Historic Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening.

It being 5.01, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board for June 3rd, 2026. Can you please take the roll?

Richard Gasser? Here. Carol Perez? Here. Peter Dwyer? Here. Chris Cabezas is absent. Benjamin Baffert? Here. Jake Eliopoulos? Here.

John Miller? Here. Any changes to the agenda? Yes. All right.

The applicant for item 8A has changed her mind on her materials, so she requested to be removed from the agenda. So 8B will become 8A, and 8C will become 8B.

All right. Somebody want to make a motion approving those changes?

I'll make the motion.

I'll second.

OK. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. Minutes. We had minutes from the meeting of May 6. Anybody have any comments, want to edit, make a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I second. Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. All right. If there's any members of the public who are here tonight and are going to speak on any of these items, even if you may not be sure and you think you may want to speak, now's the time to stand up and be sworn in, please.

By the authority vested in me as a notary in the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Do what I do.

Thank you. All right. Right now, if there's any members of the public who would like to address the board about any item that is not on the agenda, now is your opportunity to make public comments. Seeing none, we're going to move on. Any presentations tonight no presentations we're gonna move into quasi judicial items I'm gonna read the rules for quasi judicial items This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the city of Delray Beach's quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or for a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether this project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. OK, we're going to move on to the new item 8A. Is there any ex parte communications on this item?

No.

Seeing none, staff?

For the record, I'm Katharina Palavoda, senior historic preservation planner. I'd like to enter HP-540-2026 file into the record. This is a level one and certificate of appropriateness for Sunday Village buildings B and F. And this is located in the Old School Square Historic District. The agent, Mike Covelli, is here with us. So he'll go ahead and present first.

Good evening, Mike Cavelli, 1209 South Swinton Avenue. We'll get this up here in a second.

No, no pressure.

There we go. Okay, tonight we have a level one site plan modification and COA for building B&F of Sunday Village for a restaurant known as Maman. The restaurant is a restaurant, cafe, bakery that is taking its inspiration from foods in the south of France and some areas in North America. It's a very casual establishment where you would go in and order at a counter, and then you sit after you order, and then it's full table service once you order. So it would be a very nice addition to this area. The site is located south of Atlantic in Block 61 and west of Swinton Avenue. Oops, I went one too many.

Did I go back? Which way am I going here?

And there's a subject site where you can see buildings B and F. Building G is to the right down at First Street and the Cathcart House is to the left to the north. This is the current facade of building F as it's been restored. And there's building B and you can see building F to the left there. This is the rear of the building. Building B is to the left, building F is to the right. And this roof area is really the topic of the discussion this evening as we want to add roof vents that are required by code for ventilation for the repurposing of the building. Here's the front elevation. The top elevation is as it exists. The lower is the proposed. You'll notice they're the same, except there's a cloud on the lower. That is the location where the roof vents are going to go behind the peak of the roof, so the front elevation doesn't really change. The rear elevation, the top elevation shows existing and the lower shows the location where the vents are going to go. You can see they are below the peak of the roof. They are on the rearward slope of the roof. The vent to the far left was previously approved and that's also an air conditioning vent. And then the side elevations, the top elevation is the south elevation that is as seen from Building G to the south, and the north elevation is as seen from the Cathcart House to the north. This is a detail of how the louvered screen will be placed within the roof. We're very lucky in this particular building because we were able to put all of the equipment in the rafters or in the upper joists of the structure of the house and not on the roof, so the impacts are very minimal. Here's a perspective drawing that shows the rear-facing slopes and the location of those proposed vent enclosures. And then just going around the building, this is the front elevation where you can't see any of this. Here's the side elevation where you can just see a little bit of it peeking up between the chimneys and the valley of the roof. This is the rear elevation. that we've seen a number of times already. And then this is the south elevation that is on the building G side. A aerial view of this roof. We were very lucky in this configuration of the roofs in as much as there was a lot of different peaks in this roof. So the location was chosen so that it kind of tucks all these vents in and tries to obscure them as much as possible. So when we do something like this, we have standards and guidelines, and the first thing we look at is the Secretary of Interior standards. The first four items in this, and these are the applicable items of the 10 that the Secretary of Interior standards are. The first four are really related to the buildings, and the buildings have already been restored. The buildings have preserved the character of the original buildings, the character of the property. We've preserved the physical record of the buildings because they've been restored to look like they originally were. And we've restored the distinctive elements and preserved those. The next item on this list is related to when you add something like this to the building. the structure of the original thing. In this case, it's the roof. These vents were designed so they don't look like they were the original structures on the house, but they've been done so that they blend in and they're compatible with the structure through the use of natural materials and colors and textures so that they blend. the other item is is that if you removed it could you restore the roof to its original character and absolutely yes you could so we would you could make positive findings for all of these items with regards to these this addition of these code required events then going to the LDRs there's criteria for board action the first one basically says that the design should be in good taste and contribute to the image of the city The addition of these vents is the result of adaptive reuse of the building, so obviously there's code requirements that we have to deal with, and you'll probably see these on many of these buildings as they develop them. The addition through this adaptive reuse we think has been done tastefully and in good taste, and we've done the design that minimizes the impacts through the use of materials and colors and things to blend. The second item is that the appearance does not deteriorate or depreciate the look or the value. Bless you. And through the structural restoration and the continued elevation of this property through the adaptive reuse process, We're really contributing to the evolving environment by changing the use, making this more sustainable to go from a single-family house to a commercial use, and it definitely increases the values in the area. And then the final thing is that the proposal is within harmony with the general area and in compliance with the comprehensive plan. We feel that doing these code required structures on the roof are in harmony with what has to be done in the area. The buildings are in harmony with one another, both north and south. And through the adaptive reuse of making this a commercial site, it is in conformity with the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. So for all of these items, you can make positive findings, and I would appreciate it if you would approve this. Luciana Esposito is here, the architect, as well. If we have any questions, we can answer those questions.

Thank you.

We'll let you know.

So this is a level one in certificate of appropriateness application. It's for Sunday Village for buildings B and F. This is an aerial of the entire Sunday Village property to the area circled in red. The two structures that are attached are the second structure to the south, and that's buildings B and F. OK, here we can see another site plan image of them. The center here. It's not showing as they are attached by a roof right here. So here's some images. This is the northeast elevation. So this right here, closest to us to the north, that's building B. And then the one in the rear is building F. Another front elevation. This is the front of F.

This is building B.

And then you can see where the roof structure is. That was part of the smaller addition to attach the structures. That was from a previous approval. The side north elevation. South side. This is the rear. Rear west. Okay. So as Mr. Covelli did note, the two proposed hood vents, there was an original approval with All of the other historic structures, I think it was last year, they all originally had different hood vent approvals on different parts of the structures on the west side. Building B got the approval for the hood vents for this structure. However, as the new restaurant did come in and as they're working on their interior and their build out, they did note that they would need additional hood vents on Building F, which, since they weren't originally approved on this structure, we had to bring it back to the board. OK, this is, you can see on the north side. Mr. Covelli did note that, although they are visible on the north and south sides, they're not visible from the north, and they don't encroach over the peak roof of the structure, Building F. Here's the south. This is a proposed rear west structure. So here you can see the two proposed vents. As Mr. Covelli did note, the vent that's on the rear here on building B, this was already previously approved. You can see an image of them. We do have the dimensions included. The screening material will actually be, I think it's, I don't know if it's on here. It was noted in the staff report they are going to be using a wood material to match the existing wood siding. The original approval for the vents were hardy board. So they're actually going back to using a more natural material that matches the existing structure. Here's the existing roof plan. You can see where the proposed vents are gonna be. This is a rendering of the roof so you can see where the two proposed vents are. Here they are again in this image. These are the Secretary of the Interior standards that do apply. As for the existing hood vent, they do match what was originally approved. They are using more appropriate material. Hardware's fine, but they are going with a natural wood to match. So there's no concerns with material. There's no concerns with height. There are no changes being made to roof shapes. So for the most part, materials, textures, color, and roof shapes, with regards to visual compatibility, there are no concerns with regard to this request. did note that because there is a new restaurant coming in it was adaptive reuse this was originally a residential structure they did have to come in and make some additional changes once they secured a new tenant for this structure so they're coming in as you saw in the last meeting there was a previous tenant with one of the other structures that had changes to windows and vents and More than likely, you'll probably be seeing a few more of these vents or windows coming in for these structures. These are certificate appropriateness findings. And that concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you. All right, any public comment on this item? Seeing none. All right. Any rebuttal by the applicant?

No rebuttal, no draws.

OK. Staff? No rebuttal. All right. We're going to move into board discussion. Anybody want to start?

I'll start. question for the applicant and I just want to preface this with I know these buildings are really challenging to especially put a restaurant there so I get the need for the creative adaptation to me the west side of the buildings are or the the back of this building is the more important side The front on Swinton, people are driving by at a clip. Unless they're stopped at an intersection, they're really not going to be paying attention and looking. But because the project has been designed to pull people and pedestrians into the west side with all of the narratives and the storyboards about each of the properties and really creating that promenade, I think the west facades are much more important and have a bigger impact. than the fronts, especially because people are going to be lingering. They're going to be looking at it and appreciating the historic nature of the homes or the buildings, not homes, but the buildings. So again, I don't have a problem with it. I just want to ensure that the materials are appropriate. And I think in your presentation, it wasn't clear what the materials are. And staff said it's going to be the wood siding for all three. the previously approved vent, and then these two, right?

Yes. Yes.

OK. So wood siding, same color of? Yeah. So OK. OK. Just wanted to confirm that. Yep.

OK. Just to follow up with one item, could you go back to that slide with the circles on it? So we don't have a ton of restaurants in historic structures. particularly homes. So this is a bit of a study in how to do hood vent screening better. The one thing that I don't think is problematic at this point, but we may want to track it as they get constructed and see how they're built is that the vent screening, these things here on the left, sit slightly off the roof, and that's to allow water to flow when it rains. So they're not, they don't look like a traditional chimney per se, even though they're fashioned to look like a chimney feature. Also, you can see, On the left here where the number 39 is, those are actual chimneys. So this has been the most simplistic solution that the applicant has come up with. And they're all approved like that now. But there's just more. So we expect that there may be more coming forward. And we may have to study it once they're in for future applications. Thanks.

Anyone else? I mean, my opinion was, I mean, we knew this was coming. These are adaptive reuse. They're all restaurant use. I believe all of these have been approved for restaurant use in some form or fashion. So got to be bent somewhere. You know, I would disagree with you a little bit. I think the Swinton side is a little bit more. prominent if nothing else it is the streetscape but i see your point as well because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the back there and it's a really nice little promenade so uh anybody want to make a motion i just have a question um so mike the color of the wood is going to be the same color as the roof no it'll be it'll be the color of the siding

This thing keeps crashing every time I open something up.

What color is the siding? There you go.

Go to one of the pictures.

It's like a creamy white.

Go to one of the pictures.

I was just going to stand out more.

It's called Irish cream.

There it is. Are you suggesting that we do like natural wood? Is that what you're saying? No.

I'm just suggesting that it look nicer for me if it blended in rather than have it glaring, you know, not an opposing color.

But I don't know. I'd have to, you know.

