,,... ..-7,.,.-.,..,.---,t,!MVO, :t ,t=11,-,-. is,...-1 -, ,.,...,:i.,: .__ ,i'-,--. . .mi:p-. a/44-4, -.•41'.,i.- 7-;'-` y „ 4• ._ ��•• ;� {��,,��� t"•��It•.-ii�f�_J � Sq _ •,� Ia,P"3 `''' _ (t+. em� . - �S+ . �4 a„ t y e.f". l' -4 7 •MEW i li..iri �' ` _ r• 7 441,q�,r '� K"sii ._; ._ C. - .i•. s-:--• . ..mix 1 t `t r ; y i It ilit t+� y - s 's r? �;.. l�l ..•4> S • t ., K ' c - 5,..... is,. r. —111'. 6i,. 1 #`s_`Y-!i '$ '�!'•-fikg1 • ii � .�' I � z. .per 3 :::-.':.;:,;-4-,•:,,•-:-...',.i ,„..„ i..... _:,,,-.,„:„,,,,,,,,..,...„,,,,,1.i:Al'7; l'"'-`1 '-'*''.-----.'-,.:',:',',.7--.a;z3:,,C----; f.", ,-;-. :';',..'' 1.75:1 iii32::, - ,,,,-' r-,..-p-,;,,-----,7; , :. I ,,-,..,,,,:tri-g.T.37,,,r4,7:::,.1 ,-,-,---:--,'.00 It, -.--.- ,_... ,,_, ,, gr,____::....,L, ,„,....., . .., .„-L.,Trit: R a. � 5 1,,•I .„.-L,4 K t i, -3 ,_ �. �t :i- A 9 ..t^ .. l_. r +i T _ ,,-.f,{�g r y.- G fff i -•' _.Il), ,, Of F lil[ `R IIIIII�'� �+ r R. } F L �. I i .,; is 4�� , i �t t' " 1 E b 4 ,+.; z a !- , tts.. �,, a,g,�. ,��- '� y F.� s..; i ,. _i }.';''.If-�sE _ a { ti "- ,�1, ram" r•e .+. 4 .: K 3 "i c#°., I “ 4 } s"� R i r'~ z.", 7., •_-- .r.__t d k �.. ( _ • �a _ d.r t� . f. s'�5� ! �n tom• ` • li (s �p"r�`)fr r t r 'r,. .7, 4 k $ 9 j"S} -.'� ` I1 - a _ .. ,, Sx•IL C�-�YiL 'tom _ s +, 1 '' 1 - 'A , ri,..1,::l',-.,:-. .",:i' if.-_,.r11:--,:..li-i',. '' : .-1,---;`,-,K;!ft?ti:... -._'&71-', ',,i,t-:7311iifOlt-7,1 -.*;:. ';'7::'-' .---rr'-.?.-:1:;'.. 'f:.k 44.2p. -i ' „r".--1-- /11 1 e _.•-st a"� dill I ,,�{ t.���,} Si�C'JTi .:: ..'ti['_i _ + w�( ti ., _".' �}yIMR. . . .. . ,,,... ._ _ r7 t•i ri,..,,„,,„,„„,,,,,,,„,„,.,,,..,,,,,,„,,,,,,:,,,,,,,„_„_, .„.k, ±< s ,(R� , _� per ,ry a Y {1i r V �Ta'3-11 'k- Yl L.,ak-i • ; �i ,. L ?1 welt 1l�.17 Y 'i t�• t L,_. `.$ 'y6.'1,I.:A ?� _ .1` 1. h* �_i � *� 1 �".'t • a �4V; a<,+.,1. t �C - ^�ate Y S® �r ..ik' { i� :� 8 _,.._......,,J.,., . .2-_. ...i..:„.„.;• — . 11 'i.VY :i'.14V i•-::VOW '":1'f,i,--- • -110.,•c:.4.4"r4.1.%.1,1;--.,i,- ' . ' .is ... ,-•,,IKP ,„,,,-.014,1..••• • .,-- i z rN it, F,sw1 i i i -� T�f Y •i�+ to-,-v - e•�if'• '>r;.. rr •::>o..Fa • ' ,,r... ��i{`$7c��Zt,. 1s;1 It 1 N �— OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, TAX MAP PARCEL CONFIGURATION PLANNING do ZONING DEPARTMENT l -- D/G/TAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- I` �1� N.E. 5TH ST. Q o z 5 z q TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. o c �_ BOY SCOUT LUTHERAN o n = COMM.F HUT _- z W CHILD jV WAL- CARE /�L O \GREENS CENTER \ A ROAD A D (N.W. aTH ST.) ST. 0 JICm 5r y _ IPOST CASON ' OFFICEI - METHODIST — CHURCH (`J E=- ,4111 - w w Id 16 a a 1 nF, 15 0 m - C JRD ST__ N.E. 3RD ST. N'W'I I �__ I 24 1 1 9 i s 24 ! n1111 n IIIIt t . 1 r =� w I i -o Z-©-6- 74 To �i — CITY —w s i6tn_ i K� �g ATTORNEY > 3 "� N a o BUILDING =Q I h 13 12 19 20 1 12 13 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.W.2ND ST. N.E. 1 2ND MI El 111.111 _� �^ST. _ al EN 174AI o o rk EN a 1,7,�1. m = m1llll I clrY �1p� ii� ��.Z -J E� z HALL ilk• -- Q. �= 2D z IL �- .- `,. . N.W.- . I 15T ST. W.1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. .., ! IllllIHI 2 �'0 �i 3 i� 3 COMMUNITY w ��;11 a .� i CENTER /� A*111E r F FIRE nun O t`t., - STATION = 111111 E �--'I. TENNIS t2 OLD ► '®Q 1a w STADIUM vramsa i) VA SQUARE 1111 a,l'lir Z Z` NO. 1 i • AVENUE•ATLANTIC * UIII POLICE SOUTH fl l '� NI ���3 l' COMPLEX COUNTY COURT 5 II A M 111 F �HOUSE _ OA !MR < E Val Li ,i, tilt H 0 16 S.W. 1ST 1 1 S_T S.W. 1ST ST. a S.E. 1ST ST. I I 1 BUD'S 3// �j Z�iih a 1n n iA 10 • too H - -- 11II1I .ramM .N — S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND __ _--r,„O ST-‘pi-- Z -Z _ Z l 1 < -_ -m -O- -m- H 3- 3- - H w o vi •_�i 2' _- VI UI V1 Vl �j N ry VI 1- 1- =- it 1 1 .--I H '— O Z t N OSSHAD LOTS SUBJECT TO C.B.D. REGULATIONS -'11111Mr- PLATTED LOT CONFIGURATION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ® -EXISTINGLOTSO 9-BLOCK NUMBER 5 -LOT NUMBER -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LMA122 a i�■■■■i ■ in ■ ■ ■ • • — ■ ■ ■ ■ • IN • ■ a ■ I ■ I INI ■ I I -11■■■Ii ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ II • J ■ ■ I • • • • • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • / ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ ARANi1C • AVENGE ■ I I• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • _--- ■ ■ O ■ ■ E ■ • W ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■ ■ I■ ■• • I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ II■■■■■■■■■■■■■IP N ii[ -�— OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT an of DELRAY BEACH. FL TAX MAP PARCEL CONFIGURATION PLANNING dE ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL QASE MAP SYSTEM -- DE16AY BEACH _ PEERAY BFACEE i&kadiCad HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD liii MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT, li 1993 1993 Project Name: Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Project Location: Generally described as the Area between North Swinton Avenue and NW 2"d Avenue, between Trinity Lutheran Church and the North Side of NW 17th Street. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD " The item before the Board is the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1(C). BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City of Delray Beach has proposed to designate the area discussed in the attached designation report to the Local Register of Historic Places. At its meeting of August 18, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) conducted a formal review of the designation report for the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and set a public hearing date on the designation for October 6, 2004. To qualify as a historic site or historic district, the property or properties must fulfill one or more of the criteria set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (2) and/or(3). The designation report contains, at a minimum, sufficient information to conform to the criteria stated in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3), a district is deemed to have architectural or aesthetic significance if it fulfills one or more of the following criteria: (a) Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; (b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction; (c) Is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder; or (d) Contains elements of design, detail, material, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represented, in its time, a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment. To qualify as a historic site, or historic district, or historic interior, individual properties, structures, sites, or buildings, or groups of properties, structures, sites, or buildings must have significant character, interest, or value as part of the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and architectural heritage of the city, state, or nation. The designation report demonstrates that the area qualifies as a historic district as the area: (a) portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and (b) embodies distinctive characteristics typical of those styles and period of construction. Designating the district as historic will help preserve the character of the extant historic dwellings and promote the retention of the scale of the neighborhood. Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Page 2 COURTESY! PUBLIC NOTICES Courtesy Notices: Special courtesy notices were provided to the Lake Ida Homeowner's Association as well as property owners within a 500' radius of the proposed historic district. Public Notice: Formal public notice has been provided to those property owners within the proposed historic district. Letters of support or objection, if any, will be presented at the HPB meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to establish the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff and designation reports, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Sections 4.5.1(B) (3) and 4.5.1(C) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Deny the establishment of the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, by a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Sections 4.5.1(B) (3) and 4.5.1(C) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to establish the Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Sections 4.5.1(B) (3) and 4.5.1(C) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachment:Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation Report Memorandum Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Teff,Senior Planner Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation Report Prepared by:Wendy Shay,Historic Preservation Planner Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Designation Report City of Delray Beach October 2004 I. Statement of Purpose Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District The proposal to establish the Northwest Swinton Avenue as a designated historic district was city initiated and began in June 2004 as a direct result of the relocation of a contributing frame vernacular historic dwelling from 508 North Swinton Avenue to 1440 North Swinton Avenue. The boundaries were established in order to provide a symmetrical and uniform boundary. The district was expanded to include up to NW 2nd Avenue to the west as the existing Del-Ida Park Historic District and proposed Dell Park Historic District provided protection for those historic properties to the east along North Swinton Avenue. The district was chosen for designation based upon its high architectural integrity and diversity of architectural styles as well as its contiguous expanse of extant contributing historic buildings and structures. II. Location Map and Boundary Description The proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District encompasses the properties directly north of and adjacent to (but not including) the Trinity Lutheran property to the south; NW 17th Street to the north; the west side of North Swinton Avenue to the east; and NW 2nd Avenue to the west (see attached map). Ill. Architectural Significance The period of significance for the area is 1925 -1954 based upon dates of construction. Predominant architectural styles include: Mission Revival, Frame Vernacular, Masonry Vernacular, Mediterranean-Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary. The following is a brief description of those styles: Frame Vernacular (1900-1940) - Constructed ,l of wood framing and reflecting no high ®® architectural style or formal architectural design, the vernacular house can be either symmetrical 11 11I■Illl11lilI1 II or asymmetrical in design. Built by laymen, A1.111llFll�l!ii ii 11111�11 _ E-1II often the owner, with no formal construction �1i���>•J•Lt:��L��l I vl= experience who utilized local building materials and craftsmanship techniques (also Masonry Vernacular). Mission Revival (1920-1935) - . Minimally ornamented with built-up, flat roofs often with 21 - .I stepped or curvilinear parapets, a wood or hollow clay tile frame with smooth or rough textured stucco exterior. Tile visor roofs over windows and entryways are also common. Fenestration often includes casement windows and arched entryways. Mediterranean Revival (1915-1940) - Influenced by the Italian and Spanish - o ►%� . . ,��, styles and popularized by Henry Flagler and Addison Mizner, this style �"� ' � e 9Y .-.� displays lowpitched, multi-plane roof p _ lines often with red clay tiles and little rim''' a i or no overhang. Tilevisor roofs are % '-'' jiIg oo s also common. A stucco exterior, often �itlri textured, covers an asymmetrical, wood or hollow clay tile frame. Arches are prevalent within the fenestration design including entryways, arcades, and colonnades. Minimal Traditional (1935-1950) — Typically, a one-story building displaying a „� low or intermediate pitched cross-gable roof "'v with a large chimney. Shares Tudor style traits it'' /: ,: such as rock or brick facing (particularly on '�g�''..iiiIiik the chimney) and minimal wood detailing. I'•' �.