The URL can be used to link to this page

HPB 02-16-05 �.t cu., v�< = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: February 16, 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. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES O December 15, 2004 O January 19, 2005 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 321 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Charles Key Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing residential building. B. 543 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Raul & Brenda Sotomayor Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with alterations to a non- contributing residential building. C. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis Reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members O Staff V. ADJOURN „ 1 tun. Warren cams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: February 11,2005 t • MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: February 16, 2005 LOCATION: City Commission Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Randee Schatz, Linda Lake, Maura Dersh, and John Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Silberstein, and Michelle Reich STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Denise Valek, and Brian Shutt I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:05 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and passed 4 to 0 (Ms. Schatz was not _ present) to approve the Minutes of December 15, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and passed 5 to 0 to approve the Minutes of January 19, 2005 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 321 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Charles Key Item Before the Board: Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing residential building at 321 SE 7th Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). 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 subject property is located on the east side of SE 7th Avenue between SE 3rd Street and SE 4th Street. The structure, which was built in 1992 in a Masonry Vernacular style, is of CBS construction and consists of a 4,367 square foot residence. It # Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 is considered a non-contributing building in the Marina Historic District and is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA). On March 4, 2003, a COA application for the installation of a brick paver driveway was approved administratively. The current proposal involves the installation of aluminum accordion shutters to the windows of a non-contributing residential building. The shutters will be white in color to match the windows and trim color of the building and, although they will be rolled back from the windows when not in use, they will be permanently attached to the building The following is a list of recommended treatments with respect to hurricane protection: • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. ■ If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. ■ Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Although the building is considered non-contributing, removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for all buildings in historic areas, as permanent shutters visible from the right-of-way can have a visual impact on the district. Although the rear faces the Intracoastal Waterway/right-of-way, the applicant has reasonably stated that the large size of the windows to the rear of the property renders the use and storage of removable panel shutters impractical. In accordance with the Design Guidelines, the installation of accordion shutters can be considered for those windows on structures which are not visible from the public right-of-way. Accordion shutters may also be considered for any windows on the south face of the garage. However, it is recommended that removable panels are installed on all windows on the residence and garage that are visible from the public right-of-way (SE 7th Avenue) and that their tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. Mr. Charles Key, 321, SE 7th Avenue, Delray Beach, advised that he received information from five shutter companies at his home. The problem with the removable shutters is the way my windows are configured, they would have to put a track on both sides. As we do not live here in the Summer, I do not want to put them up in June and keep them up the entire Summer. We are trying to utilize the most unobtrusive ones we can. The accordion shutters work the best for me based on the design of the windows. The accordion shutters are the most substantial for wind. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Chairman Perez advised the accordion shutters work better for this applicant. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 Ms. Dersh advised if we make a general decision we are going to come up against this issue with a lot of people for non-contributing buildings. Chairman Perez felt this was a unique circumstance and it is a non-contributing residence. Ms. Dersh advised regular shutters are very difficult to put up, and from a practical standpoint this is a non-contributing residence. We should make it as simplified as possible for the applicant. Ms. Lake advised we would be setting a precedent if we approve this. Chairman Perez advised we can make a decision based on a case-by-case scenario. Mr. Adams questioned if there was a way to streamline the process regarding shutters. We do not want to let anyone put up permanent shutters because it is more convenient, we are here to look at the wellbeing and character of the homes. Ms. Schatz advised as this is a non-conforming house I feel that it is a little intrusive and inappropriate for us to tell someone what type of shutters they can put on their house. We also have to think of their family's safety during a hurricane. Mr. Adams advised the Design Guidelines should be tightened up because they are very broad. 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. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh and approved 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 321 SE 7th 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That the casings are painted to match the exterior of the building. 2) That the latches are kept in good condition to prevent spreading of the accordions over time. 3) That there is some landscaping added to minimize the visual impact from the road. B. 543 NE 3rd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Raul and Brenda Sotomayor Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with alterations to a non-contributing residential building. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 Mr. Adams presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The structure, which was built in 1955 in the Masonry Vernacular style, is of CBS construction and consists of a residence of 1,149 square feet. It is considered a non- contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal includes the following alterations which require Board consideration: 1) Replacement of the existing jalousie windows with single hung 1/1 aluminum windows which will be white in color. 2) Removal of the existing awnings and the installation of wooden shutters. 3) Construction of a full height timber trellis measuring 26' long to the front fagade of the structure. The north most 10' will project 6' from the structure and it will then extend 4' further for the 16' section. The applicant is also proposing the following alterations which may be approved administratively: 1) Replacement of the front and rear jalousie doors with white, 6-panel aluminum doors. 2) Replacement of the existing concrete driveway with a semi-circular driveway surfaced with `Chicago Brick' pavers. 3) Stucco repairs to the external walls of the residence. 4) Erection of a 36" high white vinyl picket fence to the front (west) and side property lines and a white vinyl arbor(8' high) in the front fence. 5) Repainting the structure in a similar color to the existing light yellow.. Windows Repairing the existing jalousie windows or replacing them with jalousie windows would be the most appropriate methods for repairing this building according to the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; however, the issues stated by the applicant concerning jalousie windows (energy efficiency and security) must also be considered. The proposed single hung 1/1 aluminum windows are in keeping with this style of dwelling and period of construction. Although wood is the most appropriate material for the frames, given the structure is technically non-contributing, it does not seem appropriate to require wood frames in this situation. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 Shutters The proposed wooden shutters are to be installed on the structure for storm protection and will, therefore, be fully operational. The shutters are in keeping with this style of dwelling and their installation will remove the need to install less suitable forms of storm protection. The applicant has stated they will be painted a terracotta color similar to the existing awnings. The installation of shutters can therefore be supported; however, it will be a condition of approval that "shutter dog" hardware is used to enhance their appearance. Trellis The proposed wooden trellis for the front of the dwelling is to be the full height of the building and will extend across 26' of the 35' long facade. The northmost 10' will project 6' from the structure and it will then extend 4' further for the 16' section. On completion, the trellis is to be painted white. Trellises of this design can be found on buildings of this style and age and its installation is reversible without causing any significant damage to the fabric. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4 (H)(4)(I), trellises may extend to no more than five (5) feet from the side of the principal building or extend more than two (2) feet from the front or rear of the principal building into the required setback. A condition of approval therefore, is that the trellis must not extend into the front setback by more than two (2) feet. Conclusion The applicant initially made inquiries with regard to extending this structure by adding a second floor; however, the proposal is now to repair and improve the building in a sensitive way thus retaining its character while continuing to be used as a dwelling. At present, the building is regarded as non-contributing; however, if at the next survey the building remains relatively unaltered and in good repair, it could be regarded as contributing. Based on the analysis above, positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), and 4.5.1 (E)(8)(c), (f) and (g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can be made, subject to the above conditions. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Schatz advised that the pictures attached to the Staff Report are very helpful and makes it easier to understand the complete process. Board discussion ensued regarding that the homeowner is upgrading and maintaining the home. Ms. Lake inquired if it would not be a contributing structure with the changes. 5 , Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 Mr. Adams advised it is non-contributing due to its age. When the building becomes 50 years old you cannot make it contributing. It would have to be done when the next survey is done in about 5 or 10 years. Mr. Miller asked if a window is changed would it still be contributing. Mr. Adams advised if a building has been extended to the rear and if the extension was removable and the exterior's integrity of the building they could still be a contributing building to the area. 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. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Schatz and approved 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 543 NE 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 Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That"shutter dog" hardware is used to enhance the appearance of the shutters; and, 2) That the trellis must not extend into the front setback by more than two (2) feet. C. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis Item Before the Board: Reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams advised that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting, and advised the cost for the three windows with impact glass was $4,500. He advised that if he could install accordion shutters they would install landscaping to try and hide the shutters. A plan was dropped out this afternoon which I will pass around. Mr. Adams presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The structure, which was built in 1956 in a Mediterranean Revival style, is of CBS construction and consists of a 3,255 square foot medical office. It is considered a non-contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). At its meeting of January 19, 2005, the Board reviewed a COA for the installation of aluminum accordion shutters on the sides and rear elevations, which do not face a public right-of-way and on the front elevation underneath the arcade. The shutters would be painted ivory to match the color of the building. The Board approved the proposal, subject to the following condition: 6 , Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 That removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. The applicant, who was unable to attend the January 19th meeting, appeared before the Board at its meeting of February 2, 2005 for reconsideration of this condition as he wishes to install accordion shutters on the windows visible from the public right-of-way. The recommendation of the Board was that the applicant investigate other suitable options for the storm protection of the three windows and present them for review. The applicant is exploring other alternatives and will present them at the Board meeting. Analysis Although the building is considered non-contributing, removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for all buildings in historic areas, as permanent shutters visible from the right-of-way can have a visual impact on the district. The shutters to the rear and southeast of the building will not be visible from the public right-of-way while most of those that will be installed in the front façade will be screened by an arcade. However, again in accordance with the Design Guidelines, it is recommended, that removable storm panels or some other appropriate method of storm protection is considered for the windows at the northwest frontage of the property. Appropriate options include impact resistant glass and Colonial style shutters. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Chairman Perez advised as this building is commercial it is much more visible. He discussed that he has tenants and they won't put up the shutters and he has no place to store them. Ms. Lake asked Mr. Shutt if we did not approve this and the other structure was approved would it create a problem Mr. Shutt advised each case is based on the facts set forth by the applicant. Mr. Miller advised this is merely a convenience issue. Mr. Perez advised we should go with staff's recommendation. 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. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 5 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law 7 , Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That removable storm panels or some other appropriate method of storm protection be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade. 2) If removable panels are installed the tracks or channels should be painted to match the exterior of the building. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments - None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members Ms. Lake inquired about an update relative to Palm Square. Mr. Adams advised he will speak with them this week. He spoke with Mr. Costello and they are giving them till this week, and if they are not willing to come into the office and discuss the issue we will have Code Enforcement handle it. Ms. Lake advised there is a problem with town homes on the south corner of Nassau/A1A that were built in the mid 1990's. One of the units is in serious decay. The woman who I sold a unit to advised me that the owner of this unit said the City has given him permission to tear it down, and the individual living next to them will also demolish their unit. Code Enforcement should have been notified of this. Considering the original purchase price of these units, it would make a lot of sense to tear them down and put another building on the ocean. Mr. Adams advised he will speak with Code Enforcement regarding this issue. Discussion ensued relative to handling the application of an applicant who is not present at the Board meeting. Mr. Adams spoke to Mr. Shutt relative to inquiries from applicants who want to bring in a proposal for Board comments and discussion prior to formally submitting the item. Mr. Shutt advised he had concerns relative to this as they are polling the Board. These items should be submitted under a COA. Mr. Miller advised that staff provides direction along the way. Mr. Adams advised we can guide them, however, there was one applicant I did not agree with and he changed his mind and they are now applying for a demolition. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes February 16, 2005 Ms. Schatz advised she feels these individuals are trying to skirt around the rules. Mr. Shutt advised if the applicant wants to get the opinion of staff and the Board, the applicant might have the direction they want to go forward. Mr. Adams advised that anyone who wants to process evaluations and get an opinion, they have to submit a COA or ask staff's opinion. D. Staff- None VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:05 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for February 16, 2005, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on March 2, 2005. 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. 