The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB 12-01-04 64 o,. AGENDA 0 HISTORIC= PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING 0`�4r g�P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: December 1, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 October 6, 2004 O October 20, 2004 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Salon 301, 301 West Atlantic Avenue, West Settler's District, Evelyn Jones, Owner Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the change of color of an awning on a commercial building. B. Mako Technologies, 145 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements associated with the demolition of a contributing building and construction of a mixed-use building (3,190 sq. ft. office and two-bedroom apartment) with eleven (11) space parking lot. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Hammad Shoppes, 139 NW 5th Avenue, West Settlers District, Amjad Hammad, Owner Consideration of a conceptual plan associated with the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition and associated site improvements for an existing commercial building. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VI. ADJOURN 'rn r Warr'en Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: November 23, 2004 uux o 1 A DELRAY OLACH 'Iced HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'I I MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT I �,► 1993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: Evelyn & Kelvin Jones Project Name: Salon 301 Project Location: 301 West Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a COA request for the color change of the awnings on an existing non-contributing commercial building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The property is a first floor commercial unit of the Atlantic Grove development on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd Avenue and NW 4th Avenue. The building was constructed earlier this year and is a non-contributing building in the West Settler's Historic District.The area is zoned Central Business District (CBD). On October 27, 2004, SPRAB reviewed and approved an application for this property for an awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a COA application for the color change as the property forms part of the West Settlers Historic District and requires approval by the Historic Preservation Board. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I ANALYSIS Project Description The proposed alteration is for the color change of the first floor dome-style awnings at the west end of the building from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Design Elements Analysis LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: Meeting Date: December 1,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. 301 West Atlantic Avenue—Awning Color Change Page 2 The Board Shall Consider: Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: 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 a historic district. Analysis The green/olive and black striped awnings will be compatible with the existing building colors; however, the Board may want to consider a more vibrant color for one of the stripes given the amount of earth tones on the building and the color of the other awnings on the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move denial of the COA for the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner • Salon 301,301 West Atlantic Avenue A 1�7,-1 rq� F � :::::::-_ _:-.--.---_-,; ,. -21.. ;.-_,-_ 1. rt4 ...2,-,..--.----.'... I - ' u.^ ((,,,,, _ .. „, ,„„,,„,„. ... . , : $ ,.� off ....•''' , —I."— -111 1,i,t3 iliol -----=—..--:----- : i '1 1 iit „. • 1 it'll nil - ,. .... ..„ r— i _.....1----,-- . ',:...,..,, .;1/0,-----' '; —,.:„':.:4 ,..v.,11,,,.;.-. ..i _ _,,,,. :7- f, p . :fit! ",IA ' i i d �� . L { (rf t� �' 4,/ �i i 4 Lam` ..g ,.x.,; '�` _ t >J !} � i -"ter. ..... 1 .- ,Y ! )! 11,� r`. l„--, , -,.„,, ,.„--,f,,,,,,,::::. ,i%., -1,. ' 4 l ,, fol'..,,., ;1-'1 T.,,_ .:!),-.,!,.,F,I;1•.:::.' ' .,..,4i,ii 1! ,,,i',.4_ •,.• -,... : ,, il Id.Iii . ,„ �i ' :r {a. ii a I r r _ . mt k 1,_ 3 ' f r ''It.-; ,,* *. ,x Y"S -r rz w;a,`s' :: y �-',.. ;h ems, Sf7,,' "t. 4e0,7- r1it.k::;+ I.r',� f' - ,It a-i"r` . y,n `••J» , n4a . S j DEERAY BEACH DEERAY BEACH d HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD d MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 1993 2001 - _ 2001 Applicant: Amjad Hammad Project Name: Hammad Shoppes Project Location: 139 NW 5th Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the review of a Conceptual Plan for the Hammad Shoppes (139 NW 5th Avenue), pursuant to Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.1(A). . BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Block 27, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The property is located at the southeast corner of NW 5th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) within the West Settlers Historic District. The property contains a 3,413 square foot commercial building with six (6) back-out parking spaces on NW 5th Avenue and another four(4) back-out parking spaces on NW 2"d Street. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.1(A), a potential developer may request an audience before the appropriate development board for an informal, non-binding, concept plan review of a potential development proposal. The Board shall review and comment on the development concept at a duly noticed public meeting. There shall be no action taken by the Board nor shall there be any written report resulting from discussions at the meeting which may be construed to be a preliminary approval of the development concept. The Board should provide the applicant with comments and direction on the concept plan. Provided below is a description of the conceptual plan and a list of discussion items and concerns that staff has identified with the review of the conceptual plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The conceptual plan depicts proposed modifications to the site consisting of the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition at the rear of the existing commercial building, the construction of ten (10) back-out parking spaces on the adjoining alley, the construction of a refuse enclosure adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street), the elimination of the six (6) back- out parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue, and changes to the architectural elevations of the existing building. The development proposal also includes the installation of a handicap accessible parallel parking space along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2"d Street) and four (4) standard parallel parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue. The parking spaces within the adjacent rights-of-way are associated with the NW 5th Avenue streetscape improvements. Meeting Date: December 1,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Hammed Shoppes(139 NW 5th Avenue)-Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 DISCUSSION,ITEMS. O Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F) (3) (i), buildings fronting along NW 5th Avenue shall be located along the frontage line of the property with 70% to 90% of the length of the building set back between five feet (5) and ten feet (10) from the property line and the remaining length set back between 17'and 22'from the property line. While the existing building is not required to be modified for compliance with these design guidelines, the proposed addition should be located along NW 5th Avenue in a manner consistent with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines in order to fill-in the 29' wide streetscape void between the ultimate right- of-way and the existing building. El Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (2) (b), a minimum distance of 42' is required from the eastern edge of the alley to the front of the back-out parking spaces along the alley. The conceptual plan provides a distance of only 40'. The additional depth can be easily accommodated if the building addition is relocated to the front; otherwise the addition will need to be reduced to comply with this requirement. i7 Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(B) (14) (i) (3), flat roofs shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets with decorative parapets. The maximum height of the parapet wall shall be six feet (6) or of sufficient height to screen all roof mounted equipment. The location of the mechanical equipment associated with the development has not been depicted; however it is anticipated that the equipment will be located atop the existing/proposed building. There is a concern that the proposed parapet may not be of sufficient height to screen the mechanical equipment. Further, the proposed parapet should be redesigned to be more consistent with the Mission style architecture that it represents. El Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(B) (14) (iv) (5) (a), security bars on storefront or display windows are prohibited. This section is noted because the existing storefront is covered with security bars and the proposal would introduce a significantly higher quantity of windows to the architectural elevations. O Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (2), the dedication of five feet (5) of right-of-way is required for NW 5th Avenue. C 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. As the subject property will provide back- out parking spaces off the alley, the City Engineer has determined that the width of the alley should be expanded to a width of 20'. As the properties to the east are single-family dwellings and extensive redevelopment of these properties is remote, an alley right-of-way dedication of four feet (4')from the subject property will be required. El Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3, a five foot (5) wide sidewalk is required along NW 2nd Street. Presently, the required sidewalk exists along the majority of NW 2nd Street; however the proposal depicts the elimination of a portion of the sidewalk. i7 Additional detail needs to be provided as to what will be done with the 13' x 36' wide area between the back-out parking along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Hammad Shoppes(139 NW 5th Avenue)-Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 the existing building. Also, if the addition is not constructed at the front of the building — what will be installed in the area between the building front and NW 5th Avenue (i.e. paver block walkway with planters)? El A defined pedestrian accessway needs to be provided from the back-out parking along the alley to the shop entrances at the front of the building. El The two (2) larger Bahama shutters located at the center of the north elevation should be eliminated to break-up the facade. El The proposed columns are inconsistent from one elevation to the next. A singular column design should be used throughout the structure. Additionally, the columns are flat against the building and have no dimensional qualities. It is therefore suggested that the columns are constructed so as to project from the building. Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft Senior Planner Attachments:Site Plan and Architectural Elevations ' ALLEY • =- -- - - - _ - - ,- - -_ -_ - _ - -_l_ , • 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 DUMPSTER, •. I— (• : • •. • : : t.,� ' ; . -=1� ADDITION ,.��+fie, ',^ , . ��- , CO D HC 0' , .t'A m lei; _ Ni; R • 4E-:-----' t�5 ... . 20'-0" / 13'-0" E-- 25'-&' ,� 4-_ /—L� -� 22 -C -1 Z 3 - Til 1.0 2 r-L. _ m BUILDING 1 i1) 3,413 SF X.01 s, t .��` .�� i,�y7 / � V _ .2\\ - • . . . , .�� ; , / l/ 1 2 3 4 ' . . • • , . , . . . . . • „ . .• . . . , • . . . •... •• ...... ,. , . ,... . .• . . .. , •• , . . .. . . . • • • . .. . 1E0.4" - 9.-6. 1.9.47, . #0 EL.pA 21.0"T TAL LOUVER ALINING ;i• "1516 WHITE"OR Eaux. . ,s, F4T .. - . "r • 0 .. Abk EL.IV-4" sr PARAPET 0 . ' , ..• . . . . . ,„ . _r. , , , „ . „ „ „ . •' • , ., _. , , ' ' 0 11 I 11 ill .. A .., .4I. . ..P 4 ---- EL 0'.0* FIN.FLR. STORE FRONT WINDOWS AND POOR . 2250'NGv (TTP),COLOR FRAMES"BRIGI4T 8 x 8 TILES CROSSVILLE V553 STORE FRONTI.UNDWS AND DOORS alITE",GLAZING"SOLAR GREEN" —ETRUSCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT COLOR"BRIGNT ILA-IITE'FRAMES, LATICRETE'30 SAND BEIGE OR "SOLAR GREE) GLAZI1,6 EQUAL TTP. N 0 T 1 1 F 1_,_ .---:VA T 1 0\ SCALE: 3/1&"=11-0" l6'-4" • • 61'-0" 9'-4' , 20'-04 31'-0" • 10'-0' 0 0 8 x 8 TILES CROSSVILLE V553 ETRIJSCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT STORE FRCHT WMDOWS AND DOOR LATICRETE 030 SAND BEIGE OR (TYP),COLOR FRAMES"BRIGHT EQUAL TIP. LLNITE",GLAZING"SOLAR GREEN" SO,T --" E EV4T1O\ SCALE: 3/1ro"=I'-0" , ti (t 21'-5° 24'-4" "21'-4 6 EL.41'- PARAPEa'T TAL LOUVER AWNING k "IBIS WHITE"OR EQUAL ___ • � �� ,`� O O PARAPET fi 111 • $.4 -� EL.O'-0" 4. FIN.FLR I IR"SIMULATED STONE 8 x 8 TILES GROSSVILLE VS53 �� rY,w SILL,BULL NOSE EDGE. ETR 1SCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT STORE FRONT T WHITE" S AND DOORS COLOR BRIGHT WHITE"FRAMES, • LATICRETE'30 SAND BEIGE OR "SOLAR GREEN"GLAzrts* EQUAL TYP. BEST El EvAT IOC SCALE: 3/161 =I'-0I' 6T-1" 45'-0" 23'-0' • EL.21'-8' ' PARAPET 9 • EL.II'-8" ' PARAPET EL.16'-4" • PARAPET 0 0 Y EL.0'-0' • FIN.FLR. I IR'SIMULATED STONE METAL DOOR 2250'NGw SILL,FULL NOSE EDGE. (TYP),COLOR "CITRUS'DOOR AND FRAME LAST rLEVA11ON SCALE: 3/1 1=11-011 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: December 1, 2004 LOCATION: First Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeffrey Silberstein, Randee Schatz, Michelle Reich and Linda Lake MEMBERS ABSENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Maura Dersh, and John Miller STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Robert Tefft, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Silberstein at 6:10 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. Vice Chairman Silberstein read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. Mr. Silberstein advised that Item III. B. Mako Technologies, 145 N. Swinton Avenue was postponed until the December 15, 2004 Board Meeting as he had to step down and therefore we would not have a quorum. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake and passed 4 to 0 to approve the Minutes of October 6, 2004 and October 20, 2004 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Salon 301, 301 West Atlantic Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Evelyn Jones, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the change of color of an awning on a commercial building. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 The property is a first floor commercial unit of the Atlantic Grove development on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3`d Avenue and NW 4th Avenue. The building was constructed earlier this year and is a non-contributing building in the West Settlers Historic District. The area is zoned Central Business District (CBD). On October 27, 2004, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) reviewed and approved an application for this property for an awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a COA application for the color change as the property forms part of the West Settlers Historic District and requires approval by the Historic Preservation Board. The applicant was not present, and advised Mr. Adams that he was flexible and he referred the decision to the Board. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if the Board had any comments. The Board discussed the issue and concurred that the present red and white striped awnings do not complement the building, and the green/olive and black-striped awnings would complement the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Rosalind Russell advised the color should be more urban than red and white and the green and black is more suited to the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein closed the public hearing. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 4 to 0 to move approval of the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E) (8) (g) of the Land Development Regulations. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Hammad Shoppes, 139 NW 5th Avenue, West Settler's District, Amjad Hammad, Owner Item Before the Board: Consideration of a conceptual plan associated with the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition and associated site improvements for an existing commercial building. Vice Chairman Silberstein inquired if there were any comments from staff. The subject property consists of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Block 27, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The property is located at the southeast corner of NW 5th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) within the West Settlers Historic District. The property contains a 3,413 square foot commercial building with six 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 (6) back-out parking spaces on NW 5th Avenue and another four (4) back-out parking spaces on NW 2nd Street. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.1(A), a potential developer may request an audience before the appropriate development board for an informal, non- binding, concept plan review of a potential development proposal. The Board shall review and comment on the development concept at a duly noticed public meeting. There shall be no action taken by the Board nor shall there be any written report resulting from discussions at the meeting which may be construed to be a preliminary approval of the development concept. The Board should provide the applicant with comments and direction on the concept plan. Provided below is a description of the conceptual plan and a list of discussion items and concerns that staff has identified with the review of the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan depicts proposed modifications to the site consisting of the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition at the rear of the existing commercial building, the construction of ten (10) back-out parking spaces on the adjoining alley, the construction of a refuse enclosure adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street), the elimination of the six (6) back-out parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue, and changes to the architectural elevations of the existing building. The development proposal also includes the installation of a handicap accessible parallel parking space along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and four (4) standard parallel parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue. The parking spaces within the adjacent rights-of- way are associated with the NW 5th Avenue streetscape improvements. Mr. Hammad advised that they had several meetings with the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Planning & Zoning Department regarding the alleys, setbacks, parking and the landscaping. We then did an architectural plan. We are here tonight for the Board to look at the plan to see if we are on the right track before we proceeded to site plan approval. Mr. Silberstein questioned if they got feedback from other Boards or staff. Mr. Hammad met with Mr. Jeffrey Costello, and advised that we present this to the Historic Preservation for discussion purposes. Mr. Silberstein advised that they are here regarding the aesthetic issues, and not the technical points. Ms. Schatz advised she is concerned because the applicant hasn't seen this before tonight, and gives an unfair advantage. If he hasn't seen it, I can't comment whether it is appropriate or not. Mr. Silberstein advised a lot of these issues are technical items that can be resolved. He is here tonight to get our consensus. He also advised there is nothing in the LDR's that states it has to be compatible with the neighborhood, or blend in with the neighboring buildings. It is a matter of whether or not we like the aesthetics of the building. Ms. Schatz advised she couldn't give an opinion, as it is a preliminary sketch. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 Mr. Hammad showed the Board a schematic of the building. Ms. Schatz advised after looking at the schematic she had a better concept of what the building would look like. Ms. Reich asked what was the total square feet of the building. Mr. Hammad advised the addition was 1,500 sq. ft. in the back and presently the building has 3,414 sq. ft. Ms. Schatz inquired regarding the design of the columns. Mr. Tefft showed the Board samples of the materials. Mr. Silberstein advised his concern was the setbacks, and the addition should be put in the front of the building. We need to get more mass in the front so the buildings are aligned on the street. Another way to do this is to put a loggia in front of the building so it is more pedestrian friendly. Dimension needs to be added, as it is a very flat building. Perhaps you can add a tower element or put a mansard roof on and create more of an architectural feel to this building. My concern is the front setback. It is good for the tenant to be closer to the street. Ms. Lake advised this building has no character. It is not historic, vernacular or Mediterranean. Mr. Hammad advised there is a business presently operating in the building. Mr. Silberstein advised they have flexibility that should not disrupt the business. Board discussion ensued regarding the color, the front setbacks, the percentage of glass allowed on a storefront, and the parking. Mr. Tefft advised that glass is not an issue on this building. Mr. Hammad advised they are putting impact glass on the building. Ms. Russell advised she appreciated all the comments, however, you cannot compare Fifth Avenue Northwest to Atlantic Avenue — it is not the same. We are attempting to create a Pineapple Grove along NW 5th Avenue. I think changing the roof is a good idea. This street is in need of help. I think your suggestions have been beneficial. Mr. Silberstein advised if this is done right it will promote better development for the future. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments Ms. Aleida Riley, Palm Square, discussed the house that is being renovated at 33/33- 1/2 Palm Square. Although they have spent a lot of money on the house, if something can be done to tone down the colors it would be appreciated. The colors are shocking pink, royal blue, green and orange. This house does not fit in the historic district. The two large trees in front were cut; the driveway was taken out and replaced with brick. Mr. Adams advised he did see the building. Mr. Tefft advised that Code Enforcement would have to take action on this. Mr. Adams advised he would speak to the owners and get them to tone down the colors. Mr. Silberstein advised there should be something done about this home. Ms. Riley inquired about the restaurant on 7th Avenue—they were not supposed to get a CO until they covered their air conditioning units on the roof. Mr. Tefft was not involved in this project, but will check into this. B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members - None D. Staff VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:57 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for December 1, 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. 