�t, mu . Popularized after World War II, this style is 'm le' 1 often associated with tract housing. MO 1 1 III Contemporary (1950-1970) Contemporary style houses were constructed from circa 1950 until 1970 and fall in the �``---~ category of Modern ° J° architecture, in which form follows function. � �````�— There are two subtypes "�� based on roof form: flat and gable. The flat roof subtype is based on the earlier International style and is referred to as the American International. The International style is reflected through the flat, often angled, roof, rectangular footprints, window bands, and minimal detail. However, Contemporary houses in the flat roof subtype often use a variety of materials which reflects the trends that were popularized in the 1950s. International style had stark, often white, surfaces covered with a single material. Commonly, they have overhanging eaves and exposed roof beams; heavy piers may support the gables. Like their flat-roofed counterparts, a variety of building materials were used and detailing was kept to a minimum. An irregular plan, flat roof, cantilevered, overhanging roof eaves, bands of large windows, and the use of metal characterize contemporary residences in Delray Beach. IV. Historical & Cultural Significance The west side of North Swinton Avenue (today a portion of the Lake Ida Park Neighborhood) was traditionally an agricultural area. The neighborhood's building stock developed substantially in the 1920s with the commercial promotion of south Florida as a tourist destination and a mecca for investment opportunities. The first houses seen in the area were constructed in the Frame Vernacular and Mediterranean influenced styles such as Mission-Revival and Spanish Eclectic and were strictly residential in nature. It was noted by early residents that construction of homes during the 1920s were limited to Swinton Avenue and that anything to the west of Swinton consisted of merely Palmetto Trees and Scrub Oaks; a local hangout for area children to play. One particular dwelling of note is located at 704 North Swinton Avenue and designed by famed local architect, Sam Ogren, Sr. (1899-1988). Mr. Ogren relocated from Tampa to West Palm Beach in 1924 as an apprentice to William Manly King, a regional architect. The dwelling at 704 North Swinton Avenue was Mr. Ogren's first design in Delray Beach. The building so impressed local officials that he was offered the position of City Architect. Between 1924-1950, he designed over 250 buildings. His most noted works reflected the Mediterranean- Revival style which can be seen in the Arcade Tap Room Building, Crest Theatre, and Old School Square Gymnasium located in downtown Delray Beach. Another notable home in the area is the Marshall DeWitt Residence located at 1108 North Swinton Avenue. Constructed in 1935-1936, the DeWitt house was designed by famed architect Gustav Maas and built by R.C. Lawson. At twenty years old, Marshall DeWitt relocated to Delray Beach in 1928 from Duluth, Minnesota just two months before the 1928 hurricane. DeWitt prospered in the area as a successful farmer during the Depression years and grew active in the community. DeWitt and his wife Jeanette Butts DeWitt (of the Butts Agricultural family) were prominent members of Delray Beach society. Mr. DeWitt served as the Chairman of the Board for the First National Bank in Delray, was a member of the City Commission and served as Mayor in the mid to late 1940s. The W. Seward Webb, Jr. home, located at 1634 North Swinton Avenue, was constructed c.1930. Webb moved to Gulfstream with his mother Lila Vanderbuilt Webb, of the renowned Vanderbuilt family, between 1923 and 1924. Webb constructed the home as his personal residence and was a long-time resident of Delray Beach until his death in January 1956. Other noteworthy properties include 1420 North Swinton Avenue was the residence of Paul E. Gringle, a prominent Delray Beach realtor and 1602 North Swinton Avenue was home to F.J. Schrader, a local architect and builder who designed the 1926 Bungalow presently owned and occupied by the Delray Beach Historical Society (5 NE 1st Avenue). The neighborhood expanded considerably during the 1930s and 1940s as tourists rented out local houses and those servicemen stationed in the Boca/Delray area required housing. The next building boom came after World War II, when those GIs stationed in the area before the war returned to settle down and start their families. The 1953 Delray Beach City Directory noted a substantial number of properties in this area as seasonal and apartment rentals. Other houses of note include several Contemporary style residences which reflect the start of a new era as more northern residents permanently relocated to south Florida. The majority of the remainder of the neighborhood's building stock was constructed during the 1950s and 1960s including numerous Ranch style houses. These houses are considered non-contributing due to either age or lack of architectural integrity. V. Statement of Significance Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3), a district is deemed to have architectural or aesthetic significance if it fulfills one or more of the following criteria: (a) Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; and, (b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction; (c) Is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder; or (d) Contains elements of design, detail, material, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represented, in its time, a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment. To qualify as a historic site, or historic district, or historic interior, individual properties, structures, sites, or buildings, or groups of properties, structures, sites, or buildings must have significant character, interest, or value as part of the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and architectural heritage of the city, state, or nation. The area qualifies as a historic district under the following criterion: (a) portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and (b) embodies distinctive characteristics typical of those styles and period of construction. A significant concentration of the Mission Revival, Frame Vernacular, Masonry Vernacular, Mediterranean-Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary styles of architecture are prevalent within the proposed boundaries and the contributing status of these buildings is considerable as the majority have maintained their architectural integrity. VI. Bibliography and Sources Delray Beach Surveys - Florida Master Site File Forms 1999, 2001 Mayhew Ill, Clemmer, Palm Beach Post, August 9, 1987. Posey, William M., "The DeWitt Family & Delray Beach, 1928-1993," DeWitt Homes & Garden Showcase, Old School Square Centennial Celebration, March 1995. Miller's Delray Beach, Florida City Directory, Volume III., 1953-1954. Farrar, Cecil W. and Margo Ann, "Incomparable Delray Beach: Its Early Life and Lore," Fiesta-Life on the Gold Coast, May, 1973. K I 0SCHOOL tn a ..p.wo/P'f./. r/z{ ,,.),o ` , N.W. 17TH Sr. 17TH ST. N.W. 17TH ST. - Mil Pry N.W. 17TH ST. a / % f •,,,,- 1 'ra�®ffine 11111111111 .IMI= N.E. 17TH L. r frr VIININLAKE DRIVE N.W. ' I6TH ST. J1 fl, ,no,n 1:51 IM N.E. 16TH ST. N.E 16TH ST. z 71 N.W. 15TH ST• BONNIE BRIA• ' FL o NNW N in I f11 tz.. _ N.W. 14TH ST. - - �ffff1111/JJ I o� I I I N. E. 15TM ST_ jIin 1/f/f 1 IZ HEATHER LANE < I, RID `nn N. E. 14TH ST. -- N.W. 13TH ST. MEIV....,-.t.:..11 . vr�vr?r� HIGHLAND LN. zl �I , N.W. 12TH STREET iroi I■1. Imo ,,,,,,,, s. N.E. 13TH_ ST. MM l !!!!' sT._ lz oIBM WI 1 Jj N.E. 12TH ST. NE1 111111 •a MR In, ',� .• z O fl+ -I N.W. -- N,W. 11 �ST. ' N.E. 11TH ST. EA-m ti z„zEli i Z i �® ' N.E. 10TH . I NIB SCUS LANE. " �® F — - i r rom N N.E. 9TH ST. K1 .•/-NS 117 N.W. 9TH ST.• �iLAKE Z ij; Ii N.w. S GEORGE BUSH BOULEVARD ui 'm a 2141' / 7# , �.< nn R p.- i i � , N.W. 7TH ST ,�>' I 00 , III<"1" "",3 ,xe *IL, N.E. 7TM ST. ,,,0y ,,.< I GARDENIA TERRA 'Y „a�,,,,,,�I '.,.. ntt S �n Q t' ,, . RR x... J� �� LAKE TERR. n , W N.W. f6TH ST. I e.. i,L ,' .,. 7,3fi= nv ` N.E. 6TH ST. ' Q11 ELDORADO LANE _ Mir' qpQ. ,sf �.cu•r t1,3 �VZ G~ I ,. ,,,,,Itt• 1 ..�_a:; ..._� „e ,xis N.E. 5TH TERR. MN N.7 SVNS7IP+E DRIVE 3. .mer ,,. _74�� N ii/EKIN LYNN . 1I ... f is yI )1I i v wr nYYll�f L.; N.E. 5TH CT. _ I LNFId_O RD. R i• I D A LY Vl ma ii, mi N PROPOSED NORTHWEST SWINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT --"ilair- LEGEND: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL 100 1984 1• 1• PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT STREET NUMBER YEAR BUILT CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC BOUNDARY -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LMA178 OFIRAYBEACH DEIRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD = (UP MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 1993 2W1 2W1 Agent: Claudio Camilucci Project Name: Independence Title Project Location: 205 NE 5th Terrace ITEM BEFORE.THE BOARD' The action before the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a free- standing sign on a contributing property, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND , Zoned Residential Office (RO), the property consists of 0.47 acres described as the southwesterly 25' of Lot 14 and Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Del-Ida Park. The property originally contained a 1,153 square foot contributing, Mission-Revival style, single-family dwelling and associated contributing garage constructed in 1930. At its meeting of June 4, 2003, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a Class V site plan, landscape plan, and waivers associated with the conversion of the single-family residence to an office, the construction of a 3,283 square foot addition to the historic building, and demolition of the contributing garage to accommodate a 1,090 square foot office building. At its meeting of August 20, 2003, the HPB approved the design elements associated with the development proposal. The associated improvements are under construction and are nearing completion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes the installation of a free-standing sign at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue, NE 5th Terrace, and Dixie Boulevard. The free-standing sign is to be located five feet (5') from the NE 2nd Avenue right-of-way, within the required sight visibility triangles. The free-standing sign will be 42" high (3.5') and 68" (5.6') wide totaling 19.83 square feet. Including the sign base and decorative cap, the sign will stand 66" (5.5')tall and will be 84" (7') in total width. The sign will be a two-sided, non-illuminated, monument sign with a simulated concrete block base and simulated barrel tile coping. Foam letters and tenant panels will be affixed to the face on both sides. The sign face will be light beige, the sign base light gray, the simulated barrel tile "roof"terra cotta, and the copy blue. A logo of a scroll and feather pen will be placed above the name "Independence Plaza", with four (4) tenant panels below. The building address will be placed on the simulated concrete block base. ANALYSIS; The Board shall consider: SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(D) (2) (a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications"and states: Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item:V.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Independence Title(205 NE 5th Terrace)—COA Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign Page 2 The aesthetic quality of a building, or of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and(K), the following aesthetic conditions must be met: (a) Garishness: The overall effect of the lettering, configuration or color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Garish signs are not in harmony with and not compatible with the building or adjacent surroundings. (b) Scale and Conformity with Surroundings: The scale of the sign in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be placed or painted and the neighborhood or streetscape where it is to be located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (F) (2) with respect to height and area. (c) Quality: All signs shall have a professional appearance that enhances the visual aesthetics of the area. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (1) (a) addresses "Sign Design Standards" for "Free-Standing Signs" and states: A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure and is limited to no more than two (2) faces. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. All signs erected on a pole shall contain a pole cover. All free-standing signs shall contain the street number. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (4) (b) (2) addresses "Traffic Safety"and states: No sign shall be located in such a manner that it will become a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, nor shall any sign or lighting be placed as to obstruct the vision of the driver or any motor vehicle where vision is necessary for safety. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design,Guidelines The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building facade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts; however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character-defining"and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old `' Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Independence Title(205 NE 5t'Terrace)—COA Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign Page 3 and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. LDR Section 4.6.14— Visibility at Intersections: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (2), a 40' sight visibility triangle shall be provided where two (2) or more rights-of-way intersect. Within a sight visibility triangle unobstructed cross-visibility shall be provided at a level between three feet (3') and six feet (6'). As previously noted, the subject property exists at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue, NE 5th Terrace, and Dixie Boulevard; thus two (2) sight visibility triangles are necessary (NE 2"d Avenue / NE 5th Terrace and NE 2'd Avenue / Dixie Boulevard). The subject free-standing sign is proposed to be located five feet (5') from the NE 2'd Avenue right-of-way within both of the required sight visibility triangles. The applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the sight visibility triangle at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue and NE 5th Terrace to 36' and at NE 2nd Avenue and Dixie Boulevard to 24'. The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The applicant is requesting to locate the proposed free-standing sign within the sight visibility triangles in order to obtain the greatest amount of visibility for the sign and to keep the sign from being obstructed by existing landscaping along the perimeter of the property, specifically an existing Mango tree. While the proposed sign will not adversely affect the neighboring area or diminish the provision of public facilities, locating the five foot-six inch (5'-6") tall and seven foot (7') wide free-standing sign as proposed will likely create an unsafe situation with regard to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and recommends that the waiver be denied and the signage located outside of the sight visibility triangles or redesigned so that it does not exceed three feet (3') in height. Given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested, the reduction of the sight visibility triangles is inappropriate. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can not be made and the waiver should be denied. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 2.4.6(J): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) (5), the Board must make a finding that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with the provisions of LDR Section 4.5.1. Future Land Use Element Objective A-4 states as follows: 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: Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Independence Title(205 NE 5`h Terrace)—COA Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign Page 4 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines": LDR Section 4.5.1 makes no direct reference to signage; however Section 4.5.1(E) (4) states that a historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. The proposed free-standing sign measures 66" (5.5') in total height and 19.83 square feet in area, is appropriate in relation to style, dimensions, and design of the contributing Mission-Revival commercial building and the building addition. There is a concern, however, that the free-standing sign will be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood based upon its size. The neighborhood is principally residential in nature and a 66" (5.5') high free-standing sign would likely appear out of place. A smaller free-standing sign would be more appropriate to the neighborhood and not create sight visibility concerns. As such, the Board may want to discuss the redesign the free-standing sign with the applicant so that it does not exceed three feet (3') in height. Based upon a modification to the proposed free-standing sign as discussed above, positive findings can be made with regard to the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Consequently, positive findings can also be made with regard to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) and 4.5.1 as well as the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed previously, positive findings can not be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) in relation to the requested waiver from the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (2). As positive findings can not be made, it is attached as a condition of approval that the free-standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic. REVIEW BY OTHERS At its meeting of September 20, 2004, the Delray Beach Sign Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the free-standing sign (design and dimensions). ALTENATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA and waiver request for Independence Title (205 NE 5'h Terrace), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 2.4.7(B) (5), and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Move denial of the COA and waiver request for Independence Title (205 NE 5th Terrace), 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 Sections 2.4.6(J), 2.4.7(B) (5), and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Independence Title(205 NE 5th Terrace)—COA Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign Page 5 RECOMMENDATION By separate motions: Waiver Request: Move denial of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (2) to reduce the required 40' sight visibility triangles at the intersections of NE 2nd Avenue, NE 5th Terrace, and Dixie Boulevard, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request does not meet criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Certificate of Appropriateness: Move approval of the COA request for Independence Title (205 NE 5th Terrace), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1, and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the condition that the free-standing sign is located outside of the sight visibility triangles in a manner that will not conflict with the existing landscaping and not create a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, and/or that the sign is reduced so as not to exceed three feet (3') in height. Attachments:Site Plan(Partial)and Sign Details Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner )NE 13LVE ��J SO 3 4 �" t�l SOP 0� B 6 ' Ito 4 P 2 4�A IRRIGATE 1 'SR• Kt12 �0V 13 AN B o ' r- .* IllpA11.fr RELOCATED �" 111 'L�ytiL�i•�i�,y�y� / /i• y '. ROYAL PALM �' Ii�,. .!�.i.' ,.�.'i !iijLt�Lj �i�',li L1� ��, 4 o 'li L���_:',Li:j',.�ii si..li=: 4 La L'�i�i� �L��L�, •> LAWN / �(i'i`ti�;,j!i '� ,/, ,/�1!�li i RELOCATEDyl+��,�'•, w �'� +i / 419:::::::. - - Irk- FLOSS :::• �/ (•��._C1I���� _q* ,�,�,4,.Ls� / P1(•�111iiRMI11I:� 111l1111lllllIii M\.Q%i a SI / M TANGO `@ � I `Gk. I y Q• �\ LAWN ,� el '��/0/11111" 7`�Q �� 5 • IRA 701` I.04 29 A Q� Q'0 I iX15TMGft.,�,{.• 01 �ji© A Q 0• 20 \ ©L TREE i iv\%. Jr \\ K:,8 2 Oti \1\ m �� :' :.. 19 H�Q EXISTING /I Mr -101 — CCN> 65.,il OMSNGo /. �,i ,.] 8 19 \ b :.: \ i" ,i ■ .A. ors \ \ RELOCATED `'�;�� t` �� ilk. .04 '� ADONIDIA / \\. %\`,, 0" A pax la \ PALMS \at 16 .�-� IMIFF k., 6. \ RELOCATED O444, 444,1 • /T4R) ', r am/i^ `�� �ss�,. \ .•FRANGIPANI vI `-4 AP.'- AlEkA EL \ 0,3�11 A O/ r1 -;• \'J• — I .\\ .../7- ----) . clp TR Taw da`� NOV• . NI RELOCA D \ / \ iiiii 41I�•11 'JI O, ..•,- \ \ LAWN 'r9��y?� �/�bis/1.`=.%%' �� / / 13 I ;44 . \ E/t9 \ 0 4 LAW %�//� \ o r, \ • 8 1 VM \ nYLi '�Z:Z 2:„' is, \\ G \ olooittg`s / . • v� ifI , •. . �. \ EXISTING A ) %;hit; ak__. ' LYCNEE S4'v:bs 0 ;!aEXAW:etc" • \ '/lsh J ,..,,, :iiiiii ••••• .,,,--42,'-v , ... f,1 .,,,, ........ . I) ‘t A 4 '•,4,1.:1,',',''''''''' ' ....".4i'','"' „,,,,f."' ,..4:1 :>..,,• ,....,-;;4:...-,-:.,. . '•-• ''•A* ., ,...v,[-;,;.,'..,.:•;'.." ,,-,',;.':?•*''' .,.:•1,3:':?'• ,-''. ..••"r'''?`--"'",,- .,,,.1'..„, ' ••,, ,,e4"..,,''• ,,,o,,,,,,' ,..- ll'/ t ':,• ,..„,,,,,..„.,,..,,,,...,,.....,- .,.,..„.„,.,..:.., ..,%.., . ,, ...,,,, ,.. ,,,.„4,4,..,...,,,, , 6ri e,.. . -,A'.!.:$,,,,,,:,, ,,g-.:,,,,- ,.,':-,i',..',..,-..'-- :N..'',.''',,.,,,,^.2,?.....,,Y$''%.'' v.„-•''':''''." ,,', ' ' ,,'.:.::-' 'deft*.-...,,',4'.'''',...;n'P-'. . '.:.t.l.'...'":,,,,,,Sy,f,,A4',41!:•-•!'-,....:;..'.'•;:i.."'.i,,':',..;! .."'%.....:,,' . .,...,.;,,,4-• - , ,ArVEN4i.' ,''''''.•'';'"r"''''•'..,.,:'-,. :.•'''',-;;."..., -;•:7411,r.,':'i'l:91',."''''-'1••• :-.'31,.-7i''.2.'. "4-','",1:,-1;',,:•:-'. .•,'- . , , '',:/•'.--..-Ve . '1'''.' ,'; ','''''''.,. • .1, .'*- ''-i','.'c:;..-.,.•‘''-*•:.+*". ,...':41",:01'!?:,','';:,'At',.,,,,,•-:,''Lc','"...'''' ;.;:t...-.nV4':•.• ,• ..,-,,; „, ,,ji.,..,1 1,4,.,..,:..Z.' . ,; .,,.......?..' ,...-.0-r..--,....vi,51,,,,,,,.,* Z.14-''.4•••-•'''',`.. .5•.•:',7::4r/.....• •'-,,'..Y.••••...,;:t,"..'..! •..":•' • . . ..... " ja'*' .0 r- ,,,',.iJ'':"' 4.1:4:1.,''''f'::44...', : "-fe. 1,2,:,,,,•r,j•-'':f:-..f„...:.4 •• .'...''..,..:".7', :f2.4..i.'"'" ''.:..""',';':ve.`:' .. • e'',.0'...,•,-.41,,',..y,•..."....' - ',.....-•• . „,,,,.. i....:'"••....c..,i,....,..,.. ; .:2;:.1,,,,07-.' '•':':•:•''' 1'.•'''''..t'' .:.."...;."2,: - -;:'f•.:'' .7•';.!•.... 3, ., • 'a:iECEIVED —74 ..' 007''• .,Pe.....,qz.., ••••., ,;.,-.,. . '•,••Ai.;',, „,„7.;•• . ., , ,.'-;••• . •' ••••••4 '. .;• ,,,•• ... . . . ., •. •••t!. ., ,.H-. ,,. ,,,,,,:,.-,,,,".i•i '''.... , , ;:'`,•:.'c'..•,'•••..;''':•:,..,, ...••.;,,.!,- ::-•':- •4 . "..,1, . , , •,-; .'t.r...7;r:!'. ,,,.... '- , • •,,,,•::. ' SEP 2 0 200i ri",,o,ii'' : ''''''''):'''''.\...''''''.1.1'''''''''''';'-'..,'.:-:,!;:.:,-.......„,,,,-,:,:l.„...,,,,._.z.,,...- „ ,.... .s' • , .,:i:., ..„.., ,...' ... ''', ...''''....nP:.'.• ;, . . ,. •"•:.'' ... •F- '•':-. . '-'. :;„- :'.;*,,:,:„.i.'1,,'„?e,',;•!,''.t!'''''..' ' .o.6 . • ..,e,'‘n .', . ' . .,,' . ' /H7 •••'`';.. . .' .• ,,. • k4.4, ''' ... - I:, ,,,,.,,1,-,tiv!'3,4t. , ,,......,, „,/,:\,.,eJt„ .2.i.;,.;,.-?.,,i,......i:.. ..,.. . ,. • . r ... ,•., '. • ,...,,t'i ,..•.. `..4,',.:...141`Yi',,,'' --• -'.''‘,ir, '' '. - '' , ' ' e ‘„,1 . , . . ., ,-.,-f,1 ,:..kr.,4,-;. ..:. .si-,•,,i ::.::,. ) ,„..,.--.2,, .:. • ' ,, . • ... . . •,, . , .„ , . i, 1 it 4e0 „. ., i rp .. ,, , i •, . ..,,.. -. ; (. a . .„... . ,:,.,....„.„„:„.,,,,,,„ ,,,,:„. . ...-i.j''':' --, - '-. , '•• ,e . , .:' ,;..i-. ' ,. ,i !,., ... it ..t. .1 .. ' .. •• 1!; 7.•: iris, i . -..-.,.-....--...-...,•..........,:::4- -rl .t. ...1‘..-i.,%,.....:(.:.,i,..,.....:„..,•,., ,..,,,.,„•;;;,,.•.„ ,, ,,r...• ..- , ..,. • •. • .... . , INDEPENDENCE 'TITLE ... ..... .:,, .7..,., .-...,.. ...„,..?._..7,f.-:.- .„--401".:,..,,,„, ,‘7,,:., : , 3,..,,,*•11,.. , lf.-,,' . CHIRO P RAC TOR "'.,,,':..;‘,14 00..,.-.1,!:„•. • - ' ••i; .:.?'' •,•.• ,,,,44,4•.•:,,,'.4,P: . • " . -;•.;•,-.,A'''.77,r, ''4''',?4''';,';';''''"....^,.4 ' ' .. e • . ' 4. r', ATTORNEY AT LAW ' ' BOB. REALTY ,., r .,:,„„ .• ,, .,...., ;.-• _ _ / •••,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,v. ' • - ,.,c,,-__ . „. . ., . , . ,, . , .. ,...,,, ,„•.„.„,.., , , _ ......___ .,,, ,. ,,, „., ,„,....,....„:„..,. ,.....,,..,„.„„,„„„..,,,..„,.,,, ., .• • .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,#„,--,..,„.„,,,,,,,,.....„...,,,,.„...,.., ,,,,,..,..„,,,,,,,......,„,„,.. / ,, II ' ,••• ,-...,,_ .. .,--,,,, .:". ,, .....:,-,,,,,,,,',.,.. . .,..,..,....,,,..'..,;,-,, ,.. . ... .,....,.: ,,,,,,,..7,..,,,,.....,,,,..,,,,..,. i ,,, ..,........,- r., ,,,,,,,,,,,....,,,,,-...,,,-;„.„. •-•.-: ..:,,... .....,,,,,i- :,.... ....:,;.=,.:1;7.7.''. .."' ....,' "'-'''',!;',t7.4[A,',.:4'-i'''' ':" 1,4:-.471.:;.‘:• ;.-•.::,‘"-,:.-= ... '.,'•• .'. ., —4.0,,,,..±-,•;.i.:,,/,. ' ?:',,,.•.;,%,,,,,,,„;,,.,,,,,„‘,....,--,_ ,, ..,...,.. - _ • r-',.".....y2.4i..4,....V,". ... I, .,,•• •• .: , ''.,.,cf4,•,,,ity'1:• . , •,.. • - ' ' ''''-'""' ' '' . .. d ..ta,., , . . .•• • :..., . f•-•:'• - ,•!*.?,..:4'..;,, ,., `R.4- .__, ... .., ---__. :::,... --,_—___-- .. .. ..-._.=_-_-_-_T— '''.. . . • . 1 ' r'''' ' •4',..4.41r4';4,4,i',..;,,44,''.?;' •I ,'"''''':4';' ''e.S4:, qa.,-- V,'... ,r.-i.'.,I,P41,,, c +.411';i' 'P'ri'''z''', ,''''''' ''''' 40,-Alit . . .5', . ,ciii.*'•V. .,t,,,.,..-:,-, . ':'''•'?'''.::•,4*'42:.''Fi''-.'"-';!:'- .•-.:. :-. i..?'' '''' ''' ..,.„0 ,:•07 .;.,:ia,,-.„,..„:.-. , . , at, ' , .,t..1,7:164100,- , ,., ,,-.:•••-,'',.•:•.;... .:•.. ",...-1 --''',:e.,N''''''-;.,.,t';:i4sect,e1",.,. •i:.'--ii. 'r' i3.440-•°• ••t:V.:,.•.:.:1:4rnrzWAO."•4'177•2"?..(1*-. ••---Itta,Prelli, , '. ' ''' ,•••••• ' . '.•f:: ' ,.+.i.....;,'.' ,,,_,...fJ.'..•'7.7....;14r....:'7.144.0•.;"''''''',.,,... ;;R•‘•.'••.';'''.'s:n-.$:••atigi.;Ai.;00;4''.•i•••...:0,1.1.'.t..,.;',!,...•1•, .-.....,"Aitj..,L,'...Till.,,,,,;41.:.!ifi-';',",,,...tril.",!-'",;!Ii:Illkt!...-.11•:••,:„;...aix, ',„.,,.., .....f.,:i.;.i.,01fit:•ft ' ' : '-.7...:_. -. - .:'''• •';'''• • ' '2-..- •.`:'.: •F''',".i,4•,::,,'''',011'.:••..f:,1r.,•,:-!",...,,,",,`.., ...,..,....4iac,c1 ,-;:x.,.,-.44i...'......1-0;59"..i74,!,•-.:.--.i.:,("_taWY.1. ; ,.. ''' '' -'''''' -'7''le. ''''7Vrt'V,:''.a,,ir--,‘:.4''.''''''. .,..' ',,--0',A;,i''' * ,:.'r..")..,1',,'.•py-1-•• ...,.. -.•-0;0,-. -. . '.. "'''' ''• :'"1' ''',1'''•." ''-••••'-‘';-:.406-#44- '-7-'•>''',ZL''' • :' e.,',. ..(.' ''.'. -'''• ... ...r ' • , , . .r,..1ri. .,:04,..,...,,0.1-. .-74."'...A '.404100100101-1001t,M.r,-. -,,' : .- •.;*.t.':.••.'..-6"---•••74:',E"':'..A.'.,"41.',Y4.'.4:',...ti';',.,-4,..,' '''''''-'...4..4.00* . _ ,Gjlrr\t1`r° _� .:� eee tom* e5?/3 . 0 -11.1.- iw, i *i \ -* 1 *IF* la ,. r ;#44Nrad. -., -,10". - -* ( ►4 (6-1V is Co1 Q.t)GTob m ,. .56) , rtyvv‘, - , , 16iL.) Pule› Lui Gip 1r)5 f-t-(04Z44Wie.i ��� �b`‘ 4K "SI‘N Victv+1 GuT a-i_ T r Tat,,AN-( 16,115p7 pfiNa5 i _.1 i fg-L. ApKie.--0) u3i 8:Po)c)/6/-ue \ -1 tiMti t ? TO J) e.ory ERGIlAc_ � ��' F.�i' l� �iV Pvt... C'� 51rvwL ' "'f'�� w1 l f 15" vhATG 1 "T {1, jt1 P:1Nc.; ; 1 • i ' 1. 4- -1- , ; - 1-441 s S t‘Kl.srevc lu P.z ' LL / /�/' TT ' `x� s Tt i IS g ��C.AL PC. DEERAY BEACH - DEERAY BEACH d HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 'II'k 1993 U93 2W7 2001 Agent: Mark Gregory Project Name: Atlantic Grove Project Location: 301 —401 West Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is consideration of a Blanket Sign Program associated with the Atlantic Grove development, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E) (2) (a), a Blanket Sign Program may be required for a commercial property establishing the font, color, size, and locations of signs on a multiple tenant building. A Blanket Sign Program shall be approved by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or, if the project is in a historic district or historically designated site, by the Historic Preservation Board. After approval of a Blanket Sign Program, individual signs consistent therewith shall be administratively approved. BACKGROUND ._ The 4.76 acre subject property is located on the north side of West Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3Ed Avenue and NW 5th Avenue. The site is zoned General Commercial (GC) and is located within both the West Atlantic Avenue Overlay District and West Settlers Historic District. The subject property has an extensive land use history. The following is a brief synopsis of the recent development approvals: At its meeting of August 15, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a Class V site plan for the Atlantic Grove mixed-use development. The residential component of the project includes eight (8) three-story buildings containing a total of 55 townhouses with two-car garages. The two (2) three-story buildings, which front on West Atlantic Avenue, will contain a mix of retail, office, and restaurant uses on the ground and second levels as well as 20 residential condominium units on the third level. On February 6, 2002, the HPB approved the landscape plan and final architectural elevations and design elements for the project. On November 20, 2002, the HPB approved revisions to the architectural elevations for the townhouses. On February 19, 2003, the HPB approved revisions to the architectural elevations of the two (2) mixed-use buildings fronting on West Atlantic Avenue. On November 5, 2003, the HPB approved revisions to the architectural elevations of the western mixed-use building to differentiate it from the eastern mixed-use building. On July 7, 2004, revised color schemes were approved for the two mixed-use buildings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Master Sign Program addresses the two mixed-use building fronting along West Atlantic Avenue and is as follows: Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item:V. B. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report • Atlantic Grove(301-401 West Atlantic Avenue)—Blanket Sign Program Page 2 Free-Standing Signs: Identical single-faced free-standing signs are proposed at the corners of NW 3rd Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue (facing east), and at NW 5th Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue (facing west). The signs will be centered within landscaped areas running parallel to NW 3`d Avenue and NW 5m Avenue and approximately ten feet (10')from the West Atlantic Avenue right-of-way. The total height of each sign is three feet (3') with a sign area 18" high and three feet (3') wide (4.5 square feet). The monument signs will be concrete block and stucco with a stone veneer. The letters will be installed with aluminum treaded studs with half-inch (W) spacers. The "Atlantic Grove" letters will be five inches (5") high on two lines of copy, with a pineapple logo for the letter "0" and an accent line between the lines of copy. The street address will be placed below the copy in three inch (3") high numbers. Each sign is proposed to have flood lamps at the base. However, the application did indicate whether the flood lamps would be at ground level or if they would project above grade. The flood lamps should be maintained at ground level and this has been attached as a condition of approval. Wall Signs—First Floor Retail (South Elevation): The first floor tenant signs on West Atlantic Avenue are proposed with a great deal of flexibility. The tenants signage may consist of individual reverse or pan channel letters, may be either illuminated or non-illuminated, and flush mounted to the wall area or placed on stand-offs. Typical raceways will be prohibited; however decorative raceways in keeping with a logo design and the architecture of the building will be allowed with approval from the condominium committee and sign staff. The letter height maximum, which is based on a capital letter, is 18". There is no specific color or letter style, which will allow for each tenant to have a unique look for their sign. At no time will a character overlap an architectural feature of the building. Signs will be placed over the businesses with the ability for tenants in the end bays to request a second sign facing the dedicated street. Under Canopy Signs — First Floor Retail (North and South Elevations) and Second Floor Offices (North Elevation): Each proposed non-illuminating under canopy sign will be installed on frames in front of each business in an area approved by the condominium committee and sign staff. Colors, graphics, letter height, width, and style will vary to allow for creative signs. The maximum sign area will be four(4) square feet as allowed by code. Nameplates and Window Signs: Nameplates and non-residential window signs are also proposed; however it is noted that they must have approval by the condominium committee prior to their installation. Both types of signage are allowed without a permit and by code the nameplates shall have a maximum sign area of three (3) square feet, and the windows signs are limited to 20% of the aggregate glass area per tenant space. ANALYSIS, The Board shall consider: SIGN REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES LDR Section 4.6.7(D) (2) (a)-(c) addresses "Aesthetic Qualifications"and states: Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Atlantic Grove(301-401 West Atlantic Avenue)—Blanket Sign Program Page 3 The aesthetic quality of a building, or of an entire neighborhood, is materially affected by achieving visual harmony of the sign on or about a structure as it relates to the architecture or the building or the adjacent surroundings. In addition to the mechanical limitations on signs imposed in Subsections (G) and(K), the following aesthetic conditions must be met: (a) Garishness: The overall effect of the lettering, configuration or color of a sign shall not be garish. "Garish" signs are those that are too bright gaudy, showy, glaring, and/or cheaply brilliant or involving excessive ornamentation. Garish signs are not in harmony with and not compatible with the building or adjacent surroundings. (b) Scale and Conformity with Surroundings: The scale of the sign in terms of area, shall be consistent with the scale of the building on which it is to be placed or painted and the neighborhood or streetscape where it is to be located. Scale shall also be considered in terms of Subsection (F) (2) with respect to height and area. (c) Quality: All signs shall have a professional appearance that enhances the visual aesthetics of the area. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (1) (a) addresses "Sign Design Standards" for "Free-Standing Signs"and states: A free-standing sign is not affixed to any other structure and is limited to no more than two (2) faces. It may be either a pole sign or a monument sign. All signs erected on a pole shall contain a pole cover. All free-standing signs shall contain the street number. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (1) (c) addresses "Sign Design Standards" for "Under Canopy Signs"and states: A sign hung from a canopy or roof of a walkway. It may be rigid or it may swing. Such a sign may not have more than two (2) sign faces. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (1) (d) addresses "Sign Design Standards" for "Wall Sign" and states: A wall sign may be flush mounted or hand painted. Such a sign may be applied to a canopy/awning, mansard, or building face. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (3) (a) addresses "Setback Requirements"and states: The setback for a free-standing sign shall be ten feet (10) from the ultimate right-of-way line unless there is a special setback or special landscape area designated for the street pursuant to Section 4.3.4(H) (6). The setback is measured from the closest portion of the sign to the right- of-way. Projecting signs, canopy signs, and wall signs may extend into the standard setback and special setback areas. No signs shall extend into a right-of-way. LDR Section 4.6.7(F) (4) (b) (2) addresses "Traffic Safety"and states: No sign shall be located in such a manner that it will become a hazard to automotive or pedestrian traffic, nor shall any sign or lighting be placed as to obstruct the vision of the driver or any motor vehicle where vision is necessary for safety. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Atlantic Grove(301-401 West Atlantic Avenue)—Blanket Sign Program Page 4 Delray Beach Design Guidelines The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following pertaining to signage: Sign design and placement in an historic district or a historic site is an important element. While preservationists believe the building façade is the best sign an owner may have, the need for design guidelines refines the existing regulations adapting them to the particular character of the specific location and site. The district's character is maintained when signage does not cause visual disruption. The sign should not obscure any architectural feature or detail, or interface with the views and appreciation of the building. Signage should compliment and not overwhelm or compete with the architecture. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation No direct reference is made to signage affecting historic structures, sites, or districts; however, there is specific intent to project the importance of preserving "character-defining"and distinctive features, and discussing scale and compatibility with respect to new construction for historic structures and districts. One such standard states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed signage is appropriate in relation to style, dimensions, and design of the mixed- use buildings and the surrounding neighborhood. It is noted and attached as a condition of approval that there should be design consistency between under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant. Based upon the above and subject to the aforementioned condition of approval being addressed, positive findings can be made with respect to Section 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. REVIEW BY OTHERS At its meeting of July 9, 2004, the Delray Beach Sign Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the Blanket Sign Program. ALTENATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Blanket Sign Program for Atlantic Grove, 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 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the attached condition. C. Deny approval of the Blanket Sign Program for Atlantic Grove, 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 4.6.7 of the Land • Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Atlantic Grove(301-401 West Atlantic Avenue)—Blanket Sign Program Page 5 Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the Master Sign Program for Atlantic Grove, 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 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the flood lamps should be installed at grade; 2. That there is design consistency between the under canopy signage and wall signage for each tenant. Attachments:Survey,Sign Details Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CUSTOMER APPROVAL .. ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS: THE AITM/ORK SHOWN IS THE PROPERLY OF MG SAI ES&CONSULTING INC.AtIY UNAUTHORIZED USE OR 12EPRODUCTIOTT WILL RESULT III LEGAL ACTIONS. THE EXACT COLORS_OF THE MATERIALS USED MAY NOT OE CORRECU.Y ITEPRESENTED,.DUE TO VARNIIONS IN PRINTERS&MKS: t '. ,.. t SI Y y. • .. ..., „ .. .. ..... .. .............a , .,,,. „1.W <, .... ..�s c.. �..,l,,.e; r.b,^ .. .,..,,.,, ti ,•.,.>.v. .,Sw.,..,.r,:lrs,.Gs.,wlw,.+.f..+d.,w�xiW,,....fi'4,x� • •'-• •,. •',....;•.; ,:.: - ..•.... .,.;•,--• .,,... • : ..,.- „:.;Si'l,,,,'":•,. .''''`.',... :•'.1'• i'''''''-':';'•",:,•'' ,,',-,•:.', r . ,: .. .��, i f.. „ . .r�,l,,t.u3, ,•,t...r4 vit ,.rn ntx. .., .4 srG^.ia+'ut t.aa 1,.,(. r i... , r.,'i„r r:J4.,.,•n.!-'41,..a.lh.,.,,...+kr.n. ,,, , ,.., , ,. �.. . , .. ... .. .. ., .. r.: r^•i ?, h -+,T.it' £ - 1 ,, !„ o- t (., r lh 4 (+ ).wl.J0 b t 1'" ai -1su't t 3R 1 lh. 1 i �`tY y2S'+ ,,54',.7T� . : .. , C,..- �� J's., , „. i l.' ix ' ' 1<b.� v,:k.,4k r z�t F.Y4d, r n 1„}C7,r�. ./-"I•.1fa b ..Fre .,' .. �, � k �j-,."t+, C� Cy L o J lA:7 y � ',v./�,.r n ' ;�.i .>n. �.3'. d .U,•r.' : � ,v .. 'Y'J . .rS fC, ;( � 1� � 4+ JWS. , 1 st,. }+ >� DIY � :. .k'2{ f rr c� 57('/er1�.,.�G .,T:,a � r n�1. M� CrYTr YA�'@ ng YM ,�, T.v.,a'a.+F h^,t�� z,. 4+L -q �J, n fiti, p � ,'4T l l 1 � C.t'�: f „N::1•!.. ,. . .. !�, ni3 ra k .r ,n'tl' :/<w„ J.,^h � 'V � - � fi 1,'vC{,hJ1d�s 5 +� ,�7',�r #^s e,,' �i..�+ M ...!`r .,<; �r+ f�;.f�.k 1i} .:';� ,.. . 5x..*j t4 .7 . +ti , 4 a., , /�k�F gk i v, r ', l7r�+ c ,.T �rr r r . r`. , bI T " aa : .; t 1 r ;:v: z` 1h,7.,o'er • tl brt::... i- fh��t'�r}, _- � 1 .4 ,'wl 7 .4 (F L 17.i �i M J 4 +. �5 - K - `4Js ' . 1 M1 r 1 ;:{ ti >7 ,� '�1 ' E`�# 'S l, a aryl re?`, ;Tlc2Pdrd k;.• r r 1 r ti F y` q 3y . n t� r.3 r .. A 4 + a t -tsf rs i"'. s ^xY :', x t t �ri • r7 l 1 r i ,_..,.., w,�--• ,ctw,,,.,u+x t.ti)) �s✓'"^1'y+md zn, �b.e 'a+v�'it J�xwew, .wS> ..X,i ,.artWMM+�� �.e4w 1J'd��': iioi/ww -.,•.^••�:'vyn.�'S .'rN2a.doaWtiawsitiYM ,t},'tEJ" r.K,'. ,� r, fit,. .) w l 5S gh s • t.: : COLORS AND NOTES PLEXIGLASS: RED • TRIM: 4t RETURNS: ,u ,�„ ,., NEON: • • W'3waUl4f,nVekiCh"a^7`:n.vuw.f+J+,x'w)r.r.ry�..fi:.Atl un.J NM �6WM'Di•(4W vl,x+r+1.. w(H Mt(•r,FdW,!.'YiM!"•;+An�.w � r}I ;'' 1 ;at i M ,t z_ J '�+ , s ,��! r<< . ,;� p�'? el i ;K 1 �1 4.."11 t '')* 1 i1 6. 7:. r 4dJ°t r*YL^rJ- +5Y' v, u ° ,.ft:+%,t:*"`" ''4T <i �k -' 1 lei- '+ r�z� t` YJ � 1 .s t `:1.,.J k Y9 .! 'S:� g I i 1 l 1'�. 1 t•1�4 y f�11� ! "i N SEW. C .,.s� r'4 ?.,t e ,''' 1 r •• �u ;1 7 'w c eE k ^ ;,,.s r t Y 'Yrw i' Y r i "'�nif,. 7�t 4r.1.9' . .7.4.45,E i ^t _.p, ,f,', +s .r k x ;„r r�7At,t+, '"rs Aar4}, >h•-Y »a.,i .1Z4p k'F?y i..i v'.✓ .t rCN6f�, 4.• ,:'"-' . w TerionY Date • ,, * '.4410x� �+ �n"a .d:. � 4`�' P ease rewew your Name-Check text orxi spe!rIg•:-Thrs lsithe way if Will oppeor on►he finished ryoduct SCALE DRAWN BY i / Mar/i Gregory ..Signs Sje't kills! WE DO IT RIGHT 3/8"=1' 0" .tto�b SarIe.srl�l�ic�tlr,rrrnlr,hiiur, P.O. BOX 1647' BOCA RATON, FL. 33429 FROM THE BEGINNING DATE 6/28/04 REVISED C fry 7i T Q�'j,)' f's TO THE END • PAGE DRAWING NO. TJOi / /�—1 ii)/ GregoryMG 1 @aoI. .i 1 ATLANTIC GRt H LTR2 PRELIIV 4Y DESIGN FOR CUSTOMERAPPROVAL ALUMINUM.... ... „BRICATED HANGING & PROJECTING,,. NS " THE.ARTWORK SHOWN IS THE PROPERTY or MG STILES&CONSULTING INC.ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OR REPRODUCTION WILL'RESULT ir,Ltl7AL ACTIONS.THE EXACt COLORS OF THE I ATERIALS USED MAY NOT BE CORRECTLY REPRESENTED,DUE TO VARIATIONS IN PRINTERS&INKS. A - PROJECTING SIGN- FRONT 1st FLOOR C- HANGING SIGN REAR 1st FLOOR .Im,v,-n•1, w-.4, h+n`,4 ,z. ,,,, ,,q,,, ,I.,fM q''I!rt t°al`Rf I'.4",,"" 'S' +4,,„, ,4,A i .2,,i..,:n,a tiPo1 # *,,,,. wtGg W A,. ,:4;r V 64,,v.:.,-�y . r.".... 4 4 raj J1\,e ` \ b *AI'S :.....,7'7`4,, ,,,(AV,.‘,,M ,44,:,,..;:. zo $z ikET& g44, . rk ilr / COLORS AND NOTES i de B PROJECTING SIGN- REAR 2nd FLOOR ALL ALUMINUM FABRICATED _ DOUBLE FACED SIGNS a , am V �"' , , SIZE PANEL A; 31"x30" � 1 d'q''' �l llu 'Q'A SIZE PANEL B; 22 x 30 e, 1,„t/SIZE PANEL C 31"x30" w� a�� b . I R 1 J.. ;IT, rid a,r, i; ARF4ETz$I vA `�c\i ,::.c., 'v:,,,‘, \ / 301I(17.:;4go'S''',,t.'