Loading...
HPB 01-19-05 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: January 19, 2005 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Robert Tefft, Brian Shutt, and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:00 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individ for testimony. Change to Agenda Mr. Tefft advised Item III. C. City Initiated Amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 RL (low density residential) has been added to the Agenda. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of November 3, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of November 17, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of December 1, 2004 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consideration a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building. Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams entered a copy of the project file into the record. The structure, which was built in 1956 in a Mediterranean Revival style, of CBS construction and consists of a medical office of 3,255 sq. ft. It is considered a non-contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal involves the installation of aluminum accordion shutters to the windows of a non-contributing office building. The shutters will be ivory in color to match the building and, although they will be rolled back from the windows when not in use, they will be permanently attached to the building. The Board Shall Consider: (E)(8)(g) All improvement to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility can include but is not limited to: consistency in relation to materials, texture, and color of the façade of a building in association with the predominant material used in surrounding historic sites and structures within the historic district. The following is a list of recommended treatments with respect to hurricane protection: • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. • If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. • Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for buildings in historic areas; however, the installation of permanent shutters can be considered in this case. The building is a non-contributing office and the shutters to the rear and southwest of the building will not be visible from the public right-of-way while most of those that will be installed in the front façade will be screened by an arcade. It is recommended, however, that removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. B. HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue) Old School Square Historic District, George Brewer, Authorized Agent. Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Design Elements for the construction of three-story mixed-use (retail/residential) development. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Miller and Ms. Lake advised they drove by the site. Mr. Tefft entered a copy of the project file into the record. The subject property is located on the east side of SE 1st Street, approximately 156' south of East Atlantic Avenue, within the Old School Square Historic District. Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.294-acre property consists of Lots 23 and 24, Block 69, Subdivision of Block 69, and contains a 954 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 468 square foot garage. According to the City's records, the single-family dwelling was constructed in 1919, remodeled in 1943, and then remodeled again in 1981. The garage was constructed in 1951 and was remodeled along with the single-family dwelling in 1981. Based upon the amount of renovation work conducted on the structures, the subject property is considered a noncontributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. It is noted that both the single-family dwelling and the garage have been used as business offices. The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in association with a Class V site plan application which includes the following: ■ Demolition of the extant noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; ■ Construction of a three-story, mixed-use (retail and residential) building. The first level will consist of 2,100 square feet of retail floor area and six (6) garage parking spaces for the dwelling units. The second and third levels will each consist of four (4) two-bedroom dwelling units (8 units total) ranging between 1,270 and 1,307 square feet; 3 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 • Construction of a 15-space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the property with access from the adjoining north alley, and three (3) parking spaces that back-out on the adjoining north alley; and, • Construction of a refuse enclosure at the southwest corner of the property and the installation of associated landscaping. In addition to the above, the COA also includes internal adjustment and waiver requests to the following sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDR): An internal adjustment to reduce the required stacking distance between the north alley and the first parking space within the rear parking lot from 20' to 5'. • A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5". • A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot. • A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off- street parking area and the adjacent north alley from 5' to 4'-6" and the adjacent west alley from 5' to between 2'-6" and 3'-5". • A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off- street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2'. Staff doesn't have any objections to the requested waiver. The parking lot associated with the waiver request consists of 21 parking spaces and is thus required to provide a stacking distance of 20' between the abutting right-of-way and the first parking space in the lot. The proposal only exceeds the threshold by one (1) space and is located within the Central Business District where there is a great demand for parking. Also, the access to the parking area is provided from the adjoining alley to the north and the transition of incoming traffic onto the site should not result in the stacking of vehicles into the alley in a manner that would create a safety concern. Given the circumstances involved in this request, the waiver is supportable. With respect to the dead end parking bay, It is possible that the full width of the maneuvering area could have been provided if the abutting landscape area was not given they could have provided the full distance. The applicant went ahead and provided some of that landscape buffer to buffer the property to the south. Given that the abutting property is an approved parking garage, reduction to accommodate landscaping there is reason for supporting it. Vehicles will be able to back up and not encroach into that landscape area and still have space. With regard to the site visibility triangle, there will be clear sight visibility in excess of 20' to both the east and west when stopped at the north end of the property. As the alleys typically receive local traffic and not through traffic, the speed of traffic traversing the alley is greatly reduced. Therefore, positive finding can be made with respect to 2.4.7(B) (5). 4 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 The development proposal does also include the dedication of some rights-of-way. A 5' right-of way along SE 1st Avenue. Two feet (2') of right-of-way on the north and west alleys. Those will be dealt with as part of a plat for the development. With respect to sidewalks, it was initially put forth by staff to provide a sidewalk along the front of the actual building in order to provide better pedestrian interaction. Staff subsequently requested that to be deleted. We are now requesting you put it back as it was before. With respect to the landscape plan, a waiver request has been made to reduce the landscape area along the north alley. It is insufficient by 6", therefore, staff is recommending that rather than approve a waiver to do this, that the parking tier is instead shifted 6" to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2' 6" to 2". The balance of the waiver pertains to the separation between the parking area and the west alley. That has a variable width of between 2' 6" and 3' 5". The majority of the landscape area would have been met the minimum width without the dedication of the 2' of right-of-way having been required. The proposed landscape barrier can still accommodate the necessary landscape materials, thus the reduction will not negatively impact the intent of the code. It is noted also that a minimum amount of additional area can be acquired for the landscape barrier through the elimination of the proposed header curb abutting the parking spaces. The curbing is redundant as wheel stops are being proposed, therefore the elimination of the header curb would be able to capture an additional 6" thus reducing the need for a waiver with a reduction from 5' to between 3' and 3' 11". Granting the waiver would not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, or diminish the provision of public facilities. Staff is supporting the waiver. The final waiver request is a reduction of the 5' landscape area along the south property line. Going back to the maneuvering area where you could have provided the entire 5' buffer but doing so we would not have been able to provide an adequate maneuvering area. The applicant has chosen to go half way between. The reduced landscape area will still be sufficient width to accommodate the required hedge material. The adjacent property is approved to be a parking garage directly on the property line. There will not be much impact with the reduced landscape area. Given the conditions the reduction of the landscape area from 5' to 2' is appropriate and staff supports the waiver request. In regard to demolition, the structures are non-contributing as they have been renovated numerous times since their construction. Accordingly, the extant single- family dwelling and accessory garage have no original architectural character. The immediate demolition of the noncontributing structures will not be detrimental to the balance of the district. As architectural and historical integrity of the structure are not present, a positive finding can be made with regard to the demolition request. With respect to the design elements, what is proposed is a three-story building designed as a contemporary interpretation of Vernacular architectural style with Floribbean elements consisting of retail storefronts along the first level east elevation and a flat roof with decorative parapets designed to screen the rooftop mechanical 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 equipment. The building also includes balconies with decorative railings, French doors and Bahama shutter style awnings for the second and third level dwelling units; stair towers with standing seam metal roofs; decorative wall-mounted light fixtures; and Bahama shutter style garage doors on the first level west elevation. The proposed development will be similar or lesser in height and scale as the surrounding developments, and will be consistent with the continuing development patterns along SE 1st Avenue. However, staff does have concerns with respect to the verticality (massing) of the facade along SE 1st Avenue (east elevation). While the Worthing Place development is 48' in height along SE 1st Avenue, facade offsets and plane changes were provided. With regard to this proposal, consideration should be given to increasing the offsets and providing awnings along the first floor. Also, providing a stucco band between the second and third levels should be considered as well as brackets for the balconies, and a material change between the first level and the upper levels. The proportion of the windows on the sides of the French doors are inconsistent with the height and size within the district. Thus, applications such as framing or muntins should be considered to help reduce the scale. Given those conditions being addressed, staff supports the design elements and recommends modifications to the waivers regarding the north landscape buffer by the north alley-way by shifting the parking tier six inches to the south and eliminating the header curb along the west alley to modify the waiver request. Staff is recommending approval of the four waivers, one internal adjustment, as well as the demolition request. Positive findings can be made regarding site plan, landscape plan, as well as the design elements. Mr. George Brewer, agent and architect, for the project advised the building will have two bays of retail on the first floor, and two floors of apartments with two bedrooms, and on the top floor there is a penthouse with an urban backyard. I would like to go through the conditions of approval. I agree with some, and others may cause some conflict. Listed below are the issues I do not agree with. Site Plan: • No. 2. Refuse Enclosure - Mr. Brewer questioned the reason for reorienting that because trucks come up from the south and leave on the north. Mr. Tefft stated if that is the case, then it is fine and a letter should be provided from Waste Management to that effect. • No. 5. Bike Rack- Mr. Brewer stated he would like to leave as is. Mr. Tefft stated that staff didn't want it so close to the retail and that it should be moved toward the east/west walkway at the northeast corner. • No. 9. Mr. Brewer does not agree with • No. 10. Mr. Brewer advised the window goes to the ground level and it is relative to the urban shopping. Mr. Tefft advised there is a 5 story wall adjacent to that part of the building. 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Landscape Plan: • No. 3. Mr. Tefft advised changing the angle and take it under the dumpster enclosure. • No. 4. Mr. Tefft advised they can leave it where it is if the landscaping is adjusted. • No. 7. Mr. Brewer advised the header curb is a flush curb and it is put there because there is a swale between the parking and the alley. Instead of the bricks caving in from the swale I wanted to put the header curb. That is where we have water drainage. Chairman Perez advised this could be kept as is. Design Elements: Mr. Brewer advised he took a lot of care in designing this building, and felt the following changes would not have a positive impact. • No. 1. We have 8" and 9" offsets and color changes as indicated. If I move it any more I do not see a benefit. Right now it is distinctive. • No. 2. Awnings on the first floor - the projection of the balconies will act as awnings and they cover the doorways to the retail. • No. 3. Stucco Band - we do not want to use a stucco band between the second and third levels because all that will do is increase the dimension there, and I want to make a distinct difference between the retail and the residential. • No. 4. Brackets on the balconies - they would only be phony and they would encroach more into my retail area and I don't want to do that. If the Board would be kind enough to approve the elevations as is I don't feel any of the changes are going to benefit the building. • No. 5. I don't know what the change in materials will do between the first and upper levels. • No. 6. Muntins - we want as much glass as possible in the living room. The open glass is the way it should go. The windows don't have muntins, and I would like to keep the consistency the same. • No. 7. That has been eliminated. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Mr. Tefft wanted to clarify the design elements, muntins were just a thought. Maybe another option would be fixed panel of glass next to the French doors. That is another option we thought about. As far as some of the other changes, we were looking more to break up the verticality of the building. The building has three panels going straight up and we would like something to break it up and providing a different material on the first floor to provide a separation. Chairman Perez asked if there was a color rendering. Mr. Tefft brought the color rendering to the Board. Mr. Brewer advised the colors of the building will be coffee and a few shades of gray, with horizontal score lines %"thick, and the glass is slightly green in color. 7 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Mr. Tefft advised a stucco band between the second and third floor to provide a vertical break. We are not sure how well the balconies on the upper units will provide protection from the retail. Some type of awning should be provided, and something similar above balconies on the second level. Brackets should also be installed to give it some element of support, even if it is faux. Mr. Brewer advised the detail on the balcony is going to slope to the back of the building. The awning is going to be redundant to what is already there. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Chairman Perez inquired if any one had a problem with the waivers. None of the Board members had a problem with the waivers. Mr. Dersh inquired if the site triangle was approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Tefft advised the City Engineer looked at it and didn't have a problem. Mr. Silberstein questioned the landscaping along the parking garage. Mr. Tefft advised we had a dedication on 1st Avenue. Mr. Silberstein questioned if the approved project abuts the new right-of-way. Mr. Tefft advised he was not sure; however, Chairman Perez thought there was a dedication. Mr. Silberstein agrees that there should be a hard surface in front of the store front. Ms. Dersh questioned the off street parking. Chairman Perez advised there should be an individual island on the property and not go to the property line. Mr. Brewer advised the spaces are reduced to three. Mr. Miller advised he had an issue with the sidewalk extension on the site plan. Mr. Brewer advised there is a slight swale which will keep the people out of there and there are hard drains to pick up the water. Mr. Silberstein inquired if they need this retention for the project as it is all hardscape. Chairman Perez advised the sidewalk on the side of the bike rack is 3' wide. Mr. Silberstein inquired how was the building setback determined, and what is the setback on the building to the north? 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 Mr. Brewer advised it is right on the sidewalk. Mr. Tefft advised this was prior to adoption of the new Design Guidelines. Mr. Silberstein does not feel the landscape reflects the urban feel of the building, it is too suburban. As you look north you will see Royal Palms. You can put in 3 or 4 Royal Palms which will open the storefronts to the street. Mr. Brewer agreed with that option. Mr. Silberstein feels Perrigrine tree resembles a bush. Ms. Dersh agreed with Mr. Silberstein's suggestions, and that the storefronts should be more open. Chairman Perez advised the landscape plan should be more consistent with Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Silberstein advised he likes the building and the offsets are fine. He suggests that the fixed glass panels should be on the side of the French doors. He is a little concerned about the ground floor as you have signage and you can't put an awning in front of a sign. However, we could defer that until we look at the signage. In regard to the color scheme the Board felt they were too muted and industrial. The applicant should come back with the color chips when they come in for signage approval. Mr. Tefft advised staff did not have a problem with the color scheme. Demolition Request: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 7 to 0 to move approval of the demolition request for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Internal Adjustment and Waivers: A. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the right-of-way of the north alley and the first parking space within the parking lot from 20' to 5' by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (4) 9 • ' Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 (c) to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5" by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(C) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (1) to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the modified request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent alley to the west from 5' to between 2' 6" and 3' 5" by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. E. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2' by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class V site plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Approved - That revised plans are submitted addressing the Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 2. Approved - That the refuse enclosure is reoriented to face north unless a letter is provided from Waste Management Services indicating that the proposed orientation is acceptable. 3. Approved - That a wall-mounted fixture is provided that is less contemporary and more in keeping with the architectural style of the building. 10 •• Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 4. Approved - That the light fixtures around the perimeter of the development are provided with cut-off shielding in order to limit glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties. 5. Omitted - That the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is located on the south side of the east-west walkway at the northeast corner of the property. 6. Approved -That a 5' right-of-way dedication is provided for SE 1st Avenue. 7. Approved - That a 2' right-of-way dedication is provided for each of the abutting alleys. 8. Approved - That the full width of the abutting alleys (following dedication) is paved. 9. Modified as Follows: That a 3' pedestrian walkway be provided to the south of the present location of the bike rack and that this sidewalk connects the east and west sidewalk. 