5 , Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 The property is a first floor commercial unit of the Atlantic Grove development on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd Avenue and NW 4th Avenue. The building was constructed earlier this year and is a non-contributing building in the West Settlers Historic District. The area is zoned Central Business District (CBD). On October 27, 2004, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) reviewed and approved an application for this property for an awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a COA application for the color change as the property forms part of the West Settlers Historic District and requires approval by the Historic Preservation Board. The applicant was not present, and advised Mr. Adams that he was flexible and he referred the decision to the Board. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if the Board had any comments. The Board discussed the issue and concurred that the present red and white striped awnings do not complement the building, and the green/olive and black-striped awnings would complement the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Rosalind Russell advised the color should be more urban than red and white and the green and black is more suited to the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein closed the public hearing. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 4 to 0 to move approval of the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E) (8) (g) of the Land Development Regulations. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Hammad Shoppes, 139 NW 5th Avenue, West Settler's District, Amiad Hammad, Owner Item Before the Board: Consideration of a conceptual plan associated with the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition and associated site improvements for an existing commercial building. Vice Chairman Silberstein inquired if there were any comments from staff. The subject property consists of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Block 27, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The property is located at the southeast corner of NW 5th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) within the West Settlers Historic District. The property contains a 3,413 square foot commercial building with six 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 (6) back-out parking spaces on NW 5th Avenue and another four (4) back-out parking spaces on NW 2nd Street. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.1(A), a potential developer may request an audience before the appropriate development board for an informal, non- binding, concept plan review of a potential development proposal. The Board shall review and comment on the development concept at a duly noticed public meeting. There shall be no action taken by the Board nor shall there be any written report resulting from discussions at the meeting which may be construed to be a preliminary approval of the development concept. The Board should provide the applicant with comments and direction on the concept plan. Provided below is a description of the conceptual plan and a list of discussion items and concerns that staff has identified with the review of the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan depicts proposed modifications to the site consisting of the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition at the rear of the existing commercial building, the construction of ten (10) back-out parking spaces on the adjoining alley, the construction of a refuse enclosure adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street), the elimination of the six (6) back-out parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue, and changes to the architectural elevations of the existing building. The development proposal also includes the installation of a handicap accessible parallel parking space along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and four (4) standard parallel parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue. The parking spaces within the adjacent rights-of- way are associated with the NW 5th Avenue streetscape improvements. Mr. Hammad advised that they had several meetings with the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Planning & Zoning Department regarding the alleys, setbacks, parking and the landscaping. We then did an architectural plan. We are here tonight for the Board to look at the plan to see if we are on the right track before we proceeded to site plan approval. Mr. Silberstein questioned if they got feedback from other Boards or staff. Mr. Hammad met with Mr. Jeffrey Costello, and advised that we present this to the Historic Preservation for discussion purposes. Mr. Silberstein advised that they are here regarding the aesthetic issues, and not the technical points. Ms. Schatz advised she is concerned because the applicant hasn't seen this before tonight, and gives an unfair advantage. If he hasn't seen it, I can't comment whether it is appropriate or not. Mr. Silberstein advised a lot of these issues are technical items that can be resolved. He is here tonight to get our consensus. He also advised there is nothing in the LDR's that states it has to be compatible with the neighborhood, or blend in with the neighboring buildings. It is a matter of whether or not we like the aesthetics of the building. Ms. Schatz advised she couldn't give an opinion, as it is a preliminary sketch. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 Mr. Hammad showed the Board a schematic of the building. Ms. Schatz advised after looking at the schematic she had a better concept of what the building would look like. Ms. Reich asked what was the total square feet of the building. Mr. Hammad advised the addition was 1,500 sq. ft. in the back and presently the building has 3,414 sq. ft. Ms. Schatz inquired regarding the design of the columns. Mr. Tefft showed the Board samples of the materials. Mr. Silberstein advised his concern was the setbacks, and the addition should be put in the front of the building. We need to get more mass in the front so the buildings are aligned on the street. Another way to do this is to put a loggia in front of the building so it is more pedestrian friendly. Dimension needs to be added, as it is a very flat building. Perhaps you can add a tower element or put a mansard roof on and create more of an architectural feel to this building. My concern is the front setback. It is good for the tenant to be closer to the street. Ms. Lake advised this building has no character. It is not historic, vernacular or Mediterranean. Mr. Hammad advised there is a business presently operating in the building. Mr. Silberstein advised they have flexibility that should not disrupt the business. Board discussion ensued regarding the color, the front setbacks, the percentage of glass allowed on a storefront, and the parking. Mr. Tefft advised that glass is not an issue on this building. Mr. Hammad advised they are putting impact glass on the building. Ms. Russell advised she appreciated all the comments, however, you cannot compare Fifth Avenue Northwest to Atlantic Avenue — it is not the same. We are attempting to create a Pineapple Grove along NW 5th Avenue. I think changing the roof is a good idea. This street is in need of help. I think your suggestions have been beneficial. Mr. Silberstein advised if this is done right it will promote better development for the future. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments Ms. Aleida Riley, Palm Square, discussed the house that is being renovated at 33/33- 1/2 Palm Square. Although they have spent a lot of money on the house, if something can be done to tone down the colors it would be appreciated. The colors are shocking pink, royal blue, green and orange. This house does not fit in the historic district. The two large trees in front were cut; the driveway was taken out and replaced with brick. Mr. Adams advised he did see the building. Mr. Tefft advised that Code Enforcement would have to take action on this. Mr. Adams advised he would speak to the owners and get them to tone down the colors. Mr. Silberstein advised there should be something done about this home. Ms. Riley inquired about the restaurant on 7th Avenue—they were not supposed to get a CO until they covered their air conditioning units on the roof. Mr. Tefft was not involved in this project, but will check into this. B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members - None D. Staff VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:57 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said bo y fo December 1, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on 7/% " -5— . /721k 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. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Ill. D. ITEM: 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) — Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Associated with the Demolition of the Extant Contributing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use (Office/Residential) Building and Parking Lot. 1- l \\/\yQT TRINITY _ LUTHERAN LAKE I DA ROAD N.E. 4TH I ST. GENERAL DATA: - POST CASON OFFICE — METHODIST Owner Mako Technologies - CHURCH Agent/Applicant Jeffrey Silberstein — Location 145 North Swinton Avenue — W Property Size 0.23 Acres = m Future Land Use Map Other Mixed Use (OMU) — W Current Zoning Old School Square Historic Arts N.W. 3RD ST. > N.E_3R0 S_ District (OSSHAD) a Q _adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD - - South: OSSHAD East: OSSHAD CITY _ ATTORNEY West: OSSHAD I I BUILDING Fr -— Existing Land Use Single-Family Dwelling MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.DRIVE N.E. 2ND ST. Proposed Land Use Mixed-Use (Office/Residential) —z `z�'.$ Water Service Existing on site o Sewer Service Existing on site - Z CITY HALL 1n N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST_ 3 z z COMMUNITY CEN TER TENNIS OLD STADIUM SCHOOL SQUARE ATLANTIC AVENUE SOUTH COUNTY TM COURT HOUSE a = M. Bill S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. i I cri I— .. . III. D. X � ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5(F): O Demolition Request; O Class V Site Plan; O Landscape Plan; and O Design Elements The subject property is located at the southeast corner of North Swinton Avenue and NE 2nd Street. BACKGROUND Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.23 acre property consists of Lot 1, Block 67, Town of Delray, and contains a 1,153 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 381 square foot garage constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. The subject property is considered a contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District as the extant structures are associated with the developmental history and exhibit the architectural elements of the Old School Square area during the 1930's. At its meeting of June 21, 2000, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved renovations to the extant single-family dwelling and accessory garage consisting of the following: O Removal of aluminum siding and repair of the original horizontal clapboard siding; O Replacement of the existing glass jalousie windows on the front and rear porches with single pane, impact resistant glass; O Reproduction of the original operable wood batten and board shutters; O Installation of a new dimensional composition shingle roof; and O Repainting of the building exteriors (pale yellow/ moss green). The above renovations along with other minor modifications to the site including the removal of an Australian Pine from the northwest corner of site and the installation of a wood picket fence have been completed. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness in association with a Class V site plan application for the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage, and the construction of a three-story, mixed-use (office and residential) building, which is now before the Board for action. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: O Demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; O Construction of a three-story, Gothic Revival style, mixed-use building. The first two floors will consist of office (1,789 sq. ft.-first floor, 1,401 sq. ft.-second floor) and the third floor will be a two-bedroom apartment; O Construction of an eleven (11) space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the property with access from the adjacent alley; and O Construction of a refuse enclosure along the south property line, and the installation of associated landscaping. Meeting Date: December 15,2004 Agenda Item: III. D. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 2 SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE 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 application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The following table indicates that the proposal meets and/or exceeds the requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the OSSHAD zoning district: Standard Provided Building Height(max.): 35' 34'-8" Building Setbacks (min.): Front 25' 25'-10" Side Street 15' 15' Side Interior 7'-6" 7'-6" Rear 10' 69' Open Space: 25% 37% LDR Section 4.4.24—Old School Square Historic Arts District: 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 floor area. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 square feet 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. Additionally, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (2) (c), two or bedroom dwelling units shall provide two (2) parking spaces per unit plus 0.5 of a parking space per unit in guest parking. The development proposal consists of 3,190 square feet of office floor area (first and second floors) and one (1) two-bedroom apartment (third floor). Based upon the above, eleven (11) parking spaces are required and the development proposal provides for eleven (11) on-site spaces. It is noted that the subject development proposal was submitted prior to the adoption of the new regulations which limit the size of the third floor to 50% of the second floor within the OSSHAD zoning district. Therefore, the development proposal is not required to comply with this requirement. LDR Article 4.6—Supplemental District Regulations: Refuse Enclosure: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(C) (1), dumpsters, recycling containers and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sides and have vision obscuring gates on the fourth side, unless such areas are not visible from any adjacent public right-of-way. The development proposal includes the construction of a four foot (4') high concrete block enclosure along the south property line that will act as the enclosure for the developments refuse containers as well as the air conditioning units. It is noted that while four (4) separate containers have been depicted within the enclosure, none have been indicated as being for recyclables. It is therefore attached Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 3 as a condition of approval that the refuse enclosure is expanded to accommodate a container for recyclables or that the proposed recyclables container is clearly indicated on the site plan. Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(A) (1), no lighting fixtures on private property shall exceed 25' in height. The development proposal includes a detail of the proposed pole-mounted light fixture; however the height of the fixture/pole has not been indicated. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that the photometric plan is revised to contain a notation regarding the height of the proposed light fixture/pole. The supplied fixture detail describes the proposed light fixture as "a classical architectural half- pyramid geometric... The design consists of materials such as natural copper and zinc plated copper to complement the integrity of the architecture and surrounding. The fixture(s) provide a direct, glare free symmetrical distribution with either compact fluorescent, incandescent or metal halide lamp technology". The proposed "pyramid" fixture appears more complimentary to Modern architecture then the Gothic Revival style of the proposed building. Further, the style of the fixture would be out of character with the balance of the Old School Square Historic District. It is therefore recommended and attached as a condition of approval that a light fixture more complimentary to the balance of the architecture within the Old School Square Historic District, such as the acorn style fixtures on the adjacent 10 NE 2nd Street property (Pineapple Podiatry), are utilized. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c), the average illumination level for the property shall be 1.0 foot candles and the maximum illumination level shall be 4.0 foot candles. The proposed photometric plan exceeds the established average and maximum illumination levels and must be revised. The submittal of a revised photometric plan consistent with the illumination level criteria of LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c) is also attached as a condition of approval. Bicycle Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (1) (c) (3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non-residential use within the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. The development proposal has included a bicycle parking facility (bike rack) to the rear of the building along the south property line. It would be more appropriate to locate this facility closer to one of the adjacent rights-of-way, or preferably at the northeast corner of the building. At this location the facility would be more visible and more likely to be utilized. Therefore, the relocation of the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) to the northeast corner of the building has been attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B) (1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. A five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk currently exists along NE 2nd Street between North Swinton Avenue and the adjacent alley; however previous approvals on the adjacent properties to the east (Pineapple Podiatry and Ascot) have replaced the concrete sidewalk with a new paver brick sidewalk. It is appropriate that this development proposal do Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 4 the same and therefore the replacement of the existing concrete sidewalk along NE 2nd Street with a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk is attached as a condition of approval. While the sidewalks along NE 2nd Street are being converted over to paver brick sidewalks presently, the sidewalks along North Swinton Avenue have yet to begin such a transition. However, the City Engineer has indicated that the replacement of the sidewalks along that portion of North Swinton Avenue, between Atlantic Avenue and NE 1st Street is presently under consideration and potentially could be expanded further north up to NE 2nd Street. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the existing concrete sidewalk along North Swinton Avenue is replaced with a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OTHER ITEMS: Undergrounding of Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that all existing and proposed utilities associated with the development must be located underground and that a note be provided on the site plan to this effect. Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of staff's concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submittal: 1. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(B) (5), the site plan shall depict the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way with the basis clearly stated; the centerline of the existing pavement; and the width of the street pavement; 2. Pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.3(B) (6) and (7), the site plan shall depict the approximate location of the nearest structures or significant improvements and the location of the nearest points of access on adjacent properties; 3. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(F) (4), provide a composite utility plan that shows the location of all existing and proposed utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cable, and drainage). The composite plan shall be signed by a representative of each utility provider attesting to the fact that services can be accommodated as shown on the composite utility plan. The composite plan shall address the responsibility for relocation of existing services and installation of new services; 4. Revise the site statistics with regard to area. The second and third floor square footages should not be included in the percentage of site calculations. Also, the percentages with regard to brick pavers and parking are incorrect (10.1% brick paver, and 34.1% parking are accurate figures); 5. Revise the site plan to be consistent with the indicated 1:10 scale; 6. Provide a typical cross section from building to adjacent right-of-way or adjacent property at all property lines. Pay particular attention to grade differential from proposed site to existing adjacent properties and show the existing grades on adjacent property; Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 5 7. Provide six inch (6") deep sodded swale adjacent to all roadway pavement within the public rights-of-way. Indicate swale on engineering plans; 8. Indicate on the engineering plans how the roof drainage is accommodated; 9. Indicate stop bars and signs at egress drives as well as providing interior traffic control markings and signage. Clearly indicate onsite traffic control; 10. Provide note that water meter sizes are to be determined by the City of Delray Beach Utility Department upon building permit application and remove the size indicated on the engineering plans. An RPZ backflow preventor will be required on the water service. Provide standard City RPZ backflow preventor detail on plans. Also, indicate location of irrigation water meters; 11. Provide current City of Delray Beach standard construction details on the plans as applicable; 12. Curbing is not required adjacent to the alley and should be eliminated; and 13. Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. For projects over one (1) acre in size, provide a copy of FDEP Notice of Intent. LANDSCAPE PLAN ANALYSIS The proposed landscape plan consists of Coconut Palms underplanted with an undulating bed of Green Island Ficus and Lantana along the north and west sides of the proposed building. White Bird of Paradise is proposed on the south side of the building abutting the refuse enclosure; however it is noted and attached as a condition of approval that the plant list must be revised to include this item. The parking lot will be landscaped with Foxtail Palms, Gumbo Limbo and Pink Tabebuia trees underplanted with Purple Queen, Green Island Ficus, and a Cocoplum hedge. It is noted, however, that the undulating beds of Green Island Ficus and Lantana found adjacent to the building on the north side of the property are not continued in front of the parking lot. It is therefore suggested and attached as a condition of approval that an undulating landscape bed of either Green Island Ficus, Lantana or both is provided along the north side of the parking lot. In addition to the above, based upon the FPL"right tree, right place" program, the Gumbo Limbo trees and Coconut Palms proposed along the north property line will be in conflict with the existing overhead transmission lines. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the Coconut Palms and Gumbo Limbo trees are replaced by plantings consistent with the FPL "right tree, right place" program. Based upon the above referenced conditions of approval being addressed, positive findings can be made with LDR Section 4.6.16. DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS LDR Section 2.4.6(J) —Certificate of Appropriateness: 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. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 6 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: Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1: Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines': Development Standards LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4) and 4.5.1(E) (7), provide guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E) (4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E) (7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. In addition, LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) states that all improvements to buildings, structures and appurtenances within a historic district shall be visually compatible and that visual compatibility shall be determined upon criteria (a) through (k). The criteria applicable to the development proposal are as follows: (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids; Front Façades: The relationship of solids to voids in the front façade of a building or structure will be visually compatible with the front façades of historic buildings or structures within the district. (t) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on historic sites, buildings, or structures within a historic district. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 7 (h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of a historic site, building, or structure within a historic district. (I) Scale of a Building: 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 a historic district. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that: 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. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to new construction/infill development: All new construction should compliment the historic architecture of the district. The relationship of that new construction adjacent to the significant historic resources can either enhance or detract from the historic setting of the district. Recommended Approaches to New Construction: O The height of any new buildings should be similar to those of other buildings along the streetscape. O The new construction shall be compatible with the width of the surrounding buildings. O Roof forms and pitch should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. O Windows types and patterns, as well as their general placement, should be similar to surrounding buildings. O The orientation of the main elevation to the street should be respected. O The character of the massing should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. Massing means the geometric relationship of the building's component parts. O Streetscape elements such as the division between stories, porch heights, and the alignment of windows and windowsills should be extended to the new construction. Analysis: The applicant is proposing a three-story, contemporary interpretation of a Gothic Revival style building with a triple-gable facade. The west (front) elevation is characterized by a third floor balcony with white picket rails and floor to ceiling windows which dominate the façade. The east (rear) elevation mimics the west façade with the exception of the third floor balcony. The north and south elevations also nearly mimic one another; however the elevations are more International or Modernistic in their design and less consistent with the balance of the structure. The proposed design is incompatible with the aforementioned criteria of LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) as well as the Recommended Approaches to New Construction as per the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The building has entrances along all four elevations; however the entries from the west (front) elevation are intentionally obscured by the architecture and thus the orientation of the main elevation to the street is not respected. Further, the structure is not visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances on the balance of the structures within the district. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 8 The proposed three-story structure is not in keeping with the other buildings along the North Swinton Avenue streetscape. The structures to the south (the balance of Block 67) are all one- story structures and the structures along the adjoining block to the north (Block 66) are predominantly one-story in height. It is noted that two-story structures do exist along the western streetscape of North Swinton Avenue; in fact, two such structures exist directly across the street from the subject property. To the east, across the alley, a two-story structure in the vernacular style is nearing completion with a three-story office building proposed one property further to the east. Three-story structures, however, are quite rare within the district. Those structures that do have a third floor typically have such in the form of an attic and not as usable floor area. Further, the third floors have been designed in such a manner that either the third floor has substantially less square footage than the second floor, or the third floor elevation is not a dominant feature within the overall building design. Accordingly, the proposed three-story structure will only serve to dwarf its more traditional neighbors and will neither be in keeping with the Design Guidelines, nor consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E). The proposed window types and placement, and roof pitch are also incompatible with the surrounding buildings. The surrounding architecture consists of Craftsman, Frame Vernacular and Minimal Traditional style structures for which low-pitched roofs, roof eaves, and single-hung and/or transom windows are identifying features. The proposed design will utilize floor to ceiling windows on the east (rear) and west (front) elevations for all three floors. The design also consists of a high pitched, triple gable roof with the pitch being substantially higher than that of any of the surrounding structures. As proposed, the structure will be drastically incompatible with surrounding architecture with regard to roof pitch and window type/placement and therefore inconsistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E) and the Design Guidelines. The Gothic Revival style of architecture was most popular between 1840 and 1870 in the northeastern states; however the style was less common in southern states, particularly in those states along the Gulf Coast. The style is not prevalent within the Old School Square Historic District, or the City of Delray Beach. However, it is possible that the style can be compatible with the surroundings of the District if redesigned to account for the height, scale, massing and design of the surrounding buildings within the district. As proposed, this is not the case. The applicant characterizes the triple gabled facade as being "playful," and further states in his application that the facade "reduces the scale of the mass" and "speaks residential". As adapted, the architecture appears more institutional than residential, and denies its front façade an appropriate entrance. The mass of the structure is situated along the front façade and the harsh roof lines do little to breakup the massing or reduce the scale. Based upon the above, positive findings can neither be made with regard to LDR Section 4.5.1(E), the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, nor the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Therefore, it is the recommendation of staff that the proposed design elements are postponed and that direction is given to the applicant to redesign the structure in a manner that is architecturally compatible with its environment. DEMOLITION FINDINGS As previously noted, the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and garage is proposed as part of this development proposal. 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. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 9 (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 applicant has provided the following with regard to the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling: "in June we looked at adding square feet to the existing residence. We first started by locating parking spaces off the alley perpendicular to the alley. With some waivers we could get 7 spaces. This would have allowed an additional 1,000 square feet for a total allowable area of 2,100 [square feet]. Relocating the small garage closer to the house proved architecturally inappropriate and also did not give us the needed square feet the owner required. Then we looked at demolishing the garage and adding a structure at the rear. We considered removing the front porch, as it was not a workable space and thereby bringing the front facade back to its original state. The rear porch would be removed to make room for the connecting addition. By the time we laid out the plan the usable square footage was not an efficient 2,100 square feet. We then looked at starting from zero. We could get 11 parking spaces and an efficient 3,200 square feet of office space in a new structure and an apartment on the third floor. Economically it made more sense to do this then the previous studies". Any demolition of a contributing structure is a regrettable, irreversible situation that erodes the very fabric of the historic district. In this instance the structures to be demolished are a highly visible contributing single-family dwelling and its associated garage that were constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. Both of the structures are in good condition and were recently renovated in 1999. It is noted that the structures would not fulfill the criteria for individual listing in the National Register and that there are plans for the immediate reuse of the property following demolition. However, there are concerns as to the effect those plans will have on the character the Old School Square Historic District. While the above referenced criteria may provide justification for the demolition of the extant contributing structures, the building that is proposed to replace them is architecturally incompatible with its surroundings. The proposal maximizes the floor area that could be accommodated without requesting in-lieu parking. It is recommended that the architect meet with staff to find other solutions to retain the structure. It is noted that there is flexibility on granting variances to preserve a worthy structure. If this is the Board's desire, then the proposed demolition should be postponed. However, if the Board wishes to approve the demolition of the extant contributing structures, it is recommended that the demolition be stayed for a period not less than six (6) months from the date the Board makes its final approval regarding the proposed reuse of the property, including design elements. . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 10 REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1, prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. LDR Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU FLUM designation. Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B) (3) and (C) (2), within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional offices are allowed as permitted uses and a residence is allowed as an accessory use on a parcel where the principal use is non-residential. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A). LDR Section 3.1.1(B) -Concurrency: As described in Appendix "A", a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water and sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, solid waste and schools. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency(Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix "B", a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. LDR Section 3.1.1 (D) -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDR can be made, provided the attached conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies are noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The subject property contains a 1,153 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 381 square foot garage constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. The development proposal includes the demolition of these extant contributing structures within the Old School Square Historic District and the construction of a three-story, mixed-use (office/residential) building with eleven (11) space double-loaded parking lot at the rear. The subject property . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 11 contains no special physical or environmental characteristics that would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. Zoning Designation: Use: North: OSSHAD Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center South: OSSHAD Private Residence East: OSSHAD Pineapple Podiatry/ Private Residence West: OSSHAD Castle Florida/ Private Residence As noted in the above table, the abutting properties are all consistent with the subject property with regard to zoning designation and are generally compatible with regard to use. Based upon the above, no compatibility issues will exist between the proposed mixed-use development (office/residential) and the surrounding land uses, and positive findings can be made with regard to Future Land Use Element Objective A-1. However, as previously discussed in further detail under the Design Elements Analysis and as noted below with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5), the development proposal is incompatible with the surrounding properties with respect to height, scale, massing and design. Housing Element Objective A-10: The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. Housing Element Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As discussed previously, the subject property is compatible with the adjacent properties with regard to use. Further, the development proposal will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area with regard to the criteria stated above (noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns). However, there are concerns as to the loss of the extant contributing structures and how complimentary the proposed three-story structure would be to adjacent development, which may result in a degradation of the neighborhood. These concerns are discussed in further detail below. LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5) - Compatibility (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property exists within the OSSHAD zoning district and is bounded by a combination of general commercial, professional office, and residential uses. Compatibility with uses is not a concern, as the proposed mixed-use development would be permitted on the surrounding properties and is already in existence on the properties to the east and west. However, the adjacent properties along North Swinton Avenue are primarily one and two-story structures with a clearly defined front entrance along the street and an architectural design that is residential even if the current use is not. The windows of these structures are of a pedestrian scale and the roofs are of a consistent low pitch. The applicant proposes to demolish the property's extant • Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 12 contributing single-family dwelling and associated garage, which are compatible and consistent with the surrounding development, and replace them with a three-story structure drastically out of character with its surroundings. As noted previously, the proposed structure is more institutional in appearance than it is residential or commercial. The type and placement of windows is incompatible with the surrounding structures and the roof pitch is substantially higher than that of any of the surrounding buildings. The building mass is virtually unbroken along North Swinton Avenue with only the center mass of windows being recessed and a projecting balcony providing any relief to the facade. The entries within the front façade are recessed and hidden so that the only indication of an entry is the paver brick path leading to the building. Based upon the above, the proposed structure will be neither compatible nor harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties or the City as a whole; therefore positive findings can not be made with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5). REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered this development proposal at its meeting of October 28, 2004. After discussion, the Board voted unanimously (6-0) to deny the development proposal. The Board identified major concerns with the demolition of the extant contributing structure and the project's architectural incompatibility with the surrounding district. The applicant did not comment at the meeting. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been sent to the following civic associations: O Presidents Council O Progressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.) Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the HPB meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of the subject property's extant contributing single-family dwelling and associated garage, both of which have been renovated within the last six years and are compatible and consistent with the surrounding development. The extant contributing structures would be replaced by a three-story mixed-use structure drastically out of character with and insensitive to its surroundings and inconsistent with Sections 2.4.5(F) (5), 2.4.6(J) (5) and 4.5.1(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the Objective and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Postpone with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), 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 following conditions: • Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 13 1. That the demolition is stayed for a period not less than six (6) months from the date the Board makes its final approval regarding the proposed reuse of the property; 2. That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions; 3. That the refuse enclosure is expanded to accommodate a container for recyclables or that the proposed recyclables container is clearly indicated on the site plan; 4. That the photometric plan is revised to contain a notation regarding the height of the proposed light fixture/pole; 5. That a light fixture more complimentary to the balance of the architecture within the Old School Square Historic District, such as the acorn style fixtures on the adjacent 10 NE 2nd Street property (Pineapple Podiatry), are utilized; 6. That the photometric plan is revised to be consistent with the illumination level criteria of LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c); 7. That the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is relocated to the northeast corner of the building; 8. That the existing concrete sidewalk along NE 2nd Street is replaced with a five foot (5')wide paver brick sidewalk; 9. That the existing concrete sidewalk along North Swinton Avenue is replaced with a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 10. That all existing and proposed utilities associated with the development must be located underground and that a note be provided on the site plan to this effect; 11. That the plant list is revised to include the proposed White Bird of Paradise (SN); 12. That an undulating landscape bed of either Green Island Ficus, Lantana or both is provided along the north side of the parking lot; and 13. That the Coconut Palms and Gumbo Limbo trees proposed along the north property line are replaced by plantings consistent with the FPL "right tree, right place" program. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Postpone the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), and give direction to the applicant to redesign the structure in a manner that is architecturally compatible with its environment. Attachments:Survey,Site Plan,Floor Plans,Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 14 APPENDIX "A" CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(B), Concurrency, as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: Water service will be provided via service lateral connection to either the existing six inch (6")water main within the NE 2nd Street right-of-way, or the ten inch (10") water main on the east side of North Swinton Avenue. Sewer service will be provided via service lateral connection to the existing twelve inch (12") sanitary sewer main located within the NE 2nd Street right-of-way. Adequate fire suppression can be provided via an existing fire hydrant located at the northwest corner of the subject property. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC and OSSHAD zoning districts. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed 3,190 square foot office and residential dwelling unit will generate approximately 43 Average Daily Trips (ADT) or five (5)A.M. peak hour trips and five (5) P.M. peak hour trips, which will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed residential dwelling unit will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, a park impact fee of$500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit for parks and recreation purposes. Solid Waste: At the highest waste generation rates, the proposed 3,190 square foot office development will generate 8.61 tons of solid waste per year [3,190 x 5.4 = 17,226 / 2,000 lbs = 8.61 tons]. The proposed two- bedroom apartment will generate 1.99 tons of solid waste per year, which matches the current generation rate of the existing single-family dwelling, thus the development proposal will result in an increase of 8.61 tons per year over the current use. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals till the year 2021. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated via an on- site exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Schools: As the subject property is located in the City's TCEA, this project is exempt from meeting School Concurrency requirements. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 15 APPENDIX "B" STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Does not meet intent X . Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 16 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 X Meets intent of standard 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 } i TRINITY L U THERAN • _ . LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. l4TH ST. POST g CASON OFFICE & METHODIST CHURCH ci lai 4 Li Li w w i 1 a MN z II - WN.W. 3RD ST. > N.E. 3RD . ST. LU Q > U1I MI ii , CITY II � ATTORNEY II w = o BUILDING i I NE z I— !Y _c z .v l MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N•E• 2ND ST. :.ow z 0 z I— Z Q TI W>WZ CITY _ HALL CI)- _ N.W.��11SpS��T��S�TT. N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST, ST. • YWYI I 3 w LLI Z Z Z'Ii' I-N.mo.. - . COMMUNITY z�� im z CEN TER— .... = _ ..CTENNIS OLDSTADIUMSCHOOLLiSQUARE I z ATLANTIC AVENUEJ T POLICE uj SOUTH a Lu > 'Q �I > — COMPLEX COUNTY a N ~— z _ COURT z z �/9 I- HOUSE 3 -4; w w w r N --imiiiiiiiii- 145 N SWINTON AVENUE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM793 w Silberstein Arohlteote SITE STATISTICS fe.ea ane elr•II 0,I1,1133.4 11,111. AREA • Tel: PSI•I71•I+II I..: 1,1•Ir1•IIII TOTAL IleCON•MOO OrrIC Apt, nn eerr ma Or ens e..m:f,emeefrul..u.nn IH:v OORAomits.1 AA. 110I eOrr I. or ere ""`.. "a Mk"e`TO N.E. 2ND STREET OAKI O1,001%AAP.IIIGN. a INTO M1U KIN,K,. 