9 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 2nd 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 3`d 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 fagade 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 fagade will comprise of historic siding while the entire west fagade 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 fagade 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 staffs 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 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 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 2nd 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. Staffs 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. Staffs 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 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 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: January 19, 2005 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Robert Tefft, Brian Shutt, 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. Change to Agenda Mr. Tefft advised Item III. C. City Initiated Amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 RL (low density residential) has been added to the Agenda. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of November 3, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of November 17, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of December 1, 2004 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consideration a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building. Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams entered a copy of the project file into the record. The structure, which was built in 1956 in a Mediterranean Revival style, of CBS construction and consists of a medical office of 3,255 sq. ft. It is considered a non-contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal involves the installation of aluminum accordion shutters to the windows of a non-contributing office building. The shutters will be ivory in color to match the building and, although they will be rolled back from the windows when not in use, they will be permanently attached to the building. The Board Shall Consider: (E)(8)(g) 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: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. The following is a list of recommended treatments with respect to hurricane protection: • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. • If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. • Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for buildings in historic areas; .- however, the installation of permanent shutters can be considered in this case. The building is a non-contributing office and the shutters to the rear and southwest of the building will not be visible from the public right-of-way while most of those that will be installed in the front façade will be screened by an arcade. It is recommended, however, that removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. • B. HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue) Old School Square Historic District, George Brewer, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the construction of a three-story mixed-use (retail/residential) development. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Miller and Ms. Lake advised they drove by the site. Mr. Tefft entered a copy of the project file into the record. The subject property is located on the east side of SE 1st Street, approximately 156' south of East Atlantic Avenue, within the Old School Square Historic District. Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.294-acre property consists of Lots 23 and 24, Block 69, Subdivision of Block 69, and contains a 954 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 468 square foot garage. According to the City's records, the single-family dwelling was constructed in 1919, remodeled in 1943, and then remodeled again in 1981. The garage was constructed in 1951 and was remodeled along with the single-family dwelling in 1981. Based upon the amount of renovation work conducted on the structures, the subject property is considered a noncontributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. It is noted that both the single-family dwelling and the garage have been used as business offices. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in association with a Class V site plan application which includes the following: ■ Demolition of the extant noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; ■ Construction of a three-story, mixed-use (retail and residential) building. The first level will consist of 2,100 square feet of retail floor area and six (6) garage parking spaces for the dwelling units. The second and third levels will each consist of four (4) two-bedroom dwelling units (8 units total) ranging between 1,270 and 1,307 square feet; 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 • Construction of a 15-space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the property with access from the adjoining north alley, and three (3) parking spaces that back-out on the adjoining north alley; and, • Construction of a refuse enclosure at the southwest corner of the property and the installation of associated landscaping. In addition to the above, the COA also includes internal adjustment and waiver requests to the following sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDR): An internal adjustment to reduce the required stacking distance between the north alley and the first parking space within the rear parking lot from 20' to 5'. • A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5". • A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot. • A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off- street parking area and the adjacent north alley from 5' to 4'-6" and the adjacent west alley from 5'to between 2'-6" and 3'-5". • A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off- street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2'. Staff doesn't have any objections to the requested waiver. The parking lot associated with the waiver request consists of 21 parking spaces and is thus required to provide a stacking distance of 20' between the abutting right-of-way and the first parking space in the lot. The proposal only exceeds the threshold by one (1) space and is located within the Central Business District where there is a great demand for parking. Also, the access to the parking area is provided from the adjoining alley to the north and the transition of incoming traffic onto the site should not result in the stacking of vehicles into the alley in a manner that would create a safety concern. Given the circumstances involved in this request, the waiver is supportable. With respect to the dead.end parking bay, It is possible that the full width of the maneuvering area could have been provided if the abutting landscape area was not given they could have provided the full distance. The applicant went ahead and provided some of that landscape buffer to buffer the property to the south. Given that the abutting property is an approved parking garage, reduction to accommodate landscaping there is reason for supporting it. Vehicles will be able to back up and not encroach into that landscape area and still have space. With regard to the site visibility triangle, there will be clear sight visibility in excess of 20' to both the east and west when stopped at the north end of the property. As the alleys typically receive local traffic and not through traffic, the speed of traffic traversing the alley is greatly reduced. Therefore, positive finding can be made with respect to 2.4.7(B) (5). 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes • January 19, 2005 The development proposal does also include the dedication of some rights-of-way. A 5' right-of way along SE 1st Avenue. Two feet (2') of right-of-way on the north and west alleys. Those will be dealt with as part of a plat for the development. With respect to sidewalks, it was initially put forth by staff to provide a sidewalk along the front of the actual building in order to provide better pedestrian interaction. Staff subsequently requested that to be deleted. We are now requesting you put it back as it was before. With respect to the landscape plan, a waiver request has been made to reduce the landscape area along the north alley. It is insufficient by 6", therefore, staff is recommending that rather than approve a waiver to do this, that the parking tier is instead shifted 6" to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2' 6" to 2". The balance of the waiver pertains to the separation between the parking area and the west alley. That has a variable width of between 2' 6" and 3' 5". The majority of the landscape area would have been met the minimum width without the dedication of the 2' of right-of-way having been required. The proposed landscape barrier can still accommodate the necessary landscape materials, thus the reduction will not negatively impact the intent of the code. It is noted also that a minimum amount of additional area can be acquired for the landscape barrier through the elimination of the proposed header curb abutting the parking spaces. The curbing is redundant as wheel stops are being proposed, therefore the elimination of the header curb would