Loading...
HPB 12-15-04 AGENDA 4,1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING .4y Y ��P CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service,program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD),24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for - meetings in the Commission Chambers If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS • A. Amendment to Land Development Regulation Sections 4.4.24(B) (11) and 4.4.24(F) (1). Make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Sections 4.4.24(B) and (F). The applicant;proposes to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) by allowing the permitted uses and development standards in the Central Business District (CBD)[LDR Section 4.4.13] to apply to the southern 34.75-feet of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. This lot is located on the east-side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163'north of NE 1st Street. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 799 NE 2nd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, William Domeyer, Owner Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the removal of wood shakes from a roof and their replacement with metal roofing on an existing commercial building. B. 144 NW 3rd Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Dennis Thompson, City of Delray Beach Community Development-- _ • Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the repair and replacement of the siding on an existing residential building. • C. Rozzo Residence, 226 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Roger Cope, Agent. Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of an addition to the extant contributing dwelling. k Historic Preservation Board Agenda Meeting of December 15,2004 Page 2 D. 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. REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members O Staff V. ADJOURN AIIPIARM Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: December 9,2004 UEERAIBEACH DEERAYREACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD i 'III MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT IIIP 1993 1993 20111 2U01 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING A PRIVATELY INITIATED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT (REVISED) FOR THE PINEAPPLE GROVE LIMITED MIXED- USE PROJECT. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board regarding a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Sections 4.4.24(B) & (F). The applicant proposes to amend the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) regulations by allowing the permitted uses and development standards in the Central Business District (CBD)[LDR Section 4.4.13] to apply to the southern 34.75-feet of Lot 6, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision. This lot is located on the east side of NE 1st Avenue, approximately 163' north of NE 1st Street. BACKGROUND A development proposal has been submitted for Lots 5 through 8 and 13 through 16, Block 75 of the Town of Delray subdivision for a mixed-use development (commercial and residential). Lots 13 through 16 are zoned CBD and Lots 5 through 8 are zoned OSSHAD; however Lots 7 and 8 are subject to the CBD regulations. Lots 5 and 6 contain an existing two-story, 6-unit multiple family structure and a duplex (8 total dwelling units). The duplex was constructed in 1950 and the 6-unit structure was constructed in 1972. The existing density for these two lots is approximately 22 dwelling units per acre. Lots 7 and 8, which were the former site of Neal's Market and Jo's Back Room, are currently vacant. The buildings, constructed in 1925, 1954, and 1960, were all demolished in 2001. Lots 13 through 16 contain an auto parts business in a 4,854 square foot building, constructed in 1985 and an 8,556 square foot retail building, constructed in 1965. At its meeting of September 15, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board recommended to the City Commission approval of a request to include a portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 75, in the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to the CBD development standards. At its meeting of September 27, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the City Commission denial of the text amendment. The City Commission considered this text amendment at its meeting of November 2, 2004 and postponed the ordinance on first reading at the request of the applicant. Meeting Date: December 15,2004 Agenda Item: II.A. HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 2 The applicant has revised the LDR text amendment proposal. The proposal now includes only the south 34.75' of Lot 6 as being developable pursuant to the allowed uses and development standards of the CBD zoning district, which is now before the Board. ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(1), amendments to the Land Development Regulations may be initiated by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board or City Administration; or an individual may request an amendment. The proposed amendment is a privately initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations. CBD Permitted Uses (LDR Section 4.4.24(B)): In 1990, with the Citywide rezoning, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic district, including Lots 5 through 8. Lots 5 and 6 were rezoned from RO (Residential Office) to OSSHAD. Lots 7 and 8 were rezoned from GC (General Commercial) to OSSHAD. The OSSHAD zoning was, and continues to be, a district that provides for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, and promotes the restoration and reuse of existing structures. Permitted uses include single family and duplex dwellings, offices, retail shops, restaurants, arts related businesses, training and vocational schools, libraries and museums, barber and beauty shops, and bed and breakfast inns. Allowed as conditional uses are multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure, outdoor dining, various types of residential care facilities (i.e. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities, nursing homes), parking lots not associated with a use (i.e. public parking), and residential inns. There are several lots located within OSSHAD that may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD. These lots, which are identified in the attachment, include the blocks fronting on Atlantic Avenue on either side of Swinton Avenue (excluding the Old School Square complex), the Neal's Market property, and the east half of Block 76 across from Old School Square. These lots were so identified because their existing or potential uses and/or development pattern were more typical of the CBD than OSSHAD zoning. The effect of the revised amendment would be to add the southern 34.75 feet of Lot 6, Block 75, to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to the CBD development standards. The proposed changes would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established and allow for a wider range of retail, service, and office uses, as well as higher density multi-family residential development. The amendment as submitted modifies LDR Section 4.4.24(B), to allow permitted uses pursuant to the CBD district which will accommodate stand alone multi-family uses which are not currently allowed, and at residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Currently, a maximum density of 10.89 du/ac is allowed in the OSSHAD with residential units limited to single family, duplex or up to maximum of two residential units in a mixed-use structure. The amendment would permit similar uses as allowed on the adjacent Lots 7 and 8 [also zoned HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 3 OSSHAD], which are also part of this overall development. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B)(11), special consideration was given to Lots 7 and 8 given the commercial development history (Neal's Market) of these lots prior to the establishment of the OSSHAD zoning district. CBD Development Standards (LDR Section 4.4.24(F): The applicant has revised the LDR text amendment request to allow the development standards of the CBD to apply to only the southern 34.75 feet of Lot 6. These development standards would allow the increase in the height of the building, reduce the setbacks, increase the lot coverage, reduce the required open space and increase the allowed ratio of floor area for residential units within a mixed-use development. The result of this text amendment would allow an increase in height from 35' to 48'. However, it is noted that per the OSSHAD text amendment adopted on November 16, 2004, an increase in height above 48' is not allowed The proposed text amendment would increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 90% and the reduction of the minimum open space requirement from 25% to 10%. The text amendment would allow parking within the front yard. The parking for a mixed-use development would need to comply with the CBD requirements, which are typically greater for commercial uses and less for multiple family units. The restriction within the OSSHAD zoning district that limits the residential floor area to not more than 50% of a mixed-use building would be eliminated. The following table identifies the changes in the setback requirements between the OSSHAD and CBD zoning districts that would result due to the proposed text amendment as the proposed development was submitted prior to adoption of the downtown design guidelines: Zoning District Front Side Street Side Interior Rear CBD 10' 10' *0' 10' OSSHAD 25' 15' 7.5' 10' *When there is no dedicated access to the rear of any structure a 10' side yard setback shall be provided. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 - Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The property subject to the proposed LDR text amendment is 34.75' wide by 135' deep (4,691.25 square feet). The property to the south (Lots 7 and 8) were formerly occupied by Neal's Market and have the same zoning designations as the subject property. These lots are zoned OSSHAD but are allowed the permitted uses and are subject to the development standards of the CBD zoning district. The text amendment associated with the subject HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 4 property would be complimentary to this property. Furthermore, the text amendment would not create an inconsistency since the southern portion of Lot 5 and remaining portion of Lot 6 are a developable tract of land (8,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size required in OSSHAD) and would maintain the transition between the properties subject to the CBD zoning district regulations and the OSSHAD district. Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1 — Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines". Housing Objective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. The increase in the intensity associated with the additional 34.75'-wide strip of land will be negligible. Since the majority of Lots 5 and 6 will remain under the requirements of the OSSHAD zoning district, a sufficient transition between the subject property and the historic district will be provided. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While the proposed amendment does not fulfill a specific goal, objective or policy, the proposal is not inconsistent with them. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The proposed LDR text amendment is for a 34.75'-wide strip of land that will allow the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD zoning district to apply to the OSSHAD zoned property. A positive finding can be made that the text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) since the remaining portions of Lot 6 and the southerly portion of Lot 5 will remain under the guidelines of the OSSHAD zoning district and provide sufficient transition to the balance of the historic district. Further, the increase in the intensity of the 34.75'-wide strip will be negligible. HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment—Pineapple Grove Limited Page 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION Move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed-Use Project to allow the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD to apply to the southern 34.75-feet of Lot 6 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachments: • Proposed Amendment • Location Map/OSSHAD Lots Subject to CBD Regulations HPB Staff Memorandum LDR Text Amendment— Pineapple Grove Limited Page 6 PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENT FOR BLOCK 75 (B) Principal Uses and Structures (11) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special provisions of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60; (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61; (c) Lots 1-7 and 19-24, Block 69 [Amd. Ord. 47-99 1/4/00]; (d) Lots 7-8 and the South 34.75-feet of Lot 6, Block 75; and (e) Lots 1-6, Block 76. (F) Development Standards: (1) The following locations shall be subject to the standards of the CBD Zone District: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60; (b) Lots 1-4, Block 61; (c) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, Block 69 [Amd. Ord. 47-99 1/4/00]; (d) Lots 7- 8 and the South 34.75-feet of Lots 6, Block 75; and (e) Lots 1- 6, Block 76. J) , , . . . . . k L . 1 , --' , • _ . N.E. 5TH Sr I ' 4 I BEVERLY DR / . .=' .._ 1 . 0 TRINI TY 5TH ST. >, go. 44 4- BOY SCOU T , 1 LUTHERAN ' • : : , . ` ii? (cs HU T ,COMM. g- . vi •t' vi)CHILD . . • WAL- . I CARE . , D GREENS -2-- , : CENTER 1 ---1.._113 ROAD (N.W. 4TH ST.) N E . • 4TH ----0.----' '----- .1 VI •114 51 IIII"M" '5 POST ____._ — 11 - _ ___ ___ • • CASON I OFFICE ---- _a METHODIST a CHURCH il 3 3 1 x a _— a*Mil IS 1P-11718-.-XI _ l a-' a 1- _ ce ce_ . ->" (D _ _ --- — 3RD sr N.E. 3RD sr. . . 24 1 1 9 , . , _ . . _ .--_ ' E... . . - i CITY 8 16 M. 2 ATTORNEY > ''''''M •--1. --: . ,5BUILDING < 11.11. N ---:' : : •i• z ___ : EL. — . . .. • L J 13 12 19120 I EL. 1 : _ — MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE N.W. 2ND ST. N.C. 2ND ST. ..____ • 1 8 EN IN MEd iim um . -_ r CITY 1im1 2 , -HALLIIEEa ,. z -_NW. 1ST ST. i .W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. ., - , I. 1../..'1' MI 7 *I •---I--`• aim m = - 3 COMMUNITY . 12 — FIRE II UDR = I=--- STATION ---• E umi E t.1145-1 .. _ .... TENNIS OLD L• g_o_ • -_a w w _ ;I I STADIUM aN\' \ SCHOOL i ! HI Hi i ,,i il 1 ir-z Hil . : i'I i CkN\ A SQUARE 1 EMI 1 H i 1 " " ' '-‘., ' ' ; ' ' • ' • III Na t , AVENUE i il ' !4- II ATLANTIC • i. , i• t , Jim ! ! -!, ; ; SOUTH 'W' COMPLEX , COUNTY - COURT 5 1 1 In VD fa - , HOUSE 222321 _ - _ 20 TO —< -- / _ . ig I u_i uj e j• 'si > a >< , lo 16 ' 5-I,16 ,Iv • ___._ - ST. S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. SW 1ST - I I I zR) it,-., Ill BUD'S' - - . ' o I I - 11 1_ --- , 7'11 . - 2 - i•• 1 . 6 u, I , Eft fri ui ;-- i i • , - s.w. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST „ — , I I I ' 1 • t . I i i . 0 D I'i I . , . , I . . /n •, :11 — D , CC . U7 ' 1 Z N 41[ OSSHAD LOTS SUBJECT TO C.B.D. REGULATIONS ED OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT(OSSHAD) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT _EXISTING LOTS ': -PROPOSED LOTS 6 a BLOCK NUMBER 5 -LOT NUMBER ../ -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LMAI 22 DCUtAI'OCACH - - -- DCLNAY OCACH imp HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD imp 1II,' MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT lIr .� 7993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: W.E. Brodbeck Roofing Project Name: 799 NE 2nd Avenue Project Location: 799 NE 2nd Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a COA request for the replacement of a wood shake roof with a metal roof on a non-contributing dwelling, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property consists of Lots 1 & 2, Block 12, Del-Ida Park and is situated between NE 2nd Avenue, Palm Court and George Bush Boulevard. The structure is a 2,000 sq.ft. Ranch style structure constructed in 1950 and is considered a non-contributing dwelling within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property is zoned RO (Residential Office) and is currently in use as an orthodontics office. In June 1985, a request was submitted to remodel the building by replacing the existing cement tiles with cedar shakes, and applying rough-cut cedar to the fascia, overhangs, and stucco walls. By May 1988 the roof alterations had been completed and a COA request was submitted to change the application to the walls from rough-cut to 1" x 6" tongue and groove cedar, which was subsequently installed. Project Description The proposed project consists of the replacement of the wood shakes with a "regal blue" Sem-Lok standing seam panel metal roof. According to the contractor, the current roof covering is defective and replacing it with similar wood shakes would result in these defects occurring again in the near future whereas the metal covering will have a longer life span. While re-roofing, either repairs or replacement, is typically reviewed and approved administratively, replacement of a roof with new materials as well as a color change require Board approval. Meeting Date: December 15,2004 Agenda Item: III.A. 799 NE 2nd Avenue-Roof material change from cedar shake to metal • Page 2 ANALYSIS Development Standards LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g, h) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color, and (h) roof shapes with the predominant designs and materials used being visually compatible with the surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following with respect to roofs: Preserve the roof's shapes, decorative features, and materials, as well as its patterning, color, and size. Stripping the roof of its historic material, i.e. slate, clay tile, wood, or architectural metal is inappropriate. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation suggest the following: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Analysis The proposed project is the replacement of a wood shake roof with a "regal blue" Sem- Lok standing seam panel metal roof. The building is non-contributing; however, it is situated on a prominent site at the primary entrance to the Del-Ida Park area and any alteration should be sensitive to the building's architectural style and features and the area's historic character. The proposed roof will not be visually compatible with the dwelling and the proposed replacement is not in-kind as directed by the Defray Beach Design Guidelines or the - 799 NE 2nd Avenue-Roof material change from cedar shake to metal Page 3 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. However, consideration must be given to the facts that the wood shakes are not the original roof covering, the treatment is reversible, and the life span of a metal roof will exceed that of a shingle roof. Also, while this is a non-contributing Ranch style structure in a predominantly Mediterranean Revival style area, a number of other properties in close proximity have replacement metal roofs. On July 16, 2003, the Board approved the conversion of the nearby non- contributing, one story duplex to an office at 230-232 Palm Court which included replacing the asphalt shingles with a standing seam "gavelum" roof. In this case, the proposed roof is "regal blue" in color and the building is currently painted white. The color of the roof will make it stand out and dominate the structure, therefore, if the Board considers the metal roof, the color should be changed to a less dominant color such as that of a "mill finish". Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g, h), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 799 NE 2nd 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 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b), (g) and (h) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Move denial of the COA for 799 NE 2nd Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b), (g) and (h) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 799 NE 2nd 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 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b), (g) and (h) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the proposed color of the metal be changed to a mill finish or a less dominant color more in keeping with the architecture of the subject property and the Del-Ida Park Historic District. Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Roof specification, photographs � " y r, i� . t f tSt , 1, t z. P "{"•�" e �i. a ..' f/ 1 ra",F•('4iifssj,ri ., a .t ,..tip t,1 r - f:"'ir,'d * -l''''• ' ' \\ It Lfi 1 f!/ 1 N r. ¢i 0 t y[t* R %+3'; ,Y , — ..:' 4$;'E5'" 0 1 *. 1t . C 0$.4,it 's '4? ar 4. ;. '1 t.; ' -'"• 7.;•M .. 4 Y / ',' �-.tea "--N,t{r a� . ,• r r Fx i- • ... .,_.•r ,,.✓ as �'Ft !: C 1 �,.r 1 ri xt ar r gp pq r f ttr : i . 74N4‘,.. . 8 , x -► » -a # ' i tWit •ut� ; .�• < # L »,:L `" �=S "`r ...�w -r: �'8 .�Csq."�- s � -� •�.9 °• ' :" .T � 5i, •i _ , ,may'', ,4 r ^ a ao a . '`+' tk , r � '.p .•��= ve .. •f g d ' a., . ai ..l `` :.�^i <,e`.,._Z'... � tk*h ��:r-ti,�r. � ��' 4 A _r PIMA)'BEACIL OELRAY OEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD �IIL MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT ill,- 1993 1993 2001 ., 2001 Agent: Dennis Thompson, City of Delray Beach Community Development Project Name: 144 NW 3rd Avenue Project Location: 144 NW 3rd Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a COA request for 144 NW 3rd Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is situated on the southwest corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and NW 3rd Avenue and contains a 1,472 sq. ft., one-story single family residence. The building was constructed in 1925 in the Frame Vernacular style and is considered a contributing building in the West Settlers Historic District. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-A). On May 10, 2004, administrative approval was given for a new asphalt shingle roof and, in June, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board approved the installation of removable storm panels. Project Description The proposal is the removal of the historic lap siding from the west (rear) and part of the north facades for use in the repair of the south and east (front) facades. New, non- matching lap siding will then be applied to the west and part of the north facades. If enough of the historic siding can be salvaged, the adjoining porch will also be repaired with it; however, if there is a shortfall, new non-matching siding will be used. The non- matching siding will be of the same dimensions as the historic fabric; however, the profile will be different due to the bevel on the top edge which will produce a greater shadow. Corner boards will be installed at the corners of the building to hide the irregularities where the historic fabric meets the new siding. Meeting Date: December 15,2004 Agenda item: III.B. 144 NW 3`d Avenue-Replacement siding _ A Page 2 ANALYSIS Development Standards LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, and (q) consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color which should be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within the historic district. The Delray Beach Design Guidelines state the following with respect to wood siding: Recommended: Repair wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood. Repairs may include limited replacement with compatible materials for those extensively deteriorated or missing parts or features. Replacements should be designed using the existing physical evidence as the pattern so that brackets, moldings, or sections of siding, for example, are based on the original details. Not Recommended: Unnecessarily removing a major portion of wood from a façade instead of replacing or repairing the deteriorated wood. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation suggest the following: The historic character of.a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 144 NW 3`d Avenue-Replacement siding Page 3 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Analysis The proposed method of repair is inconsistent with the Development Standards as a portion of historic fabric will be removed from the rear of the structure unnecessarily and will be replaced with material of differing appearance. The preferred method of repair for this property would be to replace and piece-in only the sections of siding which have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing and to retain the undamaged historic siding in its original position. Employing this method would ensure the historic integrity and authenticity of the structure, avoid any possible damage to the historic lap siding through its removal and re-use, and prevent the noticeable difference in appearance of the non-matching siding. It would only be possible to undertake this method of repair; however, if new lap siding with an identical profile to the historic siding was used. An exact match for the historic siding is available; however, the cost of this will be approximately $11,000 while using the non-matching siding will cost approximately $5,000 and the budget for the restoration has already been exceeded. If the cost of the project determines whether the works will be undertaken or not, then the proposed repairs may be considered as re-using the original fabric is a more appropriate option than its total replacement. The siding to the west façade is currently an unsightly mixture of historic and non-matching material from past repairs (particularly the gable section), therefore the historic authenticity and appearance has been adversely affected. On completion of the works, it is expected that 100% of the east and south facades and 75% of the north façade will comprise of historic siding while the entire west façade will be replaced with non-matching siding. The re-use of the historic siding on the most visible facades will provide the building with an outward historic appearance although, even with the use of corner boards, the non-matching siding will be noticeably different in appearance. The expected difference in appearance can be seen from the attached photograph which shows a section of the northwest part of the building that has been previously repaired using the siding of the proposed new profile. During a site visit, it became apparent that there are two options available for the re-use of the historic siding from the rear of the building: 1) Replace the poorly repaired northwest corner of the building with the historic siding and repair the east and south façades of the porch with the new non- matching siding. This will result in the north façade of the building comprising of 100% historic fabric and, as the porch is set back from the main building and contains a large amount of window area, the aesthetic difference of the new siding will be less prominent although it is visible from the public road. 2) Repair the northwest corner with the new material and use the historic material to repair the porch. The northwest corner of the building has been poorly repaired with siding of the new design where it meets the historic siding. Application of the new material should blend in easily with the non-historic siding. This would also 144 NW 3rd Avenue-Replacement siding Page 4 allow the most prominent facade of the porch to be repaired with the salvaged historic siding. Both of the above options are, however, dependent on how much of the historic siding from the west façade can be re-used. For this reason, it is important that care is taken during its removal and that the work is undertaken only by a company skilled in this type of project. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g), the Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 144 NW 3rd 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 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b) and (g) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Move denial of the COA for 144 NW 3rd Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b) and (g) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 144 NW 3rd 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 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b) and (g) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the Historic Preservation Planner decide where to most appropriately re-use the historic siding once the amount of the available material is known. Attachments: Photographs Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner •nA t f+jf�•,.'F • ' ! "I(, p K�" f' r c.A`d a ih p, r ,., i 1'.. 1 B �r- x' ' �r A x �wy 1 yak i t1 i .. �' "�m�"'^,, e"�fc{ Ae.