I'm not really opposed to that. It's probably a good suggestion because, you know, it is shake shingles. So they're going to weather to like a gray color. So we could try to do something with, we did decide to do them out of natural wood. They don't necessarily have to be painted, but there's gonna be that transition time where, or we paint them some color that is more compatible with the color of the shake shingles. and and we go from that but i'm not we're not a adverse that's probably a good suggestion i'd like to hear from more board members on that but um so there's so you have how many events there was one previously approved on building b which is the north building and we have these two on the south building two of them are some some code requirement that you have to have fresh air intakes for air conditioning now and then the other one is for the hood

So didn't someone come in before and ask for more bins?

Yes.

What was that for?

Another restaurant? So there are five restaurant uses all along Swinton within six buildings. As you can see here, this picture, which shows that chimney in the brick fashion, there's another chimney painted the same color as the wall. So this is... I think we have maybe one more that might be coming forward.

Building G. Building G. I just think it is getting congested up there, and so I don't know. Yes, anyone else has a comment?

How about if I say we would be happy to blend the color?

I mean, I don't know what it is.

with you. I think it should blend. Yeah, it's a good suggestion.

I think whoever makes a motion would put that as an option. I, staff, I'd like to hear your input, but I have zero problem with that as well. You know, if it's a natural or if it's a stained shake, you know, you stain it roughly the same thing, it's going to age roughly the same time and the same way. So, you know, depending on the species of wood you put up there.

I have a suggestion, yes. Just because we haven't seen them all come in, right? We don't know what that's going to look like. I would suggest, since it's going to be hardy board, that comes usually in a yellow color.

It's not hardy board.

Oh, it's going to come in wood.

It's natural wood.

I think that you give them some flexibility that it's either staining the wood potentially painting but once they're installed we go out and do a site inspection and kind of see what it looks like and if it's going to blend better or would it look better if it were painted because keep in mind the chimney on the left is white like the walls or the creamy white the chimney on the right is brick and then we'd have a third color introduced on these so I would give them some flexibility you know on it But I don't think the idea is a bad idea. I just wouldn't want it to look like a fence. I'd want it to look like an architectural feature.

We can work that out.

It's a good suggestion, Carol. So I guess what would the motion look like?

I think that you could give them two color options. and say that the wood be either stained or painted to match the building.

Stained to match the roof.

Stained to match the roof, you could say that, yeah. Although the roof isn't in its full-blown color just yet. Not yet. It's going to patina gray.

Not yet. Well, yeah, but like I said, it'll age roughly the same rate.

Not if you stain it, because you're... So you want to have the same treatment on the wood that you do.

I definitely think there should be some sealing of them.

That's the problem. And that's what the concern I'd have with just the natural wood is that over time, you're basically creating a louver that is not really supported well. longitudinally on each one of those little slats. And over time, the natural wood, especially if you don't have any type of a treatment on it, it's going to curl and warp.

Are these shakes dipped, the ones that are up there now? I'm sorry? Are they dipped in a stain or are they pure natural? I actually don't know. I really don't know. Okay. I mean, they look like they've been treated somehow. I'm sure they have been. Yeah. Yeah. So I wouldn't overcomplicate it just to match.

Yeah, or, I mean, matching could be, from where I sit, matching could be problematic because if we say to match and then they do it and it doesn't match and it's not exact, then who's wrong? So what about staying to be substantially similar to the roof?

You could say to match as close as possible. This team is really skilled at, execution i have to say the sunday village team so knowing them they'd probably stain some pieces before they actually installed to figure out the right color and have us all take a look so i'm sure it'll be fine okay get ready to go all right um i will make the motion to approve

the level one site plan modification and certificate of appropriateness hp-540-2026 for the property located at sunday village buildings b and f old school square historic district by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions that the events be stained to match as as close as possible to the roof or painted the same color as the building. With staff. With staff's review. OK, we have a motion.

I'll make a motion. Let's do it.

No, we have a motion. We need a second. I'll second that motion. All right, motion and a second. Any discussion? Everybody good? OK, Brittany.

Richard Kasser. yes carol perez yes peter dwyer yes thanks chris cabezas is absent benjamin baffert yes jake iliopoulos yes john miller yes thank you it was a joint effort thank you very much we got there all right uh next item

So this is actually I don't Be now correct.

Yes. So this becomes seven 46 marineway While they're queuing up the presentation. I'll enter the file into the record just press down and it's HP 544 dash 2026 for 46 very way. It's a COA demolition, relocation, variances, and waivers for property on the west side of Marineway in the Marina Historic District. And Ms. Kay Edwards is here and will do her presentation.

Before we start, because I'm assuming there is some, any ex parte communications on this item?

Yes. I saw the site in person with the applicant.

Are these letters here? I do not get these on email, but... Oh, thank you for reminding me.

There are several letters that were printed and put at your spaces here. I think several in support and one not in support, which we've also shared with the applicant. Yes, thank you. Should have received all of them.

Okay. Again, the letters, and I did some... digital walking around of the area.

Okay, cool.

So the letters that we received tonight in over the past several months, I probably had conversations on varying degrees with Kristen Finn, Dan Edwards, Anthea Gianottis, Kay Edwards, Julie Casale, Jim Chard, Michelle Hoyland, and Jeannie DePonte.

Anybody? I received all of the letters that everyone else received, and I communicated briefly with Kristen Fenn.

And I have been to the site on a couple of occasions. I have the letters, and I've also had conversations with Kristen over the last few months on the project, and she has shared the renderings that I see in front of me. So thank you.

Okay, cool. Ready to rock and roll? All right, here we go. Good evening, board. Again, Kay Edwards at 101 Northwest 17th Street here in Delray. And thank you for the opportunity to present before you again. It's great to see several familiar faces who have followed this property through prior versions, but I'd also like to welcome those who may be reviewing the project for the first time. Although this is technically being presented as a new application, we appreciate the chance to come back before the board, share the updates and changes we've made, and continue working towards a thoughtful project that is rooted in preservation. Throughout this process, we have made a sincere effort to follow the board's guidance while also listening carefully to the thoughts and concerns of the surrounding neighbors and our community. Our goal has always been to preserve the historic character of this property while creating a project that can positively contribute to the neighborhood for years to come. Marineway residents continue to experience severe and reoccurring flooding during periods of high tide or just a heavy rain. These flooding events are frequent and they are worsening over time. Floodwaters routinely cover the roadway, as you can see here, making portions of Marineway impassable. Water enters our homes, garages, and yards, which causes foundation deterioration and property damage for us all. the temporary measures that are currently being provided from the city, including these roadway barricades, which you can see are proven and effective in preventing these floodwaters from entering our residential properties. This is about preserving a historic home that is currently vulnerable to severe flooding. So with that, I would now like to introduce our proposed new project for 46 Marineway, walking through the thoughtful considerations and revisions that we have done. So if you don't know, 46th Marine Way in the Marina Historic District, just a few doors down from Deck 84. On March 5, 2025, we came before the board with Marineway and were given three directives that day from the board. The first, to reduce the roof overhangs. Two, redesign the visual impact on the front wall. And three, soften the structure on the third floor to the north. On June 4, 2025, we came back, took all these directives from the board, incorporated them to our proposed design, and we were approved that day with the bottom house that you see there. by HPB and we thank you for that. That was a very exciting day for me and my entire team. Unfortunately, we were appealed to commission and from there voted no. So today, June 3rd, 2026, a year later, we are very happy to present our newest proposed project of this 46 marine way. In this design, we kept the reduction of the roof overhangs. We soften the front wall by adding a carport per staff recommendations. We completely eliminated the third floor. And we also took our pool down from the nine foot elevation it was at before down to ground level to meet our neighbor's wishes on the north side. These streetscape exhibits help illustrate both the existing conditions on Marineway and the reality of where this neighborhood is heading. The first line there shows the existing streetscape as it stands today. Many of these homes, including ours, are facing worsening flooding conditions, aging infrastructure, and significant challenges associated with maintaining properties at their current elevations. These conditions are becoming increasingly difficult and costly for homeowners to address. The second line here shows the proposed streetscape with only our 46 Marineway preservation project included. We also wanted to include a proposed future streetscape to provide additional context. The two properties immediately south of us are currently pursuing full demolition applications with the city staff. Whether those projects move forward or not, they demonstrate the redevelopment pressures that already exist along Marine Way. Finally, the last line shows what the future FEMA-compliant streetscape would look like. As the Board is aware, when a homeowner does a 25% improvement, they are required to elevate their structures to meet current FEMA regulations in this district. This means that the FEMA streetscape shown here is not a distant or hypothetical scenario. It is the direction that Marineway will continue to evolve over time. We do have three variances on this project. The first variance is the front setback, which is highlighted here in red. We are requesting to keep this front setback here where the historic structure currently sits. We want to raise it to meet FEMA requirements, which remind you vertical elevation is required of us per FEMA. The second variance is the south side setback. Again, we are requesting to keep the current historic structure where it sits. And again, we are required to vertically raise it to meet FEMA requirements. And finally, the last variance we have is the pool variance. We respectfully ask the board to take into consideration the efforts we have made to be responsive and accommodating throughout this process. In direct response to prior feedback from our direct neighbor to the north, we revised the design, we lowered the pool to ground level after she expressed that this would be her preferred approach. We feel this adjustment demonstrates our commitment to working with the community, minimizing impacts wherever possible, and ensuring that the project remains both sensitive to the neighborhood and the historic district. We have made every effort to comply with concerns raised, listen to our neighbors, and design this project in a way that balances preservation, resiliency, and compatibility. We hope the board will recognize these good faith efforts and provide thoughtful consideration accordingly. We also have two waivers in this proposal. The first waiver is the building height plane, which relates to the visual compatibility standards. In its current condition today, where you can see on the top, the home already extends beyond the existing visual compatibility line and is non-compliant under current standards. As you can see here highlighted in red, we are only crossing the visual compatibility line by a very small margin in our proposed addition. Given the new FEMA requirements for vertical elevation and our commitment to preserving this historic home, we believe this minor encroachment is reasonable and still maintains the overall visual compatibility of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. We respectfully ask the Board to provide consideration and flexibility in evaluating this request, particularly given the unique circumstances that Marineway residents face with new FEMA regulations. The intent of this project is to preserve the historic structure and ensure its long-term survival. The second waiver we have is for secondary and subordinate. It is important to emphasize that this proposal is not centered around demolition. It is centered around preservation. We are proposing to retain and preserve the existing 987 square foot historic residence, which remains the foundation and focal point of this project, as you can see in this render here. We have significantly reduced the scale of our previously approved project. That previous project that was approved by the historic board was 4,921 square feet under air. Our current proposal that you see here today is 3,321 square feet under air, a reduction of approximately 33%. This is huge. This is a substantial decrease and represents a significant sacrifice on our part. Even doing so comes with considerable financial and design constraints. And quite frankly, I don't know many property owners who would be willing to make that level of investment and sacrifice to preserve a historic structure. We believe the true measure of this project is not by how much is being added, but by how much is being saved. The historic home remains intact, preserved, and celebrated, while the addition is carefully designed to be located in the rear, meet the LDR requirements, and to ensure the property can continue to serve as a beautiful, functional, lasting home for years to come. it is also important to note that the existing historic home is currently 987 square feet in size and for those of you board members who had the chance to go out to the property you could see how tiny and dilapidated the current footprint is the proposed addition is intended to create a practical and livable home while still maintaining and preserving the historic structure as the focal point of this property Another primary constraint we face is the exceptionally narrow lot width of only 52.98 feet. Due to these dimensional limitations, expanding horizontally is restricted, leaving vertical construction as the only feasible option to create a code compliant residence. Additionally, while we are allowed to build up to 35 feet, our proposed design is far below to minimize perceived massing and remain sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. We have made a conscious effort to not maximize what otherwise could be built on the property. And finally, as part of this application, we are requesting approval for the demolition of the existing rear accessory structure located at the back of the property. According to city records and property appraiser, the original historic home was constructed in 1928. That's the front house. The rear accessory structure was constructed in 1983. I also pulled the Sanborn maps from the city of Delray as well. This 1926 Sanborn map, which you can see here to the left, does not show a rear structure as you can see here. Yet the Sanborn map to the right from 1949 does show some sort of rear. I know it's a little tiny, but there is some sort of element that sits behind the front historic structure, which means something was added between 1926 and 1949. but there is no concrete evidence showing that the rear accessory structure was ever part of the front original historic home. The concrete evidence we do have is that a permit was pulled in 1983 for construction of a new 288 square feet CBS structure to be built, which is the current rear accessory structure that sits there today. Based on the LDRs, a structure is non-contributing when it was constructed less than 50 years ago and or it was not present during the established period of significance. In this case, which this is the back accessory structure just so you can see. In this case, the rear accessory structure that sits there today is only 42 years old and it was constructed decades after the historic home's primary period of significance. Board members, I want to be candid about where we are in this process. For the past three years, we have worked with staff, the board, our consultants, and the community to find a way to preserve the 1928 historic home. We have made substantial revisions, significantly reduced the size of our project, and accepted major financial and design constraints in order to save this structure. The demolition of the rear accessory structure is a critical part of making this preservation plan work. Without approval to move forward tonight, we will be left with very limited options. The reality is that this property cannot continue in its current condition. If this proposed plan cannot be approved tonight, the only remaining path will be to pursue full demolition of the entire property, just as our neighbors to the south are doing now with full demolition applications currently in with staff. That is not the outcome we want. At the heart of this application is preservation, and for three years we have done everything possible to make that happen. We believe this proposal strikes the right balance. It preserves and restores the historic home while creating a functional future for this property. We respectfully ask for your support so that preservation can remain the path forward. Our intention has never been to diminish the historic character of the Marina Historic District, but rather to ensure that this home can survive, function, and continue to contribute to the neighborhood for years to come. We ask for your approval tonight, as you have in the past, and we hope the board will see that every aspect of this proposal has been driven by a genuine desire to preserve, protect, and invest in the future of this historic neighborhood. Thank you all for your time tonight.

