Loading...
HPB 12-15-04 (2) �,� c� AGENDA C,` HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING c •� � 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 2"d 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 3`d 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. 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 OW Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: December 9, 2004 1 1 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 LOCATION: First Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Maura Dersh, John Miller, Jeffrey Silberstein, Michelle Reich and Linda Lake MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Robert Tefft, Denise Valek, and Brian Shutt I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:00 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. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Mr. Silberstein stepped down. A. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.4.24(B) (11) and 4.4.24 (F) (1). 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. Chairman Perez 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. 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 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 considered this text amendment at its meeting of November 2, 2004 and postponed the ordinance on first reading at the request of the applicant. 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. Staff is recommending approval to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Jeffrey Silberstein, Architect, for the project, advised the Staff Report is clear and concise and we agree with the recommendations. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Reich questioned if we were going to 48'. Mr. Silberstein advised they scaled the project down significantly. First Avenue garage and .commercial space will be 3 levels, 4 levels and 2 levels. Apartments have been taken away they are going to be town homes. That particular parcel where the apartments are will remain in the OSSHAD district and be decreased from 80' instead of 114'. That will allow it to remain as a buildable lot and there will be a duplex. First Avenue will now have frontage of town homes with 25' setbacks. Chairman Perez advised this will be a lower intensity project being requested, and that is why staff is recommending. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Reich, and passed 5 to 0 to move a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the request for approval of the Land Development Regulation Text Amendment for the Pineapple Grove Limited Mixed- Use Project to allow the permitted uses and development 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). Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 799 NE 2"d Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, William Domeyer, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider 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. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Mr. Adams presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. 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. 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. Mr. Adams advised the applicant was not present; however, he requested the blue roof because he was going to install the historic shutters as well. However, he is willing to discuss the Board's recommendation. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Dersh advised the blue would make it stand out too much. The paint colors should have been presented tonight, and advised she would like to see a lighter or a white roof. Mr. Adams advised the manufacturer would only guarantee the material on the top of the board. Ms. Lake advised she does not have a problem with the metal roof, as the building needs to be refurbished. However, I have a problem with picking the color for the applicant. A more subtle color would be suitable. Ms. Reich advised blue was inappropriate; and preferred a neutral color. Mr. Silberstein advised the lighter materials such as the colonial white or the onyx gray is more appropriate, and felt the blue was too commercial. He recommended the applicant to choose a gray or white tone. He questioned if the house was going to remain white. Mr. Adams advised it will remain white. The applicant also questioned if the Board could recommend a color for the shutters. Mr. Adams passed around a photo of the shutters. We 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 could vote on the metal roof tonight but I would have to get back to him and discuss the color for the shutters. Mr. Adams advised he would advise the applicant that the Board preferred the lighter metal roof, and come back with more details relative to the shutters. Ms. Dersh asked if he was painting the fascia. Mr. Adams advised he hasn't mentioned what color he is painting the fascia. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Reich, and approved 4 to 1 (Ms. Lake voted no) to 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 Section 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 chromatic with a choice of the following Sem-Lok metal roofing colors in keeping with the architecture of the subject property: Slate gray, onyx gray and, colonial white. B. 144 NW 3rd Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Dennis Thompson, City of Delray Beach Community Development Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the repair and replacement of the siding of an existing residential 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. The subject property is situated on the southwest corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and NW 3` 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. 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. 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 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 at the corners of the building to hide the irregularities where the historic fabric meets the new siding. The preferred 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 facade 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 that 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 allow the most prominent façade of the porch to be repaired with the salvaged historic siding. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 The recommendation is to move approval subject to the following condition: 1) That the Historic Preservation Planner will decide where to most appropriately re-use the historic siding once the amount of the available material is known. The applicant was not present. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Lake asked if the $11,000 was for the identical siding. Mr. Adams advised yes. Mr. Silberstein inquired if Mr. Adams would check the progress of the work. Mr. Adams advised he would be certain that they are using the existing siding in the northwest corner. Mr. Silberstein inquired if this was the CRA's building and if they had a construction budget for this project. Mr. Adams advised yes, and they were over budget and cost is paramount. Mr. Silberstein advised this is a signature building for the street, and the CRA should do the job properly. I don't think that $11,000 vs $5,000 is a large number. Mr. Silberstein advised that Mr. Adams should not have to go out and look at every board. Mr. Silberstein asked if the CRA was assisting with the reconstruction or do they own it. . Mr. Adams advised they were assisting with the reconstruction. Chairman Perez asked if the applicant agreed with staff's recommendations. Mr. Adams advised he agreed with the recommendation once he sees how much siding from the side of the building can be salvaged then we will determine where it will be used. Mr. Silberstein inquired if Mr. Adams would approve the new siding that was utilized. Mr. Adams advised that would be up to the Board to make a recommendation on whether the new siding should be as the same profile as the historic site, and using existing siding. Mr. Miller advised he is glad they are saving that building and asked if they were going to renovate the porch. Mr. Adams advised they would be renovating the porch. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Ms. Lake inquired if the profile would be identical to the original, and wouldn't it be more expensive. Mr. Adams advised that is where the cost will come in. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 144 NW 3`d 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 decides where most appropriate reuse of the exterior siding once the amount of the available material is known. A motion was made by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 6 to 0 to move Item III. C. to the end of the Agenda. D. Mako Technologies, 145 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Agent. Item Before the Board: 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): Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements. Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, advised this is a demolition, and in regard to the ordinance we have and what you can look at. There is a provision in the Ordinance that says that unless there are four votes to deny a COA, the COA passes. This pertains to all COA's. There is language in the Ordinance that provides that the Board can deny a COA for demolition. However, there is also a provision if the applicant shows undue economic hardship. You can't deny it if he has proof of undue economic hardship, and there is criteria you would follow. If you approve the demolition but want to give staff or the applicant time to talk to see if something can be worked out you can stay the demolition for a six-month period. That stay starts tonight, if there is a stay. Even if you table the item or postpone it the six-month period starts to run tonight. The stay comes into place if you approve the demolition but you want to allow the applicant and staff to attempt to work out something else. At the end of that six- month period the applicant can demolish the structure. Mr. Miller questioned if you deny the COA for demolition that only gives us six months. Mr. Shutt advised if you deny it, the applicant can always appeal to the City Commission. However, if the applicant (in your opinion) presents evidence to show where there is an undue economic hardship and you feel there is an undue economic hardship, and you don't like this project you cannot do that. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the project file into the record. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of North Swinton Avenue and NE 2"d Street and consists of 0.23 acres. 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 property is considered a contributing structure within the Old School Square Historic District. The Board previously at its meeting on June 21, 2000 did approve renovations to the home to bring it to the state that it is in now. The proposal before the Board is the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage, and the subsequent replacement with a three-story, Gothic Revival style mixed-use building consisting of an office on the first two floors and residential on the third floor plus an 11 space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the structure. For the demolition, pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) (1), the HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluation the application for the COA: (a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. (b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. (c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. (d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. (e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what affect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. The structure to be demolished is a highly visible contributing single-family dwelling. Both structures have been renovated and are in good condition. While the above criteria may provide justification for the demolition of the structures, the building proposed to replace this is architecturally incompatible with its surroundings. Staff is recommending that the architect meet with staff to find other solutions to retain the structure. Whether that is by putting on an addition and the Board has the authority to grant variances that may be helpful in finding ways to put an addition on the building that would enable the applicant to use the property for what their ultimate design is to make it at least more closely what they want to do with it. Staff's recommendation is that the Board postpones the demolition. However, if the Board wishes to approve the demolition then it is recommended that the demolition be stayed for a period of not less than six months. Mr. Jeffrey Silberstein, Architect for the project advised as the report notes, we tried very hard to work with the existing structure. In the end the best solution is the one we presented. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Staff writes "While the above referenced criteria may provide justification for the demolition of the extant contributing structures if we redesign the building". I am not sure how to work this presentation because the design elements are another area that is part of this whole thing. Mr. Shutt advised Mr. Silberstein to go ahead and make the presentation. Mr. Silberstein advised that staff wrote "The building's architecture is not compatible with LDR Section 4.5. (E) (8) and recommended approaches to new construction as per Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The building is modernistic in its design. The proposed structure is not in keeping with other buildings along Swinton Avenue. Mr. Silberstein circulated a hand out taken from page 47 Section VI. of the Reconstruction Program entitled Do's and Don'ts printed from the Delray Beach web site. Take a look at the yellow highlighted areas. APPLICABLE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS 1. All infill must be compatible with the surrounding buildings and yet must be differentiated from the historic building stock. The proposed design is compatible with the surrounding and does differentiate itself. 2. Replication and mimicry are unacceptable approaches to new design. The design is a contemporary interpretation of the Gothic Vernacular style it is not replicated, it is traditional in its value and stands on its own. 3. History is a continuum, where today's contributions will at some time in the future, be judged for their impact. Without a clear distinction between what is historic and what is contemporary, development patterns become blurred and the outcome can create a false sense of historical development. Therefore, do not judge the building for its impact today, but judge it for what it contributes in the future. Mr. Silberstein advised from the Planning and Zoning Historic Preservation Program Do's and Don'ts, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Program does welcome contemporary infill. We complied. Other facts, page 4, across the street there are two new buildings that are three stories high and much larger in floor area. A recently approved project, Ascot Development, is just over 3,200 sq. ft. and required in-lieu parking; it is a three-story house. Design meets all setback and height requirements as per the LDR Section 4.3.4.