10.IOrr ref 1, MUCK IAKU ARtA. lO]O eorr .1oR of Ira OreN,.uerocAreO Or... On.OOr IITC rule COO Oro. `O 1101, OS Ortrrt .,In,lemma Ian cep.r •popsy rlpH.nNn. �IIAC[fER 1oG+GR Dr".n70+IAC[ pal�'.rpr're W 4,111 r. f IID+OR OI DIrIC[+IAC[♦,00+OR.T.11 SPACES porsxrr,MHO,lint ,e er e,ARTYCE / sappprmQai,�unrw�sen,n�i�i 1.5 1 ONO A•E2APSPACES•+.1 PAC[, t• Ms 410norur WI vr, TOTAL R[OURO,ARCING SPACES.10.11 PACES P.L. 151.11' an •reLH :l== parev r,W servant TOTAL IIAIRINO WC.PROVIDED +COMPACT OCT.C.MLA MAKO TECHNOLOGIES II TOTAL PACES PROVIDED —ensue PAKb 145 N SWINTON AVENUE SETIRrxt RIDWRLa p a DELRAY BEACH,FL 33444 Rrouucp ACTUAL § jR ' 6' Y-f1'p• f• NORTH I1'-0' If-0 09'-10• . 1 Of'-D' tf'-0" '+/ t\ �g I +Dion r-e' D-r e[iMON /��]{�j�$�j$'�tpp1 MPIN I t'3$ g `jqi re = 0 = 0 = LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE MST [e=0• •�0. � �IR 3 3. ,4, n.1 / b �I I SHAPER eDSPT IYRDG1a NnONr1 ... e � .,�{� 1 4 e O LIGHT WHITEPOLE HALF PYRAMID R[OUIIID +1'-D•u...muY 11 71 > arou fe-e' 14- 1 Is'-0' �'-o �'•a• I. OI-o• O'-o• TOTAL aWIMPmbi ar nODaf • 3 1/x 7- 1 ,_ �eeellAef,l xex�xn a f O /J Of SHAD frRn 11 , LOTLLO I.MOCK C V.TOWN Or UNTO.. W ocuA,HACx. 3 fDDRGIN ;NE,EST tHES[DI,At RDDRD[G IN.,A� > r POOx 1,PAN f,PUIVC [COROf Or PAW IEACN COYNfY, kH ,�ila �. IIORIDA. J STANDARD.w alNa D or, —I 1111 N I 1 t OCCUPANCY-YI[[0 ^ 5 }p� ()t TYPE III CONSTRUCTION Z li- N.11l !�+ 1 tIN%i'LG' II ollr COO[RfrEI g NIfA IDI-ao0o tor.CHAPTER 7.1 O M Nfw IVSINESS OCCVIAx FAT lI CITTAT 4'-0' I N I'-10" PROVIDE 1[IAMT[I[RYI1!FOR FIRE fIRINIt[R MD/U ALARM Y +VAIATtEmS. -y v / TUMORS SHALL coxrofv TO THE FIRE MINTERS SERVICE Z Jill MOVIR[Y[M Op AfY[/ANSI A 111/Ie/ T LDOATION p y 1 �e 1. o oro a o 0 101 i i :5 I�....le._ f/ F �, Snamoo ,..id 9 .e er-o• •e — 0. f._I. V -I �i 1�- r '�1 �"3-or' 16p-' '—y Ems..... . 1.0•— — I —1— • 'I FL. 131,11 1. 40-D' 07'-e' lII 0 VICINITY MAP T�Q,Q I I w Icu1 `V' r ] W € r 1 "`' REVISIONS A Y —II IIKwPWsIr-- LOCATION LW NTI. O LOCATION MAP e O SITE PLAN-3 STORY SCHEME OCTOBER 8,2004 ND..I SCALE:1:10 A—S-1 .0 Drawn by:TDS G!ArcNleEture1Prolecle,0lrlce eklAdorgs A.l.Mq I, 9 O Jeffrey Silberstein Arc 1Ited&Aeeodet°e,Inc. gyp._°. no'-e• b }I- 0e4 NE end suee1 ' / M� I ' 1 -0� \ \ _ -0I -0 _ -'��— ]o'.]• y IeM• �.-0 T.lr.r e.1•el.N1.ee1e1 _ nl: eel.en.ene r i ...,...., 1 ,........... a r p5.14,4,1 e p II I „r.d• - II ,� ' li � �.mn..l...v vyy. ...,.. ��.r. i il.-0! {ram -- -II 1 p � I u �W�n e� .e•f��;.:��Pl op 1? I a � oaa a II aa� oaa '" �Ik � $ X II $ x k 4 Y II II 4 S 'TV 4 �. MAKO \ I.A J ....-=1 0 : '�L J .._-1 p •_ G6 011 TECHNOLOGIES II 1 I' it. Iii 145 N SWINTON AVENUE In 1 -0• 4 L II 4 ° 11 DELRAY BEACH,FL 33444 �111jUl! ii LEGEND OF MATERIALS /111 \ IIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIII I-1-1- IIII'�hidilaiiiii � 11 ,11'\ STAN01.0 LRAM METAL ROOF-SILVER F��••y�T�•••�� 1'O )'-0YI.I'-0' �'•]' !1s'0 4.-0. FLOAT FINISH S1LCC0•Y01YfL 7 I SEE]6-00011 V4 ., 4-r 1 I///i' .f .°• jI M [' •If I Q W000 FRAME ETAINCD HAMOSONY-CLEAR&LA`! ]r-0' 4 e• ryd._e. I o MIT[FAINTED PICKET RAILS • J OFIRST FLOOR PLAN % \� SECOND FLOOR PLAN /��\� q THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE:IR".1'-0" `J °SCALE:1/B"•1'•0" `� J SCALE:IR"•1'-0" e n,- 3 9� 9 - �--- �f - ®@\ I // I 1 A A, 55.55' A��1�NI• — ,1 : 55.46'JN, __, 55.SS' MEAN HT Ai I 3 MEAN-HT T MEAN HT 111„, 1, lill[i i ! -_-___________ t� Lll 0 I I�� 4 I 44.D' if 11 I g ,III II L_J •3 �.-..-� 44.0' ,_.. THIRD FLOOR `` THIRD FLOOR I y 4e-0 a• �I. I Y� 3 11', T� ji: G),..,. rii _______� 530 _ 05L' �� '�— � e, T 1 SECOND FLOOR CIA SECOND FLOOR �i L ,fah1 10f l t , 41 l .T WISH FLOOR WISH FLOOR \� -1� .L} 1 � AVERAGE MEAN AVERAGE MEAN ELEVATION ELEVATION CROWN OP ROAD°WEST ELEVATION °NORTH ELEVATION CROWN OF ROAD °SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/B".1'-0" °EAST ELEVATION L 5 eCALE;1/8"•1'-0" v SCALE:1/8'.1'•0" 6CALE:iR'.1'4` REVISIONS ' I i ; •._, OCT08E118,2004 A-1 .0 tDrewn by:TDS I GMrch0edure'Pro'ecle\GBOe eko`dxp,U-1.dwp LANDSCAPE DATA TOTALINTERIOR E LANDSCAPER (aDATA Jib . + TOTAL ARCA(as per .plan) t 3421SF TOTAL PAVED AREA(as per ells plan) i.4315• TOTAL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE J4]SF AREA REQUIRED out INTERIOe sit.R>LANDSCAPE AREA Paonolo Bao SF JERRY TURNER as TOTAL INTERIOR IaTREES REQUIRED 3 TREES TOTAL INTERIOR TREES PROVIDED 4 TREES & ASSOCIATES PERIMETER LANDSCAPE DATA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 143 LF PAVEMENT AREA ADJACENT LAND PLANNING ADJACENT TO ROW OTNER PROPERTY TOTAL PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED 710 SF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN TOTAL PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREA FRONDED 010 SF 1 TAL T/30 1R UIflT0 D TOTAL TREESR PROVIDEDO B TREES MIN.3014 OP REWIRED PERIMETER A INTERIOR LANDSCAPE 9O5 JOKES IRANK4N ROAD AREA TO BE PLANTED IN SHRUBS AND OROVN000KR3 IY1.)O8 1N0�C CAROLINA RT60a REWIRED PERIMETER&INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA 1053 SF PLANTED AREA REWIRED 316 SF ITt S.[.61n AVENUE PSI C PLANTED AREA PROVIDED 2161 5F DELRAY BEACH.fLORIDA 33403 -- LIL N.E. 2----- STREET_—.------._—.-.-._—_._—_—._.—_._—.—_._._.—_'—_--- NARK PLANT DATA pR02ttt6-015] L ---—� - 60 K OF ALL CRES PL TREES RI B[NATIVE IaK R ALL OTHER PLANt MATERIAL TO BE NARK M A K 0 CN ® _® TOTAL REQUIRED TREESB TREES O ® TOTAL NARK MESS REQUIRED TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES FRONDED 6 TREES TE C H N OLO G I E TOTAL REQUIRED SHRUB AND GROUND COVER AREA 31S SF OOP / NATIVE AREA PROVIDED 100 NATVE AREA REQUIRED 0 SF kV NATIVE SF 14' %� �%/ • :<• :: < ;: < �' —I _I' —I' PLANTING NOTES: 4 ./// / + oy:'.::::• . ' :":::: O-o.0.0o00o000100.00000o00ooa0oo0.00000 / Alt plant meddle nail conform/o the standards far Florida No.t r batter a ��L...: - "" .1,j�, I 1 -- — --I — -- 4' y m•node.and STanaaree for Nurury Plants Part I,February 1996, K r _ ,I' IIpH"_' 6,q!g�11'�,�11� [[ p Stale of Florida,Department of Agriculture Tenches... m /r lIII�� ►�j/I� (�1 o' All.oa shah D.dean and no.anaDi B..of woad.and 1s or alms.. 145 N. Swinton FM \\ 4 lI ��H 1,1 C46:r4 I o �. Act. ill landacap6 r 6 not.Deer.,wnhyo-e6. fnn,Df r qro na covers shall De Delra Beach, FL a y� 14• %/�� q � j I � cIl , .Ddaea with Sl�Auqualne'Florolam anloea aln.rwh.natsa Y VW 4 •' ,/�%%/\ :III ,\.I 1 1 l!ill I�� a All loedssapm once.hail be mulched to provide a minimum of 3'Grade A 16EMSIOnf j� EEL //�) `6' Ir u IF Euoapw. vI<n. /%��'; N I I�, © =t4ia for I.rpo6 101, fl Iocatlnaml underground utilities Prior to !��:,:-S'• L V m.talmnon I mnun matsnDl.tp eat,,ama r •to ed planting ti mate rial. equipment,iaDof and lame as lo0ulretl to EOD Contractor I np YB'iY I1111111117 N. i O � Install the proposed Planting ae Indicated on the landscape Plan.111 s�iiiY,pl I �L1��1 ss OOo ,4, l'. fT All Ines o.to b.stob0 and/or guyed m In,lcab,or,lM Plon II 3 details . ii b•,'. illll O All plant material.to be backfllbd with a mixture of 1/3 approved Florida %/ '"' 'iI 0 ppact,1/3 pprov.d topsoil and 1/3 clean.and. To thle mixture add 15 pound. 4 ,/// U+.: f 1r I'�f of 6-6-6 fertiliser per cubic yard. Thoroughly min all Darts prior to placing Mk 11' /%j S: � ti I^ I� In plant p1U. �7 �j//%>:M1; RIQN �I roll in �� The Contractor.hall m t the locations of the plant Dods old contact me �P'f", I I' Ii II.I$,(4 ��, ° m Landscape .L400 00 out b.rore the Installation al the plant %�% tt Q e., I/I;Nil 1 u N p a 9rllol me Landscape Architect may odpot the location of lit.plant.before �% ti V •' ^ ' 'UNN7�I��I/ LION! 0 0� w yuanun.a on m.Plant are Intended as a gill..and shall D.e.nrlee by me j� /'/ ICI �1 , !�o Contractor with a comprehensive �mpreM nsive piano.eoNoel for Should o y discr.p0 to.. a '°°''%i ... .. �pirm�Ig811 IN un oil iltillmuill,... ........�...{-I .4-.'•.....4...E, (DDMr,the /�%/%��/jj/.r, . ©��re 000000000b'o00:0'000boo0'Ooc(00-0EI000•U0'oo0 Vir0..—.._..._.. T Any.xlellnyy plant leriai T sm alit.hall r^ thacted durin9 Donetr vahlc with o ph3RICDI Da r1.r to Ds approved Dy In.LanheOp.Arehlt T All land.cappe Isian6e and other landscape a 5 that a 04panl to nl0ular \ rooms to be curbed with concrete non—mountable curbing at NiEI v use area. sInch..In height' on end me�� ® Tn.URPay.d portion f lit.R.OW.0d)o0.nl to the proper1y Ills and to Ih. •DTA DT c% CL .dqa DI rood.oy sn011 bs lane.cap.d with sod and Irrlgon,. ov •eCu[ DArz J 1101. All landscape rids or.la be NFlgatod to Drovld.a minimum of 150K c mapa. 1•TO 10/4/04 using%erl.ccpe principie.. sliill Landscape PLANT LIST Plan KEY SCIENTIFIC NAME DOWDY NAME GTE HT SP ROAARKS CHY Chr.ODWanu.Icaeo'It4dl0' R.atip Ceecpium 5e De 16' Nall. ON Coca. .t OO, nucifs b f0Aayalan' Coconut Pal 2 1 m 10 1e p-1v' Ses Pion Alf N.I4Nt. O • CIF Neu.mIAI404rpa'Crash I.Iand0r..n Wand 1Tcu.373 13' 16' GL Ramiro shaves Gumbo Limbo 6 12' 6' Native LAN Lantana camar0 Yellow Lantana 437 6' 6' Natir.,YWIO. PC irad..cantla pallle4'puryuse'Purple Guam S5 6' 6' PT iabebula h4t0spn111e FDA tap 2 11' 6' , —LPIRI 63T0 _ .SEAL +CET R0.41111M L-1 oft — . „9.0 AGENDA ° ' = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: December 1, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal anydecision ” .w�. � - � -er�a�Preservation-board_ � __ae, person o pp sion made by the Historic with respect-to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings,and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES O October 6, 2004 O October 20, 2004 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Salon 301, 301 West Atlantic Avenue, West Settler's District, Evelyn Jones, Owner Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the change of color of an awning on a commercial building. B. Mako Technologies, 145 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements associated with the demolition of a contributing building and construction of a mixed-use building (3,190 sq. ft. office and two-bedroom apartment) with eleven (11) space parking lot. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Hammad Shoppes, 139 NW 5th Avenue, West Settlers District, Amjad Hammad, Owner Consideration of a conceptual plan associated with the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition and associated site improvements for an existing commercial building. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments B. Reports from Historic District Representatives C. Board Members D. Staff VI. ADJOURN • •Itt War n Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: November 23, 2004 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 2"d 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 2"d 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 3`d 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 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 20, 2004 LOCATION: City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Linda Lake, Randee Schatz, John Miller, Jr., Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Silberstein STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft, Jeffrey Costello, and Denise Valek 1. 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 Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0 to approve the Minutes of August 4, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Dell Park Historic District Item Before the Board: Consideration of the proposed Dell Park Historic District. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Ms. Lake advised she received a letter dated October 7, 2004 from Russell C. Silverglate, Esquire, Dickenson Murphy Rex and Sloan. This letter was also sent to Mr. Robert Tefft and the Board members. Chairman Perez advised he attended the Neighborhood Association Meeting although he was not invited or asked to be a witness to any voting that took place. He attended in order to get a feeling of how they felt. It was very informative and gave him an idea of the homeowner's thoughts and concerns. He advised that some attendees were horrified Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 that he did not stay for the voting portion. He advised he felt it was not necessary to stay as he was not invited to the meeting. He advised that he as well as the Board were here to listen to the results of the voting. The Board needs to hear the reasons behind what the voting results were in order for them to act on this item. He also advised that he received phone calls from acquaintances that told him that people have been saying negative things about him and the Board both personally and professionally regarding this matter. Chairman Perez felt it was disconcerting that people that do not know the Board at all ethically, professionally, and don't know what the Board stands for, or why the members chose to take time out of their personal lives to volunteer on this Board to make personal attacks. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and his resume into the record. Mr. Tefft presented an overhead view of the proposed historic district. The City is proposing to designate that area as a historic district as was set forth within the Seacrest Del-Ida Neighborhood Plan. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(C) to qualify for 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. The designation report attached to the staff report demonstrates that the area qualifies as a historic district as the area portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles, specifically the Frame Vernacular, Mission Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and Minimal Traditional styles. The period of significance for the area is between 1922 and 1954 based upon the recordation of the Dell Park plat and the last of the original houses constructed within the area prior to the influx of infill development. Additionally, the historic district qualifies based upon embodiment of 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 and scale of the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Board move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to establish the Dell Park 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) or the Land Development Regulations. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Mr. Eric Nalven, 230 NE 9th Street, Delray Beach, advised he is in favor of this as it will increase the potential value of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Christensen, President of the Seacrest Neighborhood Association, requested six minutes to speak as he was representing other members of the public. As a follow-up to the Association meeting on October 13, 2004 discussing the historic designation, residents initiated a survey of the neighborhood that would be affected by the historic designation. The Seacrest Neighborhood Association is very active, conscientious and involved in the neighborhood. Part of the Seacrest Neighborhood Plan that was approved on March 8, 1997 considered historic designation of the neighborhood. This has taken 7 years to get here. The plan presented to us at the time was to get a $10,000 grant to assess the neighborhood. As ramifications were presented to the neighborhood it 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 became apparent that many affected property owners were not interested in a historic designation. Mr. Christiansen had copies of written responses from several homeowners in the area. On the overview it indicates who is for and who is against this change, it is quite apparent the vast majority does not favor historic designation. The survey results are one property owner for and forty-nine against. Ninety-eight percent of the homeowners who responded indicated they are not in favor of the historic designation. At the last meeting concerning the West Swinton Historic District a question was posed by Ms. Lake, "Does the neighborhood want protection offered by the historic designation"? For the proposed Dell Park Historic District, the answer is a resounding no. Mr. Christensen read a letter from Mr. Robert Curry advising that he is not in favor of this designation. Mr. Brad Winney, 1515 Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, advised his concern was more about the method. Everyone who was at the meeting agrees that the idea is a good one, however, the problem that the way it was presented was the level of detail of what the homeowner would have to go through for approval is overkill. There must be another way to stop wholesale construction of multi-story houses or multi-story buildings that would destroy the look of the neighborhood. My suggestion would be to come up with some parallel rules within the current zoning of the Board to stop building large buildings. Ms. Jane Baxter, 1101 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL, there are several issues that haven't been brought up tonight, one of them is the impact of insurance. I talked to Joe Grillo, Vice President, Callaway and Weeks, there is a definite impact with replacement of like kind as opposed to replacement of other buildings. The difference in insurance is huge impacting the Swinton properties. The association has been part of it. The second thing is when you move into a community like this you have options. We don't choose to move behind gates, we chose to be part of a community with its ups and downs and its bumps. This is a great concern to me that this only came up on October 13. We had five days to run around and chase down votes and people. We could not get names and list of people in our Association. We had to do an ad-lib. Many people didn't even get a brochure nor had input on that list that you see. I personally went by six houses that were not even home. My real concern also is that we are not going to address any of the blighted community by the railroad tracks. That is not part of this. What you are really going to do is manage the people who don't need managing, and not take care of the situations that really need managing, which are the blighted areas, the overpopulation, the minorities in houses with twenty (20) people in them. Those are the issues that Delray Beach community needs to have addressed throughout the whole community. We need to take areas where they don't cut the grass, areas where there is garbage all over the place and tires in the front yard. That needs to be handled by Code Enforcement much stronger, and then come back to our community and maybe with some architectural review boards, but stay out of our lives and let us live our simple little life on Swinton. Mr. Frank Hunter, Lake Ida/Northwest Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, wanted to clarify something that came up at the last Board meeting. Under Section 4.5.1(C)(3) that says that "any individual can nominate the structure by the property owner". This is a little bit different designation as I understand it than a national historic preservation. If the property owners want to have their homes historically designated, I believe 27 individual buildings or private homes have gone the route through the City's encouragement or their 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 own to have it designated individually. That might be the best way to preserve those specific homes. The City should not throw a blanket over everybody just because they feel certain homes should be controlled. At this point I feel the Board should vote down the designation. Ms. Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, Delray Beach, advised she has been working in preservation in this town for the last twenty years. She felt that there is a lot of misinformation circulating. We need to look at some facts. We have had five historic districts since 1988. I own two homes in the Marina Historic District, and I can speak from personal experience, as well as attending many of these Board meetings. The City staff, the Commissioner of Insurance and I know of no instance where the designation of a historic district has affected insurance. Hurricanes yes, other factors maybe, historic designations no. There are many sources for historic homes. I am fully insured at 65 Palm Square and 35 Marine Way through Farm Bureau and I have never had a problem. That is fact no. 1. I have more information, and am listed in the phone book if anyone wants to call me. Insurance, property value — I have seen a little house (3 bedroom, 2 bath) in the Marina Historic District go from a value ten years ago of $200,000 to quadruple in value. It is probably because I am adjacent to the intracoastal, but I am not on the intracoastal. I have owned this house and part of a condominium for all these years; I do not serve on this Board. I have never experienced a problem with any building permit. Many things in a historic district can be approved by staff, and do not have to come to the Board. For example, paint colors, hardware, gate replacements, etc. that can be approved by the staff level. I have worked hard to maintain my own property, and I am proud to be in a historic district. Ms. Patton requested the Chairman to table this item and get more information to the residents. Ms. Patton advised she would be happy to contribute whatever she can to this issue. It seems that misconceptions are out there. Mr. David Kurzman, 236 NE 9tn Street, Delray Beach, advised he and his wife chose their home because their Realtor advised them it would become a historic district. Coming from the north I know the advantage to living in a historic district. The property values go up because it is a historic district. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any more public comments. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from staff. Mr. Tefft advised that he spoke with individuals from Plastridge Insurance and Harvey Brown Insurance, and that it is not the historic designation of the structure that affects the cost of insurance, it is the age of the structure. If you want to replace a structure in kind you can do that; however, there is nothing in the code to require you to build an exact replica should the structure be destroyed. Ms. Lake advised she heard from seven individuals, and each view has valid information to the issue, which we believe that through the entire neighborhood there is a lot of confusion as to what the issues are. At this point in time I can't vote to approve or deny because I don't believe the people are on the same page about what this is about. Ms. Reich advised it is a great honor to be able to leave this for future generations. It would be sad to see developers destroy this, and they are so hungry for this property. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 However, at the same time I do feel there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I am not comfortable in voting on this tonight. Ms. Schatz advised two other individuals who spoke live on properties that don't have contributing structures. I do agree with the misinformation, however, what disturbs me is that if there were any comments made against the Chair or Board members just for trying to obtain information and volunteering our time it becomes personal. Therefore, I look askance at some of the comments as to why this is not wanted. Is there perhaps an ulterior motive, of fear of the inability to see down the road if this designation is made? What I have heard since I've been on the Board is people want to preserve the way of life in Delray Beach. One individual said they want to live their own lives. The issue is whether there is going to be preservation? The Board is here for historic preservation. Someone might sell their house tomorrow and the next buyer may say I wish they had done this. It appears that this issue has been around for a while. I don't' know why they do not want this. If this does not pass, they will have large homes built in their neighborhood, and they can't come back and say we don't like this. Mr. Miller advised that some people might give this Board too much power. If you live in this area you have to go through the building department. It is a process, it is not a strict law. There is another level of oversight on the way to get a building permit. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The neighborhood is going to change. We cannot change the building codes. There are rules of what you can do to the property now. Ms. Dersh advised she is upset about the negative comments regarding people on the Board. I went to a few of the meetings, and Ms. Shay spent several hours answering questions relative to this issue. I am sorry to see all of these homes being changed. I would like to know why they don't want this. If the homeowners do not come to us and advise us why they don't want this, we can't make an informed decision. Mr. Miller advised he did some research into the insurance issue. If replacement will be in kind it is very expensive. No one is asking you to do that. As far as getting homeowners insurance this does not pertain to this. Ms. Lake wanted to know what codes and restrictions the homeowners are opposed to. We should get down to each restriction in the code. Chairman Perez advised when he went to the Association meeting people had concerns regarding changes they wanted to make to their homes and had to go through a huge process to do that. Staff did a good job defining what needs to go through staff approval and what needs to go to the Board. There did not seem to be a level of trust. At some point someone mentioned to me that they wanted to put a 6' high fence around their property for privacy. It was mostly the little items that the homeowners were concerned about. Ms. Schatz asked if guidelines were available. Mr. Tefft advised that the Design Guidelines are available on-line free of charge. Mr. Winney interrupted with a comment. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Winney to stand up at the podium, and questioned what he had to tell us. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 Mr. Winney advised the presentation given to us did entail a level of specificity of what we can and cannot do. Our reaction was legitimate, it was individual. I was not influenced by any one in the room. If there are more details than this and if you can tell us the value for doing this fine. However, the information we received and the way it was presented was not convincing. Ms. Schatz inquired who presented this. Mr. Tefft advised him and Mr. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning presented it. Mr. Winney advised there were too many specificities involved in the process. Ms. Schatz advised it appears to folks who bought or grew up in this neighborhood did not want to live in a gated community, they wanted to live in this area. What Mr. Winney mentioned may be that there is a lack of understanding of all the details that there seems to be what appears to be vehement opposition. Chairman Perez said it was fear. Ms. Schatz said maybe that is it. I live in Delray, I don't live there. In my neighborhood the houses are being torn down and they are putting mega mansions all around me, it is waterfront property. That is what happens if there is nothing to stop people from doing that. If I was living in a house there. Maybe I don't understand. Unless I thought if this doesn't happen I could sell my lot with a house that was built in 1925, which I want to get rid of for a million dollars. Where if it was designated I may not be able to sell for that, I might only sell it for $400,000. If everybody wants honesty on our part then we need honesty on both sides. What really is it fear of not knowing what it will do to property values? I think the insurance issue, everybody is concerned about that. Is it a question of painting, how much harder is it to paint your house if you live there? Those are the kinds of things that appear to be an issue. If you want to change a door knob or window shutter, is it going to take you six months to get an approval as opposed to going to Home Depot or Lowes and popping it in. Chairman Perez - I think people want to move on and go to Home Depot and not have to show the picture of a door knob and what it looks like. It is that level of people that are concerned about the process. If the process was cleaner or less picky in that sense maybe it would be a little more acceptable. There is a sense of tremendous fear, when they attack personally that is fear. People don't even know us, and that is driven by fear, tremendous fear. Mr. Jeffrey Costello, Assistant Planning Director, advised he was not at the Homeowner's meeting last week, however, he was in other meetings regarding the historic designations. There have been Q & A sessions. Chairman Perez hit it right on the head; it is going through what is a layer of bureaucracy that would delay any improvement a homeowner would want to do. We updated the Design Guidelines and we tried to make things easier for the homeowner. You want to preserve the character, but you don't want to put an undue burden for people who own those properties. There was a discussion with replacement in kind. If you have a historic structure the ideal situation is to replace it with material original to the house. There are instances when this cannot be accomplished. We have work with homeowners to come up with a reasonable solution and obtain the historical integrity of the property. Staff approval does take a couple of days, it is not weeks. If someone came in with a color change they would go to the Planner, and he would make the decision. As far as walls and fences, you would put a wall or fence consistent with the style of the house. The Design Guidelines frown upon 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 changing fences. There is a concern of tearing down the existing homes and building mansions, however, our concern is protecting the neighborhoods. The Seacrest plan was adopted in 1998 and specifically references a comprehensive plan policy that the community was a part of the plan process. We are following through with what the community has basically directed us to do. You see examples of this every day, it is the reason of who we are in Delray Beach. The Florida Trust Conference was here in Delray Beach this year. This is an example of what we are. With regard to any additions on a single-family structure. That process can be one to three weeks and drawings have to be submitted. You will need plans if you go for a permit and that process takes a lot longer. There is a quick process to get fences through. There are advantages and incentives, i.e., the tax abatement program. The Board has the ability to grant variances for non-conforming contributing structures for additions, etc. When you are not doing an addition we support those variances. If you would like us to attend your Homeowner's meeting again, we will. We will do whatever it takes. It is not our decision to recommend or deny, the Board makes that recommendation to the Commission, and there is a public hearing. As presented, we are not the regulators. Mr. Miller advised he agrees with staff. I think this is the right thing to do, but if the public will is not there I see no reason to do it. Chairman Perez questioned how many property owners there were in this area. Mr. Tefft advised there were around 230 lots in the area. Chairman Perez advised that the people against it showed up. Mr. Costello offered an opportunity to go through another session. Mr. Christiansen didn't give us a reason why we should not vote for it. We would like you to convince us. What are your real issues? Why do you distrust us so much? Mr. Christensen advised there were several concerns. There are forty-seven people in our neighborhood who are not here tonight and gave us the signed documents stating we do not want this in its current form. Chairman Perez asked him to talk about the issues. Mr. Christensen mentioned that a letter was written to Ms. Pam Reeder that the Board normally only approves a 3 foot fence. Ms. Reeder has a problem with a stalker, and she can't do anything with the fence in front of her house. Ms. Dersh advised it is not our problem but a police problem. Mr. Christensen said Ms. Reeder wants to put a 6' fence around her property to protect herself from the road and she can't do it. This is all based on the presentation and the understanding of the people in our neighborhood of what the issues are of the Board. You have made several presentations. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 Chairman Perez advised staff makes the presentation, and we are here to listen to staff and hear your comments and to make a decision. We want to know the real reasons why you want to vote against it. Mr. Christensen advised the real reason is that the people in the neighborhood do not see the major benefits you perceive of being a historic district. Chairman Perez advised that we don't perceive anything. Mr. Christensen said you are representing the Board, the neighbors are telling you. Mr. Miller advised we are not advocating one way or the other. Chairman Perez advised you apply to staff, and they will advise. In turn staff presents us with the case, and we decide if you are right and have the right reasons to paint your house purple or if staff is right. We do not make any presentations, we make decisions the last minute. Mr. Christensen advised that seven or eight years ago we had incredible participation in the development of the Seacrest Del-Ida Neighborhood plan. We had hundreds of people involved in that. They were presented documentation by Ms. Wendy Shay and the documentation presented no compelling reason to be a historic district. Ms. Dersh advised there is only appropriateness relative to height requirements of a fence. Mr. Costello advised regardless of where you live in the City, the height limit on a fence adjacent to a right-of-way is 6', and on the side and rear yards it is 8'. The Board questioned what is the three feet (3') that they are referring to. Mr. Costello advised that if you had a vernacular house you see the three foot (3') picket fences all around. That is typical of what was done back then, There is nothing to say that you can't go higher, but because it is a historic house, it is not going to be open to the public to tour. Ms. Dersh mentioned a lot of people do work on their houses, when they should be getting permits and they don't. How much was the discussion with doing things without a permit and now being asked to go to staff. Chairman Perez advised it was more cosmetic than anything else. Mr. Miller asked a question of Mr. Nalven as he was very adamant and he wants to present something. Mr. Nalven wanted to reiterate why he is in favor of the historic district. On the corner where I live they built two homes. Mr. Miller advised those projects came before the Board, the house in the middle is historic. Mr. Nalven asked what everyone is so frightened of. It seems that our fears are overwhelming. I would hope that the Board can stop demolition of homes and new Mizner type Boca Raton homes built in their place. There are multi-family homes and halfway houses in the neighborhood. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • October 20, 2004 Ms. Lake advised that they were given valid information and the homeowners have not presented why they are in opposition to it. Because they are so opposed I feel there needs to be further information given to people. They should come back with substantial facts why they do not want this designation. Chairman Perez agrees with Ms. Lake. Ms. Schatz feels this should be extended to 30 or 60 more days for the homeowners to come back with a stronger argument. This is a Quasi Judicial hearing and we are required to follow a certain pattern. It has nothing to do with being disrespectful to everyone, and that their comments are not important. Our Chair has gone out of his way to follow the procedures despite people being nasty. My suggestion is that at the next meeting we have a City Attorney attend, and come back in 30 or 60 days. I am not going to vote on this tonight. Chairman Perez wants to see a stronger and clearer argument why this should not be approved. They should also read the LDR's relative to this issue. The Board agreed that the meeting should be postponed. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 6 to 0 to postpone this item until the November 17, 2004 Board Meeting and have a City Attorney present. IV. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: A. 520 NE 3RD Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, James Spano, Owner Item Before the Board: Consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of an addition, installation of a swimming pool, and design element changes. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. This is a condition of appropriateness associated with the construction of an addition for 520 NE 3rd Avenue. The property is located in Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property consists of a noncontributing dwelling constructed in 1945. Subsequent to its initial construction, a building permit was issued in 1957 for a carport addition and installation of a shed. At its meeting on April 18, 2001, the Historic Preservation Board approved the demolition of 198 sq. ft. of living space and the previously constructed carport. The demolition was associated with a 420 sq. ft. addition to be constructed perpendicular to the main residence, as well as a new 12' x 20' carport and loggia. The improvements have been constructed as per the Board's approval. The applicant is now requesting to enclose the carport and loggia, making design element changes to the house which includes the elimination of two windows on the north elevation, a door on the east elevation as well as the replacement of a window with a sliding glass door on the east elevation and installation of a single-hung window and double doors on the south elevation. Also, they want to install two tandem parking spaces 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 along the east side of the dwelling; and removal of the existing shutters and the installation of roll-down hurricane shutters on all of the windows. There are additional elements that require staff approval as noted in the staff report. With the design elements it is noted that the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that window shutters that are removable are preferred, the tracts should be painted to match the exterior structure. The roll down shutters will be installed for all windows and are permanently affixed and will roll down vertically from the shutter box. While the dwelling is considered a noncontributing building within the district, installation of storm protection is still visible from adjacent rights-of-way and can have a visual impact on the district. While the proposed roll-down shutters can be easily utilized, they are typically not appropriate on the front or street side facades of a residence if viewed from an adjacent right-of-way or not concealed by an architectural element. An option may be to conceal a shutter box within the soffit or underneath the eaves, however, details indicating those openings on the front and street side facades as directed by the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines rather than the roll-down shutters. We recommend that removable storm panels be used in lieu of the roll-down shutters along the south and east elevations. The remaining roll-down shutters will be fine subject to the tracks being painted to blend in with the balance of the structure. With respect to the addition, there is an existing fiberglass roof that extends over the carport. The current front door is going to be eliminated from the east elevation, and enclosed to match the existing building. An adjacent window will be replaced with a sliding glass door which will open onto the new parking area. This fagade will continue to have the appearance as the front. Therefore, staff is recommending that the sliding glass door is changed to a French door. The loggia and carport which are to be enclosed are not original to the dwelling, but are contemporary additions. The swimming pool/deck, fencing and patio also proposed with the COA are being reviewed by staff and will meet all requirements of the LDR. Therefore, based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions of approval being addressed, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) (5), 4.3.4(K), 4.5.1, 4.6.9(C) (2) (a), the Comprehensive Plan, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Cosmo DeVellis, 520 NE 3`d Avenue, Delray Beach, started out by commending the Board, and advised he was from Boston and was considered an expert relative to historic preservation and works all over the United States. Mr. DeVellis advised that the owner is looking to make the house more livable land fit in with the guidelines. The owner is agreeable with all the conditions listed in the staff report, but has concerns with conditions 4 and 5. With regard to condition 4, Mr. DeVellis stated that the owner wants to retain the double gate because eliminating the gate would hinder maintenance access to the proposed pool. With regard to condition number 5, Mr. DeVellis stated that the owner would replace the proposed paver courtyard between the proposed front door and the property line to the south. Mr. Tefft advised there was no need to have the western gate entry into the driveway, as there is a pedestrian access to the east. If the western double gate is to remain based on 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • October 20, 2004 condition No. 4. there is an issue relative to the 6' height. If it remains it should be 3' in height so we would limit site visibility issues. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 520 NE 3rd Avenue, 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 Sections 2.4.6(J) (5) and 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the roll-down shutters proposed along the south and east elevations are replaced with removable storm panels; 2. That the tracks/channels associated with the shutters/panels are painted to match the exterior of the house; 3. That the sliding glass door on the east elevation is changed to a French door. 4. That the courtyard is reduced in size to restrict vehicular access to the west side as indicated in the modified plan. V. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS: A. The DeWitt Estate (1110 North Swinton Ave.), John L. and Janet S. Page, Owners. Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Designation of an Individually Listed Property in the Local register of Historic Places and Set a Date for Public Hearing. 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 his resume into the record. The property is located within the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District. The owners have completed all of the research on the site and have prepared the designation report. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (1), to qualify as a historic site the property 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 minimum, sufficient information to meet the criteria stated in both LDR Sections 4.5.1(B) (2) and (3). The designation report demonstrates that the subject property qualifies as a historic site as the area: is associated in a significant way with the life or activities of a major person important in city, state, or national history, is associated in a significant way with a past or continuing institution which has contributed substantially to the life of the city, and is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(C) (4), after formally reviewing the designation report, the Board shall set a public hearing date on the proposed designation. As further stated in the attached designation report and relevant back-up material, the DeWitt residence is an excellent example of the termed "Virginia Colonial Farmhouse Style" and is certainly 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 deserving of preservation. The DeWitt's themselves were very prominent in Delray Beach society. Mr. DeWitt served both as a City Commissioner and Mayor, helped create the Lake Worth Drainage District among other services. Designating this site as historic will help preserve the character of the extent historic dwelling and promote the retention of other surrounding historic properties. Staff is recommending the Board set a date for the required public hearing on November 3, 2004. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Frank Hunter, Delray Beach he highly recommended this home for individual historic designation. It was moved by Ms. Lake, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and passed 6 to 0 to move to set a date for the required public hearing associated with the proposed historic designation of The DeWitt Estate (1110 North Swinton Avenue) for the Historic Preservation Board meeting of November 3, 2004. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: Mr. Winney advised that this process got off on the wrong foot. There were strong opinions on both sides, and the emotional caliber was inappropriate. He advised everyone had the right intentions for the community; however, don't misread some of our comments. He advised the Board had the right intentions for the good of the community, but don't misread some of our comments. Chairman Perez advised friends have called him advising that homeowners are saying negative things about me and the Board. These individuals have no right to comment on our character as they do not know us or the process of this Board. Mr. Winney said that as an individual homeowner he has the right to chose whether he wants to sell his home for$1 million or paint his home green. Ms. Schatz advised that he has the right, but because these are Quasi Judicial hearing if you just have a personal opinion that may not be sufficient. The point that was being made by the Board is that you need to give us facts as opposed to just how you feel. Individuals here do not want to do that or perhaps did not understand the process. While you are entitled to your opinion, it is not persuasive in making the determination and our Chair would like facts. People took umbrage at that request. We are entitled to seek the motivation because that is the basis for the opinion. Mr. Winney advised you are entitled to ask for motivation but not speculate because that is exactly what is offensive. If you want to ask me what my motivation is, I will tell you or anyone else in this room. Ms. Schatz advised this is not between us kids, this is a public hearing, and I don't want you to think that it is not on the record. 