Loading...
HPB 02-02-05 oo AGENDA = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING to, � CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Iti Meeting Date: February 2, 2005 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: Pompey Park, Room A 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 January 12, 2005 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), Old School Square Historic District, George Brewer, Authorized Agent Consideration of revised Design Elements associated with a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness and Class V site plan for a three-story mixed-use building. B. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis, Authorized Agent Reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building. C. 209 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Rick Zamon, Authorized Agent Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the replacement of existing windows. D. Endres Office (137 NW 1st Avenue), Old School Square Historic Arts District, Jude Endres Consideration of a Class II Site Plan Modification and landscape plan for the removal of a c.80 year old mahogany tree from the southwest corner of the lot and the planting of two 20'high oak trees within the front yard. E. 30 SE 1st Avenue, Old School Square Historic Arts District, Southern Development Services, Inc. Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for the construction of a parking lot. February 2, 2005 HPB Meeting Page 2 IV. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS • A. AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 4.4.5 RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. Forward a recommendation to the City Commission for amendments to Land Development Regulations Section 4.4.5 RL (Low Density Residential) zoning district 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. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members • O Staff VI. ADJOURN �v. Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: January 28, 2005 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: January 12, 2005 LOCATION: First Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Michelle Reich, John Miller, Linda Lake, and Jeffrey Silberstein MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz, and Maura Dersh STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:01 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. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 799 NE 2nd Avenue, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Dr. William Domeyer, Owner Item Before the Board: Reconsideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness request for the replacement of a wood shake roof with a "regal blue" metal roofing on a non-contributing dwelling, 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 property consists of Lots 1 & 2, Block 12, Del-Ida Park and is situated between NE 2"d Avenue, Palm Court and George Bush Boulevard. The structure is a 2,000 sq. ft. Ranch style structure constructed in 1950 and is considered a non-contributing dwelling within the Del-Ida Park Historic District. The property is zoned RO (Residential Office) and is currently in use as an Orthodontics office. In June 1985, a request was submitted to remodel the building by replacing the existing cement tiles with cedar shakes, and applying rough-cut cedar to the fascia, overhangs, and stucco walls. By May 1988 the roof alterations had been completed and a COA request was Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 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. During the meeting of December 15, 2004 the Board approved the replacement of the wood shakes with a Sem-Lok standing seam panel metal roof 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 or, Colonial White. The applicant who was unable to attend the December 15, 2004 meeting is now before the Board for reconsideration of this as he does not wish to use any of the specified colors and the recommendation is to move approval of the COA as conditioned in the December 15, 2004 for 799 NE 2nd Avenue. Dr. William Domeyer, applicant, thanked the Board for approving the metal roof, and advised he does not have an objection to white. I am into the water and boats and the interior of my office is nautical and I thought this would be a good way to coordinate with the color of the building. There are some buildings around with blue trim. There are a lot of green, aqua, and teal roofs on homes and businesses in the area. The green roof has been approved in the past. There are no blue roofs, but there weren't green roofs till about ten years ago. Therefore, why not start the blue roofs. I think it would be an asset to the area. I am not trying to override the Board, but my feeling is it would be advantageous to the area. Maybe it is time to make a change. If you don't approve the blue I would like to go with the Teal roof. The Banyan tree in front of the office drops red berries on the roof and I would prefer a darker color roof. Mr. Adams advised that staff recommended one of the shades of gray would be appropriate. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Ms. Lake advised she does not have a problem with the blue roof. There is a structure in that area there is a structure that has a bright yellow roof. Mr. Miller advised being the building is non-contributing and architecturally pleasing and I don't have a problem with the blue roof. Ms. Reich advised from an aesthetic point of view a metal roof should have the coloration of metal and should not be a color. I have a problem with the blue roof not with what it is going to do to the community. I see metal as metal. The Slate gray is the darkest color and would 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 have less maintenance with the tree problem, and I think it would look good with the blue shutters. Mr. Silberstein advised although the house is not contributing, he is not comfortable with the blue roof. It is a small wood frame house and it is too a strong color. It becomes even less contributing with the blue which is for a commercial type application. I feel it should be a light color. Chairman Perez advised he feels the same way as Mr. Silberstein. The blue roof would make the building look heavy and commercialized. The blue shutters would look great but so much metal will look too commercial and will stand out too much along side the neighboring properties. A lighter color will reflect the heat away from the building, whether it is blue or gray the darker color will absorb more heat. Dr. Domeyer asked if teal would be acceptable. The Board advised teal was much too dark. Dr. Domeyer advised that Mr. Federspeil's office has a teal roof, and the Sundy House has a metal roof. Chairman Perez advised the Sundy House has a copper roof (patina) and if Dr. Domeyer wanted to go with a patina that would be fine as it blends in with the landscape better. We are trying to choose a color that doesn't stand out, and the patina will blend in better. Mr. Silberstein advised the blue and green that Dr. Domeyer likes is very opaque. The Sundy House roof is not opaque there are a lot of variations and that is what gives the roof depth. The Board concurred that Dr. Domeyer could choose the Patina Green. 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. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Reich and approved 3 to 2 (Ms. Lake and Mr. Miller 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 Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b), (g), and (h) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1) That the proposed color of the metal roof be changed to a less dominant color more in keeping with the architecture of the subject property with a choice of the following Sem- Lok roofing colors: Slate Gray, Onyx Gray, Colonial White, or Patina Green. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 4 B. 133 NW 5t"Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, William Bowden, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing residence. 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 situated on the east side of NW 5th Avenue between NW 1st Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. The property was built in 1959, is of CBS construction and consists of 10 apartment units. It is considered a non-contributing building in the West Settlers Historic District and is currently zoned General Commercial (GC). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal involves the repair of Unit 7 which was recently damaged by fire. Although the majority of the repairs are internal, the applicant is replacing the windows (which have been approved administratively) and fitting them with storm panels, which requires Board approval. The storm panels consist of 20 Gauge galvanized steel panels that will attach to the dwelling via tracks or channels at the top of the opening and will be bolted directly to the building at the base. Panels will be installed on the approach of a storm and will be stored when not in use. The installation of the proposed removable storm panels can be supported as they are the least obtrusive form of storm protection. As the tracks require minimal hardware, there is little concern that the installation could irreparably damage the exterior of the building. However, in order to camouflage the tracks, a condition of approval has been added to paint the tracks to match the color 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 of approval to paint the tracks and the storm panels has been met. Therefore, recommendation is to move approval of the COA request for 133 NW 5th Avenue subject to the following condition: That.the tracks and panels are painted to match the exterior of the building. 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 inquired how is the rest of the building being handled. Mr. Adams advised the applicant advised he is replacing the windows that were damaged with non-storm resistant glass. He has to install shutters on these windows. No application has been needed for the other windows. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and approved'5 to 0 to Move approval of the COA request for 133 NW 5th 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 tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. C. 101 Dixie Boulevard, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Kupi & Eliopoulos Architects Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the removal of wood shakes from a roof and their replacement with metal roofing on an existing commercial building. 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 consists of the northeast 25' of Lots 18 & 19, and the west '/ of Lot 20, Block 4, Del-Ida Park, and is located on the northwest side of Dixie Boulevard between Swinton Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue. The property contains a contributing 2,212 sq. ft., one story Frame Vernacular style dwelling constructed in 1939, and a 1,030 sq. ft., one story guest cottage to the rear constructed in 1950. The property is located within the Del-Ida Park Historic District, is zoned R-1-AA (Single Family Residential) and is currently in use as a residence. There has been no recent Board or administrative actions pertaining to this property. The proposed project consists of the replacement of the dwelling's damaged cedar shake roof and the guest cottage's asphalt shingles with a 5V-crimp metal roof with mill finish. While re-roofing utilizing similar materials associated with repair or replacement is typically reviewed and approved administratively, the replacement of a roof with new materials requires Board approval. LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g, h) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: • (E)(4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement, or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. • (E)(8) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: (a) height, (b) front façade proportion, (g) consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color, and (h) roof shapes with the predominant designs and materials used being visually compatible with the surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 The Delray Beach Design Guidelines states the following with respect to roofs: Preserve the roof's shapes, decorative features, and materials, as well as its patterning, color, and size. Stripping the roof of its historic material, i.e. slate, clay tile, wood, or architectural metal is inappropriate. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation suggest the following: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The proposed project consists of the replacement of the dwelling's damaged cedar shake roof and the guest cottage's asphalt shingles with metal roofing with a mill finish. The metal roofing will not be visually compatible with the dwelling and the proposed replacement is not within the standards as directed by the LDRs, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The cedar shakes and asphalt shingles appear to be the original roof coverings of the dwelling and guest cottage respectively and the stripping of historic roofing materials is deemed to be inappropriate. The historic fabric should be retained where possible; however, where the severity of deterioration requires replacement, the new feature should match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. The proposed metal roofing does not match any of the above requirements; however, the treatment is reversible, the life span of a metal roof will exceed that of a shingle roof, and the mill finish color will not dominate the structures. A number of other properties in close proximity have recently replaced their roofs with metal roofs. On July 16, 2003, the Board approved the conversion of the nearby non-contributing, one story duplex to an office at 230-232 Palm Court which included replacing the asphalt shingles with a standing seam "gavelum" roof with a mill finish and, on December 15, 2004, Board approval was given for the replacement of the cedar shake roof with metal roofing on the non-contributing property at 799 NE 2nd Avenue on the condition that the color was either gray or white. However, in each of these examples the structures were non-contributing. Replacement of this type for contributing structures clearly is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as well as the Delray Beach Design Guidelines therefore positive findings cannot be made with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and (E)(8)(a, b, g, h), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff is recommending denial. Chairman Perez asked if the Board had any comments. Mr. Gary Eliopoulos, Architect, applicant, advised they purchased the house the beginning of September. I do not disagree with the staff report. This house was affected by the hurricanes, the owner is out of the country, and the roof is damaged. The insurance company will provide assistance. We wanted to replace the roof prior to closing so the insurance money would kick in. As far as guidelines at the State level, it is true that they talk 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 about materials that are appropriate. In other areas in the Guidelines when they talk about appropriate, a lot of the homes down here were built and designed by Northeastern people. Cedar shakes are appropriate up north but they are not appropriate here. They are contributing to the termite and moisture problems. If you are going to preserve these structures let's try to do a restoration and make it as correct as possible or preserve the structure, and sometimes you have to step away from the historic material that was originally there. A metal roof has proven to last. I think it accents the architecture and cedar shake seems to give a heavier look to the house. I don't think this Board or the City would be setting a precedent by doing this as there are clearly more significant buildings in town where we have changed the materials. I was involved with the Spady Museum, where the windows were replaced. A wood window that meets the County Hurricane Guidelines is expensive and is hard to come by. They now say the aluminum windows are appropriate. The Sundy House is a great example. You are taking a roof that is more expensive. The copper roofs that were put on the Sundy House and it will last forever. Virginia Schneider's house is the true example of a Key West home in Delray and that has a copper roof. The Old School Square has a tile roof. I don't think this will hurt the character or diminish the value of the property. Mr. Adams advised he can see the applicant's point of view; however, my job is to clearly preserve the material where possible. Where do you stop? As brick would last longer than wooden siding so should we clad future buildings with brick? The aluminum windows resemble the wood windows, there is a likeness there. Replacing a cedar shake roof with a metal roof is changing the appearance of the building. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Mr. Silberstein can understand what Mr. Adams is saying, however, if this house originally had a metal roof it would have been considered historic. If it is appropriate and compatible. If he said he wanted to change the siding I would have disagreed. I think the metal roof as proposed does work with the architecture and both structures will have the same roof and presently they do not have the same roof. I feel it is a good solution to this problem. Cedar shakes do not work in this environment. I don't think it is a wise choice to replace the roof with the same material. Ms. Reich advised there are a lot of cedar roofs. These roofs give the character and essence for the period. We are looking for authenticity. Mr. Eliopoulos advised that corrugated metal roofs have been around for years, and metal roofs are historic. Mr. Silberstein advised it might have been the owner's choice. The materials are compatible with either cedar or metal. Mr. Perez thinks the metal roof is compatible. It is widely used in buildings and restorations around town. It is fitting with the architecture. I can understand both sides, but I think the metal roof fits with the architecture. Cedar shakes are not fitting for this environment: 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 Mr. Miller feels the metal or cedar would look good. It is unfortunate we are changing the material. I am familiar with cedar roofs and they do not last. As a matter of practicality I reluctantly agree to go with the metal roof. Chairman Perez closed the public hearing. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 4 to 1 (Ms. Reich voted no) to move approval of the COA for 101 Dixie Boulevard, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8) (a), (b), (g) and (h) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 238 NE 5th Terrace, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Tulia Taylor, Owner Proposal for the development/demolition of an existing residential duplex. Mr. Adams advised he met with Ms. Taylor and she wants to see if she is going in the right direction. She has a duplex and the lot behind it. The property was built in 1954 and it is now fifty years old and is considered noncontributing. The walls of the duplex are strong enough to support a second floor. She wants to retain the duplex use the first floor as an office and construct apartments above it. Ms. Taylor wants to know if the Board would be happy with that. If it is appropriate we will push ahead. Mr. Silberstein advised it would be a good idea to demolish it as it is a non-contributing building and is not very attractive. She also needs to get an architect. Mr. Adams advised she is on vacation this week and is in a rush to get this done. She wanted input from the Board so she can move forward, by demolition or adding a second floor. Mr. Silberstein advised he cannot comment on the proposal as she needs to get an architect. He also advised if it meets the LDRs the height can be doubled. The Board concurred that Ms. Taylor must obtain an architect. Mr. Silberstein inquired if it met the setback standards. Mr. Adams advised it did meet the standards. Chairman Perez advised we cannot comment on the drawing, however, a two story structure is fine with us. B. Demolition Order Ms. Pyburn advised that according to our LDRs we have to submit a Board Order for the demolition. Mr. Shutt was present at that meeting and drafted this Final Order. He requested that the Board review it. If any other items come before the Board for demolition 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 that we choose to deny it the Board Order will be in similar format. It will only require the Chair's signature. We have to submit a Final Order executed by the Chairman for the demolition that was denied at the Historic Preservation Board meeting on December 15, 2004 relative to Mako Technologies, 145 N. Swinton Avenue. Mr. Silberstein spoke to Mr. Shutt relative to this form and he wanted to bring it to the attention of the Board. I agree with this but the Board should be aware why this has come forward. The applicant submitted a request not for demolition, but for staff to recommend what they feel we should do. When staff presented this project to the Board they presented it as a demolition request. The applicant did not have a chance to respond to this. The applicant has not had a chance to respond to this if they could have had the opportunity to come back and show evidence for financial hardship. We are working to preserve the building, and have decided to move forward. There was a misunderstanding the way this project was presented. We are moving forward with adding on to the house and we are working with staff on waivers. Mr. Silberstein advised he agrees with the Order. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Reich, and passed 5 to 0 to move approval of the denied demolition of 145 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL. IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments - None B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members Mr. Adams discussed the status of the home on Palm Square. We received a COA and we can start moving forward. Mr. Adams spoke to the owners who were completely unaware they have to get permission to make any changes. They advised they spoke to someone from the City and were advised they did not need permission. They were apologetic and they said in the COA that they had to cut the trees due to storm damage. One of the landscape architects advised if that was the case it was alright. I will be writing to them. Mr. Adams advised he will write a letter to them, and will make some suggestions relative to the colors. Mr. Silberstein questioned when we get the items can we get a map for each item? Because some times I want to look at the property, and a map would be helpful. Ms. Pyburn advised if you do that you must disclose that you drove by the property. Mr. Silberstein advised he brought that issue up a while ago and was told it was not necessary if you only did a drive by. Ms. Pyburn mentioned if you gain a new perspective on the project after driving by and it has changed your position you should disclose it. Even if you just drove by you should disclose it. Mr. Silberstein asked Ms. Pyburn if there was another way to present the staff reports in a more concise format so Mr. Adams doesn't have to read the entire report. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 12, 2005 Ms. Pyburn advised the Planning and Zoning and the City's Attorney have been working on trying to make the agendas and Staff Reports a little shorter. Unfortunately, for Quasi Judicial procedures it is a matter of keeping the record clear and making sure you understand that position and it is clear not only to the applicant but the public. If the report is not read into the record it might not be clear and that could present legal problems later on. It is a matter of protecting the City and yourself. D. Staff Mr. Silberstein spoke to Mr. Shutt relative to this form and he wanted to bring it to the attention of the Board. I agree with this but the Board should be aware why this has come forward. The applicant submitted a request for staff to recommend what they feel we should do. When staff presented this to the Board they presented it as a demolition request. The applicant did not have a chance to respond to this. They could have had the opportunity to come back and show evidence for financial hardship. We are working to preserve the building, and have decided to move forward. There was a misunderstanding the way it was presented. We are working with staff on waivers. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:59 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for January 12, 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. 10 UEIRAY BEACH ULUtAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD liv MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT IIIL 1993 E993200 2001 ., E Agent: George Brewer, Brewer Architecture Project Name: HVA Corporation Project Location: 12 SE 1st Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of the revised Design Elements for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), pursuant to Land Development Regulations Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION; At its meeting of January 19, 2005, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved a demolition request, Certification of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, and an internal adjustment and waivers associated with the HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue) development proposal. The project consists of the demolition of the existing noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; the construction of a three-story, mixed-use building (2,100 sq. ft. retail; 8 two-bedroom dwelling units); the construction of the associated parking and refuse enclosure; and installation of landscaping. The design elements associated with the development proposal were approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That fixed French door panels are used in place of the windows on the sides of the French doors; 2. That the emergency overflow scupper is eliminated from the south elevation; 3. That awnings are provided along the first floor of the east elevation and the applicant returns before the Board for their approval; and 4. That the applicant brings the proposed color scheme back before the Board with color samples. The applicant has submitted architectural elevations for the development that have been revised to address conditions 2, 3, and 4. These items are now before the Board for review. DESIGN ELEMENTS ANALYSIS, LDR Section 2.4.6(J)—Certificate of Appropriateness: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) (5), the Board must make a finding that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with the provisions of LDR Section 4.5.1. Future Land Use Element Objective A-4: The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies: Meeting Date: February 2,2005 Agenda Item: III.A. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 151 Avenue)—Design Elements Page 2 Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1: Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines". LDR Sections 4.5.1(E) (4) and 4.5.1(E) (7), provide guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standard is as follows: (E) (7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. In addition, LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) states that all improvements to buildings, structures and appurtenances within a historic district shall be visually compatible and that visual compatibility shall be determined upon criteria (a) through (k). The criteria applicable to the development proposal are as follows: (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture and Color: The relationship of materials, texture and color of the façade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings and structures within a historic district. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to decorative awnings and paint colors: O The color and design of the awning should compliment the structure on which it is attached. O The combination of colors selected for wall mass, trim and decorative elements should be complimentary and should avoid disharmony or color clashes. Awnings: The first floor of the east elevation has been revised to include two (2) shed style, fabric awnings within the recesses of the elevation. The awnings, which are tan with terra cotta vertical stripes, will project three feet (3') from the façade of the building, and are three feet (3') high and six feet (6')wide. The awnings were required out of concerns with the vertical massing of the façade along SE 1st Avenue (east elevation). The Board felt that awnings should be provided along the first level of the east elevation in order to break-up the flatness of the elevation. Specific discussions were had regarding the provision of the awnings over the entries of the two storefronts in order to provide protection from the elements. The awning locations are not in keeping with the Board's direction. Locating the awnings within the recessed portions of the building is not the best option for breaking-up the structures massing along SE 1st Avenue as this is what the recesses are already accomplishing. Locating the awnings within these recesses only serves to visually reduce the offsets already incorporated within the structure. Further, the awnings have not Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 15`Avenue)-Design Elements Page 3 been located above the main storefront windows and doors, which would have provided the entries protection from the elements as well as the desired relief to the vertical massing and improved the pedestrian scale and streetscape relationships of the development. Thus, it is recommended and attached as a condition of approval that the awnings as proposed are eliminated and that awnings are provided over the main storefronts windows and doors. The Board may also want to consider having the height of the awnings lowered to provide spacing between the awnings and the second level balconies as well as to provide better protection for the entries. Color Scheme: The proposed color scheme for the development consists of four (4) colors: terra cotta (Butterscotch), beige (Sandlot Gray), blue-gray (Pikes Peak Gray), and white. White will be used for the doors, windows, balcony railings, and parapet caps/finials. The remaining colors will be used in combination with one another for the major portions of the building façade. With regard to the east elevation, the blue-gray will be used for the recessed portions of the structure and for the base of the building. The terra cotta will be used on the second and third levels within the central section of the building and on the stair/elevator tower on the north end of the structure. The beige will be used on the outer sections of the building as well as to frame the central section of the building. Based upon the proposed color scheme and the aforementioned conditions of approval pertaining to the relocation of the awnings, the Board may also want to consider having the awning colors (beige/terra cotta) revised to be compatible with the revised location, or introduce a more vibrant or richer color for the awnings. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions of approval being addressed, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J), 4.5.1(E) and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Move approval of the revised 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: 1. That fixed French door panels are used in place of the windows on the sides of the French doors; 2. That the awnings as proposed are eliminated and that awnings are provided over the main storefront windows and doors; and 3. That the height of the awnings is lowered to provide spacing between the awnings and the second level balconies, and to provide better protection for the entries. Attachments: Site Plan and Architectural Elevations Memorandum Staff Report prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner C jp —^ DDLM7,Q1"nAuiei MONS 701.2Y47701 « OAP IAA GM 1723711 r cD.a. iii :: •,aWr[. f3;14= MIlaw 7... .--p _— :II : .A ; win •wA ;. T A"" .� � 7 emu-. EMIR._ _ >•�I�'-Jt!'dR••�4 .\s. I r •i.nr. .nr ,Trr. 8..1 'r.r --' ir ` { I1 a i ► j PAS G SPACE STRIPE DETAIL rIIMI y�� ip i1,1 1 I ..r T i . �I f.5.. i n n! ! rSS' S,i:; i kr / r� 4JI :;a,..1' `>:,•r. va"tv5i i ii.......,..;.a..... _ IIh!�!' �� �j_r�p'- , eEJ_I� w LJi 1 aTOR 1 _uJ _• :;.ems �I CBI. i I v, r. �y LLD TJO ,t I .114 �� W J iwA w\ ::aozaili �r1L 1,tix:: /� i� `i L _ f.: 31 !. V w i C��v «r a, ;a 2 i" 1..-.Y•Acrck« i �1 .a • I �1' (�.aR•:: .)yiK�u�'.Z.\. I ..1y\ :�1. .�.nw�w •i•• I ( 'Q !El — — — f;�; : :z.. �,x( W,�.� LOCATIONI� MAP nTb Arm Midi WWI ; ;::.. ,.,,-- ,..--;L.- e....re rwr ••r I .I i,ll $i nI �I•���.•' •. I 12i TO :. p cam••• iD I[ I DATE 17•I.04 890 S.F. 1,210SF. I _ ae"I:Ta01 �� _ � aTs DATA! ~I, _ MAO IV UrvpcnOTLP•ePR,51(1 .110 :�:: y:jJC �1� 10NW0�OeeNAD/COD yy�� sy• T TOTAL SIT!ARIA.17J1.SP.(71A ACR1e) er.rn,ACIQ el 10T ALa v/[D an ARIA.u eeA 2 ��x ..I�� � roTAL ORLUMD rLCOR OUILOi1Y,/OpTPImNr,16,'r 6,.... r.r1W O Nt[ MIA eP.v.�ii AA! 7 IIIIII '• :;ilxo■ . ooRRnAILewILDwa ..'4 vii ':� \ ml`TIISIITR,lliy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,.. ::. :4M.Ii■ p TOTAL/IM 1� llll"""" .. .._... _ 7••z}.:C...S.w.:l:ll...:.....:::K\ ;::::'.;:;:::::::::..'C........;:,.y.,.w.:.....,.:: :v: : AII[M,I7eer ,,,,,4...............................................e_..,... TorAL 7wry DDR N3[eluiD[DN1Iµut,SW. �1�i: I Al.A.,.eu a. roTAL RxP PDRNOue[AR[A,IDe er. �.+�. I I TOTAL[waDIMO Alma »1v u. NORTH AL A ,,..p I��A/ r I 707AL Ae►14LL7 PAIbUt1O AnD YW.KW.r IJRAa.I7I er.(ee.s Cl eli[/ „' .. I TOr•W IANDeCAP[D AR[A0.UAI er.(1771L GI'4471! P/ 50' R/V(P) I e17[Dowry 1e UNIT.PR AC1•LAM e),P[R WIT/a.eaw.•ILA 104T8 e -�1- PARC717 R1Gu1ED PG«[H[NY RNCTM./pPICB ARW,7XIe I 1 MR 1M.1 —�- -•�- _PLAN��_ �1. Ibt A- UN I TGTAr.A.RRINO MACe[.iuo. wyem µ[M De,iuK.1"c„L�GTu..1. 7.7yv Si'1'� PLL 11♦ si TOTAL rAHDC1 PARCYNO e'IG7.PAOVIWP . (IMPROVED) 701A1.OMAO[P5440 ePACae PROV1aD•r « ''i 7m4ALi c IF�e Pp V 1P'1 I".I0'•0' rmAL•wmICM►PA0[e PRDVIOW�I LLOTAL/2551,N3 41AC5e PIP0V0110.•74 ■ t i r t 0 .. qI •• II ! AII0HIT7:0 • [KARAT BET.5 5[ III PL AC)NS)M![ PNG<[ TS1.1)).1001 TAR. 5TI272.3721 11•DRAANDATACTun C. ALLTIIMM.)•WON GUARDRAIL RAISED STUCCO BAND RAISED 5NCW OdNOD• • IA,POUO[R COATED GLOSS DCLOL 50TI1!TTPJ TOP CP PARAPET fTTP.I waif MP./ DICORATIK PRECAST r RAISED STUCCO BAND AALVVTIE,ALTPOP ANDS(1TPl COLON CAP(TTPJ FOR WINK*DILL(TIP.) D•CMERGCNOT 17 SOLPPER TTTP.I SAND AIMSw OvCR A WEAN RO0 wi Wwt _ -l6 LAS[nENi nPACt W0.O:I •U'1 rIOLOWO(SUDnii ) DCCORATIK 4000 BRACKET, TLC..S'O• `` FRAME lC .SiLKRT Rp WE 10 ARCwNCLi -Ib PRIMO.PANTED(ITPl A CASETTE O FOR APPROVAL) A Or p TOr PL ATP _ - AND Pro PROPOSED OLEMA GLASS aC1TPJ , RACED 5NCC0 BAAO `!L forRCO.NN fiTPI O 4Y•D' �� — S• CONDENSER UNITS b - O - ,or a PARAPer , ` Ilk 1.'b. ` i—_ CVELAVG BEYOND(TY,/ Ll 4).D` r li OKRrurtl ^ P tOP 05 COLJMN GAP PS �� � `1=—.. 0 EL..S.S• 4 A IIIFa'l1l IIIP I��>:`O7I O1114111® Iarliii IIIII�I'���r Rl ill �lini !n Y�).,.AN SLAB -�_ a I��1=. •°' Sl_ I� ���L. AN ICI.' dY93 �— —ram.___ .��. _ ^'i _� 1111111M1T• DNJui RS DER COATED O T n.)v.o i n_ N D ii _'-' ii �ti'i�' iii GLose wITE MP.I Lawi F xTJRe rrrrJ �.—p '_ i i i f----1,�p,,p'��piinii____, .._....„ _ mil L ,,..-.2 'UM! L,,,.'��.,.,, �L�,,,,_1Li_�,��p���� Psi o NIp GusRDRAti nIMPACTPR[NLG DOORS•r ±—ae1I '� i 11 '_e i ll L. i ; 8 111111110 R L ATE GLOSS TPJ w Z Q INDEXES.ALIMPAPTFRANC !�C' 11F �� m' V DTCOLORSLK RT AND PPG � ). �'-"' F Q . SOLExdA GLASS MI, , / I N� Ilf Ail Ili ili Ili •III - i ili I III II IIIa iill i f 111 III i )lit':�'lu�lii Pill 115 imam r., il —r A,wlRo noon e,Ae MIq Rtl nei..tPlgill 10 111'�»rlli ll III[ 111)s:'.:ill pami1ip1 ,, ii iil II '' ' u1g I 44A400W AN e4A0 - g;R ��_ .. F����Rill?' N MOVIIIIIVI em It i G i b i ° I�r� ® I� � L -Ili 3!III! Alll�llirwill�- A I Oil. AIIII•al� I �h—LIIIIFPul� I A IIiF Y31111p1i lli�g5ir.iu ph PaeJ'I 6 CAeam•PLACECONCREnRALCONT SECP+.P ALOCR SLAP _— Tit"'.-...11i�'114,44E,llll..-'"SII1� III �FII[ ll_ Il�rll :ill �ll_e:i_Pp[ti rsiiilill i ill ( STRx,uwL DRAW:VI DEL.H.D• �r 1.� _ 0 =���I[5==___�� ABALLONT•.A SLAB ► I I [L."'• �. •IjIJ !!i i � �ililililil� `' I• T. •WIDE vIM'L STUCCO REVEAL 'I _ 1_—_' iiii! ii :'r ! b' hRAISEeTKO• I I ' R ., BASE MP, ROUSTNS. l■�� �� — REVISIONS. AI NSL.e 4 ��� :�;�'. 1�� I�� b 1.7m•m6 #C�e'4•• (no.A.Su - OP[NWGS FOR I0*AJST( a 4.'WIDE VINTL STUCCO 0 0 PRLSM AIR 100545(TIP.) 'ASPIC a4)404(SUBMIT SAMPLE • RLVEAL(TIPJ TaJ MP .SEE r[LAANIC*L PLANS TO...AIM,FOR APPROVALT 0 CI nr. V31P CLEAR NIOOTZED STOREFRONT TITTER SI/ STAC1 RATED CLEAR GLASS(1TP) EAST ELEVATION `mew*.E" " °° ° "" °"'"15 ' � °"�" " `°'°' mew*.T puARE)oeN t ARY POSInf 54 5/4A• POII!t N1gATIN1 • I/4"• l'.0" IV 10..! )1 PAP. SWAP. 35 Pat 41 PAP. • IS TO/0 PI )4 PAP. Sl PAP. S4 PAP. 44 PAP. SI t0 W 1>PAP, )S PIA. 17 P.M.. 40 PIA. ql Pe 1)I PT! )D PAT. S5 INSP. So PAT. )105). WItk [art 5 15 DEP WED A5 ANT DOOR WOOL WITHIN 4•.0•PROW ANT +165 . GOR+ER 04 Pi 1.)1401 a.ALL OT.E15 LOCATIONS ARE DEAKD AS [ONE 4 • • • 02 APICHITEll at SC KN.UL GLOAT 10..N A R».0> THOSE 611,212.1301 full. 601.212.1122 e!1Wii6 eETCND Mr,bOuYOA lwOL gtMOOEe+lx•IIt � r OLLVKW 0i.N0 11, RL7 DN0;1 A1 p 0[M H[TLL ROOF FR C \\AA�00('/IY(/ OR AI'�ROv41 N.rl4-..GN O.uicRut. ITTPA GO.rLD oL006 LM�i[ n n rTR/ IrLAN ROd 14K, _ 1I1r 1III�'I�I) 0 ;G'46,1r TQ' ATI _ 4 I I f P..J -* G6C06.1vt nKc•af [L.✓6• Ills •• h GCLYm CAR ITT, ii- • ^per u•l+ __ REPO _ ( §I _ _.-.. -a ... __ M�''1 M .Lviva,/rrHa.e f11(iiii ii11I 1111E3111IIIII. 1IIII ! 56 ,.•• II13111 110E3111111t�11� o "'II{iCtdROcv DtcK � J t .1 • Ot'fR� i�COATGD O Y[L.>0.O• _ __ _ I) ® _ _ems 1� ,11 t l 0 L�; :' ItAIL We i crtl ±. III• i ---71-= 4 .1 pi ../— L.^>- 1--'— I`iT emilmamp_ //I� _. i r —_Q JL_ UALL HONiLD 4 / tx,(COLCNDDDRw.LW,..,— , • -[ ON,.�x,uR6 /I_� ' e 111 6R.V9AIA GLASS,TT /wD TO �1 I I 6a[xi.0 GLM6lrTR/ \�`/',� 1111 \�Y, 1 II 1 R 1 I. —T GAV•N.rLACG CD<Ralt exca.T 11 11i,�ill lle it i m[G xR,c1wL DRALRaa) _ IY_'*JI�� LuvA MnECNANIG.L�'1 1 -4_ •j. ,OLCD+DILOOR 0;0 _ — _ _ _ R00r1 xR 1110L6.11. __ J, L � " --- ,�e.LcwT.w xAD _� ---1 r.. / r II --�-- 1 -- eaT.d DT•wA.G S 1 ffiffi Y b I. o ogre I•Is.m6 lA6RC A'.auNO lb.'Ylii OAMLt - 1 r RAIlI0 S,XCCO PEAtlr NO. i0 ARGu1i[Ct FOR APMOVLLI n 6 '^ I. I}----i---1 1., 61 / eAN I1TIl PEV CONS L F.e �, V. 1 t /--!��o••a rRm•u1� . rwnN CLAD fff +l 1. J oAR.a¢xAe D $•wD[vw?,',..,0 r RAO10 STUCCO 0..A ' AILS CLEAR RATIO Oi[O 6AClt[)RCI.T 66116r1 LV Rlv[AL rrTl•.l FOR uwDOY SILL(1TR.) rYAGI CLEAR OLA66 MP) 0 R$ xLO GLAa6 r Ca wN00. LL nL 1RAr3 1GCLOR.MLTtR) A..o reO LOLLxu GLAaa mn.) 0011KNN111 AND OLA'DDMO DOWN WIND LAMA '00.6406 MN 6aI6.11 WW1 [r.11' P NORTH ELEVATION ""1 "i'N.�.MI I l5 •iISO.r0 261T1 D rAr. IMAM 36 PPP . ITA 2660606. )a 6.611. 