(K) Development Standards Matrix. The design promotes an excuse, we are not asking for waivers, variances, or in-lieu parking. Regarding demolition, we spent a few months seeing how we could meet the owner's program. If you have read the excerpt that staff printed in the report, we explored so many ways of doing this. I think what we are doing here is a beautiful design and the best solution. The owner of the house is here tonight. She does not want to demolish the building; there are several people in the community who want the house. The owner will either relocate it or sell it. In conclusion, Delray Beach and its architecture is the inspiration to go with the contemporary interpretation of the Gothic style. Swinton Avenue and the adjoining area are distinguished by many architectural styles and yet all these styles are compatible with one another because they are so different. Staff's report is clear, the 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 project generally meets all the LDR requirements, but the structure should be redesigned to be architecturally compatible with its environment. Mr. Silberstein had a page reprinted from the book entitled A Field Guide to American Houses, section Romantic Houses Gothic Revival. You can see where the inspiration came from. My client and I want what is best for the community. We want your support and value your comments. Do not deny this design and if you must, then give us direction. Mr. Silberstein showed some homes that have been approved in the past. We are proposing that the roof is a shingle, the building would be white and all the windows would be stained. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, advised since 1989 she has been working to save private and public buildings in Delray Beach, and this is the first time she has seen a demolition and it is shameful. She wanted to give the Board the opportunity to withdraw it right now. She is totally opposed to the demolition of the structure, as it is in mint condition and visible on Swinton Avenue. She consulted with one of the largest developers in Delray Beach today. As the request is for a 3,190 sq. ft. addition, the existing structure could be remodeled, grant the applicant some in-lieu parking, and give him a variance. She urged the Board to go to staff and the CRA to take it back to the drawing board and try to add on to the existing structure. Ms. JoAnn Peart, 107 NW 9th Street, advised she agreed with everything Ms. Patton said, and we should be careful about what we preserve in the district. If we get a reputation for being lax we are going to lose what we have. I haven't seen the definition of hardship, what is a hardship? Please deny it. Ms. Aleida Riley, 65 Palm Square, requested the Board to deny the demolition of a wonderful example of a historic property. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. Mr. Tefft advised that Section VI under New Construction and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines states all infill must be compatible with the surrounding buildings and yet must be differentiated from the historic building stock. To be successful, this new design should reflect the significant themes in its environment and will include attention to: Height, Roof form, Massing, Rhythm of openings, and Scale. All things that we outline that we do not feel this does. The roof pitch is much steeper than you find in traditional or craftsman homes that are prevalent in the area, the windows are almost floor to ceiling, and the orientation of the front door is not visible and is off to the side. There is no real front door presence. The mass is pushed toward the front. On these grounds we do not feel it is compatible with the surrounding homes. Mr. Silberstein stated the owner would not demolish it. If that is the case, the COA for the demolition should be withdrawn. Mr. Silberstein advised the style is Gothic Revival and that is what differentiates it from other structures. You can make a condition that we do not demolish it. 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Ms. Lisa Casey, owner of the property, advised she likes the building and what they have done with it. I refuse to demolish it and I will relocate the house before I do anything with the property. However, the property is insufficient at its present size. We attempted to work through extending, but it did not work out for us. That is why we would rather relocate it. We want to build another property that is appropriate for the area, which we feel this is. Mr. Miller advised he would not vote for demolition. Chairman Perez advised that based on the applicant's presentation there is no support for demolition. Ms. Dersh questioned if demolition mean taking this house to the ground, and advised she would like to see that this building is saved. Chairman Perez advised demolition is before us. Board discussion continued and they concurred that they want the structure saved. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, advised making the motion in the affirmative that you go ahead to approve the demolition. A yes vote means we will demolish it and a no vote means you will not demolish it. The motion would be to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition for both buildings at 145 North Swinton Avenue pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) (1). It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Lake and denied 5 to 0 to approve the demolition of the buildings at 145 North Swinton Avenue main residence and garage pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) (1) and to enact a stay of six (6) months prior to subject demolition taking place. Mr. Shutt advised the COA would have to come back to the Board to move the house. However, you cannot proceed until the other COA comes forward that say we can move the house. Does the Board want to give direction to the applicant? You can't take action on the COA regarding the structure you see if front of you now. Chairman Perez advised they are willing to accept variances and in-lieu fees to save the house. Mr. Miller advised if it is moved and something else is built how do we know it will fit. I like the building but this is not the place for it. Chairman Perez thinks the building is totally incompatible with the neighborhood, and it should be built along the lines of the Ascot building. Ms. Dersh advised moving toward the Gothic style needs to be looked at again. It can be modified to be more fitting to the neighborhood. Ms. Reich advised she likes the design but it is not suitable for that area. Ms. Lake did not like the massing of the windows. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Mr. Silberstein advised we would either relocate the house or come up with a different concept. Mr. Tefft advised relocating the house would need to come first or be simultaneous with the new design. Mr. Tefft mentioned that if the house is moved, the Board could look at a demolition on the garage. It can be revisited at that time. C. Rozzo Residence, 226 North Swinton Avenue, Old School Square Historic District, Roger Cope, Agent. Mr. Silberstein returned to the Board. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of an addition to the extant contributing dwelling. Chairman Perez 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. As such, modifications to the proposed floor plan may be necessary to eliminate this potential, and staff will work with the applicant to that end. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made. Staff is recommending approval. 12 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Mr. Silberstein advised he does not think the hip roof works with the existing house. Mr. Silberstein recommended that the roof be redesigned to either have a gable or parapet in keeping with the architecture of the existing structure Ms. Reich advised it is not offensive, however if we want to keep it authentic, Mr. Silberstein is correct. Chairman Perez advised he agrees with the Board's comments. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 6 to 0 to table this item until the end of the meeting as Mr. Cope was still at the SPRAB meeting. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments - none B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members Ms. Reich advised she was disappointed with the vote relative to the new historic districts. Ms. Dersh asked if there were a lot of people from the public present. Mr. Adams advised there were not as many as at the last meeting. Ms. Reich inquired if it could come up again. Mr. Tefft advised it could be initiated again, but I don't know if there are any plans at this point. We would want to wait for more properties to go to contributing from non-contributing. D. Staff Mr. Adams advised the homeowners of the house at 32 Palm Square have not applied for permits to do any work on the house. They have painted it, cut the trees back and taken out the driveway. Unfortunately, I have not been able to speak with the owners. Staff recommended that this issue be taken to Code Enforcement, and they will send a letter to the owners requesting that they apply for a COA. Discussion ensued relative to the changes made to the home. III.C. Rozzo Residence (Continued) As Mr. Cope was still at the SPRAB meeting, Chairman Perez advised we should go forward with Item III.C. and approve with a condition relative to adding a gable or parapet to the roof. The Board concurred that we should go forward with the motion. 13 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 15, 2004 Mr. Shutt advised if you approve the COA with a condition, and if Mr. Cope disagrees he would have to come back. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0 to 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 subject to the following condition: 1. That the roof be redesigned to either have a gable or parapet in keeping with the architecture of the existing structure. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for December 15, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on February 16, 2005 / 1Z/-)-L' Z .d 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 w DHRAY.BEACH ..- DEFRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 111 1iii�► MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT III,► 1993 1993 2001 2001 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGARDING A PRIVATELY INITIATED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT (REVISED) FOR THE PINEAPPLE GROVE LIMITED MIXED- USE PROJECT. I`TEM ,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. B:.ACKG'ROUND, 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 cart_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. ,ASSE-SSMENT 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. • ! ' -( / N.E. 5TH T. ST. r j Z. 4 4- BOY SCOUT ' ` LUTHERAN o' ,TRINITY N'E. 5TH Si. - i o COMM. HUT z • u • 2 �,CHILD . vi N CARE Y z GREENS • cENR : RoAD TE /-...,zO (H.W. anT sr.) NE. aiH 1_ sr. LJ _s i -.- 1d 15 POST - r y ._ CASON OFFICE -- __ METHODIST -- - CHURCH / _ - a < -: _ _ ��y a w w a —_ __a a a NJ -- - I o 0 16 -n1 I I` I` I -- 1 Is 15 1 18 — -- 3RD ST. N.E. ' 3RD • t NW.I i— 2d 1 1 9 I Id !III!!;;; .=11j5T_— i L C i CITY W B is ,_ '2�� I • j ATTORNEY > `" 1-- o BUILDING ¢ i 3 MI i 13 1 — I a ; I I i .� I I 13 12 19 120! 1 12 13 i t it i I I �_ '-- MARTIN LUTHER ' KING/R.Y DRIVE N.W.2ND ST. N.E. 1 2ND -' _ 1,1191 Iffitr7A BM ME I 11111,., _ CITY ill Milli z '•• re - -- .M_M. 1111 M. ! .7: ..r • D 11 WM • rpo IIIMIIIII —X H LL - �,. II. N ti,.! Z - __ gli= gym wallow-w I ' II Illi 15T ST. I W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST - S Oil . : : . • MINIM II ... I. 7 1111 WW1 L.,*9.1!=- . - ., ,. > I , i • _ _ . —_ _ ___.z - z= COMMUNITYea z to 1 r < -----¢ _ .— __z �� �z CENTER Q �a I o x - _x - FIRE M HEM ... \ ' d 1- ~ — STATION =• ®g E _ C TENNIS i2 OLD ►�A'®a w --Li____ i _— STADIUM t3\�`11A SCHOOL i , I 1 i i® III III W l i l i_c Z IN . , Z SOUARE I ; ' mil r is I Na I III I I I I Iq I I ii II i i- ATLANTIC � • AVENUE 1 ! 't I i POLICE I SOUTH ( ' ! I 1 \\® 1 i,_ , 1� 'I ! i 1 l i i' i ! 1 ;1/// Iiil -IIHIn li _ COMPLEX I COUNTY I �` I - 1 HOUSE 5 II HOUSE __ 'a _ < I aC a ' - a > w w 0 > Q 111 - 1 10 ib IS ,16j I1� SAL__ 1ST ST. S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. - - I 1 I I j I WI I ZRI 1 1 I 1" im Z BUDS - 2 I r rn-wrAlLj :1 ,,, • -- I 1 — I I ,-L. -- I I S.W. 2ND ST_ S E. 2ND i. !—— . , i t , II i � i i l l 1 — o — _ii — I II , I I 1 1 i _i_E D - N O 0 N OSSHAD LOTS SUBJECT TO C.B.D. REGULATIONS --Nom.-- OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT(OSSHAD) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ®-EXISTING LOTS --?-4 -PROPOSED LOTS 6 Oi-BLOCK NUMBER 5 -LOT NUMBER -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LMAI22 • DEFRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD �IIi► MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1!NJ3 1 JJ3 1001 :001 Agent: W.E. Brodbeck Roofing Project Name: 799 NE 2"d 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 2"d 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: IIIA. 799 NE 2"d 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, (q) 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 Delray Beach Design Guidelines or the 799 NE 2"d 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 e COA for 799 NE 2"d 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 2"d 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 2"d 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:Wan-en Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Roof specification, photographs ' ',".-•' '',, , 1,'`..,:11.411144,11.I!,..*.:.,,,`tiff;it, pt Viio ,Wi �sJl � � t•rkt 7 i t v � . ; l'',..-• .,=.', -.:',°,12/^'-•//1 : 41-14.1,461'!:5==t),S. ; .•••(',„-., 4.;.. ''''it':;? '•"R ' i 1? Tc > 'tea. 1, • ✓'r• •' ' a 4 p . rk>`ti r9d�g"s A` 1• .• � .! �, �q-'i' -.>; 1 ! f +' ...- ./r+ I •e4 s�r60d�_ IJ • • r, ,y ,.... t sw..rorw. .rr:yr' ,-x •ham. v"` 'tl fie r:. �Ty'44 .s+., . Y�'A f,p. .�1 -.fie+•.T :,' '8`".i i�. ; '. its 3 tw o, rc �- ;:i,, . a""X >v, nJ 3. 31 2 • ' .4 F i *(''- N1',i _J • -2,4 I 2 1 4 >a.t£ J £3 s k i _.. ; ,t. wa Fri: 1,4: ti r '-4 g !_;`+#•.^ .w w. "3_1 ; .,.a` w f rt :4..,m" i -:r a 7,-,—�5 . 5. {y- .tir '!J z .;>, ✓ rr 3A� 'S�5^ YLTPy" �4A fig... a Y DEIRAY BEACH - DEERAY BEACH "- HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ��1I�► MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 2Ou1 :Out Agent: Dennis Thompson, City of Delray Beach Community Development Project Name: 144 NW 3rd Avenue Project Location: 144 NW 3rd Avenue ITEM BEFORETHE 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: IILB. 144 NW 3`d Avenue-Replacement siding 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 facade 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 facade 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 3`d 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 facade 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 Defray 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 ;`. 