12 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 Mr. Winney stated on the record then, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some motivations. As an opinion, does it matter because there is no factual basis for an opinion sometimes? Mr. Miller advised he felt opinions do matter in the sense that a homeowner may feel there are too many barriers put in front of them to get a permit. Mr. Winney advised it was articulated, "what is my fear of the process"? It may be ill founded regarding the specificity of what you get approval for. I don't know how to take an attorney's approach to that elaborate process. It is a hard thing to quantify and prove. Ms. Dersh advised when the attorney is at the next meeting to explain procedures as we do them. Due to the Sunshine laws the Board is prohibited from discussing these issues outside of this meeting. The public has their chance and them the Board has their time for discussion, and the public is supposed to be quiet, and the public has been very disrespectful on that matter. I turned to Ms. Schatz, because she is a lawyer and I respect her, and she knows more about what is occurring. Mr. Winney advised he appreciates that. It is a tough job. Ms. Schatz advised that our Chair should not have to take any ill will. Mr. Winney advised that half the individuals in the room might be fearful because they don't know what it is going to be like. Ms. Dersh advised it has been clear for the past six months. If people have not been coming to the meetings then they have to do their homework. Mr. Hunter commended the Board for their time. I missed the first meeting in August and met with Ms. Shay and she recommended I attend the meetings. I attempted to do my homework. I live in a noncontributing house on a small lot, and am a neighbor of Mr. Perez. As a property owner I do not want to go through these restrictions, as my home is noncontributing. I am in favor of preserving historic properties if the property owner wants to do it. Only 3 or 4 out of 35 people are for it. I spent time with Mr. Tefft and went to the City Clerk to see the ordinance that relates to this. It was included in the LDR's. This is getting too personal. I keep hearing the homeowners do not want this on the west side. I will do a little more home work and come back to the next meeting. The process is what upset us. In addition to a lot of people not wanting this, they also think there is an ulterior motive. They are looking for any reason not to have this approved. They do not want their property rezoned. The insurance issue is bothering them as well. Chairman Perez advised that people who sign petitions are not educated regarding the process. They do not make an effort to educate themselves regarding the process. We are attempting to do something good for the future of the City, and the next generation. We cannot make a decision based on people that do not understand the process and just sign a petition. We are looking for bona fide reasons. We need to hear why it is not best for the City to designate this a Historic District. 13 Historic Preservation Board Minutes October 20, 2004 Mr. Hunter disagrees in regard to Mr. Perez's opinion in regard to homeowners signing petitions. Mr. Perez advised he wants to see facts relative to the homeowners opinions. Ms. Lake advised she has hard facts where homes in historic districts sell for maximum dollars. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: None D. Staff: Mr. Tefft advised Party status can be obtained by written request three business days prior to hearing the question. To obtain Party status the owner must describe the effect of the application on owner's property different from the effect on the public as a whole. The City Attorney's Office will advise as to whether sufficient facts have been alleged to achieve Party status and shall notify the person requesting Party status of the City Attorney's opinion as to the adequacy of the request. Ultimate decisions as to Party status shall be made by the City Commission or the Board. The decision to confer Party status at the hearing before the City Commission or a Board shall not be seen as a waiver of the City's right to contest the standing of any Party in court. This is relative to Quasi Judicial hearings. Mr. Tefft advised these have been adopted for City Commission meetings. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for October 20, 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. 14 I`- UEIAAI'UUCH py„.UUCH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD III, MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT �II�' 1993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: Evelyn & Kelvin Jones Project Name: Salon 301 Project Location: 301 West Atlantic Avenue ITEM BEFORE:THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a COA request for the color change of the awnings on an existing non-contributing commercial building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND The property is a first floor commercial unit of the Atlantic Grove development on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd Avenue and NW 4th Avenue. The building was constructed earlier this year and is a non-contributing building in the West Settler's Historic District. The area is zoned Central Business District (CBD). On October 27, 2004, SPRAB reviewed and approved an application for this property for an awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a COA application for the color change as the property forms part of the West Settlers Historic District and requires approval by the Historic Preservation Board. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /ANALYSIS Project Description The proposed alteration is for the color change of the first floor dome-style awnings at the west end of the building from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Design Elements Analysis LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: Meeting Date: December 1,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. 301 West Atlantic Avenue—Awning Color Change Page 2 The Board Shall Consider: Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. Analysis The green/olive and black striped awnings will be compatible with the existing building colors; however, the Board may want to consider a more vibrant color for one of the stripes given the amount of earth tones on the building and the color of the other awnings on the building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move denial of the COA for the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations. Report Prepared by: Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner 4 .. ........ ,2-71.--:'. . Salon 301,301 West Atlantic Avenue 7-1,,,,,,',-: ,',T-:-,:-f-• ,,,-.,:::.'...;.',.::',„-ri-,--.-:.,-;,',t.-,-,, ,z,..-,ii,:,_:,%;.3.:;2•,;.,.:::,:.,,,.•:::,•,..,,,.•,,,,,;:-:-.1 _ ,,..,,,,,,,,.. .-±1,,:,.--.11::-..,,,.,--....-7,.::.: :::„.,,,,,,,,...-.::,L.;•-,i,-1`.:,:.it.,,._. '•,....,-•-•-•-vit...,,,..„,,4.-5.'ilx.4 „.•.,:::•:,-.. ,„,,j-,,,,-.7,,,,. ..' ---.- w,, -. • .-. .7,-d: '.:,' '--.----;;;-7_,-7:7-$.1-•.;;;I:k i'.,TI,,,,,,,-,;'-: :, ;,-;..,-,;,:,,,,,:,..,_,...„-,7.-:;-,,,,;,- •• _---- '„.2,•.,,,,-,;,:;,*.--..- •" O'd.;.'-,•'..z, ---.,:-.=.;-_,-, • 1,,,, •';,. , , ,1 ';-.. ;„1:11 I',,,;',..,:',.:*:'';:.:;;;•';'''''-;-''.----- ' " -.-- . '';'''":0:4' • '''''-'-''''' -1 ''--I''-' ! 'i',,,'" • "-' ;.,d--!"'..---,- - -,,Aii• ----•,;-:';', ,1, .--::-'"-''" ''''-'-:''" - . lid,Pit- ,„j. ,„7„;,__,,..., ,,, IA,, • ,'.,,,,;,,._, „. :. 111:„ , .7.77.7--7-. i killiditil: ----;;''''''-'"':;.'"-- "-7 -‘-.1:, • °"•;',.. ;:fill ..i.: ' ' 111/1 ':::: :: -",'": .;.,..",..• ., „*.,fr-• '..--1-',:'"'•''-:•.,,1•.':- ,,: ,f,'.:::-.,:''-'^-7- .,-----..a::,)( 1••„ ,. •. ..-1::. 1,.1 . , !..--i'','i'',. :;„„..";; :--- ;4'. 1-,.;:i' _.„,,:0'.'-. ••••• I -- ."'f','„-:: '-,-",T,"-,--•'-'-.:.._:,,' ,.,, .-•••;, -.•:7.,i„.,.';', :ri.,,•,., ''.., --.,:,„.;. :.,;,,.. 11,34,:.-;:- , • - ' . , - .4•-,1" '".•,".-•;;' 17.:-"'"''' : -;.•' ;"iWt,'----.7',".",:-.• ,-,.,...-.'„7,',''.[±.'. - 1 '. ,,,-..,',:"Z.,- . . - . -• ...,4-4,1;,v..,-..-I "•"' 1 ...7. -. .7-::"t>•>1...'%'--' 'C- •'',At.;r 1 :'''', -:.''-,--,--.,,,„_,..-.''..,, "'•''.' ,1, -':-.- '..,_:; ' ".,i ' t 17,..";• -•:,ii. -17:: •-- P-'. 1/,:ge, '",'"''''.• ".----- - - '1 ;:-., .' -'; la -'-',',.'q -4'-'3 ,,,-• ' ' ..: . •,:•;;I:. I ',','-',NW--:: ,,,,. :-'' ---- .,:"'1,,•-:--7•!--,-44.4-'4,,---10',-t: ., ,-7'-i.'• 'f•••-. ,-'''''';---,i,i'.' ::.,,!:,;,•,.::•--::" . .. ,;„••;;"1 1 4-'"''•' :''I,"M_R--"''''''d ";=-.0--,":;;--•'•,• d•A*‘,',.;4'Sli-;;";;;.,,.-PAr'' 1 fit.'r,'7'!'","'",ki, IT q „,....,,..1E—'-'-, ".,,"'ZL,j,';','",,,:,,:":, ''''''''''NI-• 'i: ,-- ' il -,----. ':".,-",-;•;;;Ati;,'":"-E:'.,'-;/r;,.,,,,,,f',... "--1Ja,'„,"''.; ':„:'''''.'.,4•,,,-;.-.';.! -,-'„,,,,-..,-,,,m_,‘,, .,";,•,4.... '-„i,;',,f.,,, „ I.....• ; • ,,..._. ,,,- -. - ;-:-..;";::.., ,,,,-,,,, ,,,,;',;.-,':',,,,-,`:— •,...,,,,..,„‘ •,,,...,:i '-•,-'''-.''-'i,'••''',.!,-f..--.7--;-,.6.'4,4 I i :f•-'4,..-,`..7_ .,,i,....z_'-'''.. . -' ' 'l:',_. L-''''7'-'7,-'-', -, ,'SH'--d eii-'111:•'i . it i ---- i';1',-' -::, •,.- l' 1- ',.•:;it.,.",;•;„;.-,,.;-',..'•:',..,-',,!,•,i- ,.. _.. ir---- .„,,-;',..,.-.,..„,,:::itiliN i : ,,-- 4z."-...,..,.L.t'r•.:.,;-,-;,- ,,, ,Jjk:;-,-, if k';N.,:.;:„..-,"' ;7"-'-'• - 1:•'•.:". i -.ill 14) ., „•. ,:•..„.„_-;,-„,.„.•: , -. ,.. ... •-.4,1•_...,;.4,f,-44.,44J.,,,-,...:•-•,,,,, , ,,,,, :,••,,,. ,,, - , ,,,,-.„-; !,.•._..,:t, .....„ ,:„.•,:,:,„, ..,„:„...-_..,..-:.,, ,-,.1,„ 1 „..;,,,v,,,...(,.1•,.,,, ,r....,,!:1:....:,-...„.,...,, i:i,::..-•., 1 ,,, ,, ,„:.:•.,„,, . ....„,.:,,,,,--:„:„..::•„.r.y. 74:,:t,..„...t, ..,„k".-.4.:'="7.--•,._ 1 .-•,0-- ..<‘:••:!'"'•• ).(''...,::.' . il.,:•:,'''',: ' •!_ 17.:11,1"::.7.----.,,'''''''-,.-4,,S-1,7;: :- .''''''.:!...',17:-:'::::.,,,--2'2.7: :::,...-'1,4,Z-::',7-:::::5 NV,.,.,„' -77.N..:.';-.t..• ' ','':. ' ..-',1 . 11`17,77.:',!:• Ne.r,:.'.-s .:' iic,... ...,..I;• . t•'''''''''''..-'' '------''' ,.-1..t?''''.4''''''::,I,':::-*.iL,-;*,:t .',.'Zrr,''':',7.,,::,,,::,....,,,, t7...,..::::,:;..41,-'':',\:,-i,"1-1:': :'4.,7,?:-.4:-„;,":'.,-',,_:;;.-.•-..I--.T,:-:,,,'.4:;.". - ---- /,---';-.",,'4„•,':,-':-i;--.i'.';-.,'1i._;-r,1.4,.""..,,..';,;----,';,:'.-•1;..,-'•!-:,-.:..,.,:'7,1'4"-...=.',-,4:.:-':4t:2.--:-.:,..•:':-"'-..,':4-.,',„."1.'4 :;.,:t-.,/-,:„':_=,•--.0-,„--71,i-;"`c4,'„,,1:•i:,.:,-:"1.:.'.'•'-;.''.'I'.,5 i11!4i"'-,.,,„i--',,]-,,:."r:--'--.:.-"Z„.:.7,_::-•:-:,,:'-:••-,:•-.•:-5•4:-%;:;-t'-1;4;..%:':1',-;..-,,-,i-7',:;--;,,".-,.'7.„,:.:•:2„.-.,-_,.-;_.."I-;...:-:;4's,:g;.-4.:,:•-:„-;-;;,,,,--,-z-,,,'..,';;...,-j-:":',..f,-:..t-•;',:---...-''"1 A-,-,,,•'_-:'',:'„.,.',,,•.,1"1'.;I•;.:-:--1f,,-i,*._;,t'•,,,1,,.,Y-.,;,.•-,i,,::,:t,-:--eHF;-i'•-v',e,ki--t:,-,,-'`t.7,-4-,;-"-,:-„-:-`'.,7,.,.`":„,,?;-_-.:4;.7i „,.=.-,::,.,„-;,20,'f.;-._',"7..,1-..J,.7,,-'1-i,viN,1,Ev...trP1.-:.:Lf:-,-.,-,.',:.;,4.7i::-,1:,,-:,•..:,.-- ,,,6:-.-,:;:_,.-„-:-,:7',";.:7,I,-..1.'1.l,!t,.I.,z\,'1tt'r-•:4-,*-:--i\:7z,"-N--e,'-,,a:.-,,,,..,I,-::--- fi.:2--'-L_ :--L':l-'4"•.':.:I1ii,:..4 1--.,.--,-..--,;--:.-,.:4..-•.„-.,.------ --: / e M --',,.,-;..-:-,.4-:1]-,,,:.itt...:„..-.,.,‘,,-:'.-.,„:-;:.-;..,.:...-,,...,-:...,...-:.„::.,,„-.,„--„-::,_..'1-•..-:-1..---,::..::-,:,4.-.‘..,--.,,„--.-.-.-,-,:.-.:-.....-:-,',,''.4,,._,,'t..1"'.,,„'-,-;„-'-•:..',"„.,.-,.,,,„1 i,7i...,-:,.„.._.-'.-...,..'.7:.-..-',.,-.':--.-,„.-,-'"-.„---.-.-..,;-:.2--,..:",,-.--.'",„.-,-f,.:,,-,,4--.,.-.....'..,,.,44-„„-,:4i.-:..„„4"-,-..:--3t-,-..i,.,'- .:,.; ''.,c. k,,';I•ef I tlis.;,;)- ;•: : .1,..,- -,--,-- - •:,:-:„:, -„,...,.,,..",,, ,:-..,,-,::.,,,J„-:.,_.:-2.,-...;, ';'.'- /..,,,,' ,,''',• f-. : .:'.:;':• .ii, ..•1:!ti,...-.„..-:l-:,!,:,',',.,--:,.-;,...:'''-:;,':,-;'-:i':::-'::.'':,:--:.;,(.',,:'4,,':',-.-.'--,-,'.-,,-:,•;4:,,-'..4;:.',--4•1:4':,,:I!-,1.,;-.-,,".4:,„>r„f,;4:,:':!;4:;-,!:,;:".Z"‘?"1',„..;'?4;";9,,.4.-':.:-.„;'C,•i.-4-4„'„,1,:;f4-;1-,1:"-:'6";!..n,i,':';i,',-.4.."::;.1,:-,,i.;-,.,,,„-',';„d-:.„!4--,;""-:,k-;-'-1,;..:;-,i.'71;,,.:,'.i,,.;••••.•,•';;:,-.,::'•:;!,.::f,-,-4-.,,.:..,-1;•,• ,;..,/ .44.-.,;4-0.1 04 ,-4;','--,.;:t-f.;..,-f;''`..:!-;:-!,.",,:-,.',,.--,I_'-,-„-,-1:'--,'f-,-',i-.;-N,:,‘.-':-\--..-,."i,.4d-.:--i"ii,,,i-:i'i',-,'-:-,.-•-•-•--'":,-:.'.--'•-•,=:;;';--:-;:,:.-',-,.;:,-•.,:::;.-.-,.....;-.-.-'''''-.;-;,,:..;•.•.-:•.•.-•.-";:;,,,'-,'i,i,,',',,-.-"'•,'.'..;-.-,-;':,,,,-,-:,''-,,,-,":,'.,,,•,--:",::"--:::,::,:•:,:,•.:•T-•;-1•'';;,',,,-;,,;,•:.',";,';:','",,.-,,,-..f- ,,k."--,...,,,...,,,..;,,,,,,,,,,..,T.:::.....il..,,,,,,.,...,7_._:;.,..1. ,,,,...:.., „ 7, , :.'7,.:. ..';-g..;.,;., ,_ : i • -' i 2: -.1•'';','",„----d -•'"I_.... •"-.., -,II, ,„:'-..."i '.••,:!..,.i.`,1‘," '. -;" i ',..,4.•;''.. •;'''':,- • ..'-';;.• :.• 1 4,-,t2; /II' k--- - - -.- 1-..‘ ..-,4.-- .i ., .. ;.,x..-:,-, . ,[.".-- :-;: -.- '-, „..', .... ;•--,,,--, .-- ',-; . . . . .„ .. . ., .. . -...., .. „ - . .., . . . , i,...i''37".-- . -0';''.'-.' '-: ' . ' .' ''-'-''.''' - ._..,,,..• - • .-, '... ' ' ::" ' • - ." ''... • , r 1:*- ,4.--...,• 1:," ;";',,,,, _.,;-.-..1--:------.4,— ,,,..,,,,,,,,,Ili '" '• • '' . •-,tor:!,,,-,:t4;,•=f;. ,-.',."--r. :,-,,,':,, ; ,..-,..:,,-.. ...; !.,;'_-1`' •:.'ii:,•.-4 . 'A#1_,.,:- ...,.-__!,7,,,-.4!,J.,):,,v_'---------,' '. ...,:-, ,;, ,r7.,,A-r .,,t,:i ire ff- :!,*--'-':'-: .:- ,:•-,-•,-,' -, - ' . ,.,'::7,::.,..?..,--:-----': - -:.--'. •''.„::.,,,,.,,„..,7 . {. . k -. ..,,i-r:1):.ft.,.. -4,,.,t,:,7--..7..7-44. --- ._... 4-..... „,„ .,,,,, . ,, ,,.„..„._,_,I.,--,,,,,,,,..i.,,c-,-,,,, .-..-t„,!,-4,-;„t-.77-,.,A-,:.74„tg.4,,,,-%.'01.-21-..-ii{1,:,:-4;4;''.''--.1.-,'.•::-. - ..„-;7:7.-::::,'-''.-.7-, .-_.,..,:,,,,-„7-;.7.:,'„,_„----- -;,-,------4,4'---'-„,.. -,-..-,,„,.,4--. --, -...„1.,..,,,,,- -iFs4.7fie2..,---;•,-.‘:. ,,,,,----4:- f.,?-!f.-471.-','-t-,--;;:,.-vNi.'..-...-N74!'--f,----------'--- ._.=--,..-.--.---,,,7--7.-."---7----:,2-.:-.4--‘;',..4:-.4.---.-44-,-,,,'„;,:t1:4,-.IrI,1--,: 4:,1:11 ' - '''.--,-,,,:-.14'.'&;(,' --=,"i'Pr'-'-':'`';'''''-.''-';''' --' •-•:,---:--=.:17,-7,--.-.7='77.-.':.•.<7.?.';::"%;-;,':';,,,::-A. .1:f4,'.".•fr.,-,';• . •,,,,,..., 't- ----,'- -..•-.1', ':''-`'"''...^*''',.''.., "-'-7.'"." ...-. -_-..,-.,...,---.-.',„.-zi.'--..;--7,-;',.44.,,,,,,,,,:::-.,I;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-„-,-;,-„,-,44,-nr;i:',444----4-4-- - ,.:- :,;..-,1_,,....-..',:„.„:„0„,,,-- r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Ill. D. ITEM: 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) — Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Associated with the Demolition of the Extant Contributing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use (Office/Residential) Building and Parking Lot. TRINITY LUTHERAN LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. GENERAL DATA: - POST - CASON OFFICE - METHODIST - Owner Mako Technologies — ""RC" Agent/Applicant Jeffrey Silberstein — Location 145 North Swinton Avenue — Li Property Size 0.23 Acres — Future Land Use Map Other Mixed Use (OMU) - W Current Zoning Old School Square Historic Arts N.W- 3RD ST.> N.^3RD ST_ District (OSSHAD) Q Adjacent Zoning North: OSSHAD South: OSSHAD East: OSSHAD • CITY ATTORNEY West: OSSHAD BUILDINGF - _ Existing Land Use Single-Family Dwelling N MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.DRIVE N.E. 2ND ST. Proposed Land Use Mixed-Use (Office/Residential) . — o Water Service Existing on site r o �•�• _ Sewer Service -Existing on site. - i — z CITY HALL N N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. z i COMMUNITY ' CENTER TENNIS OLD ---- - STADIUM SCHOOL - - SQUARE ATLANTIC AVENUE SOUTH ('�� t. COUNTY 1 1i COURT 111111 HOUSE < = 1.111 r -MI S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. tii bill: III. D. ITEM BEFORE.THE BOARD The item before the Board is the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5(F): El Demolition Request; O Class V Site Plan; O Landscape Plan; and O Design Elements The subject property is located at the southeast corner of North Swinton Avenue and NE 2nd Street. BACKGROUND, Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.23 acre property consists of Lot 1, Block 67, Town of Delray, and contains a 1,153 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 381 square foot garage constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. The subject property is considered a contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District as the extant structures are associated with the developmental history and exhibit the architectural elements of the Old School Square area during the 1930's. At its meeting of June 21, 2000, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved renovations to the extant single-family dwelling and accessory garage consisting of the following: O Removal of aluminum siding and repair of the original horizontal clapboard siding; El Replacement of the existing glass jalousie windows on the front and rear porches with single pane, impact resistant glass; O Reproduction of the original operable wood batten and board shutters; O Installation of a new dimensional composition shingle roof; and El Repainting of the building exteriors (pale yellow/moss green). The above renovations along with other minor modifications to the site including the removal of an Australian Pine from the northwest corner of site and the installation of a wood picket fence have been completed. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness in association with a Class V site plan application for the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage, and the construction of a three-story, mixed-use (office and residential) building, which is now before the Board for action. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development proposal includes the following: CI Demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; O Construction of a three-story, Gothic Revival style, mixed-use building. The first two floors will consist of office (1,789 sq. ft.-first floor, 1,401 sq. ft.-second floor) and the third floor will be a two-bedroom apartment; O Construction of an eleven (11) space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the property with access from the adjacent alley; and O Construction of a refuse enclosure along the south property line, and the installation of associated landscaping. Meeting Date:December 15,2004 Agenda Item: III. D. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 2 SITE PLAN°ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE 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 application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The following table indicates that the proposal meets and/or exceeds the requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the OSSHAD zoning district: Standard Provided Building Height(max.): 35' 34'-8" Building Setbacks (min.): Front 25' 25'-10" Side Street 15' 15' Side Interior 7'-6" 7'-6" Rear 10' 69' Open Space: 25% 37% LDR Section 4.4.24—Old School Square Historic Arts District: 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 floor area. This requirement may be reduced to one parking space per 400 square feet 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. Additionally, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (2) (c), two or bedroom dwelling units shall provide two (2) parking spaces per unit plus 0.5 of a parking space per unit in guest parking. The development proposal consists of 3,190 square feet of office floor area (first and second floors) and one (1) two-bedroom apartment (third floor). Based upon the above, eleven (11) parking spaces are required and the development proposal provides for eleven (11) on-site spaces. It is noted that the subject development proposal was submitted prior to the adoption of the new regulations which limit the size of the third floor to 50% of the second floor within the OSSHAD zoning district. Therefore, the development proposal is not required to comply with this requirement. LDR Article 4.6—Supplemental-District Regulations: Refuse Enclosure: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(C) (1), dumpsters, recycling containers and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sides and have vision obscuring gates on the fourth side, unless such areas are not visible from any adjacent public right-of-way. The development proposal includes the construction of a four foot (4') high concrete block enclosure along the south property line that will act as the enclosure for the developments refuse containers as well as the air conditioning units. It is noted that while four (4) separate containers have been depicted within the enclosure, none have been indicated as being for recyclables. It is therefore attached Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 3 as a condition of approval that the refuse enclosure is expanded to accommodate a container for recyclables or that the proposed recyclables container is clearly indicated on the site plan. Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(A) (1), no lighting fixtures on private property shall exceed 25' in height. The development proposal includes a detail of the proposed pole-mounted light fixture; however the height of the fixture/pole has not been indicated. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that the photometric plan is revised to contain a notation regarding the height of the proposed light fixture/pole. The supplied fixture detail describes the proposed light fixture as "a classical architectural half- pyramid geometric... The design consists of materials such as natural copper and zinc plated copper to complement the integrity of the architecture and surrounding. The fixture(s) provide a direct, glare free symmetrical distribution with either compact fluorescent, incandescent or metal halide lamp technology" The proposed "pyramid" fixture appears more complimentary to Modern architecture then the Gothic Revival style of the proposed building. Further, the style of the fixture would be out of character with the balance of the Old School Square Historic District. It is therefore recommended and attached as a condition of approval that a light fixture more complimentary to the balance of the architecture within the Old School Square Historic District, such as the acorn style fixtures on the adjacent 10 NE 2nd Street property (Pineapple Podiatry), are utilized. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c), the average illumination level for the property shall be 1.0 foot candles and the maximum illumination level shall be 4.0 foot candles. The proposed photometric plan exceeds the established average and maximum illumination levels and must be revised. The submittal of a revised photometric plan consistent with the illumination level criteria of LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c) is also attached as a condition of approval. Bicycle Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (1) (c) (3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non-residential use within the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. The development proposal has included a bicycle parking facility (bike rack) to the rear of the building along the south property line. It would be more appropriate to locate this facility closer to one of the adjacent rights-of-way, or preferably at the northeast corner of the building. At this location the facility would be more visible and more likely to be utilized. Therefore, the relocation of the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) to the north-east corner of the building has been attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B) (1), a 5' wide sidewalk is required within the rights-of-way adjacent to the property. A five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk currently exists along NE 2"d Street between North Swinton Avenue and the adjacent alley; however previous approvals on the adjacent properties to the east (Pineapple Podiatry and Ascot) have replaced the concrete sidewalk with a new paver brick sidewalk. It is appropriate that this development proposal do Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 4 the same and therefore the replacement of the existing concrete sidewalk along NE 2nd Street with a five foot (5')wide paver brick sidewalk is attached as a condition of approval. While the sidewalks along NE 2nd Street are being converted over to paver brick sidewalks presently, the sidewalks along North Swinton Avenue have yet to begin such a transition. However, the City Engineer has indicated that the replacement of the sidewalks along that portion of North Swinton Avenue, between Atlantic Avenue and NE 1st Street is presently under consideration and potentially could be expanded further north up to NE 2nd Street. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the existing concrete sidewalk along North Swinton Avenue is replaced with a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. OTHER ITEMS: Undergrounding of Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that all existing and proposed utilities associated with the development must be located underground and that a note be provided on the site plan to this effect. Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of staff's concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submittal: 1. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(B) (5), the site plan shall depict the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way with the basis clearly stated; the centerline of the existing pavement; and the width of the street pavement; 2. Pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.3(B) (6) and (7), the site plan shall depict the approximate location of the nearest structures or significant improvements and the location of the nearest points of access on adjacent properties; 3. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(F) (4), provide a composite utility plan that shows the location of all existing and proposed utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cable, and drainage). The composite plan shall be signed by a representative of each utility provider attesting to the fact that services can be accommodated as .- shown on the composite utility plan. The composite plan shall address the responsibility for relocation of existing services and installation of new services; 4. Revise the site statistics with regard to area. The second and third floor square footages should not be included in the percentage of site calculations. Also, the percentages with regard to brick pavers and parking are incorrect (10.1% brick paver, and 34.1% parking are accurate figures); 5. Revise the site plan to be consistent with the indicated 1:10 scale; 6. Provide a typical cross section from building to adjacent right-of-way or adjacent property at all property lines. Pay particular attention to grade differential from proposed site to existing adjacent properties and show the existing grades on adjacent property; Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 5 7. Provide six inch (6") deep sodded swale adjacent to all roadway pavement within the public rights-of-way. Indicate swale on engineering plans; 8. Indicate on the engineering plans how the roof drainage is accommodated; 9. Indicate stop bars and signs at egress drives as well as providing interior traffic control markings and signage. Clearly indicate onsite traffic control; 10. Provide note that water meter sizes are to be determined by the City of Delray Beach Utility Department upon building permit application and remove the size indicated on the engineering plans. An RPZ backflow preventor will be required on the water service. Provide standard City RPZ backflow preventor detail on plans. Also, indicate location of irrigation water meters; 11. Provide current City of Delray Beach standard construction details on the plans as applicable; 12. Curbing is not required adjacent to the alley and should be eliminated; and 13. Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. For projects over one (1) acre in size, provide a copy of FDEP Notice of Intent. LANDSCAPE.PLAN ANALYSIS' The proposed landscape plan consists of Coconut Palms underplanted with an undulating bed of Green Island Ficus and Lantana along the north and west sides of the proposed building. White Bird of Paradise is proposed on the south side of the building abutting the refuse enclosure; however it is noted and attached as a condition of approval that the plant list must be revised to include this item. The parking lot will be landscaped with Foxtail Palms, Gumbo Limbo and Pink Tabebuia trees underplanted with Purple Queen, Green Island Ficus, and a Cocoplum hedge. It is noted, however, that the undulating beds of Green Island Ficus and Lantana found adjacent to the building on the north side of the property are not continued in front of the parking lot. It is therefore suggested and attached as a condition of approval that an undulating landscape bed of either Green Island Ficus, Lantana or both is provided along the north side of the parking lot. In addition to the above, based upon the FPL "right tree, right place" program, the Gumbo Limbo trees and Coconut Palms proposed along the north property line will be in conflict with the existing overhead transmission lines. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the Coconut Palms and Gumbo Limbo trees are replaced by plantings consistent with the FPL "right tree, right place" program. Based upon the above referenced conditions of approval being addressed, positive findings can-be-made with LDR Section 4.6.16. DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS LDR Section 2.4.6(J) —Certificate of Appropriateness: 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. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 6 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: Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1: Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines': Development Standards LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4) and 4.5.1(E) (7), provide guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E) (4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E) (7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. In addition, LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) states that all improvements to buildings, structures and appurtenances within a historic district shall be visually compatible and that visual compatibility shall be determined upon criteria (a) through (k). The criteria applicable to the development proposal are as follows: (a) Height The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to-the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids; Front Façades: The relationship of solids to voids in the front fagade of a building or structure will be visually compatible with the front façades of historic buildings or structures within the district. (t) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Protections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on historic sites, buildings, or structures within a historic district. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 7 (h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of a historic site, building, or structure within a historic district. (j) Scale of a Building: 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 a historic district. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that: 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. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to new construction/infill development: All new construction should compliment the historic architecture of the district. The relationship of that new construction adjacent to the significant historic resources can either enhance or detract from the historic setting of the district. Recommended Approaches to New Construction: O The height of any new buildings should be similar to those of other buildings along the streetscape. O The new construction shall be compatible with the width of the surrounding buildings. O Roof forms and pitch should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. O Windows types and patterns, as well as their general placement, should be similar to surrounding buildings. O The orientation of the main elevation to the street should be respected. O The character of the massing should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. Massing means the geometric relationship of the building's component parts. O Streetscape elements such as the division between stories, porch heights, and the alignment of windows and windowsills should be extended to the new construction. Analysis: The applicant is proposing a three-story, contemporary interpretation of a Gothic Revival style building with a triple-gable façade. The west (front) elevation is characterized by a third floor balcony with white picket rails and floor to ceiling windows which dominate the façade. The east (rear) elevation mimics the west façade with the exception of the third floor balcony. The north and south elevations also nearly mimic one another; however the elevations are more International or Modernistic in their design and less consistent with the balance of the structure. The proposed design is incompatible with the aforementioned criteria of LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) as well as the Recommended Approaches to New Construction as per the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The building has entrances along all four elevations; however the entries from the west (front) elevation are intentionally obscured by the architecture and thus the orientation of the main elevation to the street is not respected. Further, the structure is not visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances on the balance of the structures within the district. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report • 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 8 The proposed three-story structure is not in keeping with the other buildings along the North Swinton Avenue streetscape. The structures to the south (the balance of Block 67) are all one- story structures and the structures along the adjoining block to the north (Block 66) are predominantly one-story in height. It is noted that two-story structures do exist along the western streetscape of North Swinton Avenue; in fact, two such structures exist directly across the street from the subject property. To the east, across the alley, a two-story structure in the vernacular style is nearing completion with a three-story office building proposed one property further to the east. Three-story structures, however, are quite rare within the district. Those structures that do have a third floor typically have such in the form of an attic and not as usable floor area. Further, the third floors have been designed in such a manner that either the third floor has substantially less square footage than the second floor, or the third floor elevation is not a dominant feature within the overall building design. Accordingly, the proposed three-story structure will only serve to dwarf its more traditional neighbors and will neither be in keeping with the Design Guidelines, nor consistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E). The proposed window types and placement, and roof pitch are also incompatible with the surrounding buildings. The surrounding architecture consists of Craftsman, Frame Vernacular and Minimal Traditional style structures for which low-pitched roofs, roof eaves, and single-hung and/or transom windows are identifying features. The proposed design will utilize floor to ceiling windows on the east (rear) and west (front) elevations for all three floors. The design also consists of a high pitched, triple gable roof with the pitch being substantially higher than that of any of the surrounding structures. As proposed, the structure will be drastically incompatible with surrounding architecture with regard to roof pitch and window type/placement and therefore inconsistent with LDR Section 4.5.1(E) and the Design Guidelines. The Gothic Revival style of architecture was most popular between 1840 and 1870 in the northeastern states; however the style was less common in southern states, particularly in those states along the Gulf Coast. The style is not prevalent within the Old School Square Historic District, or the City of Delray Beach. However, it is possible that the style can be compatible with the surroundings of the District if redesigned to account for the height, scale, massing and design of the surrounding buildings within the district. As proposed, this is not the case. The applicant characterizes the triple gabled façade as being "playful," and further states in his application that the facade "reduces the scale of the mass" and "speaks residential". As adapted, the architecture appears more institutional than residential, and denies its front façade an appropriate entrance. The mass of the structure is situated along the front façade and the harsh roof lines do little to breakup the massing or reduce the scale. Based upon the above, positive findings can neither be made with regard to LDR Section 4.5.1(E), the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, nor the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Therefore, it is the recommendation of staff that the proposed design elements are postponed and that direction is given to the applicant to redesign the structure in a manner that is architecturally compatible with its environment. DEMOLITION FINDINGS. As previously noted, the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and garage is proposed as part of this development proposal. 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. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 9 (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 applicant has provided the following with regard to the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling: "In June we looked at adding square feet to the existing residence. We first started by locating parking spaces off the alley perpendicular to the alley. With some waivers we could get 7 spaces. This would have allowed an additional 1,000 square feet for a total allowable area of 2,100[square feet]. Relocating the small garage closer to the house proved architecturally inappropriate and also did not give us the needed square feet the owner required. Then we looked at demolishing the garage and adding a structure at the rear. We considered removing the front porch, as it was not a workable space and thereby bringing the front façade back to its original state. The rear porch would be removed to make room for the connecting addition. By the time we laid out the plan the usable square footage was not an efficient 2,100 square feet. We then looked at starting from zero. We could get 11 parking spaces and an efficient 3,200 square feet of office space in a new structure and an apartment on the third floor. Economically it made more sense to do this then the previous studies': Any demolition of a contributing structure is a regrettable, irreversible situation that erodes the very fabric of the historic district. In this instance the structures to be demolished are a highly visible contributing single-family dwelling and its associated garage that were constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. Both of the structures are in good condition and were recently renovated-in 1999. It is noted that the structures would not fulfill the criteria for individual listing in the National Register and that there are plans for the immediate reuse of the property following demolition. However, there are concerns as to the effect those plans will have on the character the Old School Square Historic District. While the above referenced criteria may provide justification for the demolition of the extant contributing structures, the building that is proposed to replace them is architecturally incompatible with its surroundings. The proposal maximizes the floor area that could be accommodated without requesting in-lieu parking. It is recommended that-the architect meet with staff to find other solutions to retain the structure. It is noted that there is flexibility on granting variances to preserve a worthy structure. If this is the Board's desire, then the proposed demolition should be postponed. However, if the Board wishes to approve the demolition of the extant contributing structures, it is recommended that the demolition be stayed for a period not less than six (6) months from the date the Board makes its final approval regarding the proposed reuse of the property, including design elements. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 10 �E . REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1, prior to the approval. of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. LDR Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHAD zoning district is consistent with the OMU FLUM designation. Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B) (3) and (C) (2), within the OSSHAD zoning district, business and professional offices are allowed as permitted uses and a residence is allowed as an accessory use on a parcel where the principal use is non-residential. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1(A). LDR Section 3.1.1(B) -Concurrency: As described in Appendix "A", a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water and sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, solid waste and schools. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) -Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix "B", a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. LDR Section 3.1.1 (D) -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDR can be made, provided the attached conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies are noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the,future use-and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The subject property contains a 1,153 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 381 square foot garage constructed in 1939 in the Minimal Traditional style. The development proposal includes the demolition of these extant contributing structures within the Old School Square Historic District and the construction of a three-story, mixed-use (office/residential) building with eleven (11) space double-loaded parking lot at the rear. The subject property Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 11 contains no special physical or environmental characteristics that would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. Zoning Designation: Use: North: OSSHAD Balinesian Spa &Wellness Center South: OSSHAD Private Residence East: OSSHAD Pineapple Podiatry/ Private Residence West: OSSHAD Castle Florida /Private Residence As noted in the above table, the abutting properties are all consistent with the subject property with regard to zoning designation and are generally compatible with regard to use. Based upon the above, no compatibility issues will exist between the proposed mixed-use development (office/residential) and the surrounding land uses, and positive findings can be made with regard to Future Land Use Element Objective A-1. However, as previously discussed in further detail under the Design Elements Analysis and as noted below with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5), the development proposal is incompatible with the surrounding properties with respect to height, scale, massing and design. Housing Element Objective A-10: The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. Housing Element Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As discussed previously, the subject property is compatible with the adjacent properties with regard to use. Further, the development proposal will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area with regard to the criteria stated above (noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns). However, there are concerns as to the loss of the extant contributing structures and how complimentary the proposed three-story structure would be to adjacent development, which may result in a degradation of the neighborhood. These concerns are discussed in further detail below. LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5) - Compatibility (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property exists within the OSSHAD zoning district and is bounded by a combination of general commercial, professional office, and residential uses. Compatibility with uses is not a concern, as the proposed mixed-use development would be permitted on the surrounding properties and is already in existence on the properties to the east and west. However, the adjacent properties along North Swinton Avenue are primarily one and two-story structures with a clearly defined front entrance along the street and an architectural design that is residential even if the current use is not. The windows of these structures are of a pedestrian scale and the roofs are of a consistent low pitch. The applicant proposes to demolish the property's extant Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and • Demolition Request Page 12 contributing single-family dwelling and associated garage, which are compatible and consistent with the surrounding development, and replace them with a three-story structure drastically out of character with its surroundings. As noted previously, the proposed structure is more institutional in appearance than it is residential or commercial. The type and placement of windows is incompatible with the surrounding structures and the roof pitch is substantially higher than that of any of the surrounding buildings. The building mass is virtually unbroken along North Swinton Avenue with only the center mass of windows being recessed and a projecting balcony providing any relief to the facade. The entries within the front facade are recessed and hidden so that the only indication of an entry is the paver brick path leading to the building. Based upon the above, the proposed structure will be neither compatible nor harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties or the City as a whole; therefore positive findings can not be made with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5). REVIEW BY OTHERS Community Redevelopment Agency: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered this development proposal at its meeting of October 28, 2004. After discussion, the Board voted unanimously (6-0) to deny the development proposal. The Board identified major concerns with the demolition of the extant contributing structure and the project's architectural incompatibility with the surrounding district. The applicant did not comment at the meeting. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been sent to the following civic associations: O Presidents Council O Progressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.) Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the HPB meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of the subject property's extant contributing single-family dwelling and associated garage, both of which have been renovated within the last six years and are compatible and consistent with the surrounding development. The extant contributing structures would be replaced by a three-story mixed-use structure drastically out of character with and insensitive to its surroundings and inconsistent with Sections 2.4.5(F) (5), 2.4.6(J) (5) and 4.5.1(E)of the Land Development Regulations, the Objective and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Postpone with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), 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 following conditions: Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and . Demolition Request Page 13 1. That the demolition is stayed for a period not less than six (6) months from the date the Board makes its final approval regarding the proposed reuse of the property; 2. That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions; 3. That the refuse enclosure is expanded to accommodate a container for recyclables or that the proposed recyclables container is clearly indicated on the site plan; 4. That the photometric plan is revised to contain a notation regarding the height of the proposed light fixture/pole; 5. That a light fixture more complimentary to the balance of the architecture within the Old School Square Historic District, such as the acorn style fixtures on the adjacent 10 NE 2nd Street property (Pineapple Podiatry), are utilized; 6. That the photometric plan is revised to be consistent with the illumination level criteria of LDR Section 4.6.8(B) (3) (c); 7. That the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is relocated to the northeast corner of the building; 8. That the existing concrete sidewalk along NE 2nd Street is replaced with a five foot (5')wide paver brick sidewalk; 9. That the existing concrete sidewalk along North Swinton Avenue is replaced with a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 10. That all existing and proposed utilities associated with the development must be located underground and that a note be provided on the site plan to this effect; 11. That the plant list is revised to include the proposed White Bird of Paradise (SN); 12. That an undulating landscape bed of either Green Island Ficus, Lantana or both is provided along the north side of the parking lot; and 13. That the Coconut Palms and Gumbo Limbo trees proposed along the north property line are replaced by plantings consistent with the FPL "right tree, right place" program. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies), 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION- ,i?\ Postpone the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, Class V site rif \ plan, landscape plan and design elements for 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako '�. Technologies), and give direction to the applicant to redesign the structure in a manner that is P.11.4404,, "architecturally compatible with its environment. f ell i ,' t4 ‘`' 'ttachments:Survey, Site Plan,Floor Plans,Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations \� �IG� Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner j 7 L .6r7vta ,‘,7', , , 6)-- / / /or 44-J--- -Y) -P / `_/ d_., / Y . /' I y,' v 6 ._____ — ,)4 ,(. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 14 APPENDIX«A„ CONC,URRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(B), Concurrency, as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: Water service will be provided via service lateral connection to either the existing six inch (6")water main within the NE 2nd Street right-of-way, or the ten inch (10") water main on the east side of North Swinton Avenue. Sewer service will be provided via service lateral connection to the existing twelve inch (12") sanitary sewer main located within the NE 2nd Street right-of-way. Adequate fire suppression can be provided via an existing fire hydrant located at the northwest corner of the subject property. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC and OSSHAD zoning districts. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed 3,190 square foot office and residential dwelling unit will generate approximately 43 Average Daily Trips (ADT)or five (5)A.M. peak hour trips and five (5) P.M. peak hour trips, which will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed residential dwelling unit will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, a park impact fee of$500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit for parks and recreation purposes. Solid Waste: At the highest waste generation rates, the proposed 3,190 square foot office development will generate 8.61 tons of solid waste per year [3,190 x 5.4 = 17,226 / 2,000 lbs = 8.61 tons]. The proposed two- bedroom apartment will generate 1.99 tons of solid waste per year, which matches the current generation rate of the existing single-family dwelling, thus the development proposal will result in an increase of 8.61 tons per year over the current use. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals till the year 2021. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated via an on- site exfiltration system. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Schools: As the subject property is located in the City's TCEA, this project is exempt from meeting School Concurrency requirements. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 15 APPENDIX-"B" STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Does not meet intent X Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 16 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 X Meets intent of standard 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 / .' I TRINITY L UTHERAN I wit LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. . POST I CASON OFFICE METHODIST CHURCH W W l > u_i L,1 Q a if L11 a a D IIIN i _ Z IL _ Id N.W. 3RD ST. > N.E. 3RD . ST. > Q Mil ►��I > a II . 1 a > a o Il I- CITY ,' ATTORNEY _4Ellicill- 117) V ■ I o BUILDING z rEllfx r) 2ND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.E. rrrMO ST. o cn Z itit:t:: Z N 0 W Z Z Z CITY HALL - N.W. 1ST ST. N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST._ • 1111111M 3 ui w Z Z Z'P14: H=Emil IN immi a- _ - COMMUNITY - =- — CENTERmm =MI n� TENNIS OLD— STADIUM SCHOOLI ' I • SQUARE z .A T L A- N T-I CAVENUE l 1.ii A V E N U E L POLICE SOUTH 'aol < 'a QI < COMPLEX COUNTY — COURT N HOUSE 3 L i w r i I 1- L . w N _-simm-- 145 N SWINTON AVENUE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING k ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM793 • • • Silberstein Aro❑It.otl SITE STATISTICS 011Mt Ito ur..l CIO..lfU.Flom Aw T.11 111•1/1•1111 • " Iasi III•171•0111 TOTAL SACO°tL.004 MLA. 11M IGR 1.1 M IR! 1•1111 Ir11111111I111PIA.A11 KCg01LO0F0,11 MLA. 1.01lef N1 Or SOD 1 "O AA OR MLA ;;;'°r ''a•OT �L NE. 2ND STREET • I4.SONSI MG. NSI ton M1 Or SITS SOCK IAVLKI MLA, 030 OP, Mr M IRE Orp4L44011eARn MAOL. 11I11ar, DIN Or WE KOPE L 000100. O 10PT CO Or SOD M1NM.4I MN1y lops, NIA Iammr+Ian H ff IrVNINO A/OV11Ey1Dtt 0111f1 OWE W.Nr fora nyM F 1 PAS[tLO 400 En Cr strict SPACE rot t r.A Hryl ant*mini rr lilt IOR Ct DIFlC[SPACE r 400 IOTA 7.11 SPACES H nrrrMrn rw,rr r HIIr.F rrm nnrw rnl f.IP�ACDEi IM UNIT \ rY.rr.nl eel 1 UNrt•LA IPACtt•3.1 tlAtt{ I 41yw•uF NtNlrru'IYr r.W TOTAL RECORD/MONO SPAM•10.01 IPAC[I P.1.... 151.111 """Iwr:�FF,: M1r iw,l TOIAL PAWN°SPACE./ROMEO 1 I PrreosIrn N .woo 1 COYPA<T MAKO TECHNOLOGIES T R[OULUt [Mr.0 COW,DOAK _ II TOTAL nun PROVIDE, „ 1KI KIAKb 145 N SWINTON AVENUE IT1AIJE PUS 0 'v DELRAY BEACH,FL 33444 A[OUTAtO[0 Am. 4 {IT b • 1 b DT-0• °• *D'-D•, D• NORM IS.-0. 11'-0• 2D'-10• N l� Dd-D• •1 D'•d• '� •8 SOLON 71411 r-1 IemAeK 1' o A� o eo I LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE EAST 101_0• H-1 f illb'.1 F?i";i,i,,1,rAill i,..1111',1il.sA. 10 . s 1 Mr 11'-D• 31'.Ia• *'"'^ - 7 i# /////222�� 1 DRAPER OODPT omo ONO Ynams 1 ••' .f;'l fIIl / 1/( 9 •0 L EPOLE HALF PYRAMID AEMO l/'-o•YM1YUN I "`' Iltllll l o� r-o' ¢ 1'-0' °'-o• °'-0• ACTUAL 34'-I• 1111111 F• /S WM woo,.Or rt0lf • 1 I/1 D i;l'l f fCy COMK I- "II M�o, 1,I lLael erlfualD° ,1r�, LOi 1,NLOCR IN,fOKx 0/IMtON SNOW Dtu.T IIACN), . L_,,,1,1 4. OPOI 0 TO 1 E rLAT TNGWI, R'[WR t0 M V T- 100N 1,I.OE 3,ru1o0 Roma or r HAC CO NTT. 1 Inf:r I F nom°, stt'�^''ii''' yy Q aar/uroDiso rw _J 1 I7 I 2 OCCUPAMCT-n1m �• II' li�� fTP'N1 coxu[ucn0N O ow. 1 !N n nAE coot AErERatE NrrA 1oL-t000 EomoN cNAttER 1.1 IIN,I1111II1' ''-'" •I�11=3L,1 111 ON a 1 ga:1 OC<UPMolN. 1 +w' 1,a1 r-1o• V PROVIDE it IPAINNUO. 1--* t? p IL/•II 100.00E IttMUN IERYITI 10A tilt/IRINNILA AND IPA AIAAY Y ill N /// olVoOq SOUL lAS/0RY TO TM[OR{MITERS IMVK[ ,. / AEOVIREYtM Or MY{/ANfI A 17.1/1 N ROT a a—�L—a a IRO2GT 'ion / I �� 11 .:u I�,1j'1i 0 j}} 1^� e 1 1 ..— I • D'-O ,D u1('. ,114r_ R'-0' y. R'-0' .,AR'•0' y/ 4,0. D.-0'd^d-0• TOe,e. 1 1111�1I rl I I, .N4"•,/1111111M ■alI'I O o oK1 [OMK VALL[T O.wD co I I I :• .{ I — pE1#F1:i=11 .'A;111?11331;11i111, I111R1>E}1111p. ! l 1 A.Ira p Q •O D7'-0' 1 •e - 0' f�,D'•P °' 1111 Sr h_ ,.,.. ._..... .'I . 1 � E ,r._ FL. 151,11' I VICINITY MAP I O. 1 NO 1 xt M x visA4T LOCATION ...I e'A w.r!ar L� _ ... ]ii) _p0 r.' ' i 1 2,7:4pEVISIONS b i —ll II N,.—Ir-- LOCATION LW NTS. O LOCATION MAP 0 O SITE PLAN•3 STORY SCHEME OCTOBER B.2004 ND'°° SCALE:,:10 A- —1 .0 Dnwnby:IDS GV rchl10CEF/wr°IIdSbMCl' •0•I'•..• n e Jeffrey Silberstein ,(`;;ilrl/,. `/si• Architect a A,.odru/,Ina. ' 1 r , ��"1 v y �I(� \ ` y] • II4• �.'d• 011rl/11»h 1111111 JIIII NAY I / ''•"V_ q�i�•I-0• \ \d. i.lt 111 111 IIII °I��I , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IiOr�'ui .•..„,................, � �� ]IIII . ms. 1�1, _ mum _ .. . uuuu nu,,,, nnnuPlItio a r I II , FT"; 11 I 11. h II ' p II ' a § II 4'al 011. •1 w. CS"°�: .. II fl V ➢ II It /r"". "..»IM I '� II 1 n ov 1•:e niN,.iw..w.w•1" V w� rs� I •b j -,---- _1 »nW•111..»M ..I.• .1' �� I II V �-I �I n"n:�11r:1••I• Ili . P. u,.nwl r.r,w.11°'x.w. 44 § u1 1 'I4 ? 1 4 § IIa a4n o�3 4 I I b1a "'• d 9 4 II ➢ � 44 �E9 (qMAKO II p II II M [1 ,\ La 1 I,, 0' ; LJ I 0 i. — a TECHNOLOGIES II a v II a 4 II I 145 N SWINTON AVENUE II ➢ a II ➢ i11 ' DELRAY BEACH,FL 33444 1'a' II p II I II a �� I —. LEGEND OF MATERIALS \ L Alf,_,,,A I f ; lnim �; IIUIIIUIUIIIIII11 g III IMPlih I '. � � \ \ 1❑ STANDING 5fN1 METAL ROOF SILVERi I I 1IIIOomo 1113-, / .O`s• 1 .( f ❑] ,OAT rINI5H 511=0.111115 IIYIIYll 1• ❑I Yi00D FR40 STAINED HANOIONr-GLEAM Owe 5PO' .�I f� 1 1 a MITE PAINTED PICKET RAILS 0 4 ®FIRST FLOOR PLAN �� SECOND FLOOR PLAN OTHIRD FLOOR PLAN 1 SCALE:iv.1'-0' e O SCALE:1/8'.1'•0" CD SCALE:1/8'.1'-0' 3 1 _._. ....,----_i . 1 b MEAN HT S5' T , 3 MEAN NTT MEAN,rt5555' 4 I Aigik, t:t L ir , , ' MI illri il I . k. Iia 1 1 1111V ll 1 ,.D' (yj1 MR■1 I0111Mllii�l s THIRD FLOOR T THIRD PLOOR T 3 I ' III - � ,N -� 1 r �� z o ' 5E00ND FLOOR *OHS_ -. ram_ SGGOt.'D FLOOR � C f I z � vO' 220' b �� I/ 220' ,L� R_i ya / � . y'•G WISH FLOOR T WISH FLOOR T 1 I IL�L1 AVeRAo8 MCAN T AVERAGE MEAN T ELEVATION ELEVATION OP ROAD SOUTH ELEVATION CRAM of ROAv WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SAST ELEVATION 7 S ROAD® 6 , OeI:ALE:,/e•.1'-0' HE�ISION O SCALE:1/S".T-0• OBCALE:I18'.1'-0" OBCAIP:1/8'.1'.0• _ 1 0I I I L•-I OCTOBER 8,2004 —1 .0 • I':..... ... 1111111 nby:TOS G.WdlltedueNtol '•"',:,:Ina .p . , LANDSCAPE DATA Jib INTERIOR LANDSCAPE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA(e per os i ell.plan)TOTAL PAVED 10.0306r TOTAL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE elt.Plan) 3343 SC AREA REQUIRED JERRY TURNER (TOTAL INRRIM,LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED .0 0 SF• •' a'P'r i°•FIamCES REQUIRED 3 TREES & ASSOCIATES OTAL INTERIO TOTAL INTERIOR TREES PROVIDED .TREES PCRIMETCR LANDSCAPE DATA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1e3 V PAVEMENT AREA ADJACENT LAND PLANNING AOJACCNT TO ROW OTHER PROPERTY TOTAL PERIMETER DSCAPE AREA PROVIDED 710 Sr ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN TOTAL P//CRWCRR LANDSCAPE AREA PRONGED TIO Sr TOTALETAEE!COVEW[RED 6 SPECS TOTAL TREES PROVIDED a TREES MIN.30R OP REQUIRED PERIMETER.:INTERIOR LANDSCAPE e0B MONCS PRAM CARTEOAD AREA TO BE PLANTED IN SHRUBS AND ORWNDCOVERT (eve)06dl-71 0 CAPOLINA g7600 REQUIRED PERIMETER I INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA 10$3 Sr PLANTED AREA PRANIRED RED 330 16 SF p377!.[.Plh AKNV[ y N.E. 01)A370�OI:3 LORIOA 33e63 '_--- -----.-- =( 1�12ND STIR '_T•----.----"--_.---._._._._.—_._.-.-_._._.--.---- NATIVE PLANT DATA (PRCJ[CT 43.�_ A0 R OP ALL REWIRED TT N4 TO DC NATIVE 3]R OI ALL OTHER PLANT MATERIAL TO BC NATIK M AK 0 L7 GS 135 J TOTAL REWIRED TREES 0 TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES REQUIRED tillEES TECHNOLOGIE TOTAL NATIVE TREES PROVIDED 6 TREES —^ TOTAL REOIORCD SIRUP AND CROWD COVER AREA 310 SF SOD / RED NATIVE AREA PTIVE AREA ROVIDED 79 SA 1007 Sr SOD 1 M L ooD .. �%`p,,, - ` , : %'%l. ::..:. 1 l OO rot.e1 ' PLANTING NOTES: �� ; �000,aoo, 0000000000000000000000 ollonaorm 3ar nenda Na.1 suer ae n -�I -- iE� I� Port I Fbr 190PMii 1ilhI1tLa14j1 ! <� � 'I I v T AA cod shll De clean t d dliftredi �' o D" Swinon 11/ ll O tusitree•.C a Delfoy B dpf A \ j ELL:,ri tus mulch. /,I ;: it . r uFf l.I{�, eoz.:,:°r I.n.pghei•for:..:01 pg all tintlerground.0,,,Io odor to �, ., ? I • I R'•] V n 0 slallatbn of pl°ntlnq mabrlab to vale domag.. ,pyC It Contractor le to lumbn II ma";,r..qulommh IaDOf and plan?.oe"quire'to 41 Ii relit' I' + m In.lall the propoe.tl planllnp a.M01eoUd n the 1°nd.cap•plan.. illI tii I lie gil 1 ipi 11 l;).111111 m llliii,b i i I dill Ira 111,1i1,lt11 © All tree.are to be slaked and/or gored a.Indicated on the planting detail. P01 ii j11y�jI1; 0 MK_ WV Al plat material.to be bacAfllled with a mixture r 1/3 approved Florida / /% IY t 0 peal,1/3 approved topeoll and 1/3 dean sand. To ihle mixture add 15 pound. � ifr III I - f 0-0-6 Waaiter per cubic yard. Thoroughly mix ail parts All to Placlnq 412111 1,%%%/ �- �I IAii r•• 'II m plant pit,. p %%//// 'I 1 hi i 1 '¢Sf TVA I I r 0 Tn.eont.actar.loll tar out the location.of m.plant bed•and contact the E id 1 I'l 174 O• Laneaape Architect for approval before the Inhe plant a the plant o� matador!. The itect forapproval Architect'nay theel the location of the plant.before 4 // .III' /.I o0 planting. %t ' /0, L�MI,/,,- 0�,• All quantities OR the plans areIntended a.a guide and snail D.verified by the • eoD%� Ill' II)V I ,••, �/% ® �: ---,I. --to Contractor with a comprehensive plant lobe-0I Should any dl.cr.pond., •� %/\ :_::•::':1';,idDIIIINgi!ililihiliCnliiil lilikBltiti�I�l liM �--....�..:...•e•• .•::...-.-ease.•.;° r,In.Landscape Architect I.to be hell..'for darineaElon PUNT to A!c6 //'li-/ =1e1•••��".•!•!..Q.!•!•A!�!�!ca!:.•!.�$4A1dgOD:1:Awo occur, .oeoo 0 0000:0'000 ' .'' Any exletlnya lent o A. pr remain.non be prm.Wud dunnv construction with �' .. • a plandsc p.Islaio bn d other l DY l00 Eareas r as that h are ad). Al.l.area.eaar NegnWednto be'curbnd Wit concrete onon-mou)ntable cent curbino g at CY v Iwst.Ix lnehe.'a+u height. curbed Withconcrete elnor� cHecor ri O ® The unpaved portion of the R.O.W.d wwith.to The pf p.rly line and to the DT DT OL edge of loadwoy.null De lande.ap.d Ilh sotl and I rig°ted. •W oATe 3 A0 lan0,cape area.are to be irrigated to provide a mhlmum of 1501E coverage. •1'w10' 10/4/04 tieing Serie:cp.principles. snits Landscape PLANT LIST Plan KEY SDDCTCOMMONRE NAM COMMON NAME OTT HT SP REMARKS DIY CNNobelanue 10001.0p' R.dtb,Casoplum 6e 3e' IC Nat,. RT Wadyatla bllurcato'�'n Coconut Palmm 13 10 ee See Plan for Height. OF Flau.tnieroearpo'Ore."Idendbn•n Nand Pcu.372 13' Ire • OL Novo etmansbe Dumb.Limbo I 13' 0' Native LAN Lantana comma Tallow Lantana 437 6' 0' Nabv.,Tetley Po Trad..cantla collide'pu,yur.a'Purple Cue.n ! 0' 0' PT TebSbula h.lerephNta FAA Tao 3 13' 0' ��101 NO.�ORE xa. •._,.,• ••-........ LPIP1 0370 .. 111.4 11NIti NO.enlann 1,... . ! 'h L-1 .... . . .......... of 1 J ,. DEIRA YBEACB �d HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT I��I® 1993 1993 Applicant: Amjad Hammad Project Name: Hammad Shoppes Project Location: 139 NW 5th Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the review of a Conceptual Plan for the Hammad Shoppes (139 NW 5th Avenue), pursuant to Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.1(A). BACKGROUND The subject property consists of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Block 27, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The property is located at the southeast corner of NW 5th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) within the West Settlers Historic District. The property contains a 3,413 square foot commercial building with six (6) back-out parking spaces on NW 5th Avenue and another four(4) back-out parking spaces on NW 2nd Street. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.1(A), a potential developer may request an audience before the appropriate development board for an informal, non-binding, concept plan review of a potential development proposal. The Board shall review and comment on the development concept at a duly noticed public meeting. There shall be no action taken by the Board nor shall there be any written report resulting from discussions at the meeting which may be construed to be a preliminary approval of the development concept. The Board should provide the applicant with comments and direction on the concept plan. Provided below is a description of the conceptual plan and a list of discussion items and concerns that staff has identified with the review of the conceptual plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ ... The conceptual plan depicts proposed modifications to the site consisting of the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition at the rear of the existing commercial building, the construction of ten (10) back-out parking spaces on the adjoining alley, the construction.of a refuse enclosure adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2"d Street), the elimination of the six (6) back- out parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue, and changes to the architectural elevations of the existing building. The development proposal also includes the installation of a handicap accessible parallel parking space along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and four (4) standard parallel parking spaces along NW 5tn Avenue. The parking spaces within the adjacent rights-of-way are associated with the NW 5th Avenue streetscape improvements. Meeting Date: December 1,2004 Agenda Item: IV.A. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Hammad Shoppes(139 NW 5th Avenue)-Conceptual Plan Review Page 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. O Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F) (3) (i), buildings fronting along NW 5th Avenue shall be located along the frontage line of the property with 70% to 90% of the length of the building set back between five feet (5) and ten feet (10) from the property line and the remaining length set back between 17'and 22'from the property line. While the existing building is not required to be modified for compliance with these design guidelines, the proposed addition should be located along NW 5th Avenue in a manner consistent with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines in order to fill-in the 29' wide streetscape void between the ultimate right- of-way and the existing building. O Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (2) (b), a minimum distance of 42' is required from the eastern edge of the alley to the front of the back-out parking spaces along the alley. The conceptual plan provides a distance of only 40'. The additional depth can be easily accommodated if the building addition is relocated to the front; otherwise the addition will need to be reduced to comply with this requirement. O Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(B) (14) (i) (3), flat roofs shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets with decorative parapets. The maximum height of the parapet wall shall be six feet (6) or of sufficient height to screen all roof mounted equipment. The location of the mechanical equipment associated with the development has not been depicted; however it is anticipated that the equipment will be located atop the existing/proposed building. There is a concern that the proposed parapet may not be of sufficient height to screen the mechanical equipment. Further, the proposed parapet should be redesigned to be more consistent with the Mission style architecture that it represents. O Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(B) (14) (iv) (5) (a), security bars on storefront or display windows are prohibited. This section is noted because the existing storefront is covered with security bars and the proposal would introduce a significantly higher quantity of windows to the architectural elevations. O Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (2), the dedication of five feet (5) of right-of-way is required for NW 5th Avenue. 17 Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.10 (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. As the subject property will provide back- out parking spaces off the alley, the City Engineer has determined that the width of the alley should be expanded to a width of 20'. As the properties to the east are single-family dwellings and extensive redevelopment of these properties is remote, an alley right-of-way dedication of four feet (4')from the subject property will be required. O Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3, a five foot (5) wide sidewalk is required along NW 2'1 Street. Presently, the required sidewalk exists along the majority of NW 2nd Street; however the proposal depicts the elimination of a portion of the sidewalk. O Additional detail needs to be provided as to what will be done with the 13' x 36' wide area between the back-out parking along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and I. i Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report Hammad Shoppes(139 NW 5th Avenue)-Conceptual Plan Review Page 3 the existing building. Also, if the addition is not constructed at the front of the building — what will be installed in the area between the building front and NW 5th Avenue (i.e. paver block walkway with planters)? O A defined pedestrian accessway needs to be provided from the back-out parking along the alley to the shop entrances at the front of the building. O The two (2) larger Bahama shutters located at the center of the north elevation should be eliminated to break-up the facade. O The proposed columns are inconsistent from one elevation to the next. A singular column design should be used throughout the structure. Additionally, the columns are flat against the building and have no dimensional qualities. It is therefore suggested that the columns are constructed so as to project from the building. Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner Attachments:Site Plan and Architectural Elevations r ALLEY • = N • 5 6 7 8 9 = 0 11 12 13 14 15 vlfr • i DUMPSTER f ' . ' -. ( • � . • : AD SF DITION —. 'ram-. , t--& , , else , , HC l CN • • 4 t-s-5'—0" • 20'-0" 13'-0" �,, _ 25'_G' , I '-0" 22'—G" �rl'I� U Z 3 . L rL,, _,I ' 1_, 2 a�r m BUILDING 1 • �j.j~,� 3,413 SF ---or o--- ----J41,,,...4:--A_ ,,r-1----- -_ _, :-Y-'14--...4-J-_-4_--4---12' , ..„,,. . . 'isti ill ��'iii • • • I • , . .�I „ - • 1 2 • • . Th • • 19'-4• 9'-6' taco. 9'-6" 20'-0' • EL.YI'-8" PARAPET TAL LOUVER ALINING L------------"---- • I - , "IBIS WHITE"OR EQUAL v.. s U EL.PA I&RAPET -, �i .EL I6'.4 t7 PARAPET o • o V I• •♦♦•, EL.0'-0 op Y 'FIN.FLR STORE FRONT WINDOWS AND POOR yy e,_,0'NGv (TYP.),COLOR FRAMES"BRIGHT 8 x 8 TILES CROSSVILLE v553 STORE FRONT WfNDOWS AND DOORS WHITE",GLAZING`SOLAR GREEN" —ETRUSCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT COLOR"BRIGHT WHITE"FRAMES, LATICRETE"30 SAND BEIGE OR "SOLAR GREEN"GLAZING EQUAL TYP. NOT- ELEVATION SCALE: 3/IG,"=1'-0" 16.-4" 61'-0" 9.-4" 20.-0" 31.-0" • 10'-0" 0 0 Y • < ) j 4 I a x a TILES CROSSVILLE VS53 ETfUSCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT STORE FOLOT FRAM S AND DOOR LATICRETE'30 SAND BEIGE OR EQUAL TYF'. L l TE,COLOR FRAMES"BRIGHT UF�ITE GLAZING'SOLAR GREEN" • SO, TI -E E EVAT I ON SCALE: 3/1&"=1'-0" V.V. 24'-4" V.4• s hi, EL.2I'-8" sr PARAPET . 9 TAL LOUVER AWNING F "IBIS WHITE"OR EQUAL I .� •fir-_qr • ,.�.N. zr A, FL.IARAPET .. �� ♦♦♦♦ O _`—� PARAPET . r • _ a • ♦�♦ - h EL.O'-0" V FIN.FLR. I IR"SIMULATED STONE 1150'NGVD SILL,CULL NOSE EDGE 8 x 8 TILES CROSSVILLE VS53 STORE mawWINDOWS AND DOORS ETRISCAN CLAY OR EQUAL,GROUT COLOR"BRIGHT WHITE"FRAMES, - LATICRETE'30 SAND BEIGE OR "SOLAR GREEN"GLAZING EQUAL TYP. JJITST ELEV4TI01\ SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" 61'-I" 22'-I" 45'-0" 23'-0" , EL.21'-8" PARAPET 0 •f • EL 11'-8" ♦ " PARAPET , EL.16'-4" PARAPET 0 0 _ _ a A • • O'-0" • FIN.FLR I.la"SIMULATED STONE METAL DOOR 2250'NGVO SILL,BULL NOSE EDGE (TYR),COLOR "CITRUS"DOOR AND FRAME EAST NATION SCALE: 3/I6'I=I'-m'I DELFLORIDAAY BEACH All-America City ' IjI ' 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting December 1, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION T rri_( I Ri bvrci Ci Mt rnsmis o Q CrAt e2Sdivfr--1) iNAAA- CC -44‘ r ,'7'e121-/ �� fr E0C . / eci-i enc1 ._ QD r4.,-1 0 .G'tacti