.4 "MpRK�6s„1 r� e, 36" Approved By: Tenant Date Pieose review your Name•check lex'and spelling•-This is the way It will appear on the finished product Mark Gregor...Sign SpedatISt WE DO IT RIGHT So1"e 1 0,. DRAWN BY . `des.and ails/Wing.Ix. P.O. BOX 1647 BOCA RATON,.FL. 33429 FROM THE BEGINNING °ATE 6/22/04 REVISED 6/28/04 r L7`lIf 1(ll-'�FiS�1 Gre or MG1 TO THE END PAGE DRAWING NO. c I g y @aol.com 1 ATLANTIC GROVE3 SUPPLIMENT TO CRITERIA - ATLANTIC GROVE Placement maybe on either side of door Address to be raised with Braille ADA feature 18„ 40/, 1 2" %wit4 MARKET & DELI Single faced . 125 aluminum panel mounted on threaded studs. Panel to have a blue powder coat finish to match railing color Graphics to be Ivory in color Typical panel placement Designed by: Mark Gregory 561 -716-4531 Approved by: Date: PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CUSTOMER APPROVAL SINGLE F. QED NON-ILLUMINATED MONUMENT ' `DNS Y THE ARTWORK SHOWN I5 TI IE PROPERLY O(MG SALTS&CONSUITIIJG INC.ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OR REPI20DUCTIOIJ WILL RESULT IN LEGAL-ACTIONS. TIDE EXACT C01.0125 OF THE MATERIALS USED MAY IJOT BE CORRECTLY REPRESENTED,DUE TO VARIAIIOIIS'Tr....IryTH2S&INKS 31-OIL ` 3'-011 _I _•L .1 L ir-,. (.,0 ATLANTIC . ,0 .ATLANT, C( r ��K? M:VEE 31Y E b co T 3 01 T 4 0 1 ib LO r COLORS AND NOTES CBS SIGN STRUCTURE SINGLE FACED SIGNS WITH A STONE VENEER 1/2"THICK RAISED ALUMINUM GRAPHICS ON 1/2"SPACERS Approved By. Tenant Date Please review your Name.cheok text and speutrig•••Thrs is the way It will appear on the finished product SCALE DRAWN BY Mark Gregory...Sign..Sign, Spr; ilis1 WE DO IT RIGHT 1"=1'-0" �� / � DATE REVISED sales and((mraliu(J." P.O. BOX 1647 BOCA RATON, FL. 33429 FROM THE BEGINNING 6/22/04 6/29/04 TO THE END PAGE DRAWING NO. " j6'1-7161-7i�31 GregoryMG 1 @aol.com 1 ATLANTIC GROVE4 i DELR41'BEAFH DEL Rat BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1111 1993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: Gulfstream Roofing Project Name/ Location: 219-221 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before of the Board is a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for roof material change within the Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 0.3 acre subject property is located on the east side of North Swinton Avenue, approximately 122' north of NE 2nd Street, and consists of Lots 7 and 8, Block 66, Town of Delray. The property is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) and contains a duplex with an accessory detached garage constructed in 1957 in the Contemporary style. The duplex is approximately 2,809 square feet and is considered a non-contributing building within the Old School Square Historic District. The original 1957 structure was constructed with a white flat cement tile roof, which was replaced in kind in 1998. A COA has been submitted to replace the existing roof with a light beige (Linen) Spanish "S" cement tile roof. This request is now before the Board for action. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E) -Historic Preservation Sites and Dist, '�velopment Standards: LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), (E) (8) (a-k), and (E) (0 'ones in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration r / ,r architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: //,. (E) (4) A historic site, or building, structure, -thin a historic district shall be altered, restore' "ed, or otherwise changed in accordance Rehabilitation, as amended from tir (E) (7) ...Any material change in the building, structure, or appurte compatible with the form, pi,. e, color, and location of historic .. ably approximate to the non-contributing (E) (8) All improvements to buildings, structure. asignated historic district shall be visually compatible. . ,e, but is not limited to: compatibility in relation to materials, e façade of a Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item:V.C. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 219-221 North Swinton Avenue(COA 2004-389),Old School Square Historic District Page 2 building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: With regard to roofs, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state the following: Roofs perform the essential function of keeping a building watertight. Because they have a limited useful life, many roofs have been replaced over time. Sometimes the materials used in the replacement are not original to the building. Every effort should be made to identify the original roofing material and to use that material in the event a non- historic roof is replaced. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: With regard to roofs, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state the following: Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs— and their functional and decorative features — that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the roof's shape... and roofing material such as slate, wood, clay tile, and metal, as well as its size, color and patterning. The surrounding properties on North Swinton Avenue are comprised of a variety of different roof styles/types and architectural styles. These roof materials include barrel tile and asphalt shingles. The dwelling immediately to the north consists of a white Spanish "S" tile roof, which is similar to the proposed roof. While the proposed barrel tile roof is not identical with the historically existing flat tile roof, it is compatible with regard to both color and material, which is consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (7). Further, the compatibility between the proposed roof and the roof of the structure immediately to the north, coupled with the variation in roofing material already prevalent within the Old School Square Historic District, will ensure the visual compatibility stressed by LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8). Based upon the above, positive findings can be made to support the requested change in roof material from an off-white flat cement tile to an light beige (Linen) Spanish "S" cement tile. ALTERNATIVE.ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA request for 219-221 North Swinton Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Move denial of the COA request for 219-221 North Swinton Avenue 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 meet criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 219-221 North Swinton Avenue(COA 2004-389),Old School Square Historic District Page 3 Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. • RECOMMENDATION` Move approval of the COA request for 219-221 North Swinton Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner DEFRAY BEACH _ DEFRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD liii MEMORADUM STAFF REPORT �II�► 1993 1993 Agent: Jim Zengage, Swinton Venture, LLC Project Name: 19 South Swinton Avenue Project Location: East Side of South Swinton Avenue, Approximately 256' South of Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is approval of the following aspects of a Class II site plan modification for 19 South Swinton Avenue, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5(G) (1) (b): O Certificate of Appropriateness; El Waivers; El Demolition Request; O Site Plan Modification; El Landscape Plan; and El Design Elements. BACKGROUND /PROJECT DESCRIPTION". The 0.15 acre subject property consists of Lot 9, Block 69, Town of Delray. The property, which is located on the east side of South Swinton Avenue, approximately 256' south of Atlantic Avenue, is considered a contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a one-story vernacular structure constructed in 1940 as a single-family residence. The structure is of reinforced masonry and wood construction on a concrete foundation. The roof is asphalt shingle and aluminum awning windows have replaced the original wood frame windows. Two non-contributing one-story additions have been constructed on the east elevation of the structure. The first addition, built in 1967, consists of a flat roof, while the second addition, built in 1975, consists of a gable roof and a flat-roofed covered porch. At its meeting of April 2, 1997, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA 8-301), site plan modification, landscape plan, architectural elevations, and waiver requests associated with the conversion of the single-family residence to a hair salon. The development proposal consisted of the conversion of the original contributing 878 square foot single-family residence to a hair salon; the enclosure of the 214 square foot carport on the north side of the dwelling to accommodate additional salon floor area (1,042 square feet total); the removal of the front driveway; and the installation of a four (4) parking spaces backing onto the alley at the rear of the property. The aforementioned non-contributing additions (consisting of 641 square feet) were to be utilized for storage and as an efficiency dwelling unit. The improvements associated with the conversion were completed in June of 1999. Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item:V.D. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 2 A Class II site plan modification has been submitted to demolish the existing non-contributing 641 square foot addition (storage area and efficiency unit) at the rear of the structure and the existing four (4) parking spaces in order to construct a new six (6) space single-loaded parking area. Additionally, an existing concrete walkway along the south side of the structure will be modified to provide handicap access to the front of the structure. The proposed changes are associated with the conversion of the hair salon to offices. The development proposal also includes the following waiver requests: O A waiver to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the alley right- of-way and the first parking space within the parking lot from five feet (5') to four feet (4') [LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1)]; O A waiver to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the east side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (3'-6") [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a)]; O A waiver to reduce the width of the landscape barrier between the parking area and the property to the north from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6") [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d)]; and O A waiver to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the west side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to one foot (1') [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (j)]. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G) (1) (b), a Class II site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1, but requires action by a Board. LDR Section 2.4.5(G) (5): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G) (5), formal findings are not required for a Class I or ll modification. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall be specifically addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development proposal. LDR Section 4.4.24—Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD): Supplemental District Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G) (4) (a), all non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shall provide one parking space per 300 square feet of total new or existing floor area. The development proposal will result in 1,088 square feet of office floor area, thus requiring four (4) parking spaces, and six (6) parking spaces are proposed. Accordingly, the parking requirement of the development will be met subsequent to the proposed modifications. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report ' 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 3 Article 4.6—Supplemental District Regulations: Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(A) (1), no lighting fixtures shall exceed 25' in height. The development proposal includes a lighting detail; however the actual height of the fixture is not specifically indicated. The proposed fixture is decorative and will be affixed to a tapered aluminum pole with ornate base. The finish of the fixture and pole must be indicated along with the specific height of the fixture, both of which have been attached as conditions of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (b), cut-off luminaries, or fixtures provided with cut-off shielding, shall be used around the perimeter of a facility in order to limit glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties. The submittal does not include a photometric plan and the fixture detail provided makes no indication as to the use of shielding. Therefore, compliance with the requirement can not be determined. Accordingly, it is attached as a condition of approval that a photometric plan is provided indicating the proposed light fixture locations and the means by which cut-off shielding will be utilized. Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1), the minimum distance between a right-of-way and first parking space or aisleway in a parking lot shall be five feet (5') for parking areas that contain 20 or fewer parking spaces. The proposed stacking distance for the six (6) space parking lot from the ultimate width of the alley is four feet (4'). The applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the stacking distance accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The requested reduction in stacking distance results from a required two foot (2') right-of-way dedication for the adjoining alley. Currently, there are four (4) parking spaces that back-out onto the alley. The proposed reconfiguration will allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward manner. While the required stacking distance will not be met, the configuration of the parking lot will still enable a vehicle to ingress onto the property and be fully removed from the alley right-of-way as the parking tier is to the south, or egress side of the drive aisle. Thus, a reduction in the required stacking distance by one foot (1') will not result in the creation of an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Further, the waiver will not adversely affect the neighboring area or the delivery of public services. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 4 OTHER ITEMS: Right-of-Way Dedication: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (2), the required width of an alley is 20' or the existing dominant width. Further, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (3), additional right-of-way width may be required to promote public safety and welfare; to provide for storm water management; to provide adequate area for street trees; and to ensure adequate access, circulation and parking in high intensity use areas. Such a determination shall be advanced by a recommendation from the City Engineer. The authority for requiring such additional right-of- way shall rest with the body having the approval authority of the associated development application. The currently dedicated alley right-of-way is 16' with a paved width of approximately 10.5'. The City Engineer has determined that the width of the alley should be expanded to a width of 20', which is consistent with the widths that have been provided with recent redevelopment proposals in the downtown. Therefore, a dedication of two feet (2') from the subject property is required and has been depicted on both the site and landscape plans. However, the landscape plan has not taken this dedication into account with regard to the location of proposed materials and will need to be modified. It is noted that the full width of the alley (following dedication) will need to be paved and is attached as a condition of approval. Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone, and cable television shall be located underground throughout the development. A note has been provided on the site plan to this effect. LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS The proposed landscape plan consists of a new symmetrical landscape design in the front yard. The area will consist of existing Yellow Tabebuia trees and proposed Fox Tail and Lady Palms and Jatropha trees underplanted with Wart Fern, Parson's Juniper, Dwarf Scarlet Bush, Society Garlic, Dwarf Carissa, and Trinette. The rear of the property will consist of an existing Mahogany tree as well as a new Silver Buttonwood and Ligustrum tree along the north property line. Ligustrum and Silver Buttonwood trees will also be used along the south property line and both areas will be underplanted with Cocoplum. The landscape island between the parking tier and the structure will be planted with Trinette and the landscape island between the parking tier and the alley will be planted with Cocoplum. It is noted that the landscape island adjacent the alley has not been designed to accommodate the previously discussed two foot (2') right-of-way dedication as the Cocoplum hedge and a Silver Buttonwood tree are proposed within the area to be dedicated. It is attached as a condition of approval that the landscape plan is revised to locate these materials on the subject property. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d), a landscape barrier with a minimum width of five feet (5') exclusive of the required six inch (6") curbing is to be provided between vehicular use areas and abutting properties. The proposed width of the landscape area along the north property line is two feet-seven inches (2'-7"). The applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the landscape barrier width accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 5 Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The subject property is 50.1' in width, which is inadequate to accommodate a single-loaded parking lot and comply with all code requirements. The development proposal provides for a single-loaded parking lot where the parking tier (18'), drive aisle (24'), and southern landscape barrier (5.5' including curbing) meet the requirements of code. However, insufficient area remains to accommodate the full required width of the north landscape barrier. A total lot width of 53' would be necessary to accommodate a code compliant single-loaded parking lot. While the required width can not be provided, the development proposal will still supply the landscaping necessary to buffer the parking from the adjoining property. In addition, both adjoining properties contain parking areas at the rear of their respective buildings. Thus, a reduction in the width of the landscape barrier will not adversely affect these properties or the neighboring area. The provision of public facilities will not be diminished and an unsafe situation will not be created. Further, as similar waivers have been granted in the past and would be supported in the future under similar circumstances, the granting of the waiver will not result in the grant of a special privilege to the property. Based upon the above, a positive finding with regard to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) and (j), each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by a landscape island with a minimum width of five feet (5') exclusive of the required six inch (6") curbing. Subsection (a) specifically requires this where adjacent to a right-of-way. The terminal landscape island proposed to separate the parking tier from the adjoining alley is only three feet-six inches (3'-6") in width and the terminal landscape island at the west end of the parking tier is only one foot (1') in width. The applicant has requested that waivers be granted to reduce the widths of these terminal landscape islands accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The waivers have been requested in order to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated on site. Initially, the development proposal provided for a wider terminal Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 6 landscape island along west side of the parking lot; however per staffs request this was reduced to its proposed width (1') with the area transferred to the eastern terminal landscape island. The remaining width is enough to provide plantings along the building foundation while providing a terminal landscape island along the alley with enough width to accommodate the required landscape materials and adequately screen the parking area from the adjoining alley. Granting these waivers will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create an unsafe situation. Further, given the conditions under which the waivers are being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waivers would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Based upon the above, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. DEMOLITION FINDINGS t` As part of this development proposal, the demolition of the non-contributing building additions on the east elevation is proposed. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) (1), the HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings or structures within designated historic districts: (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. The one-story flat and gable roofed additions proposed for demolition were not part of the original footprint of the structure and are a poor addition to the building. The flat roof addition (circa 1967) and the flat roof porch which was later constructed with the gable roof addition dominate the east elevation and are inconsistent with the balance of the architecture. While classified as Vernacular, the structure does contain several Minimal Traditional characteristics; however the flat roof additions are not among them. The later gable roof addition (circa 1975) is also inconsistent with the architecture in that the pitch of the roof is inconsistent with the roof of the original structure. The immediate demolition of the non-contributing gable and flat roof additions will not be detrimental to the contributing status of the building or the district. The additions may be demolished without altering the historical or architectural context of the main structure within the neighborhood and will aid in the restoration of the building to reflect its original footprint. As architectural and historical integrity of the structure are not present, a positive finding can be made with regard to the demolition request. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 7 DESIGN ELEMENTS/ANALYSIS: . LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4) and (E) (8) (a-k) provide guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: (E) (4) -A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E) (8) - All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: (g) — The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within the historic district; (j) — The size of a building, the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, and porches shall be visually compatible with the building size and building mass of historic sites, buildings and structures within the historic district. The development proposal consists of the demolition of two non-contributing additions to the east elevation of the structure, which has previously been discussed. Subsequent to this demolition, the east elevation will be restored to more closely resemble its original appearance. With the conversion of the structure from a single-family residence to a hair salon in 1997, a window and two doors along the east elevation were blocked-up. The proposed east elevation will include three aluminum frame single-hung windows to be approximately at the same location as the three prior openings. With regard to new windows, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines states the following: "When new windows are required, their replacement with the original material is always most desirable. However, the Historic Preservation Board will consider other materials or cladding on a case-by-case basis, provided that the new windows match the originals in their profile, configuration and any other character-defining feature(s)': As stated earlier, the wood frame windows original to the building were previously replaced with aluminum frame windows. The proposed aluminum frame single-hung windows will be consistent with these existing windows in terms of profile and as stated above, will be consistent with the openings original to the east (rear) elevation of the building and will not be visible from South Swinton Avenue. Decorative wood shutters will be installed along side the new windows as well as the majority of the existing windows on the north, south, and west elevations. The proposed wood shutters, which will be painted dark gray (Lead Gray), will not be contradictory to the architecture style of the structure. The building will be painted pale yellow (Lemon Grass) and the fascia, doors, and window frames will be painted white. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (8), the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification Page 8 ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal consists of the demolition of two non-contributing additions on the east elevation of the structure and the construction of a new six (6) space parking lot to accommodate the conversion of the hair salon to an office. The demolition can be supported as the additions are not compatible with the original architecture, will not alter the historical or architectural context of the main structure within the neighborhood, and will aid in the restoration of the building to reflect its original footprint. The development proposal also includes a waiver to reduce the minimum stacking distance requirements as well as waivers to various landscape requirements. Positive findings can be made with LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) with respect to each of these waiver requests. Positive findings can also be made for the entirety of the project with regard to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), and (E) (8), the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated waiver requests, demolition request, Class II site plan modification, landscape plan, and design elements for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the attached conditions. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated waiver requests, demolition request, Class II site plan modification, landscape plan, and design elements for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Waiver Requests,: A. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the alley right-of-way and the first parking space within the parking lot from five feet (5') to four feet (4') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the east side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (3'-6") 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 Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification • Page 9 Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the width of the landscape barrier between the parking area and the property to the north from five feet (5') to two feet-six inches (2'-6") 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (j) to reduce the width of the terminal landscape island at the west side of the parking tier from five feet (5') to one foot (1') 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Demolition: Move approval of the demolition request for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan Modification: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class II site plan modification for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. That the actual height of the proposed light fixture is indicated; 3. That the finish of the light fixture and pole is indicated; 4. That a photometric plan indicating the proposed light fixture locations and the means by which cut-off shielding will be implemented is provided; 5. That two feet (2') of right-of-way is dedicated for the adjacent alley and accepted by the City Commission; and 6. That the full width of the alley (following dedication) is paved. Landscape Plan: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 19 South Swinton Avenue—Class II Site Plan Modification • Page 10 set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. That the landscape plan is revised to locate the Cocoplum hedge and Silver Buttonwood tree proposed within the landscape island between the parking tier and the alley on the subject property. Design Elements: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for 19 South Swinton Avenue, 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 the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Attachments:Survey,Site Plan,Landscape Plan,Architectural Elevations Staff Report Prepared by: Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner m 0 • 3 m n ,: cn uun1� • • .. ^ .