Thank you.

So Michelle Hewitt's going to do the first half of our presentation, and then I'll do the second half.

For the record, Michelle Hewitt, senior planner, and this is a certificate of appropriateness, demolition, relocation, variances, and waivers request for 46 Marineway. On the screen here, I have an aerial with the subject property outlined in blue. To the east is Marineway and the Intracoastal, and the property is surrounded by other single-family structures to the north, south, and west, or rear. I'm going to go through some brief history of the subject property. The subject property is located on the west side of Marine Way, south of East Atlantic Avenue and north of Southeast Second Street, then the locally and nationally registered Marina Historic District. The property contains a two-story contributing residential structure and the Mediterranean Revival architectural style and a one-story contributing detached pool house, originally constructed as a detached garage sometime between 1926 and 1949 per the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. The main residence serves as a prime example of Mediterranean revival architecture within Dolly Beach, and the accessory structure serves as a classic example of a garage that was later altered and converted to a guest cottage. To the north side of the existing residence and garage served as the front of the structure, facing a now abandoned pedestrian lane known as Lover's Lane, which was abandoned and closed in 1970. The door on the north side of the structure, which you can see over here, originally served as the front door to the structure. That, along with architectural detailing such as the original bell arch, and the now-enclosed staircase on the north elevation of the home could be evidence that the home's original front was facing north. Much of the original detailing of the main structure has been preserved with minimal alterations occurring in 1983. Such alterations included installation of a new door on the east elevation, construction of a new patio, and associated new wall around the front of the structure, along with the construction of a new swimming pool. It is also important to note that the garage was also altered and converted to a guest cottage in 1983, which included raising the roof and construction of a new tie beam at the top of the existing walls. At its meeting of March 5th, 2025, so last year, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an application for a certificate of appropriateness, relocations, variances, and waivers for the subject property. It included vertical relocation of both the existing contributing structure and two-story residence and the one-story guest cottage. The board expressed concerns and continued the application to the June... Where did I go? To the June 4, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the applicant made modifications to the request to the board's concerns, which included appearance and scale of the raised porch slash patio, the impact of the third floor, the size of the roof overhangs, the impact of the structure in relation to the streetscape, and the proposed setback variance. The applicant revised the request. That included still the vertical elevation two-story structure and detached one-story guest cottage, along with variances and waivers. This request was then approved by the board at that June 4th meeting. On June 17th, 2025, the city commission appealed the approved project where a de novo review of the decision was to be reviewed, but was then pulled and heard at the August 19th, 2025 meeting where the request was then denied by the commission. Pursuant to the LDRs, whenever the City Commission or Board has denied a development application, any further application for the same request should not be considered on any part of the same property for a period of 24 months on the date of such action. So the request now before the Board is a brand new application commencing review on April 17, 2026 for a new request meeting the requirements of the LDRs. The overall request before the board is for the demolition of the detached one-story guest cottage, vertical relocation of the existing contributing two-story residence, alteration of the existing residence, including construction of a two-story addition and ground level garage, construction of a new swimming pool and hardscaping. The request also includes three variances and two waivers, which will be discussed later on in the presentation. Going through some pictures here, we have the front or east elevation. This faces Marineway and the Intracoastal. And there is this existing patio that is forward of the front wall here, along with a knee wall around that patio. Here is the side north elevation. This was mentioned in the history that this was the front, likely the front, as Lovers Lane was facing this north elevation. can see some of the existing features here like that coral wall on the left and the sloped barrel tile side roof here this is the rear or west elevation which is internal to the site and just behind this is the accessory structure this is the side or south elevation this is adjacent to 48 marine way This is the accessory structure. This is north elevation. Again, Lovers Lane was facing this side. This is the east elevation. This faces the backside of the main residence. This is the west elevation of the accessory structure. And this is the south elevation. Just as an FYI to the board. There is an active marine marineway improvement project that the city is commencing or completing to address and Update the roadway along marineway See there's a street section here for what they're proposing and So here's the existing site plan. All of the items in blue are the existing structure. So on the right is Marine Way and it's that two story main residence. And then on the left there is that accessory structure and there is a pool that currently exists to the north of the property. This is the existing first floor plan. Again, on the right is that main residence and on the left is the accessory structure. On the main residence, there is the existing half level exercise level floor plan. Kind of functions as a mezzanine in between the first and second floor. And this is the existing second floor site plan. So here is the proposed site plan. All of the elements in red are new proposed items, and the items in blue are, or the item in blue is the existing main residence. You can see there is a new pool location configuration proposed on the north side, a new driveway, a new two-story addition to the rear, and the elevation the existing main residence along the demolition of the Accessory structure the request as mentioned earlier includes the variances in two waivers This is the proposed relocation and demolition plan The hardscaping currently on this site is proposed to be removed demolition of the accessory structure and the vertical relocation of the main residents are part of the request and And here we've just got kind of an overlay of the new structure and the existing main residence to be vertically elevated. So here we have a rendering image where you can see the existing structure on the left over the proposed carport and the addition kind of recessed on the right and behind the structure. Looking at the proposal, so with the vertical relocation of the existing main residence, a brand new carport is proposed directly beneath the structure and there is a covered connection that will allow a vehicle to pass through to go to the new garage proposed on the left side directly beneath the addition. At the proposed first floor, we have the existing structure on the right in blue. This is where its new finished floor will begin once elevated. And that connection piece there leading into the new addition on the left. This is the proposed second floor plan. Again, that existing structure, its second floor is to remain and then second floor of the addition on the left there. There are no modifications to the roof of the existing structure and there is a proposed spiral staircase rooftop access on the addition. Here is a composite view where all of the new elements are outlined and or highlighted in blue and then the proposed in red. So as mentioned earlier, there is this connection piece, calling it hyphen, where the new carport beneath the existing structure is to have an open pass-through to go to the garage beneath. A vehicle is meant to traverse between those two spaces. There is a garage door proposed on the new addition in the garage. And then on the second and third floor, there is an internal connection between the existing and proposed structure. Here we have the proposed east or front elevation. On the left is the existing where you can see the main structure and that accessory structure peeking out from behind. And then on the right is the proposed east elevation where you can see, again, the existing in blue and the proposed in red. You can see the carport directly beneath the existing structure and the proposed two-story addition with the garage beneath. So to clarify how height is measured and indicated here, the FEMA requirements right now are at a minimum eight feet in this area. And the Florida Building Code requires an additional 12 inches. So at a minimum, when elevating the structure, they must be at nine feet. And the land development regulations allow an optional 12 inches of freeboard. which the applicant is requesting here. And so from that point, as requested at 10 feet, height is measured from there, from that new finish, that raised finish floor to the roof, the parapet wall there, which as proposed and per the height measurements is at 26 feet. However, from bottom to top, it's overall 36 feet, but measured for the LDRs, it's 26 feet overall. Here we have the proposed, or the west elevation. This is, again, internal to the site. This on the left is the existing in blue, and you can see the outline of the accessory structure and the proposed on the right with that addition directly behind the main residence. Here we have the north elevation. This is the side that originally faced Lovers Lane. You can see on the left is existing and then on the right is proposed. Again, blue is existing, red is proposed. And again, no modifications proposed to the existing structure. This is the south elevation. This space is 48 Marine Way. Again, blue is existing and red is proposed. You can see that spiral staircase feature that is to go up to the rooftop for access and the proposed carport and garage beneath the main residence in the new addition. This is the proposed color and material form. There are no concerns with the proposed materials and colors. However, there is a call out specifically to the proposed coral material, which is discussed later on in the presentation. So here we have the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation with the applicable standards highlighted in yellow. Looking at some staff report excerpts here, standards 9 and 10, which are very specific to additions, there is concern with the proposed size of the rear addition. While it is proposed to be two stories, which the existing structure is, the interior ceiling heights are substantially taller than the historic structure. Overall, there is a roughly 6 feet 5 inch difference between the top of the roof of the existing structure and the proposed. The addition is also substantially wider than the existing main structure. However, it is recessed 24 feet behind the front well plane and entirely behind the existing structure. A waiver for secondary and subordinate visual compatibility standard has been requested to address the overall size of the addition. So along with the Secretary of Interior Standards Rehabilitation, the Secretary of Interior Standards Rehabilitation has guidelines on flood adaptation, which are also applicable to this request. And you can see here the main standards that were applied for this particular request, which include addition requirements, the character of the property, and that each property will be retained as a physical record of its time and shall create, or shall not create, a false sense of historical development. Looking at the height of the elevation regarding elevation of the structure,

You wrapping it up?

Can you do it in five minutes?

It's up to the, like, it needs consensus from the board to give an extension.

Board? Generally.

About eight minutes.

Let's go through see how fast you can go let's get eight minutes everybody. Okay with eight. Yep.

All right the general recommendation is to allow people like the amount of time that you know, they can But whatever you guys, you know, at the end of the day it has 15 minutes and then you guys get consensus to let them move forward.