� ,� tF i.:.,k+irk.'x,M dS F' .... rrr . r �: ��'S� t J r`.'.'"..:, ..:`,1 S. t 4 rg4 4- • � aw i yx y�yn t y.1.' s'r X;!.!' t N '�,.. .,,gs �w,�1 ` a iy x Jl� . ;,;„. .,,, ' rt.,, ,.: . i .. E r✓ ,ql,� K4 ' s .�` -... f yl t Jac s 7 cif tir ,^.. I " +c'._'".xz v' ,y, + H+ .a Y h i /.,•am q,, ♦: v _.R 7 Z N '. Y _i. 7 2 M .. ri-4 � %A.Ii'L' 1 pIV [ r ar tM' YS 4'f '+. 1 9t i.e.. 1;, ?„ I,, t ,Fr,_.,r;. .�' _ pi! s s 717 '* t� YIr,. ! { �I f e trgA�s k x t K 4 N.'ff.R°'ir'.Sxi��,zZrt 'K'aa�.�i ri ' x 3' + '-• ' } - ..F,9.1 . ..._, \ r. "... w.zt.}�'7. rrn �a} .T ''�yr, v:"..F`yr nr .w a e �...,1 fer,^ .nwox ,Y � ,� ,,,, ° h^$, 'ia s s1f�a„s` eta``„4{ -a, ^'z 9-1 bll t '!T" 'tw .'" . r rx Yt4*" rr e'3.ti §+P »r ti » m .+r~ ,'s,'}✓ jf 'Y. df 4t6 T4` NM'' � , .V�' �S 'a^ �' y • r� ,, 1,,, vis.+$-' , otrk r t p, -;.et2 a. as „./? 7` .�x t 4 z.. Md " "�:'�` t%'� ,..•tt:, .. ! ,.. ., .,.''i.,. � rya"Mr ..`.»,�,'Fe..xi,.r. Y.ta S a �J��.+....xeft};a� ,L East Façade South F:ic...:,:,,,,d4::, r I �';ra � N .£.',rl,~ F".�„ t , ,.,k. : ;,,,i4. ti, „.thy 3 ,+,,f � .1rh• ��n � � `.„.5.777 J �' ;� �,+ s+3 73r�r, t.t( �� A1:f � a1 9f� 4r� �. ,�'•+f{Y�¢�, .,0xM1 ,tt,- , r K , +b} it ...1^^^ �."L �t�(} C•. f 4•r •.! y e✓' ✓ ,,�� +fi ° b X °ra-,,- a "40.: r1'"C: r" A, r .,,i l': ,. • .„,,x 1 - J.r e { 11 .'tl� ii I W {�� ,t,74,.. ¢`�,h yu� �`ryrVt�,{�_.. ".1'' �'43, M, A.� 7.:h. a"' 4 '."" ., �rr. J)n'�� a • : f ..Ci.. "l1{ :'.tr'Si / 13 `f_ w S: „.{ , -� r4 ° 7. hr 'k I �' d l^tt'i,+, i•,{..,r , �T.31i� r ��..rsyl f X� ,r.� � . 1 � .� ®� s' - itif�;;y1 r,s�x Mr'di+� • r r r ryr � L+r� • ! �ne7�'''" a�ict k'�'*-a»r° *�f° f 7'1t,Asa si�i"}d ?�`'�. { �"++ '� I� ';i TAf' I } .err r•z / r t : s r .H >KL �,> lb, y- � �� �p �: i� - a ,• ,rro h r ar., � t64 a.,' Sx.G fa.77? R 'r. �� ..' . a b^., `k'is t ., r y� sv � 4 qti hS7.'° . • „t` r >g.,�Pr�,,K�t• d N 1"' a 1 dTRh .tilS. .•,,r.aar.,eS_ 1, iF �X "" n, 1.. ,I' r ML., 'w i ��»«asr,"t+ ,•_mil West Façade North Facade ' -i,::;:.:'.:.,;b: ,i-1:.,::- �' ,.^..` --"` e< 1 `' .vim"fi s :• : .+ '�"'� ,,[[ " A ✓ ,44 ,.'z�w :7' ,. S Tom. 5 `•a4" �.'n f7pr r „� a' (:::t44::E;;:;fk:FA;i::::AL!: ,H;.-F::T:i.Hi''.g4titig#:', r $ .a i � 0'4 ..BAN ., Yi -g}..:'x L ,ti$: ,. ) _ . :z.:� ! x Y 3 ,,. 'Ari s : h N>#� .3 .rr -dr s i �d y r ti r* 4 a u b dr a' f - f �'`-� r a < 7 rni I- �`.. a ,� p5 4 g i 4 � .; 'E.ham' "k }S : P1*i E,it � 1 r5 . fnry ig 3 .� z" a F y r � Y • ff4 M tw' d' T _ { 7 L �. i. ..; Alf: wir17 .m. 3F r _e 3 �'' J` 'v ys�4 �,�r � p C. .Lz. �� L fi A fa The original historic siding is to the left. The non-matching siding to the right is of the same profile as the proposed new siding. DELWIY BEACH DELRAY BEACH Label HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT �II's 1993 1993 2001 2001 Agent: Roger Cope, Authorized Agent Project Name: Rozzo Residence Project Location: 226 North Swinton Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) associated with the construction of an addition to the extant contributing dwelling located at 226 North Swinton Avenue (Rozzo Residence), pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND /PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of the south one foot (1') of Lot 5, Lot 6, and the north one-half (1/2) of Lot 7, Block 58, Plat of Metcalf's Subdivision of Blocks 50 and 58, Town of Delray. Located on the west side of North Swinton Avenue, approximately 286' north of NE 2nd Street, the property is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) and is within the Old School Square Historic District. The property contains a 1,490 square foot contributing, one- story, Spanish Eclectic style single-family dwelling, and a 250 square foot contributing, Frame Vernacular style accessory garage. While the City's records indicate that the contributing single-family dwelling was constructed in 1920, there is no definitive build date for the accessory garage. However, based upon the variation in architectural styles, it would appear that the garage was constructed at a later date, possibly in the late 1920's. The existing swimming pool, located to the rear (west) of the dwelling, was constructed in 1962. Earlier this year the interior and roof of the extant contributing single-family dwelling were damaged by fire. This has resulted in the demolition of the majority of the interior as well as repairs to the roof and electrical systems of the dwelling. Prior to commencing with the reconstruction of the dwelling interior (for which a building permit has been issued), the property owners have elected to move forward with a proposal to construct a two-story addition to the south side of the extant contributing dwelling for which a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) has been submitted. The proposed addition will add 1,888 square feet to the existing dwelling and will consist of two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor and a master bedroom suite on the second floor. It is noted that the construction of the proposed addition and interior reconstruction would occur simultaneously. 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. Meeting Date: December 15,2004 Agenda Item: III. C. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 226 North Swinton Avenue(Rozzo Residence)—Old School Square Historic District(COA 2005-027) Page 2 Future Land Use Element Objective A-4: The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies: Policy A-4.1: Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" 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 guidelines are as follows: (E) (4) A historic site or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E) (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 of 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 historic district. The relationship of the windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (g) 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. (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. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 226 North Swinton Avenue(Rozzo Residence)—Old School Square Historic District(COA 2005-027) Page 3 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommend that: O New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. O New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to additions: O Locate an addition as inconspicuously as possible, usually to the rear or least public side of a building. O Additions or accessory structures should not be located in front of the established front plane of a historic building. O In a historic district, consider the surrounding buildings and the compatibility of the addition in terms of size, scale, materials, mass and roof form. O Insure that the addition is secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the historic building. Additions that overwhelm the original building are not an acceptable solution. Analysis: As noted above, the proposal is to construct a 1,888 square foot, two-story addition on the south side of the extant contributing single-family dwelling. The addition will be constructed in the same Spanish Eclectic style as the extant structure as well as being compatible with regard to massing, size, scale and architectural features. However, the addition will be clearly differentiated from the original building. This differentiation will be ensured principally by the height of the addition, but also by the use of a hipped roof as opposed to the flat roof found on the extant structure. As mentioned above, height is one of the differentiating characteristics between the addition and the extant historic structure. While differing from the original building, the height of the addition (approximately 24') will be visually compatible. Further, the addition is approximately 23' wide as compared to the original structure which is approximately 35' wide. Thus, the addition will not overwhelm the original building and the height of the addition and use of the hipped roof is consistent with the Spanish Eclectic style of architecture. The height as well as the massing, size and scale of the addition will also be compatible with the surrounding buildings within the district. While one-story buildings are the most prevalent within the district, there are numerous two-story buildings as well. The addition will consist of a barrel tile roof to match the existing and aluminum framed casement windows in the same style as the extant historic building. The palm tree medallion found on the extant building will be replicated and used on the addition. The relationship of the openings in the addition and the materials, textures and colors (white with pale blue accents) of the addition will be consistent with those of the extant building as well as being visually compatible with the overall district. It is noted that the design of the addition, while consistent and compatible with the original structure, is such that it could potentially be utilized separately from the extant historic dwelling. Historic Preservation Board Memorandum Staff Report 226 North Swinton Avenue(Rozzo Residence)—Old School Square Historic District(COA 2005-027) Page 4 As such, modifications to the proposed floor plan may be necessary to eliminate this potential, and staff will work with the applicant to this end. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard Sections 2.4.6(J) (5) and 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations as well as 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 for 226 North Swinton Avenue (Rozzo Residence) by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k), 4.5.1(F) and 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 226 North Swinton Avenue (Rozzo Residence) by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k), 4.5.1(F) and 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 226 North Swinton Avenue (Rozzo Residence) by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4), (E) (7), and (E) (8) (a-k), 4.5.1(F) and 4.5.1(J), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Attachments: Survey, Site Plan,Floor Plan and Architectural Elevations Memorandum Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner , - 441111 I Ir f'RODULY SERVING PALM BEACH, BROWARD,DADE,MARTIN AND ST.L.UCIE COUNTIES WITH OVER 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE SINQ NOR l H S W eN i ON Atl E.svia. 914 857.44' N0138'S2`W K — 76.00'— t, N0138'52W — 41630. 3' NO.18'i_14 COMER •,, 21 PAIl�lT TOM R/N 's> 1�4 .. ' COMER �.1... 7' W s t N \ ‘-re,17 :')I.a /474 -\ /4'7' a: v ca Di 16•PA46MlY N .w�. `' , a o t° T Ni '1 off > Wi—e- -r—o—�—i6 ce O'L' ��>> �>1ze& �r 76.00' NO1 52N1 �� y.-Cl. 4 2.62.61 .:� ��i K � 4. i 6�r i" ® UW114 1 j4 Z I1- 0.Oa1C Q O ` 1 J ;E < < i! i c-,7,1 mew zi-- ,,t,.. -41 N I1 1 P , 29.97' I �41 1 .71 �212.86 tom . 113 LOT-5 Ell 19.45' 1Z BOC - LOT-6 1 2.0 5' 1 - wt-3F a �,>101-5 3.00' 1-ST CRY M LOT-7 LOT-7 4I ..,.: g7 BLOCK-58 3LOC(--51 8!OCC-58 o F �1� BLOCK-58 MAKER I .=' c.2 GAR. ELEY.=29.84' .il'' +I 11 ;0 10.80'' 11.65' a 3 0.43' le-- vv� i it,i ,__A_,, o + 2:y WOOD ° ' 'b v? I ley_ 2.80 42.20'I 1 CM / p, 11.1 n. j;i PUW1 ;o , a 0.87'1 1 i ,I � ' 62.71' ) . 2.02' <f91 tit ' .40 %�-, hi 1 1 . * _. �? 1 0.96' i f 2.40' ;.:1 62.62' 9 + O C +, t. . �. �t 'ate:"4 - s , o�4`i' ��� {.. SM. • =. .. f CUM A:OlJT ' -• cs ii.'B I IIDOD 76.00' 4.9 138'52'E 4,, "'o ,,, _ it ALLEY -ia a, —b—e—e— o—o—o—a—o—„—a—o T,—o—e—e-1*--' .e s o r o LOT--20 LOT 10 LOT 18 LOT 17 BLOC(-58 BLOCK-56 BLOCK-58 BLOCK-56 SCALE: 1"=20' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS ROOM BOUNDARY MO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. WAN LEGEND: PHONE BOX ca.) POWER POLE CI CATCH BASIN 4p FIRE HYDRANT -0 _ALUMINUM FENCE -_-CHAIN LINK FENCE g CABLE BOX * LIGHT POLE OD WATER METER Q SAN. MANHOLE —_ OVERHEAD 'WIRE -.