Loading...
HPB 10-05-05 OA. AGENDA a - r HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING y �` CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REVISED Meeting Date: October 5, 2005 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service,program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings,and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • July 20, 2005 • August 3, 2005 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 411 N Swinton Avenue, Joseph Andolino, Owner Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a Variance request for the addition of a swimming pool. IV. ITEMS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY • 531 North Swinton Avenue, Jeffrey Goldberg, Permit No. 05-100240, Replace brick area with stucco on front of house, landscaping, and fence, Approved September 14 • 302 NE 15t Avenue, Schnabel, Color Change ("Banan-appeal" for the body of the house, "Lime Rickey'for the trim, and"Extra White"for the trellis)Approved September 12 • 314 NE 1st Avenue, Tradewinds 314 LLC, Permit No. 05-100426, Flat Roof Replacement, Approved September 12 • 102-108 NW 5th Avenue, NW 5th Avenue Associates, Permit No. 04-100427, Roof Replacement, Approved September 12 V. DISCUSSION ITEM • Staff Approval of COA's. VI. REPORTS AND COMMENTS • Public Comments • Reports from Historic District Representatives • Board Members • Staff VII. ADJOURN Amy AIv , Historic Preservati anner Posted: September 30,2005 s MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 LOCATION: City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez Azua, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, and Linda Lake MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Terrill Barton, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:05 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 60 West Atlantic Avenue, Old School Square Historic Area, Blue Mobile, Inc. Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of a wall-mounted cabinet-style sign on a non-contributing building. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams entered the project file into the record. The subject property consists of Lots 1 & 2, (less the north 20 feet), Block 61, Town of Delray and is located on the southeast corner of West Atlantic Avenue and SW 1st Avenue. The property is zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The masonry building was constructed in 1998 and is considered a non-contributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. On December 18, 1996, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed and approved a Certificate of Appropriateness and related site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for the construction of a one-story, 2,832 sq. ft., concrete block building consisting of a 2,250 sq. ft. bay to accommodate the Check Cashing Store along with an adjoining 582 sq. ft. bay to the west. Approval was also given for an internally illuminated cabinet-style t. Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20, 2005 flat wall sign to be placed on the north elevation. The sign face is dark blue in color with white copy. On June 2, 2004, the Board approved an application for the installation of a wall sign to be erected over the entrance of the 582 square foot bay. The current application is for the installation of a wall-mounted, cabinet-style sign for a retail establishment within the 582 square foot bay. The proposed sign will be located on the angled section of the building (facing northwest) at the corner of Atlantic Avenue and SW 1st Avenue and will be positioned between the decorative banding and the cornice and placed over the two decorative circular motifs. The proposed sign will be 84" (7') long by 24" (2') high (14 square feet) and will consist of an internally illuminated black colored cabinet with a 3/16" thick white plexi face with blue and gray copy. The copy will read, "BLUE" with "dots" below the copy, both of which will be blue in color, and "Mobile", which will be gray in color. The application was reviewed by the Sign Committee on June 29, 2005 where the following concerns were raised: 'Staff feels the cabinet should be a dark blue to match the other tenant sign. The applicant is proposing to place the sign over specific architectural designs on the building. If the Board does not wish to cover these designs, staff suggests placing the sign on the lower "band" of the fascia facing northwest. If the Board prefers to keep the sign on the same plane as the "Check Cashing Store" sign, staff recommends placing the sign on the north elevation'. With regard to the design of the proposed sign, there are no concerns regarding the area, scale or quality of the design, and the proposed cabinet-style can be supported as approval was previously given for the installation of a cabinet-style sign on the adjoining unit. However, a condition of approval is that the proposed cabinet be dark blue in color to match the adjoining tenant's sign. A further condition of approval is that the sign is fixed to the area of wall directly above the entrance door of the unit (facing north) between the decorative band and the cornice as the proposed location will result in obscuring the two circular motifs on the angled section of wall (facing northwest). The Design Guidelines state that signs should be placed to avoid obscuring architectural detail and, as the building has limited detailing, it should remain visible from the public right-of-way. The Sign Review Committee suggested that one option to avoid obscuring the architectural detail may be to install the sign on the angled wall section (facing northwest) below the decorative banding. However, this option cannot be recommended as this will place the sign at a lower height than the sign on the adjoining unit, which will give an unbalanced appearance to the whole building. Based on the analysis above, positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 2.4.6(H), 4.6.7(D)(2)(a)-(c), 4.6.7(F)(1)(d), and 4.6.7(F)(7) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can be made, subject to conditions. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20,2005 Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. David Maund, Sign-A-Rama, advised that Mr. Adams wanted the sign hung over the door. Ms. Donna Rinette, owner, Blue Mobile, Inc., advised if the sign is placed directly above the door it takes away from the traffic view. We would request that that we put it on an angle between the circles. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. A color rendering was given to the Board members for review. Board discussion ensued regarding placement of the sign and it was decided that it could be put on the angled section of the building. The Board advised the applicant that this could be approved administratively. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 60 West Atlantic 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(H), 4.6.7(D)(2)(a)-(c), 4.6.7(F)(1)(d), and 4.6.7(F)(7) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed cabinet be dark blue in color to match the adjoining tenant's sign; and, 2) That to the left of the proposed location of the sign two (2) dots should be added that match the dots to the right of the sign in color and size. II. B. 407 North Swinton Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, BSA Corp., Agent Item Before the Board: Consideration of Appropriateness associated with the construction of an addition and a change of roofing material to a contributing building. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams entered the project file into the record. The subject property consists of Lot 3, Block 6, Del-Ida Park. Located on the east side of North Swinton Avenue, approximately 60' north of NE 4'h Street, the property is zoned Residential Office (RO) and is within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property contains a 1,012 square foot contributing, one- story, Frame Vernacular style single-family dwelling. The dwelling was constructed in 1941 and was moved from the southwest corner of SE 5th Avenue and SE 2nd Street (Delray Beach Block 103, Lots 1 and 2) to its current location in 1967. There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. 4 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20, 2005 The current proposal is to construct a 404 square foot, one-story addition to the rear(east) of the extant historic dwelling and replace the existing gray asphalt shingles of the historic dwelling with a 5 V crimp metal roof with galvanized finish. The addition will be constructed in the Frame Vernacular style similar to the existing dwelling and will contain a master bedroom with a bathroom, and a laundry room. Proposed Addition: As noted above, the proposal is to construct a 404 square foot, one- story addition to the rear (east) of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and replace the existing gray asphalt shingles of the historic dwelling with a 5 V crimp metal roof with galvanized finish. The addition will be constructed in the Frame Vernacular style similar to the existing dwelling and will contain a master bedroom with a bathroom, and a laundry room. The walls will be of horizontal wood siding to match the existing and the roof will be pitched with a 5 V crimp galvanized metal finish. The color scheme of the addition will match the existing dwelling and will consist of light green walls, a darker blue/green trim, and white door and window frames. The proposed addition will also be compatible with the existing dwelling and other historic structures within the Del-Ida Park Historic District with regard to materials, color, massing, scale, and architectural features; however, it will be clearly differentiated from the historic building by having a lower roof height, a 5V crimp metal roof with galvanized finish, and a differing window design. The ridge height of the extant historic dwelling is approximately 15' 8" and the proposed ridge height of the addition is approximately 12' 6". The roof of the existing dwelling is covered with light gray asphalt shingles. The windows in the existing dwelling have a three over one light configuration and are single-hung while those proposed for the addition are smaller in size and will consist of four light windows and one over one, single-hung windows. There will also be French doors on the south elevation leading to the poolside area. Natural light will be provided to the bathroom in the addition by means of a four by four grid of glass blocks. As the addition will be to the rear of the historic dwelling and will be lower in height, it is anticipated that it will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The replacement of the asphalt shingles with metal roofing on the extant historic dwelling is not consistent with the standards as directed by the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The asphalt shingles appear to be the original roof covering of the dwelling and the stripping of historic roofing materials is deemed to be inappropriate. The historic fabric should be retained where possible; and, where the severity of deterioration requires replacement, the new feature should match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Asphalt roofing shingles are a commonly used roof covering and are readily available, therefore, their replacement is possible. Also, retaining the asphalt shingles on the historic dwelling and roofing the proposed addition with a metal roof will contribute to the features which differentiate the historic construction from the new. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20, 2005 While the replacement of the asphalt shingles with metal roofing is inappropriate in terms of preservation ethics and standards, it should be noted that there may be difficulties in joining the asphalt roof of the existing dwelling to the metal roof of the proposed addition. It should also be noted that such an alteration is reversible, the life span of a metal roof will exceed that of a shingle roof, and the mill finish color will not dominate the structure. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard Sections 2.4.6(H)(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, with conditions. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Mr. Joe Gillie, the applicant, advised the shingles are the key issue and were replaced in 1992. However, the last hurricane took off about one-third of the shingles and did some damage to the roof and interior of the house. At that point the shingles were immediately replaced. Unfortunately, the materials that were available after the hurricane did not match. Now there are two tone shingles on the house. Mr. Gillie advised he would like to install a galvanized roof. Board discussion ensued regarding the metal roof and the laundry room window. The Board concurred that there are a lot of metal roofs in the area, and they hold up much better during a storm or hurricane, and did not have a problem with installing a metal roof. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 6 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 407 North Swinton Avenue (Gillie 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), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the laundry room window closest to the existing structure will match those on the rest of the addition. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. "A Walk Through History", Delray Beach Historical Society Proposed walking tour, brochure, and building marker/plaque program, and educational kiosks were discussed with the Board. The initial plan at the moment is to build up an interesting walking tour and run a blanket plaque approval through the Board, and if properties are added in the future they can be approved by staff. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20, 2005 Two members from the Historical Society were present and advised they want to have a comprehensive walking tour with signage in front of the historic buildings, as well as Atlantic Avenue. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Mr. Silberstein advised he has been trying to get approval for a project that has been submitted twice. Mr. Shutt advised that the Board can't discuss something that is going to come back to the Board. However, you can speak about generalities regarding a specific project. Mr. Silberstein advised it was important for the Board to make a decision on how they want to interpret the guidelines relative to additions. Mr. Adams advised in the Secretary of the Interior Standards on page 92 it states: "Considering the attached exterior addition both in terms of the new use and the appearance of other buildings in the historic district or neighborhood. Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color." What has to be decided upon once all the actions have been considered is really what direction the Board wishes to go in. There should be subtle differences. It is important for the Board to come to an opinion on this issue. Chairman Perez advised it can be contemporary, however, it is important regarding the massing and scale (proportion) of the windows and openings should be similar. It can be contemporary but there also needs to be continuity. Mr. Adams advised he is in favor of contemporary design; however, it has to work with the area and the particular building. Mr. Silberstein advised when you look at the Delray Beach Historic Design Guidelines: • Additions or accessory structures should not be located in front of the established front plane of a historic building. • Avoid obscuring or destroying characteristic features of the original building; the loss of historic fabric should be minimal. •When possible, design and construct the addition so that the basic form and character of the historic building would remain intact if the addition were ever removed. • For buildings where additional height is allowed, stepping back the upper stories may help to minimize the difference as viewed from the street. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes July 20, 2005 • In a historic district, consider the surrounding buildings and the compatibility of the addition in terms of size, scale, materials, mass and roof form. • Do not introduce a new architectural style, or too closely mimic the style of the existing building. Additions should be simply and cleanly designed and NOT attempt to replicate the original design. • The design elements for new construction should be continued on all sides of the building, so as to avoid a "stage-set" appearance. • 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. This is a contradiction of what the Secretary of the Interior Standards states. Mr. Perez advised it is not black and white; it is on a case by case basis. However, the style needs to be compatible with what is there. Mr. Adams advised the whole problem is interpretation. Ms. Lake inquired about 33 Palm Square. Mr. Adams advised he has been in touch with Mr. Rice, and he was going to submit other colors. Ms. Lake inquired about the situation on Nassau Street. Mr. Adams advised lawyers are involved with all three parties. Michael Weiner, Esquire is representing the owners who want to demolish the building Mr. Miller advised he read an article in the South Florida Business Journal regarding redevelopment of the Southwest corner of Atlantic and Swinton Avenue. Mr. Adams advised that a meeting was held with individuals representing the Sundy House and the architects. The proposal is to enhance the four corners, and the overall proposal does look good. At this time an application has not been submitted. D. Staff: None V. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for July 20, 2005 and was formally adopted and approved by the Board on Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 8 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: August 3, 2005 LOCATION: City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez Azua, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich, Jeffrey Silberstein, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, and Linda Lake MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Terrill Barton, and Denise Valek 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. Mr. Adams advised that Item II. A. was postponed until the August 17, 2005. II. PRESENTATIONS A. Old School Square Garage Proposed Elevations Item postponed until the August 17, 2005 meeting. III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Block 69 Parking Garage, Old School Square Historic District, Michael Weiner, Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the demolition of a contributing dwelling and a waiver request for a reduction of open space requirement. Chairman Perez stepped down. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Miller advised he received a call from Michael Weiner, Ms. Schatz advised she received a call from Ned Siegel, and Ms. Dersh advised she received a call but did not return it. Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 Mr. Adams entered the project file into the record. The subject property is located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue, approximately 225' north of SE 1st Street. The .41 acre site consists of Lots 20, 21 and 22, a Subdivision of Block 69, and is located within the Old School Square Historic Arts District, which is subject to the regulations as outlined in the CBD (Central Business District) zone district. Lot 20 contains a one story single family dwelling and accessory structure and Lots 21 and 22 are vacant. The structures are to be demolished as part of this development proposal. A development proposal has been approved for 236 residential units and commercial development. The proposal included construction of a parking garage (this proposal) to replace parking.spaces for the GRIP Building, public surface parking spaces. All of the units that were to be located on this property were transferred to Block 77 east side of SE 1st Avenue. The public parking and the GRIP parking spaces that are to be eliminated with the Worthing Place development are to be replaced by a 202-space parking garage on Block 69 (subject property). The garage (Block 69) will be constructed by the Block 77 Group and deeded over to the City. Construction of the Block 77 development is to occur after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the parking garage on Block 69 and the garage is deeded to the City. The 202 space parking garage will provide 95 parking spaces for the GRIP building, which represents 45 spaces more than are currently in the GRIP parking lot. The garage will also contain 107 public parking spaces that will be available 24 hours a day. In addition, 40 of the GRIP spaces will be available for public use from 6:01 p.m. through 7:59 a.m. Monday through Friday and 12:01 p.m. Saturdays