be able to capture an additional 6" thus reducing the need for a waiver with a reduction from 5' to between 3' and 3' 11". Granting the waiver would not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, or diminish the provision of public facilities. Staff is supporting the waiver. The final waiver request is a reduction of the 5' landscape area along the south property line. Going back to the maneuvering area where you could have provided the entire 5' buffer but doing so we would not have been able to provide an adequate. maneuvering area. The applicant has chosen to go half way between. The reduced landscape area will still be sufficient width to accommodate the required hedge material. The adjacent property is approved to be a parking garage directly on the property line. There will not be much impact with the reduced landscape area. Given the conditions the reduction of the landscape area from 5' to 2' is appropriate and staff supports the waiver request. In regard to demolition, the structures are non-contributing as they have been renovated numerous times since their construction. Accordingly, the extant single- family dwelling and accessory garage have no original architectural character. The immediate demolition of the noncontributing structures will not be detrimental to the balance of the district. As architectural and historical integrity of the structure are not present, a positive finding can be made with regard to the demolition request. With respect to the design elements, what is proposed is a three-story building designed as a contemporary interpretation of Vernacular architectural style with Floribbean elements consisting of retail storefronts along the first level east elevation and a flat roof with decorative parapets designed to screen the rooftop mechanical 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 equipment. The building also includes balconies with decorative railings, French doors and Bahama shutter style awnings for the second and third level dwelling units; stair towers with standing seam metal roofs; decorative wall-mounted light fixtures; and Bahama shutter style garage doors on the first level west elevation. The proposed development will be similar or lesser in height and scale as the surrounding developments, and will be consistent with the continuing development patterns along SE 1st Avenue. However, staff does have concerns with respect to the verticality (massing) of the facade along SE 1st Avenue (east elevation). While the Worthing Place development is 48' in height along SE 1st Avenue, façade offsets and plane changes were provided. With regard to this proposal, consideration should be given to increasing the offsets and providing awnings along the first floor. Also, providing a stucco band between the second and third levels should be considered as well as brackets for the balconies, and a material change between the first level and the upper levels. The proportion of the windows on the sides of the French doors are inconsistent with the height and size within the district. Thus, applications such as framing or muntins should be considered to help reduce the scale. Given those conditions being addressed, staff supports the design elements and recommends modifications to the waivers regarding the north landscape buffer by the north alley-way by shifting the parking tier six inches to the south and eliminating the header curb along the west alley to modify the waiver request. Staff is recommending approval of the four waivers, one internal adjustment, as well as the demolition request. Positive findings can be made regarding site plan, landscape plan, as well as the design elements. Mr. George Brewer, agent and architect, for the project advised the building will have two bays of retail on the first floor, and two floors of apartments with two bedrooms, and on the top floor there is a penthouse with an urban backyard. I would like to go through the conditions of approval. I agree with some, and others may cause some conflict. Listed below are the issues I do not agree with. Site Plan: • No. 2. Refuse Enclosure - Mr. Brewer questioned the reason for reorienting that because trucks come up from the south and leave on the north. Mr. Tefft stated if that is the case, then it is fine and a letter should be provided from Waste Management to that effect. • No. 5. Bike Rack- Mr. Brewer stated he would like to leave as is. Mr. Tefft stated that staff didn't want it so close to the retail and that it should be moved toward the east/west walkway at the northeast corner. • No. 9. Mr. Brewer does not agree with • No. 10. Mr. Brewer advised the window goes to the ground level and it is relative to the urban shopping. Mr. Tefft advised there is a 5 story wall adjacent to that part of the building. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Landscape Plan: ■ No. 3. Mr. Tefft advised changing the angle and take it under the dumpster enclosure. • No. 4. Mr. Tefft advised they can leave it where it is if the landscaping is adjusted. • No. 7. Mr. Brewer advised the header curb is a flush curb and it is put there because there is a swale between the parking and the alley. Instead of the bricks caving in from the swale I wanted to put the header curb. That is where we have water drainage. Chairman Perez advised this could be kept as is. Design Elements: Mr. Brewer advised he took a lot of care in designing this building, and felt the following changes would not have a positive impact. • No. 1. We have 8" and 9" offsets and color changes as indicated. If I move it any more I do not see a benefit. Right now it is distinctive. • No. 2. Awnings on the first floor - the projection of the balconies will act as awnings and they cover the doorways to the retail. • No. 3. Stucco Band -we do not want to use a stucco band between the second and third levels because all that will do is increase the dimension there, and I want to make a distinct difference between the retail and the residential. • No. 4. Brackets on the balconies - they would only be phony and they would encroach more into my retail area and I don't want to do that. If the Board would be kind enough to approve the elevations as is I don't feel any of the changes are going to benefit the building. ■ No. 5. I don't know what the change in materials will do between the first and upper levels. • No. 6. Muntins - we want as much glass as possible in the living room. The open glass is the way it should go. The windows don't have muntins, and I would like to keep the consistency the same. ■ No. 7. That has been eliminated. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Mr. Tefft wanted to clarify the design elements, muntins were just a thought. Maybe another option would be fixed panel of glass next to the French doors. That is another option we thought about. As far as some of the other changes, we were looking more to break up the verticality of the building. The building has three panels going straight up and we would like something to break it up and providing a different material on the first floor to provide a separation. Chairman Perez asked if there was a color rendering. Mr. Tefft brought the color rendering to the Board. Mr. Brewer advised the colors of the building will be coffee and a few shades of gray, with horizontal score lines 3/4"thick, and the glass is slightly green in color. 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Mr. Tefft advised a stucco band between the second and third floor to provide a vertical break. We are not sure how well the balconies on the upper units will provide protection from the retail. Some type of awning should be provided, and something similar above balconies on the second level. Brackets should also be installed to give it some element of support, even if it is faux. Mr. Brewer advised the detail on the balcony is going to slope to the back of the building. The awning is going to be redundant to what is already there. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez inquired if any one had a problem with the waivers. None of the Board members had a problem with the waivers. Mr. Dersh inquired if the site triangle was approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Tefft advised the City Engineer looked at it and didn't have a problem. Mr. Silberstein questioned the landscaping along the parking garage. Mr. Tefft advised we had a dedication on 1st Avenue. Mr. Silberstein questioned if the approved project abuts the new right-of-way. Mr. Tefft advised he was not sure; however, Chairman Perez thought there was a dedication. Mr. Silberstein agrees that there should be a hard surface in front of the store front. Ms. Dersh questioned the off street parking. Chairman Perez advised there should be an individual island on the property and not go to the property line. Mr. Brewer advised the spaces are reduced to three. Mr. Miller advised he had an issue with the sidewalk extension on the site plan. Mr. Brewer advised there is a slight swale which will keep the people out of there and there are hard drains to pick up the water. Mr. Silberstein inquired if they need this retention for the project as it is all hardscape. Chairman Perez advised the sidewalk on the side of the bike rack is 3'wide. Mr. Silberstein inquired how was the building setback determined, and what is the setback on the building to the north? 