1'f1 t , /. ? re 1 a !\ . ° `i` n„ r+ .b •yin 7c .a"iF ''y7'.+t o- sly 1 .•. r ° • s«v r� p - k.� h rr« 1_, , .�,,,� v v «.. a p r� ,,� %..raur i t j+'�+• wr s r r,", v .rpr a y +c. �P +r+ .£i rx U _ 1• ^M'�a w,}{,:�.✓...,g.Alf• , y i!f,ci, r far+� rN R f 74� a__y ' S ! r 9 <� r� C jr,A z�.� A',�.ot +f, •J Y 'h liY �r. +yrse iii .J i � ✓ a r '.,+k,J *;, '3' i ; +d1 • �T.:bM� sf.i�. +. IL.4111141.4t4 Fe r`r, j, limit,''11 ,0.4..c I as 4 Ater s.48 d k ;0 3r wAfi 4 Y� t yl Y . 1 C� a rdr �3 n rr�, '.�'"'.C�"'" + �{j� o �,¢ r y x 2: , v' 3e• 'j f' p{"`.. r �'m('e'�,, r"f,Vi;�` ` res9 ''iti /ri Yilail f,jµ Tr fiwrs+�l''r c�;11� .. 1. V',l! s e r r ?4114 ! 8 • ✓� Srp 'deb ••,.:h ,is 1 rr+N 0 s % .x r " �A {Y �i%�. �,.1 �1 .. ' 6ud�4y.}+�,+K1 fi a fl r k+'�� �. Cft �‘. C'w.", ! ,. r ,. ,i ,. ... i . ,. ,, . t'^'3's N'' rdp•, a W�^' ''�"rF t '�'`'�,tyypr, D Lr{ v a x /"t>w '?�;. r 8 r r '�n d F "f w..,a � 5 a A,�9r"? -r',�lf'Y.`t�i G • n Or, a�ti. ..?•, r 1f..4 -6...m n-a -s r '.rc+v vra.c"y+'r•t 1 .' East Façade �t tt South Facade t,�.t-0 'L'b _x • + saW�1' `P,.h r�q' + < . :ILA+•:, F.'r �'�++y k' 4t'�r'ai �* M ra '1 14 '''• Ft' _.''A 1'� lr s.:. fls v �T y�.��r' of 3l 1. s .s 'y'`• '�i.x1,�^ .H r r WI'•v i$ Y+ 1e• ,4 frtw.jr '., %Th.*-... \ 'j \ �,. , :. } d1 s i .f�"t "'P ' �n i'irk.-r Y i( a s `f+ s ,�\Y� »�. l' �,Z. +yy •;v+rr Yt'? a± K rN ri1 �.. t , .K, • v. h1 V- r`r �.j.-I i•r+`� r 4 r�, Q.7 re e.' r Vw" s''aA'k°siet h �r Y t 'ir. +1' S' { ,�° f \ r.' .�.. rr 'a. I 4r a , rt - 6",N<wiman �}�r t3 • .�`::. w 1. : _ 4 I ? 1 +�tgtiar cF • 3+f ks t s Y,d\, {� /{ r N ! r 4•'.er S 5S '.t, 'kr... s • e. ei" {1 s.„ v!T v I t t� rpIA ..f ,,x�x,,:,1.4' y. } t x. 'I 4 �•" y' }y M tm:i °v 5•/Ate�• :t'w.,. mac` { ;.. 1 �A Y4�" T# + }L 1. 3 1 7 fir/ '',,', J Z� y�'t Cri 7 V 1, :, r .. r.YY, .+.u�..6r b �• � '•,' d'y'k51Wd�f}�r '.H`, i •J f f( e} o�u .I s i is f t t ! vT •• , ,,y..,... aruRvu... • s r r. %°tom r z j, � .. i v. 7 '•t� Y' \Yt iK f,+'\ ) ♦ 1 it r�I. f. nS r a As Fr - t•K. A -..,s.'Yn,,, „r,• {4,pi s,L �! '...:✓ru,..u. • r, �, y?'di �4'1.T1• ,✓.5� + A ;!+ef;>MA .^•w. r� Y:CaVIYl .+`�M West Façade North Facade ` , , ^ lo on PAM RIX g'; Q, grz Zf Mj 46 At Rg gn ` The original historic siding iotnthe left. The non-matching siding to the right ioof the same profile no the proposed new siding. ` DEERAY BEACH _ - - - DEIRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ' ` MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT �IIF. I993 1993 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. _ 1 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 4m- 444/111 YRODULY SERVING PALM BEACH,BROWARD,DADE,MARTIN AND ST.LUCIE COUNTIES WITH OVER 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE smao. NORTH SwINTON AVE. 4 �, Nei 2"w ) 857.44' Nj0138'SYW 14 — 76.00'_ ?� ,N0138'�2'W _ 1630 (amok / 2r PA�ii b�IORN.Rh ''> 1/4 W bi y > + /l'� �o Z �s L!! t5•PARTY N > (V � M : I , M —r—r—i(' r -c-ro'o'—c—w_._ 1 d MCC SKIM -2,?, `??, 4,. . 76.00' NO1 '52"W —— SAD. kr, ni e. I ® 1.B.7114 �� I 3�r �- '1 I ` 4 Z 1 J 1 Y I1 LLI : ; ) ASPHALT N 1- 1 0;11 1P a /s `'"• >a i Q .. ;E _1 i s>s I. f a,4 I AI er 1 PO _ 29.97' 1 IM rn(Li32iJ 212.80' a/� + ii N1 19.45' ' ':>4. I CT-5 AI1 in BLO{K 58 N 'D LOT-5 3.00' 1—STORY ROAMER BLOCK-58 Re 7 LOT-7 LOT-7 06 j M 2 1?'' BLOCK-58 �OC1C-5i GAL. ELEV.-21.9344 .�017. 0 f 10.80' 11.65' 1 30.43' him l i wf O O � p To t °12.s0'�N 42.20' sf r I- , a cac i'lz:;\ - r 11 • t '`ice I � ° ,, 2.02'.0 0.87' 1' ii 62.71' �9 .40' ♦ .,�k> Iti�v 1 ''> <iq P00L_ �o ' � 6I ' � _ +� I II1gp}. � t 0.96' 12.40' .1 2.62' . + pa ' ; T 0aa f ,ri' ' pa_"o -coc... so. • r f papa a �4,e 1 axe 76.00' ts'Am a9 38.52.E $4 o d ♦J n -94 ... •4r av, d o •/r p> r—r—r—r--r—a—o.—o r—r—r-1O— .—r r r r r ler n—r—r— r /O LOT 10 Lot—is LOT-17 LOT-20 Block--58 gLOaC-58 BLOCK-58 BLOCK-5E SCALE: 1"=20' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS ROM p30UNC ARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. 9/24104 LEGEND: PHONE BOX tQ, POWER POLE 1a CATCH BASIN p FIRE HYDRANT -a—o_ALUMINUM FENCE —_—.—CHAIN LINK FENCE g CABLE BOX XX LIGHT POLE MD WATER METER G SAN. MANHOLE OVERHEAD WIRE —r WOOD FENCE IB MO 04-IW1 DAZE: QN/ / MAN61t *ECM B1� RA.. F.R/P"` FIE lb. 04-10481 • I 13 I 14 1 1 h PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: iF n yp Wit•ll[L CA.OLW D AT •1101=1PM I•IOCI 7 i - TOTAL WA.=MOM). 1&PACJI 1 - •—•-------c-{5--01 ALLEY—RrOM PER-PLAT'------------------ PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: „NON.WACpTTWCm :N.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: , (Al MAPCO•T M QOiU fy 1 I man 10 wry. I I TOTAL WACMrtAMO•D• IWACOI MKARWIM•COLOT I.AL CO LOT•.•M WORM N O LOT L•LNLM PLAT O y _•— \ --- T•TCAU I MlOMM01 CO LLLOCNI N•w MN CO DRO AY.ILOROA ACCONO W TO M 1 ronn L.