•. O �afa s• r ,•� ri,c ww , I as.aaw s• •�S ■attasw ;3� , .��a� • aatww . .% • X 71 `:= � Z ssv.ra.art;uoan `,• , • , '' • 0 • . o anon wEaoe • Orel SOLOED ON Maa+I &, _ uoto VOCE ertatuetz Ul Q� TOE EOE.9 WRITE I aBueE - - , - E' G. U. , .^ r Q� L. NORTH. ELEVATION .• 3/1&•" $c.. . . ... u m E_ . • .•. . .. r, • c :• '. 1 • i , • r--.1 - hi(till C1 ( f 1 1 '1 1 1 I 1 li II I 1/ • . I •• •I •/ ...... • 1 : i ♦ I __ / 1 I I ♦ .I • t • 1 I I / / / 1 ♦ I ♦ I / I • I. ♦ I • I ♦ 1 • I • 1 ♦ 1 ♦ 1 • / \ 1 • t • I • 1 • I \ I `.. 1 ♦ I / 1 • 1 I I I I • / ♦ I • I • 1 ♦ 1 • 1 I 1 ♦ 1 ♦ 1 t ♦ I• ` 1 • 1 • 1. ♦ 1 ♦ 1 ••EIA I ♦ 1 ♦ 1 • / ♦ 1 1 • 1 I I • / • ♦ •I / / r 1 . • • +• • • • .. ...• • . • • . • • - / I .. ♦ • - I - I . n / / I / / I 1 / 1 I 1 • I / I • ! ♦ I I ♦ / I I I I 1 ♦ I Z 1 • 1 ♦ I • I • • • I + / • I \ I • • + I • 1 • • • 1 • t Ca ^• rI I • • • / / I / f I 1 I 1 • / ♦ 1 ♦ 1 I I l • f • I ♦ 1 • 1 C., _ } • ♦ •• •. I • 1 • 1 • 1 ♦ I • 1 ♦ 1 \ I + ♦ • ♦ 1 + I ♦ I 1-1-1 I1_1` r 1?- 5O# T -4 ELEVATION . 1/4 Sc. M r.1 I O O N •et N • • • 0 E In V o , 'r, OEM mm • i t1'1 t� .. _.mot_, �il, ,r�, s-im ' 1 -1- iI I � I� I F l I � I � T� I l ' 111� II � -11T� I � 1�1 � I � I � IfI �FT ci Ul r ji t 1- I I r T I ICI jI Lily I I F IIf II i _,I- Lr1 1 Ti•[ I�T�uI i I i ListifL� r�r,�, n(�I 1 1 �f l I t Il I � k 1 I 1 I I r 1 I I L 1 • I I ti `> > I I I I� I I I Li I I I T.I i l r l T l r l i l t I T I- 1 -1 1 1 � l I 1 I 1 1 F I I f l L ",-.i j�1 L I I � I-1 17- � I I r I I I I t i L J • I r L 1 I F I j�I�E I f'1 • •• ., I I I 1 I 1 I I I f _ ; 1' I I I I I ) i r) ' -- 1 , •, ' • , 9 ; 1 " • .i; " . .` aw.r.o. suc LVOV t Ct rl Ill MI 1,._ "" �J Ft ae muee In n • - _ - - oar w.a c«noARO . ' • - - . - - - . "0 -uaco saga ruoeus . . I , . . , I I . I • , I ' I , . , I • I ,,I . }OR SOLID t8SI F I*MN O • • • I I , t I I P M RECTa'lI6 X: • .+`, I• •' , ,' , ," . , . 1_ I e, ,- •- I •' ,• .' ,• • • ,- - `- ,• '- . ' . I _ � -I'-- - ,, • -. L J , • EAST ELEVATION 3/16 Sc. w to • Q • o MOTE: . z ALL REPAIR MATERIAL s FINISHES ,; SHALL MATCH EXIST E •• t • A • . z .. . 0 u w • i a . • , o • I t,_. • •--I • d E (l If) Ill (9 ' 0 0 N .-I m F',,-,.-''� 0. ( (n /�,f?1>i I 1 I 1 l I • In m > 1 l i [ t i t lrI- ] � I 11I I I -I I I1j_ - T 1 1 1 1- 1- 11 I I 11- I T I I I I L=� • ' • ' Iv I r� 1 I ` I -r-'�- '4�-ram' - HpV.T.O.6T?00 JE1� `� '-I „�' , �.'(w : . I • -- - x Lfl051 SIOJ.®6N I - • • if roams GATE ( ./ ' _ - ll I emotions FOltt - U _ • , • SOLD ILIUM t femme - ; / \\ Z . I , I , I • • . I .. . I , I . I . I , • , I I . O - A ' WEST ELEVATION .3/16" • 'Sc, O Z C • A • • W • W • E O rY w LOI 0.Moog es • E I-fi0RY C.B.S.BULGING � 2D•NBABILM TRVNCLoE . rND II/CAP YE-Is•N.°.P.c.•D.°x • NO 0 A--C• 1 ASPHALT PARRINO II a J I I CV 9Si0 RVE IH Je' I 1 I PROPOSED STNRs - _C• /E//.I,I1/ I (M.BOIN SIDES) 1 'I 4 IC b'CURB(M.)._T as_x- � 0 I 3 N 1 R D.°. I J6-R ke•.______ ® j VO.OE°IG]WHTO I J 11LTMTON TRENCH COY 01 OdUY B[!CN 4 I I d ALL on LINE L.__23�fw D [<i EI� I gram SHEET a) II � r.NNv 3 I ,II qpa[usiRm tt D E s osx SS OW I / �I 6lftx ...1-�iY _��A . ,a�F.O P' r I'�c.e Rlu.le.er T IA r ^ II p/ r5 b� Jx e•0/s r•J E :. 0r I° j`e I I j \\` I 'i- 0 •do iglk./• / 7 µa•..p n°P- LOCATION MAP ��If1' h '. � ,M�' •• �' r � D s1 smN • 5 FG 1 S • I 6 p ) l'• HOT 10 SCALE �r� NNN-Lwx I S; - a �+ iz° g x.a Ja1s A q/•//. f D . w ' .0., 1'1 ' Ex STING A/c'PA° / 2A1 N I A5 wu 4N+ c 1 I. Ipp N �PA F 1 L:sr ND eu LONG i I ( g r . r(••3 b OI I •� �� •t� °•Y 4 ig.(Pn wosro Dmct sq I 5'+:.1 IZ o'y(15n � 1a'44 (���— jj, I LC M to rs t le ii r 1 • 4 ro ro cii >q{13 7 R T d i I L",r" I s 1 r' I I x J�� 1 f F; NOTE Auer TO SE PAVED "'J'. L 1 `T :',1;,', ,•�I'�Y I`I u 1 w 1-80:Iwti+cRE w/t t (I�rNO SrAU ED R G 6Sf � -I � CREIC''''' 1 J {6I 44%0✓H I W OCUtAY Bf1CH CMFAN n i P B eAwu To BUIL°IHNo-�A I I o f V # �� I I t lfnfc�q A JEs'•3a1 MAX 1 ''..,'A.' pl —Y77, �� II SITE TABULATIONS 1077064 \ I Dx.le'0/S ''.,too� �.p OrSe'.,\ r - 11��I!®+BI[� r•m V _ -!�4- x ewTax. RroVrrto r.orolfe room ..../) 5 ! 1]7.� on°0°lCNCC CO• I I [ cv PROPOSED H/CYNN 'i0 !yy •OPxO LNx Y k rNOLR/CAP ``• I L SGIL N RR "gyp w/NwOR.uL eN Soun1 S0e M 1 FENCE("' aU P PROPOSES, >M. OBRIAN/wma `SI •.o' FA x P IO.ai.ST1.WDa no]30 u COnuErL VMEEI STOPS(M.) I:""••,'A ' ]r NANDUR.P 0 ON 60UM (M.) w000 } x.,axr . xo �E/� EEpp I.P. � 'x SIDE Of w.WE ru I.O.O.T. 10'NY,BILM',MANGLE I� A 0 +l 510.w0a N0.e10 I I E 1 AG S I... _, —II—.PROPOSED STORM DRANAAE AND INLET Yg L01 10.MOON 69 dnu,e NZI_ .. 1.* -.Anw DIRECTION OP FLOW 1-STORY WOOD TRAM(BULVNG . La, Cat WI% • Tem Rr.l0x0ISI Am xRA". 13.5 PROPOSED CLtYATION PAVING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 10.6.02ARGE1EA.e0M, / msrwo E]ESATION • SCALE 1••10' - 1.nmo.ICKMAN.: ' --PROPOSED LkrLTMTION TRENCH 1 1 fN0 IR/CAP € lbr5010 rII '• .. ... I.., •l PROPOSED CONCRETE No ID wr PARRw0 II1 a'I I I ToNLAMMile WAD.AEU I , I _ I`: T rl . I'I •E LOi BL C 6P I A Cc+ 11 PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVddi • I II 11 I I•SIORY C.0.5.BulOIC J E S _ 5 11 W • Lrl•' RR. I II 11 II I I arAL ,ol. Y•'••'•'t aISTNO BVIlDINO ADOIION 10 I II it R.0 00N L t• II II rNI NAIV .�•�Q•�•�x eE Od0D5HE0/RdOVro, 111 I wALL oI LNC 1 L J ..MI.R_o mEP.... .. • 111 1 �N ao 1 695R 5'[ ]10, 'LI�J 1900.1'0 IxL' x 101A1 Er 'S1 1 C'�' NOtfi CONTRACTOR i0 TIRO VERIFY LOCATION 01 JJ`00' Ir4 -T 6• e- ly ♦ • •••••••••�••••• I RIu.1661 VITRO WARP SERVICE ANO INSTAL.A CITY OF 500� ". .i 11.66.0/S o •• -••r4••••••o �• • •ram �••s ♦••♦ ••• I • !� 1100 �j••S6•••••T•••••••••y1•••••••P••••••••,e••• •�•���•• 1•••• gUsI DEAN APPROVED RYE.MTa PR ,,,, 1 • .moo'.•I`e, 44:411J�:44.•••••0:::�:::,4::444,••:44,4eA$$$1::$ ga Pre frr. !cola. (s[A DnuL.sHEer J)A7ru alsnn0 unu CooR- O••••♦•••••• •' CURB,HANORML LTC... DN R 1 0.SUCTION W/Cm Or DEIRAY&EACH i_E0 ARG•110 Sf. '�,Of� •••�••••••••�•• 10 BL PdOrLO A9 SHOWN AND ENGINEER. N 94Nx ` r'AS 1 • O••• •••••••••h _ ,� L,1 oIl a I••*itit••i•••••i•••.R•••�U?•!•••'*S:Ii rt.)3❖1, •I: 1•' • N01L ALL PPOP05[0 AND UISTNO URyn[s sWL.ES q I •• ar •••••+SP••••••Oi e••• ••'•QR!TJxr •oj1 ''00�1 FI •I euart°uNouaaoun°. M..,A Pn\ v q. ,. ,n=iu..0,ii :�OiiiiiiiiWi* 1sii•+:•:•.•.•+:44i r > 4&4 sal OA` P g,. LOw M..3°,e %•�%ito a ii'•a'iiii.. •.o ....i•.HHIi• \+ S1 - IAA D L--- alsrL 00U241O ADDIR° •••••••�••••••••••••4• •..0•�• •••••• ro BE°dausNro/RdortO ♦♦ ♦•••••••%J K•iisas%%%•:QQ•�••I a sr N°sAMPm �••O•••••••••••••:•• O•i•A••••••••••••i i•••0, II E Watt w.tx ••••••••• ♦Mi�••• ••••��1:0•••••••••:••••�•�•• II APG-676 s f. ••••f S N ,e II Sa 1 oii0•id•'a•^%%%i •i TWO•••..•i!Di i U II ♦iiiiiii•i•"i J• OJ•.••••••••• xP_°' s1 13 400M�4�•i i a�i 0/' •i0 4{,•••••••..••J••••••••••h•I �fi 33.COI SeB s615w \ v __—_`_ O 00 EIKE / d • f1 \A �)%/,1 ��/�!!///JJJ �•b 1 IOI,11 NE l \I I I J x9' F.0 �+ �Y 7, ![CC(rrv7 0°RUN/BUTTER ,x I I an N� PVCD `,I I lot 00 BLOCK 69 I IS 1, • 1-sroRY wo°D rPAu[Buaowc SEP 1 4 2004 RFmni ITEM_PI Ali SCALE r-ID• — _ . • • SIMMONS & WHITE, INC. 19 SOUTH SWINTON AVENUE SECTION to,TOWNSHIP 49S„RANGE 43E, x)cdoLa nE>nsrons PER cnr or DdLAr erxH colRrtNrs G6M••�•w^'.•3 a N"Rn1' CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA en VOA.Da. 1.)gri. .PMSIONS PER art 0/DELRAY WSW COMMdR •a'c••^'•'„�„iwi,, w"'"'3Np1 1 PAVING AND DRAINAGE/ DEMO PLAN j e to/Da,°.e. I 1 RMspHs - '''' D.D. ot� I N''''' do a-iu Ca•W533 wm3'3 _ ...... .rx..m •A.,v,xIA,501-)A-R.s/Ir/1Mx x'J6:x3 0. ' i LIST PLANTING DETAILS PLANTING NOTES .m Nalkim. r c iti i =. ,1, -- u tr.::u. fx""' Groundcovere 5nub6 .,. . .,.'•'...`... •.^..•�•^.. .....n..,, • c.+ a..,c.,.... "." v'.c K . ^ _ ...... F.1':' -.� ..,/rJ n.�.. .....•......�..'..�...r.o.+.c.•.... I...op � .......,.. an y,+.,...... .., •' P �01.5 � .. •• -r n......n....u..a...r., - n.....:.w.,.e...�wen....r«..... ..c u a0..w w.e•,... [AL?"' �e 1ree6•,•W+N'w•'M Y-w•' ,•'1 straight Trunk.Pa In, _ LEGEND y, INwm.T.n,o 6....wnoems...Per.loer.r.00.eo i:1.,....T,e.•ToPe,.„ i t WsLPuw•n..«.T.o..20 OP+o.c.w Inn EXISTING- TREE LIST LOT S.BLOCK 69 /-(� �610 • 1-STORY t.B3.MUM �4•l^ `m LTM��, • r:t. /i \ �'/— /�`5'nky I '1 •.•. 'M'woW °.). iu¢re wa / \ Brrz„DaN f \ K \ / - 1 I ,' 9•B/e ODATe Tn o.., ...P... 1 _-______ ,./ 1 Gtt Or DEiRAr BULn / ° � WALL ON unr /`---t:�i,�God-rirTc[scncrK t � I G N. /�, o..�r. I A• ii r�Airusr/r_ earteeTrB L-- -+ /I i - = . / T n . ' .«, ....„ti rro,.ce L' 1 -- -r--- IL.IL �/ F, 19 south \ ,, / - —? - ---a-- -mmiiL I 1�ol. f t�c.B Swinton ill gyp 1q ?i �,• L_ � ��� ,•�l/ � � � ..or�o.Pn v��• _ i I�Iwlilll /i�i N. —�' r-�` � �:r rmvr STOP e.B. r��p! I r.m.c A/C Pa i AND Dv S. " �.V \,. `Yr?�='�-,btu (PROPOSED orrice USE) I i� I P GOpE COMPLIANCE pATA g SyS R 4 g ..tod•i_ ritti.t�.... cep T Hif)-y?R r. .. rh+ fi ��[ y.1 0 3 vv�y // I1 '�`i�O'�/��i'�4�F%}'i'i ^� \� II 4iDTY wtf TO BIu�EKO .nr r. P...r, .n•.. maape YWM.r.IrdeNp iv. s 0.4A%w,l=i';: '2:1,1 1�G I =�Pnwcf"�/r ,`•- wL / Brill y/p]O�- ���ii!• i\ /L•, _ �.... c.... .}-P y `o \\ !! iAl a aver PEA.c6rtrru .,e. ..p.., .r ann ».e> P ii _� Y gym'- Ei4�11��{1 I ...,...:. w.. xi-irc-c>u \\ 11 r _ - - :�yl I . ........................ _.., planting -="1(‘\ — (1.49�. - --- --- il•e''_r, ' -- '1■■iirc• , n -. . . •= ... .,.. Ian r�am-- 11�� L ,�:'~ p it IC _- I ----\r--P1--- --1---- -- r — -- -- . ,ur ...e. .•... 1 i wnP, cw.-u n o6PUK/sunrn I. OP. ' oa'L ero'D ow soT� FENCE(rm.) ppoD '• wow .,�.. e,..,n '•De.e E O PEP r.00.1. ,a•...o ., by. •I sro nx:Bosco -. ... .w LOT 10.BLOCK 69 •'�• •..w,. .wY re+ieiPn.� ram. ,.,...M•.« .w.. .n..c� NORTH 4 DEFRAY BFACH DELRAY BEACH redzan HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1111 1993 - 1993 1001 _ 1001 Agent: Kim Dwyer Project Name: Del-Ida Point Plat Project Location: Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat (Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park). BACKGROUND/.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at the southwest corner of NE 2'd Avenue and NE 6t'' Street within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 2,144 square foot (approx.) non-contributing dwelling constructed in 1952. The original attached garage (west side of dwelling)was converted to a bedroom in 1958. At its meeting of August 18, 1999, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved the installation of a 10' x 14' aluminum garden shed on the west side of the property (behind the residence) and while a concrete slab exists for the shed, the shed itself was never installed. An application has been submitted to subdivide the subject property into two (2) conforming lots while retaining the extant non-contributing single-family dwelling. This plat is now before the Board for action. RE-PLAT ANALYSIS => As referenced above, the development proposal is to re-plat the existing Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del- Ida Park into two (2) conforming lots. The existing Lots 26 and 28 are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width, and frontage. The following table illustrates that the two (2) proposed lots are in compliance with the minimum lot size, width, depth, and frontage requirements of the R-1-AA zoning district as per Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.3.4(K): Lot Size (Square Feet) Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Frontage Minimum Required 9,500 75' 100' 75' Proposed Lot 1 11,546 93' 127' 93' Proposed Lot 2 13,006 96' 140' 88.14' In addition to the above, the extant dwelling (located on the proposed Lot 1) will to continue to conform to the building setback requirements for the R-1-AA zoning district. It is noted that the shed located on Lot 26 does not comply with current setback requirements, which will not change with the proposed re-plat. However, it is likely that this structure will be demolished to accommodate a new single-family dwelling. Based upon the above, the proposed Del-Ida Point Plat will be consistent with the requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4(K). As indicated in the attached Meeting Date: October 6,2004 Agenda Item:VI.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Dixie Del-Ida Plat Page 2 Appendix "A", positive findings can also be made with respect to LDR Section 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions). ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal seeks to subdivide Lots 26-28, Block 4, Del-Ida Park into two (2) conforming lots. The re-plat will retain the extant noncontributing dwelling in situ as well as retain its original orientation as affiliated with the neighborhood. The two (2) proposed lots will conform to the minimum lot size, width, depth and frontage requirements of the R-1-AA zoning district. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Del-Ida Point Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission for the Del-Ida Point Plat, by finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION `. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Del-Ida Point Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments:Appendix"A",Location Map,and Proposed Plat Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Dixie Del-Ida Plat Page 3 APPENDIX"A" STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN AND/OR PLAT ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood,the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent F. Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element.This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Dixie Del-Ida Plat Page 4 H. 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent • 1L I I I I I I I I I I I I J I N.E. 9TH ST. N.W. 9TH ST. 1 N I II N.W. 8TH ST. GEORGE BUSH BOULEVARD c,�' 4j ' �� Q QP N.E. 7TH ST. Aro N.W. 7TH ST. 11111 >Q i u_i Q JP�O S' N.W. -- 6TH ST. 00 N.E. 6TH ST. cn LOT 1 D N.E. LOT 2LL1 G� LLI Z Q ill+� N.E. 5TH TERR. Et • In WOOD N. 0 NI z N N.E. 5TH CT. O G.• 6 (K <,(_.6.s TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. LU THERAN w Lv z ) i LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. Q I -Ill' N 4, DEL-IDA POINT PLAT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION PLANNING Sc ZONING DEPARTMENT J -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM778 • THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS MICHAEL D. ROSE, P.S.M. DEL-I D A P 0 I N T P L A T NORTH AA ENGINEERING �� �LiC1L i o I SURVEY A REPLAT OF LOTS 26,27,AND 28,BLOCK 4,DEL-IDA PARK(PB 9,PG 52,PBCR), F£F£A a I A T L03 L PUNNINGIHO LYING IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 43 EAST �� CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. LB6456 r, " 3410 dmn Arsnu9 ERR.• Pompano Reach.n.33ou CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,PALM BEACH COUNTY,FLORIDA 954-943-9433 9 043:954-783-4751 8AUGUST, 2004 \ %� 9nn oP noa4A Kl OO not 1 9=6 la M tor,.��a Tn N.E. 6TH STREET 20 0 Ea AO 1— tbs.—'v TAFT AVENUE-PLAT ^°°'�rIM hot ROOH°� O N89'37.58% _---_�_—_ swe1 . Pv+.—� --7----TG1.0 T—-—r—5a.3Y oo9aT9T a RD1p1,am .----_--- N Ig CENTERLINE $1 R.25.00. 911___---, DC IN 41 0-9077'02' N893758 f /01.84' L�J9.4J' ' I — -— -1 v = is t 01 a wi N `9 G4' '25.00.1 W 079 �1 Q �, I. $ LOT 1 ,,O 4. o------11,s�D5eASEPZ -- Q, pG O (0.265 ACRE) - `\ 0y O M \ Z m � I N90'Op'00'W ^ .ri 5 \� �14.29 m a \ 14 349 00 vi pg ry ,-. o Q h 0 ti 9.� \ 589'3 29-W 102.57'7 ^I O 0 p ''a \ 0•00 a (1I1I ru- ,z,- , ap3 50 ` \ 9 $ I ..r 0 ti W / o \ . • * / .,,ti°a • LOT 2 a. 3 u `pd 3, OWE FEET • E) I / O fl cT / 25.00'J / \ / oL 1 / ^y i 0/9N 03 .pp� k \ > 01h �40. \�9^ll \(' � // SURVEY NOTES: Oa M� \/(/ • 1. 6DANCS SN2011 HEREON me REUTNC TO THC LAST UNE Of THE Or B1OCR 5,Oa-RDA PAM(P9 9.PO 52,P9CR).SAD LPIC BLM pt ' 5CV ^O O SOUTH 0603'00*REST(ASSUMED). `�pV'I' Vl ,�� VV 7, NOTCG TN6 PUT,AS RECORDED iN fIS GW1N:FD.1Y,6 THE 0111CY1 �. 0 OLPIC110N of DC 5U90nAm LANDS D ae=NO3N AND,.ALL N IQ V �' OMCYSTA ACES 9E SUPPLANTED N ALMIpRTT 9r WV OTHER GRAPHC OR 1\ ;a� 4/ DGTAL IOW 0r TIC MT. TNg0 WT 9C Mgi501 RSMCIIONS THAT 0 \ yai tv? ' AREREc 1411DT0 RECP BEON 1 CORM T TINT Wr EC MAC N THE MIX n- O. MOK SHALL BE N0 BULDINCS 0R A11r NIND Of CONSTRUCTION DICED ON 7 JS /G� UTERI OR ORNRACE EASEYOTS. CONSTRUCTION GT UN05GPN0 LPCN -V WNTUWCL CR YANRNNCC ACCESS EASOYCNTS 6.61 B(N / I o OER CRY OF�60T BLILDNO DOCK ZONNG WC6 MD/CA ORDWIKCS . I. THCRC SHALL BE N0 TRCR DR SNIUB5 PUCE)ON LMUTT EASEMENTS (r MMCN ARE PROM=FOR RATER NO UN'LY ME 04 UPON DRNHICE 7 .4.� N.!�. S TH CASEMENTS, LANCSCAMO CH OTHER UPUTT EASD'ENTS SA1 1 BC lTS '�° TERRACE N L�CONSENT Of ALL T1(UTRDY EOY01000 U O \ a'M / __—-—-— 5. D.C. DENOTES DMNrac MUM /Z. a/ I ■ 0EN0105 PLRW10NT REFERENCE MONUMENT(PRY)LB,6456, >< U a r P B. 0010113 PLAT .NOTED(IH�OAse)•r.R 4-OGgR4 PLiYNQIf Ci® DOIOTES OEn,CYL RECDCS WOOLRULRDICC WWI PC6 001103 PC46 OF BCDINNO. R -OENOTLS RAMS PCC OCNOTFS PONT OF COYQCEMDR. 0. -CO1011 CORRAL ANGLE A 14 U.L DENOTES UTLM CASCYEM. I -DEND ES ARC DCM RIM MOMS RU?-Of-MAY, MCA.-DENOTES POLY B(/p1 ,y4 GU, DENOTES GO1OV1.MITT CASEYEM. C0.NTT MOWS 9 S N.R. DtNTR NDh RADVl. PCP -WASTES PERYIOT CCMROL WNW... Tow 69/0156) ¢ O. inn OM- CENCI MO DYANIENVKC PURPOSES Y'm1INC THE OATS 0f TH MONT Of HIiS SUBOMSIO. Y S/COMER-SECTION 9 �TOMIp1P N S RNCE N C _ --.. SURVEYOR'S PROJECT 4-0692A I DEIAAYBFACH :r. :. '., DELRAY BfACtI HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD rap MK MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT WI. 19931 1993 2001 Agent: Kim Dwyer Project Name: Dixie Del-Ida Plat Project Location: Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat(Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park). BACKGROUND/;PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The subject property is designated as a part of the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is located on the southeast side of Dixie Boulevard, lying just west of NE 2nd Avenue. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA) and contains a one-story, 1,836 square foot contributing dwelling constructed in 1930 and a 286 square foot garage constructed in 1948. At its meeting of June 2, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed and recommended approval to the City Commission of a request to re-plat Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park in order to accommodate the construction of three (3) new, single-family residences adjacent to the extant historic dwelling. The HPB also recommended approval to the City Commission of waiver requests regarding the minimum lot dimension requirements for the lots proposed to be created via the aforementioned re-plat. Along with these recommendations, the HPB approved a demolition request for the aforementioned garage, and a variance for the reduction of the side interior setback from ten feet (10') to five feet (5')to allow the retention of the extant historic dwelling. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Dixie Del-Ida Plat as well as the associated waivers at their meeting of June 21, 2004. Subsequently, at its meeting of July 6, 2004, the City Commission denied the request to re-plat Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park as well as the associated waivers regarding the minimum lot dimension requirements based upon a finding that the proposal was inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern and would adversely affect the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a plat (Dixie Del-Ida Plat) that would subdivide Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del- Ida Park into three (3) lots while still retaining the extant historic dwelling. This re-plat is now before the Board for action. RE-PLAT ANALYSIS As referenced above, the development proposal is to re-plat the existing nonconforming Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park into three (3) conforming lots. The existing lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size, width, depth, and frontage. The following table illustrates that the three (3) proposed lots are in compliance with the minimum lot size, width, depth, and frontage requirements of the R-1-AA zoning district as per Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.3.4(K): Meeting Date:October 6,2004 Agenda Item:VI. B. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Dixie Del-Ida Plat Page 2 Lot Size (Square Feet) Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Frontage Minimum Required 9,500 75' 100' 75' Proposed Lot 1 14,476 138.58' 100' 138.58' Proposed Lot 2 9,602 83' 108.09' 83' Proposed Lot 3 10,500 75' 140' 75' In addition to the above, the proposed lot configurations will enable the extant historic dwelling (located on the proposed Lot 2) to conform to the side interior building setback requirement of ten feet (10') for the R-1-AA zoning district. Presently, the dwelling is set back approximately four feet (4') along the northeast property line; however with the proposed re-plat and establishment of new property lines the setback would be increased to 13.18'. The dwelling will continue to conform to the southwest side interior building setback as well as the rear building setback; however the front building setback will remain an existing nonconformity at 22.77'. Based upon the above, the proposed Dixie Del-Ida Plat will be consistent with the requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4(K). As indicated in the attached Appendix "A", positive findings can also be made with respect to LDR Section 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions). ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal seeks to subdivide Lots 2-5, Block 5, Del-Ida Park into three (3) conforming lots. The re-plat will retain the extant historic Mediterranean-Revival dwelling in situ as well as retain its original orientation as affiliated with the neighborhood while eliminating the nonconforming northeast side interior setback. The three (3) proposed lots will conform to the minimum lot size, width, depth and frontage requirements of the R-1-AA zoning district. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Dixie Del-Ida Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission for the Dixie Del-Ida Plat, 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 Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Dixie Del-Ida Plat, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Sections 3.2.3 (Standards for Site Plan and/or Plat Actions) and 4.3.4(K) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments:Appendix"A",Location Map,and Proposed Plat Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner I 4 APPENDIX`=`A" STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN AND/OR PLAT.ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood,the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent F. Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element.This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent H. 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. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area,and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent ,„ J \./ i j Q P�� .... N.E. 7TH ST. N.W. 7TH ST. Q >.L. Q -P�O S' O N.W. 6TH ST. <2) N.E. 6TH ST. 1- MI p u, 1 _ \,i.t-c' ..(7 § Z F W z Q i N.E. 5TH TERR. WOOD LN. a 10°' (O� cal 2 LOT 1 O1 N.E. 5TH CT. 0 z6 G� Z <<<C3—(7—H\ TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. LUTHERAN Lil z LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. Lv !!! !"1!iR > POST CASON Q OFFICE I—METHODISTCHURCHLvj z z 411{ DIXIE DEL-IDA PLAT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION PLANNING ScZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM778 • • THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: D I X I E DEL-IDA PLAT MICHAEL D. ROSE, R.S.M. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS NH ENGINEERING OROTOs I SURVEYING A REPLAT OF LOTS 2,3,4 AND 5,BLOCK 5.DEL-IDA PARK (PB 9,PG 52,PBCR), VI I**e o e I A T t e PUNNING LYING IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 46UTH,RANGE 43 EAST CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. L86458 300 N.Andmn Menu*Exf.• Pompano Mach.rl.33064 CITY OF DELR/BEACH,PALM BE CH COUNTY,FLORIDA PH:954-943-9433 •FAX;954-763-4754 NORM APRIL. 2004 / / / I N.E, 5TH TERRACE VATS aP rum= `/ /� CODMY Of 0404 WW / / '- ...`` Tile Ret wee 4 fw mPN // / /'/ Ali.., eI�JL.taleROO V7\\ / eTea_____it Boa Ne.- / /' zo o so a eo MOM IL REM CM N / / D0 /�' i // I I I SwM'I N �- \ /, I SURVEY NOTES: 0 /' / $' ' I I ROCK 35,o a PI. WARR SHORN hi RK(ON P9 0.PO u.REVIVE twin.SAID LAC UNE Or N �' \ I I I sem OOoo•oo•TR3r(Assuuw). l.S> h z (MCC:MS PUT.A3 RECOIem PI 73 GRAPHIC FOR*8 THE OPPCNL / O �61� V0�`� I I GRf3Mr 9E AJPILV�RCD IN AUM LINOS IOPo Y EIT AI _ CAVR=HERD(AND VALL NC OR O I I I OCTAL POi9 M 1HC PUT. TAME WY EC Mtl1IOIN1.RCSTI CICH3 OW ARC NOT RCCOROCD CH DRS RAT THAT VAT 9C r01Re NINE AMC / ��r / // 0� DEL-IDA PARK awms a PAW coal COUNTY. CO i / 1. (P8 9, PG 52, PBCR) I I I o' TICK awe 19*[CO m sa WI xoa a mraTRUCDON PLACED ON �' \� / / CONSTpUL OC L ST 114 N. UION V (n Kwrow1tE OR uAanOlH¢E Access rwmiars LUST Ee((N / O ' �� I I I Of S DEUNTH�Y 0rp •�ZONH7 CODA Ne/OIT OROeYH[O __BE NO_ V �•4• pp / 5'rA •s� [�-{I' I I A. Gwt�EMPROACCD kilo On IXO SEPTA v fA��V/UPON CANKNX fs SMALL /'' �" A po/ // N9 50 00 I OAIMED CLT PnNO�SWG AMR CONSENT a ALL SHE nor comma s, 1, / • ae 41 I a o.c ooaro oRA+Nce awlwt (PRY)W asa /i O\ / (. 30o ■ OT) NO CH50).u0rt PIIY C/ PAIL_MOTES PCRIWINT CS /' '�� .• / N IPP�00.8 D W CINHO�K R _ RA00 L� \ ��y ,R I IJ' I 4 inc o of m_m arAw Char. a -000103+wcCi0F0RN(0/710 0 / i ,AC(4) / \\\ SOS op ti 4V \ ,`, 4" I�� I �(\ I N.R. DOOM NON-RACIAL V101TY 015[YV.T. 1.0.00.-KauTtaiDQWTC3 30UMC IC[T / ` d: / ` -p �O , PP _ POITq({g6160M CONTROL 0 / Y s ¢¢¢¢ e, TIE an Or OCUNT OUCH SHAD.INK THE ROp1T O/ACCESS FOR DICR- /' // 9�\ `\`MM'1� y I i Ge1f.T He NWTT[NVICC PUIPOS[3 WITHIN THE LYTR Or 1Hq swimsuit 411 xl / \ -%'1. \ 12 \ T.1 c\, ( \b• / / / s� ` \\ s 71 p \ 7.1 2� H''•/ �S� N.E. 5TH COURT 1 h b 5 S7- I—_- .-_. • / 0 �'� pp• os. la moo' -+ ��off ' ,‘ 50.00 • �oOs N90'00 00"�V DEL-I PARK A'/' n \ —'(PB 9,9, PC , PBCR) .moo. / ar�,J I �, N. \ Wyk �?�' DEL-IDA PARK) 14 ♦ O' • I \ \ \♦ ` ♦\1 i I Y //''---- WRNER-SECTION 9 /, 's `'\ l SM TORN9IP N>.RAHO(U 1 `\ , \ `O `\ L SURVEYOR'S PROJECT I II-0692A r mpEER L 7AYK I D A BEACH F bOrtal All-America City ' liii! 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting October 6, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION AMA) Thp6 c2 '7/.5 72 w. a ��t/90/,g hac_kt:s eta Lk i-- /-, /r77< A#1/7 6F A t - /( 5 " -A1Q-C-`-N 63 /Q- -co(Afinki C-p Pn s-r- S E.oJ 14 F , 1� S 1 , I 4- s L� / , 30/ le/' - c/e, S/i l/ro,�/ rPlitii-t 6A-i L /6A 3 Alhf 02 "APe_ LS- (‘; , i 7 ' Li— n! le- II L .e.; 19 iv K) FremdA W1(uz-rcpxryi 0/ T wed /9v\-e, IV DELRAY BEACH F R I O A All-America City ' III '! 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting October 6, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION hilPkEttiV SyK 10/ Nc,.) 1St-6 E'er� c �� I ��. ( �I ti IS �C� 33L1:I _ LaAL LoAtt_f _ C)te-14- 4ss 6-70(1 lo7 /v iob ‘/ . /-� fVi %E&2iY't7