21 6.66. >a PIP. ••RYr. 6160110411116! vrar. )>rar. uRer. PO PAP. 101ro 21/0 .»PIP. )>PAP. 10 P.A. SIPS?. • Wan. 46 IONS 6 i6 DIIAID A6 ANT Daces.Lk..u010n 4•.0.MOM ANT ..... .. COR+LR OP1..E Whw 01 ALL 01NCR LC0.fiO145 AM DV12D AS ION . r 3 • • O2 - INNM AROMITECTU!IC CLLMe3 5[T ECN.TnIL 3N53 AKNU( WON[ 561.ZT1.1301 Pia. 6E11]1.3712 • RAISCD STUCCO bANDD• • D L6OWDearrr MP, .•.TTCP4[NCY TOR O PARAPET(Tip.) ^••• OCUPPER Mr, GALVALUM STA . 1•RAISED S1UCC0 SIM METAL RCP.r1TPl RqE LRCM SILL!Tr, iYPJ . EA.FIN.OVER 11 .AND FINISH OKR I] D[CORATIK YLOO d.ACKEi, _ KaN POOP Li14uT I• RAISED STUCCO SAND• ROM MOLD. •1b CCASEMENT IMPACT WINDOW. FOAM MOLD/G IT PRIMED 1 PASTED(TYPJ EL k TOP O COLVIN OM/ ]'•0• LUMIRTn MRME(COL (ILKR, OKRNArvO M•\,'','� AND MG 00L[xidaddi o GLASS r1TP.+ _ TOP P TOP RAT[ I. Z : • ���V `. CONDENSER UNITS --. • ]'•O• DO KII'IWS [L.Aa.• V OVRLANG 0ETOND ITTP) .:— OKRWNO D(M L • O i —— --- -- -- ___ .' _ LPOGDL� H • L�\IIIIf_11 I'II Illl;i' .III■g 1 S �II'll1' I"III'IR.i ilIIII1.P=.IIIIIlI' 'llllll� EL >e.eF FIN SLR!,/. y M �� —_� IOP O ROO DSC Vp S(�~I —111I ? T og o ALIa1w1'eANAnA - - [ ...PIERS MOUSER COATED ^ _ CLOPS aunt!(iYPJ `• _�, 6 J?_I_ + - y�- [L.ay.0• Ra o I .N WC[LPG ��; ; I IIPPACi11$1.+DOORSIEeDER,U OIGMT/INNRE(TTP.1— RA. LASS M/ LLALu'+nAn Ar wmNg MI ill_glir Ill' ��� , '� �I I ® 111i , E�I'�]. iiii h PPa eoLcx A A GL..D nrrJ � � Z QW PO:DER GOAtCI \ II ' (�] dLATE MPJI O I ___ l o, •• 1Q�-- . Ila' lilt Bill , III�d111T iil , - f 1. r^ f I IIi -aEIIT 1_CI ■■ Illi '[IYI II plUL }I1 .'{ifli ._tgij NRDIL000$ ICE -Q IR _,"..;„ , ,.,.... L II 2I � 6.p1! !I-g•.a,_ill�::llliZEI Ili -■ _."-_-oll .. Ill--- -MME . FL i••O• VIM M _ PALCCNT PIN.SLAP ,, IT 1 � i 1�1 I' i � —. 8 ali y.•van erucco ® '�I� -�� q �' 8 Fp 9 9 ; �T:�I'P �_IIIVI ®b R[K46fiYPJ t-—' dnl , ul.'','^'II Ili 1111IIl� �'M�Ilf illlllf• ,iii! Ile i11 b d1 Iie .Fn15 I WAGE % Kau TYII_.m,111 n an=1 ----� ,E. Il5 �efYl llil If•,• IP'' 16.-ell , - �I0111 I1.L�e'�_yll�_�II —- Rx mm CANT•a _ _ /1 ■ . — IV'''''CONCRETE [L.N.,O. V .TRJCTLR4L DRAWwG1) —__� - - 1 ___ _ -_ PIALCONT fIw ILA, J, ,ir er...,o,„.:v1PNANa ___74—kaiamlmsimri SL'W OE vDTL eTUGCO :11111.7"111 - I T -- _ 1r O OPENING RCKAL fTYrJ r�.- --__ - , rn�11 m �..,1.RA ero ',"" L ,II I -- I IM- r I ,, I I I I , I_,a1 I- -1 L.:+G-nl= , '' ' DATE 1.14.mB PAe1 fiYPJ— I ` I,,,� I I 6 RERMTNO. —_� I "IE , �II'IIe S�I,IMI4-- 1M11l1— I I.,I�—x--I �'IN/'' _EL.CLOT TOO Oe ASL T REVISIONS' 4[L 6D c n¢AelJ .I I— I1' I, W f_FIN. 4rr., SLAP T ACE R6• [L. •10'•6'(ISb!'ADL.1 • 4.•vlrrtl StUCCO ,414.....4.1.4 0 • RFKAL•N-1.5 IMPCLEAR.ATEDC AR (MP) YL .., pWMO SAUTILR DETAIL(IMP.00D I PAcr RATED CLEAR GLASS MP) .•xH•KNOILA r,°:LV4'COORDNAIE WEST ELEVATION WnEDADUICA NDKLTOR ri TJ I:ormoN.a».No Ouoe1Y»01010N WIND LOAD* ( (00700$age.WARS PCS4 P'' e !w. inA I TO IS er! a5 PAP. SWAP. aS Pb?. AT rlr. 1e TO 54 0 l•PIP. li Plr. 14 Plr. AA PIP. • II 10 MO RT 41 PAP. 11 PAP. 31 Plr. 40 P.M. MI TO IN 147' CO PAP. 31 PAP. a0 PS?. IDDMM. Ei2111. ZONE S IS DEFIlED AS MY DOOR 1000➢W 1NIN A'•O•MR011 MY .A7 CORER CO TK WLDINO.ALL OTRER LGCATiOTO ARE DeF12D AS ZONE A 0 A ■ as st MA.SOT ATM VONL MA.SOT, P113,5 501.1717301 TAX. 511.171.3711 0 up OALVLLIII114N0I. �. 5.41 PITAt R001 fITPJ p ISLD STUCCO 4ND CLLOA%TIT ITTPJ 6,1,14X1 A1•54.4 GUARDRAIL 7 PCVCER LOATID 4O1> 1b _ IL.l,4, VS, 6 IE/IiPJ _ k,_ _ii kii._ ,TAN ROP PATE 0 DLCORAtIvt PRECAST 4,''_._ .._ --- -- _ LL.A.'•r Z • C0.u'N CAP RTPJ _ ._ .—.._ .-- i 1' • " •- T,P V 40LU11 A I_ iilni11111 _011 110331111111::10 1111'1111111r 1.111 110:31III1110:3111I P<,...4HREAD C7 RP f E -- -�0 _- IL.3CLRIM O UYROR IL • 42. W MOIR$41.1LL LL COATED 41.01111.4.01 fITN j u tii/'ill I ll _ ,u'.ap ROJR SLPD 6 =}=� C�:..J7"1"'jillIrrifrlill _ SALCOHY PT,.LA.9 �cc rrrr ' Y rrCASt•I1•PIACL `1L704171 e.000WY fen I ;I 111 _ eLLao ILoco x•q� ITRJGTL'NL GRALutlII -- C_-_j lL H'•0• _ -II- - - __ � 04COtT P+{xAp • r L,� LL.p'•.' n I I I---I r rrr I II I I FABRIC r DATE 1•14.06 r r J pv[x4.STUCCO PEIIMI NO. 0.EY19ON3: 1#R544x<0 __ Tr Qi 140.06 [L.m•m• Far SOUTH ELEVATION �,pglEpMt 1,..►1D ueoon,�oaae,lwno I.o.o. ,R R., .,..° 1,4"> ,,.0.' .o. . I TO PS t. I>PAP. TIPll. IS P.M. Al PA?. • AA TO NO 14 PAR IT PAP. 14 PAP. AA PAR. • N I0 W Mr! 11 P.V. lb PAP. 11 PAP. 40 PAR. III TO no 10 PAP. SS PAP. SO POP. TIPS?. . batik : 11 DIPINID Al ANT POOR 60001 WITRN 4..0•PROM SAY , COMIR O NI 0114.0541 ALL ODOR LOCATIONS aRl 04KD V • :ONE 4 D[LRAY EACH UClNAY O[ACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Iv I I MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT (I I I 1993 1993 2001 2001 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 medical office of 3,255 square feet. 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, is now before the Board for reconsideration of this finding as he wishes to install accordion shutters on the windows visible from the public right-of-way as opposed to the removable panels approved by the Board. The applicant has stated there is no room within the building to store removable shutters. Meeting Date: February 2,2005 Agenda Item: III.B. 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 Removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for buildings in historic areas, although, in accordance with the Design Guidelines, the installation of permanent. shutters can be considered for some of the windows in this case. The building is a non- contributing office and 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 be installed on the windows at the northwest frontage of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels are painted to match the exterior of the building. The installation of accordion shutters to the northwest façade would detract from the architecture of the structure. The proposal to install aluminum accordion shutters on the windows visible from the public right-of-way cannot therefore be supported as it is inconsistent 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. 222 Palm Court-Reconsideration of storm protection installation Page 3 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 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 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. Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Location Map, Photographs 1 rii - N.W. 11TH ST_ N.E. 11TH ST. it] . //— I I I ' 1 .. i o N.E 10TH ST. ' • p p p O alh I _ Z N.E 9TH ST. — N.W. 9TH ST. LLI I IMINIM MIENAIM 1-- Z HiQ I I INN/ —o > N. e H GEORGE . BOULEVARD N a MINIM 1 II. 1 EMI QP��\ Q I I j N.W. 7TH ST. .� \ �, \ 1 ~ 1111111 • Q EJI " 'ii I! I 1 N.E. 7TH ST. N.W. 6TH ST. pZ Z _ T_ !-� T. I N.E. 6TH ST. ' co co ��� v- _ ,,is. '.• . 1 I In Z I J" N.ttE. 5TH TERR_ tr I N.E. 6TH ST. ` WOOD LANE I -, / '\, I I ] • 1I ( ' Ai A N _ },C. .\\ ' I ff �� �� N.E. 5TH CT. 0 \\ X2N- N.E. 5TH ST. ..4 G� I f Ti, \ ( \ o M .. I CCL) I Z•- z TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. i a LUTHERAN 1 I ` _ = _ ,i In ui I I 1 i -Iiii_inin__Ini_jZ iu LAKE IDA-• ROAD N.E. 4TH ST. N.E. 4TH' ST. POST — CASON OFFICE - -1 METHODIST > r CHURCH > > _ � .-1 a a a a Q ___.,_ N '>— D_' r- 0 t— _ w w 0 0 (Ns — 'Li L.; 41— i w w Z 3 2 Z li Z Z — N _ --.0.- DEL-IDA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT41} CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING do ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE AMP SYSTEM — DRAWN BY: NPT 4/ 1 ,- t „': , . L f ,y.y'3 1t y+9 ln *c .x a� _ h i,_-„ a.gi ..: ki ` *AitI ' t ` . xt- ls�;ABM . `^.-', , { e '� ^"`'• s h+,,m:,; .7-t,.x- y,.,.-, " '>y. y .ems . j "ii 4 =i-5. ri' r's'S.. 3 a - -1'' �tfiri ,' ,yh,f-N- , s i �,,. A.p'- I s "4"'fir,�, $.'.1 -. � . . a^s.'; -: �x Ya.� r ( � . '€ # `'° s Red --�v` a'`iq,yy„ ,a F - ' .... - ::_:.x3i331 ,.,. ,--;5,s5,.,:K -,' ?w .-,.� �',,;-x�as' <_'mow,a E '�:,�xP.x ,...... .. _ _ 4' .L ` y f - t • i • ( 3 yy t 4 $F t ,t t" • i } i 5 a 0EE8AY OUCH PEIRAY 14ACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 1I1 L MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT 'III' 1001 :001 Agent: Rick Zamon — RARZ Enterprises, Inc. Project Name: Soja Residence Project Location: 209 SE 7th Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of existing windows at 209 SE 7th Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of Lot 6, The Moorings, Delray Beach, and is located on the east side of SE 7th Avenue between SE 2"d Street and SE 3rd Street. The structure, built in 1960 in the Minimal Traditional style, is of CBS construction and consists of a dwelling of 1,212 square feet. It is considered a non-contributing building within the Marina Historic District and is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-AA). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal is for the replacement of the existing jalousie windows with 6 over. 6 and 4 over 4 single hung aluminum framed windows with impact resistant glass. The applicant submitted a justification stating that the jalousie windows do not provide security and are not energy efficient and that the structure requires hurricane protection. ANALYSIS LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(4), (E)(8)(c), and (E)(8)(g) "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: 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. Meeting Date: February 2,2005 Agenda Item: III.C. 209 SE 7th Avenue-Replacement windows Page 2 (E)(8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: (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. (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the facade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. The following is suggested by the Delray Beach Design Guidelines regarding: 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 9voided. Replacing viable windows rather than maintaining the original should be avoided. 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 Repairing the existing jalousie windows or replacing them with an identical design 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 listed by the applicant concerning jalousie windows (energy efficiency, storm protection, and security) must also be considered. The proposed 6 over 6 and 4 over 4 single hung windows are in keeping with this style of dwelling and period of construction and, when using impact glass windows, the building code does not require that hurricane shutters be provided. Although wood is the most appropriate material for the windows, wood frame impact resistant windows can be 209 SE 7th Avenue-Replacement windows Page 3 expensive and can make the cost of the works prohibitive. As specified by the agent, the window muntins will be profiled on the exterior to provide the new windows with the appropriate depth and profile. Based on the analysis above, positive findings with respect to the LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(4), and (E)(8)(c) and (g), the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can be made. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 209 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 Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and (c) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. C. Deny approval of the COA for 209 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 Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and (c) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 209 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 Sections 4.5.1(E)(4) and 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and (c) of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Attachments:Location map, photograph Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner ,� ATLANTIC AVENUE LL 11 . � � .. - - - 1945 '1950, 7931�• 7939 1 I 1 %' \� \ :•,-.:::` wAEASTAY . `\2 : ��n; �' Mr COMMERCIAL • •:•:193e :: 1925••. i CONDO I�1937.R �i9 I 3s\ 1980 - v,• .\. < I $: .: ':7940;' 1939 R ' Laj LC/ a ?940.'19.0; BAR 193v.�92a`, ���� I �tT� \ ,941'. CONDO J •'1926, .1326. ' S.E. 1ST • r r ST. BUD'S 1 i— • 67 co I1�� 1953 = 1975 ' -r1953 1 1.15 1935 .. .1e� to 7, L1J _ 51 _ W Ln IliLU :1949 ^ i.;1925 : ~i Z 1- 1 Q W L 1939 -g �.'1925.. :••'1937 g I $ Z G "1940 .: J. 1938 1940 : J C G 1947 •1525 I 1993 J < S.-.E. y 'l„24 t 1953 '1940 I I i+ 2ND S .r. • 1 1954 .. I 11442 8 1948: } } 1 t _i I I I I :3522 ^ IE 1951 :1935':; ! - 1.59 - - t7 V/ 0`�,� - LJ Q '>1937':} Ia 1989 - 0 W II 0C LJ Lt_ 1 1970 F- tL I 2 1988 i I 1 1970 I` 1986 l� S.E. 3RD ST. .. 1 — I 1958 8 ;1 1954 n/925,: (Ai Cri I I ME . 1958 ' I •I ' a 1950 z' Z '' 1955 i L.' ,egg 1 of 0 _-�o — m m . - iir , 1902 7,1 N ;.,1938 — O Z 1953 ^ a` 1995 , ) 1 J (493& 1 \ 19941 S.E. 4TH ST. i MIN 1fl1JH11H, ( '. \ i . . 1 N -CONTRIBUTINGMARINA HISTORIC DISTRICT Q"6 0Q1"`"""` \\\\� 1950 -YEAR BUILT 100 -STREET ADDRESS —DGMIL BAST UV' • i' ,i°f t ,/,,. r ,„ . ♦°,t r` �v ��r, K Ji3 4 iiiltY 1 r 1 yV Y H .I y,1�` t I •A.'. ;y r rW� o , rW is € Y�� �0�* yl;r n 1�/ t1{ ��• �tt �� . ,} a ' 3 r� " .,.;,.. of ,� fr?.r .k f•*'S6 f'r 44, y4 tt ''litir 't , q 7C �VI.' . �`� 'j r^�1 i; , `!� � ;,..'W r l-t f€ y , y•, .., •. 1+ i » � r ..• 1 c , :*,h ,t r J 4k h e" �i Y+t Y �y r w * ,3 7 r� i; _�y r:“." r` r is s .x f ✓.ti »> y,r,- 1' x Yr y p+•f ,. 1 } i q '-/ � { ' � �" - r; s i€. 4— ti r •'' i•• t'. K r 0 irS • ? i "+�• �,� �� L ��`,{ x .C.' +�, ',� ��+ � �;�"'t,'�yM,",V �'1 j iyi�4/ F• € +•N RA•F� A(a.� �,J ,q�tr� ,. 1 \\ _ ,-°''',� 14 0 f+ �n 4" i s , '' , „ a# P,T";."�/', a '11.,. ',�^4`�(, , 1 jj. � 1 Y. �$µ ''7,' v 1,, ,�.•' .��i`�' r''•., ,�y '"I F ;� `f ;' ,, a :. ,�at .s.'�•�y, 4 Cy 'e.� + grif, \`i }•f \�' Z u.v,'6.�9.. ,.,,S'.. Y ` t , • 41 r... r 7 • t,1 ,J''9� t �`"-+., �.Td'1k ♦jf k'•! "r ,. i•. • :ti!{ 1 1 G ' a Y F Y N'•` .!'ti L«a, If"'• Mµ` Rv` .,- yA?«,rf e t . " e •!IR Ar 4 f, �' C�'1 .k4' A`� Ate' /+t " �*www � ?` r. Y A ���A+r„ a1". . d'•` 'f`�!,ram d"" •A'F',yw i ! .sN rw.' "'. 0°`" • YW'•. ." .M�^ M�•'ti�ry"'SYWfK. L 2 ^»^ \� Y , ,�w `» , ,.BMW yCw•••�Kq +t„. MWks 'rw ` .eF"'`°. t'.p"4 k ice`,`.I"ces,�4` "�� 4 e ror'• f •LP . 7 g: y�.py�ry' ' It11iYRR�s :1C11W ri1P .yE • a .. i'.1 ; .. " 3 1 . Y.� 1. �i F ex. , ,..,.„ ,. ,. , ,, ,. ,,,,,,, .,i,,,,, _.„,..ow....., . '. ..,,,,,,,,,::;„):, DES O(ACH UEWYSUCH HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD gliP, MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT IIIP.► 2UU1 2001 Agent: Jude Endres Project Name: Endres Office Project Location: 137 NW 1st Avenue ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a Class II Site Plan Modification and landscape plan for 137 NW 1st Avenue, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J). BACKGROUND/DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The subject property is located on the east side of NW 1st Avenue, approximately 75' south of NW 2nd Street. Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the property consists of the south 1.5' of Lot 1 and Lot 2 less the south 3', Block 59, Town of Delray, and currently contains an 824 sq. ft. contributing, single family dwelling constructed in 1921. The building is located on an interior lot on the east side of NW 1st Avenue and is currently situated between two offices. In April 2003, was administratively approved for the replacement of the front façade windows around the enclosed porch with fixed, single light windows. In November 2003, the Board approved a COA application and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, and demolition request for the conversion of the single family residence to an office building which included: o Conversion of a 824 sq. ft. one-story, contributing, single family home to office; ❑ Demolition of an 867 sq. ft. one-story, contributing cottage/garage; ❑ Construction of a 1,526 sq. ft. addition on the contributing building; o Construction of a nine (9) space paver block parking lot including one handicapped accessible space; and, o Installation of paver block walkways, associated landscaping, and refuse container area. Meeting Date:February 2,2005 Agenda Item:III.D. 137 NW 1st Avenue-Class II Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan Page 2 t Since the November 2003 approval, the only work undertaken has been the demolition of the contributing cottage/garage. The development proposal is a modification of the landscape plan that consists of the removal of a c.80 year old mahogany tree from the southwest corner of the lot and the planting of two 20' high oak trees within the front yard. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(b), a Class II site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which requires no review of the Performance Standards found in LDR Section 3.1.1, but requires action by a Board. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall be specifically addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development proposal. LDR Section 4.6.16 Landscape Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16 (D)(2), all existing native plant communities on sites proposed for development shall be preserved where possible through their incorporation into the required open space. Existing plant communities that are specified to remain shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible with trees, understory, and ground covers left intact and undisturbed, except for the eradication of prohibited plant species. The initial development proposal had included the tree within the landscape design; however, as final drawings were being prepared, it became apparent that the site survey depicted the tree in the wrong location. Also, the diameter of the trunk was not accurately depicted. Rather than being sited close to the southwest corner of the proposed extension, it is directly in the path of the southwest extension wall. There are 3 solutions to this problem: 1) Relocate the tree to the location depicted on the approved development plans. 2) Remove the tree from the site. 3) Redesign the southwest corner of the approved extension to allow the tree to remain in its current location. The applicant has made inquiries about moving the tree to the location depicted on the approved development plans; however, although this is possible, there are a number of considerations with regard to this option. It would take 3 months to move the tree, which would hold up the development, and the cost would be in the region of$20,000. There is no guarantee that the tree would survive the move as it is in its maturity and, if it did, it would not have time to take root properly before the next hurricane season. 137 NW 151 Avenue-Class II Site Plan Modification and Landscape Plan 1 Page 3 Furthermore, the branches are brittle and susceptible to high winds and, even if the tree was transplanted to where it was identified on the plans, pruning would still be necessary which would deplete approximately another 20% of the canopy, which was reduced due to the hurricanes. If approval is given for the removal of the tree, the applicant has offered to plant two 20' high oak trees at the front of the garden. The City Horticulturist stated that the tree contributed to the setting and character of the area but that it would probably not survive being moved due to its size, character and age and as it is already stressed from the recent hurricanes. For these reasons, the recommendation was to either redesign the extension or remove the tree completely. Section 4.6.16 (D)(2) of the Land Development Regulations states that existing native plant communities on sites proposed for development shall be preserved 'where possible'. In this case, it would appear that the preservation of the tree would only be possible if it was to remain in its current location which would require modification of the approved extension to the contributing building. In his efforts to add to the building appropriately, the applicant complied with all of the conditions set by the Board and, as a result, a contributing building will be repaired, altered and put to a suitable and sustainable adaptive re-use. While the removal of the tree will be a loss to the character of the property and the immediate area, positive findings can be made with respect to this application. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Class II site plan modification and landscape plan for 137 NW 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 criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move denial of the Class II site plan modification and landscape plan for 137 NW 1st 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 comply criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the Class II site plan modification and landscape plan for 137 NW 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 criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations. Report Prepared by:Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Attachments: Location map,approved site and landscape plans, proposed landscape plan and front elevation t POST CASON OFFICE -- LEGEND -- \\ METHODIST 137 N.W. 1ST S CHURCH • bi AVENUE CERTIFICATE OF I APPROPRIATENESS N.W. 3RD ST. N.E. 3RD ST. > 137 N.W. 1ST AVENUE Li w a SUBJECT AREA -i CITY 0 o z cc - ATTORNEY 1- cs, " a BUILDINGI mi SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - MARTIN LUTHER KING R. DRIVE N.E. 2ND ST. _ I- �^ I PCNIl:12-43-46-16-01-059-0012 1 2 } Il N -3 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:0.23 — - I o ABRIDGED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOWN OF DELRAY S 1.5 FT. OF LOT 1&LOT2I LESS S3 - h.i FT./BLK 59(OLD SCHOOL - CITY - as SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT) _ HALL W z I ZONING:OSSHAD(OLD SCHOOL cT. SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT) - N.W. 1ST ST. Z N.E. 1ST ST. FLUM:OMU(OTHER MIXED USE) • I � W Z EXISTING LAND USAGE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3 3 COMMUNITY Q Z z I I WITHIN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -Z Z CENTER - ZONE:#559 • I" I WITHIN CENSUS "I TRACT:#67 TENNIS OLD11 inn STADIUM I. 1 i SCHOOL SQUARE I i ' PLANNING ATLANTIC 1..C ( AVENUE fi ZONING DEPARTMENT aPOLICESOUTH >IIzQNCOMPLEX COUNTY a COURT � W--'�. E HOUSE H N `� �' Z 3 x > LONG-RANGE DIVISION o r DIGITAL BASE-NAPPING d• Z GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION NLn /1/ SYSTEM N.W. 1ST ST. S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. MAP REFERENCEI:LN734 -- OCTOBER 2003 -- 0 Z 3 / V \. vi 3 w 3 IIVI _ �Aq Y ,a0 �P I I I — S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. t • of 2 BIOC ._..�].._ © 59 Old ,�• School ▪•: PLANT LIST 5 Square o' • ' _•.^•• BEHOVE]DILVER pYTTN3tDOD W 3�$-0 . iiimmia TREE,pROP1,.s TRIANGLE, Wt▪ ew��•'w THE Ott PLANT A+ID SPECaICATION ___^__^—- 151-'LLEY pBR{1i7{NIsW6ER A.GRANT F TREED AND PALMS -- ���y� __ __ THORA.GRANT dl, • .iu c•N.6.ep.vwcA,toP lPIA.rn PMn/ ON E • ��.p11� `_�G6"'°"t N CO ] Q'M.6'.Pr.NOOnoW ��� f.: � �w������� ��r�� ;:e� AND ASSOCIATES pj I.• r. �y��,) _ �u Ce ] can>o.rw•...Arlo.ronver d6t6.•eodt f(, §,7"i,TTj \\\\\\\\\tea\\\\ -Q -- N=1 to_.��./,S?=�'E I 5d N'w.wa T N rrR.m..ur. • Doe...op,NE i'ASA. V I��i/A ft.t..?�w_I1��1 4 Inr 1i' a T'R] a Pbwi...b•Iw�n rryg.y OAS*PAW , 1 0�MPAIIIP.A. �/� LANDSCAPE w ARCHITECTS 'Prey�'.nr 1�vntll-��-_ 61I .ND taro rtwrtts m_ N N.•.•�'•n•M 1'M.hilt sIN.4 pollUN•rrrn) .Al��Want . C e rt rlo.W^...81M! I O ' `v ...Ordu•W .wtlaraO i ,KSNT b '�.'i.` IOil, I y Q • .a....R w. ••• o.rx u • av J o,wo•v.pl rum.ow • L' �IarALE• ibl .`.I . w ji�t fpp y .. tl'M.✓.P•NE tAnepy ,OD ,s r - I]3 R•In s tp vpp Di.l6wN.R]NN a ��1 f•r I / f4I , ,J (SO)Jn-xxl6 {tltQ i�,y, ilL [Ti s ,r T.a(HI)4n-.TT 1 POW OWL. 3-Y.�t? /J r KEY CAW PLANT MD SPECIFICATION .. / y%t `I �'''I, - ---__ �.���� �� R• �•^'^w pert. SMR1E6.ORaNOCOvER6 ANO ACCENTS I -f,1 1 �A a . rf� • / 6 • am AO• .•pot ' P.NII.nosy o. \ \� I ^tQr \�/'/' O Z I V '^I/• Y`\•�'� Q Alun Idr.twill rw.b Alu.�rM.t rII .� J Km serf ALL b'M.]O'.P.NE ^. �: I �P' �j� =s u cuR a o'y.eb•uop I<.m rmtw...t py�� • .I� _ - -- -111��IA'C' c,& •R•••' ].',.J O'*pr rNl.L'en EXIT.OAK, V iiirl�t—_ •_ 110_ U .•Ayres uc 0.40[VAL.PALM cop ]. Ced v f•pa Croton/ 4;i .1/' [D 7 I���ii�ti E-' , ]O'M.]O'rP.NIL variety pw LA. ,1 r� ^ LL.p�! GOR ] 1.4.I N two Il.tr..11.n Si LAplAn �,® I �} I 111, a.''t, 6'Ap••11 vwl•tln par LA t W d 4 3 i cat 6 Coe.•eYtlo.R raw.Lily) �,[:y"p a Ori K OAR J orrdwl....mot.*T+u.I dgr.m:rc.rawl./ , tl �,j r)J.r- �[�P / iJ tT x qyyyy.p a'M.l'.pr.�uR / d•3r �s ��I '1 I as W n•lu frr•W..) l�Gy I ii1 �rrls DA . �r.ur • N IL% ID I.vatO'.P.NII.]'oc 1` r 'I �I4/1� ea '� ..__ _ •• tdhLt PiA LEA F� ILx Sr I. Itaru rotd..D.arp lib.) •Z•7.�� '-�\ �W �/ 1)r� 'J .`C'n• rev l.n..w U'M.Y•.pr.NII•b'OA. �y.,�� • off..• ' r ,f� N I.A. ae L.nui.c lT.IIOR 4nunA/ •-_I� '�.d ''iVy�i���1� ,4I17,0.v.914. %?'-'' / ,T OFKS Sept Iry MI {i� , �_Vlt:yi.•• Li\� ♦ �t /t_ Exl vita Da.S.•ewoterr lu co. Prn) r N'NEP le4 .IV M.I•P T YID e] wt..'•^/ere rr..r viburnum/ '14. .a VV... j� •4V Pte.:, 7 �����// ® �6)�lsi�:i/I�L� 11 �t :A.M.JO'rP.NIL]' /(4 i / ��yl "' ,e �= QI�( ' Jr 1N DENOTES NATIVE SPECIES i .' .C�.i1 G,1�; � I%.,� ,L1 '� 'J / / Y [5 w GOGOPLLH NEDGE r 1 i n.�.D`. �e+,1 '1 / (n Y S m ...=RA,*MM.•LS...,...e. NOTES ..-.r' T,.. I yy w F'� 'V Ilk An pYR.r141 to w Feder T a babe, ''r' Tt ��rj"• E 1 B I , WO ., Ad b e K Auj•1et Stwo.P MClda sge PorW quentlWalk / All wd eel Imdscpe b two.PM<a+elQ.frP•aaa{k rly.11a.yNa r la 1 rug approved EXIST, / j'1 C5Art,1 n.parbY Id IA U•Idlbn 6d ledeupe epKlNJlbw ItUdd b S. a q' /I I _ pad pel Ben lra.p.d(Iu1bR WIIwy.id•d OmDKl MoenY. ALEXANDER ); ` 73 ;i7 R�wRna' Ludt IRR61l ed f.NAYw b w IrylYd.efcdlrg b 1pKAfk.Sal.. PALMS / ' TOgr N XL I ` SPECIFICATIONS I `1'7ti I �31P �� 1�1 REV�51 NS .To.a eAr•m eh 1.4F pant 000 pe Wllw Pro lo NT.ld.Ir..racia rayto t Vt ...,. .rl ^.Ol '� M W Fbbr rra rub.Grew ld etedwN,.d Poll w Made Gld.A a NUR. '/ �.,� 'I.— exlsT. 9/23/03 Mats did.b C ret ure bap,elld•Nnrot blwplbd \ „J• A AT& '' iA MCP'-OPLU'I HEDGE 3/23/04 RAM Lptb pYRtM,.tar,rd bulbs or pYd.till be ddwlmd by pYn Intlp plant bb. y�q\ I�,A '' r.A.ew MA,•VW.War*. u ao Irl Wn arep.eRbe w•P•to b wed as r�aaa eoyw.rAlbe dn.rwe by ' r� t ��C �i / / \tt z 5/05/04 pent CWJSMatle apyrl bYlubwlidu No Gees aa.11lw I `I/1L A1o�\ 1 wp j1 to fc•he Absalom or the odd are q.RnM te&la a pltro.DI.aglrclw rIDJd w 1 'a 1 — _ dam].' Fk L'Gi Li%/// ' `\ COMM 540N bo]gl b O 15.tbn or W.475 b e Np.d raged t r ,/ r At,//G:Q�_---. ,Tx�I'-�r•.' t.'`.'r:' 1 ,oN BmsTmrtaa rb ncrywlon J'IA w Iu•ples Potcoro.nt 6r LWRap•Ardrlrtl 1 +�••: .:..effete.* —..4-4p5• ..'•t"A9\ i 1 'i 03- /y FIMd r1.NtW1bR J111 b d.uq.d m led Pot ram.effet.=__ /Dir,,...,`-_.... 012 PL.P.G SOL,Ypeoll POI be clan Oak,rd ram a dbN.cr Ph faelp:stwYL '`-t1 k..4:.•it �f t {Fr 7-' yt. • Tr wplwd.li'ITL dlllhlegef0'tr144.OtR ri"Ad/1.rlo `A `\\•\\ \� ;`'�� /� \\\ 1il /I DATE LANDSCAPE CALLS r,d betty drool WlL Roata Mlrg Jxl br pW++CYb.d.dNlrn of.'Mu>lwtl ,�/ � r� 7 1 7/14/03 A. TOTAL LOT ARIA R M MOZER PaloIv.Of Tropic.'to NA fP•I.0)a wd rq+d JYu b t�ylYd IIV pYakJ Elmew.. r•. / D. STrYCTURO,PARK...EAV]WY6•DRIK6,ETC w]C 66rt. }d FRO taRrd6g p•YIUIKWwt recoordedw+pdpWrYPr� ca• / 9 a TOTAL PERNCO1 Lm!REA c.,P.D/ SRN 6C rt. KAM Al c~bdbM'A�b Oh of po o�t�rornd ocklal Moll rvt 5 root p'6i4al,..fl a'D if5 \ '�V/ d a U a P. .ARRA a 6JRA6 A.O Or10ND COW"REWIRED D.,C a Got WOW en rt. bud.l ruN fa h.t.6 T44h dodd b.GalY'A'.dl .,1745 o'+id a ,/a • D � BOP\ S� E. ARTA a e.rND64a ORANDCP.tR PROVIDED. oe. 1C rt• PLA+456 PR'CECUM An ORe Jun w peeled al edII.CS Wch thy•at aMw.y awn Fit - -'�,i.. E NO d wTIK vE.TATIoN ROARED r.lD•]et . JTS 60.n. Drc 6M Aodq. VYI wn w pI_..••t'.71Ny va on a oea SbArtet(rnt.TYtwY . P.O .UTNE K6CTATION P'ROt'IDED T. 66 rt. IN I NWr elm Toter Yen my 1l 754.den be petrol my So•evaraIT WC 1.rotb LC ` rar' E Z • Gate .rt. Sped•yIYIY.r NHL NbtI qMs aro to b.plotd drAely II ra If wo 11 wwY a \ .w cwr,Rrlt.e.,"'M� C:1¢J • R TOTAL NKD KMOLAR trot'EA y!a f.p,rgptaed Y}sto Mlfsdt b ad t45d WI tt rld b.d11n NN or to • J _ 1. TOTAL NTERIOR.LANPOGAPE AREA RONDE I.rN X JO/ SAo se.rt. WTEADG All plat Mldd Jill b tiled D IhuoAjiy Af V ItUl4lbn W N to mow all IT podeU. ♦ '.'j _. _ _. _ _ •'''•' •'. J. TOTAL INTERIOR LANDEU••E AREA PRO+IDtD aA•t 6C or. pip NYrYI Wn b.Ylwrd Nwy a 1.4X.•a•...Sp s47I.Id IMYM w 1.b CI SHEET ta•h6 roYt I6,6 MI r a W Md.upr Fil/WllOn GQIfICIa.NII ravy oRs R TOTAL WPC.•.IAp[TREee REWIRD K.rl/Qe 6)A 1 ME. OF ^- or oe.XIuldrIvUm r.gYwr..Rw Ued cr L TOTAL INTERIOR eN.ot TRUE rRa+lveD. / TREES wry„An Um 6'a um Jill b.{1+pd a gated b po.'14 t•QY.pporl such Pit W utrYl SCALEr I/S' • i'0' pRAwN BY • n TOTAL L.EAR MET bDeaQlO W PARKINS OR DJ V. tll.Yy9 Midi Xd.. fl45 lie WII 51 p.,1 rMFO4I YOa rill b rch Tit ro eLMy Y KNIOAJR WC<RA ci•dbp M1e.(µYq Wnbh.r, llWtptIrnaWll.ip.fd are JIf 5I .pfrO Ly SWNt' N T TAt.WTER a PLRPTTER TREE REWIRED N.M/WI A TREE. w L Ard74 . eSM'O0 eNA e/D b..pai7Y for In Mw and NM r.N.Yg • O. TOTAL WIDER a PERII'ETER TRE.PROVIDED 0 taaa'A g.Ilr plbQ J P. TOTAL WIPER a TREES TO DE SAKD a 6QE r TREES W O.led Ain be d•r.,glwl,Rd Me roaRL.'d Irr.a d.bY,*wee,c44•Alaib5{y'Ilew, } y d4c=b gyrba N•dr.A wp4I bbi ror A[•WAob••od Carets a 5 b.pwtCCD 6f}r1 ,5Q' RAW ,�� 6 TOTAL MfIDER a NATVE TREES BOARD O•rK.NI.90 - Tab! 6d Wn wnvad da lhpha.'.N Yylrg lnwM.bweodd.d Wnwrdd l.eolh led A TOTALso ,a N.TM TREE rRV.9DED • In dRGY r'AUpp66.6. TOTL Ar ,a TREE at nail rRWaED t tRECS 5145fli AA pWuteruY Jxlb 11p6I1o1n1•.d rI •n.ta1uc.a •6L PAYer tow parrOod fa IGtewe ippYtb MMPaRkM1 mertatbeunGd by Ca4aaa. . �.` /Pbe_ove L,4 lbSeAP R. Fr • • • • «`:41'%'LI% 059 Old ... PLANT LIST I.._.._.,._.:_:._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..- d Sn REY OTT PLANT ANO SPECireC.ARCH _ 118 School ( o uvueH= 'rs' TREES ANO ALMS Cam—-—----- 15 _ALLEY ---------—-—O Square • Ir euAa ,1i` ....ra�er.s ...<er N CO I Caccdoba diw,lldla(Pigeon Plum) --- -- -- �� A. GRANT g • mp a ht..6 fur.,roes a Dr oH� _�s_Do1PL —6 E—• TNORA. • CD •�"YeY "�""• H a : cma<«Da...„I .osaw Bmlmwaaa) 46 AND ASSOCIATES 1 tnsr.EV' :i`1 p.".."". 12'ht.,6'sore,lull can DY.6'DA. r \��yyy.y�"-,77•�y>`N 211•1.,.. -._... + vnz D Pn I.w.ba.na(Pygmy Done Palm) Vii/I_ �i;r�r� l 1' n.e.,.p, �rm;.a la...r. s'n%;lure.double 4 i� e PE 6 Ply...permh"team.(Salllaket Palm) SIG _ rerl rberrua A+9 v.ve.:kmel-re I CP. I A-16'e.a.hi.,R avy Y , •\ TR1A CAE 'I A . TRIANGLE /I i� SAW LI.ND PLANNERS �3d;1,�i H ON 2 04,....lrolnlano(We OM) 111y II . 12-u•ht.,6'ape..hull come. gi SOD \\ H // rpp re OV 2 Ou a vkglnlono(lh.oas) F m 6 68., 20'ht..10'sore,full<oneRY•wecim.n - gY I � « r,a. -'L+SN\ �ti1T • wNaw s.e�len....,. y .rent 1..,<.. _ oe__ ruaf./(JJ, KEY ott PLANT AND SPECIFICATCel A/' �GFI \. • e \\ I� // CC// I0111", T. A. o.v is'ii i z,o gygyy I��ppd�1\m. M f SHFUB$ORWHOCaKR2 ANO ACCENTS II,/ \ "� J �' I/ e d A.(Se1)],e-p,l iYJTeitb;- r'a, iW 1 6'\ r ANN 40 Nore.Na Annual.(Per Sea.an) 1 -✓ 1 (.�') ' khaki YI� ` errp ��^\u6 Dal.11•epr..IRR.1x•Dupre \ . y .-- , {Pali: "`•YO'' ALL li ul,mmea whew(ea.n Morn...) 16'hl.,20'• d me a min. N CHH 25 Gr Febo1 hue Nalco(Coc000Nnu) KPr /' I ') d a oI EXIST.OAKS ' _ '�I 1i1___ a�� --_ m ��QJ 9 s�75 core z [«ayln.Iwmindlra(Noranan n vronL) /l` $�5 }-•ht.,a lull,mina varlelles per L.A. / �� I''I/I� 0Ov �, CRI 5 GMum o l'hr.(Nil,4' .c. �'/✓ R► •.(•y Ihti __ 56•blue 06'.Dr.,Nil,A'o.<. .` 1:`j N O�O O OAR 2 cwdnla moue'.Inam1 Supeem:(Cardenla) �/� L \\ •••// �® 'W11 S .Res ..eAwt H'ht..0', ..hell Ii E \a\ N NAY 10 mdla=ten.'fVebu.n) A:7 P+rn 20•ht.,2CP. .,full.2' i l �r QyfT1 r �'I .\ x 4141,44- .Y 32 tie.v«nllaa'Stob Dwarf' P 1 . fuse. . e' .gin•.) 11t [i r��__I �►O 3L' , 1 ;r i • 66 aA...,,a pa.a-«crvxa.E., N LAN 0e font.,a. /euo.Capron) n r �' �-.�:�y'l•-.:p�. i� ry;FR,p' - - 1 f t r S7,11 6'ht..ter ..le' ..,roll 1// + .�' .-�. ."� \` %I Y t1 '^-• N Nu 154 Neoly le I..rdla(Sword Fern) --iD ' ����.� -�r�Jh'��/I' ,I•y y'••Ii C 12'hi..IA• or.,z c. [. ilWr�-324..5.te d 2,4iFZ!,QI ! _ NB 53 \A..numimpart.,"(Sandmero vbamum) ,I Iy` -. •�`I Ili JAI/j ..;'42 '° / 'EXIST.OAKS 24 hl.,20'TPA.NC.2'0.0. %i nuA,r °n N DENOTES WINE SPECKS ✓ -���sv-'7� ,4, qy�• •-yI q�I tE , rTM. Al. EXISTING <A, 'N_9" I�;q r'1 l%I' Yvi,- \i g HEDGE M1 I IO ;S 0 I r ._Iq,- E �r��1 :ir ,s1 [t i 5,4,....OVAL• M.re R.an NOTES ry ' _ irk I% •' N2 {g,421.1 maleid to be 11.6e di re WI°. I• r* :l \ r '-', C�m-1 sad le b.sl.A,y,Ib.•Medan;cmhda to Mann.wmllly. I I ilL® / 0. i pp A Al sod and bd,me la larin IOC%emery ben oul=o1X MOM system 15 1.�i ; �-' W•^,6 449 eoaond.dn emuoB0*101st.and. .sem.opecirrolrr.,allsArd to this EXIST. h 1-,.!, t' I [•iT N �j Ron!eel Nat and,pedfealiaa Aol be considered Cmkal 0ovmml. ALEXANDER r(�I'} 1• 0.r140, /Y'I a Y ^� uddL Mood ma;r1i,s m br,oedid«cvEnq le gecif fate • PALMS A 'Ill (T. SPECIFICATIONS I r�Yy\IArk AA AreL QT�� 1 ..." hCYDlq,L9F[Al plant Meer used the be fro to haree and me b smlpmily \ N fi: r Rear tL'Sr •-'• nth W Ra1lo Wwynp's Oodes and Sleeked&and Mal be Ile aka OM n belly. \ ry F •-y1•.• / nJ Plats M•sh de red meet maned.el red be accepted ( '7:Fm m s REVISIONS 4....42:ma-uti ,:•m..a PLANT LETS Cleanlula si2..and location d plank a a adrmbee by don area keel lists .'?�pq Arj a'�' 11 ��i EXISPNG 9/23/03 Seed I dal Ike preceded one,Acclaim nu.Spacing d Nand corn e9 be&ambled by s Imam @7(•j) , •, ,2 it HEDGE eel Ens Root o Nam as plan Ile pre le be used w a NPde ne odd Cmbalbe a be /' f ' \ 3/23/04 von bIt l ...wk.,of ocla o annep mled lam don.DisaaPAR s,hddd De I `✓;I I 06 6 L1.` / '1 • 5/05/04 • Nolyd le the allonym N No Landscae MAME 1 ___ .0, ) SLzs1111105:Re w1Ablut'ans Aol b led.Most crosml of lendnope Achil,cl. 1 r' / S� '' // �2 I/16/OS • An lendrd r3dduliou s6d ko Mond en the b'd 1,r %/I/_IY/%/i I/.��:-s- '�' /iA�!I�i=/�/I :2 T" aaeD �a1, :.'.'�:.rr __,1-;;--•.�I'..wir:.;ij- C �1 ;,� COMMISSION NAMTNC SOI:Tema:Ad be dem,.Iris and Ole of debris er other brim meaner. "--4 I Ls'nA:•�544f;1 -- J' pra;l.-� r •LANDSCAPE CALCS Le ed Rims Not bed led elh a M.el 8•tumor(sax mud..SOS Sod) him G�I �7- t, a%�'i % , /N/ 6ri:6/ ': f-- �\ 1 03-012 eel bdlrndndb holed a111' shd D. \�\�'��• ilY �"a��� � 'I - OATS. rayed Into Ih'to 6}d holed ,dam Ranted beds nth D rah al 4 al lepocel \ \ On," ' A. TOTAL LOT ARCA NM sal FT. �� �/ S srnUC1UR[$PARRwa wAtx4005.DatKS ETC. 6.250 S0.re ryp2 JSR Palm and Ugk!Irldler(12-4-12)re wood.0 dal I.oppied one plmlbq' E. . i2 and prof le n.khns pr mmalalurr.mom/naked aasaode,role. r ' r ... i I 7/14/03 a TOTAL PERVIOUS LOT AREA C-(A-6) ISM"04 xi ET. ARM 4 bees ol.be muddied nth 8•d ppymed skeddd mddl n a o feel An.dal.Al.Nubs rill • I i - d kc9.r Da',steal be milted IU S d an!sNedded mid n bed',Noon m don a b "REMOVE 0. .Ru a slaves AND maueD cOKR R[aRRm 0-(c..So) 1,1w SO.FT. N rya ri Deds G for Aedq.t MdrA dlallla b.Croft'A vAl.0 otheln 4 puma �/� EXISGNG O-W C. AREA a 9sRUB5 AND fAWNOCOKRs PROMO) I301 S0.FT. n r. N•nK KCETAneF RcWw[o n(o.a6) in s0.FT. gtAN76dC GROFfn�f•Al plmb,teal be p'mnd al,d loth ankh they yet aenuJr Vend p„ , '' I AIAIdOGANY- '`o Q ArA ad hedge molrld Nat be planted a rah 2'any hen Ms a other*struck..Matadi yi SOD SOD .f E Z 0. NAnvc KOETAncer FRONDED ' Ore Sa rT. lh a moles ft.paler VITA m17�MAmgs'babe keeled any boat=Mans,a of not le • ( II VA e L Cn Q N. TOTAL PAVED KHIWLAR USE AREA 0.026 sa rr. 69ede ths naiad Ih ME.Sold Palm.en le be pinned*My b fend.4 mammy,escarole h • /' IY L Toted wTcnla LANDSCAPE MU R[auRED 1-pt%,10) DAO s0.n, MO any sanpasled Mass s burodel to mWluded sal cod bodit rid,Roney al \O p, A TOTAL wrCmOR LANDSCAPE AREA PROND[D 0..69 S0.06. MIRK Al aml malrid dal b.rdred It 0,,0 Nyanr Fsldofm.onto Raton d cis packet& per a.a meoart • �I,� 0 t0 Q d68 000lo shed be wired my doer la.a m6lmen m..eeI period and thereafter w m ID "' t - (,<J 0. Tom.INTERIOR SHADE TREES RECURED R-O/125 Sr.) 0 seer, Leg m menu*mid All 1, auptax.of Al Imdwap.iolaaallm.Cm4pcla,teal soli)),me - 7,'J.00I P ' ,r L. TOTAL w1EMOR SHADE MO FRONDED 3 TREES • dotter nlerbq rea*ernnl,AN b,IdlatWl ® (� SHEET 4. TOTAL DNCAR FEET 9JRR WNO0O PARNINO OR . 132 Li. 01T11C Al Nes c a Idr NI De guyed ,Inked lap'de orM a mt901 al Not lh.maleid . • NpIIWLAR U5[AREA e9 stay 14w01 and Inge Onmgh the gueelee pried.Methods used a De sell lhol no hkY a • - N. TOTAL NUMBU a PCnMCTER 1HC[5 2(016(D N.(4/00) 100(5 ale P.N.Wongy shd bet dmt al the vim of the Eeebal.mho Spdf der requested by •Ihs 0.Id Akdil.cl.Norm.Cmbala Ad.10 be ragmublo la d btu and palms rmabhq SCALE: 1/8' 1 O DRANK BY TOTAL NUMBER Or P(RNETU TREED PROMO TREES 0,41 and he V.wglwl the q p'mtee peaoi ' OP. i0T•L NUYBCR Or I0005 TO BE S.aKD Or 511% 1 TRC[S $30:Sod dal M alms.gnn,eel erd reeled,prId hp d keDd.reeds,ob)xlimob4 Naive. S.M. • 0. TOTAL NU40LR OF NARK TREES REWIRED 0.(4 A N)•.50 A TREES damµ re M)rlm buds A coop'Is 6-6.6lr1S0r dial b..preod A o rale Al .pr 5 I 1000 Ad K. R. TOTAL NUupER a HATA 20025 PRONp[O 6 MUSod,teal be mitred ID a MO al 4'DMla/nq,AA aa,1,be sodded Mal be raked smooth and • •PR.ace N pled deed 1u steal r. mleed ursine 1 der mnpl.Cm al TIL Re O^ y • S TOTAL NUUBU Or 1REES W RAN PROMO . isECS aavv xa } Pdme ae to be wamtad la I hers Wamlp ryplk.le health position,ono,u.Replacement r� • M.a be armed by Eanbala. • NW '1CT A\7T.e TTTTP. ' R-ri)cc$e LT\t'ZISCDr_ c V _ifIW • .s • -._.....---- Lot 2 Block. // PLANT IIST l 59 Old • School .I "" AP It[ Drr PEalal nuD s E r;mlDv r r Square A,er 1 1 :Xi n TROTS AND PALMS O Q N CD .... Ceetnoba a, v,r„ ... .__.. GRANT. • rr,•r,a ,,,.. I2'nt 6•p r ( °r DNL • ....... ..... � nI 1iIORNf1ROI,(II d 1•'vn.w n el CC 2 Comeo•pas a (' r P lIn ondll • �iD r�y y IA n F',, i i 0n eons 2111 - .`1.i ."Gv / a �11.41"4"....:::14 1ND ASSOC'IAT• e,r ,ou.0 •': fR2 3 erns r m.r ,nnl (rprr y Dt ) ,yy.1�1� -�f:'.+•"'fi tryA>n" � _. . CO'(%) n :mw.l P •s N. F fl eepnn•(Sat10•e form) :..J-.or- �Al li\ n Slfi'li / `'�� A Mir-in,n_n,,,,,,nr,rt s ns sa. _ 1l. ) i. TRIM GI,E\ IZ_ '. I INIAIJ'vlf ''� JL ro Pt A. ss 5 'e n °e 2 r.�t r,e.',a, 0. 0) \ \ l� D 41�i> / S fly. T F -IJ Irt.a n. r i':S• \ L---/ It/ Tr [. II OV 2 Dw•cn ought (l E.) 1 \ ��. Q ^r I r 2LY bl to f y.tps•„men A _.. .� n. '11J I / _ !I id,, IG{��F v (j ..v ,un • /in , :- .•r bl'FS KEY UTY PI AI 1 Ap°I S LCIEICAiIUII / - \CC \ I • / ` I �/ 1 ( ) [ 1 'nr nw rv' rr�im• i;'v%.mi.. /I �� I.l SS.CROur OCOUFRS AND ACCENTS 1 IE9_-V , ) in i•[e 7 .(b•I • eeN AD ra.nrb,a A ra.(On Seeso) 1 N.. /��y-A •-- -i® E VifY �D -1'. 1•e[ /I \ae vine N 1 mot.1 n T l 2 ,, .. , 1 1 I ALL A6n ht..20'p II (b n oohs)p,foil f s*, 4/ ' ,, E i sin - ns. 11 COP 25 C•y'o)annu I (C re,) 'a��,jj� )/ t 2. F.X157,DnVS / �}I! f//I�{>� / A�([I� Ey ova c ants ¢" 5_..... __ LW 26 Cod're m2 un'Iepnlu' (Croton) ( f `dlr r�11' u�_ _ 1/y�� �- /� i�,a I'.<r-1+ ,g 1 20-,, n1'type..b vgdwly per I,A. Ts I"n„,t V4 - 7 �/ �'e9i'g1�1/?r - I v fJ CDR 2 Coreyl'n"In•minn a(Ilowe on n ran° .,ti`0,4: (0-)- i --�� tr• 3-•n loll,meta vo•leue•pee 1.n \ e.ry ,5 (7,11�__v }t„°aJ1 l•2 /;'+; 0j/�'� [FI 5 Cn•urn a vllcum(C,Inum Ily) 4.' zA.. 2'�\)�CC5r> 1 = 1, wa,.<,( U00 .16-n1.3g6,set Au A'ot $ IE EJ 1 -- OS i'• GAR l 2'10.la 0a:la''Miami Slsrc+Vn'(Dorados) n1..3'eP•.faI Y 2 F{ / m u ernu re, 2r m'q palm•(b01. r)p '..0 °I, - y;F_ "r Sip ;.: ;7: 20' I 20'• tun.2 t'. 'Lly O1#G4{t'`�{' ..-U.r w rone Aw,n,ns lr 32 In[ntmno[grr.IPR Dearia(e.) �;,n ! di' /�/ old I c gnroeal,5 an . IJ IAO 1S L 1 (Y l I ) Y' 1 `V n.:r rt•Aa li nt ID P 10 I •�y���"� �b R �\.� _J . 1• ]�. ,1 Kr slid 1 1 i (5 AP n) ]i'� _.idlA�'`� __ \` df `dA+r "OI�`F ��'{' r/Aa�C b NB 53 Ynvrnorn eu•pnnsom(Sandansra Vtrtnam) 1 T'_ / 7�. r 2 dry AIW�a Cx15T.OAKS i w 24'ht..200•opts Ion.2'n.e. > ttl!