All right. Well, let's start with eight and see how far we go.

Okay. I'm going to take it from here and kind of try to speed through. So we're at the point of talking about the Secretary of the Interior standards for flood adaptation. We can come back to these if there's questions. But basically that gives guidance on the method for elevating a structure that's in a flood zone or subject to flooding with what approach. And so they've chosen elevate on a new foundation and some of these images are showing you like this one, what's acceptable. This one here is not acceptable because it added an entirely new floor and it wasn't meeting the recommended approach. So our visual compatibility standards are also utilized as we go through the review of the project. This is in your packet, a proposed streetscape. This shows the house as it exists on top, the house as it exists with the proposal and the existing structures around it. Here's their proposed rendering. You can see it's much improved over the first time it came through the board with the massing of the structure being set pretty far back on the property. and the ground floor that is added underneath the structure being what we call a carport, but it's still like a garage feature. That's typically not the recommended approach by the Secretary of the Interior standard. However, with the nine foot that's required to elevate, why not utilize that space underneath the structure for a garage? So we have several different proposed renderings that we can come back and look at. But I want to move on and get to some of the concerns. The applicant has indicated that the rooftop will not be utilized for rooftop use. However, there is a spiral staircase going up to the rooftop, which causes concern. It's not that it can't be done. They totally can use the rooftop if they want to. They just need to meet the requirements of the code. And those are all outlined in the staff report. If they're not wanting to meet those requirements of the code, we're suggesting something like a locked ladder or something that, rather than a spiral staircase, which imparts that it's accessible for anybody to go up on the roof. We don't think it's unreasonable for them to meet these requirements. They just need to go through the code and meet them. We have concerns with proportion of openings. Some of the windows and doors that are proposed aren't quite the exact They're much bigger than the windows that are existing, and while there should be some differentiation between the old and the new, there's some consistency concerns there. There's also the proposal of using a flat with a rectified edge coral around the entire base of the new garage feature, where the existing coral is very organic rock-like, and so One of the suggestions we've had is to use something a little more organic in appearance so it doesn't appear like a modern house that you would find in a western subdivision. The original main structure is no longer prominent, which we have some concerns with the rhythm of entrance and porch projections, directional front expression of the front elevation. But I think this is the nature of what happens with a project like this. So it's going to be up to the board to make the determination that it meets the standards and the visual compatibility requirements. I already talked about windows. So here, the two waivers that we're going to go through in a couple minutes really relate to the local visual compatibility standards and whether or not the addition meets the standards for additions. Is it as inconspicuous as possible? Have efforts been made to ensure the existing structure is a focal point of the site? Is it consistent with surrounding properties? This, from the Secretary of the Interior standards, the yellow are things where you all have to decide. Have these been met in the expansion of the building? In the first one here, it's like when they take a kitchen out of the main structure and put it into the addition, which is happening. The addition's larger, it's been constructed. Does it overwhelm the historic building? The two good things is this proposal now incorporates a hyphen as a connecting point, which I have a graphic and will show you. Demolition, the applicant is asking to remove the structure in the back. While there was not a permit for new construction, what happened in the 80s was removal of the roof and adding to the top wall of the garage so that it could be habitable. It didn't have habitable ceiling heights. So it was converted in the 80s to a accessory structure. We're not super concerned about this, but it's up to the board to find that it meets the requirements of the code for demolition. For relocation, there are concerns with the massing character and compatibility of the proposed addition. This is directly from the the Secretary of the Interior standard about how to vertically elevate. Again, this is a difficult site. How can you not have some level of a whole new floor underneath a building with a nine foot? Did they need to go to 10 foot and 1110? I mean, an additional foot is good for flood resiliency and increase the ceiling height, but they could have done a smaller garage. So these are all the standards we use in the analysis of the staff report. These little pictures on the bottom are taken directly from those flood adaptation guidelines that Michelle mentioned, as are these recommended and not recommended approaches. But we would rather see the building get saved than be like the picture in the middle here. It's just to what extent. And so is it going to tip the scale is what you have to be looking at. The applicant's going to have to meet relocation supplemental requirements such as securing this building. from any vandalism, should you approve this, potential weather damage. They can't just leave it open. Once they start the process, they have to secure it and keep it in a condition as it exists. They're also going to have to submit bonds. A bond, should you approve, and that is basically in place should the building get damaged during the relocation, that the bond is in place for the city to have some teeth there. We have three variances. This is a single chart that shows all of them. The pool has a variance. The pool is about 30 foot long and they're asking to encroach into the front setback. The existing structure already encroaches into the front and side setback. Once they take it off its foundation and elevate it and put a new building underneath, that triggers the variance requirements. So you can read through the staff report what the findings are. You have to meet all of these findings as the applicant and the board has to say that the project meets all five. If you feel it tips and doesn't meet one or more, it's justification to not approve their relief request. So the requirement for the front is 25 feet and it currently sits at a range of 17.7 to 20 foot six feet. The side currently sits at two foot three, where seven foot six is required. The new addition is meeting the setback requirements And then the pool is required to be 25 feet. This one is where we thought maybe some adjustment could be made. Do they need a pool that's 30 foot long? Or could they do a pool that's a little bit shorter in length and not have to have a variance at all? I am probably five minutes or less out. Maybe less.

We've come this far.

Okay, waivers, I think where I'm done. Waiver findings. So they have two waivers. The first is, can they have the building in the no-build zone? This exists in the visual compatibility standards to make sure that the massing is controlled with historic structures. To some extent, the building already, the existing building already sits in the no-build zone, and once it's vertically elevated, almost the entirety of the existing structures in the no-build zone. If the request was solely for the existing structure to go up, I couldn't see a case where you wouldn't approve a waiver to this requirement. But what is tripping the standard even more is the whole addition. Not whole, but a good maybe quarter of it is in the back. also tipping into the new build zone. How could they get around that? It would be to have a one-story addition only with the ground floor rather than a two-story. But again, this addition is pushed pretty far back to the rear of the property. So that's the building high plane waiver. The second waiver is, is the structure built or proposed to be built in such a way that it will be secondary and subordinate to the main massing of the main structure? As you can see in these pictures, that's where the board, these items you need to weigh in on. Again, the findings would need to be met, all of them. So if you feel like a TRIPS 1 with the waiver findings, that is a justification to not approve the request. Then you've got your COA findings. And I think Michelle Hewitt may have already covered the hyphen, but I do want to go back and say this is a really great approach that the applicant has taken. In that the addition could be removed in the future. That's one of the code requirements. Utilization of a hyphen is a classic historic preservation approach. So I think that was really well done in the rear of the property. Um, and then also just so you understand that when they come into the carport with the car, they can actually drove through drive through the back of the carport, accessing additional garage in the rear. All of this is non-habitable space, and they will likely have to have maybe some more flood vents around the base of this structure, which shouldn't impact the appearance. They occur right at grade. So other than the super fast finalization here, just utilize your findings for the variance, the waiver, the relocation, the demolition. and your COA. And then there are several site plan technical items that we've attached that have to be met. These are not things that can be removed by the board. They're primarily making some additional notes on the site plan. It was a way to get the request to the board as fast as possible without going through another round of TAC. Thank you. That concludes.

presentation thanks for the additional time thank you all right any members of the public want to comment on this item just state your name and address for the record yes at Greg Snyder three three two four Lakeview Drive in Delray I have a few comments I have copies for the for the board and also copies for the applicant and the staff if they want them. Yeah, I've done my own analysis of this and I've come up with basically this. This proposal includes three major components. elevating the historic residents to meet FEMA flood requirements, demolishing the freestanding pool house, and constructing a substantial two-story addition to the existing historic structure. The project requires three variances and two waivers from the land development regulations. evaluates each request in context of the historic preservation standards, neighborhood character, and regulatory intent. And the conclusion reached is that the proposal as submitted does not meet the criteria for approval and that the COA should be denied. First of all, the demolition of the contributing pool house. The staff report identifies it as a contributing structure constructed before 1949. later remodeled into a pool house in 1983. According to the applicant, it was constructed from scratch in 1983. I think that's inconsistent with the documented history, the Stanborn maps. The underlying structure predates the district's period of significance and retains sufficient integrity to be classified as contributing. Under the preservation standards, demolition of a contributing structure requires clear, compelling justification, typically structural failure, demonstrated infeasibility of rehabilitation, or unavoidable conflict with life safety requirements. I haven't seen any such justification provided, and absent evidence that preservation is infeasible Demolition of a construction structure is not warranted and contradicts the purpose of historic preservation regulations. As far as the variance requests, the first two variance requests are for the existing nonconformities for the existing historic property. And granting that is kind of a no-brainer. It obviously... as an existing nonconformity is not a problem. The third variance is for the swimming pool. A request to allow a new swimming pool to encroach in the front setback is materially different. Unlike the existing houses, the pool's not a historic feature, is not necessary to the functioning of the property. A compliant pool could be constructed simply by reducing its size or adjusting its placement. This hardship is self-created, easily avoidable, And the variance does not meet the criteria for approval, granting it would undermine the purpose of the setback regulations and set an undesirable precedent. Am I okay on time?

No, your three minutes are over.

Yeah, sorry. I'll go as quick as I can.

But we have your comments here.

Okay. And the waivers, encroachment into the no-build zone, there's going to be some. Oh, you want me to go? Yeah, sorry. We've got to cut you off.

All right. Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Julian Ray. I live at 24 Marine Way, the neighbors to the north of this property. I want to say, first of all, my grandmother, Eugenia DePonte, she sent an email to you all. I have it here if you guys would like it. In the record, I can provide you with a copy.

We have it.

We got copies of it. Thank you. I reviewed the project files today. And there were some points that I wanted to make. I like the idea of replacing the gravel parking with the carport that goes underneath the existing structure. I think that's both efficient. and cognizant in maintaining the design with respect to the space problems of the property. I think that the destruction of the pool house would not have any effect whatsoever on the historic preservation of this property as outlined in the applicant's presentation. The pool house was constructed after the period of historic preservation that's applicable here. And you can't even see the pool house from the street either. So it really doesn't have any effect to the average passerby if it's gone. There was a mention of the spiral staircase. And that, I think... It was interesting because reading some of the issues with that, it would imply that the roof would be easily accessible to anybody, but I don't see how that really is the case. It would be used by the owner to maintain the property as needed, to access the roof as needed for maintenance purposes. I think that the historical building the existing structure is prominent. Based off of the designs that we saw, it's front facing, the additions is behind the existing structure, and the carport specifically I think blends in well with the front of the building itself. I also have some questions maybe for the board and for the city commissioners as to the contract for the seawall and how that work will be coordinated with the applicants and homeowners here. I don't know if you can comment on that at all, but I would appreciate it if you can. But the bottom line is for the residents, the neighbors, Here at 46 Marine Way, I want the board to approve of the variances and waivers that they are requesting here. I think that it will benefit the property values on Marine Way and also maintain

the look and feel of the neighborhood as well thank you thank you uh just your comment on the seawall we have zero input and or information to share on that so um that would be a city commission meeting i would recommend that the next public comment you go and ask that question you're welcome

George Long, 46 North Swinton. I'm not about to touch all these details. I've seen you guys talk about the motif on a tile for two days one time. Well, maybe it was two hours. So I'm just going to look at the general viewpoint as somebody walking through the Marina District. I think that used to be Canal Street there. First of all, if If you go way down to the south end, where Stuart and Shelby did the house down there at the second street, sitting up on a big mound. So you've got your choice. You're going to go up nine feet. You put up a big mound of dirt, like a ceremonial mound or something, or you can do something reasonable like putting this garage through there, underneath there. Good thing. When I first saw a picture of that house as is, looking at those windows and all, I could visualize if we had a big hurricane, the surf going right through that house. You're not talking about just a little bit of a water standard on the street. You're talking about going right to the next block. So that's a very good solution as far as I'm concerned. So the dirt mound versus the garage. The garage is a good thing. Also when this first came out, I got a big case of facade shock with that kind of plain wall in the front coming in from the side going underneath there. That did not look good. This looks a lot better. It looks like they've put a lot of thought into that. But I recognize that Nothing ever goes smoothly. So there's probably going to be a lot of argument about this, that, and the other. But generally speaking, if you look at it, it's a much, much improved rendition. And what I see kind of makes sense. But I'll leave the details up to you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you, George.