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Mr. Brewer advised it is right on the sidewalk. Mr. Tefft advised this was prior to adoption of the new Design Guidelines. Mr. Silberstein does not feel the landscape reflects the urban feel of the building, it is too suburban. As you look north you will see Royal Palms. You can put in 3 or 4 Royal Palms which will open the storefronts to the street. Mr. Brewer agreed with that option. Mr. Silberstein feels Perrigrine tree resembles a bush. Ms. Dersh agreed with Mr. Silberstein's suggestions, and that the storefronts should be more open. Chairman Perez advised the landscape plan should be more consistent with Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Silberstein advised he likes the building and the offsets are fine. He suggests that the fixed glass panels should be on the side of the French doors. He is a little concerned about the ground floor as you have signage and you can't put an awning in front of a sign. However, we could defer that until we look at the signage. In regard to the color scheme the Board felt they were too muted and industrial. The applicant should come back with the color chips when they come in for signage approval. Mr. Tefft advised staff did not have a problem with the color scheme. Demolition Request: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the demolition request for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Internal Adjustment and Waivers: A. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the right-of-way of the north alley and the first parking space within the parking lot from 20' to 5' 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (4) 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 (c) to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5" 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 2.4.7(C) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (1) to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the modified request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent alley to the west from 5' to between 2' 6" and 3' 5" 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. E. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2' 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 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class V site plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Approved - That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 2. Approved - That the refuse enclosure is reoriented to face north unless a letter is provided from Waste Management Services indicating that the proposed orientation is acceptable. 3. Approved - That a wall-mounted fixture is provided that is less contemporary and more in keeping with the architectural style of the building. 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 4. Approved - That the light fixtures around the perimeter of the development are provided with cut-off shielding in order to limit glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties. 5. Omitted - That the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is located on the south side of the east-west walkway at the northeast corner of the property. 6. Approved -That a 5' right-of-way dedication is provided for SE 1st Avenue. 7. Approved - That a 2' right-of-way dedication is provided for each of the abutting alleys. 8. Approved - That the full width of the abutting alleys (following dedication) is paved. 9. Modified as Follows: That a 3' pedestrian walkway be provided to the south of the present location of the bike rack and that this sidewalk connects the east and west sidewalk. 10. Omitted - That the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated. 11.Approved -That the plat for the subject property is recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development proposal or that a waiver is obtained from DSMG; and. 12.Approved -That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the site plan. Landscape Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request meets the criteria set forth in Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Approved - That revised plans are submitted addressing the Landscape Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 2. Approved - That, if possible, a Traveler's Palm or other vertical element is provided in place of the Green Buttonwood tree along the south property line (adjacent to the parking area), or that the landscape area is left without a tree/palm. 3. Approved -That the location of the proposed underground electric, cable television and phone lines is shifted adjacent to the refuse area. 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 4. Approved - That the proposed water meters and their associated service lines (northeast corner of the site) are relocated so as not to be within 10' of any proposed trees/palms. 5. Approved - That the landscape architect coordinates with the City Horticulturist in determining the final landscape plan and those modifications made to eliminate landscape and utility conflicts. 6. Approved -That the western parking tier is shifted 6" to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2'-6" to 2'. 7. Omitted -That the header curb abutting the western parking tier is eliminated and incorporated into the adjoining landscape area. 8. Approved -That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the landscape plan. 9. Modified as follows: That the east landscape design be redesigned to be more consistent with the landscape along Atlantic Avenue and other urban streets in Delray Beach. 10. Deleted - That the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated. 11.Approved -That the plat for the subject property is recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development proposal or that a waiver is obtained from DSMG. 12. Approved -That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the site plan. Design Elements: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Delete -That the building offsets are increased 2. This item is deferred until we review the signage. 3. Deleted - That a stucco band is provided between the second and third levels of the building along all elevations; 4. Deleted -That brackets are provided for each of the balconies; 12 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 5. Deleted - That a change in materials is provided between the first level and the upper levels; 6. Modified to provide the same profile for the sidelights as the French door profile. 7. Approved - That the emergency overflow scupper is eliminated from the south elevation. Amended motion made by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 7 to 0 to modify the above motion to add Item No. 8. that the applicant comes back to the Board with an elevation that shows accurate color chips and how the awnings are treated on the first floor. Motion made by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 7 to 0 to delete No. 2 above. C. City Initiated Amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 RL (low density residential) enacting performance standards and providing for recreational areas for multi-family developments to mitigate the impacts of additional density from a base density of 3 units per acre to a maximum of 6 units per acre and changing review of site plans from the Planning and Zoning Board to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation Board. Motion made by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake, and passed 7 to 0 to table Ordinance No. =05 handed out to the Board subsequent to the start of the meeting and asked to be included on the Agenda at the Board Meeting on February 2, 2005. IV. DISCUSSION ITEM: A. 