through 7:59 a.m. on Mondays. In October 1999, conditional use applications were submitted to allow the residential units to exceed 30 units per acre (219 units) and to allow a building height up to 60'. In conjunction with the conditional use applications, a text amendment to the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district regulations was processed to include Lots 19-24, Block 69, Town of Linton, as properties that could be developed per the CBD zoning district regulations. The purpose of the LDR amendment was to accommodate the GRIP/public parking structure. At a pre-application meeting on February 2, 2000, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed the municipal garage (Block 69) development proposal. They noted concerns with the "fortress-like" appearance of the structure, and indicated that they would support variances to the front and rear property lines if the facades could be varied and offset to provide a better overall design of the building. On May 24, 2000, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved the residential structure on Block 77 and its associated parking garage. The municipal parking garage to be located on Block 69 within the OSSHAD zone district is the action now before the Board. At its meeting of January 17, 2001, the Historic Preservation Board approved the site plan, associated variance requests to allow a minimum of a 1'front setback and a minimum of a 5' 6" rear yard setback, a waiver request to reduce the required 10% open space to 8.3% open space and demolition requests for the construction of a 207 space municipal parking garage on Block 69. The associated landscape plan and architectural elevations were continued based on a concern with the proposed architectural style of the building and certain species of plant material. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3,2005 At its meeting of February 21, 2001, the Board approved the design elements and landscape plan for the parking garage. A redesign is now proposed which results in the elimination of the indented section along the alley to the rear (west). This modification results in a further reduction in open space from 8.3% to 6.9%. A waiver to the 10% open space requirement is now before the Board for consideration. Mr. Michael Covelli presented an elevation of what was approved in terms of the facade. He advised that all revisions have been made that were a condition of approval. In the design of the actual working drawings we have come to the point where initially it was a parking plan in the building. This first plan is the plan that is currently approved and the area we are talking about is in the rear of the building on the alley. The building would be straight across the back and the trees would be moved out. The front remains unchanged, as well as the streetscape. Michael Weiner, agent, advised that Warren went through Section 2.4.7(B)(5) and pointed out that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood. There is a 16' alley in the back. We are not affecting the front, and staff agrees it will not affect the neighboring area. This is the part of OSSHAD that has the CBD regulations, and is commercial in nature. Most of this is going to be a public garage. We are increasing public facilities, we are not creating an unsafe situation, it is just the opposite we are creating a safe situation. We have to make the ramp a little larger so the vehicles can corner safely. We do not have a special privilege here. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Diane Colonna, Director, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), advised the CRA is supportive of this plan. The request for the waiver is reasonable. It is a minimal trade off for what we are getting in the area. This will fit in with the surrounding buildings. Ms. Livia Landry, 701 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, questioned where the structure was going to be. Mr. Weiner pointed out the location of the garage. Mr. Francisco Perez, Architect for the project advised that we bumped the indented section in the back out in order to make a safer turn. Vice Chairman Silberstein closed the Public Hearing. Board discussion ensued and they concurred it was a great building. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 6 to 0 (Mr. Perez stepped down) to move approval for a recommendation to the City Commission for the waiver request to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(2) to reduce the required open space from 8.3% to 6.9% for the proposed Block 69 Parking Garage by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. 4 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 B. 107 NE 6th Street, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Andrew Spengler, Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the demolition of a contributing dwelling. Chairman Perez returned to the Board. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams entered the project file into the record. The subject property consists of Lots 11- 16, Block 2, Del-Ida Park and is within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property contains a 2,886 square foot contributing, one-story, Masonry Vernacular style single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1941. In 1957, a bedroom and a carport were added to the rear, the dwelling was remodeled, and a swimming pool was constructed. A 252 square foot detached garage was constructed in 1954 and, at a later date, a 600 square foot addition was constructed. The dwelling has been neglected and is now in a poor condition. The rear of the structure is open to elements and neighbors have complained that there is a problem with vermin. On June 15, 2005, the Board recommended approval, with conditions, to the City Commission for the reconfiguration of the six (6) non-conforming fifty foot wide lots (Lots 11- 16) into four (4) conforming lots. Each lot will be rectangular in shape and contain over 10,000 square feet. It was stated in the report that the layout and design of the four (4) proposed single family homes would be submitted at a later date and that they "....will be required to meet strict Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to ensure compatibility with respect to design and massing in relation to the surrounding area." It should be noted that the above report stated that the dwelling is non-contributing and that it was constructed in 1957. However, an examination of the building record cards show that the 1941 contributing dwelling is still in existence and that it was added to in 1957. The current proposal is for the demolition of the extant contributing dwelling. In support of the application for demolition, the applicant has submitted two sketches of possible elevations for the four proposed houses. Although the designs are preliminary, they show that the applicant has plans for the immediate reuse of the property. It would appear that an application