10. Omitted - That the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated. 11. Approved - That the plat for the subject property is recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development proposal or that a waiver is obtained from DSMG; and. 12. Approved - That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the site plan. Landscape Plan: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request meets the criteria set forth in Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Approved - That revised plans are submitted addressing the Landscape Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions. 2. Approved - That, if possible, a Traveler's Palm or other vertical element is provided in place of the Green Buttonwood tree along the south property line (adjacent to the parking area), or that the landscape area is left without a tree/palm. 3. Approved -That the location of the proposed underground electric, cable television and phone lines is shifted adjacent to the refuse area. 11 • • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 4. Approved - That the proposed water meters and their associated service lines (northeast corner of the site) are relocated so as not to be within 10' of any proposed trees/palms. 5. Approved -That the landscape architect coordinates with the City Horticulturist in determining the final landscape plan and those modifications made to eliminate landscape and utility conflicts. 6. Approved -That the western parking tier is shifted 6" to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2'-6" to 2'. 7. Omitted -That the header curb abutting the western parking tier is eliminated and incorporated into the adjoining landscape area. 8. Approved -That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the landscape plan. 9. Modified as follows: That the east landscape design be redesigned to be more consistent with the landscape along Atlantic Avenue and other urban streets in Delray Beach. 10. Deleted - That the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated. 11. Approved -That the plat for the subject property is recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development proposal or that a waiver is obtained from DSMG. 12. Approved -That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the site plan. Design Elements: It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Delete -That the building offsets are increased 2. This item is deferred until we review the signage. 3. Deleted - That a stucco band is provided between the second and third levels of the building along all elevations; 4. Deleted -That brackets are provided for each of the balconies; 12 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 5. Deleted - That a change in materials is provided between the first level and the upper levels; 6. Modified to provide the same profile for the sidelights as the French door profile. 7. Approved - That the emergency overflow scupper is eliminated from the south elevation. Amended motion made by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 7 to 0 to modify the above motion to add Item No. 8. that the applicant comes back to the Board with an elevation that shows accurate color chips and how the awnings are treated on the first floor. Motion made by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 7 to 0 to delete No. 2 above. C. City Initiated Amendment to LDR Section 4.4.5 RL (low density residential) enacting performance standards and providing for recreational areas for multi-family developments to mitigate the impacts of additional density from a base density of 3 units per acre to a maximum of 6 units per acre and changing review of site plans from the Planning and Zoning Board to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board or the Historic Preservation Board. Motion made by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake, and passed 7 to 0 to table Ordinance No. _-05 handed out to the Board subsequent to the start of the meeting and asked to be included on the Agenda at the Board Meeting on February 2, 2005. IV. DISCUSSION ITEM: A. 145 North Swinton Avenue (Mako Technologies) Mr. Tefft stated this item was denied by the Board at a prior meeting. The plans will be revised to add on to the existing contributing house in the historic district by eliminating the garage and adding 3,200 sq. ft. to the rear of the house. Parking will be up front and off a new circular driveway. There might be two scenarios, on street parking and in-lieu parking. Mr. Silberstein, Architect for the project, advised the two sketches evolved with our discussions with staff and our last Board meeting on December 15, 2005. The applicants (Troy and Lisa Case) are attempting to preserve the integrity of the house and put an addition on. In the applicants original submittal they needed to expand up to 3,200 sq. ft. and the apartment. The Board was concerned about the cottage. Staff advised they are comfortable with the overall scheme and supports it. However, there are concerns about the parking. They would prefer the scheme on SK 4 which provides nine (9) on-site parking spaces, rather than SK 5 which provides ten (10) on- site parking spaces. The applicant would prefer the scheme on SK 4 which provides nine (9) on-site parking spaces as opposed to scheme 3 that provides ten (10) on-site, and the difference between the two is that one is the on-site parking and the scheme that the applicant prefers has one space on the right-of-way and there is no terminal 13 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 island. The extra on-site parking is critical in terms of economics and also that when the property is financed, he would be short one (1) space on-site. Chairman Perez advised you can have two (2) spaces on the street. Mr. Silberstein advised that is not considered on-site parking, it is a public right-of-way. Mr. Tefft advised the only issue with SK 3 is the compact parking ratio. Chairman Perez advised that the two (2) spaces can be counted in the circular driveway. Mr. Tefft advised there might be a problem if you have two (2) spaces in the circular drive and the two (2) back-up spaces. If you have the space in the circular drive you then have the compact car backing out to Swinton Avenue. We cannot support this. You either have the two (2) spaces in the circular or the back-up spaces. Mr. Silberstein advised they need this parking. Ms. Dersh inquired if the driveway could come off 1st. Mr. Tefft advised no. Mr. Silberstein advised they wanted to move forward with this, and advised they are putting the front porch back as it was originally, and will be a two story design. Mr. Dersh advised they were on the right track, however, they are putting too many spaces in the back lot. Chairman Perez advised more landscaping is needed, and he would prefer to have staff go over the landscape plan V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: None B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Ms. Lake inquired about the progress with the house on Palm Square. Mr. Adams advised that Code Enforcement was going out tomorrow to ask them to revise the paint colors. If they refuse, I don't know where that would leave us. Mr. Tefft advised it would then have to go to the Board. If they didn't comply they would eventually be sited. Mr. Shutt advised they will re-fine them. D. Staff: None 14 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes January 19, 2005 VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for January 19, 2005, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on February 16, 2005. Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 15 AGENDA c`: = HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Meeting Date: January 19, 2005 Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Location: First Floor Conference Room Time: 6:00 P.M. The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127(voice), or 243-7199(TDD), 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing,such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Such record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Two or more City Commissioners may be in attendance. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES O November 3, 2004 O November 17, 2004 I I December 1, 2004 III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 222 Palm Court, Del-Ida Park Historic District, Chris Curtis, Authorized Agent Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing office building B. HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), Old School Square Historic District, George Brewer, Authorized Agent Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated demolition request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and design elements for the construction of a three-story mixed-use building (retail/residential) IV. REPORTS AND COMMENTS O Public Comments O Reports from Historic District Representatives O Board Members O Staff V. ADJOURN \10 Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner POSTED ON: January 14, 2005 MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: November 3, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft, Warren Adams, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:00 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Amendment to Land Development Regulations Sections 4.3.4 (J) (4) Item Before the Board: Forward a Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board Concerning Increases in Height in the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District. Chairman Perez and Mr. Silberstein stepped down. Ms. Schatz asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file and his resume into the record. The item before the Board is to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board amendments to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4) "Increases in Height Regulations" to limit the area in the Central Business District (CBD) that is available for an increase in height and to modify the criteria which must be met to support an increase in height, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). The City Commission has identified concerns over the recent intensity of development in the CBD i.e. the proliferation of development requests and inquiries seeking conditional use approval for height exceeding the 48' height limit. Particular concern is noted relating to the impact of increases in height on less intense zoning districts which surround the CBD. In many cases these districts have a maximum height limit of 35', Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 and in the case of OSSHAD have a character and development intensity which could be negatively impacted. This proposed amendment will further enhance these efforts by creating a 150' buffer that will not allow an increase in height (between 48' and 60') if the CBD property abuts a zoning district having a maximum height of 35'. The amendment will also look at tightening up the criteria that must be met in order to increase height throughout the CBD as well as other areas where increases in height are allowed. Staff is recommending approval to the Planning & Zoning Board to incorporate the changes. Ms. Schatz asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Ms. Schatz closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Mr. Miller advised he was concerned that this issue came up so quickly, and that there are several projects that have already been granted conditional use. Mr. Tefft advised there are some projects out there that could be affected by it. There could be others and seeing some of the potential impacts they could have on those areas, we are taking proactive steps to limit potential impact on the adjacent properties, and other measures are in place. Ms. Dersh questioned what happens to proposed developments that are currently in the works. Mr. Tefft advised they would not be affected by the regulation. If they don't submit prior to it being before the Planning &Zoning Board they are not affected by it. Ms. Pyburn advised that it must be grandfathered in up to the point prior to the approval from the Planning & Zoning Board. After that they would be new submittals and they would be subject to these new restrictions. Ms. Schatz questioned if the applicant wanted to modify the plans would that take away the approval. Ms. Pyburn advised that Planning & Zoning would have to look at that and how they are modifying their plans. However, once they made their final submission for site plan approval and it is in the process of being approved they are not necessarily subject to these restrictions. Ms. Dersh inquired if this was going to Planning &Zoning this month. Mr. Tefft advised it would go to Planning & Zoning on November 15, 2004. Ms. Lake inquired under(4) (a) (b) Allowances (ii) (1), an increase in intensity is allowed when the increase from 48 feet is for the purpose of accommodating residential use on 2 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 the top floor or the structure; however, the increase in intensity is only for the added residential use area. Mr. Tefft advised this was the current code and only for the residential use area. Mr. Miller advised he is in favor of this approach, as he would not want to see a 60 foot building built in the area. It was moved by Ms. Dersh, seconded by Ms. Lake, and passed 5 to 0 to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board approval of the attached amendments to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4), 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. HI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Perez and Vice-Chairman Silberstein returned to the Board. A. Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Item Before the Board: Consideration the designation of the Proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District (Quasi Judicial). Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The City of Delray Beach has proposed to designate the area discussed in the attached designation report to the Local Register of Historic Places. At its meeting of August 18, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) conducted a formal review of the designation report for the proposed Northwest Swinton Avenue Historic District and set a public hearing date on the designation for October 6, 2004. At its meeting of October 6, 2004, the Board held a public hearing in conjunction with review of the historic district designation request. While some members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed historic district designation, several members spoke against the designation citing concerns over homeowner's insurance availability and costs, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the designation and the disparity between contributing and noncontributing structures, and the boundaries of the proposed historic district. Several individuals also spoke about the lack of time to research the impacts of the designation. After reviewing the staff report and discussing the proposal, the Board voted unanimously (7 to 0) to postpone action on the designation request until the tonight's meeting, and gave direction to staff to research the potential impacts of the historic district designation on homeowner's insurance. With regard to the insurance issue, there does not appear to be a direct link between the historic district and the inability to get insurance. It is linked to the -age of the structure and whether or not the interior of the structure (electric, phone, etc.) has been renovated to meet building code. Staff received a letter from the Plastridge Insurance Agency specifically regarding the issues indicating that historic neighborhoods might be easier to find insurance for based on the following characteristics: 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 1. The properties are generally in much above average condition and repair, with owners renovating and updating frequently and carefully bringing their older homes up to the newest electrical, roofing, air conditioning and plumbing codes as a matter of necessity, thus mitigating the types of insurance claims associated with older homes -this makes for a more attractive insurance risk. 2. The historic neighborhoods are a source of pride for most cities and thus get excellent city services including fire, police, utility and other important components that make the areas better managed risks. 3. The composition of residents in these areas is skewed into a vary favorable group in terms of financial stability, claims history, age and other characteristics that generally make them agreeable with underwriting and risk standards. According to the Comprehensive Plan it shows two policies and one objective regarding the Future Land Use Element: • Policy A-4.2: In order to protect the City's historic resources, the Land Development Regulations shall include provisions for designation of historically significant buildings, structures, archaeological sites, or districts. The City shall conduct • periodic neighborhood surveys to identify and evaluate potential historic resources. This is the policy that staff utilizes. • Housing Element Objective A-10: The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. • Housing Element Policy A-10.2: The City will promote the use of historic designations as a revitalization tool in its preparation of Neighborhood Plans for those areas which have a significant inventory of historic structures. The designation report demonstrates at minimum that the area qualifies as a historic district as the area: (a) portrays high styles and local interpretations of distinctive architectural styles and (b) embodies distinctive characteristics typical of those styles and period of construction. Designating the district as historic will help preserve the character of the extant historic dwellings and promote the retention of the scale of the neighborhood, which is consistent with the above referenced Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending approval to the City Commission to establish the Northwest Swinton Avenue District. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. Ms. Leslie Horenberger, 510 North Swinton Avenue, sent a letter dated October 29, 2004 to the Historic Preservation Board with copies to Mayor Perlman and the City Commissioners relative to her objections (too many restrictions, tremendous investment of time and money, and loss of insurance coverage) to designating Northwest Swinton Avenue a Historic District. Ms. Andrea Williams, 1617 NW 2"d Avenue, advised she is extremely opposed to this. Our neighbors across the street will not have the same restrictions applied to their homes. We live in a wonderful neighborhood and I want to keep it that way. I do not want to have any restrictions regarding what I can or can't do. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Ms. Larissa Osles advised she agrees with Ms. Williams' statements. I do appreciate you revising the boundaries. After our last meeting I contacted Barbara E. Maddock, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for survey and registration of historical properties in FL. Ms Osles received 500 pages of appendices, and advised she is a proponent of historic preservation, however, with this particular situation what I am seeing is not necessarily a definable area. The figures I have here tonight are 30% contributing. We are not at 50%. When I spoke to Barbara she was clear about the boundary justification, and there are rules (as stated in the appendices) that state geographically defined areas possessing a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by a plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association's history. I don't want to see an arbitrary boundary set. Let the individuals decide. We don't need any economic revitalization in the area. Ms. Joanne Peart, 107 NW 9th Street, advised she used to live on Dixie Boulevard. Around the same time there was Old School Square and Nassau Street, and Delray was not doing as well economically as it is now. However, it made a positive difference making those historic districts. I have been a proponent of expanding and creating more historic districts in Delray, and would be happy if we made all of Old Town a historic district. I think there is a lot of miscommunication. We may need more time. People need to be educated about this. If people knew the benefits they would be more in favor of this. I am in favor of this and I hope we can eventually do this. Ms. Dorothy Duggan, 710 N. Swinton Avenue, advised she owns a business in Delray that is in the historic district, and has been through the process and I strongly oppose this for my house. There is too much of a process to make any changes to your home. Ms. Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, advised she owns property in the Marina historic district and is part owner of a historic contributing home and a contributing apartment building. I have owned that property since 1988 when the Historic Districts were created. I am a strong proponent of historic districts. There is fact and there is fiction. Here are some facts: ■ Property Values - As Tom Lynch stated in his letter dated October 21, 2004 to the Board regarding insurance, people are more apt to care for their properties and improve them, thus the property value goes up. This is true nationally and I can provide you with studies that that have been done all over the country that the trend is property values in historic districts go up in a larger percentage to ones not in a historic district. ■ Insurance - Mr. Tefft addressed this plus the letter from Tom Lynch which states according to the Insurance Commissioner's Office in FL, you cannot deny person insurance because you are in a historic district. In order to do that the insurance company would have to deny insurance coverage to everyone in a historic district in the entire State of FL. It would have to be a class denial filed by the Legislature. I am fully insured on my properties through Farm Bureau and Hays Mack Insurance both in Delray Beach 5 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Another myth is that you have to go through layers of approval for everything you do to you house. You have to get a permit to do anything in Delray Beach to your house. My experience is that you have help with this. You have the Historic Preservation Planner to go to for advice and guide you through the process. There are a lot of issues that can be approved by staff. Mr. Paul Fitzgerald, 1610 NE 2nd Avenue, advised he is adjacent to the proposed boundary lines of the Historic District. Mr. Fitzgerald said he was bewildered by this issue as he never received notification; I was informed by my neighbors. My wife attended the last meeting and was concerned with regard to what was going on as far as the designation. This issue will affect many people and reduce property values. Eight years people were coming into the neighborhood buying homes for $200,000 to $250,000 today those values have doubled. Who will come in today and buy that 1,500 sq. ft. house, a family of four will have restrictions regarding adding on to that home. We have increased the percentage of the homes that we designated historic by cutting out certain areas that have not been deemed contributing. If that is the case, why can't the homeowner decide if they want to have their home designated historic. Mr. Erol Tuzcu, 1634 North Swinton Avenue, advised he is opposed to this designation. He advised he moved into the south end of Swinton Avenue in 1974 and in 1988 I moved to the north end. This does not warrant being a historic district. A Historic designation should be left up to the individual homeowner. Mr. David Harden, 516 N. Swinton Avenue, advised he has a Masters Degree in City Planning and was a City Planner for six years in Central FL, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. No other 5 districts have reported insurance problems. We have an opportunity to preserve this area. We are going to see more teardowns and homes out of scale with the neighborhood. That is the problem with why each individual owner can make their own decision. There are a number of studies nationally that demonstrate having a historic property actually increases property values. If the people are concerned, I am sure we can supply those articles to them. This Board has the power to handle this issue. I hope that the district will move forward. Mr. Douglas Root, 1421 NW 2"d Avenue, advised he was in agreement. He feels the neighborhood needs to be preserved. If you want to add large additions don't move here go to Boca Raton. People will preserve the small house to keep the neighborhood mix when is it 100%. Mr. Frank Hunter advised that the Board's job was to recommend or not recommend this application to the City Commission based upon the criteria. Over the last four or five meetings you asked for facts, again most people have very strong opinions. This application does not fulfill the proper designation or criteria as outlined in LDR Section 4.5.ii. There are 160 properties and only 29% are contributing. The Act of 1966 as implied in the application. The underlying requirement is a significant - number of contributing homes. Twenty-nine percent (29%) is not significant as required for a district. Studies have shown that most historic districts are for improvement blighted areas with over 50% of the homes. The properties on the north edge of the map show as contributing while they are not contributing. This map has not been corrected and people have not had a chance to view the revised map. I request you vote not to recommend based on lack of criteria and public outcry. Insurance may be an item by item basis. However, this boundary area is not a neighborhood. This is the first survey 6 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 that has been done since 1988, if they were even done then. There has been no neighborhood plan, and no survey of the individual people. There is no designation report for alternative one. Statistics that I have read on the Internet shows that there is no information as to whether or not contributing or noncontributing areas that bound designated areas go up any faster than an area that is not designated. I request the Board to vote this down based upon lack of criteria and public outcry. Ms. Nan Thompson, 715. NW 2"d Avenue, advised there have been two new homes built on 7th and they are beautiful. George Brewer lives on the corner and he has a tower on the side of his yard. If I had wanted restrictions I would have moved to a gated community. We heard that Love's Drugs is being torn down to build a parking garage, and that is a crime. Ms. Amelia Harden, 516 N. Swinton Avenue, advised her view is from the opposite direction. We need to have protection in our neighborhood before the monstrosities are built. Next to Ms. Thompson there is a home that is going to be Key West style, and is not going to blend in with the neighborhood. Before the monstrosities the three story modern homes that cover the entire lot line, this is why we need it ahead of time. The restrictions will not stop you from adding on to the house but it has to be appropriate to the neighborhood. It is protection and not restriction. There is an empty lot on the 500 block of Swinton Avenue -we will see what is coming. Ms. Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney, advised that everyone be aware tonight that the Board is deciding on recommending this to the City Commission. The City Commission will be the ultimate voting body. It is up to them. You will have the opportunity to address your concerns to the City Commission. The final vote is not made here. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from staff. Mr. Tefft pointed to the overhead map and advised we came up with another set of boundaries which included some of the non-contributing secondary alternatives. With regard to whether or not it is consistent with the designation report, it gives a general description. It may not actually depict alternative No. 1 with regard to the northern properties not being correct. As far as the percentages brought up, alternative No.1, removal of the properties would increase the percentage from 38.96% to 43.79%. The- 29% is incorrect, as that was from the original draft. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Lake advised she does believe we should take another look at the contributing homes in the district. I personally have a commitment to this Board to preserve the historic properties in Delray Beach. I feel it would be a wise recommendation for the Board to recommend this to the City Commission and let the public at that point have their say. Ms. Deutch advised many of these homes are jewel boxes, and it is an honor for the individuals to own them and treasure them. You can contribute so much to the future of this wonderful City. She advised these guidelines are wonderful and it should be an aid 7 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3,2004 to assist you and maintain the wonderful examples of our past. Ms. Deutch advised she supports this. Ms. Schatz advised she looked at the requirements and what we are obligated to do here. From where I sit I believe that the obligation is that we are merely making our recommendation to the City Commission and those who may feel put upon that they are not getting to question us enough. I believe it is in the best interest of Delray Beach to expand their historic area. Individuals feel they are not getting appropriate information from staff or final documentation. This should be in final form before it goes to the City Commission so they can be educated. Ms. Schatz advised she is in favor of preserving this area. Mr. Silberstein advised he agrees with expanding the historic district. However, my concern is some of the contributing buildings on this map, and we should re-define some of these boundaries, and I think they can be worked on further. More importantly, the whole length of Swinton Avenue cannot be changed. I am concerned with the area to the west of that. I am in support of this designation. Ms. Dersh advised she is also in support of expanding the historic district. I hear people coming in advising they have restrictions and not enough information. Ms. Shay did a good job of disseminating information to the public. The residents of Delray Beach have to get a permit for work on their homes whether it is in the historic district or not. Mr. Miller advised he is in favor of historic designations. I counted eight to five against on this designation. I know there is a large group in the middle that did not bother to show up. That is somewhat disappointing. You can add on to historic structures. The designation is a tool to help preserve the past and bring up values in a blighted area. Property values have increased in this neighborhood quite a bit. In this area I think people have pride in their neighborhood, and I don't know if a historic designation would change that. Mr. Miller advised due to the opposition he has heard from the homeowners he doesn't know if he can support this. Chairman Perez advised there are some restrictions, and a set of guidelines that your neighbors have to follow in the district. There is a lot of miscommunication regarding restrictions. I have a question on the boundaries, at the last meeting I made a point to drive through the area. On Nassau Street, the Marina District, OSSHAD and Del Ida Park there are clear boundaries. I question the validity of the Lake Ida neighborhood. It is one thing to say we want to make Swinton Avenue a historic street. On the efforts of redesigning Swinton we have come a bit too far. We are trying to create a district where there is none. The second map further enhances the question marks of the boundaries. It is not a district there are no definite boundaries. I can see where the concerns come from. I have a hard time supporting that because of the boundaries and recommend we make Swinton Avenue a historic district. That is a clear definition and a clear boundary. I don't want to vote against it, but at the same time we can't go into a • neighborhood with the way the homeowners feel regarding this issue. The second map makes it more arbitrary. Mr. Silberstein advised to postpone this decision until staff comes back with a new boundary line that shows that we are considering the Swinton Avenue district a Historic District north of the OSSHAD district. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Ms. Pyburn questioned for clarification purposes if you are tabling the decision on this motion and giving directions to staff to come back with changes? Mr. Silberstein advised yes, we should look at the structures on the west and east side of Swinton Avenue as a boundary for the North Swinton Avenue Historic District as an alternative to the boundary being represented. Ms. Schatz seconded for purposes of discussion, and advised her comment was for discussion purposes only and the recommendation was to come back dealing with the houses and percentages the other criteria in making sure that whatever recommendation comes out the public may want to look at it in advance and any proposed boundary is given to the public. I don't want the public to say they didn't have time. Ms. Lake questioned if that was NE 5th Street on the east side of Swinton and continuing to 22nd Street. Chairman Perez advised that you have to look at the percentages. Mr. Tefft said based upon that motion we have to go back to square one, and the time table is unknown. It could be months depending upon how far north you go. A boundary has not been set. First Motion It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz to move a recommendation to the City Commission to table this item and give direction till staff comes back with a new boundary line that shows we are considering making the Swinton Avenue Historic District north of the OSSHAD area. Look at the streets on Swinton Avenue west and east as a boundary for the Swinton Avenue Historic District so we can show alternatives to the boundaries being represented. First Revised Motion It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz to move a recommendation to the City Commission to approve this with the condition that only those homes with an address of Swinton Avenue as indicated on the map to be included as the Historic District. Second Revised Motion It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Schatz to move a recommendation to approve this with the condition that only the homes on Swinton Avenue between Trinity Lutheran Church on the south side up to 17th Street be included in the Historic District. Third Revised Motion To include homes abutting Swinton Avenue on the west side. Above Motions Approved 7 to 0 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 B. The DeWitt Estate (1110 North Swinton Avenue), John L. and Janet S. Page, Owners Item Before the Board: Consider the Designation of an Individually Listed Property in the Local Register of Historic Places (Quasi Judicial Hearing). Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. The current property owners have proposed to designate the subject property to the Local Register of Historic Places. The subject residence was designed by the noted architect, Gustav Mass, in what was termed, "Virginia Colonial Farmhouse Style," and the R.C. Lawson contracting firm completed construction of the house the associated property in 1936 for Marshall and Jeanette Butts DeWitt. The DeWitt's made several contributions to Delray Beach; Mr. DeWitt served as both a City Commissioner and Mayor, and helped create the Lake Worth Drainage District among other services. The current property owners have completed all of the research on the site and have prepared the attached designation report, which provides a further history of the residence and associated property. At its meeting of October 20, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) conducted a formal review of the designation report and set a public hearing date for the designation of the subject property for November 3, 2004. The DeWitt residence is an excellent example of the termed "Virginia Colonial Farmhouse Style" and is certainly deserving of preservation. Additionally, the DeWitt's themselves were very prominent in Delray Beach society. Mr. DeWitt served as both a City Commissioner and Mayor, helped create the Lake Worth Drainage District among other services. Designating this site as historic will help preserve the character of the extant historic dwelling and promote the retention of other surrounding historic properties. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Silberstein, and passed 7 to 0 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission that the residence and associated property at 1110 North Swinton Avenue (The DeWitt Estate) be listed in the Local Register of Historic Places, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Sections 4.5.1(B) (3) and 4.5.1(C) of the Land Development Regulations. IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. 10 NE 2nd Street (Pineapple Podiatry), Old School Square Historic District, Claudio Camilucci, Authorized Agent Mr. Silberstein stepped down. 10 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with the Installation of a Free-Standing Sign. Mr. Tefft presented the items to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.14 acre property consists of a portion of Lots 9 and 10, Block 67, Town of Delray. At its meeting of December 4, 2002, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved, with conditions, a COA and associated Class V site plan, landscape plan, and design elements for the construction of a two-story, 2,858 square foot mixed-use building (office and a second floor residence) with associated parking and landscaping. At its meeting of August 4, 2004, the HPB approved a COA and associated Class I site plan modification to eliminate the decorative entrance gate on the north elevation and install a white wood fence measuring three feet-six inches (3'-6") in height and is designed to mimic the pickets installed on the second floor balcony. The improvements associated with the above approvals are under construction and are nearing completion. The applicant proposes the installation of a free-standing sign on the north side of the property, set back approximately ten feet (10') from the property line abutting NE 2'd Street. The free-standing sign will be set next to the entrance walk and will face east/west. The sign is a double-sided, seven foot (7') high free standing sign. The sign area, which measures 34" in height by 42" in length and totals 9.9 square feet, will be suspended from the sign arm attached to a 6" by 6" cedar post. The sign is made of one and one-half inch (1.5") sandblasted sign foam with a yellow background and hunter green copy and a decorative border around the sign. The sign post will be painted white. The copy will read: "Pineapple Podiatry, LLC. Dr. Elizabeth Reilly, DPM Foot and Ankle Specialist 561-272-7171", on 6 lines of copy. The street address will be placed above the copy. Chairman Perez inquired if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved Ms. Dersh, seconded by Mr. Miller and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 10 NE 2nd Street (Pineapple Podiatry), 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) and 4.6.7 of the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: Mr. Doug Rowe inquired about the original map - he advised the whole district should be preserved. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: 11 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 3, 2004 D. Staff: VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for November 3, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 12 • MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: November 17, 2004 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Jeffrey Silberstein, Linda Lake, John Miller, Jr., Randee Schatz, Maura Dersh, and Michelle Reich MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Schatz arrived late STAFF PRESENT: Robert Tefft, Warren Adams, Jeffrey Costello, Brian Shutt and Denise Valek I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perez at 6:00 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. No one from the Public addressed the Board on non-agenda items. Chairman Perez read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0 to approve. the Minutes of August 18, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 6 to 0 to approve the Minutes of September 1, 2004 as written. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Dersh, and passed 7 to 0 to approve the Minutes of September 15, 2004 as written. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Dell Park Historic District Item Before the Board: Consideration of the proposed Dell Park Historic District. Chairman Perez asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Mr. Perez advised he received a call but did not speak with the individual. Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 Mr. Tefft advised the Board is forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission regarding the proposed Dell Park historic district. The City of Delray Beach has proposed to designate the area discussed in the attached designation report to the Local Register of Historic Places. At its meeting of August 18, 2004, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) conducted a formal review of the designation report for the proposed Dell Park Historic District and set a public hearing date on the designation for October 6, 2004. The Planning and Zoning staff was scheduled to meet with the Dell Park Homeowner's Association on September 13, 2004, to discuss the impacts of a historic designation on their neighborhood; however due to Hurricane Frances, the homeowner's association meeting was postponed until October 13, 2004. Therefore, at its meeting of September 15, 2004, the HPB approved the rescheduling of the public hearing date for the Dell Park Historic District designation to October 20, 2004. To qualify as a historic site or historic district, the property or properties must fulfill one or more of the criteria set forth in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (2) and/or (3). The designation report contains, at minimum, sufficient information to meet the criteria stated in LDR Section 4.5.1(B) (3), which states a district is deemed to have architectural or aesthetic significance if it fulfills one or more of the following criteria: (a) Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; (b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction; (c) Is a historic or outstanding work of a prominent architect, designer, landscape architect, or builder; or (d) Contains elements of design, detail, material, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represented, in its time, a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment. Chairman Perez asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Mr. Scott Christensen, President of the Seacrest Neighborhood Association, advised - he was at the meeting representing himself, our Association as well as fifty-seven (57) property owners who responded to our neighborhood survey addressing the historic designation of a portion of the Seacrest neighborhood. He gave a copy of an overhead of the district to the Board members for review. At the October 20, 2004 meeting they expressed that the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) wanted to know why the neighbors did not want the historic designation for the neighborhood. On October 13, 2004 the City staff made public presentations to the residents. Questions were asked and discussion followed. As the City staff did not directly poll the Dell Park neighborhood to determine interest, residents undertook a direct citizen initiated survey of the neighborhood. We did distribute a survey form and the results are reflected in the map (copies are being made) with one property owner indicating that he was in favor of the historic district as indicated in green, and 56 property owners opposed as indicated in red. Our Association prides itself in involving as many people as possible in the process, and we believe firmly in the majority rules premise. A prime example of this would be how the neighborhood's success with the 2 w Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 Seacrest Dell Ida Neighborhood Plan which the City spent about $3.8 million dollars on. Additionally, in addressing the staff report, and the historic designation, the Dell Park neighborhood does not meet HPB requirements of a minimum of 50% and preferably 70% concentration of contributing historic structures to qualify as being a significant area. In 1999 Janus Research prepared a 107 page historical resources report. Ms. Mary Lou Jamison advised she had never seen this report. The City and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) paid for a historic report of our neighborhood and the Osceola Park neighborhood. The City and the CRA determined that 55 of the 218 properties in our district only 30% would be contributing historic structures. Somehow when the map was prepared for the staff report twenty-two (22) additional structures were added as contributing and one (1) was deleted from this report. How this was arrived at I am unable to determine. There is a significant shortfall of contributing structures to qualify the area as being significant. The map on the bottom is the one from the Janus Report. The map on top show the additional structures added to the 2004 staff report. Mr. Tefft advised that currently there are 98 structures in the staff report indicating significance, and in the e-mail sent to me it said eighty-eight (88) structures are contributing. Eighty- eight (88) out of two hundred eighteen (218) is 40% of the district, which is less than the State guidelines. In summary, if the HPB is looking for an explanation as to why the people feel the way they do, and voted the way they have that is something that the HPB should be addressing outside of this consideration. I believe it would be beneficial to establish the process to accomplish this. It is quite obvious that the information provided to the Dell Park neighborhood did not establish a compelling reason for historic designation. I am here representing fifty-seven (57) surveyed respondents who indicated they wanted me to speak on their behalf, and they voted one (1) for historic designation and fifty-six (56) against. This is 98.25% against. You as members of the Historic Preservation Board need to deny establishment of the Dell Park Historic District by finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and a desire of the property owners of the neighborhood. We have spent a considerable amount of time discussing this and before the last meeting and incorporating as many people as we could in the discussion. Mr. Brad Winney, 1515 North Swinton Avenue, these are specific examples as to why we were opposed to the historic designation. I mentioned it was hard to come up with reasons; however, I did some research on line. If you search on Goggle by the phrase "the economic impacts of historic preservation" several surveys come up. They all point to an improvement in the property values. My personal issue is not setting it up as a preservation area, but more about the manner that it is done. New Jersey confirmed that it was a good idea. However, one of the phrases that caught my attention was the following "the classic examples where designation may diminish value one is where an unimprovement is designated or restricted controls. General maintenance codes in which these Boards are set-up and how they manage the areas. Permission for a two-car driveway. At the last meeting I saw someone go through the process to get permission for a two-car driveway instead of a one-car driveway. I think it is a good idea to stop building mansions on zero lot lines, however, I do not want to go through that type of process, as there is too much minutia. Mr. Frank Hunter, advised he has a lot of friends in the neighborhood, and he is concerned about what the Board is voting. The Board is to vote on a 3 s Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 4 recommendation for approval that it meets the criteria. My agenda is to make sure that this is done right. This week I attempted to get copies of minutes, the consultant report and mailing lists. I understood that there was a City Commission Workshop last Tuesday. Items I do have show that this does not meet the criteria for a historic district. The Board doesn't understand what the people want and the City has not given us the difference between restrictions, guidelines, and criteria of what is allowed and what is not allowed. I hope you vote against this designation. Ms. Thuy Shutt, 102 NE 12th Street, a resident for two years. I want to make a clarification as to what this designation means and what it can preserve. This is not a Land Use Development Regulation; it provides a different layer for a chance to speak on behalf of you as a property owner on aesthetic issues. I do not think that having this designation would prevent someone building out to the maximum development level or that lot, nor does it prevent a historic building from being torn down. Residents like me who adore small quaint homes voluntarily agree to a lot of the historic guidelines. I have no problem with going through the process, and I find staff very good at this. The property owners have to go through staff and pay $50 or $100 to get a permit. I think what you are hearing is that they are opposed because they may have a weekend where they can put a fence up. With the designation it is a little different. I am going along with my neighbors in that I think it should be voluntary. Overall 60% of the property is not contributing, and they will not receive any type of rebate. If the City or the Board chooses to limit the development rights or have that additional review there are other ways in which you can do it. Please consider what you have heard today. Ms. Debra Dowd, 7 NE 66th Court, advised several years ago in the early 90's the Seacrest Association was developed. It was developed out of a study from the City that various City members belonged to. The Seacrest Association was developed through the help of the City. In the early 90's when they developed the plan, part of the plan was to bring Second Avenue down by the Post Office was designated historical was to move up to Seacrest and the Del Ida Neighborhood. The study was not done until 1999 (seven years after). Presently we have neighbors who live in an area where the values have gone up tremendously. When we initially brought this study to the City, much of the area was blighted. The turnover happened without it being historically designated, but happened because of the southern area being designated and the redevelopment of Swinton Avenue. I as a City activist and Board member for many years have always listened to the people in the neighborhood. The neighborhood people at this time and the people are not for this designation for many reasons. For not being educated regarding the process and the benefits. Property values, insurance, things that you may not agree with, but the homeowners do. I don't think this is the time to designate the neighborhood. I would love to see Swinton Avenue designated historic, however, I say listen to the people in the neighborhood. Ms. Pam Reeder, advised it was her understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court may have adjudicated on this particular issue of having local volunteer Boards come in and enact these types of historic designations. I would strongly suggest that the Board look into whether the Supreme Court has adjudicated on this issue, and if not they will be because the Florida Association of Architects is going to request that 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 they make a determination on the constitutionality on these types of Boards throughout the United States. Chairman Perez asked staff for their comments. Mr. Jeffrey Costello, Assistant Planning Director, regarding the comments that have been made we did have the study available, however, we will provide that individual with a copy of the survey. Regarding the concerns based on the study and the Janus study there is not overwhelming support that we have had with other situations. However, there may be other avenues that can be taken, such as a conservation district, which is not like a historic district. It is similar to what is being recommended for the Osceola Park neighborhood where there are historic homes. We are trying to preserve the historic inventory that we have now. This is not something that relates to mansionization, it does give a merit of review that could severely limit something like that occurring. This would give us the ability to get the individual to purchase this property or move it to another site. There are other avenues available to control the redevelopment in the area that would be out of character to the area. We have found that new construction in the area have gone through the guidelines and have preserved the character of the neighborhood. The guidelines proposed for the beach district went before the P & Z Board on Monday night and there was some opposition. It will go to City Commission for a vote. Once you get beyond a certain threshold you will need to go to the Site Plan and Review Board (SPRAB) for approval. We are proposing the change the lot coverage, additional setbacks, and increase the open space requirements. Mr. Scott Christensen advised when our Neighborhood Plan was approved in 1997 addressed this as a Seacrest Neighborhood Association area. Mr. Costello is right, we do not have support for this in any way, shape, or form in our neighborhood. The insurance is not the issue. There is significant nonsupport for this right now. We are looking at the Beach Overlay District. I have spoken to some of the Commissioners, and they are looking at this as a template for the neighborhood associations. If we decide to do that it will give the same benefit to all of the homeowners. We could. incorporate our entire neighborhood from George Bush to the northern part of the City to the railroad tracks. This better accomplishes the goals of the neighborhood. This would accomplish the goals of the whole neighborhood. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Lake asked Mr. Tefft how many times have you visited with the neighborhood and given them information regarding the guidelines. Staff met with residents from both of the proposed Districts on August 18, 2004. We had another meeting with the Dell Park Association on October 13, 2004. Ms. Lake inquired how many individuals attended those meetings. Mr. Tefft advised that he could not be specific about attendance at the Dell Park meeting. 5 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 a Mr. Christensen advised about 70 homeowners from the Dell Park area attended the meeting. Ms. Lake advised she is amazed at the negative response to a historic designation, and felt we should have another workshop for the homeowners to educate them about what a historic area is. Mr. Silberstein felt that lots 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 should be designated as a historic district. They are contributing more so than other homes east of Seacrest. I believe that that neighborhood is worthy of a historic district. Delray is Swinton Avenue and we should not lose sight of that. Ms. Schatz agreed with Mr. Silberstein. Our job sitting on the Board is to make a recommendation. I agree that this map is not one that I would be in favor of. We only make a recommendation to the City Commission. I agree that there is a basis for suggesting part of this property for designation, but not in its entirety. Ms. Reich agreed and advised she would like to see Swinton Avenue preserved. Mr. Miller advised that quite possibly a Conservation District could be a little more palatable. The map is obviously not correct, as there are some homes that have nothing to do with this area. Ms. Dersh had concerns that some people don't understand they cannot do changes without a permit from the Building Department. It is easier to go to the Historic Board. I agree with Mr. Silberstein that there are a lot more homes between Swinton and Seacrest that should be protected. Chairman Perez advised we are here to make a recommendation to City Commission. I am concerned about recommending something that the homeowners are totally opposed to. Ms. Schatz advised in looking at the map that was handed out, there were several homeowners who were not involved in the voting process. There was only a select group that was polled. Mr. Christensen advised that there are several duplexes owned by out of state owners. General discussion with the Board members continued. It was moved by Mr. Silberstein, seconded by Ms. Reich, and passed 6 to 1 to move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission to establish the following lots in the Historic District: Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west. Seacrest Boulevard on the east, and George Bush Boulevard on the south. 6 • Historic Preservation Board Minutes • November 17, 2004 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 332 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Robert J. Miller, Owner Item Before the Board: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the installation of a 200 square foot shed at the rear of the property. Mr. Adams entered a copy of the project file into the record. The subject property is located on the west side of SE 7th Avenue, between SE 4th Street and SE 3rd Street, and is zoned R-1-AA (Single Family Residential). The property contains an existing single family residence that was built in the Ranch style in 1962. The structure is of CBS. construction with a slab foundation, and is considered a non-contributing building within the Marina Historic District. Over the years a number of repairs and alterations have been made to the site. In June 1989, a COA was submitted for the erection of a 6' high timber stockade fence along the north, south and part of the east boundaries of the property to match the pre-existing fence along the west boundary. This application was later amended to include roof repairs to the property through the removal of the existing white cement roofing tiles and their replacement with an identical tile, and the repair of the flat deck with tar and gravel. Subsequently, staff approved the changes. A more significant COA application was submitted in May 1996 for the enclosure of the car port under the north gable for use as a room and the installation of a decorative balustrade across the front porch roof between the two gables. In June, 1996, the Board approved the alterations and a recent inspection confirmed that the car port has been enclosed but the balustrade has not been constructed. The current proposal is for the construction of a wooden framed storage shed in the rear yard of the property 13' to the north of the south boundary fence. The shed will measure 20' long by 10' wide and approximately 8.5' in height to the mean of the hipped roof. The frame will be faced with vertically fixed timber board cladding which is to be painted white, and the roof will be covered with tin which will also be white in color. There is to be a timber French door with six glazed panels to the front (north) elevation of the shed facing the pool, and access will also be gained to the rear of the structure by a 6 over 6 panel solid timber door. The fenestration will include 2 small windows to the rear and one side of the structure and the applicant has stated that there will also be two small windows to the front façade at either side of the door. Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. The applicant was not present. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. Ms. Dersh drove by the house and advised you would not be able to see the shed from the street. 7 r Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 r Mr. Silberstein advised he also drove past the house and saw a wood fence. He asked Mr. Adams how high the fence was. Mr. Adams advised it was 6' high. The structure would be 8.5' to the mean and the door will be 6' high. Mr. Silberstein's concern is that when this goes to the Building Department will Mr. Adams make sure that the mean is going to be 8.5'. Mr. Adams advised he will. Mr. Adams advised the building would be white with a tin roof, and it is set back 99' from the road. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller, and approved 6 to 1 to move approval of the COA for 332 SE 7th Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J)(5) and 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations. B. 335 SE 7th Avenue, Marina Historic District, Maura Dersh, Agent. Ms. Dersh stepped down. Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of a 487 square foot addition to the existing noncontributing dwelling. Mr. Tefft entered a copy of the project file into the record. Add from staff report. The subject property consists of Parcel C, Riekse Replat, and is zoned R-1-AA (Single-Family Residential). The property is located on the east side of SE 7th Avenue, approximately 70' north of SE 4th Street within the Marina Historic District. On November 13, 1990, the City Commission approved the Riekse Replat, which subdivided two (2) lots into three (3) lots. The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 487 square foot addition for the dwelling. A 37 square foot addition housing a spiral staircase will be constructed on the north side of the existing covered entry. The new staircase will lead to a proposed 450 square foot second floor bedroom/bathroom addition. The proposal also includes a modification of the north roof line to accommodate an extension of the second floor terrace (280 square feet). Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Perez closed the Public Hearing, and asked if there were any comments from the Board. There were none. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Mr. Miller, and passed 6 to 0 to move approval of the COA for 335 SE 7th Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.6(J) (5) and 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations. 8 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments: Mr. Frank Hunter advised when he made his comments earlier he was speaking about the process. This process has been going on since August 16, 2004 when met Ms. Shay. She advised me that a consultant's report had.been done, and she advised I attend the Board meetings. I have done so ever since. It was not my intent to single out Mr. Adams. He has been very helpful and polite, nor did I bring any intent on Denise. I commend the Board and staff for their dedication. Chairman Perez asked if there were any comments from the Board. Mr. Miller had hoped that the public were more aware of this designation. Ms. Lake advised historically the designation works. It is a positive designation for the area. All the areas that have been designated are very successful. Mr. Silberstein advised we need the right direction in order to protect Swinton Avenue. Ms. Dersh advised that anyone who wishes to become a member of a Board can go to City Hall and volunteer. Mr. Scott Christensen advised that the overlay of the beach area would be guidelines, it is adapting it to the neighborhood. It would be adapted to the neighborhood. Mr. Costello advised the decision tonight was a good evaluation and compromise. The inventory is much greater between Swinton and Seacrest. As far as the concerns regarding the district, at the staff level we look at approved COA's and whether or not we can streamline the process. In 2003 we amended the Design. Guidelines and looked at staff approving COA's. We may take a look at colors that is something you do not need a permit for. You can always change your paint color. Commercial properties and multi-family come before the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board. We are going to look at that so it is not perceived to be such an issue. Chairman Perez agreed with Mr. Costello. B. Report from Historic District Representatives: None C. Board Members: Mr. Miller advised we needed community support for this new designation. Ms. Lake advised historically speaking the designation works. Mr. Silberstein feels that we made the right decision regarding the designation. 9 Historic Preservation Board Minutes November 17, 2004 Chairman Perez advised this will go to the City Commission and they will make the right decision. Ms. Dersh advised that this Board is an all-volunteer one and anyone can go to the City and apply for membership on a Board. Mr. Christensen advised that the Beach Overlay that they are talking about would be guidelines. It is not accepting it as written. Heights might be different, we can use it as a template. D. Staff: Mr. Costello advised the Board's decision was a good compromise. Regarding the boundaries of the District, based on the map the inventory is greater between Swinton and Seacrest. At the staff level we will look at the staff approved COA's items we review and whether or not we can do modifications. Last year we did amend the Design Guidelines. We may take a look at colors. The commercial districts have to go before SPRAB or HPB. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for November 17, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 10 S MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA MEETING DATE: December 1, 2004 LOCATION: First Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeffrey Silberstein, Randee Schatz, Michelle Reich and Linda Lake MEMBERS ABSENT: Francisco Perez-Azua, Maura Dersh, and John Miller STAFF PRESENT: Warren Adams, Robert Tefft, Denise Valek, and Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Silberstein at 6:10 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. Vice Chairman Silberstein read a summary of the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures. The Notary swore in individuals for testimony. Mr. Silberstein advised that Item III. B. Mako Technologies, 145 N. Swinton Avenue was postponed until the December 15, 2004 Board Meeting as he had to step down and therefore we would not have a quorum. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake and passed 4 to 0 to approve the Minutes of October 6, 2004 and October 20, 2004 as written. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Salon 301, 301 West Atlantic Avenue, West Settlers Historic District, Evelyn Jones, Owner Item Before the Board: Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the change of color of an awning on a commercial building. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there were any ex-parte communications. There were none. Mr. Adams presented the item to the Board and entered a copy of the project file into the record. t Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 The property is a first floor commercial unit of the Atlantic Grove development on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, between NW 3rd Avenue and NW 4th Avenue. The building was constructed earlier this year and is a non-contributing building in the West Settlers Historic District. The area is zoned Central Business District (CBD). On October 27, 2004, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) reviewed and approved an application for this property for an awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a COA application for the color change as the property forms part of the West Settlers Historic District and requires approval by the Historic Preservation Board. The applicant was not present, and advised Mr. Adams that he was flexible and he referred the decision to the Board. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if the Board had any comments. The Board discussed the issue and concurred that the present red and white striped awnings do not complement the building, and the green/olive and black-striped awnings would complement the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the Board. Ms. Rosalind Russell advised the color should be more urban than red and white and the green and black is more suited to the building. Vice Chairman Silberstein closed the public hearing. It was moved by Ms. Schatz, seconded by Ms. Lake, and approved 4 to 0 to move approval of the awning color change from red and white stripes to green/olive and black stripes on the non-contributing building at 301 West Atlantic Avenue, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E) (8) (g) of the Land Development Regulations. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Hammad Shoppes, 139 NW 5th Avenue, West Settler's District, Amiad Hammad, Owner Item Before the Board: Consideration of a conceptual plan associated with the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition and associated site improvements for an existing commercial building. Vice Chairman Silberstein inquired if there were any comments from staff. The subject property consists of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Block 27, and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The property is located at the southeast corner of NW 5th Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) within the West Settlers Historic District. The property contains a 3,413 square foot commercial building with six 2 l Historic Preservation Board Minutes • December 1, 2004 (6) back-out parking spaces on NW 5th Avenue and another four (4) back-out parking spaces on NW 2nd Street. Pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.1(A), a potential developer may request an audience before the appropriate development board for an informal, non- binding, concept plan review of a potential development proposal. The Board shall review and comment on the development concept at a duly noticed public meeting. There shall be no action taken by the Board nor shall there be any written report resulting from discussions at the meeting which may be construed to be a preliminary approval of the development concept. The Board should provide the applicant with comments and direction on the concept plan. Provided below is a description of the conceptual plan and a list of discussion items and concerns that staff has identified with the review of the conceptual plan. The conceptual plan depicts proposed modifications to the site consisting of the construction of a 1,509 square foot addition at the rear of the existing commercial building, the construction of ten (10) back-out parking spaces on the adjoining alley, the construction of a refuse enclosure adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street), the elimination of the six (6) back-out parking spaces along NW 5th Avenue, and changes to the architectural elevations of the existing building. The development proposal also includes the installation of a handicap accessible parallel parking space along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (NW 2nd Street) and four (4) standard parallel parking spaces along NW 5`h Avenue. The parking spaces within the adjacent rights-of- way are associated with the NW 5th Avenue streetscape improvements. Mr. Hammad advised that they had several meetings with the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Planning & Zoning Department regarding the alleys, setbacks, parking and the landscaping. We then did an architectural plan. We are here tonight for the Board to look at the plan to see if we are on the right track before we proceeded to site plan approval. Mr. Silberstein questioned if they got feedback from other Boards or staff. Mr. Hammad met with Mr. Jeffrey Costello, and advised that we present this to the Historic Preservation for discussion purposes. Mr. Silberstein advised that they are here regarding the aesthetic issues, and not the technical points. Ms. Schatz advised she is concerned because the applicant hasn't seen this before tonight, and gives an unfair advantage. If he hasn't seen it, I can't comment whether it is appropriate or not. Mr. Silberstein advised a lot of these issues are technical items that can be resolved. He is here tonight to get our consensus. He also advised there is nothing in the LDR's that states it has to be compatible with the neighborhood, or blend in with the neighboring buildings. It is a matter of whether or not we like the aesthetics of the building. Ms. Schatz advised she couldn't give an opinion, as it is a preliminary sketch. 3 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 Mr. Hammad showed the Board a schematic of the building. Ms. Schatz advised after looking at the schematic she had a better concept of what the building would look like. Ms. Reich asked what was the total square feet of the building. Mr. Hammad advised the addition was 1,500 sq. ft. in the back and presently the building has 3,414 sq. ft. Ms. Schatz inquired regarding the design of the columns. Mr. Tefft showed the Board samples of the materials. Mr. Silberstein advised his concern was the setbacks, and the addition should be put in the front of the building. We need to get more mass in the front so the buildings are aligned on the street. Another way to do this is to put a loggia in front of the building so it is more pedestrian friendly. Dimension needs to be added, as it is a very flat building. Perhaps you can add a tower element or put a mansard roof on and create more of an architectural feel to this building. My concern is the front setback. It is good for the tenant to be closer to the street. Ms. Lake advised this building has no character. It is not historic, vernacular or Mediterranean. Mr. Hammad advised there is a business presently operating in the building. Mr. Silberstein advised they have flexibility that should not disrupt the business. Board discussion ensued regarding the color, the front setbacks, the percentage of glass allowed on a storefront, and the parking. Mr. Tefft advised that glass is not an issue on this building. Mr. Hammad advised they are putting impact glass on the building. Ms. Russell advised she appreciated all the comments, however, you cannot compare Fifth Avenue Northwest to Atlantic Avenue — it is not the same. We are attempting to create a Pineapple Grove along NW 5th Avenue. I think changing the roof is a good idea. This street is in need of help. I think your suggestions have been beneficial. Mr. Silberstein advised if this is done right it will promote better development for the future. 4 Historic Preservation Board Minutes December 1, 2004 • V. REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Public Comments Ms. Aleida Riley, Palm Square, discussed the house that is being renovated at 33/33- 1/2 Palm Square. Although they have spent a lot of money on the house, if something can be done to tone down the colors it would be appreciated. The colors are shocking pink, royal blue, green and orange. This house does not fit in the historic district. The two large trees in front were cut; the driveway was taken out and replaced with brick. Mr. Adams advised he did see the building. Mr. Tefft advised that Code Enforcement would have to take action on this. Mr. Adams advised he would speak to the owners and get them to tone down the colors. Mr. Silberstein advised there should be something done about this home. Ms. Riley inquired about the restaurant on 7th Avenue—they were not supposed to get a CO until they covered their air conditioning units on the roof. Mr. Tefft was not involved in this project, but will check into this. B. Reports from Historic District Representatives - None C. Board Members - None D. Staff VI. ADJOURNMENT The Board made a motion to adjourn at 6:57 p.m. The information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for December 1, 2004, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on Denise A. Valek If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 5 DLLR YBU.cF1 - ouaara Ath �- HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ffi MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORTc 1993 1993 Agent: Chris Curtis Project Name: 222 Palm Court Location: Southeast side of Palm Court between NE 2nd Avenue and George Bush Boulevard. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of storm protection on a non-contributing 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 sq.ft. It is considered a non- contributing building in the Del-Ida Park Historic District and is currently zoned Residential Office (RO). There are no recent administrative or Board actions pertaining to this property. The current proposal involves the installation of aluminum accordion shutters to the windows of a non-contributing office building. The shutters will be ivory in color to match the building and, although they will be rolled back from the windows when not in use, they will be permanently attached to the building. 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: Meeting Date: January 19,2005 Agenda Item: III.A. 222 Palm Court, Storm protection Page 2 • Window shutters that are removable are preferred. • If the tracks are to be installed year-round, they should be painted to match the exterior surface. • Accordion or roll-down shutters should only be considered when they are in locations not visible from the public right-of-way. Analysis Removable hurricane shutters are the preferred option for buildings in historic areas, however, the installation of permanent shutters can be considered in this case. The building is a non-contributing office and the shutters to the rear and southwest of the building will not be visible from the public right-of-way while most of those that will be installed in the front façade will be screened by an arcade. It is recommended, however, that removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. The project, as proposed, can therefore be supported based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Sections 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines once the condition, as stated above, is addressed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to conditions. C. Deny 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 inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Move approval of the COA for 222 Palm Court by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(g) of the Land Development Regulations and the Delray Beach Design Guidelines, subject to the following condition: 1) That removable storm panels be installed for the windows at the front of the property which are not screened by the arcade and that the tracks or channels be painted to match the exterior of the building. Attachments: Location Map, Photograph, Shutter Location Plan Report Prepared by: Warren Adams, Historic Preservation Planner et • 1 I I ,M111111111111 j 0 I I I I II . N.W. 11TH ST. N.E. 11TH ST. I .... -ti Li II lill I 1 -..:( 1 jy ) i. 1 I La 5"C- - - N.E. 10TH ST. I - c) e oII Li , 0.1 if? I n 4111\ Ma — Z N.E. 9TH ST. MEI i- N.W. 9TH ST. INN —. w 1 . IMIII___ Li I 1 IMIIII _ < MIMNI— t....i N.W. 8 H . . —0 GEORGE • a BOULEVARD z \ I / I I . , L., 1 I . • .a MI OHM I .._., EMI g‘':\\\ , \. N.W. 7TH ST. \ ---, N.E. 7TH ST. I I 1 a \ Z cn Ellillni . N.E. 7TH ST. —..., N.W. 6TH ST. c)' — ,____.___.\ ,_._....._ \ N.E. 6TH ST. 1 2 z 1 I . . /: c.j.,. D 0 GO CO = 1--- S I— \ I i I e-c3K) D 0 IX 0 cn z. i 1 • ., N.E. 5TH TERR. c) cc 1 N.E. 6TH ST. ZOO LANE I \ I I i ....) . ' i N.E. 5TH CT. i• ' 0 miN.E. ma5TH ST. ., s\ 7 / I I c) ..x. . z NM z \ c TRINITY N.E. 5TH ST. I LUTHERAN 1=1 = Ui cri . _ I LAKE IDA ROAD _Hi N.E. 4TH ST. , ST_ POST — CASON OFFICE _ 1 METHODIST i >1 >: i CHURCH u; L,i t, = a= —i. a a < < V) Z < << .-- CV y-j_ D x 0 _ - 1.1.1 w Z cn i a rzl cv Li Li t...i— w w ' Z Z z N --somm--- DEL-IDA PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FL PLANNING lc ZONING DEPARTMENT • — DIGITAL 84SE AMP SritAI -- DRAWN BY: NPT _. IN . OK A511 Ak in LIT* Zi - 2)9 ' ,a" a4" , ' .. —5- 1 L �34'; 7 s 1 cg, so" a • r► a 1 sq © © ® ® m O t® � .. STe.R.ter.i tLo2or 222. !PALM C CLJ T' 'le DE_L. Y t EAc.1.1 , F'�. 333 M . R.. 1-(1. 151 > LoscA..o o 32" HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: January 19, 2005 • AGENDA ITEM: Ill. B. ITEM: HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue) — Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness Associated with a Demolition Request, Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Design Elements for the construction of a three-story mixed- use (retail/residential) development. i — _ N.W. 2ND ST. N.E. 2ND __ GENERAL DATA: Owner Kenneth Van Arnem i E on' C - Agent/Applicant . George Brewer , HALL Location 12 SE 1st Avenue Property Size 0.294 Acres - Future Land Use Map Other Mixed Use (OMU) N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. 3 -- Current Zoning Old School Square Historic Arts z z - . —Z District (OSSHAD) o z —" •djacent Zoning North: OSSHAD ~ — South: OSSHAD — ow East: Central Business District (CBD) 3 SCHOOL - ' f West: OSSHAD US SQUARE z Existing Land Use Single-Family Dwelling ATLANTIC AVENUE Proposed Land Use Mixed-Use-(Retail/ Residential) ( I — Water Service Via Service Lateral Connection to — a New 8" Water Main to be 1 — iimi mil : g. Located Within the Alley Abutting 1aENI the North Side of the Property 1 Sewer Service Via Service Lateral Connection to f— _Z the Existing 8" Sanitary Sewer -S.W. 1ST ST. S.E. 1ST ST. Main Located Within the .Alley! Q 1 Abutting the West Side of the Property N • S.W.'- 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. • :_;111111lIII Ili 1 S w 3R0 ST. S.E. 3RD a.k S. iiiiu �.1 II III. B. 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 HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5(F): 0 Demolition Request; O Class V Site Plan; O Landscape Plan; and O Design Elements The subject property is located on the east side of SE 1st Street, approximately 156' south of East Atlantic Avenue, within the Old School Square Historic District. BACKGROUND. Zoned Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), the 0.294 acre property consists of Lots 23 and 24, Block 69, Subdivision of Block 69, and contains a 954 square foot single-family dwelling and an accessory 468 square foot garage. According to the City's records, the single-family dwelling was constructed in 1919, remodeled in 1943, and then remodeled again in 1981. The garage was constructed in 1951 and was remodeled along with the single-family dwelling in 1981. Based upon the amount of renovation work conducted on the structures, the subject property is considered a noncontributing property within the Old School Square Historic District. It is noted that both the single- family dwelling and the garage have been used as business offices. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in association with a Class V site plan application which includes the following: CI Demolition of the extant noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage; O Construction of a three-story, mixed-use (retail and residential) building. The first level will consist of 2,100 square feet of retail floor area and six (6) garage parking spaces for the dwelling units. The second and, third levels will each consist of four (4) two-bedroom dwelling units (8 units total) ranging between 1,270 and 1,307 square feet; O Construction of a 15-space double-loaded parking lot at the rear of the property with access from the adjoining north alley, and three (3) parking spaces that back-out on the adjoining north alley; and, 17 Construction of a refuse enclosure at the southwest corner of the property and the installation of associated landscaping. In addition to the above, the COA also includes internal adjustment and waiver requests to the following sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDR): O An internal adjustment to reduce the required stacking distance between the north alley and the first parking space within the rear parking lot from 20' to 5' [LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1)]; O A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5" [LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (4) (c)]; O A waiver to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot [LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (1)]; Meeting Date:January 19,2005 Agenda Item: III. B. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 2 O A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent north alley from 5' to 4'-6 and the adjacent west alley from 5' to between 2'-6" and 3'-5" [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a)]; and O A waiver to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2' [LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d)]. 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. The application was submitted prior to the effective date of the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines (June 3, 2004). The following table indicates that the proposal meets and/or exceeds the requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4(K) as it pertains to the CBD zoning district: Standard Provided Building Height(max.): 48' 48' Building Setbacks (min.): Front(East) 10' 10' Rear(West) 10' 45' Side Interior(South) 0' 0' Side Street(North) 10' 10' Open Space: 10% 12.2% Minimum Floor Area: Two Bedroom 900 sq. ft. 1,270 sq. ft. LDR Section 4.4.13—Central Business District: Density: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(B) (4), multiple family dwelling units are allowed as a permitted use up to a maximum density of 30 units per acre. The subject property is 0.273 acres and eight (8) dwelling units are proposed; thus resulting in a density of 27.21 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the aforementioned section of the LDR. Supplemental District Regulations: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G) (1) (a), within that portion of the CBD bounded by Swinton Avenue on the west, NE 1st Street on the north, the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, and SE 1st Street on the south, the parking requirements for all non-residential uses, except restaurants, shall be one (1) space for each 300 square feet of floor area or fraction thereof. Additionally, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G) (1) (e), the parking requirement for two-bedroom dwelling units within a mixed-use building is 1.75 spaces per unit and 0.5 spaces of guest parking per unit. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 3 The development proposal consists of 2,100 square feet of ground level retail floor area and eight (8) two-bedroom dwelling units (second and third levels). Based upon the above, 25 parking spaces would be required. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C) (8) (a), the minimum parking requirement for mixed-use buildings in the CBD shall be determined by the peak parking demand period. For projects approved using this methodology any assignment of parking spaces to individual residential or non-residential uses shall require approval of the reviewing Board. The peak demand period for this project is the period from 6:00 PM to Midnight during weekdays. The following shared parking table has been modified to reflect the uses associated with the development proposal and to depict the resulting parking requirement within the timeframe: Use Base Parking Requirement Weekday-Evening Shared Parking Requirement 6 P.M.to Midnight Residential 6 90% 5.4 Commercial/Retail 7 90% 6.3 Other* 12 100% 12 Total Required Parking: 23.7(24) *-The spaces indicated in this rows are extracted from the base parking requirements as reserved parking spaces. Based upon the above, 24 parking spaces are required for the development proposal and 24 parking spaces have been provided; thus compliance with the above referenced sections of the LDR has been achieved. LDR Article 4.6—Supplemental District Regulations: Refuse Enclosure: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(C) (1), dumpsters, recycling containers and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sides with vision obscuring gates on the fourth side, unless such areas are not visible from any adjacent public right-of-way. The development proposal includes the construction of a six foot (6') high concrete block enclosure at the southwest corner of the property with access from the adjoining alley. The enclosure will have the required vision obscuring gates consisting of _ awning fabric over chain link gates, and will provide adequate area for the accommodation of the necessary recycling containers. The gates are designed so they will not encroach into the alley when open. There is a concern that the refuse enclosure may need to be reoriented to face north in order to be accessible to Waste Management vehicles. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the refuse enclosure is reoriented to face north unless a letter is provided from Waste Management Services indicating that the proposed orientation is acceptable. 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 and wall mounted light fixtures proposed for this development, and while both of the chosen styles are highly decorative, the wall-mounted fixtures are perhaps too contemporary for the style of architecture of the building. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that a more compatible style of wall-mounted fixture is chosen. According to the photometric plan included with the submittal, the proposed light fixtures will be mounted at a height of 18', thereby complying with the above maximum height requirement. While, the photometric plan is in compliance with the illumination level requirements of LDR Section 4.6.8, no indication was made as to the provision of cut-off shielding for those fixtures located along the perimeter of the development, which must be provided and is attached as a condition of approval. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 4 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. The development proposal has included a bicycle parking facility (bike rack) adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. However, it would seem more appropriate to relocate this facility away from the walkway directly in front of the retail uses. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is located on the south side of the east-west walkway at the northeast corner of the property. Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1), the minimum distance between the abutting alley right- of-way to the north (following dedication) and the first parking space in a parking lot containing between 21 and 50 parking spaces shall be 20'. The parking area contains 21 spaces and the proposed stacking distance between abutting alley to the north and the first parking space within the parking area is only five feet (5'). Thus, the applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the stacking distance 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 parking lot associated with the waiver request consists of 21 parking spaces and is thus required to provide a stacking distance of 20' between the abutting right-of-way and the first parking space in the lot. The proposal only exceeds the threshold by one (1) space and is located within the Central Business District where there is a great demand for parking. Also, the access to the parking area is provided from the adjoining alley to the north and the transition of incoming traffic onto the site should not result in the stacking of vehicles into the alley in a manner that would create a safety concern. Given the circumstances involved in this request, the waiver is supportable. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. Dead-End Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (4) (c), dead-end parking bays shall be designed so that there is a 24' wide by six foot (6') deep maneuvering area at the end of the bay. The development proposal has provided a 24' wide by three foot-five inch (3'-5") deep maneuvering area for the southernmost parking spaces. Thus, the applicant has requested that an internal adjustment be granted to reduce the maneuvering area dimensions accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 5 Internal Adjustment Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(C) (5), concurrent with granting relief from a development standard or regulation, the granting body must find that such relief does not diminish the practical application of the affected regulation (requirement) and that by granting such relief a superior development product will result. As noted, the dead-end parking bay has provided adequate width while providing only three feet-five inches (3'-5") of depth. The full maneuvering area depth could have been provided; but this would have required the total elimination of the landscape area separating the drive aisle and the abutting property to the south (approved Block 69 Parking Garage). As it stands, the applicant has chosen to provide a reduced maneuvering area and landscape area rather than no landscape area at all. While the entire depth technically has not been provided, the rear of the vehicle will extend into the landscape area. In essence, adequate maneuvering will be provided while providing landscaping in an area where it normally would not be provided, which will result in a superior product. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(C) (5) can be made. Visibility at Intersections: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (1), where an accessway intersects a public right-of-way a 20' sight visibility triangle shall be provided. The northwest corner of the proposed building encroaches into the required sight visibility triangle reducing it to a dimension of ten feet (10'). Thus, the applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the maneuvering area 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. From the drivers' position in the vehicle, there will be clear sight visibility in excess of 20' to both the east and the west when stopped at the north end of the property. As alleys typically receive local traffic and not through traffic, the speed of traffic traversing the alley is greatly reduced. Given these conditions, the reduction of the sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' for the intersection of the drive aisle and the abutting alley to the north is appropriate. Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, or diminish the provision of public facilities. Given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested, and that similar waivers have been granted elsewhere under similar circumstances, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. 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 Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 151 Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 6 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 as part of the associated plat for the development. 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 north and west currently have a dedicated right-of-way width of 16'. The full width of the north alley is paved; however only 10.5' of the west alley is paved. The development proposal will provide access to the parking lot off the abutting alley to the north and refuse pick-up off the abutting alley to the west. The City Engineer and DSMG have determined that the width of the alley should be expanded to a width of 20', which is consistent with the widths that have been provided with recent redevelopment proposals. Therefore, a dedication of two feet (2') for both alleys from the subject property is required to be made as part of the associated plat for the development. It is noted that the full width of the alley (following dedication)will need to be paved and 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 development proposal includes the installation of a five foot (5') wide paver brick sidewalk as described above, as well as a sidewalk directly in front of the retail storefronts in order to facilitate pedestrian traffic. It is suggested and attached as a condition of approval that this pedestrian walkway is extended to connect to the east- west sidewalk at the northeast corner of the property and further that the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated. Undergrounding of Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. The proposed utilities associated with the development have been depicted as being located underground (sheet CP1); therefore compliance with this section of the LDR has been achieved. Plat: As the development proposal necessitates the dedication of various rights-of-way as well as incorporating two (2) lots of record, the properties must be platted. The recordation of a plat prior to the issuance of a building permit is attached as a condition of approval. 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: 1. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3 (F) (4), provide a composite utility plan depicting the locations of all existing and proposed utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cable, and drainage). The Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan,Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 7 composite plan shall be signed by a representative of each utility provider attesting to the fact that services can be accommodated as shown on the composite utility plan. The composite plan shall address the responsibility for relocation of existing services and installation of new services; 2. Health Department permits are required for this project. Provide copies of the water permit and sewer permit; 3. Add a Pigging Wye at the new alley water main connection with water main located within SE 1st Avenue; 4. It appears that the landscaping conflicts with grades shown on west property line. Verify that the development plans and cross-sections agree with one another; 5. The landscape nodes on SE 1st Avenue must be at 45 degrees miter; 6. The parking requirements noted in the site data table are not accurate and must be revised; 7. Pursuant to FPL, the provision of a pad-mounted transformer will be necessary for this development. Depict the location of this pad-mounted transformer on all of the site development plans, and ensure that there are no conflicts with sight visibility and that the transformer is located to the rear of the property; and 8. 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 Perrigrine and Yellow Trumpet trees and Triple Montgomery Palms (16' — 18' in height) along the east elevation of the building with underplantings consisting of Dwarf Firebush, Green Island Ficus, Heliconia and Lantana. The landscaping along the north elevation of the building will consist of Traveler's and Triple Montgomery Palms with underplantings of Heliconia and Macho Fern. The parking area at the west side of the property will be landscaped with Sabal and Triple Montgomery Palms, Green Buttonwood trees, and Hong Kong Orchid trees with underplantings of Dwarf Firebush, Cocoplum and Ficus hedges. The proposed landscaping along the parking area will also provide a buffer to the refuse enclosure located at the southwest corner of the property. The landscape plan indicates a Green Buttonwood tree directly on the south property line; however the tree can not be accommodated at this location as the width of the landscape area is insufficient (discussed later) and the canopy will be obstructed by the approved Block 69 Parking Garage structure on the adjacent property. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that, if possible, a Traveler's Palm or another type of vertical element is provided in place of the Green Buttonwood tree, or that the landscape area is left without a tree. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(D) (4) (b), trees shall not be planted within ten feet (10') of any underground utility. The proposed underground electric, cable television, and phone lines will run almost directly beneath a proposed Hong Kong Orchid tree, which will result in conflicts with the root ball and therefore the utilities should be shifted adjacent to the refuse area to eliminate the conflict. Additionally, the proposed water meters and their associated service lines (northeast corner of the site) are within ten feet (10') of a proposed Green Buttonwood tree and a Triple Montgomery Palm and will need to be relocated to comply with the aforementioned provision, which is attached as a condition of approval. It is noted that the location of the Hong Kong Orchid tree on the northeast side of the refuse enclosure appears to be a good location to set the transformer. 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. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 8 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. The development proposal has provided for a landscape barrier of 4'-6" adjacent to the abutting north alley and a landscape barrier between 2'-6" and 3'-5" adjacent to the abutting west alley. Thus, the applicant has requested that a waiver 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. With regard to the landscape barrier adjacent to the north alley, it is deficient by only six inches (6"). Therefore, it is recommended that rather than approve a waiver to reduce the width of the landscape barrier, that the parking tier is instead shifted six inches (6") to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2'-6" to 2'. Given that the water meters will be located at the north edge of the landscape strip, further reduction of the landscape area is inappropriate. The above modification has been attached as a condition of approval and would eliminate the need for a waiver to the landscape barrier abutting the north alley. With regard to the landscape barrier adjacent to the west alley, the majority of the landscape barrier would have been met the minimum width without the dedication of two feet (2') of right-of-way having been required. However, as proposed the landscape barrier can still accommodate the necessary landscape materials, thus the reduction will not negatively impact the intent of the code. It is noted that a minimal amount of additional area can be acquired for the landscape barrier through the elimination of the proposed header curb abutting the parking spaces. This curb is redundant as wheel stops are being proposed; therefore the elimination of the header curb is attached as a condition of approval. Thus, it is suggested that a modified waiver request be approved with a reduction from 5' to between 3' and 3'-11". Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, or diminish the provision of public facilities. Given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. 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 abutting property. The development proposal has provided a landscape barrier of only 2' between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the south. Thus, the applicant has requested that a waiver be granted to reduce the landscape barrier dimension accordingly. The following is an analysis of that request: As discussed previously in regard to the internal adjustment for the maneuvering area, the full landscape barrier or maneuvering area could be provided on site; however to do so would negate the provision of the other in its entirety. The reduced landscape area will still be of sufficient width to accommodate the required hedge material necessary to provide screening of the vehicular use area. However, it is again noted that the abutting property is the site of the approved Block 69 Parking Garage. Thus, the subject landscape area will screen the base of the garage. To provide the Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 9 required width would result in the elimination of the maneuvering area in its entirety or the elimination of a required parking space. Given these conditions, the reduction of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent property to the south from 5'to 2' is appropriate. Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, or diminish the provision of public facilities. Given the conditions under which this waiver is being requested it is reasonable to believe that the waiver would be granted elsewhere under similar circumstances. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5) can be made. Landscape Plan 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: 1. The applicant shall provide landscape calculations for the proposed landscape plan; and 2. A proposed Sabal Palm along the south property line had been misidentified as a proposed Green Buttonwood tree. 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: 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) 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: Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 15t Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 10 (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings. (b) Front Façade Proportion: The front façade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other adjoining buildings within a historic district. (h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of a historic site, building, or structure within a historic district. Q) Scale of a Building: The size of a building, the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, and porches shall be visually compatible with the building size and building mass of historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines include the following with regard to new construction/infill development: All new construction should compliment the historic architecture of the district. The relationship of that new construction adjacent to the significant historic resources can either enhance or detract from the historic setting of the district. Recommended Approaches to New Construction: O The height of any new buildings should be similar to those of other buildings along the streetscape. O The new construction shall be compatible with the width of the surrounding buildings. O Roof forms and pitch should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. El Windows types and patterns, as well as their general placement, should be similar to surrounding buildings. Analysis: The applicant has proposed a three-story building designed as a contemporary interpretation of the Vernacular architectural style with Floribbean elements consisting of retail storefronts along the first level east elevation and a flat roof with decorative parapets designed to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The building also includes balconies with decorative railings, French doors and Bahama shutter style awnings for the second and third level dwelling units; stair towers with standing seam metal roofs; decorative wall-mounted light fixtures; and Bahama shutter style garage doors on the first level west elevation. With regard to the height, the proposed building will be 38' to the top of the roof deck and 48' to the mean roof height of the stair towers. The approved Block 69 parking garage immediately to the south will also have a height of 38' with towers extending to 48'. Also located in the Old School Square Historic District within the same block are the 24' high Leviathan Building (southeast corner of Swinton Avenue and Atlantic Avenue), the 32' high Masonic Lodge (southwest corner of SE 1st Street and Atlantic Avenue) along with other contributing two-story buildings along Atlantic Avenue. To the east of the subject property is the 48' high GRIP Building and the approved Worthing Place development located across SE 1st Avenue and having a height of 58' with 48' abutting SE 1st Avenue. The proposed development will be similar or lesser in height and scale as the surrounding developments, and will be consistent with the continuing development patterns along SE 1st Avenue. However, there are concerns with respect to the verticality (massing) of the facade along SE 1st Avenue (east elevation). While the Worthing Place development is 48' in height along SE 1st Avenue, facade offsets and plane changes were provided. With regard to this proposal, consideration should be given to increasing the offsets and providing awnings along the first floor. Also, providing a stucco band between the second and third levels should be considered as well as brackets for the balconies, and a Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 11 material change between the first level and the upper levels. The proportion of the windows [ref.: LDR Section 4.5.1(E) (8) (c)] on the sides of the French doors are inconsistent with the height and size within the district. Thus, applications such as framing or muntins should be considered. There was some concern expressed by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) at their meeting of October 14, 2004, that the south elevation of the building may need to be modified and an alternative elevation provided should the aforementioned Block 69 Parking Garage not be constructed. Development of the parking garage,while having not yet commenced, is moving forward and is fully expected to be completed. Further, both buildings are proposed to be located directly on their common property line (zero lot line). Thus, if any architectural features were to be provided by the subject development along the south side of the building they would only be obscured by the new construction and therefore requiring additional architectural elements to be provided that are knowingly going to be obscured by the forthcoming development is unjustifiable. It is noted that the subject development was submitted prior to the adoption of the Downtown Design Guidelines as well as the approval of the amendments to the LDR concerning the OSSHAD zoning district. Therefore, compliance with the Design Guidelines and OSSHAD text amendment is not required. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with regard to LDR Sections 2.4.6(J) and 4.5.1(E) as well as the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. DEMOLITION FINDINGS As previously noted, the demolition of the extant noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage 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. The applicant has provided the following with regard to the demolition of the extant contributing single- family dwelling: "The existing cottage [single-family dwelling] has no architecturally interesting features, and has been renovated so many times that the original character has been lost. /The cottage]is infested with dry wood termites, and the interior has been completely gutted". As stated by the applicant in the above justification, the extant single-family dwelling and accessory garage have been renovated to such extent that the original architectural character no longer remains. The immediate demolition of the noncontributing structures will not be detrimental to the balance of Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 12 the district. As architectural and historical integrity of the structure are not present, a positive finding can be made with regard to the demolition request. 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) (1) and (4), general retail businesses and multiple-family dwelling units (up to a maximum density of 30 units per acre) 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 LDR Section 3.1.1(A). LDR Section 3.1.1(B) -Concurrencv: As described in Appendix"A", a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water and sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, solid waste and schools. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) -Consistency(Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix"B", a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. 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-I: 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 954 square foot single-family dwelling and a 468 square foot accessory garage. The development proposal includes the demolition of these noncontributing structures and the construction of a three-story, mixed-use (retail / residential) building with parking located at the side and rear of the property. The subject property contains no special physical or environmental characteristics that would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 13 Zoning Designation: Use: North: OSSHAD Art Gallery, Restaurants, Offices South: OSSHAD Single-Family Residence East: CBD Parking Lot West: OSSHAD Business Offices 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. Those properties noted in the above with an OSSHAD zoning designation are subject to those same standards and uses; thus a similar use could be established on any/all of the adjoining properties. Further, the properties to the east across SE 1st Avenue are part of an approved development plan for a five-story mixed-use building known as Worthing Place, and those properties to the south are 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. Open Space and Recreation Element Policy A-3.1: Tot lots and recreation areas serving children from toddlers 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. This policy may be waived for projects in the downtown as the City recognizes that households located in the downtown are likely to have fewer children than those located in suburban settings. Further, land in the downtown is at a premium and it can be cost prohibitive to provide recreational features such as tennis courts, volleyball courts, etc. and there are other cultural and recreational opportunities located in the downtown that are not readily available to residents of suburban apartment complexes. Some of the recreational, cultural and open space opportunities located in proximity to the HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue) development include: Veteran's Park (which includes a large playground and recreational area), the Municipal Beach, the City's Tennis Center, and the Old School Square Cultural Center. As these facilities are located close by the intent of this policy will be met. Based on the above, it is appropriate to waive this requirement to provide these services entirely on site. Housing Element Objective B-2: 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 this Element. Policies, which will implement this objective, include: Housing Element Policy B-2.2: The development of new adult oriented communities within the City is discouraged. New housing developments shall be designed to accommodate households having a range of ages, especially families with children, and shall be required to provide three (3) and four(4) bedroom units and activity areas for children ranging from toddlers to teens. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential development located in the downtown area and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. This project will not be restricted to occupancy by adults only. However, it is acknowledged that downtown dwellings are not typically occupied by households with children. This complex will primarily accommodate young and middle-age professionals. The development will provide eight (8) two-bedroom dwelling units. As allowed by this policy, it is appropriate that there not be a Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1s`Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 14 requirement to provide three (3) and/or four (4) bedroom units and specific activity areas for children as the development consists of less than 25 units. Housing Element Policy B-2.6: Housing in and near the downtown area, in close proximity to employment opportunities and services, is a critical need. In order to help stimulate demand for new housing in and around the Central Business District, the development of new rental housing projects outside of the TCEA and North Federal Highway area is discouraged. The development proposal is consistent with Housing Element Policy B-2.6 as it provides the desired type of residential development within the CBD. Housing Objective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing 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. As discussed previously, the subject property is compatible with the adjacent properties with regard to use. In addition, the development proposal will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area with regard to the criteria stated above (noise, odors, dust, and circulation patterns). Further, while there will be additional traffic generated by the development, the traffic volume should be able to be dispersed by mean of the adjoining alleys to Swinton Avenue and further south on SE 1st Avenue. Therefore, positive findings can be made with regard to Housing Element Policy A-12.3. 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 a both commercial and residential uses. However, all of the abutting properties are permitted by code to have a similar intensity of development and, in fact, the properties to the south and east already have such developments approved. 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). REVIEW BY OTHERS,< ` Community Redevelopment Agency: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered this development proposal at its meeting of October 14, 2004, and recommended approval with the following comments: O Address the technical issues with the site plan; and O Modify the south elevation in the event that the Block 69 Parking Garage is not completed. An alternative elevation may be warranted. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been sent to the following civic associations: O Presidents Council Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 15 0 Progressive Residents of Delray (P.R.O.D.) Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the HPB meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION I. The development proposal involves the demolition of the extant noncontributing single-family dwelling and accessory garage. The structures would be replaced with a three-story mixed-use (retail / residential) development with associated parking and refuse facilities at the rear and side of the development adjacent to the abutting alleys. Also included as part of the development proposal are waiver and internal adjustment requests (stacking distance, maneuvering area, sight visibility, and landscape barrier widths) to which positive findings can be made. However, as stated under the Design Elements Analysis, there are concerns with regard to the building façade along SE 1st Avenue; 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 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 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 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 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 HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Section 4.5.1(F) (1) of the Land Development Regulations. Internal Adjustment and Waivers: A. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c) (1) to reduce the minimum required stacking distance between the right-of-way of the north alley and the first parking space within the parking lot from 20' to 5' by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. B. Move approval of the request for internal adjustment to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (4) (c) to reduce the dimensions of the required 24' x 6' dead-end parking bay maneuvering area to 24' x 3'-5" by Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 151 Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 16 adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(C) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A) (1) to reduce the dimensions of the required sight visibility triangle from 20' to 10' at the northeast corner of the rear parking lot by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. D. Move approval of the modified request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (a) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the adjacent alley to the west from 5' to between 3' and 3'-11" by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. E. Move approval of the request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.16(H) (3) (d) to reduce the required width of the landscape barrier between the off-street parking area and the abutting property to the south from 5' to 2' by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.7(B) (5) of the Land Development Regulations. Site Plan: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated Class V site plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 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 refuse enclosure is reoriented to face north unless a letter is provided from Waste Management Services indicating that the proposed orientation is acceptable; 3. That a wall-mounted fixture is provided that is less contemporary and more in keeping with the architectural style of the building; 4. That the light fixtures around the perimeter of the development are provided with cut-off shielding in order to limit glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties; 5. That the bicycle parking facility (bike rack) is located on the south side of the east-west walkway at the northeast corner of the property; 6. That a 5' right-of-way dedication is provided for SE 1st Avenue; 7. That a 2' right-of-way dedication is provided for each of the abutting alleys; 8. That the full width of the abutting alleys (following dedication) is paved; 9. That the pedestrian walkway directly in front of the retail storefronts is extended to connect to the east-west sidewalk at the northeast corner of the property; 10. That the southernmost portion of the pedestrian walkway (south of the connection to the SE 1st Avenue sidewalk) is eliminated; Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 151 Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 17 11. That the plat for the subject property is recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development proposal or that a waiver is obtained from DSMG; and, 12. That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the site plan. Landscape Plan: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated landscape plan for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request meets the criteria set forth in Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16, subject to the following conditions: 1. That revised plans are submitted addressing the Landscape Plan Technical Items as indicated in the staff report, and the listed conditions; 2. That, if possible, a Traveler's Palm or other vertical element is provided in place of the Green Buttonwood tree along the south property line (adjacent to the parking area), or that the landscape area is left without a tree/palm; 3. That the location of the proposed underground electric, cable television and phone lines is shifted adjacent to the refuse area; 4. That the proposed water meters and their associated service lines (northeast corner of the site) are relocated so as not to be within 10' of any proposed trees/palms; 5. That the landscape architect coordinates with the City Horticulturist in determining the final landscape plan and those modifications made to eliminate landscape and utility conflicts; 6. That the western parking tier is shifted 6" to the south with the distance between the parking tier and the refuse enclosure being reduced from 2'-6"to 2'; 7. That the header curb abutting the western parking tier is eliminated and incorporated into the adjoining landscape area; and 8. That the fire hydrant proposed at the northeast corner of the property is depicted on the landscape plan. Design Elements: Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness and the associated design elements for HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue), by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the building offsets are increased; 2. That awnings are provided along the first floor of the east elevation; 3. That a stucco band is provided between the second and third levels of the building along all elevations; 4. That brackets are provided for each of the balconies; Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 18 5. That a change in materials is provided between the first level and the upper levels; 6. That an application such as framing or muntins should be considered for the windows on the sides of the French doors; and 7. That the emergency overflow scupper is eliminated from the south elevation. Attachments:Survey,Site Plan,Floor Plans,Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Staff Report Prepared by:Robert G. Tefft,Senior Planner Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation (12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 19 APPENDIX"A" • CQNCURRENCY FINDINGS "` Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(B), Concurrency, as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, must be met and a determination made that the public facility, needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide,or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: Water service will be provided via service lateral connection to a new eight inch (8") water main to be located within the alley abutting the north side of the property. The existing two inch (2")water main located in the same alley will be abandoned. Sewer service will be provided via service lateral connection to the existing eight inch (8") sanitary sewer main located within the alley abutting the west side of the property. Adequate fire suppression will be provided via installation of a new fire hydrant at the northeast corner of the subject property. However, it is noted that this new hydrant is not depicted on either the site plan or the landscape plan and must be indicated, which is attached as a condition of approval. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standards. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located in the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), which encompasses the CBD, CBD-RC and OSSHAD zoning districts. The TCEA exempts the above-described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed 2,100 square feet of retail floor area and the eight (8) residential dwelling units will generate approximately 214 additional Average Daily Trips (ADT)over the existing single-family dwelling. Parks and Recreation Facilities: The proposed residential dwelling units will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, a park impact fee of$500.00 per dwelling unit will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit for parks and recreation purposes (a total of $4,000 for the development proposal). Solid Waste: At the highest waste generation rates, the proposed 2,100 square feet of retail floor area will generate 10.71 tons of solid waste per year [2,100 x 10.2 = 21,420 / 2,000 lbs = 10.71 tons] and the proposed two-bedroom apartments (8 total) will generate 4.16 tons of solid waste per year [8 units x 0.52 = 4.16 tons]. Thus, the development proposal will generate a total of 14.87 tons per year (an increase of 12.88 tons over the current use). The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals till the year 2021. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted indicating that drainage will be accommodated via an on-site exfiltration system. It is noted that the south elevation of the building indicates an emergency overflow scupper. This must be modified so it does not overflow onto the abutting property to the south. At this time, there are no problems anticipated meeting South Florida Water Management District requirements. Schools: As the subject property is located in the City's TCEA, this project is exempt from meeting School Concurrency requirements. Historic Preservation Board Staff Report HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request • Page 20 `APPENDIX "B" 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 Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X—This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval have been addressed. 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 Meets intent of standard X 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 HVA Corporation(12 SE 1st Avenue)-Class V Site Plan,Landscape Plan, Design Elements and Demolition Request Page 21 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 Meets intent of standard X 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 Meets intent of standard X 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 Meets intent of standard X 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 Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent > > a ________, L. N.W. 2ND ST. N.E. 2ND ST. o N > > > a . N w I a a 1 D .r o Z Q > 10 a 0 0 - w c z a I M z CITY J 1� D HALL Q 1- J 0 a Ui (i) w z I N.W. 1ST ST. N.E. 1ST ST. 1111 3 z ,- ,_ z o .-. z —� COMMUNITY 0 z- N z —z CENTER - Z _— u TENNIS — OLD la tn.— STADIUM SCHOOL l,i 1IIIP1E cn SQUARE zI I A T L A N TIC AVENUE SOUTH r- COUNTY ����� _ COURT �.w HOUSE '=•!ot N _ w • MI Li /flHW _` Ui D til I i z S.W. 1ST ST. w S.E. 1ST ST. F ui Q z F N B > 3— a 41 = o �' 0 z '7 T N _ I- J— Q— c i , b., — lwi S.W. 2ND ST. S.E. 2ND ST. Z 0 E; i/I/ il I—Ui Z 3U w0 N --mmi- HVA CORPORATION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL 12 SE 1ST AVE. PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: LM805 ----f444--- ee sc .Jn eacnuc --•. ottMr RCA./L 33/a3 _ Pon 301.777.7301 1 ..frt ttGP JAA 'At.7]33777 ew4 POOPAOAKO.COI L /a//1Jf1 �:K. j STORY i^,"py^ BUILDI 1 lb'Up.ALLEY RKFNT CP WY °R� ca i ttALLw0.1A I ...belt !� `vAn 11 tt...c1 Itl ° .n. ,`/ ���'� —*1 ` �Iri'-3�CS;••::»:`:Iiyi1 , • r�,.r �: { �T� STRIPEDETAIL �- �..� I:• ::�� K NG SPACE qq A..�ZIS I:?c i'9s1%J;i'rAi% n7ailir n: 0 '(' us w,: � rl c -1 1 ti 3' s %% a%... Snj ..yx�t I.P fli / {ff Y3rr}rgg.71-�I t_ fl L U j y�.y•,,� `y. : ans, 9 9TOR I T`'ll.e?•I.t i_�,-_ 1 3 '` ul Li. l„ R i' ;t: 'a.. I W 2 NG A BUILD '-1 ar �_. S ACES _ O "24 P •.r.. ��. 0rl r5r - U <LK{;i f r `>IJ! _ L f ;Sy C �� i�r22 a nr M i'i:` t iii �7 5'• .fit'.'•' f... a sirs (' m 5z': r y � I JJ .K • ti iu Xs a K I:ak:o�2�.wc a " :...... •r�!a�iiS9A.. I II � ff++ r I 'may l ,'- •. ..a.. . sv. I _ [ I) II" Je �il' � _ . I �" — it — — —'— — 1., >:r;` : �. ,,,,,_ LOCATION MAP illh IS la 1 I 9 - 01 .AMy ..r Ir+1.iJ 4 i•1 0I I •0 STORY RETAIL NO.i !:: � IDATE11-I.04 • r `>.`jS` .yj,F ttay Kaa rRa aiiT . • °„ , �•':�• �1{•�Tl e7.1:+' TOTAL an AMA.D1)a 1P.f]u ACRl1/ )� ;:t: :'1. it; I I I N TOTAL RLv1410 an AMA.II,R04 al.r]T)ACJQl1 1� �titi>�. :qu3Ptf3 111 p, TOTAL OROWID/LCGR EURDINO FOOTPRINT,)AMP.r)IA g MTEI �.�, �� �� %%•% TOTAL FlR1T MOOR R3RAIL EYILDMO AAl4 7760 M. c{y l C:. iii ::R p „P)it TOTAL IEca+D FLOOR REe10ENT1AL IW LOntl I#V FA76 IP. w TOTAL TN1p iLDD a�a DENTIAL 1YILD W AREA eA70 M. �- ' m' `r ` 1 W TOTAL P1TiTNWNJ 11�A.10O IP. A A . ! / TOTAL a 411.01 O AR/.L ro7Ta or. NORTH/I,. ii .n...R ♦ I TOTAL IaPNA1.T PAFOUNO AND WALKWAY ARlAb r17117.16aA►C/ITO/ ....