Good evening. Price patent 33483. First of all, I just want to say I've got no problem with the applicant raising the historic house. I've got no problem with an addition. What I have a problem with is the scope and the mass of the addition. It still remains overwhelming, even though they've reduced it. The project as it's presented now is fundamentally incompatible with not only the historic property but the historic streetscape as well as the historic integrity of the entire neighborhood. Only 2% of this city has historic properties. So you have a responsibility to honor the historic integrity of the streetscape and the building. I've done three or four buildings in the Marine Historic District, not too far from here. Our additions have been a total of 60 square feet and like 120 square feet. So I'm not opposed to adding additions, but it's just too massive. The difference between the renderings that they presented, even in the In the application, the rendering says, final product may not look like this. And then when you look at the rendering and then the facades presented by the city, you can tell how overwhelmed the original historic house is by the addition. And it's not for your consideration to approve a project because an applicant has spent a lot of time and a lot of money. It's the applicant's responsibility to conform the project to the LDRs. And I don't think this conforms to the Secretary of the Interior standards. It doesn't conform to the comp plan, and it doesn't conform to our LDRs. And finally... no matter how nicely it was delivered, you know, a threat to say that if you don't approve this plan tonight, we're going to be forced to go on with demolition. If I were sitting on that board, I'd say bring it on, you know, because you're going to have to approve the demolition anyway. Here is, I'd like to, that's the letter I sent. I think the applicant has a copy of the letter. And thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. And we have the letter. It was presented to us.

I just want it part of the record.

Oh, OK. Yeah. Yeah, it should be. Thanks.

Hello. I'm Jim Chard, 33483 Delray Beach. One of the great pleasures of my life was to serve on this board and John's chair there. I am very, very passionate about historic preservation. I did an 1865 story brownstone in Brooklyn out of that passion. And one of the reasons that I came to Delray is because it does have a history and a background. In my four years on historic preservation board, I was probably involved with somewhere between 75 and 100 buildings being approved. And I sat with some of you on that, and George sat with all of us. And almost every one of those buildings substantially increased the area that was under air and livable. Not by 50% or 100%, but by 200% and 300%. 3,000 square feet more. The building that George mentioned just down the street, if you go in the alley and behind it, it is huge compared to the house that you see in the front. This building is tiny. Those of you who have not had the time to go look at it can't fully realize how small it is. It's about the size of a two-car garage. And in that, they've got a kitchen, they've got a little living room, they've got a stairwell that's very, very narrow. And in today's age where we have all sorts of features in our home, like big screens and refrigerators and bathrooms, that's not going to fit in that space. So to make this a viable living building, it needs to be substantially larger. And I know that prior decisions are not supposed to be a precedent. I'm sure I'd be reminded of that. But when you take a look at the buildings, whether it's on Swinton or Del Ida or Old School Square, the new rehab, restoration, historical buildings are substantially larger than the original building. I think to make this a viable living home that contributes to our community and to the memory and the history that this is not at all beyond what the LDRs and the Secretary of Interior require. It is fully compliant. If you look at this in an objective way, that it's fully compliant with a comprehensive plan, which I am proud to say I helped write, and with the LDRs and with the ordinances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would also like to say of the two letters of support from the community, both the residents to the north and to the south are in favor of this. And I think you also got the letter from Bill Schiltz.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. Good evening everybody. I'm Sandy Zeller. My dress is 209 Northwest 12th Street in Delray Beach I lived in the before I lived there. I lived in the marina historic district for 13 years One block from this property. I'm very familiar with the property. I'm very familiar with the surrounding area and I served as president of the Marina Historic District Homeowners Association for many years. So my involvement remains. My heart is still there with preserving that district. I respectfully disagree with my colleague Jim Chart on some of the comments and some of the comments made on behalf of the applicant. This is a massive structure, and it's a massive expansion of the character of the Marina Historic District. The certificate of appropriateness that they're requesting is just inappropriate. As has been said and as is stated in the staff report, there are three variances required, two waivers required, and it violates several provisions of the Secretary of the Interior's standards. That wasn't even addressed by the applicant, but it's true. They're listed on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report. It's a comprehensive staff report, as far as I'm concerned. I was on Planning and Zoning Board and read a lot of staff reports in my time. This one is very, very thorough. Not that the others aren't, but this one is especially thorough. And most of the, and actually all of the variances and waivers that are being asked for are self-created by the applicant because of the massive structure that they want to put. They can build it and meet the criteria by building a much more smaller and a more accommodating structure. So we're talking about the height. The height's been increased substantially, about six and a half feet above the existing height, even accommodating the FEMA regulations which require the building to be raised. Secretary of the Interior's standards, really, if you read through them, particularly 9 and 10, clearly violate the provisions of historic districts and the standards created for historic districts. So in all, I would ask that the board deny this application. My last comment really comes in the form of a question. And that question is, you have a 39-page staff report that's comprehensive. You have some comments made by the app.

Sorry, we're going to have to wrap it up.

I'll finish up in a second, if I may. Thank you. Who should be given more credibility by the board? The staff report that's prepared by the city planners, Ms. Hewitt and Ms. Hoyland, they did an excellent job with it, or the self-serving comments of the applicant. In my opinion, I believe that the answer is simple, that it's your staff reports that should be followed. So thank you for your time and the extra time. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Thank you. Anybody else? Part of the applicant team.

Yeah, I think if you have comments since you're part of the applicant, you guys can do them during the cross-examination and the rebuttal.

okay there'll be there'll be a lot of opportunity i think so all right um any other comments see none now we get into rebuttal so um applicant or it's up to you yeah either one do uh michelle you want to go or you can let the applicant go okay

Hi, I'm Dan Edwards, the applicant and Kay's dad. And what I'd like to do in a few minutes, I'd like to just pull up the picture, Kay, of the project. We've reduced it by 33%. And I want to take the time to thank Michelle and both Michelles. We have spent a tremendous amount of time with both of them. And with Michelle Hoyland, I think this has been the best version of the home that we've designed. And Michelle, thank you for that. You brought a lot into that. Never is it going to be easy when you're talking historic. And to address Mr. Price and Mr. Snyder, of the $4 million that I've invested, I think they've invested zero. So it also comes down to who's going to invest in preservation? Because without an investor or without an individual with the money to do what is necessary here, This building becomes nothing. A year from today, as someone mentioned, one hurricane, one more flood. There is no structure here. There is nothing to preserve. Far different meeting. So there are no threats as far as demolition. Nature is going to take care of that by itself. This will not be here. I bought this property three years ago. And in that three years, it's amazing what I've learned in Delray Beach about preservation. I spent hundreds of hours in Boca. This was a Villa Rica property that was shipped up by Burge. So was the house to the south of us that's gonna be demoed. Unfortunately, that neighbor of mine, AJ, is going, the demo process is in right now because he was not willing to continue this process. It was easier for him to quit then continue. It's easier for me to quit. I could have quit three years ago and just submitted for demo. For those of you, and thank you, that have walked the property, it's 900 square feet. It's not 9,000. It's 900. It's the size of some of our bathrooms. So we're not asking for something that's crazy and we downsized it, and again with Michelle Hoyland, thank you, from 5,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet, that's a significant reduction in investments for me if I go to return and sell the property. So I think Delray needs preservation, it needs investors like in Sunday Village to bring in restaurants, to bring in tax revenue, to bring in more residents, and I think it would be a sin Second time around when we voted the first time yes, and I appreciate that for the board members then that took the time to come out and see it I Think it would be a sin to do nothing, but let this rot So thank you so much Thank you Michelle Are they completely done no one else any other rebuttal comments No

You're up.

OK. I have a few points. So I think I covered it in my presentation. The structure in the rear was remodeled in the 1980s, not a whole new build. Just so we're clear, it did show up on the 1949 Sanborn map. It's also believed that the main structure was moved here. But we've been researching and reaching out to other preservationists in Boca. We are not able to substantiate that, but we have some documentation from Dr. Donald Curl, who was a longtime preservationist. He's since passed away, where he believed this came from the south side of the Boca Raton Hotel, both this and the structure to the south, the main building. As far as demolition, the applicant has the right to submit any application that they wish, and we are required to review it, and then the board is required to review and deliberate. So if they wish to submit a request for demolition, you can read in your staff report what the requirements are for demolition. That includes an issue with condition, an issue getting all the appraisals done, that responsibilities on the applicant to make that case as to whether or not demolition is the appropriate request, and then it's up to the board to make a further determination. As far as letting the building rot, there are requirements in the LDRs per LDR section 4.5.1 . that are relating to maintenance of structures. You can go and review them. I encourage the applicant to review them as well. You cannot let the building suffer water damage. I understand that they're flooding here, but it's still their responsibility to do all they can to prevent any intrusion of water, termite damage, failing structural members. This is a code section that's being utilized on other property owners too. And if it becomes a case that there's maintenance violations and the building rots and falls in on itself, there are further limitations per the code that say the board has the ability to not let a permit for five years on the property if the owner doesn't maintain the property. So I just want people to be fully aware. that that's not truly an option. I don't know about the house on the mound, but I'm curious to talk to George about it. The size of the building in the square foot calculation site data table, just so we're clear, yes, the existing structure contains 987 square feet. The garage is being proposed for demolition. The air-conditioned space combined with The 987 square feet will result in 3,321 AC. But if you include the garages, the total square footage of the building is 4,921, just so we're clear. There was a member of the public that said it's fully compliant. If it were fully compliant, there wouldn't be requests for waivers. Relocation demolition variances The spiral staircase comment, I don't remember who made it the site plan technical item is in the staff report It's not a negotiable item. They either comply or they don't comply it Otherwise, they would have to seek a waiver to not comply with the requirements for rooftop uses as far as marine waste Marineway plans and the seawall. I apologize. I'm not up to date on the current status So I can't provide an update to the member of the public that asked however a site plan technical item included in the staff report Does require that the applicant? Confer with the Public Works Department to ensure that their plans are correctly Designed to reflect any improvements happening in front of their property again a non-negotiable item And then just a final, final, this has not been in the process for three years. If we were going to do a cumulative look, the original application came in April 17, 2024, went to the board August 19, 2025, the board meeting the city commission, who then denied. The application has come back through and was deemed sufficient this time, April 17th, 2026. And we are six weeks later here at the board on June 3rd. So we're mandated by Florida statute and our code about the swiftness with which we review applications. So this has not been in the system for three years. And I just wanted to make sure we were clear about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Okay.