-«-WOOD FENCE LE 04-1e661 I a►E. ss/Y•jw DRAW BY:CADECIDED BY: ILL. FS/P& 1 11 1 14 1 1 A PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: i ., MI $E•A.CmCE,CANARD.r MACES 17R It.CeCE II TOTAL MACES IOONOD. ).ACED - -------------G--151-0,-ALLEY—R.a:PER-P1�T------------------ PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 11 $7000O MACESRo r .10ED• I MACES (AA rIV.'CED OT M CWtN I WW1.Perm To W. I I TOTAL M/41 r11DJl0m• !WAGE! TM ICON ICO'Q LOT I,ALL O LOT...TM HORni VI O•LOT IL MOCKN.RAT OP TCA MLMo O)0 DooCLOD.N 1 M TOW O DLLRAT,rLORCA ACCOOD1tl TO O! 0 I _ TI.'1'..TTY1N YM .�.__� RAT 110lO CAI NLINM OfKL aTar 0.IIKOMCIICLR COOT 100 TOO C�- ,— rAfl NACU CQMY,LLOOOA NCOIOLD.1 MAT!JOCK ID.At rM!Al MGRCT TO AL RORCR0O.R.LR�ATIONA 1A.LS011T.MD VId(TKr-WY O POCOICK L Moms R10 20 N1Y1. `r% I f �Vt�V' --- --. - "°'^ `..--•------ o A --- PROPOSED PROJEC DATA:EXISTING PROJECT DATA: — �- - i OODIC ROALID AM .000E EO R..nw OEm 01 01 FLOM AMA- «11.000 EQ R. «r1M CV An EXISTING / / MIKM.IA,AAIE,Y. .TEYO En R. «Eq OE,r! rA1Kr l0SC AIOAE• .1s1E0 SCOT. .MONK O4ENLAfd . MACE• «OO.WNSR. ..00001E CrO 5025$.�MACE. «LOCO EO.R. «1U00ERE • WIOr OLOE:.• «/WPE. rpONf! W1OI OODEI.• .O..R. rpONR K TOTALS• «♦YE00 Ni rt. 0000WTI TOTALS• .4YES0 ea R. OM OME 1 i ZONED: I 0L01R/ID rR9CN(D OaD1n E.MOW . WWI DWIECIlD,0.10.1 D0017 0*11 TAIO• .L-0' .BYO. OLD 000OL 10Y101YT0RC ARTS DOTRCT NE.srt luO.R Ep TAIO. «10T•Y -/'�. rmwwDwrw. OMPAINT RTA , ^ ::::::./--- V i .-30A3' .-9329' .m -j rRDrdED PIPIT TAM. 00100m Z , --. r1.C1.OM®010.R NOf TWO• IIL-.WOED EXISTING I-STORY r.,HIEDYI NDETI.O• ,•.• Lai rlvrCVED ROW TWO. uowYED GARAGE �*i z - erolNrerE,elau.+ �j ROOF �eY,N.e.ra,a leu.. H M o I �Ti � N � 1.nwl ma rim.a rem 10 KV..O..TN-- 39997 / Nit 0 �J%�iFe9A'�// uawoDRA¢rroCE.rArtmoartE >�"0 r ^^n - LOCATWON.COMM.Ye-- 1 _ . ..sratr,,--) , I yII A%�Fi 1. ��� jI i I axa woo rWT wroRle.'ArmDEEN anAnL '`0 WU 2 PROPOSED 2-STOR b - �// laa z, 1 IK I �j I!�p5 WOOD FENCE DETAIL Al Ii//i'f'.S7/1ram.. I/J I6 .x.r. y f 1 E ,'�I -s-C E'/'��fS� [EE I NOORETM AI.C..RO,II.AL WM.,Al NIIR J Nm Cab�TE rAD Al Onto -� F /' / / 1 I Q• 1 �� t ' —I EXISTING I-STORY ff /� , I; j RESIDENCE °�� E TTr1O4,.Ov'L Ort10.4Y AT lD ROoO.ION-- I I / I / // OM1n�_WS 1.1111110 FYW.W• '.T) aZ), ` .. ;T ��A.A ADD. N7RY 8 D --I .-2911' .3230 ^-�..q.,,, i- - ------__- --I ---�-------------- EXISTING — . DRIVE P west PROJECT m NORTH ¢ I - N I :I EXISTING i °Milik'- PANT south - north - Korn Rom rP.03 ie — T'T-T -4`.F"—b—.L P7�w7 I -r ,�� 24.1 el edst CAD KILE Date • - 1 / \ / I \I\ A VW ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Drawing TA, g - EDI. .I,0' A ------ --.E44 s� E---- A1 .0 •1001111,17.41.MN FLAW ® COPE MOM[CR,IC.,20W ENE0 ow.AM4Lr.l1nT r ..' - r....•.......r _ Of I I 2 A 1A I I1 I 12 Is 1< 1 1 . 1 I 2 1 3 1_ U 1 5 1 6 _I 7 / e 1 9 1 1D I I 1 1 12 1 113 I 14 I 1 Ili 1 1 N 1 j I .4 1 j 1 1 8 $ 1 ! , I 1 1 j 1 1 ii: 1 , / 1 - I 1 1 _ I F 1 / 1 j i 1 1 I N xr.• • .` ' FLORIDARO PORCH i/ K O 167Or1 I / 88 1 \�+yx I / \/ C.) 0 1 \ ROOM r BEDROOMR /I Q'F. 1/ LAI 7 1-.-- ,,,, , i S5� Q - � �I t I — DINING1 �€ o H. Q. T e 4 0�' 4 cew O �� O I IClDIC)OPI - "O©' • 1 L pArHALL HALL Q D '— '01\ p / IWCM i \ _ f 0IR j G E i ` ) OIET Lel !1 LIVING ! 1 .., 1 ' ! filler 1 WC K T i Y B E DlDROOI'1 Q p A eee u iL EL. i 1.� \I II` Q k$ OTICL pyp D •1 O O © - , PORCH - jl J ! �p1 �y rl VJ VJ TRUE 1 , I 1 — i - I �E q �19 �A'lid'IIR 1 I I 1 1 I 1 NOR�F I 6YM6OLB LEGEND, WALL LEGEND, # C � / Q nccm1. • • jgT„^Prr ruauwu gm men..oe.o•w, �g" I , Ml •Ill,lOW P.M. 8 $S8 BB y�j- II OA DOOw IYA.•r•G6LLr Mp.IM M>>m r/.RfnYK•r rlA1L X✓MI �^ Ci" N z �L,e��b�\ ��-///o���o'''ollwrx+l•�Y- �\ ... ai.na mow.tutors.,ro wow/ n../. 1 _'_' y1M• eaNara.ler[faWac OID4.J1 3 m 1 16T FLOOR PLAN D.Fc. SAD-FILE • ---------'--"-- i nua.w•.r•r q. �.--- AREA,BTTIOf•1-IBT_FLOQRAI�A ,,,,xe,xoae _ 1 1 I0,4 M., w.W u. A 1 EXIBMG FLOOR AREA. A2 FLOOR PLAN .., �N .vw. A2.O Irj w.vc rn.nc.xoa 1/4..1.-0. I . •r. - _-.e "" — of — - • 1 4 1 i 1 I. 1 / I h 1 9 I II 1 11 1 12 1 13� 14 !•/ J 2 I 2 i 4 1 5 I 5 I 7 I B 1 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 1 14 1 I N 8 N C C 1. fr.o ) K V . _ - Z CI J 41 .._OTp IR 4 S U z L I _ re 6 A C H H ti` I� ♦— 0 I N !I 4 f _� T740TlR L !�lDRDGt1 C.1 - 4 Z t0 GLOEET 1 e Q u�° @ --I > v T i s,� T IL 0 i DATIROOM .\-- F E TRUE B B. 1 NORTH - 811115OLE LEGEND. WALL LEGEND. £ �r - wrrww.mu, �*,*T'[p waif uu�nn.n.emw maw., N z 0Doenlmn w.e�urt wM�w low r w Q / �� Mne Nrfolt MUT.Y.n flow. U \✓— vTMv a1 M1u.mlw toroet<'xwc 2004]t i In2N0 FLOOR PLAN coo CM N.FILE E NEW CONSTRUCTION 2ND FLOOR AREA. u,'„25,2001 YwaLL.Y M•..0•/.W A2 FLOOR PLAN A3.0 .1 p co.[„. cz,rrc.,,00, of I -. . 4 1 s 1 A I , I b i y i 10 i II I It . 13 I 14 7 1 # 7 # 3 1 e , S i E i 7 i 8 1 9 i 10 i 11 # 17 i 11 t. 14 i - * lwrw.w TARO.ere.oK ue v 1. 1 I .'^ll,..wwwwwwlwrwwwrwwwrwwww• so 1. @' • I I k II 1- 50,1e11w uAe.1Ru ROOF TO 1.0010IN MI #1111. :■ .. . .. .. Metsn entco ro wuH w ' ME EM ME E ME ME 4 111 iii 11.q IRCFI 0 Z , 111.0.AR - Hey cacfllc.Xie+i a.ov,e� .wn,a 9. CC I y exiecen*o sc um N .i :- EAST ELEVATION ,a w„aTARP K„ACK N O; a. O 0 . N NI c — O CZ U - 'fir 1 �/ ��F '1-7 11~ a BYE _ . v, ; .... F i 1 Ery • 1L W g 1 a0 aqt1 / 3 '.:.'E._ _ on ii-ii [Jun . •.... / � oo ,00aa OD o . E,Ie1DO.ORIT14I9 NEW CONSTRUCTION Drown 0 WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION z00;.,; CAD_FILE c Crossing m 000. • N 1 A4 I PROPOSED ELEVATION _ _ _ _ A4.O 1/4'#41'-03 CODC MCM 9,2.3,INC..]DDJ of