� 1 1 70TA4 lAJaac.P[D AA[Aa I,AN 00.f D1�a aIT{1 �,F SO' R/W<P) I -— I elre DenaTr 3o uure Poe ACRa•t.N]al.Pf[W T/G.6YaP.•asa uw"a �r---��L��--`-�`-�- 1 I-- PARLF6 PiQIIFiD fOR nEW RHTAM1.IGiFiCR ARYAi•JW/IPER)OOr7 1 e,-i s, A T it iu� I OTAL PARVNO aPAGIa 140111IKD MKD GH bl/Y®PMCNO GALNL4TICHai J).74L Sll'� PLAN (IMPROVED) TOTAAT iA C:e vdeON TOTAL 1TMOARD IPA5Ep PROVIDED 4 1"•10'-0' TOTAL NYO M WAGE,PROVIDED I jTOTN.►ARyNO 1PAf7a P'Ie7vIDED•1A < O1; 1 s. ■■ ` I I]* _ .� ._ j �,,p, 85 SE 11N MOUE DELRAY 8M•IL))IN m.o. PHONE 8E]27).7701 ).•`._ I I rex, em.272.3722 e• I � �. [wlr Mt.auc�..Q.ta I I § I I Illj h 0 L ♦ I WALL MOWO C. ' ,I I KEYPAD MP, //// :A I UP ,..p._r.p•_.�-r.o• °'.p•_� '.p��—v-o a•m,--e•.m" ••m••--e••o• ��1ril I lR k ( ° g A TAIRCA 0 0 iii 1 0 i I�o �� V Q ^�■Ltv YTOR; i� Q •Ermutali,.• ________,,._., g 'C m.iivA' PA LL LL I�ae�is � �r nas_•_ �I ^F # II Ww_ I \\�'FII9 I ® ® IIIO I II4D0I _ _ •� () to W` r 4 e" T°" •,rv`�p°'.,. h NCO M 10 1^ ;� >- J �RwieNeueRa ." oJ\ I1 IriwTl C�i_• � 04 ►' . Ip•.o. °" ip.m - ' • pRLIIYAT01� IAmu ND\ .�la.�Aiai.:u • � �1060 GT•I�- _ �11� • \IDTORA4� o )39 -..COX) �e § I lL�VATOR j o I I©iI i y it �r CI I FIDCP. �� NC'CP. �Q�Q���`� L a RldJIP.RM, - o I�i' NI / r •s =LET .ME ti•+, Iosl \ im'-ro^ )••o' ,to 107I IJ1 I1m9I �\ , L `r• I 1 ..,, �--,e II COMPACT III r ( LI' ��Q\, III Il I it.‘•,,,, ,. l's.-IHR![AM $tL o+o^ WALL I1TP.1 ' - DATE. 12•1.04 I PERMIT NO. REVISIONS RTAIL ISPAGI NO,1 RETAIL!PACE NO,R 104 I IOI I 890 SF. 1,210 SF. k - COMPACT I� - VI.' ` L1—TT1 �� NORTH AIL pr .r.o,.--ie•.r r-p+�—.s, e•.n" m'.n• r.r� G•,o1• ✓r•m,•, v.r--'—.•.°•a.J [,m. i.,p. �.,1. 1.1• - ' w'•o• FIRST FLOOR PLAN Al I I/4"• I'-0" ONY FM ma12431 c 0 ( .BPS n'•r ►•'r• _l ■• .--•,.n• n••v 'o' Tr' P`m• ►'-'� r..�.T—✓,�� s,•r• •-m• r•r•r.m^ s.-s, n•-s• ►'-r' _- . �wOu II I 4rrl'l:��2l1N?e■. f l-Mall lilll IUV•■1�n (''�,,/INI1�I f 4 ® es u �rw ew�E 11■■■■■►�Irlil■■� •. 4 1■■I■ MPLINO■nli ^ ocumr ea.r< 334a, I■�■.'■��■!.,■■ ^ IN■■��■!1� ■��■■� PwONE 361.272.7301 tro• ED ARTNINT I \ i �� MAbtIR MA67IR a,a er. DIDROOM LIVING ARIA 201 LIVING ARIA 1 4 4 12531 12441 •�' I a _.• 758I DATN DINING 4 IA ' ® ® S DINING AIU =-—1 I26 ,grARtMwT EMI S LEII{ Z 201 11,e.P. I256I r a O L21 I q�I Nut I -1---1 I I Nm VI .a- 2 1671 ��1 � I ® � UI V ----„ I I- J ISLLfeHld r, I240 I 1735I J M K!IGtilN1 I _ I �� f b Q I __._ 5-- :-47 1 Z � ° � t '� �Z—_ -- -�- ® ( �■1�.I 74C� 1733, ra p if o- i Vir" W LL 1a 1 r� u � 1r�l•ur ii D 763I I. a E ® rep •iiRe exr6+�. 1 asuri ¢m��rhmili O .'. 4 �I� =a=r==a=a= , ,_._ , ,,,. I Q . . . eoawarrrr�� I I�w�� D r L • .._�_`__ I M e •, w� `I coanwiin� ►•Oda ROLL ORANCORRIDOR _ A„�� QI �M nemv4 �� w, 1!��c �I 1 . 1!��Ifrrl 4 lu�nlw■rUM i. . . ` . d. . . __.. _ ._ . 71f Al �uIYATOR I Mal LITILITY 1 . .r .�' I Im6J 1 105. ...1t I Ce];.• 1 -4%1 OLoein, CLOUT -A ( I I. ;,1 Karailiti 1 Ea® I 1 rm 1 � '� 1737 ®;- © ;I 1711 r�111�1 I. i t4 ° 1 111 I 1 fly f CLobIT, I218I ? : j I I 716°21 1 1 I779I 1 f ° DATE 11.1.0E wut I I I I I I I n PERMITNO. `- DINING ARIA REVISIONS ' DINING ARIA 12081 a' I220I 4 I 705) n I109I 1775I {Q DAM! MA6tIR MAttIR DMA i b • T p6.rARTMWT E DIDROCM j' DIDROOM 1 2261 LIVING ARIA t ` 2A 130,Br. 70INIA 0 gb E® 1 Int II p25 1,10 -- 1 : NORTH pr. IM■I■M1\■■I■■■ 11■1■h■■111 Ir■l►\■rll > iiiiiiiiiniliiiiiiil 1rr1■1■1,AMI■■■N 111111 \/a11 uIN.IL\UIII A III ■■rP%\MIIMIU 12011 Y •'°'— I7m,I —5'1 •.-10• .,m. 2..►. .-o• r•r v.• � r�•v r...._ r-r• •-o• r-r .-m• v-o• n..►. 24.1171 M'-O• SEND FLOOR PLAN ® I , I�7ALCCNY 1/4 ;. 1355I 1351 I 1$40I 1336I ( Q (i . 7]'•T n'.!^ b''10'�i DOL�i�Y 1 —N'.il' n.,b. •.O"J'.b^ '.O"r)'.Y--.—b'.1 V^]'�—V.A' )'.i' 7'.0^ ]'µ• a. 6'.II. i �` ---"� �'t��V.�l tf��fl/.�.a r��1{�► NAI'I�t p I397I Ilwwl7so • 11o�\IWI1IUW1 I�IIIII 1 ��7■IIII>• (IIIr�I■11■�i r es se +TN AVENUE Il�ttt�II�tlIMI /^\ ° ltt!•'��1 __���11•�'A /n` n �IM�t 4MI/H�ttll T ES SQL rt VENUE � -� -- =r 7�"I 1J?� PHONE 761.777.0,2E r�l_' N'•0' 7 r/,. 761.272.3122 N.-m. b•,p- 6'•O' ■ ]D'•P' Cury�nn1u+CNMM1.CW Ji J^ I■ FD El MAbTIR MAbtIR f l pRARTMtNT • ptARTMtNT MR= DOR 4 t1 �IVIN6 RIA . 17T6 BF. — I3DI17TD8F. I334 ARIA ® b I35¢j 1341I b 13311 . Alli 1 D TE _ I c•.m^ 9 ,Q I939I 01 DINING ARIA I 13 I ARIA 13521 134I J •• 1 3SbI i�Si a ..+r.' a O • ���q {�J TTT}}}TTT t" I u P• Nw �� GLObti h I CLOQIT I �I �;� 1 I 5 L O I I I349I I G I I A/C N.W. J \) k g 0 •,- 7 L IIIII4KITCNQAI _� L 1 C�I :i .a- + 1 333I I .�.1 rrn n i— :- I351I Egg 1338I 133?I r i 0 0 L-_I-J O0 Q �_I _ rO O1 r GLObtT F ❑w 9 _i• 1 L� •D �� I��01 - . /'�, 134gI 1343I lO�� G .1 F� •�T.. 1 0 6 I UTILITY RM, 1346I I /I m� Q�I fGt 1•. I y ---- I L:/ l / ,T 1 P:1 b` W = ,I' 1 i,\I I34'1I I344I l i�\1 1 13591 � J �-- D �1, - O li•••j� V -- I • • PIPE[%TRIO. I ON / Q W D ❑I��A �' n•.+• I n'-+' -�= •t PApRIET nrw ! b C —>- MEI1- i . no l y ,-1 211 1., y . .2 1 2 2 1 y •: y y y y„ y'2 2 2 2 2 2 y y y y y a, 2 y11 RA" ® I• N� y..rnee[xTNO. 1- CORRIDOR TED PARfITICN fTTP.1 ( DO 1 7 • w 111 ...NET rrrro 13601 I, 1 3011 r; ......1 3 N Q b ii tr u • y 1 y, a.ey IMimi LIYATO 1 ytiLltYr� �*RI(/ ow • _C ADOJ[rTTRw 1 33 1 ___ I 105 115 IIO� 130?I V l/"� 1i, jaw I met Irs—'/ 9 11-1, 3 ►-.a �I .�.._._a i_. .a_iI i _ _ _• rs m .1- DATF{�+" ii L.,/\\j 13101 I321I I ,N I W i" - -� +1'-Im' 't •_fig I I303 1309I __JCLOBIT CLOQIT _ 0 13??I ❑ L m 1 I311 I I3?¢{ UTILITY D I , j yE y� ^i "' Ern , 1319I — R" , I pro moo A/C CLOQ 19?BI r i 1 130,31 r I 1 ® 1 l -1 a * I` 1 CLOW 1 1 CLObtt 1 IA'0 I O ..4 Iwi � .. Nm ac I I312I I 1 I319I 1 �� �I DATE 12.1.04 L.,. _ I I _1 /�� __ _J 2201IS-sVo-m k PERMIT NO pJNINb ARtA +0 D I31T I 1 NS 1305I 31�AI4i M NASTIER AC BjA IQRr1 1 3Z I' 4 T AMARTMINT 4 LJYI4 ARIA APARTM�IT IA 113010F. 1,011 IVIN6 ARtA ® b 1314I 311 I a ® 1324I Ii` Wm V. ilul IiFi I} . n'a• 3..a -e',r '• I+.,o„ NORTH,,. 10 ��A1I !A■iIWff arilUiiiil ` 1. LTWO\ LIIIII •M. _ 13061 •--D••1• v-). . .•.e•—r]'.o•J•.vn•-o^.-)'•r-a--v.+. �,,�, b,.+•_ )'.b.-.7••ovT•v-]�,m•,___R..o„ y.-m. THIRD FLOOR PLAN 13,,-�°^'Y I91A6LI CNY 19 5L,ONY I .2 1/4" • 1'-O" • o C 9.. (1 API .I 1� .7.—�-- nl _ I • I...I I I I ill y O BJ 0 ITH A•• O - 11 •• �- � C CLLPAY BCH.R]]�d3 41.11.4.1AC Ca•DI SIPU. ._,.. DECalli fAll ]01.173.J771 II�` /: .' WIi6(TIN °, 406 ■.�,�• � eWd3 dMRNtal•Ade.CC11 1- 1, '•„WEE=PM 6.4 il 141011111.6 ills _. _. _. Now/ 11, 1 11111'11 l' 0 g ,9 7, Ph.. 40ii I -I ,l 406I \ i I'�i Q :. _ 'J z PP� 6 +'d LJL I ILlvATOR dWR 1 dx•'[M AIENCTGLI V �V ORAN N0.T ►""C"a �worm(TTPJ CI) (" Q W DRAM(ttPJ O N m Yfp.te /j . 6KT1.I4146(TIT.) .{ Iji Ts . I ..E� \ P� �� �[ �ALY'I]dd1.)•11K/N OUARDRaIL W( -��— �J f/ Pa:neR COATlD raoBe cwTe `f�' mor I'__W— I _ �3 , v /I Pn:lH(TTPJ 1 ai E DRAW(TTPJ _... L / o n i _ ^ .., •DIA ROCK �,19A. r— .�'.�DRAJ I• ...�.. L u46,, 11- DATE I2•I.Od F 1 T T �-1 , PEPFIT NJ. poilisit iihoo. I C 0 ItTFQ (p•TI• , __ 4 , ji �j,�ir-_-.>>t�'�111,: KooM Drat\ .��4 ' '■, Wlrn CfIDdN6lRe I\ i. � �• I 1; I j NORTH/ilk J6 l,.r�. ',.dam E,r d.'•m .•PIK*ZITIMITCY 5 r tTT P1 B L i 7CId'P[R(TIT) dwJRfiP6 6fiLOW(1TPJ SUN DECK / ROOF PLANdi < oo (i �� • Ii DECNA63LMY SRrLJ1 PNENE 561.272.73On FM. S61.272.3722 UAL MTNNKTR A Ou ALIFNUI 47-HOW&W.RAR RAIDED STUCCO!WC RAISED STUCCO 5ANDS• ••• ••r 44 F'OIDER COATED&LOOS SILOS PO PIT MP) TOP C PARAPET al-P.) W4.2050 rINIfN!TYPJ S.IIERGINCT - SCUPPER OPPJ GAL.VALUP STAw.7IR5 DELORATIK PRECAST P.RAISED STUCCO ORD SIAM METAL RNA!TYPJ COLUrm CAP ITN." PoR WNDOU SILL MP) SMOOTH FIwSN STUCCO RAISED STUCCO BAND• ONRrOM nOLDSG PRIMEDDECORATIVE,PANTODERAL✓•ET, TOP RAISE COLIPTISTUCCO riYPJ Z ,"EL.4ROM.EIGHT _ CASEMENT FrAGT WwOPU. PRIMED f PANTED fTTPJ [L.,I.O' Aii11i` ALIFmIR6455EXGLASS,TrIP.4 I 41�' t\ O WO PrG/RACE fCCLOR ILV �1TOP GP TOP RATE _ _� rROPOSEP A C --%� _ TOP d'PARY2T• COP,. 4f•L' I' ► NSCRWY OND �ITS b C /L.,Y.O•2. _ ` IUI N OyERNANG 1 '9= II /� TOP M rATEAPrT J. N �Ill 1�1O - EMI!! 3 4.,t..f. R or.z.c,- _ 1 I ' a Lam. "CC Y � tE�lr "I,(^.JI M }KNTNd»E Im IL. ` i! I ■■■'II'lllll'I III Irill I I i I `.__yj IIlei II1IIIIiii_'.lI ITIIIi_..�iIIIIIIIL 1 ALtt1mV10aN.VtA M T[L.OD•IO' _-` II'. II^ Y �II III�� ,• . •• - ',MIMI PANAMA COATED O0 Q .11 �1TOP p ROM PECx _ ._ i OI- _ -- -li Ip GLOBS IWrt[ITTPJFC TEL.fe,o, n••m^ f --- °=-• _ _III �' LI&Ni IIxTJRe(TYPJ I I Ut /\ - 1 ' LP POWDERil ATE:0,1 GLOSSAIL W - A .44 ax 1111111 1��'1. = • , _ < .. e b - - :� r _ Ili?.,imirmil IEF.177.1 h--.dI Ills.'si^111111Ii:1:i Yl111.54�Y!!�� Ifi'il 4 DIP W< INL ill�lle YIIII111' .iIIII- — r — INI IIIIiir E ..".cam-- IL�11 �I �Ir LI,rL_Il_- I -_"I�i"s" 11 r A t[coNP rml5551. -_ f Nl _ IIYE vglll:_aIII� _ _ - -�_-- 11 .T . - _Q _ Z w AIMPAilin A EAL'Cmb FM N.." _ - I 1114 ------ - % \\\L. F ... �•— 1Tap!'1-1 _ • II� - Ili- a� ,. ... 111, ..iiiiir\"-iIls i ` b Ili .illllr.,ill Ilia nlllb,.nijl R Ili^r.IalBlli:,; 3YYl�lllil's'Ail- IIIL-. 11N111 !YI(Iili . n NM ' — f 1 _P r- 'E 1 — 111 n Ii^i E�YII'.::.'m �Ac«caTe`e.LEca+r IIII IlliE uill 111 I II LIli3a1 Il �illi _II _ _ �:.h— AfEOOIIDfmIONfLAp _- [. ---L:•" --i-�- � _. -- - _ _ ii,PALCONT rM SLAB __- -� -__ STGGO SLOI1 LINES• - : 1 .._ — r b"- eERr.r•D•oalTrn __ ___ - - - f DATE II-I.04 • F- �, - I•RAISED STUCCO h - F h'- ' CAST MT TT, PERMIT NO. 111 REVISIONS •• �II ` I - I1 BIM RInn OTOREIRONT FPACT%SNO S UY IPEE=STUCCO - CLEAR ANODIZED ALY1INUn FRAME I FP&SOLES GLASS MYPJ EAST ELEVATION I 1/4': • l._0" 1 c o -( Ill Inge II SS:A .1En.0 DELRAT e wP 3303 PNO=C Se1.272.7301 /AT. 161.2710722 (((���GALVALW9 ST4C+N7 Ra$6D GTUCGO Dw+D /:al t1ITµ ROGP(TTPJ DELCW 9CPPIT(TTP) / µWIINII•I!}'wlGw GUARDRAI.UV S'x0'ETIERGENCT NIGOTH I Wbl STUCCO POSCIR COATCD GLOBE WwITE I I ! SCUPPER(TTPJ OVER P041110LORG / I rMISw(TYPJ g ynCery R.ror wElgwT - DCCORATIVC PRECAST yY}S OP A rOP RATE _ f GGIt?T1 GAP(TTPJ TEL N'•S' � F �cyy - ''' .1. (--, a 4u�•OS PNPL r 1E31 c_ai �rC3111 �C�=''11 'jot II 'I,iir_•_t i�, :a,i, O o • µlllNfl DAxAr1/. °Xi ILI YEE..5'ROOP PECK _ - L-_-Ar�A ' iPCGLCR COATCD r Nll11 ci11.1 _ T1'-'7R ��EC . - -- _ �"... µMN11 42•Mqw OUARO4IL UV C -i u� / \ // \\ \ PO:GER GOAt6O GLOSS WITS V LIGHT PI%TLRE(TTPJ \ ... 11 C.: , \I`�• \ ( ... / \\ :.: rWSN(TTP) QW 0 ' \ , -` ► T 1115Z1111=1111 oli •I DO g t-,i , IrJ il i1i' al-. III- 'aJJ' J ;=�I J A.xcGNO rNIe.I MAD _. = _— d1DALCCNT PIN MAD ®M _ � - r } LIGI4PIxTI01(TTPJ On _\ - , i I ri //T\\ i ,, \ i \ u1PACT RKPCw DOORS uY t / \ , \ , I.12 `1 SIDELITES.µZ4411 PRAM / \\ \ /I I \ / (CWOREiSER R).wD PPO `` �-. }"'f 1 1 eoLExGLAS0f1TPJ 1 -"" ! O _".__t.) _4. -. ? CAST•N•PLACE �. _" _ CC(CRETE DALCOUT 11.7411 "- Sl'�" Sl,/T7.CI1 IUI �1 I��� I'� IEr�l y 'AGa:D PNISH MAD _ f} �_ TEL L•.D• ----" . .( ----tt{tYTT - ,LDALCGfT PIN MAD _ �� t•S' --- - Y EL.IS'-S' ���]7 '.St POt,q OVERwA-L+ ©B S. CL t0•.0. juil ` ir j _ J RAISED STUCCO PERMIT ND. REVISICTS oR 'I b ...„,....„--1. ( J .... -7 IS •PIwiSNMAD , �J CL.G'•O• Y.•WIDE vAYL Stucco I....II RAISED Stucco ISMS STCREMONT TYAGT WNDCu'S WI RfivfiAL!TTPJ POR WIND.N SILL(TTPJ CLEAR 4100IIE0 ALI PREPS(Pro SOLE 01.05x GLASS MP.) Nat,GLASS 11PACT WPCW. µ12111421 nun'(COLOtNLVER1 AND PP GU G S x GLASS MTV NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" • 11.0" • • �� II DELRAY SCK ILA 74D5 PHONE 001.177.7301 FAR. 501.272.3722 SYNC,MIKRARGRAM.01 RAISED STUCCO BANDS• RAMIE,STUCCO DAD S^[KROlNCT TOP OP PARAPET(TIP) Imam, SOFFIT(rm.) *CLIPPER l7TPJ IF IUNED STUCCO OR D GALVALUIT STANDND SEAM METAL ROW MP) FOR•.S•DOW SILL lTTTJ ' SMOOTH PNId1 STUCCO D[CCMTIV!WOOD BRACKET, _ MAN ROOF KIOHf 1, RAISED STUCCO SAND• CAfD'tIM IMPACT WtOGl4 OKR FOAM MOLDING PRA'CD 1 PAINTED CM./ / [L.N'-a, V ALyryllMiRAI•lE fCOLOR.SILVER/ TOP W C04MI fril, 7'•p' AND PPG COON GLASS!TNT.! - O��� TOP W TOP RAT! �� EL AS'•D• O C PROPOSED UNRD ERNI i� S• e[TWD fTTPJ OvlR14tl C , • t7,11� OVER+MIG 7 E a _� TOP W cOLUMI A 11.11 .• III 1• 1 - PE AMwwH 1N R. 9 Y';D ��1� 1 1' •�r / I J J ._._J' E____y. �• CL D''•YD' .IIIr�=''ill��rtY�III'�,r=a�llllir�'ec�ll._ 4 m I I -TOP M ROW DECK m .N'IRU1 DAHIMA i it - — f'•1",-- v.'^ ... Mlew c[IL uTi[M PWD[R COATED Y'•O' 7'•Y' --_- ' 0 in LODE WR[FM, C" �. _ - - _ _ �- -- --- -- it..K'•D' — .. - , L --- GM PIxTURC fTTPJ \ _ i'-�- /� 1! --- --/c... 11.11 i 02— O LN'1MM 47'wrow GUARDRAIL / ligi -I} "POURER fMr., GLOSS • \\ , Is,' I11111111 Ur Q . .--� 4 IIY dlllr .ill 11► v�i All 7l --- ¢ Ca 41 IIT.171 11. S11ii! 2Y li :•1 I l R — ,'+ e[caDINIDwaA ... - -- IIL_II- — Ilr�'':I 1 _'°Ir �Eni -,I- - -lu..ca�__i_.li l=- - D� ' ul vi -� -� r�r�R _ l _ _ DALGRIT In'LAD J. ... im. k •.. / \\ 1=• in • �ID ,_n ,- ,6--,r ... / \ b �M" MYL STUCCO \ la �.:, .:. ��A—r IrEKALO fTTPJ 3, IIi.,.Jllli,�?..ill Ilis..allipilll _ 7 �f w , _Il lr� _Ili.�Elll- - 11��_i11i�r11 - — -- xcOND INISN ILAR. CAST•N•RACE [L.II'•D CONGRLTC 0.LLGGNT --- 1 - �_ L .. .... .. _._. ... - BALCONY IM SLAP .A • '-•NG 11 f:"WIDE VINYL STUCCO Li -��__ _� I r _ TOP OF CPCNR0 * }r - s�R �� I \ o ,_ ^_ — I�I� IRe�I \\ DATE: 17•I.04 t•BASE STUCCO I \ ="sl • r A _ I -I,1 I II /^ PE0.IT FAD e•x rtTPJ I L. --- to y— — -— >—� / REVISIONS �` •// III _—._ =� 1--�1�_�. '_-C—_=ss III'Ii ,// �-_ [L.o o� \\\\ -- RlVG4DlDTTTC•� `-OTWr21' WT DOOR AND DIDELITEO IL CLEAR ANCDII[D ALIMINTI PRIME AND GARAGE DOORS UIT)PAINTED WOOD CLEAR IMPACT GLASS(TRJ DAWAMAN OwWT[R PETAL MP, WEST ELEVATION 1/4"• I'-0" • 05 Bik a' II ii1 55 SC 41N ANNVC DMAY BDN,FL 33403 PHONE 561.272.7301 FAX 501.2715722 D...MtK*MO.MR.Nd AALvALLPI STANDING RAISED STUCCO pAND MAI'1 YlTAL ROC.,(IYPJ 1581.0JI MART(TIP) ALUMINUM 42'H1614 GUARDRAIL S'V1CI!'AlNLY YEAH RCOr Nt!IGHT j� UUITEMO (TIP.) 6LOSD SOUPPCR(TYPJ - CL ,S, * DECORATIVE TCFWSV(PRECAST 4 ,1.. _ EL. CP iOF'0LATC 1•1 TOR GOLH'PI LAP lTTPJ Et • • • �.r - 0 •9 a r ... TOP Q COItr./ _ _ CL II'•ID' F ` 1Iltc;_ iiIII� rltI k ,i i it 111111_ IIIIIIli-1111I1111"111111;;=_;1,II11 _,-- ;yam F71FL $ _WI.CO ROCK VIM A. 4 M !L.SV•m" 4, M ALIt11Nl11 MNAI"lA G OL SS 0NIT�C arr.)COATED / I , IL.DL'•0' 0 c9, O 4LUMIhtiM I24 HIGH , '� W J GUARDRAIL.ud ROLLM% Ll COATED GLO50 W1I1C rP115H O U f1w41I MEM Q w 7 ILr� W _ SECC7+D FM�SH 5%.14 N C� U2.JI '-'� fli uI Q �� EL.CCNY FP{SLAp '-N 7J - _ !L 2S'•S' W L�6wT PIXTtiRE fTTPJ N CAST•WPLAC! r-`—' I I'1'all coNCRln nALcoNY Iu I I ILJ1 _ 5lCCND 4865N SLAD 544.4- _ 23ALCONY FIR SLAB IL. u'•S• ,y Sot or ovERLIAN6 _ T EL.0A•0• e' • Y'VNYL STUCCO • IRLv0ALS RW.) DATE 17-1.04 PERMIT NO. REVISIONS 4 rw15H x1p SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" • I'-0" .A8 . • o • nn«c IT WO..••b.,,. 1----'-1 REVISIONS BY M LIT........, MATERAL SCHEDULE . "' FEF Oy. Key Botanical/Common Name She _1- ! Al brogatles.al I'repti•.Pd. .IM.rrld. —1- tar I..btc..Yrwr'•.p.I tr 11.1. MI• •Motu es.wml Naa.mOaddd.r.p4Y. lea 0' aana0a,p.•.c..•I Gnarl Ide•Qs. lean Er er Sal.pa Old. Ir. .a.. r.amw toe lose rd.,talomsd IrlMmwlcotl. V.e+ wadi lnMoa,.bno/M.II.lryrrnl*l.. I.IM.oeJmh.nkro. I..I.e••dr.a.an..l.se.b...r...0 admnr,I.per.remafY..«ra.bon... amp roadol•adwo abal arw.npml, I214•61Uy. w.a«.dar.am•r•dae. did• as Npd Nr,ab p.m Orr Dwarf*Mx* Irip.rr tbYaaVW/MYr..,,e,.•Y.aWn.Gee...Ymbil,b.•oMr«M a n>f•Meor,••• •o. w., mru Ie +y. Boa Ipo7a.si Mond low Iran!bc rpb.,.b.•..n.•dbrgnw.•Mem.d..a•rr..a.dr«d. ��'' a• Mystna..to.Dasolm l4'56C00. rs,,, "'w ar.•r .,s*,a:•"'o«rdosel.•wa.ar awr.•ea,lm.w..ob... rma..na.lm M.1• N.ar.vap..•0..ad.I. Irlp.Qx. rbb r..r•.l.arrp r.arManp+..b..eree.• Mr•tr'al t0 x ro• Ic...H10 •b.rr. la.a.are«.«,..•^un•^+.m.m�ewaw.�wa,.e..a.^.I,. ® •16'%MOE ALLEY RIGHT OF AY •m�i O N N< Nalm�b•p.%rep* 041p.00oa M.•.......—......... ....m>.......fna.«.e _�_- y� - - - --wane.—- , I -'�' ..y 1. Ip'• Isyo.M•a.....e am...to.n.. ...rra..r+.w«.reda.dM....0 r..r.a Den and w.w«•wr•. 0 W 12 V W.V.Th ., 10.10.01'a. • rfaa• .1.11.....n maNdw rn...n.f en a• 4 _�/ --, ♦a \rK Dora NaHaie a«K•a.•sd.bNNpfrr.•nptl. . _ a�'c•:.v.m INNpeI.•••pa•I.do.. bmoe«wnv.Y.•wp WN+•MaM.M.dve. ,¢v_w_rt.• _ • _ weswanaalau Npa' `.., ••r•yra. r •odd,,.a.•....O. .a.d ••an.wr.N..ra.•a.r.ee.. Q __ _- /�� VA //`/p�\ � Sod.rod bola ..wM...+Ma.•.wa...,n3,dr.. eb.r.••••.a.n...1' i.Os.Oa 10.*>n.wpam. _ � . ✓ .1.' Z N nr..•..r..o�«.sed+was.«e.n«.d.a MOCTe.«.a„wl1.YIN�pl V \ TI�(�T4 minitll.(L44,L,I ,1 , 1 I {aV N0R•Oval....or Hp*th gMM.W p.1 lmblae.pat.Y•a..mo.Meat. mar•b•sa•s«.rwrn• w .b..x.K,•a" ��lw in. A 0 VOA +'tt ine Iz "�' i.3'1 V P i, Ya'..`..w u,.•sa..,..e.::•:.+a. ',rwb....mpeso.mi«....eto .1. ,� a p `�' � c� �� 7 r ! - .y.m ?"�oar a• • bi{» d iSt iu"j R9, `Sa';�i ^ 75� O »a..°a'.'°"'"•..a•"•s.b.•«°.."6a•«.a«.s..a..rda,.l••ra,e.la,a.a.ad '''►• Iac'..1., ' 'ASH 7 a.1. @y� T s�S 1 {y r A' !t U r.110+ .., +r..r...dr.1..r.•..ar wuaba lt. f < r' r 4• t% -a...d am rr.•••I.da rlm Isv...... .warq(7a4 G�7s Ti •NS) T T7Taa 77 avwc.I sea. a.. rry..,•....n....1.Mn..e�ab..r.ea L. 1 SL^ • ?S,� %br '4 T':G'. £I!£,.Y 1.'b p.K, wlml N N.r.wrw b,a.a..aw ,•o•.1••• r•«..a.�.,a..a+dp:. (1 y'rx 7{{ �:h s, •r,''r3 v .7� z.„ 'jt;ri.�.••.dNp. a.a.NrwrM•ne.adN�.b.ane../... p..r lel.. 0 1 j ^z`. )C4 ...^..'.: 777• 7 ,,'' e < l""tt .. 4 .: 5:5 tq. xf' 15t aka c rc. §gle�:; �?;anti.ITT ` V .It. . w.•bar.an a e•anc.nonrwooma.w«.•lmea. . s.r '� .'--'L: �•�F S SST l`.'^TA:,��`.,`�`C:ttrrk�'�Y.'7A` 9T: .,..i �:1' I �r „Aa"'..a., bL..e«.w..r. ,..-1.w••...r•r.• .roam..•, •l! :'r,.:"" 7 yN �IT`ciki`va tlia:. .A1....'frr,.»rtTi/Z 1a• uT ""en.w+.'d...":rro n; .`+T'`7€111,M%•W S7 fa :i� z7u,' a7sr.T..}:r,'.7'::.krrc7" ' '1=�' O� < .«a. �...::."`e.. ,..,.a .al.lr. •. ��iX% T 'Sc�'rr{„tic' y7T.:ldT?chs{Z? f.•a y.T� TSi •:S•: TL'n'' 'rY•'.cuf' ' �"' w a' dobt aawd.N.r.rar..•.ae e.ao•InloC ndrt` •1111.00.a.• .e.,. 0 � w is£ A.VraaZ,cSs.'`.0 a a ..Mu t.„ :y;iu •Ale Wat•t a. _ •�.•=7.. "'".ti sed.a,w•.•..•a°w•4raa.aae•..a. �' r+a? ee z` arc. u%;'„�T x'isio i.„ .iii > e eio _ be a•rda ...... . ..em.b a © ' A a ar1x z`:7f cii a% tr.".a k7;s?�sar t�r'OViat!�.£�a ILVM I ., 0 W Q fi i���` ifu7 ifr j r5tiurx'„eaii'.r":zu ra7r T uc t�d 'z r 7 •.r..oo..::d. ,�I Tt+ "r'ic'Ok4i''`lr7hkkl vhyu3x&tv{i 2:Jx:Rcta'2Rk<rcw}skA<Yc�'ivxk{Ltsaafiu}ais xaar.?t').B$Y ;d'. I W U ... .,•1 _.. uwwa r.4laoWI.°iw.mo`ble1,6I d'.raova".,msom 'T�{, a k`:>:17 as v1a 'Z' I I� ,,,,,,AL �r'r'a 'r�`s,'%d cr'cS`s°B.�..7is A.7.'sez 7 ra" r �7ai z to t_.' z;r iatazn tazv r.{m sssEt."�Sz w�7�FTrwTrhx °�, r I < Z ".. :;rs3,V `rl �a 1G»i55zl;?:J `;`qr»�ur;T»aT�j�'i„:s. ` k 5 i 7 d'rr S TrrxT r`.. dcu r ua g Nc eiS4#4-F..l.'rd. .« . an t a 7 { R:aRg 455`7'* tg y u7a tt `3 ''' 0 V 7 8 1 11 N+ ..moon.«. .L •.moor.r.a..,-, 1.nr mono+. .• ,. U AM \. lx O • .v2iv 777)zr 0 N _ _ .:r�o.r.•cr. 6 edam.».«.roan. • .., �,_ - r__ME___Miff__�-N.!I - J ro.i�an<r.7 _ r /�` I m � AS fifan11^,IIai: �. ��G=�'r/a['t+t E' 1 4 'fin x• ��w.1 tJIV �' ri rs £ L' •r as .__..wo«.a. >' III -.. 1!164111f1 o oc o 'Roos raa�; Di I a �f yr II ......!! ! t3 4 --) f— r.... - • g C w. •Mr. «.— J l 81n of O Shrubr �•.M >' i1© i 0 se� .-.777—J'.....-.7:(H..... ..1.2,...... ',..".:: 1' 1 e ' • I_ni .„ t�P in' noir, I Pier �y�y A N rear ' E '�'■ � T".�i *;;'.. s rr`r 5f'„`.i.7:""�7 �...- ,�/j�' r an .-- w •.• b ) E— �Ci�r>.�yl�rll " a7d7 c�kdrC K<na :.:7f� Artier mrr «� v �= Pow. , 1•) ,��,,''.I ;3,1 u :: �i m .T '<1'a � �i, .,AiE i,�I����Alga l�l��l�Cl (III Il„o*fa re. I � ,� `J Ill • 11H ttV le o0 5 t .., x• m f ''�iY' » �' ?�u' c't «ATu?' �Ll •�O..* , '74;.:::f :'r 1 00 0.1 0 , II 4� / r «. I (—_ ���_ al T "aa.,oar 1 40 © v mgr. H F8tnlpht TF1mk Pelm. 50' R/W(P) " 3/19/03 ROOF TOP PLAN — —'�— , � S.E. 1st AVENUE J',•p — 04.3.10 1 OF 2 nnn •• • . P• •....% .b-. 4 I 7.1.. .'" , ' ' .4 ' . ..•.: _ _ • u, ilic MI • ..-• • : 11.00.:mir"...""IPI'l 1 • • • 1V • tZ - y Y' , l / ‘ I. . S6 1 a • „ y------- 5 re. ... 44 4 - / I ....- 0—..". V • L t i Z. 4. _OP Ali.; tZga . • illir• • .• r .,____• • ' unimmairp,. :.7 b I ok 1.., 11111r.11111. - Y - y- >4,,- --- it a 0 0 Sc...- . 411 • 4 3g2.c 5C• o � Ail, • • • ‘)POZVAIJS • Civ,� : 11 . Q ,1'<t CiiRJvi •. l 0 -t- k 11J1...i. (` K 3 • . . . . . ••• • , . •.. . --• ', ... -.. - ‘.. .. . _ vim. .• •••4.. e-... • or.'" '4.. ..• • /)** I .... •,t . 1:: ,1/4 , %. ... ;... • ..,.* 11/4 a • • • • • ..... S . • I 1"--1. -.% ... , • 1 .. • , c. .. • . . .....t .. •• . .. . (4:•::1.. _ — 474%*%1 \ . .. Cm." r i? k 1 1 ( P•" i ...• • t f• I Cr- e I 1 101 1''.. • . /, •-, ,.- r . , fp V . ( . ,.: .• • . %, % i Pr le 41 ( • 4' • 1"-- , r 111 ° 0.1°111. _ . : . 1/4 • %... ... i 6 II iimminsmomIllolumillillile ' ea —.....- AN M/11 ChJ 1 2 i 2/013 % No. _ . )i ><t•5\ 1 1 0 0 L, r- • . • • j: 3 0 5 F- 0 ffi.c-g- 1 ao . r FAVACA4*- (&(-1 0 : 1 I • ci•tp.)(2.141Re&uric... I I- 114 i-4*-0 .......J(..._...4.... 2, 4_ !".4piiidi A 4-4.c , ., 8.6 Planning & Zoning Board 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 MITIGATE 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 and, more specifically, Policy GB-2.1 which calls for providing sites for single family detached and low density planned residential development. Planning &Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment— RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 5 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 fer duplex and multiple family adjacent properties and does not adversely affect areas of environmental 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) Performance Standards: Planning & Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment— RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 6 (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 detached) will at a minimum offer a mix of three and four bedroom units with varying floor plans. Planning &Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report LDR Amendment— RL Zoning District Performance Standards Page 7 (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 made a finding 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 All-America City 1993 2001 SIGN IN SHEET 2001 Regular Historic Preservation Board Meeting REGULAR MEETING January 19, 2005 PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS OR ITEM NO. ORGANIZATION /7/71e-WV )-16: -To ke Asi-ne" //—/ltrid (//41 6 ���� A/YA eoef