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) Mr. Tefft stated this item was denied by the Board at a prior meeting. The plans will be revised to add on to the existing contributing house in the historic district by eliminating the garage and adding 3,200 sq. ft. to the rear of the house. Parking will be up front and off a new circular driveway. There might be two scenarios, on street parking and in-lieu parking. Mr. Silberstein, Architect for the project, advised the two sketches evolved with our discussions with staff and our last Board meeting on December 15, 2005. The applicants (Troy and Lisa Case) are attempting to preserve the integrity of the house and put an addition on. In the applicants original submittal they needed to expand up to 3,200 sq. ft. and the apartment. The Board was concerned about the cottage. Staff advised they are comfortable with the overall scheme and supports it. However, there are concerns about the parking. They would prefer the scheme on SK 4 which provides nine (9) on-site parking spaces, rather than SK 5 which provides ten (10) on- site parking spaces. The applicant would prefer the scheme on SK 4 which provides nine (9) on-site parking spaces as opposed to scheme 3 that provides ten (10) on-site, and the difference between the two is that one is the on-site parking and the scheme that the applicant prefers has one space on the right-of-way and there is no terminal 13 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 island. The extra on-site parking is critical in terms of economics and also that when the property is financed, he would be short one (1) space on-site. Chairman Perez advised you can have two (2) spaces on the street. Mr. Silberstein advised that is not considered on-site parking, it is a public right-of-way. Mr. Tefft advised the only issue with SK 3 is the compact parking ratio. Chairman Perez advised that the two (2) spaces can be counted in the circular driveway. Mr. Tefft advised there might be a problem if you have two (2) spaces in the circular drive and the two (2) back-up spaces. If you have the space in the circular drive you then have the compact car backing out to Swinton Avenue. We cannot support this. You either have the two (2) spaces in the circular or the back-up spaces. Mr. Silberstein advised they need this parking. Ms. Dersh inquired if the driveway could come off 1st. Mr. Tefft advised no. Mr. Silberstein advised they wanted to move forward with this, and advised they are putting the front porch back as it was originally, and will be a two story design. Mr. Dersh advised they were on the right track, however, they are putting too many spaces in the back lot. Chairman Perez advised more landscaping is needed, and he would prefer to have staff go over the landscape plan V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Lake inquired about the progress with the house on Palm Square. Mr. Adams advised that Code Enforcement was going out tomorrow to ask them to revise the paint colors. If they refuse, I don't know where that would leave us. Mr. Tefft advised it would then have to go to the Board. If they didn't comply they would eventually be sited. Mr. Shutt advised they will re-fine them. D. Staff: None 14 r Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for January 19, 2005, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 15 OEERAY UEACH DEERAY BEACH batal HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD �d MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT (UL I993 1 2993 2QU1 _ 0U1 Agent: Charles Key Project Name: Key Residence Location: 321 SE 7th Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing residential building at 321 SE 7th Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the east side of SE 7th Avenue between SE 3rd Street and SE 4th Street. The structure, which was built in 1992 in a Masonry Vernacular style, is of CBS construction and consists of a 4,367 square foot residence. It is considered a non-contributing building in the Marina Historic District and is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA). On March 4, 2003, a COA application for the installation of a brick paver driveway was approved administratively. The current proposal involves the installation of aluminum accordion shutters to the windows of a non-contributing residential building. The shutters will be white in color to match the windows and trim color of the building and, although they will be rolled back . from the windows when not in use, they will be permanently attached to the building. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(8)(g) 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: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. Meeting Date: February 16,2005 Agenda Item: III.A. 321 SE 7ch Avenue,Storm protection Page 2 Delray Beach Design Guidelines The following is a list of recommended treatments with respect to hurricane protection: • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. • If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. • Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Although the building is considered non-contributing, removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for all buildings in historic areas, as permanent shutters visible from the right-of-way can have a visual impact on the district. Although the rear faces the Intracoastal Waterway/right-of-way, the applicant has reasonably stated that the large size of the windows to the rear of the property renders the use and storage of removable panel shutters impractical. In accordance with the Design Guidelines, the installation of accordion shutters can be considered for those windows on structures which are not visible from the public right-of-way. Accordion shutters may also be considered for any windows on the south face of the garage. However, it is recommended that removable panels are installed on all windows on the residence and garage that are visible from the public right-of-way (SE 7th Avenue) and that their tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 321 SE 7th 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 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. C. Deny approval of the COA for 321 SE 7th 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 Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 321 SE 7th Avenue by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the 321 SE 7th Avenue, Storm protection Page 3 Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That removable panels are installed on all windows on the residence and garage that are visible from the public right-of-way and that their tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. Attachments: Location Map, Photograph Report Prepared by: Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner „... • ''! ) L . , , •j L'_, ' II • I I 1 ATLANTIC AVENUE r -, - IIIIII IIM MI M --....„ , N - . ; 1 I I I I -- ' .*: • :7\2 '1' 1,'.!.` ''' Lu s‘\' \`•:- *. '' I iii I I 1940 1995 cc ,1950, 1931,,,1939 WATERWAY I 1. D k ‘: '.. • EAST • .\\\\s.-.( •0 , (”),.. ..7.,2,.. .1 ....,. p•A&PC LOT COMMERCIAL .:• . • . . Ilii '. I CONDO nuorPre 3' 1938...`;'.:1925:, 197s.,1 t...,1938V 1960. Li ''163``-iIr , 1925 2 , 1 Li j Li j BAR > > ir,, \• '..\ ;t-z.;•)V4c; " N HARBOUR :.19,„„26 1,,926 ••••‘' I i • , I S E. 1ST ST r1937_____ MI flil 1 : 2 BUD'S 1937 - i 2 2 :1925 13. '."• : . . ' :".."• ..."I e I 1--- 1953 : 1:. 19" 5 1 7 2 3. >•• 9 _ I < 1953 !.. • 1935 ,.; - 1950 1051 z Lula I fr I 1 Li 14.1 ui >L° 1949 l :• '1925 ; •--Z,- l - • 1 vi . u • , , , ',••'.1 •.1-.. 'Ii f 3. 1939 1937 I 1940 1938 1940 .1925 1993 2 Z<U 1947 E 1924 I 1953 9400i ____ . i SE. 2ND ST. 1 I 1 1. 1942 8 _! 1954 .... : " 1948 .vt / - < I . • —. -3 SEACAT0 :936... 1 -- _ < 2 2 .1922 ..1... 1Z 1951 • ' • F-- TOWERS _ _ 1 m I 1959 7, tn < _ 1937 ii Z. ... 193 ‘:. _1 :..-: ‘• ,.. : 0 _ _1 < :'.1938 *" I 0 - CC W < W 0 I •.1937 F, Z 1989 - a W I CY W • LA_ 1970 F. ti_ I 2 . I 1988/ -- - II 197° I 1988 ii I SE. 3RD ST. — 1 , 'N i , _ ,_ 1958 .?.., Z 1954 ,,.',1925.',': I `-- • _ ,_ ui• (I) 1 ., 1947 D — 1947 I—. 1958 I I II I Z 1950 ' I 1955 D D — 0 0 0 CO 000 ui %I. 1938 2 2 1-- 1— — D C C 1953 — IV) Z / ( , 19311., ,...„. 1994 j ) • — S.E. 4TH ST. -.‘ (-----7— i r o I I I N MARINA HISTORIC DISTRICT —.....- Orf CT 1:1110tY BEAM FL 1 —CONTRIBUTING 1950 -YEAR BUILT too -STREET ADDRESS FIAWC&ZOPONG DEPARILEMT --0,0.1 sot MAP SITIV,-- %W.REF:tum..2 } _ j� // ,�f•, ,� t �N:.;� rtD�a�' i T} / 01 s ', ��_:"" rl9f•f,� 5 ,� yr � r i • p / I tj .144) t d v�rc y `sit _ hte. �+ •r t J \It - h • r' _-.y u Y 3' S tS.t'++ H. _ ' 3. e% i'_J> ?er -'fi` j 4 b- f te S • 1(( 1 r t - ;Or fir,,._. , ; - A.4'.%' &,.':-.' idi :.-:-:: •'....;•1,1:1'..;''''..-'''.-fir ,: y k=. '.-: ,ti :.+ ✓1 r `Y -5 y �: i s - 0' - duimi, - • S Sr _ aT ;7i r OLLRAY BLAC71 OELRAY BEAFF! kakd ie d HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'III MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT ink 1993 - 1993 2001 2001 Agent: Raul & Brenda Sotomayor Project Name: 543 NE 3rd Avenue Location: East side of NE 3rd Avenue across from NE 5th Terrace ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to a non-contributing residential building at 543 NE 3ra Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The structure, which was built in 1955 in the Masonry Vernacular style, is of CBS construction and consists of a residence of 1,149 square feet. It is considered a non- contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal includes the following alterations which require Board consideration: 1) Replacement of the existing jalousie windows with single hung 1/1 aluminum windows which will be white in color. 2) Removal of the existing awnings and the installation of wooden shutters. 3) Construction of a full height timber trellis measuring 26' long to the front facade of the structure. The northmost 10' will project 6' from the structure and it will then extend 4' further for the 16' section. The applicant is also proposing the following alterations which may be approved administratively: 1) Replacement of the front and rear jalousie doors with white, 6-panel aluminum doors. 2) Replacement of the existing concrete driveway with a semi-circular driveway surfaced with `Chicago Brick' pavers. 