for approval of the dwellings will be submitted at a later date and it should be noted that the design will be required to meet strict historic preservation design guidelines to ensure compatibility with design and massing in relation to the surrounding area. The Board may wish to comment on the proposed designs. The demolition of a historic structure is a loss to the community and the city, and, in this case, it is unfortunate that the proposal does not involve restoring and moving the dwelling to one of the proposed new lots. The dwelling is in a poor condition; however, no attempt has been made to protect the rear of the structure from the elements or vandalism as it has been left open. It is not known for how long the rear of the dwelling has been left exposed therefore it is not possible to tell if the poor condition of the building has been caused by natural wear or neglect However, it is unclear as to why the dwelling was classed as a contributing structure during the 1988 survey. In terms of architecture, the structure is very plain with no ornamental 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 detail and there are many surviving examples of similar structures within the City of Delray Beach. The site does not appear to have any historical association and a similar structure could be constructed without great difficulty or expense. In assessing the demolition request, consideration must also be given to the adjoining property owners who have suggested there may be a vermin problem associated with the property. The application for demolition can therefore be supported; however, it should be noted that the recommendation for approval is based on the fact that the building appears to have very little architectural or historical merit and not because it is in a poor condition. Poor condition caused by neglect should not be accepted as a reason for demolishing a historic structure. While the Board can impose a 6 month delay in the demolition of the dwelling to allow another site to be found for its relocation, it is not anticipated that anyone would be willing to pay the expense of moving a house of this particular design and condition. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard to Sections 4.5.1(F)(1)(a- e) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to conditions. Mr. Andrew Spengler, representing the owner of the property, advised that the records are not accurate. However, in a conversation with the previous owners they advised the structure that was built in 1941 was moved off the site. The building that is there now was built in the 1957/1958 period. A couple of the additions took place after those dates. In my opinion it is monolithic foundation. As the structure has damage, and has been neglected we would like to demo it. The City Commission approved the four lots proposed last month and it is our plan to build all four structures within a two year period. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Livia Landry, 701 North Swinton Avenue, advised she spoke with the neighbors and they are not adverse to them beautifying the property. However, we are concerned with what will be built in its place. She requested to see the preliminary drawings of the proposed structure. Chairman Perez advised we are discussing the demolition of the building. We can give him direction, but we are now only concerned with the demolition. Ms. Lois Brezinsky, 110 NE 7th Street, advised she lives adjacent to this property and is concerned that a much larger home will be built. Chairman Perez advised the homeowners' opinions would be taken into consideration. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 107 NE 6th Street 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(F)(1)(a-e), subject to the following conditions: 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 1) That the structure is fully recorded prior to demolition and the survey details are deposited in the local archives. The survey should include a site location plan, measured drawings, photographs and any existing documentary information. 2) That, in the course of the demolition, no trees are removed from the site unless prior permission and tree removal permits are obtained from the Building Department. C. House of Vintage (123 South Swinton Avenue) Old School Square Historic District, Jeffrey Silberstein, Agent Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Adams entered the project file into the record. At its meeting of April 20, 2005, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed a Class IV Site Plan Modification for a 3-story residential addition to the rear of the extant historic structure, which included: • Construction of a 1,882 sq. ft. 3-story residential addition to the rear of the building and demolition of the existing single-loaded four(4) space parking lot; • Construction of a four (4) space back-out parking lot on to the alley including one handicapped accessible space; and, • Installation of associated landscaping and relocation of the trash receptacles to the south side of the building. The Staff Report raised a number of concerns regarding the proposal and recommended that, if approved, the approval would be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the third floor area is limited to 50% of the second floor area. 2. That the third floor setbacks or planes of the facade are offset and varied to provide visual relief. 3. That a photometric plan is submitted which complies with the illumination standards of Section 4.6.8 of the LDRs. It is noted the light fixtures must be decorative. 4. That the parking space and alley have a combined minimum depth of 42'. 5. That all plans are consistent with each other. 6. That the plans indicate the improvements within the alley which include the paved alley and the 2' valley gutter 7. That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 8. That window and door specifications are submitted. 9. The proposed use of the loft area is clarified on the drawings. 10. That the applicant ensures that the palm to be planted adjacent to the east building elevation will not be in conflict with the overhang of the building. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 11. That the designs of the building elevations are altered to provide visual compatibility with the historic buildings within the historic district. The applicant advised he was in agreement with the first ten (10) conditions listed in the Staff Report; however, he believed that the design of the building was appropriate for the Old School Square Historic Arts District. With regard to condition 11, and after discussion, the Historic Preservation Board postponed the development proposal with the following direction provided to the applicant: 1. Reduce the scale. 2. Offset the north elevation. 3. Change the profile of the roof. 4. Doors and windows should be vertical. At its meeting of June 1, 2005, the Board reconsidered the revised proposal which addressed the above four conditions as follows: 1. Reduce the scale. The proposed addition was reduced in height by 2'-4". 