�NN��9 I vtwnn.. .a'� '' , 11 OCIIUYCS IIn11K SPECKS / (CS�• Nx�diYd'�NSr/�/.a�'Ri4 in,Anysm `L S l .f3L' 04 02y/� Ir.3S l w rtay.A��, Exi tIIIr. 111 ¢� ��j7 Ie Y m A Yr?� �� �6�IJ ! 111 V 1 .•1 .aeznnn R c._ n 'HEDGE u Lk_9 I1N11'..:.III 415t; •fv n4 ,4„„.• k .rf • oils �4�.i�a k': ®' �S (n •I �n•.n n,.,,e.v f4b'h' u+"81Itl17d'.__. >• !�_ •71 f � n,,.i.;rn..- eannnn,none .. NOTES / •j': a h " g Q)°E' ,I{y r L r',. F )45 An 0101 material In ho fun 1dn I'm belle. I!1 ✓7 ,1 =L) \ 1 "'\ ,1 C x • $oO 1 b ll A q 1, 11 contractor to dcicrmoc qua Ily Y (: !'.\0•' w' y U,../ �' II d d,tro I 1000t.e9 c from.Ao+nlr. 1. Y /} f9 12 y) f 7 • 115,9 g 9 �/ 'I °`I I y Co E � r Ir -0 side I tl1 ill- A Iokrnre spot rml' 11 I A In II s E IST.. 1 A £ () p f I. flanA s I r ,shot be ccudered Contract G Imrnl' AI EXAMOCR 't r I IN I O �nn aM,^r.nm I.4A torso?. d 1 I I b•°pried a«o tag Io slKaol . onus {/ \ �n{ (/-\; ^T I` 0 () Sr+E IrICAT10N.i • �1. d • /�_�1) "L1 t ✓ l ) N^Ar IfIAIiFE'.A el I J be hue In some and the tnnlnrm y I1. • I C-bV I \\\r:ink _'Ie.Try-v n r st cr,.w Iis rR hdts coned p pion and rl I I + b sA „ " L I pI I A e ) • YI „� { CI °,1 yl .dyb gIII I II II Ion of the ahn5 b, bah tea V I . Y L1 TA n I + 1 18 0� 5U➢SIIIUIrAI N p3011k rshoeDeacceptednon l tossdoflnndsmpe A 1leel. Vk., ,At y �\a 1 e I / A Wendel oh'I Icon Aas D^.daloled an Ile 22 V'• •^ C V f'' '•T I crt1Ancoo Y \Mil E>0 / '1'.{d"dL,-T � 1 r 7 pt �:. ._ _. PLAN INC S rum?110 be tkan,sterile,the fee of d nn u other IoreIgn mater'r1 IW A S:.e )< '.4 �1. - ;4 , F p \\.Q •' 1_Ar IDSCAPE CP.LCS frees and rm'ns shot be planted oh a inn of 5'unseal jmk lord,ass tnnA)en rats - 1 \t+a`'V Y+,.e' !.� l� '1 S 03 012 anti boilers el roe ball,Rooted eull'ngs shall be planted I bail II a min.Of A Of Ilv,si '.\..�'` NIN.' A ;;;/ ` �I' \\\1.�� �\\� torso liar M[n e,o9a GR n, surfed into the lap 6 of ei sing en? T 1'. 7 Y '%dF/� _ d� n •\\i•'%C r G:.r[ ((201 U(F Pam OVA Tropical(slain Co-4 12) r orr add tan p;non b oaf'''''ane rlanl'ng 'f�• c-.w�qn 2 Y P. smLcnaE;rnrvr n In nr,Ks.nG aa3n sa.rr. nr ce r. `gI, MIN .t"n 7/14/03 a d C I ed'nq for mavadun t nm ode.opp talon/nits {I ,d L s.jy 1a q'• ;. I C. TOTAL r[ Ws LOT .n X•a r C.(A..P) Aces so r LIAD1.Ad,I has be m lobeel rlh 3'or prppronti shredded notch e u 3 rod era circle.An slruk 1 �, '4 ._....._. A C beds sl oM be niched r Ih J f a,+rnmd shredded notch n be t,hero plan n. •FF 0 '' REAIO\'E beds 3' 'd•le•hedges. 151ch should be Dade'A unless Chemte emend. A ( ;.'n d' - E%ISTINo v p�-O. ArA Or N, (PIN D CMS .0 r[D n•(C,Jn) r,tnO So.ri a 9 p m r S a '1 •.;. I 10 L. iA Or 5 s DRW'D OVER,PR AT ICe s3Di fO.sf rLANPAC r2:Ct0Wfr.Ae plots shot be p1onte oI soh hers of durh they sere previous y g•oon- l ey 1.•• 1.7ALfBGAFLI'- I` p st hAP,s vE.Ci 1 MUTED r40••") 270 .o.r Shrub end bodge male ki she be plmled o inn.7 spy from rail a other otIbdion;.4101,r i t 6k SOD SDD. 1, i[y 0 f,)0: P. ATIK KC[TAn;t PROAtrn SO rr with a MA,.:Of Toole,!bon n hogs she bt pooled own,tam overhangs so el not In 1 [1 eF, 'q4 J � ,g TOTAL PAKD RiVICln AP LI'L AKA 3.090 53 er, roped:11e salve Tool;hob 1 5,001 Paine me In be planted eF•ctly M sod If necessary,moods _. 1 P I, k.• 1 l I -. E t, •�I INwgh any eempoelad buidng e.broad to weslurbte soil and b+d,fal roll dantng eel ! n. Y "••, I \t"0 t• fOt•.a me Da LA,Ies_nPl ARCA FEGII mD u.Dl .t D) JiD so.r[ TI 1E[I`If,.?Mead m0I I:WI be watered F thoroughly after Fsld n(m so of It,empty d Or poll n c[s o A El qh EO Q.. torsi r,itF Da lA ionIIr[AR[A PPOs"O[0 y J.a59 50 ft. Rb0 mole MI dal p vat r J e,nY hay Ic a milmum oe nen4 oil and Ihtrmller sa as to (�.�_.. - _�..t�,�sa. .� .. - .y- -'-y (J 0 I N. r0 WAL arum,5'AI`C Ial[s r[OUnED 1,0/125 Sr.) 3 TRCCC seepl,,•01 ly most unlI fad Onto;ace et I e M0Astnpe Mrlalolion.Cunl,tela eha sally onr'II �J,lll L. ronL x rznm smDE rafts mrono[D al other role«°pup+remote clle gapedinn. -�� 75.00r(PJ _ AI. TOTAL LnitIR r[[t sURRWt.D'OC P202110 OR '01 Ir.rC[5 CI111t1r•:An Ire",b'o loin r4Wl be guyed or slaked In prosido Ompte stalpal mob that Ile material (shy y:111 r I rot cloy sleoghl and Ir.Ih•ongh the trmfor tee period.Methods need it be nab Ilml no btjoy to L-,1 .I KIIICu(Art u sE AnU soused In plonk,COng shag be done at'ha into of Ille Cbnluldeo Wets Fled1im!I/„guesle'I Co (' - 1 p p 01 1«es and NAM remaining. DRAV.?I DY N. rnuL NVArirn o-ern Vut 1 rates¢rev ass a-bI/301 A u¢o' Ise[nndsm c Architect.I,Fpn<m Contractor pholl sin et rue mefl.for I S..ALE: 1/A' - I'O' O 401AL NUI OCR Or r[rt VCTtn ma PRDAOCo n TPECS 0401 and Inn throughout II a guhe Its puled r P. t0rA.eukonel or sum To DE SAVED OP S rr 1 TITLES 50D Sod shun be dens.ore,pnd sre11 roamed.and hen of debris.need,obittclinooMe grassmL esene s __ .._.._.._ Sou i O TO*nL,uAlo:n or rIAnIt mr,[s It[Cum[o o•(e 4 III..Ao n IONS w nwalve insects.A PI.I 6-p 6 II c hoe b0 spread OI a role of S lbs.per IDN s 1.II. � Sad'Jul re oveaee I depth I+alit lo)mg.An em la be sodded abml ho rrbcd smooth o l -'V 10tnL HUUDEP 0r NATIVE iP[rs PR•IwI[D d rPE[S all dcN s removed pier to n.Idlnlrn, 5� rout Nuur[R or TITLES 00 PLAN PROVIDED 0 rnr[s GOARAhIY1E All lad mated;shill be manle0 for I ' p qq Km ant,paIl1,I as nl ilo P ralmr rye In be,,rTmrml«+1 for I Tool.Commies e«++r m stow.porfa'I,cud eats prpp«n<m ..'\`1�•+``I w . . . , [.ot 2 Block, , Illi I 59 Old I I School i Square I • •, • AND•IH 0A1s0s1H 03cOrALTcrAis 12:31,:: ....... - •.... .. , 5 •r ''' "I.T.'i3;11 I l'iii'd:if3 h1-2,1'; !ii,/111z1 •)i!!14 •E•ii, Iii3i2,:iMil .-,-;•., ,, =ri:,131 a--..-- ;'_77-.=__7_7-1. •. ; , g 2 1 . !Lir•°•" . ol i 2. -- ,},''',:cri•l'(,- ','''', I-b.1-.O i ' ''.‘.:'91'',r,•-‘cc *".. __-_ 0.,...-1.;.•7.,,.-C.-- :,.i'.. VERT::::p .. q''',..-' '''r„ -::. r"'''-ak Q.'7. • i Lk:i, f pp.;•,.,',,...-=L,';',"( '-A ,-, -,Pffif)C4IJI-c)-k) c.z z 3 1 W'711 --Crf()411"/ •I' -.'''' - '•;'y,....-•••'-'• '•••••`"4, ghjiiilkillininliMigr IllillikiMBION1111.:-Uf".4,1IM^'e '".1-••••••L:-.:4.,.:.`•....•?,.41/".4p..c, ,.(S' 1- '""•'• L'i'••••'''.•-•`••'•.•;e•''' ...7---zZ:.,_•-, '• `',inincautlinsounpr.,--...mcionnimung—...,,,,,,,.. i..,,,(,-.*- 7,-,,, ,.. . ,4 ..,';':"?':".'T.'',('!,.--z-,r,'^ d -' , ,,:f. 'X'•a,'•':•..'.,. /rs.4.,*'•‘-i:r. ''''j'illiplinieliniillger,ze--.-7111111111IiiiiiiiiiiiMIPP,' ,•.., ily• 577.114`'"k•'N•"`Sit.'•I.t. . '''I•'''•1".•• "'''''' . 4 SC' ='''';,:e 6 ''Iflet ',V 1‘,'4.''''' '''''S''''0,11111111110111111M.•===1 -7. ':"I 1111111111111r4 ,,410,7,t. f. ' ,,,q,.'7?gi';.111,".>.-"! •••o .... .. • ' 4. '''' ' ''' '' '-'"'''''!' ''.4•'''''4, ''''''''sl'F'r YAIZNIIIIIIIPmL----------''-.------ -:_-"41111,111 NIL'Co ., " '' ,4,41,,,,,,,,, -,.);,R4tt ,,, -,,I, .2,, •••,, 2 n„I'''., ,.'.--al-' •..." '.•‘•.'‘ r't F, -7rAcIiii :"ilhliquiii*;10.- '" ----='-' ------:17:-.-_i . J._tt-r.411•Irl!z;•„1..r.v.r..45.5.`51,../' ,,K1..1,..." • '' .,,it C''''Ii;l,:^%'/J'I.324I"4'• CI ,5'.-I?''•V*Y.klilkir".6",,Ntrarle011-__ - , -------13-1.:------7-7.-7---7-: -I--7?•••?;?... ''IP.k417.11,1 YAT14., ;,'.,:vTivii, t;',,,,, ,,,•.",`,.14,-4,. .l' • •-!...‘,vir r friz...', f . _ , 7 "7-:-71 MI 'i.i.''414\51! Tiffr. 4 -.' •:CVISICHS •irfe....•:,-is, •''''Y':,,,, 1 • ` '..., • dig? 1- — : . LI._,A j ,,,, .1 •1 '*", , -, 4-,Al —•-.-::: _--:-.------- '---15 ''z),P, . , EX SW..NEE 1 . r I — 1•••--=LI] CD 15. \fiitt„ Cflil IIG MEC •\ as'1,. i of.....1"...,......• let, __,,,,,fN.„..___-.=3 I 'Al '• • i , v-4'40P61' ' -- '-`,'-'-,t, - -' --- --- -- .. ,,,;1•4":41,,-- ..';.i.. MettOr ,:11.. 4$4..:, .-„, ii 1 , : .,.- '• '`.40- ...I --,....,-,"^",...,-. ' 4""'" % 1 ) ". ;, r•-4,,,,I)cr*WAF-r":,,,,,.. .4”,.. •--- .. . • '1/18/05 I 1_ 1 -MilliZn.ragPIHAn) -- , I FRONT ELEVATION o o 4.C21 -- E E ,lz u-1,1 :•'-'',:f:t oii•TrrirTir- 1 • v S./... I i ....' .. , LHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IlltITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: February 2, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: III.E. ITEM: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for the construction of a parking lot. + I— Lk TENNIS L_JLJ OLD <—JLJ t I L___IL__J I II I I II, I STADIUM J I SQUARE SCHOOL I I a II 1111 I 1 ATLANTIC AVENUE 1 1 t Hill POLICE SOUTH J1�1 R1 ill {� COMPLEX COUNTY �� f �•1 'III I ' t COURT a _m- did. - HOUSE I 171 " _A PI LA`1.. g 1 - z d— :=a. 1 a a SW 1ST ST. SW 1ST ST S.E 1ST ST. ITTITTI f1DE FEDERAL Y' a z v FEDERAL - a `I —— I BANK M �^ _ —_ N Lc, — r Z __n _ — - -IP wH (/7 -In- U1— .— GENERAL DATA: Owner Michael and Rada Strauss Agent/Applicant Southern Development Services, Inc. Location West side of SE 1st Avenue, approximately 800 ft. south of Atlantic Avenue Property Size 0.15 Acre Future Land Use Map Other Mixed Use Current Zoning OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) Adjacent Zoning....North: OSSHAD East: CBD (Central Business District) South: OSSHAD West: OSSHAD Existing Land Use Single family residence. Proposed Land Use Demolition of an existing contributing single family residence and construction of a stand alone parking lot. Water Service n/a. Sewer Service n/a. III.E. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for 30 SE 1st Avenue, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5(F): O Demolition Request; O Class V Site Plan; O Landscape Plan; and O Design Elements The subject property is located on the west side of SE 1st Avenue, between Atlantic Avenue and SE 1st Street, within the Old School Square Historic District. BACKGROUND Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.15 acre property consists of Lot 19, Block 69, Town of Delray, and contains a contributing 1,075 square foot single-family dwelling constructed in 1925 in the Mission style and an accessory 375 square foot studio apartment constructed in 1977. At its meeting of April 17, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved the replacement of the jalousie and awning windows with new 6 over 1 and 4 over 1 double hung sash windows subject to the condition that those on the front façade were vinyl clad wood core while those on the side and rear elevations were aluminum framed. The applicant appeared before the Board again on February 5, 2003, and was given approval, because of economic hardship, to install single hung sash aluminum frame windows on all elevations. In April, 2002, Staff approval was given for the repair of the flat roof. PROJECT DESCRIPTION -, A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) has been submitted in association with a Class V site plan application, which includes the following: 17 Demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory studio apartment. O Construction of an eleven (11) space asphalt surfaced parking lot with access from both SE 1st Avenue and the north/south alley to the rear of the property. O Installation of associated landscaping and lighting. In addition to the above, the COA also includes two (2) waiver requests to the following sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDR): O A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent east/west alley to the south from 5' to 3' [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a)]. O A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the north from 5' to 2.45' [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d)]. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 15`Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 2 SITE PLAN ANALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall be specifically addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.3.4(K) Development Standards Matrix: The subject property is located within an area that, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(F) (1) (c), shall be subject to the standards of the CBD zoning district. LDR Section 4.4.13—Central Business District: Principal Uses and Structures Permitted: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(B) (3), commercial or public parking lots are allowed as a permitted use. The applicant intends to lease the car park for business uses during the day and for valet uses in the evening, which complies with the aforementioned section of the LDR. Development Standards: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F) (2), a minimum of 10% non-vehicular open space shall be provided. The site measures 6,588 ft.sq. with 1,095 ft.sq. developed as open space. This is 16.6%, which complies with the aforementioned section of the LDR. LDR Article 4.6—Supplemental District Regulations: Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting limited to a maximum height of 25' must be provided on-site and be consistent with the illumination level requirements included in this section. Further, cutoff luminaries or fixtures provided with cut-off shielding shall be used around the perimeter of a facility in order to limit glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted details of the pole mounted light fixtures proposed for this development. The decorative features consist of a traditional style acorn and a heavy wall cast aluminum hub with a straight fluted aluminum pole. Three lighting fixtures will be provided. According to the photometric plan included with the submittal, the proposed light fixtures will be mounted at a height of 13', thereby complying with the above maximum height requirement. The photometric plan is in compliance with the illumination level requirements of LDR Section 4.6.8, and cut-off shielding will be provided for those fixtures located along the perimeter of the development. Bicycle Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (1) (c) (3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at any non- residential use within the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which, through the development review process, is determined to generate a demand. In addition, Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires bicycle facilities on all new development and redevelopment with particular emphasis on development within the TCEA. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 3 The subject property is located within the City's TCEA proposal does not include the installation of a bike rack as required. The provision of a bike rack would be required for any new free-standing parking lot. The provision of a bike rack is attached as a condition of approval. Point of Access to the Street System: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(a) (maximum width), the point of access to a street shall be a maximum of 24' unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of site and development plan approval. Additionally, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(b), (minimum width), the point of access to a street or alley shall not be less than 24' for a normal two-way private street or parking lot driveway aisle. There are two access points proposed for this parking lot —to the east adjacent to SE 1st Avenue and to the west adjacent to the alley at the rear of the site. Both are 24' in width and are, therefore, in compliance with the aforementioned sections of the LDR. Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c), provisions must be made for stacking and transition of incoming traffic from a public street, such that traffic may not backup into the public street system. The minimum distance between a right-of-way (SE 1st Avenue) and the first parking space or aisle way in a parking lot shall be 5' for a street classified as local (SE 1st Avenue) when the parking lot contains 20 or fewer spaces. The stacking distance between SE 1st Avenue and the first parking space is 7.18' while the distance between the alley and the first parking space is 5' therefore this standard has been met. Standard Aisle Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), the standard aisle width is 24' for normal traffic flow with perpendicular parking. The maximum aisle width is 26'. The proposed site plan complies with this requirement as a 24' drive aisle has been provided along the north side of the single loaded perpendicular parking row. Visibility at Intersections: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14, when an accessway intersects a public right-of-way or when the subject property abuts the intersection of two or more public rights-of-way, all landscaping with safe sight triangles (20' at the accessway and public right-of-way, and 40' at the intersection of two or more public rights-of-way) shall provide unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between three (3) feet and six (6) feet. Twenty foot (20') sight visibility triangles have been provided at the driveways and at the intersections of the alleys. The landscape plan meets this requirement. OTHER ITEMS: Dedication of Right-of-Way: SE 1st Avenue: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (2) and the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the ultimate right-of-way width for SE 1st Avenue is 60' and only 40' of right- of-way currently exists. For existing streets, the City Engineer, upon a favorable recommendation from the Development Management Services Group (DSMG), may grant reductions in right-of-way width. The City Engineer and DSMG have reviewed the request for a reduction in right-of-way width and have determined that a reduction in right-of-way width to 50' would be sufficient for this section of SE 1st Avenue. Based upon the above, a dedication of five feet (5') of right-of-way is required and has been depicted on the proposed development plans. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is made for SE 1st Avenue prior to issuance of a building permit. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 4 Alleys: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (2), the required width of an alley is 20' or the existing dominant width. Further, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) (3), additional right-of-way width may be required to promote public safety and welfare; to provide for storm water management; to provide adequate area for street trees; and to ensure adequate access, circulation and parking in high intensity use areas. Such a determination shall be advanced by a recommendation from the City Engineer. The authority for requiring such additional right-of-way shall rest with the body having the approval authority of the associated development application. The abutting alleys to the south and west currently have a dedicated right-of-way width of 16'. The development proposal will utilize the adjacent alley for access and circulation. The City Engineer and DSMG have determined that the width of the alleys should be expanded to a width of 20', which is consistent with the widths that have been provided with recent redevelopment proposals. A dedication of two feet (2') for both alleys has been depicted on the proposed development plans. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that a two foot (2') right-of-way dedication is made for both alleys prior to issuance of a building permit. Alley Improvement Obligation: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.2(A) (2) (a), when access to a project is provided from a local street and/or alley, then the project must provide appropriate traffic lanes meeting requirements of LDR Section 5.3.1(C) in order to provide continuous paved access from the nearest paved street or alley to the project in addition to the improvements on its side of the centerline of the right-of-way. The development proposal requires that the alley pavement width to be increased adjacent to the subject property from the adjacent northern property to the southeast corner of the site, which is attached as a condition of approval. Sidewalks: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B) (1), a five foot (5') wide sidewalk is required within that portion of the SE 1st Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the property. The proposal includes removal of a portion of the existing sidewalk to accommodate a driveway. As with other development proposals, the existing concrete sidewalk must be removed and replaced with a paver block sidewalk within the 5' area to be dedicated. Installation of the paver block sidewalk/streetscape consistent with the Atlantic Avenue sidewalks/streetscape is a condition of approval. Undergrounding of Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. Written confirmation has been received confirming that the proposed utilities associated with the development will be located underground (letter from Dave Bodker, Ref.10404/10404.100)); therefore compliance with this section of the LDR has been achieved. Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction: Pursuant to the Florida Accessibility Code for building construction, parking lots that contain 25 spaces or less are required to provide one (1) handicap parking space. The proposed parking lot contains one (1) handicap parking space with an accessibility panel connected to the sidewalk along SE 1st Avenue. Site Plan and Engineering Technical Items: While revised plans have accommodated most of staffs concerns, the following items remain outstanding and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submittal: Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 5 1. The existing concrete sidewalk must be removed and replaced with a paver block sidewalk within the 5' area to be dedicated. The paver block sidewalk/streetscape must be consistent with the Atlantic Avenue sidewalks/streetscape. 2. Provide a typical cross section from building to adjacent right-of-way or adjacent property at all property lines. Pay particular attention to grade differential from proposed site to existing adjacent properties and show the existing grades on adjacent property. 3. Site is required to retain 5 year 1 hour storm (3.2") in addition to meeting water quality criteria (1"). Provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and indicate how storm water will be retained on site. 4. Provide certified exfiltration trench test results. 5. Engineer to coordinate SE 1st Ave. improvements with Engineer of Worthing Place and HVA projects. 6. Provide on the plans current City of Delray Beach standard construction details as applicable. 7. Indicate location of irrigation water meters (east of 1-95 only). 8. Provide two copies of a Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to and.during construction of all sites, the permitee shall implement and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures included in the required Pollution Prevention Plan. For projects over one (1) Acre in size, provide a copy of FDEP Notice of Intent. 9. A Wellfield Notification Form must be submitted to the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and a copy of said form submitted to the City. LANDSCAPE;.PLAN;ANALYSIS The development proposal consists of the provision of Pigeon Plum trees (12' in height) along the north and south sides of the property with underplanting consisting of Cocoplum Hedge. The landscape islands on the east and west sides of the property will be planted with Foxtail Palms (12'-14' in height), Parsons Juniper, and Cocoplum Hedge, while the central island will be planted with Foxtail Palms and Wax Jasmine. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16 (D) (4)(a), the ultimate mature height and width of a tree to be planted should not exceed the available overhead growing space and, pursuant to Section 4.6.16 (D) (4)(c), trees shall have non-invasive growth habits which will not interfere with adjacent above/underground utilities. There is some concern over the decision to use Pigeon Plum trees in the barriers as, over time, the branches will encroach over the right-of-way to the south, which contains an overhead power line, and the neighboring property to the north (proposed parking garage). While the applicant has stated the parking lot is temporary, it is being designed and will be utilized as a permanent use. Given the above, it is recommended that the landscape plan be redesigned..Canopy/shade trees should be provided within the landscape islands rather than the palms. Along the south side, Double Alexander Palms, Montgomery Palms or Winin Palms should be provided given the limited space. Also, along the north property line given the limited space and proposed parking garage, a Eugenia or Podocarpus Hedge and Traveler's Palms should be considered. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(D) (4) (b), trees shall not be planted within ten feet (10') of any underground utility. The underground electric cable for the lighting has not been depicted on the Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 15t Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 6 proposed development plans and the water meter and its associated service lines (southeast corner of the site) are within ten feet (10') of three Foxtail Palms. The underground electric cable should be depicted on the proposed development plans and the water meter will need to be relocated to comply with the aforementioned provision. Therefore, a condition of approval is 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. Landscape Waivers: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a), a 5' landscape barrier exclusive of the required curbing is required between the off-street parking area and adjacent rights-of-way. Also, there shall be no vehicle encroachment over or into any required landscape area. The development proposal has provided for a landscape barrier of 3' between the off-street parking area and the adjacent alley to the south. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d), a 5' landscape barrier exclusive of the required curbing is required between the off-street parking area and the abutting property. The development proposal has provided a landscape barrier of only 2.45' between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the north. The applicant has requested that waivers be granted to reduce the landscape barrier dimensions accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The landscape barrier adjacent to the south alley is deficient by two feet (2') and would have met the minimum width without the dedication of two feet (2') of right-of-way having been required. In order to accommodate the required dimension of the single-loaded parking lot, 42' is necessary on the 48' wide lot (post dedication waivers are necessary). Granting the requested waivers will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities and will not create an unsafe situation. Given these conditions, the reductions of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the alley to the south from 5' to 3' and the landscape barrier to the north from 5' to 2.45' are appropriate on the condition that a suitable species of tree is chosen for the barriers. Similar waivers have been granted under similar circumstances. Consequently, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. Provided the conditions of approval are addressed and the waivers granted, positive findings with respect to LDR Section 4.6.16 can be made. DESIGN.ELEMENTS ANALYSIS. LDR Section 2.4.6(J)—Certificate of Appropriateness: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(J) (5), the Board must make a finding that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 7 pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with the provisions of LDR Section 4.5.1. Future Land Use Element Objective A-4: The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies: Future Land Use Element Policy A-4.1: Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines". Development Standards LDR Sections 4.5.1 (E), 4.5.1 (E) (7) and 4.5.1 (E) (8) provide guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. The applicable standards are as follows: (E) (4) A historic site, or building, structure, site, improvement or appurtenance within a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, as amended from time to time. (E) (7) The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocation, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-contributing building or structure within a designated historic district shall meet the same compatibility standards as any material change in the exterior appearance of an existing non-contributing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance if any existing non-contributing building, structure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible with the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, texture, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate to the non-contributing building, structure, or site. (E) (8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings and structures within a historic district. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to car parks: The City of Delray Beach has enacted a Landscape Ordinance that establishes the minimum standards for the screening of parking lots. Fences, walls or landscape buffers are appropriate solutions. Analysis: The applicant has proposed the construction of an eleven (11) space, asphalt surfaced car park which is a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. While both the LDRs and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provide advice on standards for new construction in Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 15t Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 8 historic areas, neither appears to appropriately address the issue of the construction of car parks. Although a parking lot could technically be described as a structure, the visual compatibility criteria from LDR Section 4.5.1 (E) (8) are more suited to the construction of new buildings. Surfacing the parking lot with asphalt would be appropriate for the historic area, especially as it will be screened from the public view in accordance with the Design Guidelines. Therefore, as the parking lot is a permitted use and it meets the minimum standards for screening, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) and 4.5.1(E), and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. DEMOLITION FINDINGS As previously noted, the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory studio apartment is proposed as part of this development proposal. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(F) (1), the HPB shall consider the following guidelines in evaluating applications for a COA for demolition of historic buildings or structures within designated historic districts: a) Whether the structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably fulfill the criteria for designation for listing in the National Register. b) Whether the structure is of such design, craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty or economically nonviable expense. c) Whether the structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the designated historic district within the city. d) Whether retaining the structure would promote the general welfare of the city by providing an opportunity to study local history, architecture, and design, or by developing an understanding of the importance and value of a particular culture and heritage. e) Whether there are definite plans for immediate reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect those plans will have on the character of the surrounding area. In consideration of the above, the following can be found: a) At the time of survey in 1986, the structure was classed as a contributing building as it was architecturally significant, was unaltered and was in good repair. In terms of its architecture, it is still a significant building; however, it has become subject to inappropriate and poorly executed alterations and has been left to fall into disrepair. b) The structure retains its architectural merit; however, it could be reproduced at a reasonable cost. c) Although this building could be classed as unique, there are many other Mission style buildings within Delray Beach. d) Although the structure is in poor condition, it could still provide an opportunity for study. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that, if the demolition is granted, the building is fully recorded prior to demolition and the survey details deposited in the local archives. The survey should include a site location plan, measured drawings, photographs and any existing documentary information. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 15t Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 9 e) The applicant has current plans for the immediate reuse of the property and the proposed car park is a permitted use. In support of the application for demolition, the applicant has submitted an engineering report detailing the current repairs required upgrade the building into compliance with the building code and an evaluation of the feasibility of moving the structure (attached). Due to the structural damage of the property, it is the engineer's opinion that the floor sill members resting on the existing foundation would have to be replaced prior to moving the structure. He further states that, due to the limited room on the site, there could be access difficulties for the vehicle employed to move the building, and that the building would have to be cut in half for the move. The applicant also submitted a schedule of the costs which would be incurred in bringing the building up to standard and moving it to a new site (attached). The estimated total is $227,500, excluding the site cost. While the demolition of a historic building is a loss to the community and the city, it has to be recognized that, in some cases, demolition may be the only option. There is no doubt that this building could be saved but this would come at an extremely high cost and it is difficult to envisage someone taking on this project even if they possessed an available vacant site. Furthermore, if the application is approved, it does not appear beneficial to delay the demolition for six months as this will only lead to further deterioration and increased repair costs thus lessening the chances of finding a new owner. Positive findings can therefore be made with regard to the demolition request. REQUIRED FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1, prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. LDR Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Other Mixed Use (OMU) and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(B) (11) (c), the uses allowed as permitted uses in LDR Section 4.4.13(B) shall be allowed on the subject property. Pursuant to LDR Sections 4.4.13(B) (3), commercial or public parking lots are allowed as permitted uses within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to Future Land Use Map consistency (LDR Section 3.1.1(A)). LDR Section 3.1.1(B) -Concurrency: The proposed 11-space parking lot will not have any impacts on level of service standards as they relate to water, sewer, traffic, parks and recreation facilities, schools or solid waste. With respect to drainage, engineering plans and drainage calculations have been submitted which comply with SFWMD standards. The engineering plans indicate that drainage will be retained on site via an exfiltration system. Based upon the above, positive findings with respect to this level of service standard can be made. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) -Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 10 LDR Section 3.1.1 (D) -Compliance With the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDR can be made, provided the attached conditions of approval are addressed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies are noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. The subject property contains a 1,075 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 375 square foot studio apartment. The development proposal includes the demolition of these properties and the construction of an eleven (11) space, asphalt surfaced parking lot. Zoning Designation: Use: North: OSSHAD Residential (proposed parking garage) South: OSSHAD Residential East: CBD Commercial West: OSSHAD Residential As discussed previously, while the subject property has a zoning designation of OSSHAD, the LDR denotes that the property is subject to the development standards of the CBD and also allows those uses permitted within the CBD. The OSSHAD zoning district allows residential and commercial uses; thus a commercial use could be established on any/all of the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the property to the north is part of an approved five-level parking garage associated with the Worthing Place development (Block 69 Parking Garage). Based upon the above, no compatibility issues will exist between the proposed mixed-use development and the surrounding land uses, and positive findings can be made with regard to Future Land Use Element Objective A-1. LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5) -Compatibility (Site Plan Findings): The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property exists within the OSSHAD zoning district and is bounded by both commercial and residential uses and all of the abutting properties are permitted by code to have a similar intensity of development. Thus, compatibility with adjacent uses is not a concern and the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent development when the attached conditions of approval are met. Based upon the above and subject to the conditions of approval being addressed, a positive finding can be made with regard to LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5). Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 11 REVIEW,BY OTHERS. Downtown Development Authority. At its meeting of December 13, 2004, the DDA recommended approval of the development proposal, subject to complying with staff comments. A Board member was concerned with the narrowness of the alley, especially at the south-west corner of the site. It was stated that two feet (2') of additional right-of-way will be dedicated and the alley widened. Community Redevelopment Agency: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered this development proposal at its meeting of January 14, 2005, and recommended approval. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The development proposal involves the demolition of the extant contributing single-family dwelling and accessory studio apartment. The structures would be replaced with an eleven (11) space, asphalt surfaced parking lot with access from both SE 1st Avenue and the alley to the rear of the property. Also included as part of the development proposal are two waiver requests for reductions in landscape barrier widths to which positive findings can be made. There are some concerns with regard to the landscaping however positive findings can be made provided that the attached conditions of approval are addressed. The development proposal is consistent with the zoning and FLUM designations of the subject property, and positive findings can be made with regard to concurrency and Comprehensive Plan consistency. The specific findings required by LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5) can be made as well as Sections 2.4.6(J) and 4.5.1(E), and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, waivers, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 30 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 attached conditions. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated demolition request, waivers, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for 30 SE 1st 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 the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Demolition Request: Move approval of the demolition request for 30 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, subject to the following condition: Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 15t Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 12 1. That the building is fully recorded prior to demolition and the survey details deposited in the local archives. The survey should include a site location plan, measured drawings, photographs and any existing documentary information. -Waivers A. Move approval of the request for the 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 south from 5' to 3' 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. Move approval of the request for the 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 north from 5' to 2.45' 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: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class V site plan for 30 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: 1. That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 2. That the existing concrete sidewalk is removed and replaced with a paver block sidewalk within the 5' area to be dedicated. The paver block sidewalk should be consistent with the sidewalks on Atlantic Avenue. 3. That a five foot (5') right-of-way dedication is made for SE 1st Avenue, a two foot (2') right-of-way deed is made for the alleys, and the right-of-way deed is accepted by the City Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the alley pavement width be increased adjacent to the subject property from the adjacent northern property to the southeast corner of the site. 5. That the entire width of the adjacent alley post dedication is paved. 6. That a bike rack is provided. Landscape Plan: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for 30 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: 1. That revised plans are submitted addressing the landscape and utility conflicts as indicated in the staff report. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 13 2. That the landscape architect coordinates with the Landscape Inspector in determining the final landscape plan and those modifications made to eliminate landscape and utility conflicts. Attachments:Survey,Site Plan,Landscape Plan,Photometric Plan,Photographs,Engineers Report and Repair Estimate Staff Report Prepared by:Warren Adams,Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 14 APPENDIX A STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN ACTIONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent B. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood,the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent F. Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 30 SE 1st Avenue-Demolition Request,Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Design Elements Page 15 G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile,and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element.This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood,the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent • I. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location,without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area,and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent • GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND 1\ . ---7----------\- 20. 0 10 .20 40 FND. - FOUND CC. - CONCRETE MI NI" .MIN. LR./CAP - IRON ROD & CAP AON/C - AIR CONDITIONS IN MI N 0 SET 5/8" IR/CAP LB 3591 F.F.-FINISHED FLOOR -NORTH ( IN_FEET ) M.H. - MANHOLE SAN. - SANITARY • . -s1;• LOT 20 ,.!�, r-'-----i :4' FND. BLOCK 69 FND. CONC. � ' FND. NAIL LR.&CAP ' MONUMENT 4.F t, &DISK (0.23TAST) S89'58,23"E 131.00' (0.47SOUTH) i.O7.1'' a8' MANGO ZO' ABBAGE� o PAL �'i N 7.05 18.4' 36' JAMBOLAN PLUM 32-40• C) p �F tN 4 a B 1 N �c o°� • o .co ZZm a ,�g i 116 1 yq2 a 10' MANGO 4.0'x6.2' 4, F . 1. 6 i- I N ENCLOSED g 41#y 0 " r i,i W o= d. 18.4' ENTRY. ni N. 'cPc c.1.4.4)4:CONC.�;'.��• < ''VI . .OT12 = In M �� `, � • :�. +,h�Q. OCK 69 < C) 7.06' �OOO ch ram- 41aa� 8 32.40' 00 ccn ai •(n 1. "j ' "'ALLEY FND. -- - Y� •9s \? (0.69'NORTH) 12' PINE-.. 2, FND. a. WOOD �� I.R.&CAP: . =CATCH 17.64 POWER N89'58'23"W-131.00' z BASIN Pax • O SAN. 1/1-HA 16100. �7' SAN A1.H 1��' r STORM M.H. FND. I RIM=17.89 13.SASPHALT ALLEY j 0 BRIM=17.51 al.- >�• �} 1/2 LP. 4 1aV -- '->� �� RIM=1Z60 x x x x x , 1✓ . 35 .a'�/ 0.41' CONCRETE r 18� ,SLAB • / Opp„f G�QOR� 1.5'CONC '4. LOT 16. a': LOT 17.:�^'f xro0I REG 1 STORY NCE 6 LOT 18 BLOCK 69 BLOCK 69' BLOCK 69 -r . • • TREE LEGEND - MANGO NOTES: le.." CABBAGE PALM- 1. REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS SKETCH ARE NOT VALID UNLESS JAMBOLAN PLUM SEALED WITH AN EMBOSSED SURVEYOR'S SEAL . 2. LANDS SHOWN HEREON ARE NOT ABSTRACTED FOR PINE. RIGHTS-OF-WAY,EASEMENTS, OWNERSHIP, OR OTHER NSTRUMENTS OF RECORD. 3. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE.RELATIVE TO THE RECORD DLAT BASED ON THE SOUTH UNE OF..LOT 20. BLOCK 69, SEARING S89'58'23"E. 4. THE "LAND DESCRIPTION" HEREON WAS PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR. CERTIFICATION:- 5. UNDERGROUND FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT LOCATED. S. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO THE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED BOUNDARY 4A11ONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929. .SURVEY OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS TRUE 7.FLOOD ZONE; "C"; COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 125102 0004 D; AND.CORRECT TO THE BEST.OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND.. )ATED: JANUARY 5,.1989. .BEUEF AS SURVEYED UNDER BY DIRECTION•.ON:°AUGUST 3. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 30 S.E.1st AVENUE. . 21, 2004. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY` >- SURVEY MEETS.THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS )ESCRIPTION: SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 61G17-6 ADOPTED.BY THE ' FLORIDA BOARD OF SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS, _OT 19,-BLOCK 69, "MAP OF THE TOWN OF UNION, FLORIDA", PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES 472.027. \CCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT LB #3591 - 300K 3, PAGE 45 OF THE PUBUC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH ;OUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LANDS SITUATE IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. 'ONTAINING 6,587 SQUARE FEET, 0.1512 ACRES, MORE OR I UBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, E/ 4 WAGNE , P. S. ;OVENANTS;.AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. RE . LAN''SURVEYOR• 302'. ST JE OF FLORIDA.'` '. i "_ 43591-. '-.i I i CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC. • DATE 9/22/01 CIVIL ENGINEERING-LAND PLANNING , - TECTURE- .s c ? jl 7301A W.PALMETLANDSCAPE TO PARK ROAD SURVEYING . r/ DRAWN BY TMA +: \ BOCA RATON,FLORIDA 33433 PHONE(561)-392-1991/FAX(561)-750-1452 F.B./PG. N/A REVISE SQ. FT 11/18/04 SCALE 1"=20 MAP OF THE TOWN OF UNTON, FLORIDA REVISIONS DATE BY LOT 19, BLOCK 69 - BOUNDARY SURVEY FILE NAME 4702SUR-LOT19.dwg JOB NO. .4702 / /7I1 YOI.L 00.00 I \ ../..... i N 15'-I6J'Drumm,'i1G11 mOK,I A1=C I0'tCVECRY...Ott.) � 'T.S COT IO Y I I LJ' 1 �I.0 AOIX I, = 5, V.AIWIIC W. L 111lIMIC • YA I I m[ro•cu1.OYrJ l io I.mac T Z F-{31� V G YO.YAIC .�� D EWE ACC C V S I !w.ISf 51P[[T SL 157 -j1pm, I •a` c, rf i. Y a ,1 a • 7.11' :tr. S89'SB'43•E U1.00' _ TYt N m I ,� iI� 1•aws,LW N o o a. alb I e•A On.iDom s+o[s) 7Y,: I lac+ 1f IJ n1 LA.s ,lei wade ....., .t. •STOr 7" ) . ' - .se I•,. . . .,.....,F.: x ,' ,,1".e� . a1Ya N I SECTION 18,LOCATION MAPTOWNSHIP ,RANGE 43E. 1 O 1 YII r1 .70`_N\ ... ., n.t �1 1� I•• If. 0 - KT To NJLC COT 13 i ‘7!"" `�(�� • J• AO.1����1i1 SIB.PIPC6.0. 10 I)^ N OCOCx„ 1i IL•. l.''. .f wTxO5C - I I:,•.•COR If. WTO1(bT,q gl1 Iii&N W.-- t, [G1ul11Yv' ]I�i rAvw • f I Fries 1 r I. .' ar cRr or o07ur OCA01 ) /'� I fxinwcllo R0,r. Y AOpn I^P x W `` • ...Y ISI ,, °, 'i.W4•'Y '_�I J. YY zq.Dpnal x To 140 j6l— _ 11, • Off Of oEUAY BL OI I le NIJY TOw (ry qq�� YOtOWAMO OAt IY AY[ � __ (ry 000A111.J P7. I �(nQ,�NTY= �, - _ _..... ._.4.-. •.w _, = -ey __ I.x IN ■r:0.61 we 1�.11 •AOaO if — �8 -2.LLL- y N6 07'Sa lv r a is • pqj I �� 1� LS'elxipl I ....k2.- 1 Y ••iR11AL A0.x- Sul.u N WHgW r1.0 SWx 5Wa 4 4.N. �a. \i1S SD4Nr - -�— �llay.l»l•- - I h .1I.60 I - K1lL W fCCi 1 4•nee t••lo• ;iii.. ��.� �°�\ - 0 (�ttj0 �7 1� I If e S�fTE TAL TABULATION.A a S.F. lEGEdI? a•f x I cawc2 x —�—— I C ( IMPERVIOUS AREA.4.684 S.F. —�— gopOs[o sm^u owLuc[No Ka nAe �kq _ fri Pt l.s'Cac =I I PERY10U5 AREA.1,104 S.F. MEMO Or 11.07 \ �� —. -- —.Y \I PARKING PROAOED: \ Eor 11 REGULAR SPACES.7 SPACES _"r'Y`'- PROPOSED D.NAtCH for I0 DIRECTOR OP SWALE I Coto CxsmO 1,RMY BLOCx„ COMPACT SPACES.3 SPACES 1s.6 or ,9 0.0Of Ie \ WOOD RC•a�^YC/N J HANDICAP SPACES.1 SPACE IX ELLVAIIDN PAVING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 501C 1,IC - .... PROPOSED COETMlxxl 171:1101 1 PACiOSt11 ATRIxf PA NDIT Or IO OCODI 1. D ›. I 1;.;.;.;.;1 Dosrva 61xn,a ro eE a 3 r.•�.a1a oOcllslm/REw.tn fry r carDKIimam A, Afx W I 4n Yµ I IIOYCN r3iu B1Aa I4o.cwc w _ I a aix • (0.3J'4ST) a•NYDII Q IY I 7.t 1 _ _ 589'SB'13•E 131.04„ _ _ _(o.n'sam) .I-.N=• u e• En ROM caYrCONTACTORCR OTO R¢n tu n Dlloco..KRWI Oa P AD INSTALL A N LA 01RY DELAY WAN APROPOS 04 5TALA I049 I R i1 JAY,OIAY PIUY • EJI IDDQ CN WIT rNf0C 10 TR CO24 V- rYn 4 ND WJQA 0 +**+0++++*++++t I 46 II)i Vi U 1I ♦+++++++++++++• I 01 1 A. •+o/++++++++++++++1 I nod AL PROPOSE)MO coma v,Ro swat PE :til 10 ua+w ++�,+i+i+i+i'i+i+ili+i+c!i+i+i+i� AL P uwluwa 1e, In ;s��,:++++•+++:++++d4,�tt,4+++++++++ BLOCK. I I 1'••••:•.>+•••••4'4•+'•.1.+•• Y•• COMO 0• i•+•••+++++++•++•+••+++•++••+ I I o 1 . _ _ _ _ u•nnE _ tt• (� -494 wood I I 1 `t'� 1% ' �B93`5:24.alL —. __t.5 x e�sw 0.1.y P.DaIjyeY L✓&j.. / / r,':Y.�.-—- 1t I H.4 RE0.I54R5 1 RPL17.0, �1sA511CFEY�-- -�—- `�Ai._ 1 s°e -\ to ,.w I p.5 30 S.E. 1ST INGE � - x _ T SIMMWHITE, INC.— = t1 . n 43E. CRY OF DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA DEMOLITION PLAN ) crs Nl Pu c or uAAr era cou4DR ""^" "r.. +..rn.e"^ $rxE I•.la Bvw os:D.a '��wD o►w. PAVING AND DRAINAGE/min RAN r o - • • • PLANTING NOTES . PLANT LIST • PLANTING DETAILS 111A14•P•.a11.11,...11•1107.1 •a •AWort• am aurr.Laxmlrta a67�aL0a SCr wvgwb.e MOWN* LW Pw.P 1I. r rw �YwmNyr�ll Tj 1wY1YPIP1 P �..r••••••• — .Y � IVCO •.wPW •bL p�w1 p�Y1•1 W.••• VW cab.�w�inw. +wlw.wrrw" � YMrIYb..I.rmr. n.ti_ii.Y.l.'°�'?1.r.8R.• r1y:+ ryr.i'A.. aw =•••=11„• ww.wlr. r. G- 4111:.•""."... �T.r.�.•• ".r �44C r:.�.r"P^.a.""1. �,LvwYvv. n BFrub. • •••Y' CaretYldcevaY. , . Prt +u..e.r. .,,.,^v'•..' 71ria . PI• fir.. �.Y�y�.�• '6" ..��r1+.Y �r�. w _ =D- RiE ". Ye� • tr''*..w"1.L "k atiMiL.Z" W rr.e.. =is, STING TREE LIST CUM •....rYr•4.I,......e..1....•.• LEGEND • T.ree.. Straight Truk Palm. /18(( rant rms. e vow Pno 1 aJ Dal*Is.To MUD gPY11611 �i :o t+staltm TRUNDLE(m.) BLOT ID LOC),69 to Hs.eam TFuucu(Two) ` ,'.•��,� Z a CODE COMPLIANCE DATA • PTA KRIS. Iowa %/�//i= r.� �. `� Q W O tiL N �.. _ _ ' :�+.o++rrla ►a:.r.::F!.t'a�%€��\�\��.:i�\\\\!�\\iy�a\`�`►\\�`�'��\�.�`\l\\�:�\\\�5 ��d\V..������`�D',�.. •cr,�°1�a • .aa,..sr KRrr• e.1...1 WI III. ��IR I Li e o . MY �Iw Saw e.a.s R. tort I I 17���•_ •r.J.ct• LA PP. N a 30 ea. •• mI^"a`ssARM OP OPIDO .awr w'�'+tV y I n $(• 1.1...1w• - .MM1"."w"9�'.Ywr1'"r 1st aVO. YATH.W,aYr�e•� PIalry Dort '.7iw-.,"_.�,1r.W 1, L1m • C Y••Y1. • M.PAT pe.,YPbr•VO P^ r1rMMYw- Ark �.',ww..P.P•.IYrw..•wl•w d•4•Y fIxMY . • e 4Mi Wen.RN re6 •.r PF -.A Ly 1 IIOM•1 AMA I.e.IN MN I �A /1E' 1�l A � V I S 60CIBONI0,f0 TO �� Lr" + •-_ 444111 Ptt p DCU.r BL.Ot • WT.rIrPPl4rra.r•M. Pt. k .w ww k.,1�NJ .u� BLOCK 69 I 7 .�';t I��;`� to'hs.elun TFiwac fnT�P,Ifi I, I I I raj;4trP 9. �•� P9�a Cn 9'.1,.'911(DAL F 741..'1't 20.NABM1m TFYNCLn Cr,' f't' I:_�1 •b,a MINIM . 1 •:. 1.1e..p 1.1 LR t' re,.." .. 1, 1. ,�I I,�-�i•.Ye dove boater rrr �..a� 4 gill ..�@��II:, Y WA,%.lawMal Y.•aW VNOP 1600' t•.,• ��I:i.r_'....a,�==T• = • YYr,+er.P Y.••rtN OI•erYb o—'474g ',��'(P '��r •� r• +MYJ .MD =•:.����\3!,�\��\�t���iE�•a�;y�;.�:�?\!�\�� x��\�:�l�s�`�.=�. _�\���u�11 blN e"K,...I7 1. rl�akwµ..6rnarrw�M+w.�om, . TOUR gerlwrlrl �-• �'�' c6rw ..w tau.aaaw9 all4W*IF WV IJ1,t50 ,,t, B. STOW P.N. .M•C tlt4. • b�.Wan: •1ie- h.. 1.60 • r aTM 11.11 P.rk.r.w/ Yr~ P0.[ I `PIM�17.09 1).)'.SPH000 •6IOY 7.OMTION.L PM L�PW.1).61 •IJ planting k b aY..'.Y�. ,:.{ plan • • �sY..wa.1 ^"w' Y K ' K K E _� __ prefect number. Y � I I.S•CONC` dote• 1.4.-O. CONCRETE \0t9.gH, 891E \ PC**. •!W SUB 1r 0 \ I arcs'.'by LOT 17 \ �1 I— B^STWC I SCE 9 BLOMN 669 _-- / reN•�•• BLOCK669 BLOCK 69 �� I tt000 RESIDENCE a,, �•e� I 4 •Mot• NORTH A" , L-1 / 1 1 / . • • aaaaa 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 '0.7 JK mow_sR 0E3 ,1Kw ! e t 8 1 PR000CC io EEC Houu7 7 9!I g d f p „C, i.e i.7 i.4 is 1.9 1.9 is o.e os 0 7 1.2 1.8 ;i.e it • IC) 2.z is 2.0 2.9ai.7 2,0 0.9 0,6 bee, i.6 !aQia ' , li.!i'l . I . II I ..4 i.5 1.1 i -1.3 ! 2.0 .,2,3 .1,3 . OJ 0.3 1 0.61 i.0 '',1'..9 I'`2.2 Y �j CLO f0 8[J111 ALLOY O 1O IT ' T1O. O'POLC Al SUMO TO Ili Ie 0 1f/A .QE ALL SMALL.E i TE 1 a�r.nnmro 0 O o I F Q ," j Ca Q ro¢••o.a x a3o' 0 A.Swuort MUTED 11ALU1 T.C.T(1 w p PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PctC STAHO F to YNt%WO to II I NONL o9.1 . II HAM Ma[COWO 0 9 j 0 II I y�\`�``,�`,�`\ ,�\,�`,�`,/\ [wore 7pWan I I g f�. M1.Jr44 AI h43•ct4 10-3/4• Tr.d aer l.e•t Anvpgnw.* I..% 0$ 000.0.. as LIGHTING POLE & FIXTURE DETAIL 0 3 1f 311113.1 1.3[[ ISOS1Otli1�A6""0i0°'"""'"°[13' �I ® SEAM.ax , .•.: 8 wwrt s...nr7 ',VI-4 isle • Sr • Project.All M.Jrct1 �( z., \3 1•M C•lcTrp. Wt. Art W. Mr. Avg/lot 1Y414rt M Ih` n Q A SITE 111Wrantc Es 133 `CD 14 333 733 ret e1,3 :i7 '11 5 $9a . • .+C.NHwt p111p4 •N • ems won Cl :sue i¢ -, - r ` s • i 4 i € r, Rt -0 . ski -t{ _ 4 ,j, 3 � i' ` M t , a r :: : t a• t •~ '- -4't—,";t.": ,, . .'sue, . a R f • Y • !i:: •`I(`• ,•,, r s,'ia... L !r .A.IV "1... • •Ar / ',v V • s• r, a•.• } • Y e �" iE + c 1t j Y • - •r.F 1 °a -0- a-3 ,£ ' a r ( ' y' • �y `;xz .�• 4 ,i,>.-J,.,',./3i:.,,',..id,./-,;.E/.•,,f..24.-,..-...):.{i;I * ti,. . _ ~ _ a i'rk is, x " F t _ '::ti....1:44,tr.it2)4::,,..c4 -- i :'' ;-: f '- .''': '''''--2:.' . . . ii P,� 1,;i: F d �e rrl • •• f {: .. ,` • \ - sa»'_r.- GATOR 300:- 3. Congress Ave. • Suite 1 B • ENGINEERING Palm Sp ings(561) 968 7775 Fax: (561) 968-774t SERVICES, INC. (EB 4753) E-mail: gatoreng@aol.corr- September 23, 2004 Southern Development Services, Inc. 75 N.E. 6th Ave. Suite 214 Delray Beach, FL 33483 Attention: Jim Zengage - RE: Inspection and Evaluation of Existing One-Story Wood Framed Residential Structure at 30 S.E. 1st Ave. in Delray Beach, FL. Dear Mr. Zengage: As per your request, a structural inspection of the existing one-story wood /framed residential structure at 30 S.E. 1st Ave. in Delray Beach, FL was conducted on September 15th, 2004. The purpose of this inspection visit was to determine the extent of the renovation work which would be required to be conducted to bring this structure in compliance with the requirements of the 2001 Florida Building Code. Additionally, an evaluation of the feasibility of moving this structure to another site will also be examined in this report. The following observations were noted during this inspection visit: 1) The existing exterior wall surface on this structure consists of stucco and lath with a paper back surface which is attached directly to the existing exterior wood framed walls. No solid backing material such as plywood sheathing was provided to protect the interior of the structure from wind blown debris. Also, shrinkage cracks were noted on the outside surface of the stucco wall surface which is allowing water to penetrate into the cavity of the exterior walls. This existing stucco and lath material would be required to be removed and a layer of new 5/8" thick plywood sheathing installed to the existing exterior wood frame walls. Additionally, 30# felt paper, lath and stucco would be installed over the plywood substrate. Any damaged wood framing members would also need to be replaced as required. • 2) The previous owner had new PGT impact glass windows installed throughout the exterior of this structure. These windows were improperly attached to the existing wood jambs, header and sill. When the windows were replaced, the installer did not replace any of the existing wood members which was water damaged by leakage around the previously installed windows. Installing these windows without replacing damaged wood members does not ensure the windows are capable of handling the 140 mph wind loading requirements as provided by the Metro-Dade county approval protocol. These windows would -need to be removed along with all surrounding water damaged wood members. Headers would also need to be installed above these existing door and window openings along with proper hurricane strapping. 3) When these impact windows were installed, the exterior stucco surface was not sealed along the top of the window surface. For the windows in the front, the curved section of the previous windows were covered with plywood and not protected with felt paper and stucco. Since these windows have been installed, water intrusion has probably occurred into these gaps. Damage wood members would need to be replaced as required. 4) No hurricane strapping exists for connection of the wood frame walls to the foundation system, the walls to the existing roof rafters and around all exterior window and door openings. Installing hurricane strapping to this structure would be very time consuming since all wood to wood connection points would required to be exposed and a hurricane strap installed to the exterior wood members joints strapping them together. 5) The existing roof structure was examined. It was determined that the existing roof support system was framed with 2x4 ' s which spanned between the north and south exterior walls. It was noted during my examination of the attic area space, that additional wood supports were added to try to correct a sagging problem in the roof surface. The work which was done was determined not to be in compliance with the building code. In order to properly modified this roof structure system to handle both the live and wind loading requirements of the building code, the existing interior plaster ceiling system would need to be removed and the existing 2x4 rafter system be converted to a flat roof truss. This would require the addition of wood web members between the roof and ceiling rafters along with plywood gussets at the connection points. New 5/8" thick drywall would be required to be installed for the ceiling. 6) Heavy water damaged is also evident at the perimeter floor sill members where it rest on the existing foundation system. This damage was caused by the intrusion of water in the crack stucco surface and the poor installation of the PGT windows or previously installed windows . If this structure is required to be moved to another site, the replacement of these damaged members would need to be • replaced prior to trying to relocate this structure. By replacing damaged members below the floor system, a firm base would be provided to transport the existing structure. 