3) Stucco repairs to the external walls of the residence. Meeting Date: February 16,2005 Agenda Item: III.B. 543 NE 3rd Avenue,Alterations Page 2 4) Erection of a 36" high white vinyl picket fence to the front (west) and side property lines and a white vinyl arbor (8' high) in the front fence. 5) Repainting the structure in a similar color to the existing light yellow.. ANALYSIS LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1 (E)(8)(c), (f) and (g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (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. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (f) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. (g) Relationship of-Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of material, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. The following are suggested by the Delray Beach Design Guidelines Windows Retain distinctive windows which feature a sash, muntins, glazing, sills, heads, hood molds, paneled, or decorative doors jambs and moldings and shutters and blinds. Changing the historic appearance through inappropriate design materials or adding a finish or color that changes the sash, depth of reveal, the reflectivity, or the appearance of the frame should be avoided. Replacing viable windows rather than maintaining the original should be avoided. 543 NE 3rd Avenue,Alterations Page 3 Decorative Shutters Shutters should be operable or appear to be operable. Shutters should be designed so they measure the full height and one-half width of the window frames. "Shutter dog"hardware should be used to enhance the appearance that the shutters are operable. Shutters should be attached to the window casing rather than the exterior finish material. Shutter details should compliment the construction material and architectural style of the property on which they are applied. 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 Windows Repairing the existing jalousie windows or replacing them with jalousie windows would be the most appropriate methods for repairing this building according to the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; however, the issues stated by the applicant concerning jalousie windows (energy efficiency and security) must also be considered. The proposed single hung 1/1 aluminum windows are in keeping with this style of dwelling and period of construction. Although wood is the most appropriate material for the frames, given the structure is technically non-contributing, it does not seem appropriate to require wood frames in this situation. Shutters The proposed wooden shutters are to be installed on the structure for storm protection and will, therefore, be fully operational. The shutters are in keeping with this style of dwelling and their installation will remove the need to install less suitable forms of storm protection. The applicant has stated they will be painted a terracotta color similar to the existing awnings. The installation of shutters can therefore be supported; however, it will be a condition of approval that "shutter dog" hardware is used to enhance their appearance. 543 NE 3rd Avenue,Alterations Page 4 Trellis The proposed wooden trellis for the front of the dwelling is to be the full height of the building and will extend across 26' of the 35' long façade. The northmost 10' will project 6' from the structure and it will then extend 4' further for the 16' section. On completion, the trellis is to be painted white. Trellises of this design can be found on buildings of this style and age and its installation is reversible without causing any significant damage to the fabric. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4 (H)(4)(I), trellises may extend to no more than five (5) feet from the side of the principal building or extend more than two (2) feet from the front or rear of the principal building into the required setback. A condition of approval therefore, is that the trellis must not extend into the front setback by more than two (2) feet. Conclusion The applicant initially made enquiries with regard to extending this structure by adding a second floor; however, the proposal is now to repair and improve the building in a sensitive way thus retaining its character while continuing to be used as a dwelling. At present, the building is regarded as non-contributing; however, if at the next survey the building remains relatively unaltered and in good repair, it could be regarded as contributing. Based on the analysis above, positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), and 4.5.1 (E)(8)(c), (f) and (g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can be made, subject to the above conditions. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 543 NE 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 4.5.1 (E)(4) and 4.5.1 (E)(8)(c), (f) and (g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. C. Deny approval of the COA for 543 NE 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 4.5.1 (E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(c), (f) and (g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 543 NE 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 543 NE 3rd Avenue,Alterations Page 5 Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That "shutter dog" hardware is used to enhance the appearance of the shutters; and, 2) That the trellis must not extend into the front setback by more than two (2) feet. Attachments: Location Map, Photograph, Trellis Sketch, and Door,Window and Trellis Details Report Prepared by: Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner J I I Jllilt III II ) NN1IIIIiIIIII ! >-N.W. 11jH ST. N.E. 1 D 1TH ST. _j Q 0 X - N.E. 10TH ,$T -o of W NMI AIL Z N.E. 9TH ST. — N.W. 9TH ST. WMEM i _ I > , z l Qoll > N.W. 8TH ST. GEORGE� 111111r. BOULEVARD ,\\ i ` ! N.W. 7TH ST. -■ ti N.E. 7TH ST. � ' �—I I I p M. 3z ��21C1�1:�� -> \\ p I ,— n I �� , N.E. 7TH ST. _ N.W. 6TH ST. ' _ 0 N.E. 6TH ST. 5I! z z D \ \ G OO rt-\\\, CO ED \. ` \\\ I ` O (n z. _ z N.E. 5TH TERR. re. I N.E. 6TH S _40 -\ W00D LANE '! •, \'"\ I I [ i to -, 2 c \ N.E. 5TH CT. ' O \ \ � N.E. 5TH : ST. \ \ C' F�"�� z Z TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. LUTHERAN _ _ ER M Z - LAKE IDA ROAD N.E. " 4TH / \ i,_� �-- ST. N.E. 4TH ST. POST CASON OFFICE METHODIST r >: CHURCH a _ _ a ui > �—> Z C Q Q CC a _ w w z 0 0 " l'-1 LaiLs_ la- -- z z .z z z N . 1 ---mift- DEL-IDA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING do ZONING DEPARTMENT \ / -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- DRAWN BY: NPT M i 3w' r'lt - �ti k� yca`a 1 Yf j� s S P' . .f' <•,k. ...`wo "'},(Y ram k 1 +i;6',`,f'' -\•, t''' ,_rl tr n a' yyr "` - y, x sL� �4 a .' f ' s . yy .1 t`+` ea F � s ifs � f• y . ass.... . O A i ,p , " tg 1 , r 4 ♦`r .." ,;r r l7^� '4r-_3' y- tvi i '',' ‘• .Av-, , � 1 1 ',ems`G .. ,.y0 .f/I- \ 1,, :�t a� . y _ [[[;; ► ' ` it � t�.a:�;� 'i `tt��t - i,A � GRm`'"' ".ss 1&i.� a._,sf. - F �� .�^� �-� �,ticx. ..ws.<�,:w.•Mrw-•.,=..� ... .1.t -. �dll 's'1F s- N �i � sz�•' ` i' -it.‘k, --,-1-‘,,.\\it, -,-.--704zit.c..... ,-„,,--,..e,-.-..,./ , :I, \ 1 f . k ,,w 1 ` :<,� 7 -_ tC/[� ,s. .'. 4 FGFaG q .x- P_- ' .. f .1, 1,\-‘t—',/ 1/2t. • 1' "':is:_ • — ._•,,,, ,...:,,,,,,:i.:,:',,, .-.,,--_,..:;_*--,,,,,i-,,,.;-7-4-,,;*§-,;,...2-....4:1-iii.r„...,..-.....-- -----:-:-:-..:--_ ',,,'.` ':.:'!----..,77.....,,,,,,,,----•,,---,:•,!.„„',.'.1="":"—7.77'1';r-,;-::: fi ` yq%n. Co -7-)4owit 6 VC? 1 r-r- ---1(' . 1.-------;5-- I' 1, -4 __:, 3 . _____ _......_, ./lir(4)(4-\ irA X 12 Pip B +. ��.�.�.=r3.�lo��'��u��.ate.—•—„...w..., Y..---. 1 . li d I ri . 1 IMP 1 I 201 % 11 , , LW{{i. a • • a,. . �.�',- f\/J�••��' _ •��i'•''\ :+,"' .`. •�,•"•,�. _'� -`�::> ....tee a . . ` - .. .. .... - rg-: 11■ Ell\ „...:,.,..,•,...,.,....:.;.;:„.„.,„,:„...,i;..................:.:...,„:„.....,..,...,..,......,......... .....,....„..::.. ..,.. ,.is " _- nt'i ,.„,„,..... ........„. ...,,,„,.„._,w.,,g,1 .v.i.;;...,:,„..,,,...,,,,, ,.,,,....,. ..:._,„,.._.......,,. .,... :•...,,,,..,,,........\ ,. t h ,•:,..„...„....,..,...,„..,..f.r.,...„.„2„, „.,.....„ ..„,,e,,,,,,•,•.,,... .,...„...0 ., E - i ,...,...:„...i.,...;:„...:,.....,...„."„:„....,...,. .,,...,..,•.. M1, . ,.....,........ .,...,.. ,. . .1 i :. ,,.„....z.4,,.„:„....,, ,,...,...,....„,...„,:::.,:,....„..,„„4„,..,:.,...,,,„„,.....4.„..4,„,..,.% ..,,...,.. _:. , : �:G r•r' • 1 ;,hy t' v4 _ 4 4 - - _ ?',rya y-u•` ,,,,...,..„. ..„.,.,,,_ r.i ;i d'r •.i I ,.,,,,,...„,,,,...„,....„.„,...„,......„:,.........,,„. 1..:.":„.....,...,..,.....„... .,,..,,,...„.,......„.....„ ._ . .,..,.„;,.....v,•?...,„,..,,i,,,,..„:::„.....,..,:„..„. ...„,1..„.,.../.r„,„,......„,,,J,„.„... .„,.:,,,<„.•• " 0 " ::r=. 7 0 2 { a r: 5 - •a`t` e - may:- 2 � - F _65 3 � - __ - _ j/�xf''c-A _ _ .fin - _ _ _ ��t .. 1 , �t ;ti fir < F\/f • ... - - x:TS 4 F i � .5,.,, �. 6= ANEL . : • Q _ `i N:i` ��ti: DOOR r ,7 t. •�.-.•_:.-..,:__:i...__>_"z,.:,.: :.:.,. > - _ - _ - " ors;... �2=�, l: y Win,__,..,._-. .. ?.'..�< _ Y Z _ i,, _ tL' x._ �•' " �!:'tit :3�"''. • _ 1 _ €ter' • - - -- _ 5� Lp - :ice. a YF - h - - d _ �s L. �,� L �• - �IY y ��T -, r Z L-}r�'fS g u,.s � [ - - .IJ' l� (�, -J, - p Yti ..ti•j.; ��.. ! �=mow �,[?.j� i�fisyx ft7r_v` i?'y - s'r rr s —_ t fir± - - ht_ - ri§i jZ-it�i,` - -K" • .v,i-.i'. - 23`S`. 