2. Offset the north elevation. The third floor was flipped to the south to break up the "walled" effect on the north elevation. 3. Change the profile of the roof. This condition was not addressed as the flat roof design was maintained. 4. Doors and windows should be vertical. The amended design retained the two windows on the north elevation with a horizontal emphasis as opposed to a vertical emphasis therefore this issue was not addressed. After discussion, the Board concluded that a three story addition is not compatible with the area or the extant historic structure, and that the proposed style is not compatible with the existing structure. The Board postponed the application with the following direction: 1. That the height of the proposed addition be reduced to two stories; and, 2. That the style of the architecture be more in keeping with the existing historic structure. The applicant has addressed the issue of height and has ignored the Board's direction with respect to changing the style of architecture. The applicant is now before the Board for a third time. Additional background and complete analysis of the proposals can be found in the attached Historic Preservation Board staff reports of April 20, 2005 and June.1, 2005. Based on the above, the applicant has not fully addressed the directions set by the Board at the meeting of June 1, 2005. The proposed third story has been removed from the design; however, the applicant has not modified the architectural style to be more in keeping with the extant historic structure. The drawing (which shows the addition with a pitched roof) does make the addition appear to be bigger and bulkier than the proposed contemporary design. However, the pitch of the roof is far steeper than that of the historic dwelling and this automatically adds greater height to the addition. Further, a pitched roof has, in effect, been added to a building of a contemporary design; therefore, they have been designed as two separate elements as opposed to one harmonious overall design. The pitch of the roof could 8 J Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 easily be lowered and, if required, dormer windows could be added. This would reduce the visual impact of the addition thereby mitigating the applicant's argument against not complying with the Board's direction. The applicant has successfully designed an appropriate addition for a one-story, vernacular styled structure with a pitched roof in the recent past and there is, therefore, no reason that the same approach cannot be used in this case. If an appropriate two-story addition cannot be designed for this particular historic structure, the Board may suggest that only a one-story addition will be appropriate. Mr. Jeffrey Silberstein, Architect, for the project advised he had black and white reproductions showing the rear and front and an overlay. He advised it is important for the Board to have some knowledge of his background and his involvement in historic preservation over the years. I renovated a house on Bankers Row and won the American Industry award. 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. Mr. Miller questioned what the height changes were. Mr. Adams advised there are a number of different ways to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. With regard to the design as submitted with the application, the applicant changed the height but he needs to listen to the Board's direction. There are one or two minor modifications I would like to see. Chairman Perez asked Mr. Adams what he would like changed. Mr. Adams advised he would like to see the roof line as low as possible. On the north elevation it should be stepped back a few feet and the balcony to the east 8' is too wide, 5' would be more appropriate. Mr. Silberstein advised there is a door to the rear of the house and maybe the back could be stepped back a few feet. Mr. Adams advised the Board he wanted to make the addition as low as possible. Mr. Silberstein advised if he took away the pitch of the building it would appear too squat. Board discussion ensued regarding the balcony, pitch and height of the roof, and the connector piece, and the height of the balcony. The Board agreed the balcony could be 8' high but should be wider. Mr. Silverstein returned to the Board. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Schatz, and approved 6 to 0 (Mr. Silberstein stepped down) to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class IV site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 123 South Swinton Avenue (House of Vintage), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes August 3, 2005 finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation subject to the following condition: 1. That the connector between the existing historic building and the new addition has a flat roof below the eave line, and that the pitch can be raised to accomplish that. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: Mr. Andy Spengler, Spengler Construction, advised he wants to keep the homes in balance with the neighborhood, and we are not going to max out the setbacks. Ms. Reich inquired if these homes will have four different elevations. Mr. Spengler advised they would be different. Mr. Spengler showed a preliminary plan to the Board. Mr. Perez advised it should be simplified, especially in regard to the gothic windows. There is too much detail on this house. Mr. Silberstein advised Mr. Spengler to meet with Mr. Adams in regard to what would be approved in the district. Ms. Livia Landry advised her main concern was that the new homes would be in scale with the present homes. B. Report from Historic District Representatives. None C. Board Members: None D. Staff: None V. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for August 3, 2005 and was formally adopted and approved by the Board on . Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 10 L)LLKAl'B[ACH U[LRAI'B[ACLI HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 1993 - 1993 3001 2001 Agent: Joseph F. Andolino Project Name: Variance; Rear Setback Project Location: 411 North Swinton Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a variance to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the rear setback from ten-feet (10') to five-feet (5') in order to accommodate an in ground swimming pool located at 411 North Swinton Avenue (Lot 2, Block 6, Del-Ida Park) pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(A). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.6(D) (6), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act on all variance requests within a historic district or on a historic site, which otherwise would be acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. BACKGROUND The subject property (Lot 2, Block 6, Del-Ida Park) is located in the Del-Ida Park Historic District on the east side of Swinton Avenue between Northeast 4►h Street and Northeast 5th Street. The existing residence was originally a 1,300 square foot, one-story, simple ranch style home built in 1956. In 2000, a two-story rear addition was approved (COA 415), and has since been constructed bringing the total square footage to approximately 2,200. The property at 411 North Swinton Avenue is zoned R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) and the following setbacks apply: thirty feet (30') in the front and ten feet (10') on the side interior and rear, pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4 (K). DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval for a rear setback variance, allowing just five feet (5'), to accommodate the installation of an in ground, 26' x 13' swimming pool rather than the required ten feet (10') pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.15 (G)(1) which states the following: Swimming pools, the tops of which are no higher than grade level, may extend into the rear, interior or street side setback areas but no closer than ten feet (10') to any property line, except as provided in subsection (2) and (4) below. Swimming pools shall not extend into the front setback area noted in Section 4.3.4(K). [Amd. Ord. 24-04 5/18/04]; [Amd. Ord. 41-92 9/8/92]; [Amd. Ord. 13-91 2/26/91 The proposed swimming pool would be situated on the property as follows: eleven feet (11') from the southern/side interior property line, five feet (5') from the rear wall of the principal building or one hundred and seven feet (107') from the front property line to the west, twenty- .,.: ia1 ..rcs Lc•;i°1gie0.'1i=?iu li r,... t3 S,.a: ..t:...... ._v,. �.�.:, rf: , three feet (23') from the northern/side interior property line and five feet (5') from the east/rear property line. The criteria for analyzing the variance request is provided in LDR Section 4.5.1(J)(1) which states that a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property through demonstrating that: a) A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. b) Special conditions and circumstances exist, because of the historic setting, location, nature, or character of the land, structure, appurtenance, sign, or building involved, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, appurtenances, signs, or buildings in the same zoning district, which have not been designated as historic sites or a historic district nor listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of existing ordinances would alter the historic character of the historic district, or historic site to such an extent that it would not be feasible to preserve the historic character, of the historic district or historic site. d) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character of a historic site or of a historic district. [Amd. Ord. 12-93 2/9/93] In addition, the applicant has submitted a letter of explanation to justify the variance request which states, "I have been treated for hypertension for past twenty years and my physician...prescribes daily exercise including swimming." The applicant also notes that the rear property line contains a ten foot (10') tall ficus hedge. This justification does not fall under any of the required findings noted above. Further, while daily exercise is prescribed, this is not required to be conducted on site. Based on the current configuration of the lot, a variance cannot be supported for the construction of the pool at the proposed location. The variance would allow the construction of the pool directly behind the extant building too close to the east property line and neighboring property. Therefore, granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. Further, granting the variance neither promotes the adaptability of the property nor promotes the use of the historic house. The special condition and circumstances that have necessitated the need fora variance are the small lot size and the structures location on the site. A smaller pool could be accommodated on site within the appropriate setbacks. Consequently, a special privilege would be conferred on the owner by granting the variance for the reduction of the rear setback. Given the conditions under which this variance is being requested, it is not reasonable to believe that the variance would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Regarding the construction of the pool, with respect to its location and design, a reduced setback from 10' to 5' is inappropriate, thus, the variance should not be granted. Based upon the above, there is a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (J). PUBLIC NOTICE Formal public notice has been provided to the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property. As a result, an abutting property owner submitted a letter in support of the swimming pool installation regardless of its seemingly close proximity to the adjacent properties. However, the property owner also is concerned of how the "excavation" might affect the existing cement patio on the abutting property. S:'.Plar• 1 .3 1-0-s Cr.:,1 00A35cP-ool"�r ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Approve the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4 (K) to reduce the rear setback from ten feet (10') to five feet (5') in order to accommodate an in ground swimming pool, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (J) (1). C. Deny the variance from LDR Section 4.3.4 (K) to reduce the rear setback from ten feet (10') to five feet (5') in order to accommodate an in ground swimming pool, based upon a failure to make positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.5.1 (J) (1). RECOMMENDATION Move to deny COA 359 for a rear setback variance of five feet (5') at 411 North Swinton Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and failure to make positive findings to LDR Section 4.5.1 (J) (1). Report Prepared by: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Location Map, Site Plans (Existing & Proposed), Letter from Abutter, Site Photos S Piar-ra F3Oblr'q - a-,C0J-a-31TocIVarrsn,---:::oc La' C.2000 -\./Cr;d:" Ht, . t II1 )ERR. M`} 1 OJ N.W. 6TH ST_ i •• 0I Of— o �-- —� ii N E. 6TH ST. ( ) Z O7 '_ V G� mil lop_ Q_ m c.._ 0 -04 1111. I F%-\ N RE LI :- z N.E. 5TH TERR. ' a o cr WOOD LANE , INGS L"NN S , , N m , i I In idC` `" N.E. 5TH Cl. BEVERLY DR. I'1\\\ ('' ;, �F Z TRINITY = N.E. 5TH ST. Ira LUTHERAN ""'- A ROAD � i. - 111111EZ Z� ' �� ` LAKE I D N.E. 4TH sr. POST CASON OFFICE METHODIST )-: CHURCH = — J 1 Q W W j iii O'hi <> > Qh.,0 a W If ,L.- N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. . iii 0 > ■ a O - H Z _ ,____ CITY ( _- ATTORNEY U) "_ o BUILDING Ing ix uj Z MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DR. N.E.I-- , 0 In z N a 5-2 z I.; O > Z 0 Jill! O J F m Z idQ = 2 )//fl a I— CITY a - 3 HALL z Z O FL W Z Z N --iiimi- 411 N. SWINTON AVE. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM874 _ . .... t, 704-6. 