Who would like to start? I don't want. I'm not going to put anybody on the spot. I'll start. Let's just get right into it.

Pete, thanks. Thank you. So I did go to the site and see it in person. There's no denying that there's a lot of damage. It needs to be raised. And I'm all for that. And also I want to say the renderings, they all look beautiful. It all looks really nice. But the issue is with the given site, it's asking for a lot for this site. The massing of what is being proposed, it does overwhelm the current historic structure. I'm okay with the setbacks. The pool one, it's not completely necessary, but I'm okay with it. But it gets to a point where the historic structure, it becomes an add-on to this big mass. And I know it's presented that it's only 987 square foot, but it's still something you could work with. It doesn't mean that you have to add thousands of square foot, you could be more generous to the site in the given conditions. And like when you buy this property, you know, that's historic, it's, um, It's part of this historic district, and you're limited to what you can do. So I just want to point out those things. But the biggest thing would be that it is overwhelming the current historic structure.

All right. Where do I start? this is my third term on this board and I have to say that this is probably one of the worst I mean worst in the terms of the amount of waivers and the amount of variances and just being out of compliance and out of spec that I've seen and as a board I If we were to allow this to go forward, we would have to answer to ourselves and to the community of who allowed this to happen, because it's really that bad. For all the reasons that staff brought up, as well as the points that Mr. Patton, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Zeller brought up, I mean, they're all right on point, as well as what Jake just mentioned is It's just way out of scale. I mean, you look at the new streetscapes and the existing structure just gets, the existing building just gets lost. And the new addition, I mean, it completely changes the character and the style of the architecture. I might not be able to define what the old style is and what the new style is, but they're definitely not the same. It's just not right. I just can't describe how just kind of inappropriate this plan is. I mean, I know it's 987 square feet, but like Jake said, the applicant bought a historic property in a historic zone that was 987 square feet. I mean, you knew what you were getting. There are ways this could be improved, but not this way. This is just completely off the mark. I also have to say that I find it completely disingenuous and personally and professionally insulting for somebody to come before the Historic Preservation Board and say, if I don't get my way, I'm going to tear my house down. I mean, that's just out of line. And I don't respond to threats very well.

So I have a series of questions for the applicant, so whoever wants to field them. But come up on the, someone needs to come up.

Good evening, board. My name is Mariana Wood. I'm with Affinity Architects. Yeah, I need to swear. I wasn't here. Sorry.

Okay.

Well, first, I agree with everything that my two fellow board members said, so I'm not going to repeat that. And I wasn't here for the original presentation. I do... commend the applicants for sticking with this and coming back. I do understand that it is a significant investment in time and money to build this structure to propose it. So I definitely commend everybody for sticking with it because the alternate could have just been to tear it down or to seek to tear it down. And I agree that there are limits with this property that are beyond the control of the applicants. The home was built or placed or however it ended up there in its current location. It doesn't meet setbacks on the side. And so there is a need for discussion and a need for some consideration. From a matter of style, I do like the style of architecture. I think it reminds me of its Mediterranean revival, and it reminds me of an Addison Meisner or a Fascio home in Palm Beach with the windows and the different steps. So I think it's pretty cool. And I think on Marine Way, it's such a prominent street because you not only have the street, but you also have visible from the waterfront. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic, a lot of people walking through. So I think there's a certain duty to the neighborhood and to the community and to the structure to preserve it. My questions are, and these are in really no specific order, you propose a pool, but there's no barrier shown on any of the renderings. So what would the material be?

So the pool is usually a separate parameter for us just to start with. So pool barrier, I mean, we didn't really

A four-foot aluminum fence in a bronze with hedging and landscaping?

Some landscaping, yeah. Okay. Something nice.

Okay. Since you are asking for a variance on the pool, could you go smaller on the pool?

We could.

Okay. In terms of the maintenance area on the roof... What is going up there? Because I don't see any maintenance, any mechanical equipment on the roof.

There are emergency roof drains and that area is going to be just like sloped to the emergency drains. So it's just for the homeowner to go up there and clean and maintain and do whatever they need to do. So it's not supposed to be any finished material if that answers.

okay and i guess from a three-story building having a flat roof and no way to access it that's a hardship correct without the access is from the second floor so no public will be able to access okay um in terms of some of the the butter questions and and issues that were in some of the letters um about the massing and the scale of it, would it be feasible to maybe add some more architectural features to the existing structure, whether it's stucco or a treatment or something to really create the look that or the differentiation of that structure and make that somewhat prominent of a feature. Because if you look here, it does get lost, even with the landscaping around the pool. And I mean, it's not, you know, that north area is going to be blocked, but it does get lost. And the north area above the balcony, above the living room in the main bedroom, that's really where the eye is drawn because it's taller. But in looking to preserve the original structure, Would you be able to add, again, more features, more cladding to that to really just create more prominence of that structure?

I mean, we could, but I feel that the existing structure is very simple. So by adding that, it will also change the style of the architecture. So it will become almost two separate homes, and we're trying to just keep it as close as possible as the existing structure.

Okay. And then one of the things that somebody brought up is the windows, there's lack of windows. So in the main bedroom where the, I guess on the floor plan, it shows a bed placed.

Yeah, we can go to that slide if you want because it will help.

Again, that elevation, if you're going to speak, if you just come to the mic.

That's the rear elevation. Nobody really will see that for starters. And there's no closet space. So in order for that to be a bedroom, we need some closets.

There are actually closets next to the bed. Like it's going to open up and you'll have.

Oh, those are going to be cabinets.

So no work. Again, I mean, we're working with actually... It's a very tiny floor plan. And so the bedrooms, they're not very big. So in order to incorporate that, those are actually closets. I know they seem like maybe they'd be nightstands, but... They are closets. And then you get the window as you come into the bathroom.

See, here's the issue. And this is where you had me until that one statement. Because you said, we're working with tiny bedrooms. But you have the ability to build a whole new house. If you were saying that the main bedroom was going to be in the existing house in the blue, I could understand the hardships of closet space and existing space. But you're building a whole new house. You have the ability to create an entirely new house. And now you're saying that there's a hardship in... tiny bedrooms, but you're building a whole new house that you have the ability to, to really create the bedrooms of your size and the bedrooms that you, you want.

So, um, I would just say there's not a question pending. So unless, yeah. Yeah.

And so, so, and so my, my, my, I guess my question is, yeah. Okay. And so, I mean, I guess then my, my, my question would be, um, could you, Look at adding windows there and maybe rejiggering that bedroom floor plan and the other side to figure something out.

We can add windows, yes. Of course.

OK. OK. That's what I have.

I'm going to defer until the end.

OK. Well, that was a good point about the west elevation does seem pretty much devoid of any character whatsoever. So as far as the variances go, well, first of all, I was here for the first application last year. And I did not approve that sitting here on the board. I wasn't in favor of it. I do think you've done a lot of work. I think you're going in the right direction. But there are still some problems with massing. I really didn't have a problem too much with the variances. You obviously have this historic structure that's taking up a couple of those. The pool, you didn't need it. You could have just come in here without a variance for the pool, but you chose to do it. The dimension wasn't on the site plan for the pool. I didn't know how long it was until the city had a... had a graphic that showed it was 30 feet. That's a standard pool size. That's fine. You don't really need it. But I don't think it's a deal breaker. You're about 30 feet from the edge of pavement from the street. So you would have a fence up, and you're going to have landscape, because you're not going to want privacy if you're in that pool. But I do think the massing still, that's the biggest problem you got, the massing with the existing structure.

So you have 12-foot ceilings. Is this true? No, 10-foot ceilings.

Okay, because on the elevations, it shows, doesn't it show 12?

No, it's 10 feet plus 2 feet of structure.

It's it looks like 12, but there's a like a two-foot space between ceiling and floor so it's ten foot as you're in the room and There's two feet between floors Mm-hmm So that's another thing I mean, it's just like you you do have that mousing you could lower the ceilings you could make it less you could Make it better

I mean, most homes nowadays are 10-foot ceilings, and that's the minimum if we're not talking about 12 or 14.

If you're asking a question, that's fine. But I didn't hear the question.

My question is, can you make the ceiling height lower so that the massing would be less, and therefore creating less of an issue in the compatibility?

I mean, we could lower the ceilings, but we already took a third floor down, and we're not even at the 35-foot maximum height that we could go.

Well, you could go to 35 feet, but you also have to get through the board and the waivers that you're asking for. So there are waivers.

But for the LDR, we can go up to 35 feet without a question.

to lower. I just want to note to the board, while 35 feet is the permitted max height in this zoning district, it is not the only standard that's applicable, obviously. There are the visual compatibility standards and the historic preservation requirements. And then I just thought maybe, do you know what the standard minimum interior ceiling height is?

I believe it's seven.

a minimum ceiling height on a new house is eight feet nobody builds eight foot ceilings anymore they're all minimum but the florida building code what is the florida building yeah i i had it as seven foot six the last time we did a report from the building official so it's somewhere between seven foot six and eight yeah um but that is my question is the florida building code not what the um

Industry standard is the Florida building code standard minimum standard minimum is a thank you a building code is in between You're right between seven six and eight Okay, and I just have one more comment.

I Do think you've done better than you know, the last one was just I can't even believe it got approved by this board from the first application so The cantilever that's behind the pool, to me, is there an elevation that you can put up? Yeah. This is a comment regarding just the architectural in general. I just feel like that cantilever needs two columns to connect it to the ground. I feel like it looks unstable, like visually. I think it just needs some visual stability to anchor it in place. Yeah, that's my comment.

That's fine. Sure. What's the comment?

I'm sorry, what was the question? I feel like it needs columns to come down from that cantilever to visually stabilize it.

Continuation from the arches down to the ground floor.

We just got to be careful we don't design from the dais.

I think if you think it's, if the reasoning is something to do with the visual compatibility standards or something like that.

Yes, I am talking about visual compatibility and stability of the structure.

So Kelly, what was the rest of what you were going to say? if you feel like it's a visual compatibility?

I was just saying, it just needs to be related to something that is visual compatibility standards. If you think that the rhythm of solids to voids is off because there's not the columns, then that's an appropriate comment. But if you're just saying, I think it looks better with columns, then it's more designing from the dais. But if you do think it's visual compatibility standards, then it is visual compatibility standards.

Yeah, we can accept anything.

Anything else? Those are my comments. Thank you. That's great. Thank you, Carol. Pete?

Yeah. I'm very familiar with this project. I was on the board a year ago. And I actually approved it. And I stand by that decision. I know we have different people on the board. And it's unfortunate that we have so much contention over the project. I think the applicant has done a very good job in trying to meet all the LDR criteria with a very difficult site and a difficult location that is being heavily impacted by weather and conditions that move forward every year. It's challenging. I mean, I do object to the large pool. I have to say that a 30-foot pool is a standard pool you'd find in a lot double this size. And you can see some of the new construction around town. They put in basic plunge pools. They just have to check the box. They've got a pool. So I don't know why you're pushing for a waiver there. I would say that right off the bat, I would not put a pool that big on this property. And the bigger issue is that historic districts, as I've learned, are not to be frozen in amber. And there are people in this room that would like to just see that house stay the way it is at 987 square feet with a 100 square foot addition. And unfortunately, with the economics the way they are that we're not supposed to consider, it doesn't really work. I mean, if we want to preserve Marine Way and we want to have houses that are improved and that will last 50 years or more, people are going to have to spend money and they're going to have to build something that – The market will receive, pay for, maintain, and enjoy. And this is right on the intercoastal as well. It's a valuable property, and it should be preserved. And it's admirable that the existing structure is being preserved. I've walked it. It's in very bad shape as it is. And it's going to take a lot to preserve that structure. Is this a perfect architectural specimen? No, it's not. I don't think it's going to go up for any awards. But is it a good solution for this site? It is good. I think it is good.