},!M —•�,-*- RAT i10lClMFlM HMI MCI OM CUM(s M CIat COMM st?T C4- 1Atll MIG C0MY,110•DA IiLORDIO M ILT•OOL 1q AT t•AOC 4,Wr•'110 ALL I ' if111•GTCIy R•D•JATK1.1,[AIO�p111 Al0 RW,rt4Q•WAT Q RiLOO. L W.1M.K•bliW. 'C// I 1 �°�p •—•---•-- PROPOSED PROJE T DATA: EXISTING PROJECT DATA: 1 0010.10 FLOOR AMA• w/AMN b PT,r11"01•Ti• *MOO TLOQI MIA• «L1wM qrt. wMO CO Inl EXISTING / MiItl �O ITAARIY IOtT M o. .„t. «Iw PAR CM rAW IIAY•D NIA*• r,11••art Q, «MITf ) M CT LNOICJAO W MM 10. «Atl- «•I rt. leCOIN L MTI COIN Gt WAC•. r 1I1100 40 ,4 IT. « M O/Sall I, p I POOL Wilt•OD•I• .•SO PT. «M OIITI L&T101.OD•I• wOwrt, «MQlitl ,( TmAM• «lM/N M R SIS O WI TOTAM• «Ww W rt. MO CO am ZONED: G&W NO PROM=•10.014 rT•ACKS CT/IQLAM YV/1•L,m,M I l COA 'WOWa'WOW TRIO. w 1T•Y wRau lolYT -o WOI4WD• OLD I0100.MO4••WMTOR0 Airs OILTI•C? CUMIZ,L aY• WUI I PAPS(_ n '• i .-3mA3' .-3519' Im I _, — IIIlLs0lo 1110.1 Too. u.oawlm Z 1 �l nclao LW? w•TA,v. u.WAWIo I j EXISTING I-STORY '""°'= T"'YA'0' o PRCrpp MAR TARO. W«o.M.rO GARAGE N - wnw,�Io♦10 mi. 1 j R/,/�L•• j —PG,W RIY'TC 1044 mu.too MGWa or atOftfi.pHw 7/J,AI1 IA#/ / I / I �T�n/�/� nnnn - N 1 N '///e/R.we[6'O// I I . . III I/1 ,,I) , 0. LOC...C.Ww Ae.0..4 WO---.,1 0:0 r I C44 WO:MOW MCA PAK=•MRI IX �.il`Y/A .7' / Ix.IOW MIT MMI•ORT�I•ANIID Will :yJ II PROPOSED 2-STORK ��/'/ I j• I '"N°m°' 4 ~ •ADDITION ,t'i� q� %ii� i 4 j µ F aria: 3 i A,..IA..4.. MIL 4, Z !y �•�� �/��iy. WOOD FENCE DETAIL 2 Y r F /// '/�f� j�j I rra,v.'.rr AI. '�..,, 1q %,. _y-r 1/4., iE, j I p l q W LM�I nM A.00IOTd4L nwM..1 OM R ty, .s1 •Y AT p1•r I Li, r/ % li I it 1 1 t t % ////�/, I f EXIISTTING+� I-STORY 6< 1y. 1 - E lY..w.a O.C•Wtl Al ma MOOR YO.t f� //.(/PLC!! I ��'--'I //!/!(/! (ii f��II NLi,{�.. y Y i E L1. 060V0.A••Da. 0NTRY j OZYa4 E ..M.OI' ( __3230Tcoo.n _ .IIM1.11' o EXISTING I DRIVE 1 west PROJECT m NORTH c I PLANTER 1 i 1 south ( Ln:rth a � I Lwow. nnr•.r_Lw IRJ..1 W0. E —I— — —— — I004.31 g CAI n.W.. M ea Bt �u0_FILE ' ocr.1e.Too. 1 / \ I i, ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN a••�IWL• buy.W••r•••• ' 19 < —.-------------,-1,.- (M' ,.AT, ------- A1 .0 A 6V•d exNw AM4LT.nRT C! f 1 I tl T 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I it I R • • 1 1 7 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 H I 7 1 A 1 9 I I n 1 I 1 I 11 'i 113 I 14 1 I 1 j j I i h 1 I I N I I I I - • II I i I 1 I I 1A M 1_, I !@ i _ I <P- I ) I I fal ' t;j • / aK j y r etn.dtlDA 1I� rcxecll I / ) K I / V Z Q A �� �� FORMA RDD< 7'�;/' EEDIMOPt 'I Lai T, V S z ..___ ____\___ H I,.� II h A� � is I •� �� a>'c�N '�:t j • /� N d'' o I 1 1 _ b ! _ _ I 0 - D Imo ! a NALL I HALL Q D I S_ V I 2 1 LIVM] 1 np � �J yyy I, �/ W O `- -Q:. ai �'�0 pi E L1'�- Ii , /' ` • e \ v s gTICE J.I D i S t 0 © g © reter-w '' IE TRUE ; • - - dr- , GIRT' , ..ri IN • T-.• ' I I I I ` ; ¢YMBOL8 LEGEND! WALL LEGEND! t C // `'/ i CI ucavll.r..r • �...ou.Nu rr•1wnluw aw•.lu I^�C d ;. 1 ® ..c«In.ww.lr'uJ . 'rto l',."w"ow"VL.rim•A•mNa1 A Z 1W I Oo�tl tlH.M•W LLa 1•4 '�.^> � 8 • AB I •0 000{IryrOO Y • Nuo M1m NRIrtIW.O On.Na., m - )�%, I ' ../ van*mown PNOTc?0 re1W AK �J I /.mrw no ..IM N.. 2004.51 p I I ml C.b rl.Ne. El ' IST FLOOR PLAN CApEILE WV! NEW C .8SIw1�LLM.18T_FLOQR-AREA1 1 .'.,.w.r.r _ I.1.-'--'-�mcuc :e,roo. �A2. I EIB�IPGr FLOOR AREA! " A A2 FLOOR PLAN I + �o•AcuN ca.0 an'w 0 rn.NC..fwa 1 1 a I h 1 N I / I 8 1 9 I IC 1 11 1 13 I 14 •/ 1 I , , ,S 1 4 1 4 I 6 1 F I 4 1 9 I 10 i I I I 12 1 13 1 14 1 dd7676 N FFi N i• }QYM L N 11 4 C1— ' L L I — ' I a i er - N T—T __rmr---1 Z — I o J . I --'T . 55 eTpia CC 1 rJ< �/ Vim/ 1/Q =‘A11 g_ O G 8 8 G ( KAATea 1 I r{IOR V OR7 2 y - 1 iIIJI F- "J�j F i E CLOOeT 1 O W v E DGT "7�� ` T IL O r1ASTea ' OAT9 a1\ \`` 0 0 E TRUE C%�B Q, r •NORTH BYMEOLB LEGEND. WALL LEGEND. 1 L,,' , © u.ocV fTK 1e 1o61u �I�YOY111111W DwICIUe4 OI1Ytlb G ir: WOOY rI�M1�eTW rAantM 0 OOGen..eOe0�4. _ 1 II- s.1t� 4e .$ t-woo rom*w re wun.vnn uv.n exwnr enewcw rro111wroRIM xxc -Due P m.TO e wecweln Ireleel He. 2004.31 g E GN the No. m 2ND FLOOR PLAN CAD FILE A NEW GONBTRl1GTION 2ND FLOOR AREA OW:e,vwe ecua,w�.r.r wuwer.0 wwew =V V Wy , IA ore.l,.N. 10YM411e. aMe eA I A3.0 A e A A2 F— PLAN ® core rn,rk.,tom I/4'...1r-0e 1 I I � .. -:.- . . , 1 1 I A I a , 10 1 11 12 Is 14 • • 1 I 7 I t , a , 5 i 6I 7 i 6 t v , 10 I 11 , 17 t 11 , 1a i - I. ...,boa+uo N,sae,LN Y N 0 I `�° ° ° \ I. LI1Ii i— rr�n.n.u,ane,e�.�,.�. 31. I.,1 V r t earo*L TIT MOO.TOOL-MAN 1 ,T, MOTHS onw,n,o 012na11i 1 \If II :: 1,1 ■� .. 76: I.::: .. ,eele R f Le I'6e�a �• ,',', U DOT.TO 102142 • CCFTq c Fl °gym � H N� a EAST ELEVATION a°„Ya,°YARD•,e,a,2LTC =tea ... O 0 N r o I F . e Ugal am °■■: . 1 4ET ire. t r iilii � �_ I E 1 I Mw....._ as A. I el .■.:_ ?off— t 0 _ o ❑❑ 00 00 ❑D iii - r'...M o as MOO asaa� " DODD aooa i 1'144.004400 C j 1irlc - exa,ane°s�M mow°°„ „a 1 Pt- ma 6 WEST',ELEVATION SOUTN ELEVATION 200;.31 a CAD_OLE Doi. rvrc 10 2004 ,. . Drawing No. A A4 PROPOSED ELEVATION A4.O A 0 COPE IAC,aiCC,S.MC..1001 DELRAY� () R BEACH F n A All-America City ' 1111! 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting December 15, 2004 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION 614 /e1,44/1g4,1V