3562 p.1 I150 E. ATLANTIC BLVD. Adi ACCURA]t LAND SURVEYORS, INC. TEL. (954) 782-1441 ' FLCRIDA 33E80 L.B. j/3635 FAX. (954) 782-1442 c S_WINTON AVE._ 37.5'ASPH PAVEMENT 70'R/YY I 1 t 000-= • • _ FP \ _ \T 60 00' L1 - ►c pp s' I 5 o I��, I • \ I I . 4r- 35.19' o_ a› \ • JY I 3/ o ?�. 1 \ Li1' N P.L. 11n 0 ASPH DRi,.€ .) 1 D 519'T� 1' 1 i _..1�I I L s.7e? 16.00 o s.2E I I I E a� :� ID E5 I I:. �J .- 2 // ,4� SIviWT1J l4VV' C7 OI IV ZN o O O O cn r+s 78 u.a© -G06 I-m I 6rn I __ T,nD. I I [ - _i . 1 r r1:.59' 26 5Z' k' - __I 1{k v tR Q In•4 n m m o z ii T I rn nn, OU.UU • LOT 22 ELT: 6 NOTES I- UNLESS O:HCRY/SC NOTED FICLC'iCASUR=I.ICTJTS ARE In.0CJ01V�.,:Yf.n'^[COPE CERTIFICATION: NEASUREA1ErIT5 O[STHIS Ic TO CCpp,-y THAT I NA11 0 C. RY ST1p�E Kp THE PP.pP 12-Y 2. EEAWNCS S looco FRCCY 210 BASE]CH OCSCR19ED IR THE FORIES OTT TIRE CAPn5H AND HAZE SET OR FOUND A OCARIIC OF N,1;, MONUMENTS AS INDICATED ON THIS SKETCH AN]THAT SAID ADGYE GROUND SURVEY AND SKETCH ARE ACCURATE AND CORRECT 10 THE _'- THE LANDS SHONTE r-ERECIT AERC NOT ABSTRACTED FOR OIWERSNV.RIC-QS-OF-T'iA Y• BEST OF VY KNCALEO.1 Arlp DEUEF.I FURT`IE4 CER0FY MAI THIS EASEMENTS,OR OTNER MATTE65 or RECORDS BY SCCURAIL LAND.HEILOYDPS_INC. FLORIDAIAO.R NNADv IECN. o S ED Er THE fLOR F\AE GIG'7-E 1. MIS SURV£T IS FOF !i FLCI] ALMW5IR ATVE CODE,AD(Y T_O Er THE fLORIDA BOARD(Jr RE AND uG:T;AfF PURPCS£S 0141.T. 'LAr:C .:S.MAT iSSS. OCT TOR CEDE.OR CON SIRpCpaN '"""' S. 1Ni5 CRAYANC IS TOTE PROFFA-1 CF ACCJRATE LAUD SURVE.06' NOi 6i'VSuJ E r600(2 uJ tin G.E CF,A.�6SI 1Y,TH0�' ._ •.+ ice=- • '. IRIS SU9;,ET COI.SL tti3.,TON. I 5?S COOF •A Auc •AKU lEY!REF 7RT. opt.li NO-''-'ALIR W'H,Y.1F ME OTHER. ..CNf1ERS111P OF FENCES Ar1D WALLS F 5'Y,ROI DETEP.DINEO S C 6. THIS SURVEY 15 rJ ADE Fq7 THE EYCLLJSJVE USE Of THE CERIIFI - -- .` TO 55 YAi UI n_ !EAR -Rllu THE Sall ‘.-IF 13F c /MDT VALID Y,UHpU! i�Re- +THE SkaTR):nr1E REYI S'C(+'_' I THE ORIOHAL RN5EC DATE BT SEAL OF A FLORIDA I ) TUCFNSED S_'RIEYCEE _ POSERT L. 1NO1.IPSON (PRESIDENT) • - I _—— I FP.OFESSICNAL SJRTETOR AND VAPPER Nc.3569 - STATE OF rLOWOA -DATE Oi- SURVET I JF.N,AN E. - ICNCEKED 6' ' I r,FLD F AK 5/12/e5 'RV I As SCALE 1`= 20' „.,`a`aSU-05-3079 �" r,,. SALES REPRESENTATIVE;Fj EFFICIENT PROCESSING AND . � CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE...IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS SALE SHEET SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:BE SURE TO Flu.IN EACH ITEM. • NORTH POOL SIZE: 016)0(3 POOL DEPTH: 3 G POOL PERIMETER POOL AREA SO.FT: TURNOVER RATE VOLUME:(GALLONS): Pn/()I A.4 P FO1JIPMEHT . POOL PUMP: /.11.P' 5P PUMP: POOL FILTER ()Or)Nal EXTRA PUMP: 1./) N I CO POOL INLETS: 3 THERAPY JETS:SKIMMER: / 5P.LIGHT: POOL LIGHT: f./00+./ S.P.HEATER TYPE: POOL HEATER TYPE S.P.HEATER SIZE: � 461 ICE POOL HEATER 51ZE 'DUAL THERMOSTAT: E VI' SUGl10N UNE 21' FLOW SM IC}WALYES: CLEANING SYSTEM: AIR SNITCH: \\\ CHLORINATOR OTHER PIYn FINISH ITFM.i \I - • edIp COPING /r IT(,slid% INTERIOR FIN15Ft .�17RI{S+ ' / .TILE .6x4, DECK SO.FT: ' . SNIMOUT: CAPPING SO.FT: _.1 I LADDER DECK TYPE i'/111E1.,. HANDRAIL: DECK COLOR:WnAI a q SPFnAI N?iF4 iL\1, I 6•RAISED SEAM: GLASS MOCK TYPE 3' / II 12'RAISED SEAM: GLASS FON HT: RAI M SED SEA GLASS ROWSWIDTH: f ( I I 10'POOL ENCLOSURE: PILNIG POOL: I i_.1 / p\ OVERPLAY UNE: ELECTRIC:i , __ I JFe FFATI tRF5 C SP.SPILLWAY SIZE FOUNTAIN'FEATURE I 4.. 7 ,' — SMALL LION HEAR BUBBLERS: LARGE LION HEAD. OTHER 10.US , SPITZER/SPRAY HEAR OTHER BUILDING DEPARTMEOT I.,I Y+A'--1 nC,L 11 S9 OWNER L-k S 1i . �JiVC\0 `> /o ADDRESS q I I N. SlAi,(vt +.J CITY2IP W N .j - (-1-i • PHONE HOME WOW. LOT BLOCK PB PAGE •• (N�N�!! APPROVED FOR LAYOUT,DIMENSIONS&EOWPMENT.YWEUNDER. SUB DIV (561)272-9288 Phone Commercial a Residential • u' v II �ThAT ANY CHANGESYIU INVOLVE ANADOMONALCHARGE (561) - e Fax State Registered Swimming Pool Contractor I`U PLANS t S WILL FOR EVERYC CHANGE MADE.ORIGLSOINAL 1. ENGINEERED DATE JOB# . PLANS WILL BE PROCESSED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIGNED SALES JOB DESIGNER p II Gulfstream Pool Company '- WING.N°°" NATION RP-0067.:— I IPAAPU, • PGFOLIO# U-18224 INSTITOTZ • Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: LadyFairfax0623©aol.com Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 7:36 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Proposed Variance for 411 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach I received the City of Delray Beach Public Notice-Variance#97 today. I have absolutely no objection to my neighbor, Mr. Joseph Andolino, installing a pool on his property that abuts my property. From the notice it appears that the pool is to be built on the side next to my property opposed to being built on the Swinton Avenue side of his property. Since I am currently out of state, have never spoken to/met Mr. Andolino, I am not sure exactly where the pool is to be built but it appears that it is to be built close to my property line. I have no objection to the city granting his request for a variance HOWEVER, I am concerned about the excavation and how it might adversely effect my property. My concern is how the excavation for the pool might alter/cause a shift in the land on my property .... that the large, solidly built cement patio on my property,which is in excellent condition and is next to Mr. Andolino's property, might be adversely affected by the excavation on his property. I have no objection to the installation of his pool but want assurance that if the excavation causes harm to my patio, causes it to crack or cave in or other, that Mr.Andolino will take full responsibility to have it repaired/replaced to its current condition. That is my only concern. Is it possible for someone to inspect/photograph my patio for record, in case of future dispute? I intend to become a full time resident of Delray in the very near future and hope to install a pool as well. Sincerely, Mary Colville Griffith 10 Lake Court Delray Beach, Florida 33444 currently residing at: 9701 Stanton Drive Fairfax, VA 22031 (703) 591-6986 marycolvilaol.com 9/27/2005 DELROAY BEAHC F R I AII-America City 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2 001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2005 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION Th' cili J cii/r)d 41/ 5404-41)4 eff#1:fi-e CW( //c`7 0 & '/.-- 1 OCTOBER �� o� AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING qP CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Y Meeting Date: September 21, 2005 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: City Commission Chambers Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. If a person 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. The September 21, 2005 Historic Preservation Board's regular Meeting has been CANCELED. The next Regular Meeting will be held on October 5, 2005 in the First Floor Conference Room. paue Vane Paul Dorling, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning and Zoning Posted: September 14, 2005