And I think it's something I can support.

I mean, again, we have to allow some flexibility. And there's a reason we have a board made up of professionals. I'm a general contractor. We have another contractor on the board. We have at least two architects, I believe, and other people from the community. And these decisions are hard. And we really have to consider them. And I'm going to vote for approval. I think it's a project that should go forward. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have a lot of questions for the applicant. Just a couple of comments for the audience and whatever. As far as the variances. So I agree with Pete on the swimming pool. That was kind of a self-inflicted wound on this one. That wasn't necessary. However, the side setback and the front setback variances are existing nonconformities. You're elevating the property in place. In my mind, those are completely justified. The waiver, the second waiver, or the first waiver, the building height plan, Again, existing nonconformity. So whether you're going to argue that it's 25 or 50 or 80% violating that building height plane, it's still violating it. And it always will. I don't know if you could put anything on this lot that's not going to. In fact, as a measurement, I'm not a big fan of that standard. But that's neither here nor there. I think what it really comes down to is the secondary and subordinate. And along with Pete, I voted for this last time, and I think it would be hypocritical if I would not support this because it is lower.

I just want to say that you don't have to consider that. This is a new application, a de novo application.

I'm just, you know, stream of consciousness here. I think the treatment from the front is a lot better. With the fact that this thing has to be elevated in place, if you took that whole bottom floor off and dropped it to the ground, I don't think it's that unreasonable. So I think the visual shock of seeing it up that high when it has to be elevated is one thing. It is a small lot. There's not much you can do with it. We didn't really talk about the accessory structure in the back. you know there seems to be some contention of when it was actually put up. There was something on the original site or one of the Sanborn maps from the 40s. Whether it was exactly that, whether it was replaced, I don't know if anybody could prove one way or the other on that. But there was something back there, definitely. I personally don't have a problem with that going away. I don't think it has any redeeming historic value at this point. and then so my my vote is going to be for this moving forward seeing how this is tonight I don't think probably has the votes to pass and then my only question to the staff is or to the applicant is do you want us to vote on this or do you want us to postpone it for future consideration without having to go through the whole thing again. Sure. Because we can postpone it to a date, or we can go ahead and vote.

Can I address some of the board's concerns to make those minor changes here and now? Because I liked some of those. Richard, Mr. Kessler?

I mean, if it's up to you, you guys have the concerns.

I think that could help you make the decision of whether you wanted to continue the direction. But I would just say, if the board wants that, you need to stick to the ones that they have.

I will stick to the three, the three prominent ones. Carol, first for yours.

May I ask a follow-up? I'm sorry. Are you saying that he can proffer some solutions and the board can vote on those solutions without seeing the design?

No, not necessarily. I'm just saying if he wants a continuation to... Like, I still think that continuation may be a thing that might have to exist for this board. I'm just saying if that weighs into whether they're either going to deny or continue this project, they can hear... your concern your statements so that they can make those decisions of whether they'd be conditions and or if there are just small minor details that you do think could be made i just it feels like what the applicant is saying is that he potentially would proffer some changes that they could vote on tonight I'll tell you, going down to nine feet ceilings, that can't be done overnight.

That's not one of them. I think we owe you to hear it out, and then we will make a decision.

I appreciate your time, because I know this is not easy. Carol, to adjust yours first, I love your idea of the two columns. I like that. I like the look of it. So if someone was to make a motion, I would, in that motion, to have those two columns made. Pete, I understand your concern with the pool. And part of that motion, not only with the columns, is to reduce the pool back by five feet so we don't have that variance. I like that. And Richard, I liked your comment of some variation with the texture of the existing building. I know it doesn't quite fit, but I like what you said there, because I'm trying to figure out aesthetically how this is going to look to people on the Atlantic, going down the intercoastal, and how nice this is going to look. So my thoughts would be, if the motion was to move forward, is also you holding us accountable to those three things.

Thank you. You're welcome.

um we didn't get to the item so you want us to vote on this tonight yes i do okay all right somebody want to proffer a motion before we go there i just want to be clear that the appealable if it were to go into the direction of denial the appealable would occur in it would be on the appealable list in july so the city commission Would see that and if the applicant chose to do not to appeal a denial Then the board the City Commission Would choose a date within 60 days of that July meeting date to rehear it again as a de novo hearing I just want everybody to be really clear so that somebody doesn't come back later and say that we didn't advise as to what the process is and If it's a continuation, I would suggest that you discuss with the applicant the date that you would be looking at for continuation because we do have to re-advertise. We cannot do a continuation with the public notices to date certain anymore. Right?

Actually, you can do a date certain, but I don't know if you can make that.

Decision of when you can come back and make those changes, you know, so it just depends on whether it's I just want the applicant to be fully informed and so this would be if we did continue most likely be The soonest would be the August hearing Well, I mean it they've been working pretty fast to turn things around however, you would need to ask them that question if they would even be able to come back in July and It's possible for us, based on today being June 3rd, that they could come back on July 1st or it could be August or whatever. But if there's changes happening to the plan and you're going to continue, we need an opportunity to review that. And the direction about... adding features to the existing structure is kind of flying in the face of some of the code requirements. So I'm a little, I don't want to get too in the weeds on that, but.

Well, it doesn't sound like the applicant is interested in the continuance anyway. Okay, are we sure?

Well, I would like to say that the columns was one thing, but the massing and reducing the scale was my bigger issue. So saying that,

So just to confirm, you would prefer a decision be made today?

Approval or denial.

Approval or denial.

Not a continuation. OK.

Correct. OK. All right. Does somebody want to have a go at it? I mean, you could just vote to approve as is. You could vote to approve with conditions, or you could vote to deny.

So what would be the, I guess we would figure out the conditions.

Whoever wants to make the motion. So let Ben at it. I know where that's going to go. But if somebody wants to try and craft something that would be appetizing to everybody here, I don't know if that's going to exist. But we can give it a shot.

I would just say if it ends up being a motion to approve with conditions, then I would just want to, again, check with staff before we make the vote just to see if those are conditions that can even be done without seeing a new.

So the three concerns that were brought up by the applicant were the pool setback, which he said he'd take that back. adding some columns which are more visual and aesthetic to the cantilevered section, and then some topical treatment, I guess you could call it, on the surface of the structure to make it look a little bit more different than the new addition, correct? Correct.

Those were the three he brought up, but are those allowable or feasible under the code?

Applying to the existing structure more architectural details does not meet the standards of The Secretary of the Interior Standards says you shouldn't add conjectural features that are changing any architectural style. So that's completely inappropriate. And we would be writing that in the staff report.

I guess if that was a condition, she would require that it came back to the board to actually see how that works. How that played out. So then you'd be out of control.

So why would the board suggest an inappropriate treatment?

Really, to me, the only one that was applicable that we could actually support or vote on would be the removal of the pool from the front setback. The columns would have to be reviewed and come back.

And honestly, in looking at one of the things that when we reviewed this as a team and from the get-go, we actually thought that the cantilevered portion of the building was completely appropriate because it provided differentiation from the old to the new. Adding columns, there are no columns really being utilized elsewhere, so You know, I wouldn't split hairs if you really wanted columns and they wanted to design that and come back. We would probably, you know, have a comment about it. But I don't think it's as serious as the other.

I think if it was the only thing that was holding this project up, that would maybe be something. But there seems to be a lot more than that. So just go ahead and make a clean motion however which way you feel.

So I'm going to – try my hand here at something just because there's so much discussion about a lot of the minutia and I know you want to vote I know the applicant wants to vote tonight but I'm going to make I think that it needs to come back and certain things are going to need to come back so you'll be back with certain features they can't deny if he wants it to come back I'm not okay I'm making a motion to continue this to a following meeting yes I'm moving to continue with direction

I'll second.

All right. Discussion. So the applicant hasn't asked for it, but you want to.

I just think if they agreed to certain things that we or agreed to consider certain things that we.

So at this point, you would provide the direction. So I think you're in board discussion. So you have an active motion, right, Kelly? They would have to. You would have to provide some direction because everyone has a little something different that In order to provide clear guidance to the applicant, what is your direction? Is it the columns, the pool, the massing, the blank walls? You've got to kind of lay it out for them.

From where I sit, I think you can obviously tell that there's some concerns. I think it's the massing. I think it's... The columns, I understand that my nitpickiness about the original structure probably isn't a feasible thing to impart on you. And it would be putting a hardship on you, so that's fine. And the windows, I think, and the pool obviously coming back. And I would also, I know the pool is separate, but because we're looking at the overall structure, I'd like to see on the renderings something that shows the pool barrier. So that would be my direction to come back with addressing those concerns or at least considering them and coming back with responses in terms of a plan.

Before I would support a motion like that, I would want to ask the applicant, is this something that you would be willing to make material changes to this to come back? If not, I'm not going to support a motion to continue.

Is there a way not to have to come back my son's getting married in Italy June 23rd So and I've changed five different vacations to come back over the two years. So what I'm trying to do is I Hear the pool and coming back and I know with Carol with the columns If you took a hundred votes, there's gonna be a hundred different people that want different colors different things. So we've really in the three years, done everything we can to get to this point right tonight. And I understand it's not an easy vote. I understand that. It wasn't easy a year ago. So I would prefer, I need to know which direction I'm going with this property. Because if I do nothing, it's just literally out of my control with a flooding. So I have to get going. And for the contractors in the room, there's a lot of lead time to raise this structure. And JQ is an architect. We know that.

Yeah. I mean, you heard the comments and the concerns of the board.

So I would prefer a motion with reducing the pool. And the rest of it stands.

OK.

But the question is- If that is denied, then- You could still end up with motion to continue. The board can still make that motion. Right, whether the applicant supports it or not.

You can, but we typically do try to. I mean, you have the motion on the floor. Yeah, we have a motion. We're going to vote on it. You guys can do it. But we do typically try to.

know give them a decision if they want a decision then the commission hears it on appeal if they appeal it and pay the fees and you know all that stuff so all right so we have a motion and a second is there any more discussion on this motion before discussion that i'd like to have is that every time we've sent somebody back and said you can do better you can do better you can make this work They always come back with a really good solution. So what I'm saying, even if that's not what the applicant wants right now, it can be done.

Well, this applicant was continued the first time. This is the third time. They came back with bigger.

Unless there's another question, I would just let them discuss.

Yeah, and I agree. It does typically get better in our opinion over time or by the board's opinion. So the applicant said he didn't want a continuation. So that's where I'm kind of, if we're going to continue it and it's going to come back the same thing, what's the point? or with a pool or a column, which staff doesn't like the columns.

I don't think the columns work.