7) The previous owner of this structure had installed drywall over the existing interior lath for the plaster walls. The plaster over the lath was removed and drywall installed directly to the wood lath. This method of installation for attaching drywall is not outlined within- the 2001 Florida Building Code. Therefore, the existing drywall would need to be removed in addition with the existing wood lath to allow the new 1/2" thick drywall to be attached directly to the existing wood wall members. 8) After briefly examining the electrical system, it is this engineer's opinion that the present installation of wiring does not meet the requirements of the electrical code. When the drywall and lath is removed, the existing electrical wiring which does not meet the- requirements of the electrical code would be required to be replaced. 9) None of the walls or attic area has thermal insulation installed. Insulation would be required to be installed within the exterior walls and within the attic area. 10) The existing covered wood frame roof at the entry door is heavily damaged. This structure would be required to be removed and replaced. 11) The existing rear wood entryway from the kitchen to the outside is very heavily Water damaged. This part of the structure would need to be removed and replaced. 12) In order to remove this structure from the site, the structure would need to be transported in two halves . Since' the roof and floor rafters run in the north-south direction, this existing structure would need to be separated halfway • between the front and rear of the structure. In order to remove this structure, the transport vehicle would need to access the bottom of the structure from the sides . Due to limited room caused by the closeness of the neighboring properties, it is this engineer's opinion that installing and removing a flat bed vehicle would be impossible. Installing the trailer from the sides would encroach unto the neighboring properties both when installing the trailer and when the structure is removed. Also, due to the short turning radius available, removal of this structure would be very difficult to be performed due to a conflict with the neighboring structures. In summary, after conducted an inspection of this structure and evaluating the many structural deficiencies which would need to be corrected before being able to be occupied, it is this engineer' s opinion that proceeding with renovations to this structure would be very costly and illogical due to large scope of repair work which would be necessary to be performed. Additionally, unforeseen problems could easily occur when this. structure is further examined once all structural components are fully exposed. Problems such as the performance of the air conditioning and plumbing systems could also exist. The scope of this work to these systems is unable to be determined until these components are fully tested or further exposed. If you have any questions regarding this letter or require further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincer T, ob rt row, .E. P.E.#35867 ' E { L Southern Development Services, Inc. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT • LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER Via Hand Delivery January 5, 2005 RECEIVED Mr.Warren Adams,Historic Preservation Planner JAN 0 rij City of Delray Beach 100NW 1st Avenue PLANNING & ZONING Delray Beach,Florida 33444 - Re: Historic Preservation Board Review for 30 SE e`Avenue Class V Site Plan In response to your letter and technical comments dated December 14, 2004, please be advised as follows: Planning and Zoning: 1. Provide an estimated breakdown of cost for the required repairs to the building,which would allow it to be safely relocated to a suitable site. Note that due t}o the fragile nature of this home all work will need to be performed by hand.No heavy machinery can be used, and this will add considerable time and cost to this project_ A. Remove existing exterior stucco and windows $10,000 B. Remove and replace all exterior wall wood studs/sill plates/ Roof/tie down to new Code 22,000 C. Remove and replace existing wood flooring, existing wood floor and sill beams 22,500 D. Sheet roof and exterior walls with 5/8"CDX Plywood 8,000 E. Cut house in two/move house/new foundation 65,000 F. Interior Framing/Drywall 15,000 G. Install windows/stucco/paint 25,000 H. Hot mop roof 7,000 I. Electrical up to Code 20,000 J. Plumbing up to Code 12,000 K. HVAC 8,000 L. Bathroom 3,000 M. Kitchen 10.000 TOTAL $227,500 2. Provide an estimated breakdown of costs of the required repairs to the building which would bring it into compliance with building code requirements. 75 N.E.6TH AVENUE•SUITE 214•DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA 33483•(561)278-3100•FAX(561)278-3199 This cost would be nearly the same as Item 1 above, except delete Item E. (cut house in two/move house/new foundation): Cost for Item 1 above: $227,500 Less 1E. Cut house in two/move house/new foundation (65_000) TOTAL $ 162,500 3: Comment noted. Engineering: 4— 16. See attached letter from Greg Bolen of Simmons&White, Inc. dated January 4, 2005. 13, 15_ See attached letter from David Bodker Landscape Architecture/Planning Inc. dated December 22, 2004. Horticulture: 17—20. See attached letter from David Bodker Landscape Architecture/Planning Inc. dated December 22, 2004. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, _► ♦ lfl en_'�• , President Cc: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E. City Engineer • • Wa010405jz-30 se 1 ave f J DEIRAY BEACH DEIBAY BEACH kthrg BB II ,► 'HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'lIIi! MEMORANDUM STAFF :REPORT ,!3 2001 2001 MEETING OF: FEBRUARY 2, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: IV.A. CITY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 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. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a City-initiated amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 regarding the RL (Low Density Residential) regulations, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The current development standards for the RL (Low Density Residential) zoning district provide for a range in densities from a minimum of three (3) units per acre to a maximum of six (6) units per acre. To exceed the base density for duplex and multiple family housing projects, a determination by the Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Board) that the resulting development is harmonious with adjacent properties and does not adversely affect areas of environmental significance or sensitivity is currently required. This language is vague and somewhat arbitrary, and can create difficulties in its implementation. The RL district also states that multiple family uses and structures must be approved by the Site Plan and Appearance Board, which conflicts with the requirement stated above, as it relates to the review process. It is noted, per LDR Section 2.4.6(H), in historic districts or designated historic site, the approving body will be the Historic Preservation Board. The proposed amendment would create a set of performance standards that must be met in order to increase density beyond the minimum. The standards are intended to lessen the impact of the additional density by requiring measures to control traffic speeds and volume, reduce the overall mass of the structures through better design, and ensure compatibility with adjacent development through increased setbacks and buffers, when a development is immediately adjacent to a residential zoning district having a lower density. In addition, the standard for recreational amenities has been amended to require that facilities be provided for children of all ages. The standards will be applicable to all future projects subject to the RL zoning standards, and to existing projects that are proposing to add new units. Smaller infill type projects IV.A. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 2 The standards will be applicable to all future projects subject to the RL zoning standards, and to existing projects that are proposing to add new units. Smaller infill type projects may be exempted from some of the standards, but should comply with those that are feasible to implement. The performance standards provide for a more objective means of determining the appropriate density of a project. This LDR amendment is similar to the amendment approved by the City Commission in 1998, where performance standards for the RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district were adopted. The RM zoning district provides for a range in densities from a minimum of six (6) units per acre to a maximum of twelve (12) units per acre. In order to exceed the base density, a finding must be made by the approving body (in most cases, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board), that the development proposal substantially complies with the performance standards. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinance provides clarification and an objective means to determine the density and compatibility of development with the surrounding properties. A review of the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan were conducted and the following goal, objective and policy support the proposed text amendment: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: GOAL AREA "A" LAND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA SHALL BE DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED, TO ENHANCE THE EXISTING QUALITY OF LIFE, COMPLIMENT EXISTING LAND USE AND RESULT IN A MIXED, BUT PREDOMINATELY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH A BALANCED ECONOMIC BASE. Objective A-1 • Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; is complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. HOUSING ELEMENT: Policy A-12.3 In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. 4. HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue with direction. 2. Move to recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 4.4.5, 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 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. 3. Move to recommend to the City Commission denial of the attached amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 4.4.5, 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 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. -'. RECOMMENDATION By motion, recommend to the City Commission approval of the attached amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 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 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments: Proposed LDR Amendment HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. -05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.5, "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) DISTRICT", SUBSECTION 4.4.5(A), "PURPOSE AND INTENT", TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION; AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.4.5(H), "SPECIAL REGULATIONS", PROVIDING A MEANS TO INCREASE DENSITY IN THE RL DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATIONAL AREAS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS; ENACTING SUBSECTION 4.4.5(I), "PERFORMANCE STANDARDS", TO MITIGA I'E THE IMPACTS OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TO THE SITE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on January 24 and voted to to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and • WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.4.5, "Low Density Residential (RL) District", Subsection 4.4.5(A), "Purpose and Intent", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) Purpose and Intent: The Low Density Residential (RL) District provides a residential zoning district with flexible densities having a base of three (3) units per acre and a range to six (6) units per acre. Further, the Low Density Residential District provides for implementation of provisions of Housing Element Goal Area "GB" of the Comprehensive Plan A HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment— RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 5 and, more specifically, Policy GB-2.1 which calls for providing sites for single family detached and low density planned residential development. Section 3. That Section 4.4.5, "Low Density Residential (RL) District", Subsection 4.4.5(H), "Special Regulations", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (H) Special Regulations: (1) A minimum density of three units per acre is established for duplex and multiple family housing projects within this District. Density may exceed the base of three (3) units per h th J ad'^ n* YY^Y ertio ,a„ a t- adversely J of ct o f entai significance or sensitivity. However,the maximum density shall not exceed six(6)units per acre. (1) A minimum density of three units per acre is established for duplex and multiple family housing projects within this district. Density may exceed the base of three (3) units per acre only after the approving body makes a finding that the project has substantially complied with performance standards as listed in 4.4.5(I). In no event shall a development's total density exceed six (6) units per acre. The density for a specific RL development may be further limited by a numerical suffix affixed to the designation and shown on the zoning map (i.e. RL-5 limits the density to five units per acre). To seek a density greater than allowed by the suffix, it is necessary to rezone the property. (2) Notwithstanding the above, a duplex may be situated upon a platted lot pursuant to Section 4.3.4(I)(3)(b). (3) The height of accessory structures shall not exceed the height of the associated principal structure. Screen enclosures without a solid roof are excluded from this limit. (4) The floor area of an accessory structure shall not exceed 40% of the floor area of the principal structure. (5) Recreational areas shall be required for all new rental apartment developments, and of owner occupied developments which have homeowner associations that must care for retention areas, private streets, or common areas. New developments must include recreational features that are designed to accommodate activities for children and youth of all age ranges. Tot lots are appropriate for toddlers; features such as a basketball court, volleyball court, and open playfields are appropriate for older children. A pool and clubhouse, unless specifically designed for children, is not considered to meet this requirement. Projects having fewer than twenty-five (25) units may be exempted from this standard where it is determined by the approving body that it is not practical or feasible to comply. Section 4. That Section 4.4.5, "Low Density Residential (RL) District", Subsection 4.4.5(I), "Performance Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby enacted to read as follows: • I' HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment—RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 6 (I) Performance Standards: (1) These standards shall apply to all site plans approved subsequent to March 1, 2005, and for modifications to existing developments which involve the creation of additional residential units. In order to increase a project density beyond three (3) units per acre, the approving body must make a finding that the development substantially complies with the performance standards listed in this section. The intent of the standards is to mitigate the impacts of the additional density both internal and external to the site. The extent to which a project meets the standards will determine the number of units per acre that will be permitted. For example, if a project meets or exceeds all of the standards, and is otherwise consistent with applicable standards and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, the maximum density is permitted. Projects which only partially achieve these standards will be permitted a correspondingly lower density. The performance standards are as follows (a) The traffic circulation system is designed to control speed and reduce volumes on the interior and exterior street network. This can be accomplished through the use of traffic calming devices; street networks consisting of loops and short segments; multiple entrances and exists into the development; and similar measures that are intended to minimize through traffic and keep speeds within the development at or below 20 m.p.h. (b) Buildings are placed throughout the development in a manner that reduces the overall massing, and provides a feeling of open space. (c) Where immediately adjacent to residential zoning districts having a lower density, building setbacks and landscape materials along those adjacent property lines are increased beyond the required minimums in order to provide a meaningful buffer to those lower density areas. Building setbacks are increased by at least 25% of the required minimum; at least one tree per 30 linear feet (or fraction thereof) is provided; trees exceed the required height at time of planting by 25% or more; and a hedge, wall or fence is provided as a visual buffer between the properties. (d) The development offers a varied streetscape and building design. For example, setbacks are staggered and offset, with varying roof heights (for multi-family buildings, the planes of the facades are offset to add interest and distinguish individual units). Building elevations incorporate diversity in window and door shapes and locations; features such as balconies, arches, porches, courtyards; and design elements such as shutters, window mullions, quoins, decorative tiles, etc. (e) A number of different unit types, sizes and floor plans are available within the development in order to accommodate households of various ages and sizes. Multi-family housing will at a minimum have a mix of one, two and three bedroom units with varying floor plans. Single family housing (attached and HPB Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment— RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 7 detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans. (f) The development is designed to preserve and enhance existing natural areas and/or water bodies. Where no such areas exist, new areas which provide open space and native habitat are created and incorporated into the project. (g) The project provides a convenient and extensive bicycle/pedestrian network, and access to available transit. (2) It is acknowledged that some of the above referenced standards may not be entirely applicable to small, infill type residential projects. For those types of projects, the ultimate density should be based upon the attainment of those standards which are applicable, as well as the development's ability to meet or exceed other minimum code requirements. (3) For vacant property that is proposed for rezoning to RL with a density suffix, the approving body must make a fording that the proposed density is appropriate based upon the future land use map designations of surrounding property as well as the prevailing development pattern of the surrounding area Section 5. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 6. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 7. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of ,200 . ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading DELRAY BEACH F L O R I A All-America City 1 I 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting REGULAR MEETING February 2, 2005 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION /S�/ �E qfh �ST c K 7-14mad ee�c J (3� cv 3. C. giu .GGmrri Zo. Lle®.,r 3 £ cks-)t, S ft(-7Q;—‘'72:rFict-A/- 3 4/OK Qn