'F"t. `_ 1 F,:.Yi�,Y +:4` Fes,•``:.,-� w, - �. - - - - - �-'fix.. ' • rr_„ -- ie- .i' :�' : - - _ as — :,''ice.' st_ - 'j „s. - - Zw �+ - .._=.�% - �+fit " _ • wA Y r, T_ •; t_r d f J • A "_ - "�" - ice}' - _ 1 3 ,-,t- - `rj - y% 4X r- - __ __ _ __ _ _ __mac w,. -� "' _ _ _ _ ti:r 1 " ii-t->;C ' _ >r - .tea' ,�. :tz tk " f 4• t - rt- i E.Fie `, is, uv r^ '.Nay. r,- lcl:'ry { , J= lit _ a.`j+,'" - �g May. Q>, - - C el�, t•�JF'i' j� - - t: i' 1. 3 f;;.:.„.,-...-...;:-.•.:.''. -.'. I". '-, .=';',..:, `,,,k'i ,•;. S' fir."�r çJ : .aY • •b - • -'fit - -- �i _ t,e53` - _ p�.�? 'r%c.:� .Z14 Ft - - ems- �''�"i,:! • ,:.�,; - a •':/".4.•!4'.i-r.:-I-E104,,,,itt-.;1.49, ''..- •11.1-;."''''.::,-;;!,---:iii Alia*/,,3;i-r--t-14' --4-:,---,--f,:,--1-3', -:4-,`?'':,,jLI---" ' 3 �� ::n 4 Tye: ,q ,,,,,„.,„.,,,•..,„_,,..,„ . .. ,..i.i. ilill ...:j'. [i3 _ • 5 • - .:z..�`is'{4:fi4 -' .- - _ - �uaa y .,.474 :.' .v W , • _L=,,t _ _ .�i _ _ .;,._,.. 4,.., 4t"., O _ - "'"iY-,. - E :f-, .- 1 Vie':-. :N .'.3'.ar7i� i�T zijtrr'. :i._l. at..., - 7."•. = v .'.'"e; I�i; ^�#�'_ :3 ~^ - d � ��- � �1w • • _r_,.* - Y � �Y:,�"r- .._.�i7-.'•sue, _ i 'to%1.:T74.4 .r. r.^, e'- _:ct O s - sr Y. _'4 •. lF _ :.`:ss •'Zr. .ti� i..=•.± if, ?+t',r .� 3�.':-"k`Y.i:m p = ",tC2; '?L iftt'J1.77--. ' ^ FA _--- _ k> • ,T.y _ _' t, , r'!'% - - - b ma 4 < '''S: _ e1 r`i. f ;,'e:.�, - `-` : •..^,' y'�krgii •`•i r: �,h":4 -,.K`C.. - (a<Y '{ '`--, •/ :is''i'-. r .11. _ `. 'z r_s`:. "�% �' _, ''i..'', - T. r,<, - -� oioi.�t.�'• +,c•__ +ei:':.=^ ,",.._ -:_ly,ss,^'•, _ -,,A- }.' - • .. 1t�P._.., ,•:- t4``- !: d .Et - - E'.--1_..!'ru4Y f - �Syl '- 'f' +.�.: ,�gI.,, -u �'�i, - __ ��: ��-- �''< =: - fir. ;: °,''': v`..-,-.<r:iii:ie`:: f_.- woos/0. :-��y r<'.; �) .t _ -_ .: _- �_:'c,r- _ s" ..;%,,",.;�"i. .--•3.:v.:tt-.-.-+ - _ •.t kc,;., ..- f-Sy' •- _ - '�n�.. .`'b • f :'-'.Z,a'_i w•^". ",_�''..+n'`'Fss_'�' _w _ _ �Yrif • - ;� =.m v..S'`' 'tom.' _ -_ _ ,Srr.1 -.,-,. - - e*'Y"' .Pi ''. - :t.Jt • h. � a - /R 11 t I I�.<i " ;yJ --- - �-1`= - iiii� - ,ji!- l - �y�` � 't1.,,.�.� s�,,,:-„ xs:� ��w . --- �o. �3 � �_� _ 1 4:.►' �- .'.fin'.., • c -'__ -_-- _.::__ E`er - -, .: �;�c s "'��. �, _ ?��"� {,i;t;_ =iJ: liii� - 1_ �.:t � 4✓t;Y r%P .f- � ?F�:,:�y,�} �k.s- a: -� -�y t ems: >er _ mil, ..F.:'r->. _ - %SSA - - :,:5 . - •r _ ;.`.Y:. - -• x" -Win":.,e,,, ;'^ =a,,,t, :-+{i:�1;. `rJr.� _ ` 4 ,i _ ''`�'" .if{Y _ t. ii or - : _ ,.+ _ - T'L`d"+'F.Y �',;:,:;,iR><yL: _L+'^-': z::,. _ -- Via_- -•"�`i�=: •'-_-:.--,-.. ^-'mot?.. - �'� : ,_�, I- 4 - - • - _'�- 3. - ,.ter', ;„tom-? 'ti"«. �'� f+..-z ':rid:. -max _ _ _ __ _ _ .:ems._,.i:'�.:'-`'ma's: y, - s - - _ _ }'fit- ' `La_ '2t. .:tit-'JT.�:: PLU OUCH - UCLRAI'6[Ap HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 1111 MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 111y 1993 1993 201.1 '_1101 Agent: Chris Curtis Project Name: 222 Palm Court Project Location: Southeast side of Palm Court between NE 2nd Avenue and George Bush Boulevard. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness request for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building at 222 Palm Court, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The structure, which was built in 1956 in a Mediterranean Revival style, is of CBS construction and consists of a 3,255 square foot medical office. It is considered a non- contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). At its meeting of January 19, 2005, the Board reviewed a COA for the installation of aluminum accordion shutters on the sides and rear elevations, which do not face a public right-of-way and on the front elevation underneath the arcade. The shutters would be painted ivory to match the color of the building. The Board approved the proposal, subject to the following condition: That removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front--of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. The applicant, who was unable to attend the January 19th meeting, appeared before the Board at its meeting of February 2, 2005 for reconsideration of this condition as he wishes to install accordion shutters on the windows visible from the public right-of-way. The recommendation of the Board was that the applicant investigate other suitable options for the storm protection of the three windows and present them for review. The applicant is exploring other alternatives and will present them at the Board meeting. Meeting Date: February 2,2005 Agenda Item: III.C. 222 Palm Court-Reconsideration of storm protection installation Page 2 ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The guidelines are as follows: The Board Shall Consider: (E)(8)(g) 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: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. Delray Beach Design Guidelines The following is a list of recommended treatments with respect to hurricane protection: • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. • If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. • Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Although the building is considered non-contributing, removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for all buildings in historic areas, as permanent shutters visible from the right-of-way can have a visual impact on the district. The shutters to the rear and southeast of the building will not be visible from the public right-of-way while most of those that will be installed in the front façade will be screened by an arcade. However, again in accordance with the Design Guidelines, it is recommended, that removable storm panels or some other appropriate method of storm protection is considered for the windows at the northwest frontage of the property. Appropriate options include impact resistant glass and Colonial style shutters. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the 7 222 Palm Court-Reconsideration of storm protection installation Page 3 Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. C. Move denial of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1) That removable storm panels or some other appropriate method of storm • protection be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade. 2) If removable panels are installed the tracks or channels should be painted to match the exterior of the building. Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Location Map, Photographs .1 1 � , 1 1 L rllilllllill IItlll IIIIIi I Q - `r N_W_ 11TH ST. N.E. / 11T11 Si U tr.f� I I ' f 1111 I -cc I V — 11 .1 I 1 x II N.E. • l OTFT ST. 0 _ o J Lil N �oo I r '� _ MIK Z N-E- 9TH ST. MIN N-W_. 911-1 ST- MNIM b1111111111 .; - —0 > N.W_ BE? LJTh GEORGE ' : ■ BOULEVARD /gill MI,-- .MIQP��N i ' iti Ii ✓ N.W. 7THST. .� .. `•.-P_E_ 7TH LO r-- '11711IMMIN - `�` -OJT I. - / A I IMIME• ' N.E. 7TH ST_ N.W. 6TH ST_ pI TT1T 1 -1 e-, lam. l l o [n Z. z - I Y. '. N_E_ 5TH TERR_ N.E. . 6TH ST. - f " - ' II I I .� • WOOD LANE / `\�lII r 1 z I [ I >. N.E. 5 CT. 0 O ‘ \ I N.E. STH ST. I I _ _� � 1 �� I I I o a. , Z� Z TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. f 2 r LUTHERAN s � z II I . W vi � s II W z I '� j LAKE IDA- ROAD N.E 4TH ST. ' \N.E. 4TH ST POST CASON OFFICE I METHODIST — r CHURCH > > > _ i a a a tai L i ,- 0 0_ J > > N Z Q Q a " - D' W 0 r til lil Z toto p lo N Olaf W W ' to Zilli ; ' Z Z_, Q- I N _ --iiimmit- DEL-IDA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT OTT OF DEIRAT BEACH.fl PLANNING&ZONING DEPAR11.IENT -- DA'/TAL B4SC AMP SYSTEA/ — DRAWN BY: NPT C y ` tiS :r'$ !1 `f "--%. -z-I s ;V.=,,,.----fr - .- .4 �lx.�f'Ri1f•S.r i1-. 4 ::. . ,r.',A.,-,4,4, ,_•ff. ,, til„A J i I':,,,,,,,,,..1",-- •.. — ,- - -- - — 1 ,, r w .�- yam;:,�,s _ ".ar+.z. rc.- x,. - t .- t $r � r a 'v ti -z x .t.: � ,H :�qas... 'D�'.a's` :' Ss a x �- - s . 'a ea o- • aaJ' - Y„ 3 •-�``zs,"' �� D- �� t ��q^{i�tt-'i�ix�J��a�3'S3� t ,�� -+'=4p'•,,,``�� i� .� . zc� _ „� 'O -` , "" 'n .Zf .s. ,yam„ r ., r. k, ,- s. -...saw £ ��" 'r '. r pia t''xa�xs -s-----.,�a .- :•ta+t @ ar.%ti.-4-.-,.. a n i-_ -3' :4' r; <,r..:t''.:,c<w' c... -', «.?`7.es z aY? -....�.. ...�.y., ..x. :.,:sks. I > ,yt7 xt":ew sf ' _ 3r t zaj j re . t s 1.k'� :Aaw � Fir L }� 1r f -L^ t„ ,,, -. .,...��33 v '""`r,.'c_,;.'' '. s-r;. `-5- ,.x i- Z � i T i'y ' .... -4 y 3S.- "s .sT-r'�;y+T,t .4-+ ,K' nF 11 1 1 . ��.... t + ' f' .1 z.•4 4 a� r� .r .I [ s ILL 'I_ ) # ,'',;-,. s. ? of ?� r - ! =fir. - n a7 $ ' ' #-{-t £ t# ,i Kos .^.^,` r' u ✓°* i` r n t y✓ _; .� .a - k , - i,:r r. r' � 7>t-e .-x s`, r„? i .f' z y r r v 3 �r e u� wry 9 C�'1 5�+�f a.,.' ¢ f" � x '. 3 r .r �✓ 37CS,j F� ,Y` ��'� U�3� '": Y�.'..y{' 'r.,.3- ,.. x 't r u .c v i -4:, 1.t .r^ a 4 2'f�s� Sri fr` . £..� "r ' r.-c.,."`2 Y ia,'t 44 s f s ! f.�'.r" 9 v ,- :I y D: r r'r i m �.,.,.. sS' ' , %---- .: �� fir." 4 { } s S Y;u: '."4 .4,i.--..... K..a. ::+.Sr... _ �._.,.Zd.._. ,.ems _wzl'sL:✓.' t. -11./., ---OD //v1, ttitAtt) #141.4ze __X Wkfri!e6.-ter-i- 2)91 aX• 1 r. - ' I (ID 19 18 a 1 L / {-. c, 7..-. ?,c•r•u4b,d • --cT --0-- 7 p 4 c.‘fsc(\,, (1 ..G,‘I\ a I Ad ora 0( \ a 0 3t"' T 10 IV.. S i E e.Nl NO 12�o tol 22 2 P/aLM C.JOLJR.T 169 DELRAy (3Eiacj i t FL. 333141 M . 2. l-ti. 15' > t n• S L.O V e. a