Yeah, I mean, the elephant in the room is the massing and the scale. Columns are a little irrelevant. And so we would have to redesign the structure, which we're not going to do that. So the applicant would, and if the applicant's not. amenable to that then what's the point of the continuation so i mean let's have a motion or let's we have a motion we have a second let's vote on a continuation and then it goes from there can michelle ask you guys a question

It might be helpful just so the applicant's fully informed. Once it goes up to city commission, they don't typically continue with direction. So if the applicant is thinking that they'll go to city commission on an appeal and it gets denied, they start over again with the fees again. So I just want everyone to be fully aware of the process. I don't want there to be any surprises. And you didn't tell us that. I just want... Everyone to be aware that if it should get denied, an appeal is imminent.

Do you have a question about the appeal or a continuation?

I'm not looking to go to commission, and I never was. It went to commission for the first time, I think, in the history of Delray to be denied. So I'm wondering, could someone make a motion for approval? With reduction of the pool, obviously putting a barrier around it.

Honestly, at this point, it's either do you want a motion to continue with direction or do you want them to make a motion?

And I think you've already answered that.

Can only one person make a motion? I think in fairness to Mr. Edwards, he's trying to understand. He's asking if the board can make a motion to approve with the condition that the massing be adjusted or that the pool be removed or something like that. And if it requires design changes, it has to go back through the review. So I just want him to be aware and the board to be aware of what that process is. Because I understand his commitments that he has in the coming month and whatever is going on. I want it to be equally fair to the applicant.

Yeah, so if we vote to continue this, then you have the opportunity to come back at some point in the future and represent us. If it votes to vote approval or denial, whichever way that goes, if it's denied, then you have a right to appeal to the city commission. I'd rather not appeal.

I'd rather have an approval. And I understand the massing, but it's far less than $5,000. It's $3,300. It's a nice, livable home. I can't lie.

the arguments continue you know you're making an argument for yourself i'm not saying you're arguing i'm just saying so what i think we should do is we'll we'll vote on this waiver because there's a motion on the table or i'm sorry the continuance and so where that goes then we will have to make another motion if that fails unless there's an amendment to the motion that's it yeah so go ahead thank you guys very much i appreciate your time thank you so do you want to continue your motion as made with a continuance well i mean i would a question for staff um you if if if the conditions were design related the applicant would have to come back

they'd have to resubmit to you, and it would have to come back to us.

Yes.

Potentially.

I mean, unless you said, if the only issue you said was take the pool off, I think that that could go. Yeah. Right? We're suggesting it in the staff report. But if it's massing related, It's got to come back. We have to do a review of that. If it's denial, he has to start again. Okay. Whether he appeals or not. He can't come back. He can't go with a denial and decide, all right, I'm going to go ahead and change the plans. The application is dead.

Yeah. Okay. So I'm going to amend my motion.

He could appeal, but he just said he doesn't want to appeal it to city commission.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm going to amend my motion, and it's going to change to... Approved Certificate of Appropriateness HP-544-2026 for the property located at 46 Marine Way, Marine Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions, which are to reduce the pool to be within the setbacks as specified by the City of Delray Beach land development regulations and also to reduce

reduce the massing or amend them okay so then to review the massing if you're continuing with direction you can mention the massing if you are just making a motion to approve that cannot be a condition okay then the only condition is the pool okay we have a motion is there a second I'll second that we have a motion in a second is there any discussion

Can I please ask a question? Okay. If this motion fails, it's a denial, right?

Yeah.

They can come up with a different motion. They could? Yeah. I mean, sorry. Go ahead.

Well, if it fails, it's a denial. Yeah. But the motion fails, so somebody could make another motion. You're correct.

Right.

Exactly. Okay. Just wanted to be super clear just in case.

So we could make a motion to continue afterwards?

Mm-hmm.

Let's go ahead and do the vote. I don't think he wants to continue.

I think he wants to, you know, let's give it a vote. Okay. So we have motion. We have a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Brittany, can you please take the roll?

Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Carol Perez? No. Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Chris Cabezas is absent. Benjamin Baffert?

No.

Jake Eliopoulos?

No.

John Miller? No.

Yes. So it's a 3-3. Motion fails. Wow.

So the motion fails. So, I mean, you guys can... I mean, technically, since the motion fails, there's no action on it, but you would typically do a motion to deny to... Basically just affirm what the failure is.

I mean tip from the failure So if there is a motion to deny though, and it's continued to be a 3-3 vote that motion fails as well That's correct. Yes Somebody want to make another motion Or we vote, you know a a motion to continue and

to the next meeting when there would hopefully be a full board wouldn't it can't be a motion to postpone at this point it would have to be a motion to continue with direction well yeah yeah yeah yeah um yeah i think but you didn't vote we didn't vote we didn't vote it was modified yeah okay i'll i'll make them he doesn't want a continuance but so why would we do that because a a

Unless there is an agreement among this board on a four to two vote, whether to deny or accept it, we're kind of in a stuck pattern here.

Well, doesn't it just fail? Well, I think we should go ahead with the motion and see what happens here and then go from there.

So you want to go back to your original motion to continue?

I'll make a motion to move to continue with direction.

Based on the conversation of the meeting?

Yes, based on the conversation and board comments, staff comments, and applicant comments. Okay. Kelly?

It needs a second, and then we can discuss it.

All right, I'll second that.

Is your direction what you had said earlier? Because I think you need to be clear on what the direction is. He said massing. Want me to read it? I'm just making sure that's the same motion that he's making.

Yeah, then it would be massing in the pool.

You had four items before. Do you care to hear that or no?

The fenestration I think we can't do feasibly, so get rid of that.

You said windows, blank walls, columns, cantilever, massing, pools, and barrier, and the original building fenestration.

All three, but the original building fenestration.

So massing, windows, blank walls, pool, and barrier?

Yes. Okay. So to be clear, the direction to the applicant and to staff is to address the massing, the pool barrier.

The pool.

The pool itself. The offset back. And that's it. Or was there one? Oh, the blank wall. The blank wall on the rear, on the west elevation. Okay. Yeah. So we have a motion and a second.

And we have a second.

Any more discussion? Please take the roll.

Richard Castor? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Chris Cabezas is absent. Benjamin Baffer?

Yes.

Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

John Miller?

Yes. Didn't want a continuous, so we got a continuance. So motion carries. Motion carries. All right.

All right. I'm going to move on to the reports and comments. There's no legislative items. We have had a question posed by a board member about term, the term limits. Brittany, did you happen to print that? I didn't have it. It's OK. I can pull it up here. Hold on one second. So I think two of you have a term Getting ready to end, right? If you want to stay on the board, you're required to reapply for board membership. So this occurs every time your term is ending.

I'm out.

John Miller is out. Unfortunately.

Well, that depends how you define that.

To us, maybe you're happy about it. I'll miss you. We'll miss you, for sure.

Not yet. I think it's August.

So I did have a question on that. So my term ends August 5th. The meeting is August 5th. The meeting ends after that meeting or before that meeting?

I think you have to be at that meeting.

I have to be at that meeting? Yeah. Okay. All right.

No fishing or camping.

I'm free that week. So our other board member here, who's on their second... Hold on, bear with me. Second term, August 31st. That's you, John. Sorry, I'm looking at it on a small screen here. Was it Carol and Chris? Yeah, but I'm looking at what you shared, Brittany, and you have Jake.

Yeah, I think mine ends.

You're an unexpired term. So what happens with an unexpired term is it just gets added to your first term. So you still have to reapply and can be reappointed. You did?

Yeah.

Perfect. So you're all handled. The other one in that same situation is Mr. Cabezas, and I will reach out to him directly. And then I think it's Carol. Yeah, because I got an email notifying me of that situation. Yeah, so you're still on your first term. We obviously would love for you to be reappointed, but you have to apply. Yes. Okay. Okay. Also, mind your absences. We are not going to warn you when you start getting close to it's four, I think, in any 12-month period.

I think it's three.

Okay, just mind your absences.

It's 30%. It's 30%. 30%. Yeah.

Just please mind that because we're not going to give you a warning. And we've had board members who didn't catch that there was one in the end, in the beginning, and they coincided, and you're automatically removed. There's no begging for forgiveness on it. So please just mind that. The next meeting is July 1. If anybody has plans to not be here, it would be helpful to know in advance so we can plan the agenda. And if it looks like we're not going to have a full board, I would try to find an alternative date so that we could still have a meeting should an applicant come back. So keep me posted. She is gone. There was a young lady sitting here tonight. How do you say her last name? I'm sorry if I butcher her last name. Sophia, we think it's Iroquois, is our planner in training, which is similar to an intern level. It's just more of a professional level. And she'll be with the city rotating through the four divisions over the next 18 months to two years' time. Here's Sophia. So thank you for staying tonight and watching the board meeting. And we'd like to welcome her to our team. So if you hear from her at all or she reaches out to you, this is Sophia. Thank you, Sophia. I'm kind of, my brain's kind of fried, so I feel like I'm missing something. If I am, I'll email you, but I think that's all I have. Does anyone have anything?

Any other board comments? What's on the horizon moving forward as far as projects? Can you share anything?

I know you want to continue to ask me that every meeting, and I can't break it down for you.

No, just high level, high level. Do you have a full docket? Yeah. Just a lot of interesting stuff. Fun stuff. They're piling on. I apologize for that.

I'm going to ask that you stop asking because the board doesn't direct staff on this. I think it's fair to say are we going to have a busy meeting next month?

I'm not asking for addresses or pictures.

No, you're asking to manage the workload. Which I've never been supportive of this question I've been getting for 10 years. We are busy. This last round of TAC, we had Was it eight all were due within the same week? It was unbearably busy. And applicants not understanding that they can't go in the system and respond to comments as the comments are rolling in and they can see them. So we were fielding a ton of calls, questions, emails, people coming in. which dragged us down significantly. So we're looking into how can we better manage that expectation for the applicant that you have to wait till the comments are released to respond. Um, so we're supremely busy and that is just application. I think there's some misconception by, um, I heard just recently by a couple members of the public that they think this is all we do. is review applications, and it is maybe 50% of the work we do. We have quite a list of responsibilities that we're tending to with historic preservation, and that's not including building permits, that now the state legislature has changed to a five-day turnaround for the entire city to review, not just my team. for single family so we're slammed it's it's a tough time to be a municipal employee but we have a lot of other things that are highly rewarding that we get to work on so it kind of evens out we're thankful for that ben do you have any questions what's going on at docs So DOCS has been in front of code enforcement. Code enforcement special magistrate meetings occur, I think it's once or twice a month. I believe there's one tomorrow. It's not on tomorrow, I don't believe. But it was on the one before that I went to and testified. They had some maintenance violations, including the small knee wall that a car had hit to get that repaired. So they've got that blocked. and I think stuccoed, and now they have to paint and cap it, and then we'll re-inspect. They did put up a construction fence, and they have submitted for some permitting, but they're not permit in hand yet.

Will that have to come through the board?

No, it's got approval.

That was approved years ago.

So it's kind of lifelining on a legislative extension, and it has an in lieu of parking approval with it as well. It's a three-story building that's kind of like in addition to the backside of docks with docks staying in its exact configuration and location with the sign and all that.

That plan that came through.

Yeah, and it was historically designated, so it's now on the local register as individual listings. So they have to get their plat finished, which is why we can't move the permit forward, because they have to finish their plat comments. So I think they kind of jumped the gun a little bit with submitting the building permit, but at least it's in. So hopefully they can get the plat done, and then we could review the permit.

I just saw the fence and I got all excited thinking about it.

Yeah, it could be a marketing tactic. I'm not sure. I think they have every intention to build the project, but we'll see.

Anything else?